Since it was announced that Diablo III would be ported (and has been ported) to consoles, has there been discussion as to whether WoW would/could be ported as well?
"Today, NASA has found the remnants of cow flatulence on Saturn. Scientists call this mysterious gas "methane". According to these scientists, methane contains one carbon and 4 hydrogens. How exactly did this "methane" made it's way to Saturn? We are sure the scientists are working vigorously to find out."
You really need to educate yourself with fracking before you start with the talking points.
First, the people who claimed that their "flammable tap water" started happening ONLY when they began fracking have not necessarily been honest. In the past, these same people reported that their water was flammable, many years prior to fracking ever occuring in Pennsylvania.
Take a look at some news sources that attempt to remove the bias, such as Science News
Newly fracked gas wells could also be intersecting with old, abandoned gas or oil wells, allowing methane from those sites to migrate. "We've punched holes in the ground in Pennsylvania for 150 years," Jackson says. Many old wells have not been shut down properly, he says. "You find ones that people plugged with a tree stump." In some places in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere (especially those with existing coal beds), methane turned up in well water long before hydraulic fracturing became widespread.
Any place sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale has a chance for hydrocarbons to rise through layers of sediment related to the old wells that were drilled there. Remember that Pennsylvania was the "oil center of the world" in the late 1800's.
Could fracking play a part in methane increases due to the multitude of old wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania a long time ago? Possibly. Could fracking play a part in methane increases in homes in "new plays" located in North Dakota? Highly unlikely.
Second, when you frac 15k feet below the surface, you might fracture rock up to a half mile up or down (and I'm being generous). So if you're fracking horizontally, you'll induce fractures that can travel anywhere from 12.5k to 17.5k feet below the earth. You know where the LOWEST aquafer's are located? (and again, I'm being generous) Around 1000 ft below the surface.
Do you think frac operations use too much water? That's a legitimate concern.
Do you think frac operations could do better and treating and disposing waste water? That's a legitimate concern.
Do you think frac operations pump toxic chemicals below the ground? Then you should really check your fact sources.
Do you think frac operations have "secret chemicals" that they put in the water, and they won't tell us what they are? Then you should really check your fact sources. Go to any major service company's website (Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc) and search for "what's in frac water?"
Do you think frac operations cause natural gas to seep into aquifers? It's a concern, but you really need to check your fact sources, and take into account several factors before drawing conclusions.
I'd like to think that more people would have an idea of what is actually in these fluids. There is a lot of information out there. Don't say "BUT.. BUT... THE COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHATS IN THEM!" because that's not necessarily the case.
From your article, "The authors say the source of the chemicals is likely a mix of the raw gas that is vented from the wells and emissions from industrial equipment used during the gas production process."
The gasses are from "all natural" gas from the ground or from exhaust from equipment (which are typically run on diesel or natural gas). This doesn't have anything to do with chemicals added to frac fluids. Having an issue with "industrialization" and air pollution relating to exhaust is one thing to be concerned about, but the discussion is about chemicals in frac fluids.
If independent tests are showing benzene in the waste content and I'm to believe that everything you're saying is accurate, the problem is really that they have piss-poor quality control because they don't give a shit about anything other than short term profits.
I agree. But I think part of the quality process is making sure the waste water has some form of regulated chain of custody. It's unfortunate, but there are companies that buy waste water from the service companies and "dispose" of it by illegally dumping it.
1,2,4- trimethylbenzene is not benzene. Methylbenzene is also known as toluene, and by adding one more carbon you change the physiological effects in the body (benzene is cancerous; toluene isn't). Known carcinogens are not used in frac fluids.
They do this. Filtration and centrifuging is easy, and it's done constantly. You start having problems when too much salt from the natural formations occurring in your water. You can't filter out too much salt (economically, anyways).
I read somewhere that a lady was saying that some frac water spilled on her land, and now the grass won't grow. I got a safe hunch that it was salt water and not some magical toxic chemical.
I'd like to think that more people would have an idea of what is actually in these fluids. There is a lot of information out there. Don't say "BUT.. BUT... THE COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHATS IN THEM!" because that's not necessarily the case. Southwestern Energy has a nice inforgraphic as to what can go into a frac fluid, and in approximate quantities. You can find many more online. Even Halliburton tells you what's in their fluids!
