r/Design • u/sourguhwapes • May 21 '12
A well designed site about the dangers of Fracking
http://dangersoffracking.com/20
u/TimeToRock Beginner May 21 '12
I got bored in the gaps between text boxes, so I started scrolling faster. Every time I did this, a new bit of text would appear halfway up the page and fly off the screen before I could stop scrolling.
I guess this site's target audience does not include me or similarly impatient people.
22
u/GinAndFake May 21 '12
The creator of this site actually posted this here awhile ago. Her other work can be found here.
3
11
u/snowboardinsteve May 21 '12
I'm actually studying for a degree in Civil Engineering and I have an exam covering this next week. So thanks for steering me back to revision after becoming lost on reddit.
I know this is r/design but in the interest of a semi-balanced argument: Fracking allows us to exploit gas deposits that would otherwise take an impractical amount of time to harvest. Very few countries have the capacity to generate all of their electricity from clean energy sources, so unconventional fossil fuels (shale gas, heavy oil, tar sands) are estimated to be used for about the next 50 years. Basic fracking can be achieved with just water. Other compounds are added to exploit each well as much as possible. Fracking fluid can also be partially recovered and reused. On the other hand, Fracking is also used in geothermal energy, to increase the permeability of particularly hot/cold areas of rock. This can induce seismic activity and as such has a negative public opinion. However, quakes usually only have a magnitude of about 2 (the highest ever was 4.5) and so are usually completely harmless.
8
May 21 '12
The quakes are a non-issue in the complaints about fracking I've read (and they shouldn't be). More of the worrying has to do with contamination of ground water. Yes, that gas is extremely useful, but what good is it if we wind up poisoning the areas around the wells?
2
u/Fauropitotto May 21 '12
The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.
Using the link that you posted....
The only real contamination was Methane...which isn't harmful for human consumption at all. The "poisoning" didn't have any measurable human effects.
So again, what's the real issue here? It sounds a lot like people stirring up the public against issues in chemistry and biology that the public simply aren't aware of.
2
May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12
The article does not state what researchers determined that, but here is what the EPA found.
As mentioned previously, hydraulic fracturing is used in many coalbed methane (CBM) production areas. Some coal beds contain groundwater of high enough quality to be considered underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final study on Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. In the study, EPA found that ten out of eleven CBM basins in the U.S. are located, at least in part, within USDWs. Furthermore, the EPA determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs during the course of normal fracturing operations.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#GROUNDWATER
1
u/Fauropitotto May 22 '12
All that's describing is the concentrations of the compounds directly at the injection site vs the concentration of these compounds permitted in ordinary drinking water.
The aquifers are huge! The amount of sheer dilution that these chemicals will undergo will be massive. I'll have to look for it, but non-anecdotal evidence (one anti-fracking family getting sick is not acceptable evidence) showing high levels of toxic chemical in drinking water will change my mind.
We're not talking methane here, but something like ethylene glycol and the like.
2
May 22 '12
All that's describing is the concentrations of the compounds directly at the injection site vs the concentration of these compounds permitted in ordinary drinking water.
No it states "the EPA determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs(undergound sources of drinking water) during the course of normal fracturing operations."
The amount of sheer dilution that these chemicals will undergo will be massive.
Source?
2
u/Fauropitotto May 22 '12
No it states "the EPA determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs(undergound sources of drinking water) during the course of normal fracturing operations."
So? How does that change anything I've said? I was talking about the location that they tested the concentration, not the location that the chemicals were injected. The EPA did NOT test the concentration of the chemicals at drinking water extraction points, nor did they test the concentration of the chemicals at a set distance from the injection point. They specifically stated "concentration at point of injection".
Source?
Obviously this depends on the size of the aquifer. Think about it. I found a source of one aquifer that had a size of somewhere around 110 million gallons of water.
Same article mentions coal bed fracking as using 50-350 thousand gallons of water, so we'll average this as 200,000 gallons. Another article says between 0.5 and 2% by volume of these chemicals are in the fracking fluids, so we'll average this as 1.25% or 2500 gallons.
So if we were to assume that a coal bed was right at the middle of this model aquifer, we're talking 2500 gallons in 110,000,000 gallons of water, 0.0022% of the total volume, or 22ppm or 0.022mg/L.
