Arguments against anti-fracking activists - Water use

I just hate when activists try to use facts that I know are wrong in their quest to stop gas development. I saw one today that I tried to respond to but I would like more ammo (so to speak).

This was the article.

Water taken for Fracking.

Which points to

Lancaster gazette article.

One of the claims was -

Lea Harper, founder of the Southeast Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water, an anti-fracking organization, said “water is being wasted in a one-time use for a single industry.”

“We cannot make more water,” she said. “We can find renewable sources of energy.”

I tried to comment on this, I think my comment was deleted or maybe I just do not know how to comment?

Anyway, my point was to be, when Methane is burned, water is a byproduct. Water is made!!

CH4 + 2 02 -----> CO2 + 2 H2O

What I do not know is how much water. For example if they use 5 Mil gal to fracture, how much water is returned to the environment after all the gas that is produced is burned?

Anyone have the answer or have an article that they have seen?

Please help me!

PS  That was not the only thing I found to be wrong in that article!

Views: 3265

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

2z248p19vqnh9Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 26, 2013 at 5:58pm

Jack, I'm back - miss me? Thought so...just here to 'jingle' your thingle. Have fun in whatever way you wish to with THAT one.

Let's get off the course now. That may be where YOU play...but we are NOT 'talking goof courses' with this FRACK-nun-drum. I keep reading NON-related water 'comparisons' - it just DOESN'T JIVE, bud.

Like I've said before - no malice intended - at all, friend...but DRINK UP! Have your 'eight glasses a day' of H2O...I'm talking a CONTINUOUS '8/DAY' - from FRACK WATER. Could you do it? I'm talking about 5...heck - let's go for a 7 or 8 year stretch. That's right...8 - 8oz. glasses - EVERY DAY...for the next x10 years...because THAT is what it's really going to take to ESTABLISH - ***DOCUMENTABLE PROOF that this IS going to be detrimental - this 'FRACK WATER POISON'.

Got a question for you - remember DDT? How about Asbestos? Lead-based Paint?...these were ALL (at ONE TIME...) substances that were 'OK' by out government...HOW MANY YEARS did it take to 'prove' that these things WERE really DETRIMENTAL to an individual's health? HMM?

Get my 'point' here? What's that last line you SPUN OFF?...'LET'S KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE!' - I concur, couldn't say it better myself...Let's keep things in perspective.

Like racing? - against time? Horse is 'out of the barn'?....and such a fine horse he was....

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness...Noble Jack?

---Jack be nimble, Jack be quick...whack that ball - quick, quick, quick!!! Have another swig...if you swallow that one - I'll tell you another one...WHAT? HUH? Go on with you now...

Permalink Reply by Daniel B. Gadd on March 20, 2013 at 8:06am

Should of beheaded the CRACKHEAD during a rainstorm. IT cant THINK anyways. CRACK KILLS! Rain makes water! The DUMBass is too drugged up to see the rain because of the clouds. Typical domestic JIHADIST. Killing AMERICANS by the millions through starvation techniques.

Permalink Reply by Jim Neuenschwander on March 21, 2013 at 6:21am

Hi

Below might be of interest

http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20130316/NEWS01/3031...

Thx a lot

JFN+13

2z248p19vqnh9Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 26, 2013 at 6:08pm

Fang - I have to ask...concerning the 'Lea Harper' article...do YOu really want to 'bet the bank' - YOUR (body?) BANK on that?...

Hey - where's the closest planet with Nat'l Gas...? we can just 'burn off the natural' & thrive?!...'silly people' in 'ticky tacky houses'...eating their curds & whey...again - you 'betting YOU/R (body) BANK?

---------------------------------

You DO know that while you can live without 'food' for a bit longer than without water...that one cannot live more than x2 days without water? Wanna test that? Frack up. One it's gone - it's gone...and ALL the 'I'm sorry's' in the WORLD aren't gonna get it back, m'friend.

IF things could be done in a better way...but that may be quite a few years down the road...NOTHING will be done until they HAVE TO be 'DONE' - things will just remain 'going along' the way they are UNTIL it can be 'proven' otherwise. You know it & I know it...and EVERYONE ELSE knows it....SICK!!! (that's what she said...)

Permalink Reply by jb379 on March 27, 2013 at 1:35am

Oooooh, now all of these encoded ramblings make sense...GG is Michael Scott.  Thanks for the "that's what she said" reference!   What have you been up to since leaving Dunder Mifflin?

P.S.- Loved the golden ticket idea and survivorman taping...hasn't been the same since you left.

