Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fracking, And Gas Production In The US
#41
Here are the latest results from a series of claims leveled by environmentalists, fearing contamination of drinking water.

Contaminated water was NOT caused by fracking: Study finds leaky wells are to blame for tainted supplies

Last week my neighborhood's tranquility was shattered by two concerned wives, who have posted "No Fracking NC" signs in their front yards. When I asked her if getting into politics from a neighborhood social page was the right thing to do, she claimed that what she was doing wasn't political. But obviously she wouldn't mind using politics to have her 'green' way with this issue.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...280&type=1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#42
Is the Fracking industry revving up in Michigan?

Latest Michigan quake has scientists puzzled
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#43
It's weird how the environmental church fails and succeeds here. Fracking? No success, they even have Barack Obama as an enemy. AGW & Canadian oil pipeline? Success, Barack is their boy.

Anyone other than me think facts are not important in explaining why?
Reply
#44
(07-03-2015, 12:49 PM)Palladin Wrote: It's weird how the environmental church fails and succeeds here. Fracking? No success, they even have Barack Obama as an enemy. AGW & Canadian oil pipeline? Success, Barack is their boy.

Anyone other than me think facts are not important in explaining why?

Depends on whether you are into "tactics" or "strategy". Tactically(short term) you may be on to something. Strategically(long term) facts will almost always prevail.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#45
I'm just thinking that being for fracking and for AGW both = lots of cash flow to the powers that be.

Obama allowing Warren Buffet to rail Canadian oil south tells me he doesn't care about environmental concerns on Canadian oil and since fracking is anathema to the environmental lobby, yet his governance is pro fracking and giving fracking political cover with their studies, this says he serves cash interests above the environmental groups.

To get his attention, he has to get a pay off. That's the key, IMO.

If he wanted fracking shut off, his "findings" would show severe environmental damage and all.
Reply
#46
Blaming earthquakes on Fracking is like trying to stop dead-end species from going extinct.

Isn't it better to let tectonic pressures be alleviated than to build up? Just wondering?
Reply
#47
(07-04-2015, 04:01 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Blaming earthquakes on Fracking is like trying to stop dead-end species from going extinct.

Isn't it better to let tectonic pressures be alleviated than to build up? Just wondering?

Yeah, the kooks don't realize that if that pressure keeps building up, it will always be worse in the end. Reminds me of that commercial about "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#48
This yesterday in Bloomberg Business: Oil at $30 No Problem for Some Bakken Drillers Cutting Costs.

This is significant, because the US oil industry is far more efficient than others, as I mentioned over at the "Russian Reconquesta" thread. Even if the cost of crude goes lower, the industry overall will be able to weather the drop in cost.

Quote:The lowest crude prices in six years might not be enough to put the brakes on the U.S. energy renaissance.

Some parts of North Dakota’s Bakken shale play are profitable at less than $30 a barrel as companies tap bigger wells and benefit from lower drilling costs, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence analysis. That’s less than half the level of some estimates when the oil rout began last year.

The lower bar for profitability is one reason why U.S. oil production has remained near a 40-year high even as crude prices fell more than 50 percent over the past year to the lowest level since March 2009.

“One of the explanations for why production hasn’t fallen off is that the cost has gone down so much,” David Hackett, president of Stillwater Associates LLC, an energy consulting firm in Irvine, California, said by phone. “The marginal cost to produce has shrunk pretty dramatically with the drop in prices. The efficient drillers are now able to take advantage.”
------
“A single break-even price doesn’t actually exist,” Foiles said in a presentation. “Rather, what the model indicates is that at a realized oil price of $29.42, half of wells will generate returns exceeding 10%. This price is considerably lower than the $70 breakeven estimated by industry watchers at the start of the oil price slump.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#49
I'm surprised they can produce at these lower rates in that formation as I understood it was shale.
Reply
#50
(09-01-2015, 10:48 AM)Palladin Wrote: I'm surprised they can produce at these lower rates in that formation as I understood it was shale.

Not sure I know what you mean by "lower rates". S14
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#51
Here's a great piece from my favorite media Sweetie-Pie. Once more the Anti-Fracking, "fractivists" as she describes them, have failed in their drive to get enough signatures in order to put the hurt on Colorado.

Malkin: Colorado's Anti-Fracking Crackup: Election fraud? What election fraud?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#52
(09-12-2012, 08:50 PM)John L Wrote: Note: this post merged with current thread


I about fell on the floor when I read this: The Environmental Defense Fund Comes Out In Support Of Fracking.  Granted this is about getting rid of coal.

