SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 14, 2011 9:57:04 GMT -5
Most B&G readers probably know that Fracking is the term for the newly popular technology to extract natural gas (and perhaps even oil) from shale. It has proven successful and reliable and affordable.
However, some environmentalists express concern due to:
1. The amount of water required for this process -- given the increasing water shortages around the country/globe.
2. The environmental impact -- especially on the water table.
I've read a little bit here and there, though I did not see the Doc that ran on HBO on this issue. I acknowledge that I just don't know enough about this to hold a strong opinion one way or the other.
Increasing NatGas use significantly -- like for Truck fleets -- would have important benefits for the nation.
NatGas is cleaner than coal and oil
We have plenty of NatGas right here in the USA
Reducing our dependence on oil should lower the price of oil AND increase our national security. It would have a significant impact on our Foreign Policy and increase our leverage with Middle Eastern countries.
Not to mention creating more jobs in the US to extract the NatGas and to convert our transportation fleet, power plants, etc.
One important question in all this is Fracking.
Boz -- I am assuming you are up-to-date on the issue. I also recognize that a member of the industry will not have the most objective view. But can you share with us what you know about Fracking?
And... anyone else who has an informed POV, please join in as well.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 14, 2011 11:11:34 GMT -5
This is a complicated issue, but for now, I'll just say that I strongly, STRONGLY caution against using Gasland as a solid informational resource on this subject. Hollywood and Robert Redford can throw as many rewards at Josh Fox as they want. He's about as objective as Michael Moore.
If you watch that movie, you really need to then read all of the multitude of rebuttals against it. (and then you can read Fox's responses to those rebuttals, etc.)
I will try to address in more detail if I have time, but my non-objective viewpoint is, in summary: (a) yes, there are dangers inherent in any form of energy exploration, but (b) the dangers being associated with hydraulic fracturing are being vastly overstated. (c) I believe the process to be mostly safe, but (d) I also fully support the current EPA research into the process. We should know some initial findings next year, with more complete findings a couple years after that. I am confident that the report will support continuing fracking as an exploration method , but probably with some recommended modifications and some increased regulation (this is the government after all).
Also, just FYI, my company has literally no stake in exploration & development, so any support I might give to fracking is pretty much because I believe in natural gas as a very important fuel, not because of any personal gain it might mean to me or the company I work for.
One anecdotal note: if you read up on this subject, count how many times in cases of alleged contamination the words "believed to be" or "suspected" are used, when attempting to tie it to fracking. (As opposed to, say, the words "evidence demonstrates.") I say this not to debunk any and all claims of this nature, because it is a fact that contamination has occurred, but just to point out that more study really is needed.
EDIT: One final note - while there are definitely some technology advances in the process, contrary to popular belief, hydraulic fracturing is not really a "new" process at all. It is in the conversation now mainly because Bush's 2005 Energy Act relaxed some restrictions and enabled it to be used more extensively in onshore exploration & extraction.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jun 14, 2011 15:00:40 GMT -5
Man, I thought this was a BSG thread.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Jun 14, 2011 15:04:02 GMT -5
Few people realize that the US (and Canada) is uniquely well positioned for the medium to long term future because we have both some of the largest natural gas and fresh water reserves on the planet.
The key is to be able to extract one without it being at the expense of ruining the other
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 14, 2011 15:10:06 GMT -5
Man, I thought this was a BSG thread. Very well played. ;D |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 14, 2011 15:12:43 GMT -5
(d) I also fully support the current EPA research into the process.