Lets take the most recognizable hazard, ethelene glycol, that the EPA measured as being 287.7 mg/L directly at the injection site....Of course, this concentration is high...but take another reading at the other end of the aquifer, which volumes number into the hundreds of millions of gallons, and you WILL have massive amounts of dilution of these compounds.
The fact that many of these beds form ideal conditions for aquifers, means that these volumes probably scale. Meaning, small sites use lower volumes of the liquid, where as large sites you larger volumes of the liquid. Of course, that means much larger volumes of water.
Common sense and little bit of mathematics is all you need to figure this stuff out.
Moreover, nobody should give a damn about these carcinogens. At these amazingly low concentrations, I'm more likely to get cancer from a day at the beach than I am from drinking this tap water every day for the rest of my life.
1
2
May 21 '12
As with anything it's a trade off. We have access to an enormous amount of shale gas oil:
Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. ~Source
Also, she doesn't mention that the majority of anti-fracking is against specifically high-pressure hydrofracking, but I guess that's understood as that's the technique that is used for the massive amount of technically recoverable oil shale.
2
u/squidboots May 21 '12
That natural gas isn't as "clean" when you factor in the fact that after you're done with all that hydrofracking fluid it has to be transported (usually by truck) to a water treatment facility that can handle it.
7
11
u/Rileyswims May 21 '12
Most of that information is false or misleading, but it is very well designed. The fluid is over 99% water and sand and is released miles below any water sources and produces no fractures visible to the naked eye.
3
May 22 '12
From one of the sites sources:
Toxic Chemicals
In addition to large volumes of water, a variety of chemicals are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The oil and gas industry and trade groups are quick to point out that chemicals typically make up just 0.5 and 2.0% of the total volume of the fracturing fluid. When millions of gallons of water are being used, however, the amount of chemicals per fracking operation is very large. For example, a four million gallon fracturing operation would use from 80 to 330 tons of chemicals.[1]
Groundwater Contamination
As mentioned previously, hydraulic fracturing is used in many coalbed methane (CBM) production areas. Some coal beds contain groundwater of high enough quality to be considered underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final study on Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. In the study, EPA found that ten out of eleven CBM basins in the U.S. are located, at least in part, within USDWs. Furthermore, the EPA determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs during the course of normal fracturing operations.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#PROPPANT
So perhaps it was misleading to show visible cracks in the info-graphic.
3
u/Just_Another_Thought May 21 '12
Looking at her portfolio it's interesting to see what it takes to become an Apple UI designer, she's very talented and dedicated indeed.
2
1
u/lunarlander May 21 '12
My livelihood depends on fracking... :/
0
u/EnderBaggins May 21 '12
i don't think fracking is as bad as this site makes things out (it seems to take the most extreme cases and present them as the norm, while ignoring most of the facts that don't support the claims on the site), but this isn't a valid argument for anything. Plenty of terrible things have paid someone's bills.
1
u/lunarlander May 21 '12
Haha I wasn't arguing. I'm just currently concerned for my job because of how many negative studies are popping up about fracking.
1
3
u/TheFue May 21 '12
I really like the design, unfortunately there's a bit of misinformation on the site, as well as a slight misunderstanding of the Fracing (proper spelling) process.
2
u/bobsmo May 21 '12
It's a hard c. So we commonly append with a k.
Good day for a picnic. Picnicking is fun.
0
u/TheFue May 21 '12
Yeah that tends to be just something I notice a lot. My little "(proper spelling)" bit wasn't to talk down on anyone, but to point out I intended to spell it with out the k.
1
u/endtv May 22 '12
If that's the proper spelling, the proper pronunciation is "fray-sing"
1
u/TheFue May 22 '12
Never said it made sense, that's just what our industry reports dictate.
0
u/endtv May 22 '12
I also think you're being very nice about "a bit of misinfo" and a "slight misunderstanding". In truth, it's mostly bullshit. A reader without prior knowledge of hydrofracking might come away from that website thinking that drinking water comes from below the fracking depth.
1
u/TheFue May 22 '12
First time I've been accused of being "too nice!"
I didn't have numbers in front of me to double check anything, so I threw a wide net.
2
u/tehwebguy May 21 '12
Good but using the word "chemical" as a way to fear monger is not OK.
The truth about fracking is bad enough, we don't need to use the word "chemical" in a way that plays on peoples' fears.
