Fracking has been used to drill more than 170,000 wells across Alberta

[puckhog]

This article seems to clarify things a bit.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/02...xons.html?rh=1

The landowners' lawyer (including Tillerson) included one sentence in the filing that discussed the possibility of the water being used for drilling purposes. He says this is not the main concern of the suit.

The company's representative agrees that it is not about fracking. They claim the tower is needed to serve local residential and commercial demand. While selling to energy companies is possible in the future, they have not done so since 2009.

The main complaint of the lawsuit is that the tower will be a nuisance to the surrounding landowners. The plaintiffs claim that the company previously provided assurances that they would only build small structures in the area, but then started building this 160 foot tall tower. Some of the plaintiffs are worried that if the water is sold to energy companies, truck traffic in the area could increase (which is the sentence in the suit everyone is focused on), but Tillerson testified that he wasn't concerned about this particular issue. According to the article, his only concern is that the tall structure immediately adjacent to his property will devalue it.

So, if this article is accurate, the other posters seem to be right, that this is NIMBYism with respect to the tower, but not about fracking.

Also, the article notes that there are currently about 12 gas wells within a mile of his ranch.

[DuffMan]

This is what Im saying, when they go fracking in other peoples neighbourhoods he does not gaf about noise and traffic.

"The lawsuit contends the project would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards." Trucks would be needed to haul and pump water."

But when it is near his 18 acre homestead, he wants to sue.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by fotze

I hope they tell tillerson to GFH.

Me too.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by fotze

I hope they tell tillerson to GFH.

Agreed. It sounds like the water tower is needed and there are limited options for locations. But, that makes the lawsuit (and Tillerson's participation) dickish, not a statement about fracking.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

This is what I. Saying, when they go fracking in other peoples neighbourhoods he does not gaf about...

"The lawsuit contends the project would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards." Trucks would be needed to haul and pump water."

But when it is near his 18 acre homestead, he wants to sue.

Your initial post about the article said he was opposed to fracking near his property, and your later post about him lighting his water on fire still seems to indicate you think it's about fracking. His participation in the suit is not an indictment of fracking.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by puckhog

Your initial post about the article said he was opposed to fracking near his property, and your later post about him lighting his water on fire still seems to indicate you think it's about fracking. His participation in the suit is not an indictment of fracking.

Hunh? Lighting your potable water on fire is a pretty common effect of fracking. Type in fracking and lighting water on fire, in youtube. I don't think I alluded to it being his water. I said see how he likes it when it happens to him. He never said that.

And yes, I do ultimately think it's about fracking, even though that's just a hunch of mine, no proof.

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.o...tonvilleTX.pdf

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Hunh? Lighting your potable water on fire is a pretty common effect of fracking. Type in fracking and lighting water on fire, in youtube. I don't think I alluded to it being his water. I said see how he likes it when it happens to him. He never said that.

And yes, I do ultimately think it's about fracking, even though that's just a hunch of mine, no proof.

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.o...tonvilleTX.pdf

I meant your later quote indicated that you think that this particular issue is about fracking, not that fracking causes flammable water. Perhaps I misunderstood your post.

I'm aware that you and others think that fracking commonly leads to flammable water. I've seen some of the videos you describe.

While I agree that it is a risk, I think it can be managed with appropriate steps and thoughtful geological analysis. There are some areas that probably shouldn't be fracked because the risk is too high. However, I also think the flammable water effect less common than you think it is, and the videos rely on simplistic reasoning to reach their conclusion. Also, I think that fotze's (and others) earlier posts about other contributing factors (e.g. natural gas migration, crappy water wells, etc.) should be considered.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Hunh? Lighting your potable water on fire is a pretty common effect of fracking. Type in fracking and lighting water on fire, in youtube. I don't think I alluded to it being his water. I said see how he likes it when it happens to him. He never said that.

And yes, I do ultimately think it's about fracking, even though that's just a hunch of mine, no proof.

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.o...tonvilleTX.pdf

no, as has been discussed in this thread repeatedly it is a common effect of old run down wells and people tapping into coal seams. with occasional effects from fracking.

and type plastic snow in the states into youtube and you will see nutjobs with 'proof' that their snow is fake or caused by contrails, not everything you see on youtube is real or can be taken as fact.

