[View the story "The (Evolving) Truth About Fracking for Natural Gas" on Storify]
Subscription Center
Scientists speak out about risks, studies and testing
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Croatia’s research is ‘unsatisfactory’ and dogged by challenges, says science minister http://t.co/gS5bLP4iAh
Dhunterauthor Skepchick | Happy Graduation, Men! http://t.co/m5etBUJ5rI Dhunterauthor Call Me Crazy, But... http://t.co/GK8hD9o8Hp
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
71 Comments
Add CommentWest Virginia is one of the states that is giving natural gas extraction on the fracking of the shell "no-holds-barred" access anywhere they want to drill, even knowing that it was the natural gas fracking that killed all the fish at the river on the Pa and WV border. If you want to know what natural gas fracking does to the water, come to West Virginia; we have billions of gallons of natural gas fracking waste water polluted rivers, streams, wells, and lakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, look at what the coal industry has done to WV. I run by rivers everyday that nothing grows in and are just filled with orange water from mine drainage. These all flow into the main water ways too and are very destructive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in the south central part of West Virginia, Jrfish007, and I've lived around MTR and stripping all my life, and now fracking. I am very familiar with the orange water from the coal mines and the antifreeze green colored water. Here, our water doesn't have a chance to catch on fire; all the methane causes it to blow up before it gets to the house.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour tap water catches on fire, but we still hold the record for being #1 in the nation in chronic childhood diseases because of the MTR and fracking. A person would think that the rest of the country has forgot about Pa. and West Virginia and all the death, destruction, poverty and war coal, oil, and natural gas has brought to us. I think they just don't care as long as we provide them heat and electricity for their big houses down in Virginia and out in California.
Mining, no matter what kind destroys the environment for thousands of years. But nothing will change till we are extinct. Good riddance to a species that eats everything else to extinction and will not control its breeding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith fracking, companies have found a way to get rid of liquid waste. I have read the analysis sheet of fracking fluids, I can only conclude it was liquid waste. Why would someone add xylene, toluene and other petrochemical products to a fracking mix. Kill two birds with one stone.
I like the way that SCIAM is now censoring opinions that they don't agree with. The editors must be taking their cues from realclimate.org and only letting "pure thoughts" onto their pages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I stated in the previous post that the SCIAM editors deleted, it is physically impossible to frack through a mile of rock and contaminate surface water supplies. As to scientific earthlings statement of contents, please post your source. I have been fracking wells for over 20 years and have never seen any of those additives used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd please don't tell me that your source is Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or some other eco-jihadist organization.
I live in Oz. Here is a document relevant to your country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/06/list-of-78-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-in-pennsylvania/
Don't know if you approve of the Huffingtonpost? If you do here are plenty of articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/fracking-fluid
I dont believe in a god, but I have read the bible, perhaps in more detail than most who do. You should know what your opponents are saying, who knows perhaps they might have a rational point somewhere.
@Shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscan you also state your sources for your statement:
"it is physically impossible to frack through **a mile of rock** and contaminate surface water supplies"
that statement also seems to assume the "rock" is always nonporous, contains no faults, and extents horizontally for countless miles.
Cleaning up and recycling water used for fracting is one obvious solution that is already on-line. See Ecosphere Technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother is for well owners to clean up their own domestic water which I do at a minimal expense beginning with Ozone as a DIY project. I would recommend this to any well owner using a water supply with a WWTP upstream or in a recharge area.
@Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it is physically impossible to frack through a mile of rock and contaminate surface water supplies."
And of course you have never drilled in any area that has ever been geologically active. You have always known of every possible earthquake fault that was within 10,000 feet of any drilled well.
For your information, gases from fracking can easily escape by way of earthquake faults, even ones that have been dormant for millions of years.
Your statement is proven to be blatantly false, because you did not take into consideration any information that might contradict your "ideal" conditions.
Though I am now in FL, I lived ing the Finger Lakes of NY most of my life. I've always noted that the rock walls of the (wonderful) gorges of the NY State Parks are always jointed. I assume that in other places the rock is also jointed in areas where they are not exposed. What I have wondered is do these joints go deep enough to connect with the fractures which "fracking" will cause. These, I suspect, must occur at already weak points. There are other non-park gorges where natural gas already bubbles to the surface of the stream. As kids we used to light these as they came to the surface to hear them "pop". I do not know how many faults are in this region. There is one exposed in a rock quarry in Canoga NY. Any comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and the well casing on 100% of the wells is infallible for the entire life of the well and every single contractor cut ZERO corners on installing the well casing because a quick buck is NOT tempting to these people, right? They must all go to the Halliburton Deepwater Horizon school of well casing installation...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr how about the waste ponds? Their lining is 100% infallible too, right? And None of the fracking waste EVER gets in the environment, correct?
Have to love the euphemism of a title - "The Evolving Truth" means we don't have an F'ing clue. But since it's about getting at petrochemicals, we don't really care either. Let's just get them out of the frakking ground and into the atmosphere ASAP, and leave the unknown consequences to be dealt with by whomever happens to live there when the crap hits the fan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"With fracking, companies have found a way to get rid of liquid waste. I have read the analysis sheet of fracking fluids, I can only conclude it was liquid waste. Why would someone add xylene, toluene and other petrochemical products to a fracking mix. Kill two birds with one stone. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Your 100% correct.I'm an engineer and was recently working on a boiler cleaning system for a coal plant. They pretty much cycle this EDTA acid solution thru the boiler to clean off the chemical deposites that reduce heat obsorbtion. The waste is run off to a Frac tank (common industry term for a waste storage tank). When I heard the contractor talking about the Frac tanks I started to wonder if there was any connection at all to Fracing. Low and behold, the name frac tank did originate with fracking, and, according to the contractor the EDTA was sold to a manufacturer of fracking fluid.
