The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 22    Average: 3.4/5]
63 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8492
Rating: 3.4
Category:
Date: 12/09/11 12:40 PM

63 Responses to Inside Out: Fracking

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
    Link: Inside Out: Fracking - The EPA has linked fracking to ground water pollution. Oil Companies are complaining. Here`s what the fuss is about.
  2. Profile photo of Intaresting
    Intaresting Male 18-29
    812 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    Yeah, FRACK this whole planet, if it`ll bring in some cash.
  3. Profile photo of Revolutioniz
    Revolutioniz Male 18-29
    911 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    meh..
  4. Profile photo of mikeygryph
    mikeygryph Male 18-29
    10 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    "Oo yea got mee new mustang convertible heyuckyuckyuck...."

    This is the real problem with the world, oil companies and people like these who are allowed to breed and put even more of a strain on the environment. They won`t ever contribute anything to the advancement of humanity and just float through life like lumps of crap.
  5. Profile photo of earthshone
    earthshone Male 18-29
    1688 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    what the FRACK is MEETHANE! lol
  6. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    They won`t ever contribute anything to the advancement of humanity and just float through life like lumps of crap.

    That`s true of almost everyone. Including me and almost certainly including you.
  7. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    so the oil company wants us to believe that the water was FLAMMABLE BEFORE they came there...umm yea if that were true I highly doubt that anyone would have settled there.
  8. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 1:44 pm
    they are doing it in my region now.
  9. Profile photo of krabkat
    krabkat Female 18-29
    1261 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    So the rich guy says: "Let them come to your town...it`s like Christmas everyday" --- Yeh, `cept for all the belchin` and fartin` wells!

    Actually, it`s those dang cows - ya know their poop is 55-65% methane (probly their burps too)...ya just gotta constipate `em and stop all that crap...groan...I`m sorry! I sorta sincerely apologize for even posting this ... I`m gonna go have another glass of water ... from our well....better leave my lighter here . . .
  10. Profile photo of CaptainPabst
    CaptainPabst Male 18-29
    1250 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    You have the be the tackiest mf`er to buy fracking jewelry.
  11. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    If the companies are doing so well mabey they should buy all people affected water filtration systems if that would work. Actually hmmm think ya could heat your house off that water??? We need fuels unfortunatly industrializing an areas always a double edged sword.
  12. Profile photo of slut_etta
    slut_etta Female 50-59
    3849 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    in south arkansas and east texas, the fracking fluid is pumped out of the ground and transported off site in double-walled tanker trucks. if it is truly so harmless, why the double walls?

    also, i don`t know how many of you know this, but arkansas is on a fault line (the New Madrid) and we have our occasional earthquakes. however since the fracking started north of little rock, the incidence of earthquaking has increased, so much so that there was a moratorium placed on it. i`m not sure if it is still in place, but i sure hope so.

    so, please, do some independent research and fight fracking in your area like we are in ours.
  13. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    What the frack are the chems they put into the ground??
  14. Profile photo of November_Rai
    November_Rai Male 30-39
    319 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm
    I think the gas industry will eventually destroy most of PA. It`s already destroyed the roads. Give it time. I`m from St. Marys. Nearby. Accidents, deaths, crime is up, and so, oddly enough, are natural gas prices. Plus the poor water. It`s just bad up here.
  15. Profile photo of Gafnaz
    Gafnaz Male 30-39
    138 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 6:09 pm
    And if that`s not enough, anybody noticed the sky full of chemtrails?
  16. Profile photo of antagonizer
    antagonizer Male 18-29
    508 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 6:19 pm
    It always amazes me how people are willing to sell out their principals for some scratch. Oh "save the environment", "I recycle", etc, but all that goes out the window if it buys them a new convertible mustang.
  17. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    Ya, the condensation in the sky from planes is killing us all Gaf.
  18. Profile photo of jops360
    jops360 Male 30-39
    689 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    pink - if it is just condensation then why does it last so long. the sky is changing. chemtrails are real
  19. Profile photo of inversegrav
    inversegrav Male 30-39
    770 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    November Rai has convieniently left out the fact the Pennsylvania roads have ALWAYS sucked a$$. When driving out of state I could tell where the PA border was by where the potholes started.
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    There has been oil drilling in Lancaster county for over a hundred years and fracking is done thousands of feet below the ground water aquifer, below impermeable capstone.

