| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joey
verrry senior member
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 2797 | TRs | Pics
Location: Redmond |
|
Joey
verrry senior member
|
 Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:15 pm |
|
|
Well that was all very interesting.
Fair warning - I am a biased observer since I own mineral rights in Michigan that has the potential to be developed for "wet gas"via fracking. As a result, I have taken the time to educate myself on this topic. Yes it would be nice to get some royalty income but I sure do not want to trash my land.
Fact: Over about the last 50 years around 12,000 wells have been fracked in Michigan and all without any headline environmental harm.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-FINAL-frack-QA_384089_7.pdf
Fact: Prior to the discovery of the fracking technique natural gas was selling at USA wellheads for over $12 per 1,000 cubic feet (mcf). Today the price at the wellhead is not much over $2 per mcf.
Fact: Prior to the discovery of the fracking technique the USA was planning to import mammoth amounts of liquid natural gas by sea since our domestic production was about tapped out.
Boldly proclaiming that you are against fracking (in order to produce the gas to heat your home/school/office) is akin to announcing that you oppose fertilizing farm fields to grow the food you eat.
Is it possible to abuse any human process, including fracking, and muck things up. Well - duh - of course. Is it possible to frack without mucking things up. Yes - just ask the folks in Michigan. But skip the Ann Arbor crowd downstate and talk to people in the northern part of the lower peninsula. That is the area where wells have been fracked for many years to extract gas from the Antrim Shale formation.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
MadCapLaughs
Member
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
|
But you just reiterated the exact same strawman again!  Again you claim these mysterious people are "NOT doing what they claim needs to be done in their own lives" while demanding that MtnGoat sacrifice everything. Who are these people?
| Quote: | | How much CO2 and total impact would you cut from your footprint if you stopped going to the mountains because you liked to? In each and every case of this the person involved is placing their own wants ahead of the planet. If this is not the case, I'd be interested in hearing why the logic of this statement is false. |
By this silly all-or-nothing logic, the only acceptable course of action would be suicide, since exhaling produces CO2. Perhaps you can show me where someone claimed that every single decision in every single facet of our lives needs to place the planet ahead of our own desires. I'll go ahead and assume you can't show me where someone said that, because no one ever did. And that is yet another example of why you are railing against non-existent strawmen.
But how the hell did we get on this subject? What about fracking?
Joker: that Economist article sounds unreasonably idealistic. Yes, perhaps this process can be perfectly safe. But then why isn't it? Because the extractive industries care only about profit, and because the government lacks the will to police them. The Economist should know that the regulations required to force these safety precautions will never happen. The predictable cries of "government overreach" and "job killers" will see to that.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joey
verrry senior member
Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 2797 | TRs | Pics
Location: Redmond |
|
Joey
verrry senior member
|
Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:21 am |
|
|
One of the largest gas producers is Chesapeake. Below is a link to a presentation they prepared showing the steps they take to protect the environment, including groundwater, as they drill and frack. The illustrations are excellent.
http://www.ohiogasassoc.org/news/ts12_hammond.pdf
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:44 am |
|
|
| MadCapLaughs wrote: | | Yes, perhaps this process can be perfectly safe. But then why isn't it? Because the extractive industries care only about profit, and because the government lacks the will to police them. The Economist should know that the regulations required to force these safety precautions will never happen. The predictable cries of "government overreach" and "job killers" will see to that. |
I don't have a strong stand on the topic at this point, and need to learn more in order to have a more clear take. But I know all-or-nothing thinking when I see it. If what you say is true we're doomed doomed doomed as it will be harder to ban than to enact possibly sensible regulation that only adds 7% to the overall cost of the process. I refuse to give in to that way of thinking.
Joey makes an important point, as does the Economist in pointing out that more use of coal is the likely alterantive here.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:21 am |
|
|
Coal! It's what's for burnin'! 
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadCapLaughs
Member
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
|
Who, exactly, is going to enact such regulation? Certainly we needn't even discuss the prospects of Republicans doing so. The Democrats? They had the Presidency, a large majority in the House, and a super-majority in the Senate. How far did they get?
And before you acquiesce to the idea that fracked natural gas is better than coal, read this.
Edit: the gist . . .
| Quote: | | Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2), Howarth said, adding that even small leaks make a big difference. He estimated that as much as 8 percent of the methane in shale gas leaks into the air during the lifetime of a hydraulic shale gas well -- up to twice what escapes from conventional gas production.
"The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil," Howarth said. "We are not advocating for more coal or oil, but rather to move to a truly green, renewable future as quickly as possible. We need to look at the true environmental consequences of shale gas." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:12 pm |
|
|
| joker wrote: | | I don't have a strong stand on the topic at this point, and need to learn more in order to have a more clear take |
Watch the movie Gasland and I bet you have a stronger opinion on it.
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadCapLaughs
Member
Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 954 | TRs | Pics
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
From what research I've done on the subject I do not think that fracking is safe. We shouldn't risk our valuable clean water to acquire gas that will only temporarily put off the inevitable energy crisis.
Instead we should be pursuing alternative energy sources, as well as increasing the efficiency of vehicles, devices and the power grid.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:57 pm |
|
|
I agree that there have been serious problems with pollution from fracking in PA where the oil shale is located fairly close to the surface. OTH In North Dakota the oil shale is located very deep below the surface (15,000 ft) so the risk of pollution to the water table is much less.
Regulation of fracking needs to be developed that will take measures to avoid pollution in areas where fracking posses a risk to the aquafier. However in areas where the oil shale is widely separate from the aquafier I believe that fracking can be used safely.
A blanket ban is a blunt instrument.
Development of higher efficiency systems that use fossil fuels is essential as well as development of non-fossil fuel / non-CO2 releasing sources of energy.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
One thing to think about: all the things that fossil fuels are useful for other than fuel. One day we will greatly regret wasting them.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlpineRose
Member
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 1953 | TRs | Pics
|
Well, I won't live to regret it, and likely no one on this forum will either. However, your kids, and their kids, and their kids' kids - and so on - will.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
There are lots of alternative feedstocks for plastics other than petroleum. Coal tar is a far more flexible source. Others include hydrogenating coal, wood waste, cotton waste, and innumerable plants. A common university organic chem problem is the synthesis of some complex compound from carbon, water, and air.
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
| AlpineRose wrote: | | Well, I won't live to regret it, and likely no one on this forum will either. However, your kids, and their kids, and their kids' kids - and so on - will. |
I know, I meant "we" as in the collective human race "we"
| Malachai Constant wrote: | | There are lots of alternative feedstocks for plastics other than petroleum. Coal tar is a far more flexible source. Others include hydrogenating coal, wood waste, cotton waste, and innumerable plants. |
Petroleum is used in more than just plastics; It is used for example in fertilizer, pharmaceuticals, dyes, and detergents. Admittedly there are probably substitutes in most cases, and really it should just be left in the ground. All I am saying is that burning it for fuel is a shameful waste.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:08 pm |
|
|
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