-500 chemicals are not needed for fracking, that is a rediculous claim. Fracking fluid is industrial waste, plan and simple.Companies have been trying to do this for years, corruption has been the cause of allowing it now.
"As I stated in the previous post that the SCIAM editors deleted, it is physically impossible to frack through a mile of rock and contaminate surface water supplies. "
-That is rediculous and if you work in Fracking, your misleading people here. a)roughly 10% of the fracking fluid (and you guys do use rediculous quantities) is ejected up the well... you either discharge it into a stream or you air evaporate it in which case it enters the air, and then the stream. b)Ever here of the hydrological cycle? Ever hear of a spring? Do you even understand how large the body of water you are polluting is? That waste will come up, some places sooner than others... West Virginia does have a very high rate of decease, it may or may not be true but I heard it surpased new york and LA in terms of lowest life expectancy.
@gunslingor I am not sure what type of engineer you are, except perhaps a gullible one, but certainly not anything involving petrochemicals. A frac tank has absolutely nothing to do with "fracking". A frac tank is where mixed chemical compounds are stored prior to fractional distillation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, idiot - and I should add Liar as well, given the refutations posted within moments of yours - the *aquifer* is NOT surface water. Fish kills are also certainly possible, as not all the fracking fluid stays a "mile under rock".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT
Thanks for correcting safety guy, I do beleive you are correct. I'm not a mechanical engineer. That being said, 500 chemicals for cracking is inexcusable. There is no question that this is just industrial waste. Even if it wasn't waste, conditions are still present to allow it to be industrial waste and there is no legal action we can take. Fact of the matter, the planet belongs to all man kind, perhaps even so broad as to say it belongs to all life on earth, and we all have a right to know what your doing to it. 500 chemicals simply is not an engineered product, its a concoction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure where you get your information regarding the composition of the fracking fluids. Hopefully not from the typical sources cited on line which generally just throw up a list of HAZMAT on site provided by the driller or even worse a compilation of all the chemicals listed on all of the MSDS sheets from that site. Fracking fluids are approximately 90% water and 9% sand. Less than 1% of the rest of the product are other chemicals and those are generally surfactants and viscosity enhancing chemicals like the dreaded guar gum. Part of putting the chemicals in the sand and water mix is to help in its recovery and recycling. Could some of the chemicals used by the various drilling companies be hazardous to the environment? Almost certainly, and that is why disclosure laws are being drafted and put in place. While we remain tethered to fossil fuels, fracking will remain an important source. Let's not throw out the baby with the fracking fluid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrankly, I beleive any energy source that relies on burning complex organic molecules is an obsolete energy source. It's totally inefficient, cancer causing, ocean poisoning. It lowers the life expectancy for every man, women and child on the planet. It presents the danger of both minor and devastating global warming. It eats away our mountain tops.... Anything can be burned to create energy.... That doesn't mean we should do it. We have mastered the atom, the sun, and the wind. Burning is for cave men....fire bad!!! Time to evolve guys.fracking isn't worth the risk, we have far better options..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the 99% water content of fracing fluid, I beleive this to be the older concoction that used to be used.... The new stuff they are using to frac old wells it not nearly this diluted. Even if it is, its irrelevant. It contains carcinogens therefore it shouldn't be pumped into the ground.... Remember all the hub bub about yaca mountain. Whether radiation or chemical carcinogens, putting these in our air and water will only destroy the little we have left.
You are pointing out a lot of problems, but you suggest no solution. If alternative energy sources were currently feasible, they would be taken advantage of on a much larger scale. They are coming along, but not there yet. You cannot possibly believe that our current nuclear power generation technology is the answer. All it does is kick the HAZMAT issue down the road. Without extreme sacrifice and changes in standard of living there is absolutely no way to make an immediate shift away from fossil fuels. To think differently is to ignore reality. There is absolutely no alternative fuel source that can be switched on and efficiently exploited without some extreme consequences. You are absoultely correct that fossil fuels are destroying our ecosystems, but you seem to ignore that they also fuel our quality of life and standard of living, nor do you even attempt to suggest a viable alternative. I am all for moving on to alternative sources of energy, but I accept that our alternatives sources are not mature enough yet to make the switch and that to maintain our currently inflated standard of living, we must take advantage of what is immediately and cheaply available. Forget the politics of alternative vs. fossil energy and foreign vs. domestic sources. Look at the true maturity of the alternatives and make an educated guess at how long it will take to make them feasible on large enough scales and advocate something sensible. Then you are part of the solution rather than just some complainer parroting green talking points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Safety man, I 100% do believe that alternatives are available; Alternatives that not only reduce the damage to the ecosystem and human health, but also alternatives that are far more profitable in the long term...This is without question. The only reason we aren't implementing them is because they are less profitable in the short term than existing infrastructure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, lets take nuclear. For one, nuclear is more profitable than coal simply because you only have one process path during normal operation... i.e. your only worried about the steam path and not the gas/fuel path. So it is inherently a simpler process (coal is dirty as hell, and it takes a lot to maintain the thermo-conductivity of the metal it touches), though nuclear is held to a much higher standard than coal which is why initial cost is so high; even with initial cost, nuclear is far more profitable. In addition, you only have to buy fuel for nuclear once every few years, and generally that only involves replace 10% of the rods and not all the rods. One coal plant I worked at burns 1.5 tons of coal EVERY SECOND!!! In comparison to coal, your nuclear fuel cost is non-existent... including waste storage (which is completely non-existent for coal..right into our lungs). Your concerned about the waste from nuclear, as am I.... well guess what, that problem has been solved many years ago by reprocessing. All nuclear fuel is capable of being recycled, even nuclear weapons could be reprocessed and put into plants, giving all the world another good reason for nuclear disarmament... 60% of the spent rods in France (I think france, maybe germany or both) end up back in the power plant. The remaining 40% is depleted uranium... a very valuable substance used to make special bullets among other things. The US has ZERO reprocessing capabilities, pathetic... we just store it.