    In short, what that means is, this drilling is well below the ground water and is protected by a thick layer of hard, unfrackable, rock.

  21. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    Don`t confuse them with the facts, CJ. Their minds are already made up.
  22. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 11:57 pm
    F*ck. F*ck f*ck f*ck. Look, I work as a PhD professional geophysicist in the oil industry, for a major oil company. And even WE don`t really know what we`re releasing when we frack. We know it makes money, sure. That`s why we do it.

    For Crakrjak to posit some kind of secret scientific knowledge of hydraulic fracturing and it`s effects on the earth`s crust, when he doesn`t believe in simple scientific concepts (Caps lock alert) such as F*CKING EVOLUTION YOU RETARD, makes me feel queasy for the future of the human race.

    Never mind the likes of OldOllie, who like a loyal puppy republican sealion, will clap idiotically along every step of his misinformed way, even if he doesn`t understand the words being spoken.

    Again, F*ck.
  23. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7558 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 12:52 am
    Sorry Davy before I start but..... why the hell don`t the damn oil companies put some serious effort into renewables for Gods sake- whether you believe it climate change or not, it makes no sense to make such a mess of where we live just to get the last of the oil. It will run out sometime, so surely we should get a move on in finding another way to power our lives?
  24. Profile photo of tommy2X4
    tommy2X4 Male 50-59
    3447 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 1:44 am
    @ davymid~ Shove your Phd up your A S S ! ! ! As a matter of fact, I don`t care. I hope you blow up the Earth in the process and go see your God. F your grandchildren!
  25. Profile photo of mcboozerilla
    mcboozerilla Male 30-39
    646 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 5:42 am
    Some of those poor people have really been fracked.
  26. Profile photo of PierreJeanFR
    PierreJeanFR Male 40-49
    1360 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 5:57 am
    Nevermind Oldollie and Crakrjakass, they like drilling each other`s Asssholes.
    In their case below a thick layer of Bullshiit there is more bullshiit.
  27. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 9:15 am
    davymid: Do you really believe that fracking somehow can destroy a 1000+ ft. caprock above a shale or sandstone deposit ?

    You, of all people, should know how strong these thick caprocks are, after all geophysicists, like you, test these ultramafic rocks.

    Lastly, You calling me a `retard` for my beliefs is really beyond the pale, I thought you were above stooping to the name calling of the likes of madest and his ilk, I guess you just proved me wrong.
  28. Profile photo of blackcatseye
    blackcatseye Female 30-39
    685 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Pretty much all of the earthquakes in the UK in the last two years that I know of have been down to fracking, makes you wonder how long it`s been going on when they were scoping out areas to see how much gas is down there. You might as well take a spade and start digging a hole right under your feet and see how long you can stand up.
  29. Profile photo of krw888
    krw888 Male 50-59
    174 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 9:54 am
    Isn`t it easy to sell your soul to the devil?
    Just name your price.
  30. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 1:20 pm
    I thought you were above stooping to the name calling of the likes of madest and his ilk, I guess you just proved me wrong.

    CJ, I thought you knew, libtards ALWAYS do this when they`ve lost the argument on its merits. I consider it to be their declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
  31. Profile photo of Hat-Trick
    Hat-Trick Male 18-29
    128 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    Any other Battlestar fans out there find this as funny as I do?
  32. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    You, of all people, should know how strong these thick caprocks are, after all geophysicists, like you, test these ultramafic rocks.
    *sighs*

    Crakrjak, since you’re taking me on in my home turf of geoscience, let`s do this in stages. It’ll be easier for you to digest that way.

