If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   Energy industry develops nontoxic fracking fluids. But since they've always claimed the fluids were harmless, this is really no news at all   (seattlepi.com) divider line 43
    More: Scary, energy industry, petroleum industry  
•       •       •

2057 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Feb 2013 at 4:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-03 01:31:49 PM  
Way to lump your local power utility, oil companies, the company that builds wind turbines and the guy who put solar panels on his roof into one sinister sounding category subby.

/this is why we can't have nice things
 
2013-02-03 04:30:55 PM  
i.ebayimg.com
 
2013-02-03 04:31:56 PM  
Food grade is not interchangeable with non-toxic. Plenty of things are non-toxic while still not food grade.
 
2013-02-03 04:34:54 PM  
Well, you can always make things less toxic, there's not really a bottom limit on toxicity.  I mean, pure water is toxic to a certain degree.

The fact that the chemicals in common use before weren't very dangerous doesn't mean it's not possible to make them less dangerous if people are feeling paranoid about it.  Look at how the standard for glass sneeze bars have been standardized out in favor of polymer due to some minor loss of silicon into the food, despite the fact that the fragments were too small to do anything to anyone and not metabolically active in the slightest.
 
2013-02-03 04:36:41 PM  
So McDonald's can use it in their shakes now.
Excellent.
 
2013-02-03 04:41:01 PM  
Won't stop the gas from coming out of your faucet.
 
2013-02-03 04:53:34 PM  
Your mom's fracking fluids are still toxic, however.
 
2013-02-03 04:59:14 PM  

FTA:

"Halliburton is in the business to provide solutions to our customers," said production manager Nicholas Gardiner. "Those solutions have to include ways to reduce the safety or environmental concerns that the public might have."
 Huh. Offer to inject it into Gardiner's neck, if it's so "non-toxic."


i651.photobucket.com

// whatsamatter, chicken?!
 
2013-02-03 05:09:01 PM  

safetycap: FTA:

"Halliburton is in the business to provide solutions to our customers," said production manager Nicholas Gardiner. "Those solutions have to include ways to reduce the safety or environmental concerns that the public might have." Huh. Offer to inject it into Gardiner's neck, if it's so "non-toxic."


[i651.photobucket.com image 800x340]

// whatsamatter, chicken?!


You know, if you read that quote with certain words removed, it's almost fit for the funny papers.
 
2013-02-03 05:09:30 PM  

Mrbogey: Food grade is not interchangeable with non-toxic. Plenty of things are non-toxic while still not food grade.


That kind of common sense isn't allowed here!
 
2013-02-03 05:13:07 PM  

lilbjorn: Won't stop the gas from coming out of your faucet.


The Sautners freak out when independent testing shows no contamination in their water.

Gas from water wells isn't a new phenomena.
 
2013-02-03 05:21:22 PM  
I think that there's just sort of a minimum outrage floor for the US, where if we don't have any actual problems we just have to make something up or we're not comfortable.  And not like "kind of exaggerate stuff", I mean blatantly fabricate something that's clearly not even remotely true, and then spend millions of additional dollars testing it beyond the existing confirmation of its obvious untruth.

Basically, "the fracking is poisoning our water" is the new "my Toyota is randomly accellerating uncontrollably".  I'm sure we'll resolve it basically the same way, with a company that's in no way at fault just putting up settlement money because it's tired of dealing with this shiat and moving on to the next bit of collective Hypochondria.

//There's FLUORINE in the water OMGWTFBBQ!
 
2013-02-03 06:06:56 PM  
Reading this thread while monitoring a frack being done by Haliburton, so I'm getting a kick out of the thread.

/don't drink the water in North Dakota
//felt that way before they invented fracking
 
2013-02-03 06:25:39 PM  
What's a little dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide between friends?  As long as you're not a woman planning on getting pregnant, and you have a liver that's 110% healthy, it's not going to kill you.
 
2013-02-03 06:28:47 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Well, you can always make things less toxic, there's not really a bottom limit on toxicity.  I mean, pure water is toxic to a certain degree.

