Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Gas Industry Buys Ads to Counter Matt Damon's 'Promised Land' Fracking Movie


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

Fracking Group Fights 'Promised Land'

http://abcnews.go.co...18132574&sid=81

By COLLEEN CURRY Jan 5, 2013, 4:01 PM

When the new movie "Promised Land" featuring Matt Damon opens in theaters around the country today, viewers in one state may be surprised by what they see: a commercial from the natural gas industry.

The movie, written by Damon and John Krasinski, is a fictional account of a Pennsylvania town grappling with whether to allow natural gas drilling, known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." The gas drilling process has been controversial among environmental groups.

Fracking crews blast sand, water and chemicals into the rock to draw out previously unreachable deposits of oil and gas. Proponents argue that the U.S.'s ability to draw fuel from the country's vast shale deposits has the potential to turn America into an energy giant that could rival OPEC. Critics, however, argue that fracking threatens to pollute water supplies, foul the air and poses a health threat to people.

In response to the movie's release, a gas industry trade group called the Marcellus Shale Coalition has released a 15-second commercial that will run before the movie in about 75 percent of movie theaters in Pennsylvania, according to Travis Windle, a spokesman for the group.

The coalition represents drilling companies and manufacturers that produce drilling equipment, Windle said. The group decided to run the ad spot because they felt the film was "a purely fictional movie that is in no way, shape, or form reflective of how the natural gas industry deals with land owners."

In the movie, Damon plays a gas company executive and Krasinski plays an environmental activist battling to win over the allegiance of landowners. The film focuses on potential environmental risks of fracking.

An American Oil Find That Holds More Than All of OPEC The ad suggests that viewers who have questions about the drilling process look for answers on the group's website, Learn About Shale.

"Recognizing that this purely fictional Hollywood film would increase focus on our industry, which supports 240,000 jobs in our state, we said, how about we do in-theater promotions of this website where some folks may have additional questions," Windle said.

"So it's just 15 seconds, a reminder to folks that if you have questions, we recognize and appreciate and understand that many folks in the region have questions despite the long history of drilling in Pennsylvania," he said.

The group has also compiled negative film reviews culled from critics who "widely panned the movie," Windle said. The reviews were provided to ABC News.

Windle noted that the ad will run for two weeks in theaters only in Pennsylvania because that is where the group is based.

James Schamus, the chief executive of Focus Features, the studio that produced the film, called the coalition's actions "propaganda."

"To be honest, if I could afford the kind of propaganda specialists the fracking industry has sent after our little movie...They're pretty impressive at what they do," Schamus said in a statement to ABC News. "Gus (Van Sant), Matt (Damon), and John (Krasinski) made a wonderful and entertaining film about what happens when big money collides with small town values, so I suppose we should have seen this coming."
  • 1

#2 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:59 AM

*
POPULAR

I work in the shale play in Pennsylvania and this movie is the last thing we need.

I wouldn't be doing this if I knew I was hurting the environment. It is fueled and blown out of proportion by uneducated college students.

The hydraulic fracturing takes place over a mile into the ground.
we use 2 cemented surface casing strings to isolate the ground water from the production zone.
these strings are checked with bond logs to ensure casing is completely cemented to the formation.
It is 100% safe in that aspect, we use a lot of water to fracture but we are looking at alternatives like propane. I'm in the drilling end of it so don't quote me.

I believe natural gas is the only way to be free of Petroleum.
You can't realistically run everything off a battery.

It is the bridge between oil and clean energy.
Here in the USA they converted nearly 50% of the goal burning power plants to natural gas and carbon omissions have dropped for the first time in recorded history in some places 8-10% the majority of gasoline/diesel engines can easily be converted to burn natural gas. This would greatly reduce greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.

It just when this fuel is harvested in someone's backyard it becomes a big issue.

Americans think its better to destroy countries and start wars over dirty foreign oil.

We have all the fuel we need under our feet, it's clean and no blood was spilled over it.
  • 5
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#3 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:26 AM

I work in the shale play in Pennsylvania and this movie is the last thing we need.

I wouldn't be doing this if I knew I was hurting the environment. It is fueled and blown out of proportion by uneducated college students.

The hydraulic fracturing takes place over a mile into the ground.
we use 2 cemented surface casing strings to isolate the ground water from the production zone.
these strings are checked with bond logs to ensure casing is completely cemented to the formation.
It is 100% safe in that aspect, we use a lot of water to fracture but we are looking at alternatives like propane. I'm in the drilling end of it so don't quote me.