One item you should be concerned about, that your obviously not aware of, is that .02% of most coal is Uranium+other radio active elements. What this means, when you do the math, is that your average coal plant releases more radiation in 2 years directly into the air we breath, than a nuclear plant uses and stores in its entire life; not to mention volital organics and carcinogens. Granted, its not highly active uranium as might be released in a nuclear disaster that would have to far exceed Fukushimi, but remember, risk from radiation depends on type, quantity and duration. We are exposed to fossil fuel byproducts 24/7…. Fact of the matter, the coal is more valuable for the uranium it contains than for burning... just not in terms of immediate profitability since the coal burning infrastructure was errected by these COE’s grandfathers.... these current CEOs are old and in denial, they see no personal benefit in long term invesstments so they ignore these facts. (Read: Lamar Alexander (R), “Blue Print for 100 New Nuclear Power Plants in 20 years"... its been suppressed, so its hard to find)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if you were correct and coal was the only option (which isn't true at all, Canada is on pace to demolish all coal plants by 2014 in place of renewables), even if it were true, its still about absolute maximum short term profit. Its not about jobs, its not about economics, its about immediate profitability. You can get the coal out of a mountain without tearing it down, polluting our water, and giving children cancer (watch "the last mountain", documentary about WV), its just not as profitable. This is their only concern, immediate profitability, not long term profitability, jobs (which have been reduced due to MT removal) or progress. Obviously, its the culture and control of these executives that are the problem... concern only for immediate profitability on Wall street is what lead us into this recession. The same is true for a number of other businesses like tobaco, oil, coal, pharmasuticals… I have nothing against the CEOs of best western… not all businesses are bad, just the ones that are blaze’ about killing people.
Correction: http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/progressreport2011/ONT05_039158.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisontario, not all of canada... but the principle is the same.
here's a project they like to keep secrete. The arab kings are getting the cities of the future by selling us their cancerous products: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/42584
Read this: http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/100__renewable_energy_for_citys-for_web.pdf
Wow, nice that you completely ignore the hazards and cost involved in reprocessing spent reactor fuel. France didn't invent it, the U.S. has been reprocessing spent fuel rods since the 1950s. Its not new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI salute Ontario for leaning so far forward, but Ontariol is extremely atypical in regards to infrastructure. Most cities around the world do not and cannot convert in this short time span because the infrastructure does not exist. Ontario started down this path as soon as they started taking a large part of their energy from the generators at Niagra Falls and later started building reactors in the 1970s. These things make it much easier for them to get off coal.
Unfortunately I just don't know where you think we are going to find the money to build all of the next generation reactors and reprocess all the fuel needed to keep them running. Like I said, it is doable, but not without some serious sacrifices. Perhaps we can capture the energy produced by the thunderous roar of disapproval when everyone on the planet is told that their energy bill will double next year in order to pay for the doubling in $/kwh cost required to reprocess spent fuel for all these new reactors. I don't know where to start tryign to find funding to build the infrastructure required to bring the 3rd world up to this pipe dream standard of green energy by 2014 that you seem to want.
Again, you are throwing out a lot of greener talking points, but no real solution. There is no doubt in my mind that what you want is in the end what we need, but I also see the reality that it cannot happen over night and that is why we make certain compromises in the short term, like fracking.
No, I don't expect it over night, but we did have the capicty to do it 40 years ago. As you state yourself, reprocessing is not new.... But there are zero facilities in the us. You say the US reprocesses spent fuel? Can you name a single reprocessing facility? It's non existant in the us. 23% of our energy comes from nuclear currently, you really think it would be that hard to build more? Look at China, they've built a massive infrastructure over the last 30 years. These things are possible, practicle, financially feasible, and as I all ready stated, more profitable. FYI, I work for coal power plants, so I gain nothing by recognizing its obsolecense. Seriously brother, you sound like a reasonable person, more like a skeptic than just a plane denier. But seriously, nuclear pays for itself... It just take a little investment. Nuclear isn't 100% perfect, but compared to coal, it is %10,000 perfect in just about every way imaginable. You don't want nukes that's fine, you recognize fossil fuels kill people and hurt the planet, good! Now, what are your solutions? You claim there aren't any and you have an engineer here telling you there are plenty.... All you need to generate power is either heat or movement.... There is plenty brother, I'm telling you this as fact.... I mean, recently they came up with 5mw wind turbines... Just one wind turbine.get ten of those and you have the same energy as a combined cycle gas plant. The technology is here, stop waiting.... If you include the environmental and health costs associated with burning million year old dead fermented organic matter.... There is no question that fossil fuels should be our last choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111221/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_power_plants
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead that buddy... One small victory for all life on earth..... Renewables, reprocessing and nuclear just became even more comparatively profitable... More jobs will be needed to retrofit plants and to run those scrubbers thereafter, more jobs to decomision sites though now they'll have a bunch of super fun sites to deal with (that's why they mothball coal plants in stead of tearing them down, because mothballing allows you to staff one person so its classified as a work site rather than a super fun site that must be cleaned up by law. All coal plants, once tore down, become superfun sites. Seriously, if you live near a coal plant or mining, don't drink the ground water. Their not even required to line the ash pile nor the coal yard.... Don't eat the fish... Just trying to save a few lives.)
Safety guy, seriously, cleaning up coal is impossible... Why do you think they resist this. It makes much more sense just to build generating stations that either produce zero waste, or at lease, at a minimum, if all else fails, waste that at least has a hope of being contained.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/12/22/shell_oil_spill_off_nigeria_likely_worst_in_decade/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, another one. Still think fossil fuels should be our first choice?
There is no question that this spill alone will affect more peoples health than fukushima, chernobyl and 3-mile island combined(nothng significant happened at TMI by the way, they just destroyed a reactor... very well build).
That's not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you make a comment that goes against the known evidence.