    1) Geology 101: The scientific term “ultramafic” refers to the chemical and evolutionary makeup of igneous and subsequent metamorphic rocks. It refers to how chemically fractionated an igneous rock is, by in-chamber magma processes or subsesequent metamorphism. A sedimentary shale cannot be ultramafic, by the very definition of the term. You may as well claim that tomatoes are skyscrapers. You have no idea what you’re talking about. I, on the other hand, do.
  33. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    2) Yes I, of all people as an oil company geophysicist, should know how strong these caprocks are. But we don’t. They have vastly varying thicknesses and rheological properties sometimes laterally over tens of metres. Recently, I was involved with drilling an injection well into a well-known, old gas field. Turns out we had pressure communication across a fault that was centimetres across.
    3) Fact is, us oil company professionals don’t know until we draw from one well and see what happens in the next well in terms of drawdown. And that’s in the wells we can measure in “conventional” oilfields. We’re still figuring this one out.
    4) Check this out, it’s crazy. But the caprock isn’t necessarily 1000ft thick. Depending on where you are in the Haynesville, or the Utica, or any of the other gas-shale areas, it might be right under your house. Heck, I should know, I’ve been one of the ones drawing “x”s on your land an
  34. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    CJ, do yourself a favour, stop trying to debate evidential science that you don’t understand with a PhD in the subject and working in the relevant field. Stick to your home turf of: what was it? A diploma in computers? Sorry for being mean, but there it sits.
  35. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 10, 2011 at 10:29 pm
    CJ, I thought you knew, libtards ALWAYS do this when they`ve lost the argument on its merits. I consider it to be their declaration of intellectual bankruptcy.
    I would respond Ollie, but I think I’ve answered adequately. If you see the aforementioned as intellectual bankruptcy, then you go for it, girlfriend.
  36. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 12:02 am
    davy, one of the problems with liberals is that when faced with a conflict between science and politics, they ALWAYS choose politics. The University Of East Anglia emails proved this beyond a reasonable doubt. I`m not questioning your qualifications, but your politics make your pronouncements on the subject unreliable at best.

    If you care to dispute my analysis, please feel free to provide a counterexample in which a liberal scientist has made a scientific argument against a liberal political position.
  37. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 1:03 am
    davymid: I didn`t call the shale `ultramafic`, are you being that moronic ? I called the caprock ultramafic.

    "You, of all people, should know how strong these thick caprocks are, after all geophysicists, like you, test these ultramafic rocks."

    Tell me where in that statement do you see the word `Shale`, WTF ?

    Yes, faults can crack caprock, but if that caprock wasn`t intact it would show up in the ultrasonic seismic surveys, now wouldn`t they ?

    I can recall the surveys they did here locally to determine if the area was eligible for carbon sequestration, for the original `Futuregen` project. They determined there were no fault cracks and that was crucial to the viability of the project. So I know such surveys can and are done to determine caprock integrity.

    Yes, I know caprock thickness isn`t consistent, but again that`s what the survey is for, to determine if the caprock is thick enough and not cracked.
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 1:19 am
    davymid: I`m sorry if your Phd. leads you to believe that you`re somehow superior in intellect to me.

    Your condescension is evident in your tone with me, solely because I believe in God, you`ve determined that I`m not worthy to debate anything with you.

    What you fail to recognize is that there are different types of intelligence and that a Phd., in any subject, doesn`t infer greater overall intelligence than anyone else.

    I could tout my ACT score and my IQ test scores, as evidence of my intelligence, but I`m not an uppity condescending assh*le. I could even challenge you to a game of chess, but I know that even very smart people aren`t good at games.

    I`m not here at IAB to gloat or demean anyone else, So go ahead and sit on your mean chair, all that proves is that your attitude towards others stinks.
  39. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:22 pm
    Warning: enormous wall o’ text incoming. I wouldn’t be posting this if I didn’t think it was important.

    Ollie: I`m not questioning your qualifications, but your politics make your pronouncements on the subject unreliable at best.

    If you care to dispute my analysis, please feel free to provide a counterexample in which a liberal scientist has made a scientific argument against a liberal political position.
    Ollie, my politics? My profession as a scientist behoves me to critically analyse any peer-reviewed scientific data and theories, regardless of anything whatsoever to do with political viewpoint.
  40. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    One example since you asked for one, I read with great interest an article a few weeks back that the effects of CO2 on global climate change may be overestimated Link. As it was published in the peer-reviewed journal “Science”, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world second only to “Nature”, I take it that the research has scientific merit and warrants further study and work. As for the authors’ political viewpoint, it honestly, genuinely never occurred to me one way or the other. It was published, peer-reviewed research in a prestigious, trustworthy journal, which is good enough for me. I’ll presume the authors are Liberal, as scientists generally tend to be overwhelmingly liberal as opposed to conservative in political outlook.