The fact that the chemicals in common use before weren't very dangerous doesn't mean it's not possible to make them less dangerous if people are feeling paranoid about it.  Look at how the standard for glass sneeze bars have been standardized out in favor of polymer due to some minor loss of silicon into the food, despite the fact that the fragments were too small to do anything to anyone and not metabolically active in the slightest.


Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.
 
2013-02-03 06:50:15 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I think that there's just sort of a minimum outrage floor for the US, where if we don't have any actual problems we just have to make something up or we're not comfortable.  And not like "kind of exaggerate stuff", I mean blatantly fabricate something that's clearly not even remotely true, and then spend millions of additional dollars testing it beyond the existing confirmation of its obvious untruth.

Basically, "the fracking is poisoning our water" is the new "my Toyota is randomly accellerating uncontrollably".  I'm sure we'll resolve it basically the same way, with a company that's in no way at fault just putting up settlement money because it's tired of dealing with this shiat and moving on to the next bit of collective Hypochondria.

//There's FLUORINE in the water OMGWTFBBQ!


it's not the flourine that will kill you... it's the dihydrogen monoxide in the water.
 
2013-02-03 09:21:56 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Jim_Callahan: I think that there's just sort of a minimum outrage floor for the US, where if we don't have any actual problems we just have to make something up or we're not comfortable.  And not like "kind of exaggerate stuff", I mean blatantly fabricate something that's clearly not even remotely true, and then spend millions of additional dollars testing it beyond the existing confirmation of its obvious untruth.

Basically, "the fracking is poisoning our water" is the new "my Toyota is randomly accellerating uncontrollably".  I'm sure we'll resolve it basically the same way, with a company that's in no way at fault just putting up settlement money because it's tired of dealing with this shiat and moving on to the next bit of collective Hypochondria.

//There's FLUORINE in the water OMGWTFBBQ!

it's not the flourine that will kill you... it's the dihydrogen monoxide in the water.


Only if you inhale it.
 
2013-02-03 09:34:25 PM  
Without the Bakken, you'd be walkin'.
 
2013-02-03 11:16:32 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Let's see... the dimethylformamide isn't very toxic at the levels used in fracking fluids - usual levels are something like 0.02 percent. It's not very carcinogenic (listed as "possible" in most sources, and only at higher levels than found in raw fracking fluid).

The dimethylacetamide is even less toxic (at usage levels) than the dimethylformamide.

At normal fracking concentrations, either one is less toxic than the crude oil they're going after.

Of course, the whole point of fracking fluids is that the vast majority of the stuff stays down underground - below the solid stone layers they keep the oil from bubbling up naturally. If any of it ever made it back up to the ecosystem, it'll be in parts per billion at worst...
 
2013-02-03 11:30:10 PM  
The Earth doesn't need us nearly as much as we need her, and will recover quickly after we're gone.
So, yeah - in the long run, anything we do is perfectly safe.
 
2013-02-03 11:32:52 PM  

Hebalo: Without the Bakken, you'd be walkin'.


t1.gstatic.com

Not if you already ARE, baby!
 
2013-02-03 11:47:24 PM  
As the camera shakes, the representative then says "...but that won't help you when your friggin' bedrock liquifies thanks to our disposal wells, like what's going on in Dallas."

We're glad you've figured out that you can make nontoxic fracking fluids. The damage is done, though - portions of the country can't drink well water, other portions of the country are experiencing never-before-seen seismic activity. You've cured one problem. Whatcha gonna do about the whole "earthquake" thing?
 
2013-02-04 12:05:56 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Basically, "the fracking is poisoning our water" is the new "my Toyota is randomly accellerating uncontrollably". I'm sure we'll resolve it basically the same way, with a company that's in no way at fault just putting up settlement money because it's tired of dealing with this shiat and moving on to the next bit of collective Hypochondria.


Tin whiskers forming in accelerator circuits is causing aquifer poisoning at fracking sites?
 
2013-02-04 12:08:09 AM  

cirby: Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Let's see... the dimethylformamide isn't very toxic at the levels used in fracking fluids - usual levels are something like 0.02 percent. It's not very carcinogenic (listed as "possible" in most sources, and only at higher levels than found in raw fracking fluid).