People check you off...not in a good way.
You are throwing up walls of text and even presenting some strawmen when we are not all that far apart. You keep addressing me as if I am dismissing alternative energy out of hand. I am not. I have stated clearly that we need to move away from fossil fuels and to feasible alternatives as the technology develops. That cannot happen over night. My point is that exploiting U.S. natural gas reserves through fracturing in the short term is probably a prudent measure. You have tried to turn that into me saying we should forget alternative energy completely, which is something I have never said. Not even sure where you got off on coal and oil spills since they have nothing to do with fracking for gas. I am more than a little concerned about an educated engineer thinking that nuclear fuel reprocessing is some sort of panacea. It isn't. In fact it has a host of problems. The painful fact is it creates a net increase in radioactive waste and an accompanying increase in cost for handling, storing and disposing, not to mention the $40,000,000,000.00 price tag on the initial construction of reprocessing plants due to the decomissioning of the plants that were doing it initially, and the increased security measures required for protecting all that new plutonium you propose we create in this effort, all the while finding the money to continue the current radioactive material disposal efforts we have now because all that remaining uranium can't just be landfilled as you suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe that anyone could have been Fracking for twenty years and doesn't KNOW what's really going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could never work at a job knowing that I was poisoning people.
Everything we do, produces a waste product, but if it leaves a toxins that do more harm than good, phase it out. Geothermal, wind, and solar are cleaner.
A mile is a very short distance for fluids to travel.
Most people do care. It's very hard to get to the truth and force the "Wrong Doers" to fix the problem. (or jail them up)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe computer is a perfect place to share good ideas.
We don't live in a perfect world and need to keep making improvements.
I would like to believe you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnytime there is so many complaints, anger, and law suites, what you say sounds good, but somehow I don't think it's the truth.
Also, it does sound like a good unsafe way to get rid of toxic chemicals, AND have the gas well pay for it. Perfect for dishonest people to make Big Bucks.
Have you ever walked a mile, it's a really short distance even through ROCK.
SafteyGuy, you turned what gunslingor said around. That's not what he said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have cleaner energy, we need use it and improve upon it.
Even though it's not as cheap and effective.
From small beginnings comes positive changes.
Your too grandiose, and I don't want to die extra soon because of your thinking. The tickets your selling are to pricey.
Thanks for your link. We want to make a DIY water system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe lost power for 5 days, after to first snow storm came when the trees still had all their leaves. Our home went down to 39 degrees inside. Natural Gas heat is useless with electricity.
Almost all my fish died in our tank. Makes you re-think your lifestyles.
Sorry about the wrong comment name above.
Safety. We disagree on one thing only. You feel its impossible to get off fossil fuels in the next 30, somehow bizarrely saying natural gas is required to do it, while I say we could easily do it in 20. I say the onlything stopping us are people who refuse to plan 20, 30, 40 years ahead because they merely work for stock options that can be sold with little tax, equating to millions each year at the cost of peoples health. And for what? Inefficient energy, pollution, new reliance on a different type of fossil fuel....how about oil sands... Do you think that's the right way to go? Have you seen that stuff, its more like tar or resin. No, exploiting new types of fossil fuel is a death sentance...we know better, we have better, there is no reason it should be expanded. You shouldn't even be complaining about nuclear byproducts, yes they are a concern but at least they are containable.byproducts....coal, natural gas, oil, they produce byproducts that are not containable and will never be "clean".... Try to contain the waste and clean the waste from a cigarette, then we'll talk about 30tonns of natural gas, 500 gallons of wastewater and the land saturated with industrial byproducts. Nuclear is 100% containable... 98% reprocessable... And available...you don't like nukes fine.. Invest in wind farms. I'm telling you now, the technology isn't going to get better when it comes to real Renewables, we'be acheived like 70% efficiency with solar thermal, 60% with silicon solar, 73% with nuclear without recycling, I think 33% almost with wind. Cool, the best I've heard after 50 years is 30%, natural gas is the same unless they also built a steam turbine which bumps it to 60%. Problem is, bottom line, combined cycle is almost always less profitable in the first ten years but increases dramatically past that. So the shortsited who are running these industries rarely invest in the upgrade. Some tech is good for society, some is bad, coal was only really needed for a few decades, not a century, natural gas was never needed. We should not allow it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be real comfortable asserting points for me that I have never made. I have only asserted that fracking for gas is an acceptable short term solution to importing or drilling for crude. I would love to see the technology of alternatives progress at a pace that would get us off or nearly off fossil fuels in two decades. Do I think it is possible? Sure. Probable? Less likely, and not because the technology does not exist, but because the political will does not exist. The American people would have to accept that a rapid transition to alternative energy will be costly or require sacrifices that Americans are not accustomed to making. Hell if we were really dedicated to making the sacrifices required, we could do it in 10 years and it would generate a massive amount of short term employment as well, but the long term impact of doing it that way is hard to judge. I don't have a problem with nukes. Once again you are making arguments out of points I have not made. Nuclear power is fine and is a large part of the solution, but reprocessing spent fuel is not the panacea that you claim it is. It is expensive and creates more problems than it solves. All renewables suffer from a single point of failure: availability. If all areas had the same availability of all or most renewables, then current technology and efficiency levels, as you state them, would be fine. The problem is, they are not. I believe they will improve and if/when we come out of this economic funk we can think about making the capital investment needed to make nuclear a bigger part of the eliminating fossils. The only person I see being short sighted here is you. Neither the technology nor infrastructure is in place to jump off fossil fuel today. Can it be in 20 or 30 years? Easily, but it is still important that we exploit those resources that are most economical for now, which includes gas from fracking and oil sands. I guarantee you that the technology for renewables will get better over the next 20 years, but before you throw up another straw man, that does not mean I advocate waiting. I would love to see us start building the infrastructure required to get off fossils. What we cannot do is just push fossils off the cliff and walk away thinking we have acheived a great thing that will have no consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You seem to be real comfortable asserting points for me that I have never made."- I apoligize if I did, that's how i interpreted your statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have only asserted that fracking for gas is an acceptable short term solution to importing or drilling for crude."-natural gas is really only used for a few specialize things, heating, combustion turbines, what else..?.. Crude oil is mostly used for transportation fuel, lubrication, medical, plastics, etc, etc.. so I do not understand what you are proposing? You can't substitute natural gas for crude unless you’re planning to completely reinvent our infrastructure... why waste the time and money? If you were going to run cars on natural gas, why not pure hydrogen generated from high temperature electrolysis (heard they get really high efficiency). Natural gas has only been used for peek loads historically. That’s because it’s usually expensive to run, can startup super-fast, and is modular. So anything you propose above and beyond this is going to be expensive new sites; Thus money. Again, your right in that this is the way it will end up going, but I'm trying to tell it is not the right way to go; Economically, environmentally, medically. At best, natural gas could be a substitute for coal, and that’s fine if you want to waste the cash for short term profit.. But real renewables are always more profitable in the long term, this is inherent in their design. That’s all I'm trying to tell you here, there is no conceivable reason to continue using fossil fuels other that immediate profit at the cost of all other factors... if you’re okay with that, then so be it.