 

Jim-Tom

2z248p19vqnh9Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 27, 2013 at 6:04pm

Thanks, bud (jb379)...Jim-Tom...almost as good as 'jungle bunny' - 'jb'379.

Gold is good - that's what she said. Hated to leave you be bored! *READ 'Ben's Nugget' - Horatio Alger, Jr. again...seems a bit like the 'G&O rumblings'...

How's the Frack, Jack? Borin' down the hole - with a twist....

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness. (HINT: say this 3x in the morning when you get up & someday...and another x3 before you sleep...and SOMEDAY - you MAY be a REAL man!)...nothing is ever the same after I 'walk there'. God be with you - Good Easter.

Permalink Reply by Jim Neuenschwander on March 22, 2013 at 1:00am

Hi All

 

Worldwide we are producing about 90 mil bbls/day of oil and about 240 mil bbls/day of water-pls see pg 14 and pg 15 respecitively in the below Schlumberger 2012 Anniual Report link

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/97/97513/2012AR_/ind...

 

Schlumberger and MIT are working together on nanoporous graphene R&D to clean up produced water-more exciting info

 

Schlumberger are also doing some very interesting other stuff if you can take about an hr to read the 16 pgs in the above link

 

Thx  a lot

 

JFN+13

Permalink Reply by Kilgour Farms on March 25, 2013 at 4:29am

The U.S. Department of Energy describes the process as follows:

When one molecule of methane is burned, it produces two molecules of water vapor. When moles are converted to pound/mole, we find that every pound of methane fuel combusted produces 2.25 lb. of water vapor, which is about 12% of the total exhaust by weight.

The math connected with the chemistry tells us roughly 11 million gallons of water is added to the atmosphere from burning one billion cubic feet natural gas. Here’s the calculation:

1.5 litres (0.053 cubic feet) of methane = approximately one gram (0.0022 pounds)
One cubic foot of methane = approximately 0.0416 pounds
One billion cubic feet of methane = approximately 41,620,000 pounds
One pound of methane, when combined with oxygen, yields 2.25 pounds of water
One billion cubic feet of methane, when combined with oxygen, yields 93,644,000 pounds of water
One billion cubic feet of methane, when combined with oxygen, yields 11,242,000 gallons of water
Two billion cubic feet of methane, when combined with oxygen, yields 22,484,000 gallons of water
Therefore, our typical gas well will yield about 22 million gallons of water over 10 years as compared to the four million gallons sent permanently below the earth. The four million gallons temporarily removed from the water cycle is replenished within less than six months of production when combusted. If, to be conservative, we assume the well only yields one billion cubic feet of natural gas, combustion of that gas still produces about 11 million gallons of water that is added to the water cycle, which is more than twice that used or retained in fracture stimulation. This would require the combustion of perhaps 12 to 18 months of natural gas production.

Permalink Reply by Thomas Wentzler on March 26, 2013 at 3:03am

Her premise is a bit absurd, as the water, when used is not destroyed.  It will flowback over time to the surface with the gas or oil, then be treated and released back into the waterways.  The entire water cycle is ongoing; e.g. rain, flow to the ocean, evaporate and rain again.  Taking some out on the way to the ocean does not result in less rain.

Permalink Reply by john on March 26, 2013 at 3:36am

also:  we had a spseaker from the Susq River Basin Comm and he said the water usage is very carefully monitored during drought periods and the amnt of water sent below ground is insignificatnt to

the total on the planet.

Permalink Reply by Joel Huberman on March 26, 2013 at 4:30am

Keith, you're right in thinking that water is generated when methane is burned. But that water isn't usable. It's water vapor, and it mixes with the other water vapor in our atmosphere. Eventually, it returns to the Earth as rain, but most of that rain falls on our oceans or on land far away from where we live. Meanwhile, the CO2 that's also generated when methane burns stays in our atmosphere, increasing the rate at which our planet is being warmed by the greenhouse effect. Atmospheric and ocean warming lead to faster rates of water evaporation from our planet's surface. The overall effect is that, as we burn more methane, the planet will become drier. You can see the best projections of precisely how dry our planet will become by looking here:  http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2904/climate-change-drought-may-threaten-....

Permalink Reply by Greg Smith on March 26, 2013 at 2:28pm

Interesting..."ours" falls 'far away' but non of it sticks around; or, other water vapor from 'far away' doesn't fall here?? (It's water vapor, and it mixes with the other water vapor in our atmosphere. Eventually, it returns to the Earth as rain, but most of that rain falls on our oceans or on land far away from where we live.)

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service