The dimethylacetamide is even less toxic (at usage levels) than the dimethylformamide.

At normal fracking concentrations, either one is less toxic than the crude oil they're going after.

Of course, the whole point of fracking fluids is that the vast majority of the stuff stays down underground - below the solid stone layers they keep the oil from bubbling up naturally. If any of it ever made it back up to the ecosystem, it'll be in parts per billion at worst...


The thing is that solutes and water don't always behave like you think. The porous structure of water enables chemicals and water to seep back towards the surface and aquifers by capillary action. It's not cut and dry as you might think.
 
2013-02-04 12:08:56 AM  
"Porous structure of the rock" I meant.

Superbowl Sunday, ya know?
 
2013-02-04 12:10:07 AM  
Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Check them yourself, then look up the measured concentrations from the EPA studies.

Oh, look, well below the toxic limits.
 
2013-02-04 12:25:09 AM  
There has been a push in the industry to modify the cocktail to be "greener" in a plea to get people to calm the eff down when it comes to fracking and frack fluids.


Misunderstanding #1. - the compositions are secret. They are actually disclosed, and have been for years. If you go to FracFocus.org you can look up, sometimes by the specific well, to see what they used specifically. Additionally, they are disclosed to the state and federal regulating authorities yet this talking point doesn't go away.

Misunderstanding #2 - the compositions are a toxic concoction that can kill you and cause cancer. Actually, the compositions is roughly 98% water, 1.5% sand, and the other 0.5% is the mixture of additives that are also found in several over the counter products, such asdeodorants, breath mints etc.

Misunderstanding #3 - fracking causes gas to get into water wells/aquifers. Methane is present, naturally occurring, in aquifers from decaying plant and biological matter and is termed "biogenic". This is what is found in shallow gas wells (which require no fracking) and can express themselves in streams/rivers, and water wells. Water wells offer a path of least resistance for gas to move.

Gas from deep wells aka shales is termed "Thermogenic" and can be chemically distinguished from the other by isotopic sampling.

Additionally, in my personal experience, most people with water wells don't bother to have their wells tested in the first place to check their own water quality. They also tend to know when the local authorities are coming by to test the water and dump bleach down their own wells to pass the inspection.

If you looked at some of these pre-drill water test results, I wouldn't want to drink it either. Then when they freak out when they get a copy of the pre-drill results, which by definition is before anything begins on a well pad and blame us for it when NOTHING has happened yet.
 
2013-02-04 12:27:46 AM  

Stibium: cirby: Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Let's see... the dimethylformamide isn't very toxic at the levels used in fracking fluids - usual levels are something like 0.02 percent. It's not very carcinogenic (listed as "possible" in most sources, and only at higher levels than found in raw fracking fluid).

The dimethylacetamide is even less toxic (at usage levels) than the dimethylformamide.

At normal fracking concentrations, either one is less toxic than the crude oil they're going after.

Of course, the whole point of fracking fluids is that the vast majority of the stuff stays down underground - below the solid stone layers they keep the oil from bubbling up naturally. If any of it ever made it back up to the ecosystem, it'll be in parts per billion at worst...

The thing is that solutes and water don't always behave like you think. The porous structure of water enables chemicals and water to seep back towards the surface and aquifers by capillary action. It's not cut and dry as you might think.


The aquifers tend to be within the first 1000 feet of rock and need to be heavily cased off from the well string. That has to be some pretty strong capillary action to make it back up to the aquifer when they are over 2 miles deeper before they even begin fracking, and if they're going after deeper formations such as Utica its almost 3.5 to 4 miles of rock.
 
2013-02-04 12:29:39 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Check them yourself, then look up the measured concentrations from the EPA studies.

Oh, look, well below the toxic limits.


Additionally, if they're not bio-accumulators (substances that build up in the body) it's not really a threat.If the substances are bio-accumulators then it can get pretty hairy.
 
2013-02-04 12:42:01 AM  

Mrbogey: lilbjorn: Won't stop the gas from coming out of your faucet.

