frac mining

[russtafa]

the Australian government are promoting these mines and we now have at least ten thousand of these mines in Queensland alone and there is talk about chemicals polluting water wells from this fracing

[Stavros]

The price of oil and gas is the prime motivator -oil and gas in shale are found all over the world but are not normally thought to be commercially viable. There was a Scottish Shale Oil industry in the 19thc which lasted until the 1960s when what we think of as 'conventional' oil and gas replaced shale and coal as the primary sources of energy in the industrialised world.

Hydraulic fracturing has been used in wells since 1940, but the development of multi-directional/horizontal drilling has given companies a quantum leap over the volume of gas they can now recover, compared to say 30 years ago. The commercial case makes sense within countries like the USA and Australia if it reduces imports, the largest volumes of gas in the world are in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I suppose its ironic that most Australian gas from the North West shelf goes to Japan; otherwise I would have thought Australia is meeting its needs and doesn't need fractured gas - someone is making enough money from it or it wouldn't be done.

The counter argument is that fracturing the shale containing the gas, allows gases to seep into the water supply - there is a lot of debate on the accuracy of these claims.

There is an simple introduction to the technology in this Shell video:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/in...al_challenges/

[russtafa]

The price of oil and gas is the prime motivator -oil and gas in shale are found all over the world but are not normally thought to be commercially viable. There was a Scottish Shale Oil industry in the 19thc which lasted until the 1960s when what we think of as 'conventional' oil and gas replaced shale and coal as the primary sources of energy in the industrialised world.

Hydraulic fracturing has been used in wells since 1940, but the development of multi-directional/horizontal drilling has given companies a quantum leap over the volume of gas they can now recover, compared to say 30 years ago. The commercial case makes sense within countries like the USA and Australia if it reduces imports, the largest volumes of gas in the world are in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. I suppose its ironic that most Australian gas from the North West shelf goes to Japan; otherwise I would have thought Australia is meeting its needs and doesn't need fractured gas - someone is making enough money from it or it wouldn't be done.

The counter argument is that fracturing the shale containing the gas, allows gases to seep into the water supply - there is a lot of debate on the accuracy of these claims.

There is an simple introduction to the technology in this Shell video:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/in...al_challenges/

yes there is talk of polluting of under ground wells and of these big companies walking onto prime agricultural land without the farmers permission and destroying the land i don't know to much about this, living in the city. but there is a lot of resentment from the local communities in these areas

[Stavros]

But if you read the growing reports on this in the press, you will find that there are claims and counter claims on this issue. My own view is that companies are doing it because they can now make a profit from it; no technology is 100% safe; and there will be cases where, because of he environmental geology, seepage and contamination takes place. If the price of gas fell dramatically, the wells would shut; that simple. The best option you have is monitoring, and compensation schemes if seepage occurs, although I don't see how you can then put it right; guess people will have to sell the house and move.

[russtafa]

Stavros this is the bread basket of Australia we don't have a lot of fertile land once you get away from the coast so i hope this is worth it

[trish]

Oil and gas companies claim fracking has a clean record and the practice has never contaminated ground anywhere. It’s true, literally. A recent independent study conducted by Duke University agrees that fracking per se is safe.

Yet the EPA has repeatedly documented and fined the practitioners for contaminating ground [water]. Often residents in contaminated areas demonstrate the contamination by turning on their taps and igniting the methane that issues forth.

So how can the EPA and the Gas companies both be right? The resolution of the paradox rests on the technical definition of fracking. The industry identifies fracking as a process by which chemicals are forced under pressure into underground shale (a mile or more below any ground water and then the shale is blasted to release the trapped natural gas. It’s true that the process never directly contaminated ground water. The industry maintains a verbal wall between drilling and fracking. The cases of ground contamination so far were all technically due to poor drilling procedures, which include improperly constructing the well from which the gas will be extracted.

In Pennsylvania a well blew out during the fracturing procedure. The industry engineers and lawyers count it a well failure due to poor well construction, not a failure of the fracking process. Moreover, this incident contaminated the surface water but not the ground water. However, there are scores of other examples where the ground water was contaminated. But in all these cases the industry engineers blame the well, not fracking.

According to the industry, fracking is getting a bad rap. But the number of incidences of ground water contamination is significantly higher among those wells where fracking is used to free natural gas from ancient shales. Those who are affected don’t give a damn whether fracking was directly to blame or whether [the] well wasn’t constructed well enough to sustain the pressures, stresses and strains associated with the fracking procedure.

New developments have made fracking technologically feasible, though it is still an expensive process. St[]avros is probably right, that the cost of oil and natural gas crossed a corporate cost/benefit threshold and made fracking economically feasible. Of course as a citizen I have a different cost/benefit threshold. I think fracking is particularly dangerous when there is a possibility of contaminating a fresh water aquifer the size of a great lake. Water is the oil of future and we should be careful now to protect our vital supplies.

In the U.S. we’re stuck with indiscriminate fracking and sloppy well construction until EPA is given the resources to regulate it properly. Industry won’t do [it] itself, their cost/benefit threshold doesn’t match that of the ordinary citizen.
I don't know how you anti-government people in Australia propose to control it, but I suggest that people get together in the form of government and regulate the practice, even if some historically and politically ignorant assholes call it socialism.

[Stavros]

Trish I think you are right, its not about the ability of the technology, but what happens when it goes wrong -in this case the kind of contamination that can take place is too high a price to pay. There is plenty of gas in the world, the money being spent on fracking could be spent on the practical solution of bringing Alaskan gas to the Lower 48. There is plenty of gas in Australia's NW Shelf province, and elsewhere, there is no urgent need to get it from shale. Its one of those 'follow the money' issues.

[russtafa]

Trish the Australian government is promoting this fracking and whether it's a socialist or conservative government that is beside the point,if the moneys there the greedy bastards will grab it .Once a mining company has started operations on some ones land, the land is taken from that individual and there is not a thing they can do about it

[trish]

it's a socialist or conservative government that is beside the point

That's what I said. But government is your best alternative. But government won't do anything if you don't make your voice heard in an organized way.

[russtafa]

over here there is organised opposition but our government is doing it's best not to hear and letting the mining companies spew their propaganda . people in the cities don't have a lot of interest in what's happening in the country