I believe natural gas is the only way to be free of Petroleum.
You can't realistically run everything off a battery.

It is the bridge between oil and clean energy.
Here in the USA they converted nearly 50% of the goal burning power plants to natural gas and carbon omissions have dropped for the first time in recorded history in some places 8-10% the majority of gasoline/diesel engines can easily be converted to burn natural gas. This would greatly reduce greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.

It just when this fuel is harvested in someone's backyard it becomes a big issue.

Americans think its better to destroy countries and start wars over dirty foreign oil.

We have all the fuel we need under our feet, it's clean and no blood was spilled over it.

yeah, who needs clean ground water? So what if its so contaminated that you can light it on fire?
  • 0

#4 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:30 AM

Posted Image
  • 2

#5 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,894 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:56 AM

Maaaaat Daaaamooon.
  • 1
Posted Image

#6 kurtis

kurtis

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,488 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 06

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:52 AM


  • 0
Posted Image

#7 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,115 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

Maaaatttt Dammmoonnnn
  • 0
Posted Image
______________Eat, Sleep,Posted ImageRave, Repeat

#8 Perfect From Now On

Perfect From Now On

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

A preview of a very interesting movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_uNx2fXlfE


This is a very important issue for British Columbians, we have a large abundance of natural gas in out province and anyone who follows the news should be aware of Christy Clark's ambitions to greatly expand our natural gas extraction.

Given that fracking is the leading method for extracting natural gas and our federal environmental legislation has recently been extensively eroded, there could be serious consequences for British Columbians. Specifically those living in the north and interior where the largest gas deposits are found, and ground water is the primary source for drinking water.

I'm sure this post will garner some responses from the the pro energy members of this forum, saying that we need to meet our energy demands, and therefore that somehow makes environmental concerns a second priority. So let me be clear, I am not specifically against the expansion of natural gas use and extraction, however I am strongly opposed to the fracking method and cannot support any expansion that uses this method.

Natural gas as an energy source is far superior to oil in a number of ways: it burns much cleaner producing less greenhouse gases, and poses a lessened environmental risk once extracted, due to its physical properties posing less of a risk in terms of pipeline and other transportation forms. However as I have already stated, these relative advantages over oil and the great abundance in our backyard are not sufficient reasons to ignore the immense problems that come with fracking.

Edited by Audiophile, 14 January 2013 - 12:21 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

Paradise with pines and ice.

#9 Perfect From Now On

Perfect From Now On

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 09

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

Americans think its better to destroy countries and start wars over dirty foreign oil.

We have all the fuel we need under our feet, it's clean and no blood was spilled over it.


That sounds a lot like the tired Alberta oil sands rhetoric of "ethical oil"
  • 0
Posted Image

Paradise with pines and ice.

#10 Wilfred

Wilfred

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,598 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 11

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:28 PM

Fracking and Matt Damon..this is too much to handle lma0
  • 0

#11 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:33 PM

yeah, who needs clean ground water? So what if its so contaminated that you can light it on fire?


During the early stages of drilling in P.A some operators use to run only one string of casing for the surface hole.
So one would drill thru the fresh water zone at 300 ft Followed by a shallow coal bed at 800ft. Coal has methane in it and because they did not run casing before they drilled threw the coal the methane from the coal bed world migrate into the water table. They also drilled with air rather than water to make things worse. We use water it is slower but the hydrostatic pressure of water will hold the water and methane back when we drill into it
we drill to about 400ft run a log (take a picture down hole) to ensure we made it threw the aquifer then cement a string of casing. We then wait till the cement reaches a compressive strength of 500 psi, continue to drill past the casing to 900-1000 ft, take another picture to make sure me are threw the methane. Run another string of casing, cement, wait for 500psi then continue on. We also have to pressure test and bond test the casing if the test don't pass a very high standard we make it right, which I have never seen happen.

After the 2 strings are cemented into the formation we drill to 7500 ft, then kick off horizontally and land into the marcelius shale. When total depth is reached we ran another string of casing and cement it into the ground. From that point we turn the well over to completions and they frack.

The funny thing is people like you who know nothing about what goes on out here blame it on frac but what caused the methane to invade the water table was that migration I spoke about earlier.

