I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

Funny Games

Free Samples

Oddee

Funny Stuff

123 Games

Viva La Games

Crazy Games

Wow Funny Jokes

Funny Videos

Funny Junk

Funny Videos

FreeGame Heaven

Caykeyfi Games

Crazy News

Lastminute Auct

All Trivia Game

Not Healthy

Hot Games

I hate retail

Chaostrophic

CityRag

Urlesque

Comics Alliance



Back to Listing

Inside Out: Fracking

Hits: 8484 | Rating: (2.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
trp712
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2223 Posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:00:57 PM
I think you'll be waiting a while, Crakr.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:45:33 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.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:37:14 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


CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:04:52 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:14:31 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:05:55 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:01:52 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:01:21 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”.

trp712
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2223 Posts
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 3:24:11 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.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Monday, December 12, 2011 9:27:12 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.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Monday, December 12, 2011 9:17:34 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 ?

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17311 Posts
Monday, December 12, 2011 8:57:14 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.

DickenMcHunt
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1140 Posts
Monday, December 12, 2011 7:59:51 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..."

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 15135 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:41:27 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.

thejanitor86
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 63 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:52:23 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:24:56 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:24:39 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”.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:24:29 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:24:19 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:24:04 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:23:54 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

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:23:45 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:23:30 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.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:23:16 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

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12136 Posts
Sunday, December 11, 2011 8:22:51 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.

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.