    Besides, last two times I’ve voted, I’ve voted conserv
  41. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Onto Crakrjak: davymid: I didn`t call the shale `ultramafic`, are you being that moronic ? I called the caprock ultramafic.
    You’re showing your ignorance of these matters, CJ. Caprocks are never ultramafic. Ultramafic rocks are igneous and metasedimentary rocks which are typically very brittle and entirely unsuitable for caprocks. I know of not one oil or gas field anywhere on the planet where ultramafic rocks act as the caprock.

    "You, of all people, should know how strong these thick caprocks are, after all geophysicists, like you, test these ultramafic rocks."

    Tell me where in that statement do you see the word `Shale`, WTF ?
    Caprocks, in the vast majority of cases in Onshore North America, are shales. Where they’re not shales, they’re evaporites. I presumed you knew that and were referring to that, as would anyone who had taken a Geology 101 course at any community college.
  42. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Yes, faults can crack caprock, but if that caprock wasn`t intact it would show up in the ultrasonic seismic surveys, now wouldn`t they ?
    First off, let’s establish that you’re fundamentally ignorant of these matters. Seismic surveys are not ultrasonic, they’re the complete opposite, they’re infrasonic, aka subsonic.

    Secondly, no, fractures do NOT in any sense always show up on seismic surveys. Put very simply, many fractures are sub-seismic, in other words are too small to be resolved on seismic data, which will typically only resolve things on the scale of metres to tens of metres. A quick google on “sub-seismic faults” returns 133 million hits.
  43. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm
    Onto other matters: all this talk of “caprocks” is irrelevant anyway, so your ignorance on the science behind it doesn’t matter. This isn’t a “conventional” hydrocarbon system which requires a separate source rock, a reservoir, and a seal (i.e. caprock). It’s the Marcellus Shale, which is an unconventional tight gas reservoir (Wikipedia it to find out more). In other words, it’s typically source rock, reservoir and seal in one formation, and has no “caprock” as such. In many places (such as all over the Appalachian Basin, where this video is from), it’s very close to surface and in contact with water aquifers. As per my original statement, we don’t really know much about what happens when we hydraulically fracture tight gas reservoirs in terms of the penetration of the fractures. It’s to do with the direction of the fractures, the principal stress direction, the rheological properties of already highly hetero
  44. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    Bear in mind I say all this preface as someone who works as a professional scientist in the oil industry, and makes a living off it. I’m not some liberal hairy hippie that thinks it should be shut down without knowing what the hell I’m talking about. I’m just saying that it’s extremely complicated and that as an industry, we’re learning as we go on some of this technology.
  45. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    davymid: I`m sorry if your Phd. leads you to believe that you`re somehow superior in intellect to me.
    No, no, a thousand times no. I do NOT claim to have superior intellect to you. I just know a f*ckton more about this particular subject than you do (as you have ably demonstrated). I know you’re an intelligent guy, it’s apparent in your posts.

    MY problem with you, specifically, weigh in a scientific authority on matters that you have an opinion about sure, but have limited scientific knowledge, education or training on. Leaving aside things like climate change and evolution for now, you posit to know as much as I do on matters of hydrocarbon exploration and production because you are as intelligent as I am. Maybe you’re more intelligent than I am, that’s not the point. You’re confusing intelligence with knowledge and education.
  46. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    Example: my local mechanic at the garage down the road may or may not be more intelligent than I am. But I’m crap when it comes to things mechanical. Clueless. So if my engine breaks down and I take it him, he’ll do his thing and tell me that the carburettor is f*cked, or whatever. I’m going to concede to his diagnosis, because he knows more about these matters than I do.

    Or, your mother was a nurse, right? If I had a health problem and went to a medical professional and they were to tell me a certain diagnosis and course of treatment, I’d damn follow their lead. Heck, I’m sure Stephen Hawking would do/has done the same. The level of intelligence is irrelevant. This person or that person knows more about the subject than I do.
  47. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    Sure, there’s a grey area, where I know something about a subject and the other person knows more, and then we can have a healthy debate. But when the other person is an expert in the subject matter and I’m a complete layman, I’ll concede. You know a lot more than I do about computers. I know a lot more than you do about drilling for hydrocarbons.