Again I would not be doing this if I knew it hurt the environment around me

Edited by Noheart, 14 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#12 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:39 PM

That sounds a lot like the tired Alberta oil sands rhetoric of "ethical oil"


I do not support oil extraction of any kind, I am a supporter of the cleaner more abundant fuel called Natural gas. You only know what the media tells you.
I live this
I design these wells and I do everything in my power no matter what the cost to make it safe for the people drilling the well and safe for the people living around the well.

Edited by Noheart, 14 January 2013 - 02:41 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#13 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 02:58 PM

A preview of a very interesting movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phCibwj396I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_uNx2fXlfE


This is a very important issue for British Columbians, we have a large abundance of natural gas in out province and anyone who follows the news should be aware of Christy Clark's ambitions to greatly expand our natural gas extraction.

Given that fracking is the leading method for extracting natural gas and our federal environmental legislation has recently been extensively eroded, there could be serious consequences for British Columbians. Specifically those living in the north and interior where the largest gas deposits are found, and ground water is the primary source for drinking water.

I'm sure this post will garner some responses from the the pro energy members of this forum, saying that we need to meet our energy demands, and therefore that somehow makes environmental concerns a second priority. So let me be clear, I am not specifically against the expansion of natural gas use and extraction, however I am strongly opposed to the fracking method and cannot support any expansion that uses this method.

Natural gas as an energy source is far superior to oil in a number of ways: it burns much cleaner producing less greenhouse gases, and poses a lessened environmental risk once extracted, due to its physical properties posing less of a risk in terms of pipeline and other transportation forms. However as I have already stated, these relative advantages over oil and the great abundance in our backyard are not sufficient reasons to ignore the immense problems that come with fracking.


You bring up good points but again you only know what the media tells you.

British Columbia has by far the most strict regulations in North America and possibly the world. Also, in northern BC the water table is a safe distance away from any gas zone and if it wasn't BC would be all over you.

You can't even take a wiz off containment in BC and we are lucky our government takes care of that

In PA this type of drilling was in its earliest stages when these corners were cut. The DEP did not know how or what to regulate.
guess who helped then roll out the regulations needed to protect the people
You guessed it
BC
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#14 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 14 January 2013 - 05:15 PM

Fracking blows then sucks.
  • 0
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#15 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,204 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

Fracking Matt Damon...
Mmaaaatt Daaaaammooonnn
  • 0

Jagermeister.jpg


#16 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,172 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 14 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

The US could slash its vehicle emissions with CNG and while BC has had natural gas readily available for a while it hasn't been available at viable quantities/prices to use as a widespread fuel. Fracking is what made most of the US reserves accessible. With their own reserves accessible, the weak link is not enough vehicles that can run on the stuff. The tech is there already though, so if the US government has the sense to subsidize the Big Three even slightly for making CNG cars, they'll bite. Asian manufacturers are getting a similar push because the price means more people in India and South East Asia can afford to run their cars. Over here, it makes sense because it's the most realistic way for automakers to reach the American MPGe fleet requirements while keeping costs low for them and consumers, plus less need for foreign oil (they'll still need plenty of Albertan oil though ;)). Fracking is good news for North America and the UK is going nuts for it as well.

If CNG cars do enter widespread usage, it solves a lot of other resource-related problems too. We'll be able to use way less platinum in catalytic converters, be able to change spark plugs far less often, and change our oil less often.

So all do respect to Matt Damon, but last I checked the market really doesn't give a damn what he thinks. If it saves us money, reduces pollution, frees up resources and generally makes everyone happy, his complaints about a case of badly executed fracking in its infancy don't really matter.
  • 1

Keswho.jpg


#17 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,725 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

I've never heard of this movie until I saw this. All they did was create more hype over the movie, probably shooting themselves in the foot. I've seen documentaries and stuff on fracking, ruining the ground water and poisoning the land. It sounds nasty.
  • 0

#18 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:28 PM

I work in the shale play in Pennsylvania and this movie is the last thing we need.

I wouldn't be doing this if I knew I was hurting the environment. It is fueled and blown out of proportion by uneducated college students.

The hydraulic fracturing takes place over a mile into the ground.
we use 2 cemented surface casing strings to isolate the ground water from the production zone.
these strings are checked with bond logs to ensure casing is completely cemented to the formation.
It is 100% safe in that aspect, we use a lot of water to fracture but we are looking at alternatives like propane. I'm in the drilling end of it so don't quote me.