We make a host of additives for frac fluids, like viscosifiers (the chemicals guar or xanthan gum), friction reducers like PHPA (the chemical partially hydroxylated polyacrylamide), and sand (the chemical silicon dioxide) or ceramic beads (typically bauxite based).
The items mentioned in the article make it sound like "they are adding benzene and barium to the fluids, and we had no idea that they do this!". I'll help you guys out. Barite (barium sulfate ore) is added to every oil well in the world as a weighting agent for the drilling mud. It's solubility in water is nil. Would water that is flushed down a well that has been drilled capable of picking up barium that has formed a filter cake on the walls of the bore? Sure, but it's also in EVERY WATER OR OIL MUD USED IN EVERY WELL IN THE WORLD.
Benzene in the frac fluid? Nobody adds benzene to frac fluid. Here is most likely how it got there: oil based drilling muds use diesel as a carrier fluid (if the drilling is done on land, not the case offshore). Diesel has 30% aromatic content (ie. benzene, toluene, xylene). IF the well was drilled with an oil mud AND the well was recently finished being drilled AND it was recently cleared out, then the first part of the "waste" frac fluid will probably contain benzene.
They don't care right? WRONG. They do on site testing to make sure the sample doesn't sheen or have any type of oil based fluids in the water. If it does, then the water has to be treated before being disposed (i.e. sewage, lakes, rivers, etc). So my question to the people testing these fluids: At what point did they test for benzene? Did the frac water come from a well that was drilled using diesel? Did the frac water come from a well using water based fluids? Were these random frac waste samples? What part of the country did these frac water samples come from? Did the frac water encounter aromatic hydrocarbons in the formation?
These things are needed to come to a conclusion as to where did these chemicals come from.
It's easy to say if fracking pollutes water. Make the author of the study, the bosses of the drilling companies, the main owners of the banks who finance them and their families drink the water they guarantee as safe. House the japanese government in the Fukushima district.
Then I'll trust them:)
So you're saying that you'll drink the fresh water that gets immediately pumped out of a sewage plant and into rivers? You've a brave person. How about I take a dump in a cup, clean it out with bleach, soap, and water, then pour a glass of water for you to drink. Or you can, ya know, just simply have it tested.
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
That's pretty basic science.
They do this... constantly. Even if regulations don't demand it (for a good chunk of the rigs, anyways). Ever head of Nalco? The whole of the company specializes in water treatment... and their chemicals have been treated a good chunk of wastewater generated by fracking.
Remember that you have to get a permit from the state in order to frack. If the amount of waste generated is too much, or if the state doesn't have the resources to regulate the disposal of the fluids, then it's the state that should hold back from offering fracking permits until they have a better hand on the situation, assuming they are over burdened.
But then again, it's the state that is reaping the tax benefits of the increased O&G production. They will most likely be less concerned about the environment knowing they are getting much needed tax dollars.
And with respect to "land that has been completely sterilized" by frack fluid: Many times a company will drill using salt based water fluids (could be sodium chloride or calcium chloride, typically), or more often, the actual rock formation contains salt brine that incorporates into the fluid. The fluids are tested for salt, and if it is too high, it does have to be disposed of in a proper way. What you describe may most likely from high salt concentration than "some dangerous unknown brew of toxic chemicals".
99% is sand and water, typically, and the other 1% is a combination of the remaining products. Plus, Fido most likely injests more ethylene and propylene glycol from his dog food than what is present in these drilling fluids.
How would you feel if you knew that they use diesel as a non-aqueous based drilling fluid to drill these wells thousands of feet before they frack? Would you still drink tap water if knew they were drilling a hole using diesel as a drilling fluid? I mean, they've only been doing that for 60+ years.
I think the volume of ground affected by fracking is quite a bit larger than that hole being drilled into the volcano, and the goal with fracking is to mess around with the pressure under the surface, where ideally this is close a pressure neutral (volume changing, and that, I suspect will happen at/above surface level) system. Lastly, waste products from fracking tend not to be well controlled/cleaned except maybe on paper, the water (or other liquid) use here should be in a fairly closed system and shouldn't be introduced to toxic chemicals. Not that this is the wisest idea either, but an experimental site should provide interesting details as to the danger.
It bothers me when people discuss their uninformed opinions relating to a topic as fact.