[JD]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Hunh? Lighting your potable water on fire is a pretty common effect of fracking. Type in fracking and lighting water on fire, in youtube. I don't think I alluded to it being his water. I said see how he likes it when it happens to him. He never said that.

I don't know why I'm even responding, but, no, lighting your water on fire is not an effect of fracking, let alone a common one.

Water that burns is an effect of a flammable substance being present in the water, which can get there in innumerable ways, none of which are fracking, unless the zone fracked is close to the aquifer AND the frac propagates into it. Rarely are the target zones even within kilometers of depth of the fresh water aquifers, though.

I agree, a poorly constructed well CAN be a contributing factor, but that is not fracking. But even with a poorly constructed well, you'll need to show me what depths the leaks are at and how they communicate with the aquifer. You can't just say, "There's a well, that's the cause!"

As fotze mentioned often in this thread, a poorly constructed water well is more likely to be the cause.

At least oil and gas wells are engineered by licensed professionals, have regulations, guidelines, industry best practices, etc... but admittedly, nothing is perfect and there are cases where the oil and gas industry is responsible for ruining some landowners' water. But to say all wells (or fracs) are destroying aquifers is like saying all mines result in rock slides or all fisheries plunder entire fish populations or that all forestry companies clear cut. Every industry has its issues but fracking is far down the list of the oil industry's biggest ones. It's just the flavour of the week for some folk that don't understand the technical nuances.

[DuffMan]

^^^^ are you saying that fracking was in no way a catalyst for the flammable water?

[JD]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

^^^^ are you saying that fracking was in no way a catalyst for the flammable water?

No, I am not, because then I would be doing what you are: making an assertion without the bits and pieces of information required to make such a statement. That's not how the oil and gas industry works!

What I am saying I think was clear in my post; that there are a plethora of more likely things that caused the "flammable" water.

I'll give you a scale here to help you understand why:

Many producing wells in Alberta look like this:

surface
||
||
||
|| fresh water aquifer bottom (400 m from surface)
||
||
||
||
||
|| 1000 m depth
||
||
||
||
|| 1500 m depth
||
||
||
|| 1900 m depth - target zone. THIS IS WHERE THEY FRAC.
||

And probably the majority of fracked wells are up to twice deeper than this. A frac cannot propagate 1500 m upwards through the ground. They can go maybe 10 to 20 m high. Maybe. Your service company might tell you more so they can sell you more sand.

So you can't even see the frac propagation path on the scale of that diagram!

So if a well like this is at fault for contaminating fresh ground water, how does that happen? Simple: poor well construction (again, this is not fracking!). That pipe you see running along the length of the well, plus the cement surrounding it. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD BE TARGETING!! But they don't. Why? Because most of them are probably just like this Exxon CEO that doesn't like the increased trucking activity around them that fracking very much IS responsible for.

It has nothing to do with the fracturing process itself being hazardous.

Now, this comes with a caveat which I alluded to in the earlier post; if the oil/gas producer is interested in a zone that is much closer to the aquifer, then I concede, fracking can possibly be a problem. There's not much evidence to prove that this is a widespread problem, but as with any human endeavour, there are those who practice things responsibly and those who don't. Governments do need to become informed and ensure their policies address issues like this.

But back to your flammable water. The things I would take a serious look at before blaming fracking?
1) integrity of the water well itself
2) geological strata water well breaches (ie, coal seams!)
3) pipeline and other infrastructure integrity in the area
4) cement integrity of the nearby oil/gas well
5) casing integrity of the nearby oil/gas well
6) okay, let's look at the frac:
a) what depth is the aquifer at
b) what depth is the frac at
c) if they're within a reasonable distance, I would start looking at the likelihood of communication. Carbon isotopes, maybe radioactive tracers. Though if methane scares you.....

Clear? It's a complicated industry that people train their entire lives to understand and become good at their jobs. Some youtube video of someone lighting tap water on fire is laughably short of being able to make any conclusions. This is why we get so fired up when we get challenged. It's downright insulting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by JD

No, I am not, because then I would be doing what you are: making an assertion without the bits and pieces of information required to make such a statement. That's not how the oil and gas industry works!

What I am saying I think was clear in my post; that there are a plethora of more likely things that caused the "flammable" water.