I believe natural gas is the only way to be free of Petroleum.
You can't realistically run everything off a battery.

It is the bridge between oil and clean energy.
Here in the USA they converted nearly 50% of the goal burning power plants to natural gas and carbon omissions have dropped for the first time in recorded history in some places 8-10% the majority of gasoline/diesel engines can easily be converted to burn natural gas. This would greatly reduce greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere.

It just when this fuel is harvested in someone's backyard it becomes a big issue.

Americans think its better to destroy countries and start wars over dirty foreign oil.

We have all the fuel we need under our feet, it's clean and no blood was spilled over it.

Well put.
  • 1

#19 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:53 PM

Ohio Government Confirms Earthquakes Caused by Fracking-Related Injection Wells

http://www.allgov.co...lls?news=844162

Monday, March 12, 2012

In addition to drinking water contamination, earthquakes can now be added to the harmful consequences of the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, according to the Ohio state government. In fracking, energy companies use powerful pumps to force pressurized fluid into deep layers of rock, causing fractures, which allow the extraction of otherwise unavailable natural gas or oil. In a recently released report, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) concluded that a rash of 12 earthquakes in the Youngstown, Ohio, area between March and December 2011 was likely due to nearby fracking operations. Those temblors began just three months after fracking began, ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 magnitude and led ODNR to shut down the wells on December 30. In the new report, ODNR also promulgates several new regulations to prevent future fracking-related earthquakes.


Despite industry complaints that the report is premature in linking the quakes to the wells, and as AllGov has previously reported, earthquakes have been tied to fracking in other locales as well. These include Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, British Columbia, Lancashire and other locales. Oklahoma, a major location for fracking, experienced between two and six earthquakes a year between 1972 and 2008; but in 2010 there were 1,047, including a 5.6 quake on November 5 that was the strongest in the state’s history. Although the earthquake problem appears to be related not to the drilling itself, but to the disposal of wastewater from the drilling by forcing it back into the earth into injection wells, the fact remains that this is a necessary part of the overall fracking process.

-Matt Bewig


  • 0

#20 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:52 PM

Ohio Government Confirms Earthquakes Caused by Fracking-Related Injection Wells

http://www.allgov.co...lls?news=844162

Monday, March 12, 2012

In addition to drinking water contamination, earthquakes can now be added to the harmful consequences of the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, according to the Ohio state government. In fracking, energy companies use powerful pumps to force pressurized fluid into deep layers of rock, causing fractures, which allow the extraction of otherwise unavailable natural gas or oil. In a recently released report, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) concluded that a rash of 12 earthquakes in the Youngstown, Ohio, area between March and December 2011 was likely due to nearby fracking operations. Those temblors began just three months after fracking began, ranged from 2.1 to 4.0 magnitude and led ODNR to shut down the wells on December 30. In the new report, ODNR also promulgates several new regulations to prevent future fracking-related earthquakes.


Despite industry complaints that the report is premature in linking the quakes to the wells, and as AllGov has previously reported, earthquakes have been tied to fracking in other locales as well. These include Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, British Columbia, Lancashire and other locales. Oklahoma, a major location for fracking, experienced between two and six earthquakes a year between 1972 and 2008; but in 2010 there were 1,047, including a 5.6 quake on November 5 that was the strongest in the state’s history. Although the earthquake problem appears to be related not to the drilling itself, but to the disposal of wastewater from the drilling by forcing it back into the earth into injection wells, the fact remains that this is a necessary part of the overall fracking process.

-Matt Bewig


It is based on speculation

Although, the amount of fluid and pressure it takes to fracture the Utica shale in Ohio (a deeper play then the PA Marcellus) would be far greater, pressures and volumes one cannot comprehend
Could that create a 2.5 to 5.6 earthquake? hell ya,
Could it be a coincidence that was blown out of proportion because Fracking was taking place in the area? hell ya.
Utica is 10,000+ feet deep with (2) 100-300ft beds of hard hard limestone above, I find it hard to believe it could disrupt that much overburden but anything is possible i guess.
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#21 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 02:36 AM

The funny thing is people like you who know nothing about what goes on out here blame it on frac but what caused the methane to invade the water table was that migration I spoke about earlier.

Arrogant much? I'm supposed to believe you because you earn a paycheque from the industry instead of geologists who don't?
  • 0

#22 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:33 AM

Arrogant much? I'm supposed to believe you because you earn a paycheque from the industry instead of geologists who don't?