1) The amount of fluid used in these deep shale formations is quite large, but even when you drill horizontally for a mile and then fracture 1000+ feet above and below the hole, you're still typically 12,000 feet below the surface (therefore the "frac zone" is from 11,000 to 13,000 feet). So even if you have DEEP water table of 2000 feet below the surface (where nearly none are this deep), the alleged "toxic chemicals" would have to travel a distance of around 9,000 feet (in this case) in order to taint the water supply. I've sat through enough presentations with REAL data obtained in the field to know that the fractures occur nowhere near these water zones.
2) The purpose of fracking is to increase the permeability of low-permeability shales (traditional reservoirs are in the mili-darcy range were unconventional reservoirs are more in the micro to nano-darcy range). They use high pressure fluid to open up the shale. Has nothing to do with adding pressure under the surface.
3) Waste products tend not to be controlled? Are you fucking nuts? The amount of regulation on what to do with the waste water is HUGE (and the assfucks that attempt to dump these fluids are massively fined), not to mention that a good chunk of fracking research goes into figuring out how to best reclaim and reuse of the fluid. Besides being 99% water and sand, the other additives are typically guar, biocides, polyacrylamides for friction reduction, corrosion inhibitors, citric acid, and ethylene glycol.
By the way, I work in a plant that makes a variety of additives for drilling and fracking fluids. Would you believe me if I told you that our facility is not capable or certified to handle any type of hazardous materials? That would mean that our company is going to get shut down by the government if they find out.... or maybe that the majority of additives for drilling and fracking fluids are non-hazardous?
If you look at the link that I included in the article, you'll notice that it links to that very article you describe. I even took the extra minute to search for the link in order to include it in the article:)
Slashdot Mirror
Since it was announced that Diablo III would be ported (and has been ported) to consoles, has there been discussion as to whether WoW would/could be ported as well?
"Today, NASA has found the remnants of cow flatulence on Saturn. Scientists call this mysterious gas "methane". According to these scientists, methane contains one carbon and 4 hydrogens. How exactly did this "methane" made it's way to Saturn? We are sure the scientists are working vigorously to find out."
I found a picture of Bill as he's discussing his friendship with Steve Jobs.
What does erotic role playing have to do with IT systems?
First, the people who claimed that their "flammable tap water" started happening ONLY when they began fracking have not necessarily been honest. In the past, these same people reported that their water was flammable, many years prior to fracking ever occuring in Pennsylvania.
Take a look at some news sources that attempt to remove the bias, such as Science News
Newly fracked gas wells could also be intersecting with old, abandoned gas or oil wells, allowing methane from those sites to migrate. "We've punched holes in the ground in Pennsylvania for 150 years," Jackson says. Many old wells have not been shut down properly, he says. "You find ones that people plugged with a tree stump." In some places in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere (especially those with existing coal beds), methane turned up in well water long before hydraulic fracturing became widespread.
Any place sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale has a chance for hydrocarbons to rise through layers of sediment related to the old wells that were drilled there. Remember that Pennsylvania was the "oil center of the world" in the late 1800's.
Could fracking play a part in methane increases due to the multitude of old wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania a long time ago? Possibly. Could fracking play a part in methane increases in homes in "new plays" located in North Dakota? Highly unlikely.
Second, when you frac 15k feet below the surface, you might fracture rock up to a half mile up or down (and I'm being generous). So if you're fracking horizontally, you'll induce fractures that can travel anywhere from 12.5k to 17.5k feet below the earth. You know where the LOWEST aquafer's are located? (and again, I'm being generous) Around 1000 ft below the surface.
Do you think frac operations use too much water? That's a legitimate concern.
Do you think frac operations could do better and treating and disposing waste water? That's a legitimate concern.
Do you think frac operations pump toxic chemicals below the ground? Then you should really check your fact sources.
Do you think frac operations have "secret chemicals" that they put in the water, and they won't tell us what they are? Then you should really check your fact sources. Go to any major service company's website (Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc) and search for "what's in frac water?"
Do you think frac operations cause natural gas to seep into aquifers? It's a concern, but you really need to check your fact sources, and take into account several factors before drawing conclusions.
It's funny how the Cosmic Microwave Background looks like the inside of our work microwave.
According to this article ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-03/hazardous-air-pollutants-detected-near-fracking-sites.html ), they have found large amounts of dichloromethane in the air samples. It doesn't sound like they're being as honest as you state.
