[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Ibby

That's what government is for. to step in when the market fails.
We need infrastructure spending anyway. we need clean or renewable energy anyway. we need more research anyway. all of those things will return on their investments hugely, but not in a time frame that makes economic sense for corporations or private capital. Thats why we have a government.

Ideally I agree but increasing funding on research doesn't guarantee results since many breakthroughs are technologically limited. My research for example. No matter how much funding was poured into the topic 10-15 years ago, the smartest professors could not produce more results than I, a single master's student, can now solely because of computing power. Much of the technology is just not ready yet and improvements come slowly. Over the course of years, as technology improves, these alternative energies will become slowly more efficient until it either reaches a peak or becomes close to economically feasible and the private industry will invest an incredible amount of money in it.

Also, it is possible that reducing greenhouse gases requires more research in producing cleaner fossil fuels than research in alternative energy. Then, as technology catches up, alternative energy can take off.

Although, if you really want to promote non-fossil fuel sources as energy, push nuclear. The technology is there and it is safe and clean. The only obstacles are politics and a lack of incentive for private companies to invest in new nuclear facilities (that is where the government comes in).

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible. But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage, and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs. It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.

It is no different than off-shore drilling. If a bad accident happens, the local environment is most likely devastated. In the case of fracking, the local aquifer. I agree that the industry is not good with public relations in that sense and needs to improve but I doubt the industry could ever produce an acceptable plan.

On the other hand, environmental groups also need to be more technical. The basic concepts of fracking are not that difficult (unlike financial regulation) but there seems to be a refusal to learn.

As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.

Based on how many incidents that have happened, I don't think it was failure of "best practices". It is more likely a mix of probability (spills can happen no matter how good the practice is) and bad practice (improper sealing of boreholes for example). Increasing technology will create safer practice but those are more design and regulation issues than fracking technology.

For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.

EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells, and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers.

You realize that these two issues are unrelated?

Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so) and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel. And remember, this is going against gravity! In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient. If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction, which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface.

Also, gas companies are not deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground. I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology.


What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer. This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.