I'm not trying to be arrogant at all.

Who the hell do you think discovered the Marcellus? Some Texas oil tycoon wearing a cowboy hat?

A team of geologists.

We work along side geologists.
They tell us where to drill.
They determine how we go about entering the Marcellus with information they interpret from seismic and offset wells.
They tell us where the water and gas zones are so we can safely isolate them with casing.

Do you honestly think I can design these wells without a geological background?

In the past the idiots that drilled these wells without any regulation cut corners and absolutely messed stuff up and it totally sucks.

We have learned from there mistakes and engineered methods to prevent this occurrence.
That is why they have guys like myself with a Canadian drilling background in PA. We know how to go above and beyond regulatory guidelines and drill responsibly.

Do people honestly believe we don't care about people's drinking water?

Even from a business standpoint it makes no sense.

You think our stockholders are down with that kind of publicity?

I can't even imagine what I would do if I was responsible for contaminating someone's water. Especially if it lead to a fatality.

Not worth my pay cheque sir.
  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#23 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:40 AM

Why mess around when we have a homegrown (well Canadian raised at least) problem solver: Dr. Donald Sadoway!


  • 1
Posted Image

#24 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:55 AM

I'm not trying to be arrogant at all.

Who the hell do you think discovered the Marcellus? Some Texas oil tycoon wearing a cowboy hat?

A team of geologists.

We work along side geologists.
They tell us where to drill.
They determine how we go about entering the Marcellus with information they interpret from seismic and offset wells.
They tell us where the water and gas zones are so we can safely isolate them with casing.

Do you honestly think I can design these wells without a geological background?

In the past the idiots that drilled these wells without any regulation cut corners and absolutely messed stuff up and it totally sucks.

We have learned from there mistakes and engineered methods to prevent this occurrence.
That is why they have guys like myself with a Canadian drilling background in PA. We know how to go above and beyond regulatory guidelines and drill responsibly.

Do people honestly believe we don't care about people's drinking water?

Even from a business standpoint it makes no sense.

You think our stockholders are down with that kind of publicity?

I can't even imagine what I would do if I was responsible for contaminating someone's water. Especially if it lead to a fatality.

Not worth my pay cheque sir.


Doesn't help that the EPA who is supposed to crack down on that type of negligence is as corrupt as the FDA. It's good you consult for the particular company you work for, too many are not as responsible.

Not to throw all geologists under the bus, but the guys I knew in Calgary working in oil and gas were hardly the type to throw professionalism before profit. Once the money got in their blood, principles were up for sale. Not saying they were bad people, just influenced by the massive cash flow.
  • 1
Posted Image

#25 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

Doesn't help that the EPA who is supposed to crack down on that type of negligence is as corrupt as the FDA. It's good you consult for the particular company you work for, too many are not as responsible.

Not to throw all geologists under the bus, but the guys I knew in Calgary working in oil and gas were hardly the type to throw professionalism before profit. Once the money got in their blood, principles were up for sale. Not saying they were bad people, just influenced by the massive cash flow.


Yes you are absolutely correct and that was an awesome video, freakin brilliant.

I have noticed a bit if a culture change corporately since the BP spill.

The sincerity may or may not be genuine, but it does hurt to cut corners and end up like BP so it has become a business driven issue.

I will not name the energy company I work for but they have invested a pile of money to go above and beyond regulations. They have even wiped their hands clean of plays that are no longer profitable under these new self imposed global standards.

The consequences of BP 2.0 are not worth the risk from a business standpoint


  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#26 Kryten

Kryten

    Aladdin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

Yes you are absolutely correct and that was an awesome video, freakin brilliant.

I have noticed a bit if a culture change corporately since the BP spill.

The sincerity may or may not be genuine, but it does hurt to cut corners and end up like BP so it has become a business driven issue.

I will not name the energy company I work for but they have invested a pile of money to go above and beyond regulations. They have even wiped their hands clean of plays that are no longer profitable under these new self imposed global standards.

The consequences of BP 2.0 are not worth the risk from a business standpoint


If only these lessons could be taught without tragedy, what can you do. And yes Dr. Sadoway is brilliant, surely gives one hope for the future.
  • 1
Posted Image

#27 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:38 PM

Dallas earthquakes caused by fracking

http://rt.com/usa/ne...dallas-usa-610/

Published: 03 October, 2012, 23:33


Three unusual earthquakes that shook a Dallas suburb over the weekend may be connected to fracking operations, according to a local geophysicist who has studied earthquakes in the region.


