Fracking - where is it headed ?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.

http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/

Nice series so far, bears watching.

[xoxoxoBruce]

People are right to question things that have to potential for major consequences. When you eat that hot fudge sundae and then say I shouldn't have done that, you can live with the damage, it can be corrected. But when there's a chance of major environmental damage, like making a large area radioactive, killing off a million acres of trees, or in this case fucking up the water supply for millions of people, you better be damn sure of what you're doing. That's pretty hard when the people doing it are not forthcoming with information. Especially when those people, I pointing at you energy companies, have not proven very trustworthy in the past.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree that drilling companies who frack should be subject to strict regulations and the chemical names should be released to the public. Hell, most of the frackers I've met agree with that. Gas and oil companies will push against it, but outside of them, there should be a wide consensus.

I hate wording it like this (the whole "it's there fault!" argument) but the problem I have with the 'ban fracking' crowd is that they push way to hard and most of their arguments are not grounded in reality. For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue. There will always be a risk associated with those, but groundwater pollution can be largely reduced (like almost 0%) with strict regulation. Also, from what I have heard, big gas companies are usually good with their designs but some of the independent companies have a tendency to skip corners and that is where accidents occur. That is why most frackers I've encountered tend to support regulations. Yet, if people think there is a fundamental risk associated with fracking and not a regulation issue, they will immediately try to ban it.

I think this will eventually just turn into another "not in my backyard" situation. Not that I don't think it is a legitimate justification (it's always easier to tell other people to suck it up), but if we get rid of shale gas we go back to coal, which is worse in almost every aspect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue.

Fracking fluids are pumped back out in mass quantities - on the order of millions of gallons. Why so much stress on roads? They have that much fracking fluid to dispose of.

Many drilling companies say that fluid can be stored in large ponds lined with plastic. And then unilaterally dispose of that water in some cases by any convenient means - such as the public sewer system.

Always be suspicious when companies refuse to define what materials are being used. And instead, pay a Governor massive sums to 1) keep all regulations away from fracking, and 2) take the mineral rights virtually tax free.

It is not about fluids two miles down. It is about the blantant attitude of some fracking companies. They even ignore the large pools of fracking fluid stored on the surface as if the only threat was only two miles down. And the 'powers that be' are acting as if on the take. Plenty of reasons to be suspicious.

[piercehawkeye45]

Like I said, there are good reasons to be suspicious with fracking and fracking fluid disposal is one of them. On the other hand, many environmentalists need to stop going FOX news on everyone by putting emotion over science. When your bullshit arguments get debunked time and time again, people stop listening to you when you actually have a few legitimate concerns.

Shale gas going to be a extremely beneficial resource so it will be extracted. It just needs to be extracted responsibly. Easier said than done but any other outcome is far worse.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.

Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.

Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought.

kind of like the list of ingredients on Romney's tax forms, eh?

[Lamplighter]

Carbon storage is touted as a future part of the solution
of the environmental (climate change) due to burning oil and natural gas.
But what I don't understand (yet) is how it will work.

If liquified carbon dioxide is pumped underground for storage,
is it not to be expected that eventually this "liquid" will warm up enough to revert to CO2 gas,
and create enormous back-pressure - leading to fracturing of rock
--- and leakage back up into the atmosphere ?


NY Times
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
9/6/12

Shell to Test Capturing of Carbon in Canada

HOUSTON — In a bid to make oil sands production less polluting,
Royal Dutch Shell announced on Wednesday that it would go forward with
the first carbon capture and storage project ever tried in the fields of western Canada.<snip>

The project, which is scheduled to begin operations by 2015,
is intended to capture and permanently store underground more
than a million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which Shell estimated
was equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road.

Carbon capture projects have lost favor in recent years because of concerns
about their heavy costs, which have typically been subsidized by governments<snip>.

Shell said it was hoping to reduce the carbon emissions from a treatment plant in Scotford,
outside Edmonton, that processes extra-heavy oil called bitumen
so it can be shipped to refineries in the United States.

The Quest project will pipe liquefied carbon dioxide to injection wells
and then store the substance nearly a mile underground under
multiple layers of rock and mineral formations.

The oil sands will originate from the Athabasca Oil Sands project,
a giant mining endeavor operated by Shell in a partnership with
Chevron and Marathon.<snip>

[piercehawkeye45]

Same reason why our core is solid at the center and liquid outside of that. High pressures tend to turn elements and molecules into solid/liquid states.

CO2 sequestration has many issues right now and it is doubted whether it will ever be a realistic alternative. However, much research on it is being done right now. There have been many times when a streak of innovations have changed what we view as "realistic".

[Lamplighter]

The fracking industry was counting on New York to set the
environmental standard for the other states to follow.

Now, not so much...

NY Times
DANNY HAKIM
Published: September 30, 2012

Shift by Cuomo on Gas Drilling Prompts Both Anger and Praise

ALBANY — A few months after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was poised
to approve hydraulic fracturing in several struggling New York counties,
his administration is reversing course and starting the regulatory process over,
garnering praise from environmental groups and stirring anger among
industry executives and upstate landowners.

Ten days ago, after nearly four years of review by state regulators,
the governor bowed to entreaties from environmentalists to conduct another study,
this one an examination of potential impacts on public health.

Neither the governor nor other state officials have given
any indication of how long the study might take.

[Griff]

It will take just long enough for Cuomo to move on to Presidential politics and not be tied to a decision either way.

[Lamplighter]

Well, maybe so...

But the original decision in NY was only to publish the fracking
chemicals AFTER a well was completed and sealed !

This was essentially based on industry's lobby, and really did not take
into account the professional environmental and public health issues.
So, taking another look doesn't seem too radical an idea, especially for New York.

I have no idea what Cuomo has in mind for his future, but I think
professional health review input will turn out to be worth while...
so long as they do eventually come to agreement about what the rules will be
.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Seem there might be a problem with credibility.

The original report by UT Austin’s Energy Institute, ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in the Shale Gas Development,’ was released early this year, and claimed that there was no link between fracking and water contamination. But this summer, the Public Accountability Initiative, a watchdog group, reported that the head of the study, UT professor Chip Groat, had been sitting on the board of a drilling company the entire time. His compensation totaled over $1.5 million over the last five years. That prompted the University to announce an independent review of the study a month later, which was released today.

The industry tie-in doesn't look good, but it doesn't mean the report is bad. However further down,

Aside from that conflict of interest, the review finds many other errors and missteps in both the study and University policies:
•Because of “inadequacy” in conflict of interest policies at UT at the time, “conflict of interest and disclosure policies were largely ignored.”
•The report itself was presented as having scientific findings, but much of it was in fact “based on literature surveys, incident reports and conjecture.” The review goes so far as to say that “the term ‘fact-based’ would not apply to such an analysis” and it lacked a “rigorous, independent review” of its findings.
•The summary of the study, which was widely distributed and trumpeted by a UT press release, failed to include many of the caveats within the actual report. Some of the conclusions were “tentative,” the review says, and the press release and presentation of the report at a scientific conference in February was “inappropriately selective” and “seemed to suggest that public concerns were without scientific basis and largely resulted from media bias.”
•The study was also not ready for distribution, as Public Accountability Initiative noted in July. The drafts in the study “were not subjected to serious peer review and therefore were not ready to be considered for public release as fact-based work.”

More here.

[ZenGum]

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that gambling is going on in this establishment.

[ZenGum]

Oh and don't you love the way board members receive "compensation". Cause if it were "wages" or even "salary", they'd have to work for it.