But things have changed here.  Once upon a time this group, and others, opposed anything that they remotely thought bad.  Now, they are taking sides with what they more logically consider the best of choices.  I'm really shocked on this.

My guess is that fracking is going to begin moving full speed ahead , as more Eco-Wackos start seeing a little logic.  This is amazing.

Who IS the Environmental Defense Fund? The EPA is run by corporations, like all the agencies that were set up to keep the rich from abusing the masses.  

Looks as though they have formed an alliance with the gas industry.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen...fense_Fund

Quote:Natural gas[edit]
EDF sees natural gas as a way to quickly replace coal, with the idea that gas in time will be replaced by renewable energy.[131] The organization presses for stricter environmental controls on gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing, without banning them.[132] In November 2013, after negotiations with the oil industry, EDF representatives joined spokesmen for Anadarko Petroleum CorporationNoble Energy, and Encana, to endorse Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's proposed tighter regulation of emissions of volatile organic compounds by oil and gas production.[133] EDF has funded studies jointly with the petroleum industry on the environmental effects of natural gas production. The policy has been criticized by some environmentalists.[134] EDF counsel and blogger Mark Brownstein answered:
"Demand for natural gas is not going away, and neither is hydraulic fracturing. We must be clear-eyed about this, and fight to protect public health and the environment from unacceptable impacts. We must also work hard to put policies in place that ensure that natural gas serves as an enabler of renewable power generation, not an impediment to it. We fear that those who oppose all natural gas production everywhere are, in effect, making it harder for the U.S. economy to wean itself from dirty coal."[135]
"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." —Dan Quayle
Reply
#53
Please note that you tag line is a lie. Representative Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island spun that story in 1989 and admitted it was not true. It was just another joke told at Quayle's expense to destroy his credibility. Only the truly dim-witted believed it then.
Reply
#54
Studies are finally coming out now about hydraulic fracking and earthquakes. And it looks like yet one more whacko claim not holding up to scrutiny.

Quote:New research suggests hydraulic fracturing and saltwater disposal has limited impact on seismic events.

For the past two years, UAlberta geophysicist Mirko Van der Baan and his team have been poring over 30 to 50 years of earthquake rates from six of the top hydrocarbon-producing states in the United States and the top three provinces by output in Canada: North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan.

With only one exception, the scientists found no province- or state-wide correlation between increased hydrocarbon production and seismicity. They also discovered that human-induced seismicity is less likely in areas that have fewer natural earthquakes.

The anomaly was in Oklahoma, where seismicity rates have changed dramatically in the last five years, with strong correlation to saltwater disposal related to increased hydrocarbon production.

"It's not as simple as saying 'we do a hydraulic fracturing treatment, and therefore we are going to cause felt seismicity.' It's actually the opposite. Most of it is perfectly safe," said Van der Baan, who is also director of the Microseismicity Industry Consortium.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#55
I felt the Oklahoma thing could not be caused by fracking since it is done everywhere. However, maybe Oklahoma has totally different hydrology than everyone else???
Reply
#56
One of the things that has been proven to occur throughout recent history is that every time the planet begins entering into a Grand Solar Minimum(Little ice age) earthquakes and vulcanism increase. Its occurring right now, because we are on the leading edge of the next GSM. There is currently only one sunspot on the sun, and it has been this way for some days now.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#57
Yea, I read a report somewhere this morning that even the science community is concerned about the solar minimum heading this way.
Reply
#58
(06-29-2017, 03:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: Yea, I read a report somewhere this morning that even the science community is concerned about the solar minimum heading this way.

Except for the "climate change scientists" who are working feverishly to blame the possible solar minimum on human CO2 emissions.

S6
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#59
Isn't it wonderful how erstwhile scientists devolve into being mere astrologers--reverse astrologers, at that, supposing that what we do on earth can affect the sun?

It is amazing how many scientists, whom you would think were rational, fact-driven intellects, turn out to have such open minds.

   

This is what "snowflakes" become when they grow up. Of course, the open-minded mentation makes it easier for them to be continually brainwashed.
Reply
#60
I read where the AGW theory holds that increased water vapor would be heated and generate more heat globally and it would be responsible in the models for most the heating. Not CO2 or methane alone.

Problem is they have never found a heated vapor cloud and they've tried now for years. That's where the anti AGW attack needs to aim, IMO.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)