I'll give you a scale here to help you understand why:

Many producing wells in Alberta look like this:

surface
||
||
||
|| fresh water aquifer bottom (400 m from surface)
||
||
||
||
||
|| 1000 m depth
||
||
||
||
|| 1500 m depth
||
||
||
|| 1900 m depth - target zone. THIS IS WHERE THEY FRAC.
||

And probably the majority of fracked wells are up to twice deeper than this. A frac cannot propagate 1500 m upwards through the ground. They can go maybe 10 to 20 m high. Maybe. Your service company might tell you more so they can sell you more sand.

So you can't even see the frac propagation path on the scale of that diagram!

So if a well like this is at fault for contaminating fresh ground water, how does that happen? Simple: poor well construction (again, this is not fracking!). That pipe you see running along the length of the well, plus the cement surrounding it. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD BE TARGETING!! But they don't. Why? Because most of them are probably just like this Exxon CEO that doesn't like the increased trucking activity around them that fracking very much IS responsible for.

It has nothing to do with the fracturing process itself being hazardous.

Now, this comes with a caveat which I alluded to in the earlier post; if the oil/gas producer is interested in a zone that is much closer to the aquifer, then I concede, fracking can possibly be a problem. There's not much evidence to prove that this is a widespread problem, but as with any human endeavour, there are those who practice things responsibly and those who don't. Governments do need to become informed and ensure their policies address issues like this.

But back to your flammable water. The things I would take a serious look at before blaming fracking?
1) integrity of the water well itself
2) geological strata water well breaches (ie, coal seams!)
3) pipeline and other infrastructure integrity in the area
4) cement integrity of the nearby oil/gas well
5) casing integrity of the nearby oil/gas well
6) okay, let's look at the frac:
a) what depth is the aquifer at
b) what depth is the frac at
c) if they're within a reasonable distance, I would start looking at the likelihood of communication. Carbon isotopes, maybe radioactive tracers. Though if methane scares you.....

Clear? It's a complicated industry that people train their entire lives to understand and become good at their jobs. Some youtube video of someone lighting tap water on fire is laughably short of being able to make any conclusions. This is why we get so fired up when we get challenged. It's downright insulting.

Is that scale to scale?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by JD

No, I am not, because then I would be doing what you are: making an assertion without the bits and pieces of information required to make such a statement. That's not how the oil and gas industry works!

Clear? It's a complicated industry that people train their entire lives to understand and become good at their jobs. Some youtube video of someone lighting tap water on fire is laughably short of being able to make any conclusions. This is why we get so fired up when we get challenged. It's downright insulting.

OK, here's how I look at it.

1. waters fine.
2. someone fracked nearby.
3. waters not fine.


But regardless, this is getting OT again.

My whole point was a CEO of Exxon who does not gaf about how his companies fracking activites effect peoples lives is suing to keep fracking activites away from his home. That was my point.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

OK, here's how I look at it.

1. waters fine.
2. someone fracked nearby.
3. waters not fine.

In Alberta, most of that area was "fracked" before the water well was put into place. We've been fracking for 50 years. Been doing it a lot, too.

The entire province should have toxic water if it was that problematic.

[codfather]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

OK, here's how I look at it.

1. waters fine.
2. someone fracked nearby.
3. waters not fine.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but just in case it hasn't, correlation does not equal causation.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Knalus

In Alberta, most of that area was "fracked" before the water well was put into place. We've been fracking for 50 years. Been doing it a lot, too.

The entire province should have toxic water if it was that problematic.

Maybe we should all test our water with lighters.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Maybe we should all test our water with lighters.

And post it on The Youtubes.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by codfather

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but just in case it hasn't, correlation does not equal causation.

Fire trucks don't cause fires?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by fotze

I am saying that he is suing for something stupider than the one time fracking thing. No water tower, GFY. What does someone who makes that much money care about a water tower, why doesn't he just buy that land. I am sure he has paid his own lawyers 100's of millions of dollars to fight frivolous crap like this.

Unless there is more to this, personal grudge?

Well, he doesn't want the noise and increased traffic that the water tower will bring. It's OK for others but not him.

[burn_this_city]

The water tower will have continuous traffic forever. A fracking site will be a hive of activity for a couple months then very little traffic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Well, he doesn't want the noise and increased traffic that the water tower will bring. It's OK for others but not him.

Are made about fraccing, increased traffic, increased noise, or just mad?