    That’s the thing about you, CJ. You posit yourself as a scientific authority on every matter of science, and will absolutely, resolutely refuse to concede that maybe the other guy is right. As I said earlier, you’re clearly intelligent, which only leaves the possibility that you’re wilfully ignorant. And the damnedest most pig-headed person I’ve ever known, in real life or online, to boot.

    As Charles Darwin himself said: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”.
  48. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm
    Your condescension is evident in your tone with me, solely because I believe in God, you`ve determined that I`m not worthy to debate anything with you.
    Lies and slander. I have many, many dear friends and colleagues who are religious (Christian and otherwise), both professionally and personally, that I get along with swimmingly. I don’t attack you because of your religion, or your politics, or any other thing. I attack you every time you post bullsh*t science as accepted unassailable scientific truth, because (and this is important), some people might believe you, and that goes against everything I stand for as a human being and an individual.

    And I will continue to do so, every time you do it.
  49. Profile photo of thejanitor86
    thejanitor86 Male 18-29
    63 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm
    Its bad when a mod is just as annoying as a random commentator. Thank you for making it hard to find actual comments for this video that are not just "look how smart i am on a random topic in which you have no way of knowing if i am telling the truth or not". Real good moderating there.
  50. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    December 11, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    So, Davy, you do concede that global warming is a liberal political position?

    Sorry, but I couldn`t resist setting that trap, and you stepped right in it.
  51. Profile photo of DickenMcHunt
    DickenMcHunt Male 18-29
    1299 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 7:59 am
    @OldOllie:

    "the effects of CO2 on global climate change may be overestimated"

    This asserts that Global Climate change is in fact GENUINE; however, the effects that man-associated CO2 has MAY have been over calculated based on preliminary findings. The subject is ongoing and more exact results will ideally be discovered over time.

    The article never refutes the scientific FACT that Global Climate change exists, is real or is currently happening. Had you read the link provided you would have noticed the FIRST LINE: "The researchers said people should still expect to see `drastic changes` in climate worldwide, but ... the effect of CO2 on climate is less than previously thought..."
  52. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 8:57 pm
    davymid: "Caprocks are never ultramafic. Ultramafic rocks are igneous and metasedimentary rocks which are typically very brittle and entirely unsuitable for caprocks."

    Oh really ? Then you need to tell that to Wikipedia

    And on the topic of ultrasonic seismic imaging, Link

    "it’s very close to surface and in contact with water aquifers."

    No, It`s nowhere near the aquifer, the shale is thousands of feet below it. No responsible company would dare risk opening up a natural gas fissure near the surface, it would be suicidal to do so.
  53. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    "You posit yourself as a scientific authority on every matter of science, and will absolutely, resolutely refuse to concede that maybe the other guy is right."

    Not true, I listen to and read articles from many scientists, but I`m not ignorant enough to believe in UFOs, or similar claptrap, like some of them do. I`m selective in that regard and naturally skeptical.

    "I attack you every time you post bullsh*t science as accepted unassailable scientific truth"

    Such as your `unassailable` belief in global warming despite the numerous and extensive skeptical papers and evidence I`ve linked to ?
  54. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 12, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    Besides that, and back onto the topic, the shale has to have a caprock structure above it or the fracking would leech gas into the surrounding rock above it, possibly through fissures, and potentially to the surface.

    That is why a proper seismic survey must be done beforehand. As I said before no company would want to risk a release of gas, either near the surface or into the surrounding rock, if for no other reason than to keep from loosing the gas they want to sell.

    Now I`ll concede that perhaps a driller was sloppy with sealing the wellhead in the aquifer zone, if that`s the case it can be repaired and remediation can take place.

    But you`ve came out with the claim that these drillers don`t know what they are doing and fracking to close to the aquifer, and that`s just false.
  55. Profile photo of trp712
    trp712 Male 18-29
    2239 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    Crakr, I`m not getting involved in the debate about the actual facts, but do you really think you know more about a subject from reading some scientific papers than someone who has a PhD in that subject? Someone who could have very easily written papers on it himself.

    Sometimes you just have to concede, dude.
  56. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    Oh. My. F*cking. God.