Data from the US geological survey showed the first earthquake, which hit at 11:05 pm CDT (6:05 pm GMT) Saturday, measured at a magnitude of 3.4 on the Richter scale. A few minutes later a 2nd quake measuring 3.1 struck. These were followed on Sunday by a 3rd Quake measuring 2.1.


Despite a volley of emergency calls, no injuries were reported.


Cliff Frolich, a senior scientific researcher and associate director at the University of Texas’ Austin Institute for Geophysics, does not believe these quakes are a coincidence.


Before fracking began being employed on land near Dallas Fort Worth Airport in 2008, there was virtually no seismic activity in Dallas.


In a study published in the journal Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences in August 2012, Frolich found that 67 earthquakes occurred between November 2009 and December 2011 within a 70 kilometer grid where fracking occurs over the northern Texas Barnett shale formation. 24 of the earthquakes, where the epicenter could be reliably mapped, occurred within 3 kilometers of the injection wells for wastewater disposal from fracking.


Fracking – or hydraulic fracturing as it is technically known – is the extraction of shale gas and oil trapped in rock strata beneath the surface. Millions of gallons of high pressure, chemical laden water is pumped into an underground geological formation to force out oil and gas. Once fractures have been opened up in the rock and the water pressure decreases, internal pressure from the rock then forces the dirty fracking fluids back to the surface, known in the industry as ‘flow back’.


This dirty water is often disposed of by pumping it back into the ground. This has led to fears that the water table will be polluted with severe health consequences.


Fracking can also be used to extract oil from a well that has already been exhausted using traditional techniques.


A similar situation to Dallas exists in California where the oil and gas industry is increasingly using fracking.


California is already one of the largest oil and gas producing states in the US and last year about a quarter of all oil and gas wells drilled were also fracked. With no regulation in place, extraction companies are rushing to frack more wells.


California already sits in a zone of high seismic activity and drought, concerning residents about how fracking could affect their water supply and increase earthquakes.


“I didn’t buy here thinking this was going to happen in my backyard. I would have had second thoughts about living here,” Gary Gless, a Los Angeles resident, who lives just a few miles from the Inglewood Oil Field, told RT.


When Gless and other residents moved into the area they were assured the nearby oil wells were dry and that no fracking was taking place.But following recent methane leaks they found out that PXP, the company concerned, is using fracking to extract oil.


“The foundations, I don’t know what is going on under my house. If we do get an earthquake, I’m sure that with all these cracks it will probably rip it all open,” Rosa Tatum told RT.

Wastewater

The oil and gas industry has launched a huge public relations campaign claiming fracking is safe as it’s been going on for decades.


Fracking has been used in the US for 60 years, but has only really taken off in the last 7. Shale gas amounted to 4% of the country’s overall gas production in 2005, while in 2012 it had risen to 24%.


Dave Quast from Energy in Depth, an advocacy group for the oil and gas industry, told RT, “The 1.2 million times that fracking has occurred in this country there has not been a single incident of reported water contamination.”


PXP, which operates one of the largest urban oil fields in the country, including the one next to Gless’s home, is conducting its own study into what sort of effects fracking will have on the LA neighborhood where they operate- but locals doubt it will reveal the truth
“These fossil fuel giants influence policy enormously. They spent $747 million lobbying Congress to get this Safe Drinking Water Act exemption. That is a contamination of our democracy,” said Josh Fox, director of the Oscar nominated documentary ‘Gasland’.


Brenda Norton, an activist with the campaigning group Food and Water Watch, told RT that fracking is happening completely unregulated in the state of California and that oil and gas companies don’t have to say where they frack or what chemicals they are injecting into water and into the ground, which could possibly contaminate drinking water.


Oliver Boyd, a USGS seismologist and professor of geophysics at the University of Memphis agrees that, in general, links between wastewater injection and seismic activity are plausible.


“Most, if not all, geophysicists expect induced earthquakes to be more likely from wastewater injection rather than hydrofracking” [itself].


He continued that this is because the wastewater injection tends to occur at greater depth where earthquakes are more likely to nucleate and earthquakes are likely to occur some time (months to years) after wastewater injection has ceased.


Residents in California are worried about losing their homes , after already being forced to cope with cracked foundations and buckling roads.


Edited by dudeone, 15 January 2013 - 07:41 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.