From your article, "The authors say the source of the chemicals is likely a mix of the raw gas that is vented from the wells and emissions from industrial equipment used during the gas production process." The gasses are from "all natural" gas from the ground or from exhaust from equipment (which are typically run on diesel or natural gas). This doesn't have anything to do with chemicals added to frac fluids. Having an issue with "industrialization" and air pollution relating to exhaust is one thing to be concerned about, but the discussion is about chemicals in frac fluids.
You can totally trust these companies to do these tests. They would never cut corners in the name of profits.
I'm currently the one who does the tests. I have no incentive, nor am I punished for reporting whether or not a fluid has certain chemicals in it.
If independent tests are showing benzene in the waste content and I'm to believe that everything you're saying is accurate, the problem is really that they have piss-poor quality control because they don't give a shit about anything other than short term profits.
I agree. But I think part of the quality process is making sure the waste water has some form of regulated chain of custody. It's unfortunate, but there are companies that buy waste water from the service companies and "dispose" of it by illegally dumping it.
1,2,4- trimethylbenzene is not benzene. Methylbenzene is also known as toluene, and by adding one more carbon you change the physiological effects in the body (benzene is cancerous; toluene isn't). Known carcinogens are not used in frac fluids.
They do this. Filtration and centrifuging is easy, and it's done constantly. You start having problems when too much salt from the natural formations occurring in your water. You can't filter out too much salt (economically, anyways).
I read somewhere that a lady was saying that some frac water spilled on her land, and now the grass won't grow. I got a safe hunch that it was salt water and not some magical toxic chemical.
I'd like to think that more people would have an idea of what is actually in these fluids. There is a lot of information out there. Don't say "BUT.. BUT... THE COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHATS IN THEM!" because that's not necessarily the case. Southwestern Energy has a nice inforgraphic as to what can go into a frac fluid, and in approximate quantities. You can find many more online. Even Halliburton tells you what's in their fluids!
We make a host of additives for frac fluids, like viscosifiers (the chemicals guar or xanthan gum), friction reducers like PHPA (the chemical partially hydroxylated polyacrylamide), and sand (the chemical silicon dioxide) or ceramic beads (typically bauxite based).
The items mentioned in the article make it sound like "they are adding benzene and barium to the fluids, and we had no idea that they do this!". I'll help you guys out. Barite (barium sulfate ore) is added to every oil well in the world as a weighting agent for the drilling mud. It's solubility in water is nil. Would water that is flushed down a well that has been drilled capable of picking up barium that has formed a filter cake on the walls of the bore? Sure, but it's also in EVERY WATER OR OIL MUD USED IN EVERY WELL IN THE WORLD.
Benzene in the frac fluid? Nobody adds benzene to frac fluid. Here is most likely how it got there: oil based drilling muds use diesel as a carrier fluid (if the drilling is done on land, not the case offshore). Diesel has 30% aromatic content (ie. benzene, toluene, xylene). IF the well was drilled with an oil mud AND the well was recently finished being drilled AND it was recently cleared out, then the first part of the "waste" frac fluid will probably contain benzene.
They don't care right? WRONG. They do on site testing to make sure the sample doesn't sheen or have any type of oil based fluids in the water. If it does, then the water has to be treated before being disposed (i.e. sewage, lakes, rivers, etc). So my question to the people testing these fluids: At what point did they test for benzene? Did the frac water come from a well that was drilled using diesel? Did the frac water come from a well using water based fluids? Were these random frac waste samples? What part of the country did these frac water samples come from? Did the frac water encounter aromatic hydrocarbons in the formation?
These things are needed to come to a conclusion as to where did these chemicals come from.
Well.... he does have a masters degree in Chemistry. That is "science-y" right?
There are only two things I hate in this world:
People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch.
It's easy to say if fracking pollutes water. Make the author of the study, the bosses of the drilling companies, the main owners of the banks who finance them and their families drink the water they guarantee as safe.
House the japanese government in the Fukushima district.
Then I'll trust them :)
So you're saying that you'll drink the fresh water that gets immediately pumped out of a sewage plant and into rivers? You've a brave person. How about I take a dump in a cup, clean it out with bleach, soap, and water, then pour a glass of water for you to drink. Or you can, ya know, just simply have it tested.
Or, you know, require water samples to be taken all around the area of the wells for at least a month before drilling begins, then take more samples periodically and compare.
That's pretty basic science.
They do this... constantly. Even if regulations don't demand it (for a good chunk of the rigs, anyways). Ever head of Nalco? The whole of the company specializes in water treatment... and their chemicals have been treated a good chunk of wastewater generated by fracking.