"off fossil fuels in two decades. Do I think it is possible? Sure. Probable? Less likely, and not because the technology does not exist, but because the political will does not exist." - I agree completely, except for where you are laying the blame.. not politicians, businessmen and the politicians they pay off. Again, it’s important to realize the cancer rate is at 38% now, rising steadily at 3% per decade since 1950... All while smoking rates have dropped steadily by 7% per decade...and this is the cost, so please pardon me if I come off as emotionally vested in this issue.
"reprocessing spent fuel is not the panacea that you claim it is"- never claimed it was, but I do claim that it is the best available option for handling nuclear waste? Nuclear is our best option for transportation (electricity or hydrogen), base load (now mostly coal), reducing healthcare costs, increasing profit and decreasing costs to consumers
It isn't our best option environmentally, true natural renewables are... but compared to what we've been using the last 50 years... pufff.. nuclear is, for all intents and purposes, environmentally neutral. Even accounting for a fukishama every decade, which is unllikely at this stage of our technological development, it won't compare to the deaths cause by fossiln fuels. Reprocessing is merely one advantage to nuclear from an environmental stand point, it is more expensive to buy reprocessed fuel than fresh... but again, fuel costs of nuclear aren't an issue every two years. what other fuel can be recycled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishistorically it takes 7 years to build a nuclear plant.. it could be done in shorter time with smarter regulations.. but thanks to the lobbying coal CEOs, nuclear has some pretty rediculous requirements to meet when you compare the true death tolls of the two technologies, fossil and nuclear. Fossil should actually be controlled to a higher standard, it is more dangerous globally, just not locally and acutely as a nuclear site may be. Every nuclear site ever built provides power at a cheaper rate and provides a greater profit than any coal site ever construction has made.
Again, my only point here is the reason for our lack of action, immediate, short term, profit at the expense of all other variables.
Safety guy, read the above article... Earth quakes...come on man, really, fracking is worth the risk of earth quakes? I really want nothing more than to change your mind here, I won't rub it in your face... Fracking is bad um k. Fracking may pose more of an acute local danger than nuclear... And if humans ever do consume the waste water so many like to claim is safely stored a mile below the surface (as if they know the complete underlying structure of the continent and where this stuff ends up), if that ever does happen to a signification population it would produce a death tool far in excess of Chernobyl. And guess what, if that happens they'll calmly claim that those chemicals could have come from anywhere.. and they'll be right, they could have come from anywhere statistically speaking. I mean, the benzene they found in the aquifer, sure it could have seeped in from natural sources, but really theirs a pretty good chance pumping millions of gallons of industrial wasted into our planet caused unintended changes to occur. I never expected earth quakes to occur on the scale of production we have, but this merely implies the scale is much larger than I was originally aware, and this scares the hell out of me... I've worked nuclear plants, not nearly as scary for me. Anyway, my point was even if everyone in the world including the Koch brother in the conscious minds believed there operation are killing people, they will always have that defense... it could have been caused by some other polluter, or some freak natural event, or that air regulations are not needed because there isn't enough data to determine the precise number of cancer cases caused by it. Delays, for immediate profit without the need for investment. Our government needs to stand up and speak out, enough, Health over Jobs! Health over JOBS! Health>Jobs. It will never happen until smart people like you open their eyes, do the research or get out of the game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Shushin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment "it is physically impossible to frack through a mile of rock and contaminate surface water supplies" is very incorrect. I've been a geologist for 25 years, and I can assure that not only is it possible but there are quite a few documented cases where it has happened. This is not surprising from a scientific standpoint because there are many different geological settings wherein vertical effluent plume motion is not only possible but even probable.
If your sources of information on this topic are restricted only to that of your industry and your own experience, then you are not in a position to argue with the scientific evidence, of which you appear to be at least partially unaware. I would respectively suggest that your lack of knowledge outside your industry perspective does not serve anyone's interest, including your own.
Water is one of the three most essential natural resources that support life on the planet (also air and topsoil). Since groundwater is by far the most important (and probably only) reliable future water source for human use, it is paramount that we make the right decisions about issues of potential permanent contamination. Such decisions must be based solely on scientific fact (observations repeatedly confirmed). For someone to hold this position requires neither "pure thought" nor "eco-jihadism." Rather, what is required is people who care about future generations to make scientifically-informed, rational decisions out of a very human desire for a natural legacy which is at least equal to our inheritance.