    You really can’t help yourself CJ, can you? You have a complete pig-headed inability to accept that someone else might be right about something, might know more about something than you do, and that you might be wrong. Don’t you? It’s like arguing with a brick wall.

    OK, my last post on the matter. You’re not worth talking to beyond this.

    Oh really ? Then you need to tell that to Wikipedia
    *sigh* No, you need to learn basic the basic words used in petroleum geoscience 101 before you try schooling a guy with a PhD and years of experience working for a major multinational oil company.

    Petroleum geology uses terms in very different ways to how they’re used in common usage. In fact, very few petroleum geoscientists use the term “Caprock”, to avoid exactly this kind of confusion. We normally use the term “Seal”.
  57. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    So, Wikipedia eh? The Wikipedia article you linked to talks about the general use of the term caprock, which is primarily a *GEOMORPHOLOGICAL* term. That’s why it describes caprocks as being typically sandstones or ultramafic rocks and then goes on to talk about scarp retreat in waterfalls such as Niagara Falls.

    Look, I know reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, so I’ve made you a picture. Petroleum Geoscience usage of the term on the left, image from primary usage of the term in Wikipedia on the right (check each out for yourself if you please).



    Please, you go to an interview as a scientist with an oil company and tell them that petroleum caprocks are ultramafic. Even better, tell them that sandstones (from your same Wikipedia source) make excellent caprocks. Just do me a favour and record the interview, I’d love to see the look on their faces.
  58. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    Your other link was about ultrasonic seismic. Yes, as your link points out, ultrasonic seismic is used sometimes to map orebodies. These are mineral ore deposits near the surface. It’s not used in exploration for oil and gas, which is what we’re talking about here. I could go into the physics of it all, but I’d be talking to a very ignorant (and yet mouthy) brick wall. It took me 7 years at University and many years in industry to earn the knowledge of seismic technology that I have, and I can’t condense that into a sentence or two.

    But no, what you did, was google “Ultrasonic Seismic”, found a link (that shows that it’s sometimes used in mineral mapping, not petroleum exploration). Just as you googled “Caprock” and came up with that Wikipedia article and declared that petroleum caprocks are Ultramafic. And yet STILL you posit yourself as my scientific equal and argue against me in my own PhD area of expertise.
  59. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    December 13, 2011 at 10:14 pm
    Dude, I’m done here, this thread is old and it’s wasting my time. I have to get up tomorrow and find some oil and gas. Thankfully for you and society in general, it’ll be done by people like me, who know what the hell they’re talking about.

    In the meantime, the folks at CERN are having trouble pinning down the definitive evidence of the Higgs-boson. I suggest you spend your day tomorrow on Google so you can teach those PhD particle physicists what they’re doing wrong.

    Davy out.
  60. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 14, 2011 at 4:04 am
    davymid: Your specialization is oil exploration, not natural gas fracking. You are trained to find `reservoirs` of liquid crude.

    Fracking is very different, the gases are trapped inside porous rocks like sandstone and shale. This type of geology is much more like that of finding a seam of coal.

    The mining article I linked to you obviously didn`t read thoroughly.

    “The oil and gas industry has come to rely on this technology over the years, but it has been previously difficult to apply to the hard rock environments.", Dr Anton Kepic

    So your statement about it not being used for oil or gas exploration is, again, false.
  61. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 14, 2011 at 4:37 am
    Hydraulic fracturing enables the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth`s surface (generally 5,000-20,000 feet). At such depth, there may not be sufficient porosity and permeability to allow natural gas and oil to flow from the rock into the wellbore at economic rates. - Wikipedia

  62. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 14, 2011 at 4:45 am
    Also to be specific, to this area of southern Pennsylvania, the Marcellus formation descends to depths of over 8,900 ft below the surface in southern Pennsylvania. That is many thousands of feet below any groundwater aquifer, and there are the thick layers of the Mahantango formation and Tully Limestone above it.

    So that shuts down your statement that it`s too close to the groundwater.

    Btw, the Mahantango formation is sandstone and siltstone which is `caprock`. Link

    It might not be the `seal` you ordinarily look for, but it is suitable for that purpose.

    I await your reply.
  63. Profile photo of trp712
    trp712 Male 18-29
    2239 posts
    December 14, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    I think you`ll be waiting a while, Crakr.

Leave a Reply