The Sautners freak out when independent testing shows no contamination in their water.

Gas from water wells isn't a new phenomena.


I deal with people like this ALL the time.
 
2013-02-04 12:48:07 AM  

FormlessOne: As the camera shakes, the representative then says "...but that won't help you when your friggin' bedrock liquifies thanks to our disposal wells, like what's going on in Dallas."

We're glad you've figured out that you can make nontoxic fracking fluids. The damage is done, though - portions of the country can't drink well water, other portions of the country are experiencing never-before-seen seismic activity. You've cured one problem. Whatcha gonna do about the whole "earthquake" thing?


I'm interested in this, honestly, so please don't take this wrong way but citation?
 
2013-02-04 01:37:56 AM  
The worst problem with fracking is the insane quantity of water that is being used. It ends up separated from the aquifers and it takes a very, very long time to get back there. Water is a far more valuable resource than any fuel. Pretending it's unlimited now is going to have some nasty consequences in the not so distant future.
 
2013-02-04 01:59:23 AM  

Dougie AXP: Stibium: cirby: Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Let's see... the dimethylformamide isn't very toxic at the levels used in fracking fluids - usual levels are something like 0.02 percent. It's not very carcinogenic (listed as "possible" in most sources, and only at higher levels than found in raw fracking fluid).

The dimethylacetamide is even less toxic (at usage levels) than the dimethylformamide.

At normal fracking concentrations, either one is less toxic than the crude oil they're going after.

Of course, the whole point of fracking fluids is that the vast majority of the stuff stays down underground - below the solid stone layers they keep the oil from bubbling up naturally. If any of it ever made it back up to the ecosystem, it'll be in parts per billion at worst...

The thing is that solutes and water don't always behave like you think. The porous structure of water enables chemicals and water to seep back towards the surface and aquifers by capillary action. It's not cut and dry as you might think.

The aquifers tend to be within the first 1000 feet of rock and need to be heavily cased off from the well string. That has to be some pretty strong capillary action to make it back up to the aquifer when they are over 2 miles deeper before they even begin fracking, and if they're going after deeper formations such as Utica its almost 3.5 to 4 miles of rock.


As long as there is capillary pressure, the water will continue to be drawn upward. Granted, that it IS encased and it IS a long way to work back up to aquifers, cases get cracked all the time and not all wells are so deep or have fracking chemicals which are not highly polluting to drinking water. MTBE in minute amounts is extremely polluting to water, for instance.

This is also not to mention the very high pressure the water is already subject to during the frack operation, and that concrete is a porous medium to begin with.
 
2013-02-04 04:02:07 AM  
Jim_Callahan: Well, you can always make things less toxic, there's not really a bottom limit on toxicity.  I mean, pure water is toxic to a certain degree.

Neutrinos would be my candidate for the least toxic substance.
 
2013-02-04 06:46:02 AM  
First I was like NIMBY,
But then I was like BANANA
 
2013-02-04 08:05:03 AM  

Stibium: Dougie AXP: Stibium: cirby: Marcus Aurelius:
Check out the safety data sheets on dimethyl formamide and dimethyl acetamide and then get back to me.

Let's see... the dimethylformamide isn't very toxic at the levels used in fracking fluids - usual levels are something like 0.02 percent. It's not very carcinogenic (listed as "possible" in most sources, and only at higher levels than found in raw fracking fluid).

The dimethylacetamide is even less toxic (at usage levels) than the dimethylformamide.

At normal fracking concentrations, either one is less toxic than the crude oil they're going after.

Of course, the whole point of fracking fluids is that the vast majority of the stuff stays down underground - below the solid stone layers they keep the oil from bubbling up naturally. If any of it ever made it back up to the ecosystem, it'll be in parts per billion at worst...

The thing is that solutes and water don't always behave like you think. The porous structure of water enables chemicals and water to seep back towards the surface and aquifers by capillary action. It's not cut and dry as you might think.