Safetyguy, I respect your obvious intentions to balance our concerns with a rational argument based on information as it is known to you. But I find your information to be non-factual. Texas is currently the only state with disclosure laws governing what chemicals are being used. Common chemicals used in fracking, according to a June, 2011 article in the New York Times include benzene (causes cancer, bone marrow failure), lead (damages the nervous system and causes brain disorders), ethylene glycol (antifreeze, causes death), methanol (highly toxic), boric acid (kidney damage, death), 2-butoxyethanol (causes hemolysis).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would also add that I do agree with much of what you say. What I disagree with is the notion that permanent destruction of groundwater resources is an acceptable "short-term compromise." Permanent damage to our water resources is neither short-term nor compromising.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is need is to reflect the real costs of what we do in the energy we use. If we were to include the cost of destroying our future water resources, fracking would never be done at all. The cost of energy must go up to reflect the lessening availability of super-cheap oil and gas, and it must not be replaced with unacceptable alternatives because of the single argumant that the short-term cost is less. We need to let the costs go up, which will drive conservation at home and spur the engine of innovation in industry.
IT is a give and take situation. I guess we could stick with Obama's hybrid GM's that cost over 250k each to produce while being subsidized by taxpayer dollars or we could just pray and clap or hands that magic fairy dust will one day power our vehicles. Idiots do not seem to realize that oil is what powers America. EPA regulations hamper progress and are anti-growth, prosperity, and progress. The government needs to get out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best...succeed. Obviously the government has had issues with this concept and does well at failure. This is up to each and every state and local municipality the Federal Government should mind the constitution. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, of course - there's one simple solution to every problem in the world - deregulation. Just because deregulation has been ruining both the economy and the environment - c'mon, we can't let minor details like facts get in the way of our Fox News talking points, paid for by the short-term profiteers grinding the economy, the middle class and the planet into dust in the process. Last I checked this is a democratic republic, which means the American People are the government if our heads are screwed on straight, so you're saying the American People need to get out of the way, so that our oil can be cheap, and so long as we have no regard for the water, air or soil that sustains us. But if we consider the total cost, hydrocarbons are actually real expensive. The cost of air pollution in terms of health care, and deaths, is staggering. Oil's day is near. Ultimately, America's real power will come only from honoring future generations with our innovation, leadership, commitment and determination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDling, good words. People like that, completely motivated by belief, desires and uncompromising stubbornness. They care nothing for facts, observation and statistical conclusions. I mean, not one fact in his paragraph, just a bunch of emmotional gobbly guck. Either that, or he's being paid to spread propaganda... Who knows. How these people go through there lives unable to talk, debate and compromise ill never know. It's almost spewed based on money. Greed, the root of all ever I suppose... But I guess that old Christian saying makes me a socialist so there goes that conversation before it starts. Ooh gee, I don't think Iraq really had anything to do 911 I don't think they have wmds.... "Love it or leave it, he's our president and you should follow him whether you agree or not." There isn't much hope with people like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really expected a higher level of discourse from readers of Scientific American. I am disappointed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few things to keep in mind:
'Fracking' is a term that has been conflated to mean both the process of using hydrolic fluids to produce micro-fractures in a formation, releasing the gasses and fluids trapped within as well as the storage of that used fluid in what are supposed to be containment wells. It is the latter practice that is now believed to be the cause of the majority of the problems.
'Fracking' has been used for many decades in oil drilling operations, but not at the depth or to the extent that it is used in shale gas operations. The greater the volume of liquid used in the operation, the greater volume of contaminated waste liquid there is to dispose of. When these liquids are injected into a well in an area that is geologically unstable, as most areas are that harbor significant hydrocarbon deposits, then that process of injecting the liquid under high pressure seems to be responsible for providing a lubricated environment that can facilitate slippage of whatever fault lines are present. And of course, if fault lines are present, that may also provide a conduit for the waste liquid to contaminate water tables in the area.
It seems obvious that better methods for dealing with the waste liquid from the fracking operations should, and undoubtedly will eventually be mandatory. Expect a great deal of argument and foot-dragging from the petrochemical industry first, of course, as well as much money changing hands in Washington.
Wow deregulation has been ruining the economy? Hopefully I do not have to answer such an absurd notion. Popular opinion has no bearing on whether the constitution should be upheld. The EPA is an unconstitutional organization that does not even remotely reflect the views of most Americans anyway. Also I guess it would be an apparent contradiction that you state that deregulation is hurting the economy and a few sentences later you state I said that the government should get out of the way so we can have cheap oil. If I am not mistaken usually the government and regulation go hand and hand obviously leaving us in our present predicament. So admit that the regulatory burden is strangling the economy or admit that you mistakenly slipped. It would be much more honest of you to say that it is better to have higher gas prices as long as the environment is protected. I can handle honesty but not leftist talking points. The bigger problem though is when a group of people are taught a certain belief system for so long and after years of the media ingraining a political agenda all free thought is abandoned and a type of popular mythology is born. You speak of the democratic process so my friend this is your introduction. The American people do not want government regulations determining what we can do in private business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet, James, it is the good people of West Virginia who keep electing people who kowtow to the mining industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wow deregulation has been ruining the economy? Hopefully I do not have to answer such an absurd notion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-no more absurd than claiming regulation is ruining the economy. Fact of the matter, neither is true. Regulations for industry are akin to general laws for humans, so the proposition that industry should be deregulated is absurd, even though it would provide certain advantages towards profit. Same is true for general law, if we abolished all laws sure there would be advantages, especially economically… I mean, drugs would be a significant part of the US economy, people could be killed if they don’t agree with the bottom line, slave labor would be tolerated which would boost profits massively (unemployment would be a non-issue, lol). That doesn’t mean we should do it, the same is true for industrial regulations. Sure, yes, meeting certain minimum requirements (very minimum) always requires additional expenditures that eat into profit and drive up costs, but the existing regulations are entirely design to protect public health and care little about the environment. So full blown deregulation of the current condition merely implies your putting profit before people’s lives… how can you stand on such an argument?