Holy hell. There hasn't been that much bipartisanship since the great "Lyke-dis-if-u-crie-evry-tyme Act of 1897".
I saw something recently that made me have to do some Wiki'ing.
Stegosaurus lived around 150 to 155 million years ago.
T-Rex lived 67 to 65 years ago.
This means that we live closer to T-Rex than T-Rex lived to Stegosaurus. Crazy eh?
Seriously?!
He is serious, and don't call him Shir- whoops. I might have jumped the gun on that one.
Remember that you have to get a permit from the state in order to frack. If the amount of waste generated is too much, or if the state doesn't have the resources to regulate the disposal of the fluids, then it's the state that should hold back from offering fracking permits until they have a better hand on the situation, assuming they are over burdened.
But then again, it's the state that is reaping the tax benefits of the increased O&G production. They will most likely be less concerned about the environment knowing they are getting much needed tax dollars.
And with respect to "land that has been completely sterilized" by frack fluid: Many times a company will drill using salt based water fluids (could be sodium chloride or calcium chloride, typically), or more often, the actual rock formation contains salt brine that incorporates into the fluid. The fluids are tested for salt, and if it is too high, it does have to be disposed of in a proper way. What you describe may most likely from high salt concentration than "some dangerous unknown brew of toxic chemicals".
99% is sand and water, typically, and the other 1% is a combination of the remaining products. Plus, Fido most likely injests more ethylene and propylene glycol from his dog food than what is present in these drilling fluids.
How would you feel if you knew that they use diesel as a non-aqueous based drilling fluid to drill these wells thousands of feet before they frack? Would you still drink tap water if knew they were drilling a hole using diesel as a drilling fluid? I mean, they've only been doing that for 60+ years.
I think the volume of ground affected by fracking is quite a bit larger than that hole being drilled into the volcano, and the goal with fracking is to mess around with the pressure under the surface, where ideally this is close a pressure neutral (volume changing, and that, I suspect will happen at/above surface level) system. Lastly, waste products from fracking tend not to be well controlled/cleaned except maybe on paper, the water (or other liquid) use here should be in a fairly closed system and shouldn't be introduced to toxic chemicals. Not that this is the wisest idea either, but an experimental site should provide interesting details as to the danger.
It bothers me when people discuss their uninformed opinions relating to a topic as fact.
1) The amount of fluid used in these deep shale formations is quite large, but even when you drill horizontally for a mile and then fracture 1000+ feet above and below the hole, you're still typically 12,000 feet below the surface (therefore the "frac zone" is from 11,000 to 13,000 feet). So even if you have DEEP water table of 2000 feet below the surface (where nearly none are this deep), the alleged "toxic chemicals" would have to travel a distance of around 9,000 feet (in this case) in order to taint the water supply. I've sat through enough presentations with REAL data obtained in the field to know that the fractures occur nowhere near these water zones.
2) The purpose of fracking is to increase the permeability of low-permeability shales (traditional reservoirs are in the mili-darcy range were unconventional reservoirs are more in the micro to nano-darcy range). They use high pressure fluid to open up the shale. Has nothing to do with adding pressure under the surface.
3) Waste products tend not to be controlled? Are you fucking nuts? The amount of regulation on what to do with the waste water is HUGE (and the assfucks that attempt to dump these fluids are massively fined), not to mention that a good chunk of fracking research goes into figuring out how to best reclaim and reuse of the fluid. Besides being 99% water and sand, the other additives are typically guar, biocides, polyacrylamides for friction reduction, corrosion inhibitors, citric acid, and ethylene glycol.
By the way, I work in a plant that makes a variety of additives for drilling and fracking fluids. Would you believe me if I told you that our facility is not capable or certified to handle any type of hazardous materials? That would mean that our company is going to get shut down by the government if they find out.... or maybe that the majority of additives for drilling and fracking fluids are non-hazardous?
Indium tin oxide is (was?) one of the primary clear conductive coatings used on LCD screens.
TFA doesn't even link to where the actual report can be found (shame on you Chemical & Engineering News)
The actual report is behind a paywall, but has some summary points Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels (2012)
If you look at the link that I included in the article, you'll notice that it links to that very article you describe. I even took the extra minute to search for the link in order to include it in the article :)
I always found it funny how NASA used the picture-taking satellites as telescopes, while the NRO and DoD uses them more like microscopes.
If Intel actually goes through with this Linux will never catch on!