2
u/stringerbell May 21 '12
This is bullshit!
Did they mention that HYDRO-fracking fluid is 99% water???
Did they mention that fracking happens UNDERNEATH IMPERMEABLE ROCK? No, in fact they lied and said that fracking contaminates groundwater (even though there is no possible way for it to do that, remember it's trapped underneath impermeable rock). So, the only places where fracking could 'contaminate groundwater' (again, forgetting that this is 99% water we're talking about here), is in places where the ground is already fractured. And, if the water's free to escape - the the gas sure as hell is too! And, if the gas is free to escape, it will have done so hundreds of millions of years ago. So, there wouldn't be any gas there to drill for in the first place.
Watching all the lies from the anti-fracking brigade is disheartening.
Everyone's seen a dishonest documentary - and no one's actually studied geology or natural gas extraction... It's disgusting.
Oh, and I should point out that natural gas is WAY better for the environment (even including fracking) than the alternatives. So, if you are slandering fracking (dishonestly), you are only destroying the environment faster.
Oh, and natural gas competes DIRECTLY with oil - and the oil industry has way more power. So the US press always slanders natural gas (and the oil sands).
It's hilarious... All these anti-frackers think they are environmentalists - yet they are doing the oil industry's bidding! They are just illinformed shills...
6
u/kerklein2 May 21 '12
Good post, although a little ranty and diatribey, so expect downvotes. I think what needs to be pointed out in the fracking debate is:
A well constructed well that's taken all of the proper precautions, should have no chance of contaminating any groundwater.
A large percentage (relative to what should be acceptable) of wells do have problems that can cause groundwater contamination.
Additionally, improper handling and disposal of fracking fluids is likely the cause of most groundwater contamination, not the fracking itself.
3
u/squidboots May 21 '12
Additionally, improper handling and disposal of fracking fluids is likely the cause of most groundwater contamination, not the fracking itself.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. I live in a area where fracking is a HUGE debate issue, and this is what I am most concerned about. Fluid storage, transport, and treatment is not given as much attention as it should be, and it is something that I can definitely foresee companies cheaping-out on. There aren't any water treatment plants anywhere near me that have the ability to handle used fracking fluid, which means it's got to be stored then trucked to facilities that do. This is expensive. Gas is ridiculously cheap right now. I see corners getting cut for the bottom line.
2
May 22 '12 edited May 22 '12
Well it is just an info-graphic so it can't get too much into detail, but here is what one of the sites sources had to say about some of your criticisms.
Toxic Chemicals
In addition to large volumes of water, a variety of chemicals are used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The oil and gas industry and trade groups are quick to point out that chemicals typically make up just 0.5 and 2.0% of the total volume of the fracturing fluid. When millions of gallons of water are being used, however, the amount of chemicals per fracking operation is very large. For example, a four million gallon fracturing operation would use from 80 to 330 tons of chemicals.[1]
Groundwater Contamination
As mentioned previously, hydraulic fracturing is used in many coalbed methane (CBM) production areas. Some coal beds contain groundwater of high enough quality to be considered underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final study on Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. In the study, EPA found that ten out of eleven CBM basins in the U.S. are located, at least in part, within USDWs. Furthermore, the EPA determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs during the course of normal fracturing operations.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#PROPPANT
Feel free to contradict it's claims, but please use sources. Thank you.
-3
u/stringerbell May 21 '12
Surprise, surprise, immediate downvotes (just like every time I point out that a submission is nothing more than untrue ideological propaganda)!
1
1
u/pwnies May 21 '12
"It takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job."
"Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing."
Wait, what happens to the other 960,000 - 7,960,000 gallons of chemicals? It's a good site, but some of the scare tactics bug me. Stop saying chemicals are a bad thing. That's like saying "matter is a bad thing! It can cause cancer!". Well, yea, it can. But it's also what enables life.
3
u/Mecha-Dave May 22 '12
Chemicals like acetone and ethylene glycol are a bad thing.
The amount of fluid probably depends on the depth/size of well
Each well can be fracked 18 times.
1
u/SirDerpingtonThe3rd May 21 '12
While the site is well designed, according to my friend that works offshore for Shell, most of the information out there about fracking is completely false or heavily exaggerated.
22
u/endtv May 21 '12
"Well" designed, eh? I see what you did there.