“Popular opinion has no bearing on whether the constitution should be upheld. The EPA is an unconstitutional organization that does not even remotely reflect the views of most Americans anyway.”
- I disagree, and guess what, I have a little thing called evidence to back me up; what do you provide as evidence? From a Republican led survey: “Fully 71 percent indicate support for requiring reductions in carbon emissions, including a solid majority of Republican voters ...” http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-09-25-strong-public-support-for-epa-efforts-to-reduce-carbon-emissions
-your turn.
“If I am not mistaken usually the government and regulation go hand and hand obviously leaving us in our present predicament.”
-Actually, it was the deregulation of Wall street that caused this crisis. Explain to me how you think existing regulations caused the collapse, please. Or are you referring to our current environmental predicament? Explain how regulation caused the Gulf oil spill, or how it caused the cancer rate spike, please, I’m all ears… an accusation without proof is nothing. You think it hurts jobs, please explain. Forcing power plants to reduce emissions inherently dictates more workers will be needed. Increasing fuel standards does the same. Explain how regulations supposedly reduces the work force, please.
“The bigger problem though is when a group of people are taught a certain belief system for so long and after years of the media ingraining a political agenda all free thought is abandoned and a type of popular mythology is born.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Yep, and when those people state mere opinions presented as fact, without a shred of evidence to back them up, it is clear who those people are… look in the mirror friend.
“The American people do not want government regulations determining what we can do in private business.”
-Really? I would have though most Americans want protection from businesses. I mean, most Americans do not own businesses and people generally support what benefits them personally as a tendency, so your statement kind of goes against common sense. You claim “the American people” don’t want regulation of business, do you make the same claim about regulation of people (i.e. citizen laws)? Should murder and slavery be legal? You do realize that legally a corporation is a person and therefore you can no longer hold the two to separate standards. Industrial is poisoning rivers, underground water, land, sea and air all in one… if a citizen did this, he would be thrown in jail. This implies stronger regulations are needed for large business, not less stringent. Now when it comes to small business, I would agree regulations need to be loosened, specifically on tax fillings and verification of citizenship.. What specific regulations do you think will boost the economy if deregulated? I’m dying to hear.
The statement by soshin that "it is physically impossible to frack through a mile of rock and contaminate surface water supplies" is a nonsense. In the first place it ignores the fact that to get through a mile of rock it must pass through the earths surface layers, and leakage can occur at or near the surface. Dont try to tell me that drillers have perfected the art of sealing holes at or near the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore this argument completely ignores the fact that what goes down must come up - or most of it anyway. It is evidently the practice of the oil companies to store the polluted water that comes up again in open "waste ponds" which can easily leak out to pollute the local water resources.
The fact that there are hyrocarbons in water near the surface should come as no suprise. Drake's oil well in 1859 was 69.5 ft deep. There are areas in the world where hydrocarbons are in the groud water naturally. I have been fracing wells for many years and the idea that you could frac several thousand feet above the interval of interest is ridiculous. The vast amount of the comments on the dangers of fracing are by people who have a polical agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe frac fluids contain such dangerous stuf as guar gum, in ice cream and salad dressing. Get real
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a statement by some who does not know what he is talking about. Fracing up through 1000's of ft of formation is rediculous you dont pump enough fluid to do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's better to have a job that doesn't force you to defend it's safety against most of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone is not honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a great sneaky way to get rid of toxic fluids.
Maybe the good people are out-voted by the bad people who perfer money and just don't care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr from the Fake News Network and the New York Times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver heard of blow back? To say that it's not possible to contaminate the water table shows how little you know of what is actually being done in fracking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real story here is not fraccing per se. The real issue is that with fraccing of shales massive amounts of cheap clean fuels is now available. In fact, the eco-corporations don't really oppose fraccing; it is merely their stalking horse to oppose a new source of exceedingly inexpensive fuel and protect their investments in renewable energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis new fuel effectively kills off their business plans and will cost them billions.
Eco-corporations are as psycopathic and as self-serving as any other corporation. They know they can't oppose the idea of cheap clean fuel, so they place all their efforts into opposing the method of capturing these cheap clean fuels.
Smart.
I stand by my comment. It is physically impossible to frac through miles of rock. Your comments are misleading in that they assume that natural fracture systems are always hydraulically connected to the water table. This can be confirmed very easily through a static gradient test program. Unless a continuous pressure gradient is present, natural barriers exist. I know of no areas where a continuous hydraulically connected pressure regime exists from surface to miles underground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you?
Allow me to clarify: One of the pre-requisites to hydrocarbon exploration is a trapping mechanism; ie. an impermeable barrier otherwise the hydrocarbons would have bubbled to surface and escaped eons ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is precisely these types of impermeable barriers that stop fracs cold. When the frac sands meet a lithological change or an impermeable barrier they take the path of least resistance and travel laterally, not vertically. And it doesn't take much to stop a frac. An impermable bed a couple of feet thick can do it quite nicely.
This is one of the biggest headaches that frac designers have. If frac designers could design a frac that could reach for miles they would love to.
But they can't. It is impossible.
dling;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust for entertainment, I looked up what would take to fracture rocks from a mile down to surface.
It was actually done reglarly in the 1950's and 60's... in the Nevada desert.
They called them Underground Nuclear tests.