Thank you, Boz. We are a big part of this EPA research. As such, I am not allowed to talk on the record about this. But our part is developing methods for detecting some of the compounds most likely to be found in any hydrofracking operation.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 14, 2011 18:43:07 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic, but not completely, but navies of the world have two water systems: one for fresh water and one for seawater. Seawater is used in such things as cooling machinery, toilet flushes, etc. It requires separate systems and specialized piping, valves, etc. Now the United States is surrounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexica - a plentiful supply of water. Why can't we find a way to use the seawater to lessen our dependence on freshwater? Like, perhaps, as one example, in fracking?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 16, 2011 12:29:28 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 16, 2011 14:30:22 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the link Nevada. It will be very interesting to read what you guys at the EPA come up with in 18 months or so. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 21, 2011 14:04:00 GMT -5
Somewhat off topic, but not completely, but navies of the world have two water systems: one for fresh water and one for seawater. Seawater is used in such things as cooling machinery, toilet flushes, etc. It requires separate systems and specialized piping, valves, etc. Now the United States is surrounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexica - a plentiful supply of water. Why can't we find a way to use the seawater to lessen our dependence on freshwater? Like, perhaps, as one example, in fracking? This is a really interesting idea --- anyone know the technological/engineering possibilities or limitations to doing this (as opposed to the obvious logistical ones, such as transporting that much sea water inland)? Also, it sounds like one of the concerns with hydrofracking is the use of certain chemicals mixed with sand and water. It sounds like advocates for regulation want transparency and advocates against regulations want the mixes and amounts to remain proprietary. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 21, 2011 14:32:29 GMT -5
That has been a problem with many of the EPA's programs. It was with the oil spill in the Gulf with dispersants, for example. Confidential business information (CBI) and the public's right to know clash in these instances.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 21, 2011 14:49:15 GMT -5
That has been a problem with many of the EPA's programs. It was with the oil spill in the Gulf with dispersants, for example. Confidential business information (CBI) and the public's right to know clash in these instances. 1. Don't know why CBI would cover use of dispersants in a catastrophic spill situation. What's so proprietary about that? It's not as though it would be a common practice to increase production capacity or something competitive like that. 2. Sea water -- if the logistics work out -- could conceivably be a potential solution to the "scarce fresh water" issue. But it would not solve the other half of the water equation -- "Does the "contaminated/post-use" water circulate back into the water table, thereby causing health risks to the general population? Of course, point #2 is part of your current study as they jury seems to be out on whether or not that is an issue. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 22, 2011 13:38:41 GMT -5
That has been a problem with many of the EPA's programs. It was with the oil spill in the Gulf with dispersants, for example. Confidential business information (CBI) and the public's right to know clash in these instances. 1. Don't know why CBI would cover use of dispersants in a catastrophic spill situation. What's so proprietary about that? It's not as though it would be a common practice to increase production capacity or something competitive like that. Well, that is what we thought, but this was quite an issue, when we were dealing with finding out what was the composition of the dispersants. Of course, everything had to be resolved by yesterday, so some of our people were putting in long hours to figure this out. We ended up essentially reverse engineering the dispersants by analyzing some of the materials to see what was the make up. |
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,727
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 30, 2011 15:40:25 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 15, 2011 14:18:22 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2011 15:54:02 GMT -5
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Aug 17, 2011 16:22:27 GMT -5
If Michelle Bachmann is elected President, there will be no need for natural gas fracking because she'll somehow get the price of oil down to the point where gas is below $2 a gallon.  www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.htmlIsn't she just the pride of the GOP? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2011 18:40:52 GMT -5
If Michelle Bachmann is elected President, there will be no need for natural gas fracking because she'll somehow get the price of oil down to the point where gas is below $2 a gallon. www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.htmlIsn't she just the pride of the GOP? You do realize this is not an unachievable goal, right? Just because Obama says there's nothing he can do to lower the price of gas doesn't mean there's nothing anyone can do to make that happen. Bachmann is not my favorite, and she should elaborate on the steps necessary to achieve this, but I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with this stated aspiration (other than, for liberals, that she said it). |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 17, 2011 20:27:36 GMT -5
If Michelle Bachmann is elected President, there will be no need for natural gas fracking because she'll somehow get the price of oil down to the point where gas is below $2 a gallon. www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.htmlIsn't she just the pride of the GOP? You do realize this is not an unachievable goal, right? Just because Obama says there's nothing he can do to lower the price of gas doesn't mean there's nothing anyone can do to make that happen. Bachmann is not my favorite, and she should elaborate on the steps necessary to achieve this, but I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with this stated aspiration (other than, for liberals, that she said it). I think he skipped over thebin's post about political discourse.  |
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Aug 18, 2011 8:34:48 GMT -5
If Michelle Bachmann is elected President, there will be no need for natural gas fracking because she'll somehow get the price of oil down to the point where gas is below $2 a gallon. www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61566.htmlIsn't she just the pride of the GOP? You do realize this is not an unachievable goal, right? Just because Obama says there's nothing he can do to lower the price of gas doesn't mean there's nothing anyone can do to make that happen. Bachmann is not my favorite, and she should elaborate on the steps necessary to achieve this, but I'm trying to figure out what is wrong with this stated aspiration (other than, for liberals, that she said it). Do I think the price of oil could never again drop to the point where gas would be under $2 a gallon? No. I think it is unlikely, but not impossible. However, there's nothing that an American President can do single-handedly to achieve it. The world market for oil is more complicated than just saying "Drill Baby Drill" and demanding that prices fall. |
|