The aquifers tend to be within the first 1000 feet of rock and need to be heavily cased off from the well string. That has to be some pretty strong capillary action to make it back up to the aquifer when they are over 2 miles deeper before they even begin fracking, and if they're going after deeper formations such as Utica its almost 3.5 to 4 miles of rock.

As long as there is capillary pressure, the water will continue to be drawn upward. Granted, that it IS encased and it IS a long way to work back up to aquifers, cases get cracked all the time and not all wells are so deep or have fracking chemicals which are not highly polluting to drinking water. MTBE in minute amounts is extremely polluting to water, for instance.

This is also not to mention the very high pressure the water is already subject to during the frack operation, and that concrete is a porous medi ...


I understand that, I just can't see it happen when the fissures are extremely small before a frack and then after a frack are only extended and then it goes back to normal.

Second, MTBE is illegal in the US, at least I thought it was. I know it can't be used in fuel anymore.
 
2013-02-04 10:17:49 AM  
While it would be an improvement to reduce the toxicity/environmental impact of the additives in fracking water, the real issue isn't what they pump down the well - it's what comes back up when the water is discharged.

In PA, based on the local geology one can expect heavy metals, uranium and decay products like radon in the used fracking water.  Much of which gets discharged directly into streams.

Granted, this is changing - most used fracking water now needs to go either to a treatment plant (which does a great job of reducing BOD and fecal coloform, but has no chemistry for dealing with these new contaminants) or get trucked to another state to get injected into a well to cause local earthquakes.
 
2013-02-04 01:27:00 PM  
I like my bubbly h2s saturated water. Mine isn't flammable.. I've tried. I dislike the hardness of the water more than the sour gas smell. You do have to get the gas out of the water before making coffee though.. seems to really change the flavour.
 
2013-02-04 02:11:30 PM  

It all made sense at the time: While it would be an improvement to reduce the toxicity/environmental impact of the additives in fracking water, the real issue isn't what they pump down the well - it's what comes back up when the water is discharged.

In PA, based on the local geology one can expect heavy metals, uranium and decay products like radon in the used fracking water.  Much of which gets discharged directly into streams.

Granted, this is changing - most used fracking water now needs to go either to a treatment plant (which does a great job of reducing BOD and fecal coloform, but has no chemistry for dealing with these new contaminants) or get trucked to another state to get injected into a well to cause local earthquakes.


Bullshiat. Complete bullshiat. It was never discharged directly into streams or water ways. The clean water acts forbid it.

The things you hear about it in the news are trucking companies taking short cuts and illegally dumping their loads and when they get caught they get in massive trouble. They are paid by us to take them to destinations we specify if they break the law they do it of their own will. We are required to receive bills of lading and manifests to ensure they get where they're supposed to go but that doesn't prevent guys from taking short cuts to try and cheat the system.

All water recovered (flow back) or produced is either trucked to an injection well or a treatment center where the water is cleaned up and then sold back to energy companies to re-use in fracks.

I can't speak to the earthquake issue but injection wells have long pre-dated fracking so you can place the blame on the energy companies alone.
 
2013-02-04 04:17:04 PM  
If it's safe, the CEO can drink a glass of it every day for the rest of his life.

If he doesn't want to do that, it's not safe.
 
2013-02-04 05:36:03 PM  
Have conspiracy nuts come up with the fracking equivalent of chemtrails yet?
 
2013-02-05 04:22:36 AM  
I love waking up at 3am so I can drive two hours to a frack in the middle of bumfark nowhere so as to provide you all with low-cost, domestically-produced energy.  Some of you fill your cars with rainbows and heat your homes with love, the rest I'm sure are very grateful.

/not really
//should have got a real job
///gotta get going
////real tragedy is that the long days cut into my drinking time
 
2013-02-05 06:57:55 AM  

LiquidTester: I love waking up at 3am so I can drive two hours to a frack in the middle of bumfark nowhere so as to provide you all with low-cost, domestically-produced energy.  Some of you fill your cars with rainbows and heat your homes with love, the rest I'm sure are very grateful.

/not really
//should have got a real job
///gotta get going
////real tragedy is that the long days cut into my drinking time


Drink on the job.

/Problem solved
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report