You asked whether I know of any places where there is a possibility of vertical groundwater motion exceeding a mile. The answer is that there are plenty of places with known faults vastly exceeding a mile in depth, along which groundwater from depth is known to migrate upward in large volumes. A good example is my area - Saratoga Springs, NY. The area contains numerous springs which we know have their origin at extremely great depths, reaching well into preCambrian basement rocks likely many miles down. In fact, accordingf to recent geochemical analysis from SUNY Albany, the carbon dioxide gas in the springs can only come from one possible source - an ancient cooling igneous pluton. If you know anything about NE geology (I assume you don't), you know that no such bodies that could give off CO2 exist anywhere near the surface. The spring water in this area comes from many miles down, and it travels almost directly to the surface along well known normal faults of taconic age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis rubbish no one is allowed to dispose of flowback in surface waters. It is all injected deep down hole. The water came from old mine tailings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you search Google and ask, Does Long term Fracking cause drought. I get nothing. But the hard truth is that Fracking is taking water from living systems (Trees) and disconnecting the condensation the trees release into the atmosphere to bring rain. Look at how last year they brought the tipping point of fire in Texas and now after moving over to Colorado in just a couple of years, they are on fire. Especially where long term Fracking is.Just Google Earth Fracking Fort Collins CO. I am a Permaculture designer. I design and repair landscape with fungi, and bring back the rain with food foresting swale, and bio dynamic agriculture. I can even set up aquaponics and algae bio fuel. None of this is valued, Whats valued is fracking. America would be in financial collapse if it weren't for Fracking. But what is the consequence of this dirty energy that is sending 4-7 million gallons of water per well 8000 feet into the earth never to be seen again? America now has 400,000 Fracked wells and they constantly keep having to drill because each well only has 20 days of growth until the well starts to decline. Civilization has gone insane and has lost connection to how the water cycle works. You have grabbed climate change and given it a new rabid dog on a leash that is facing its teeth right into your face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the extensive data in the YouTube documentary GasLand, by John Fox, I doubt very much that fracking will be a long term solution, unless the goal is to poison the water and food supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice Article..Thanks a lot..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this40 years in oil & gas, have some college education but have many mentors that are highly educated. One of my mentors has a doctorate in physics, chemical engineering and a degree in petroleum engineering. I know and talk to a lot of geologist and a few geophysics. The reason I say this is I see so many negative comments by people condemning this process not though knowledge but only because they have been influenced through the liberal media and possibly by reading just what others have written not knowing if they have been truthful or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of what I will say will be my personal beliefs but I am going to be honest and not let my anger at some of these comments influence my statements. First of all, I want to make it clear that I have not worked in the Northeastern United States nor have I worked in Wyoming or North Dakota. The furthest north I have worked in the lower 48 is Utah. The furthest north that I have Ever been in charge of a frac is Kansas. My job title now and for the last 25 years is a drilling, completion and production consultant. I have personally been in charge of drilling, completing and putting a lot of wells on production. I have fraced wells in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Offshore Gulf of Mexico.
First let me clarify some of my personnel beliefs. Do I believe climate change is real? Yes beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do I believe it's caused by the burning of Hydrocarbons? No but it speeds up the process. I don't think there is much man does that doesn't speed up the process including passing his own personal gas. But the bottom line is this. Hydraulic Fracturing has been in use for at least the last 50 years. And until people in populated areas or areas where it was uncommon saw it you had no idea it was going on. We do not have dead fields down here or natural gas shooting out of our faucets. And I personally pumped a huge frac a 1/4 mile east of my home. I am sure there are areas where the surface has been affected. But it was most likely not caused by the fracturing process but by a casing leak or casing failure. The problem isn't fracturing it's your state governments getting greedy and then letting in shabby oil companies like Chesapeake. Your states agreed to this with out putting rules in place first. Almost all of this could have been avoided if people had a better knowledge of what we do. I for one am sorry it happened. Natural gas is the best bet we have in continuing to even drive cars in the future. I wish I could write more. Even clue you in on T. Gold therory. No characters left.
40 years in oil & gas, have some college education but have many mentors that are highly educated. One of my mentors has a doctorate in physics, chemical engineering and a degree in petroleum engineering. I know and talk to a lot of geologist and a few geophysics. The reason I say this is I see so many negative comments by people condemning this process not though knowledge but only because they have been influenced through the liberal media and possibly by reading just what others have written not knowing if they have been truthful or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of what I will say will be my personal beliefs but I am going to be honest and not let my anger at some of these comments influence my statements. First of all, I want to make it clear that I have not worked in the Northeastern United States nor have I worked in Wyoming or North Dakota. The furthest north I have worked in the lower 48 is Utah. The furthest north that I have Ever been in charge of a frac is Kansas. My job title now and for the last 25 years is a drilling, completion and production consultant. I have personally been in charge of drilling, completing and putting a lot of wells on production. I have fraced wells in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Offshore Gulf of Mexico.
First let me clarify some of my personnel beliefs. Do I believe climate change is real? Yes beyond a shadow of a doubt. Do I believe it's caused by the burning of Hydrocarbons? No but it speeds up the process. I don't think there is much man does that doesn't speed up the process including passing his own personal gas. But the bottom line is this. Hydraulic Fracturing has been in use for at least the last 50 years. And until people in populated areas or areas where it was uncommon saw it you had no idea it was going on. We do not have dead fields down here or natural gas shooting out of our faucets. And I personally pumped a huge frac a 1/4 mile east of my home. I am sure there are areas where the surface has been affected. But it was most likely not caused by the fracturing process but by a casing leak or casing failure. The problem isn't fracturing it's your state governments getting greedy and then letting in shabby oil companies like Chesapeake. Your states agreed to this with out putting rules in place first. Almost all of this could have been avoided if people had a better knowledge of what we do. I for one am sorry it happened. Natural gas is the best bet we have in continuing to even drive cars in the future. I wish I could write more. Even clue you in on T. Gold therory. No characters left.
Of course, the housing on the pipe is structurally sound all the way down, right? No chance of a leak anywhere near the water table, right? And the crack introduced into the bedrock could never travel that far, and the fluid pumped down under intensely high pressure could never ooze along those cracks and naturally occurring faults? And you know all this because, what, you've been down there and seen it with your own eyes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow.
The people being affected are not making it up. It happens, with absolutely no way to fix it, and with enough regularity that we need to stop fracking completely and get real about clean energy.