Turning Natural Gas Into Water

It takes science to get oil out of shale.

Republicans believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.

Can't they just "pray" the oil out of the shale?
 
People are quite reasonably concerned about the destruction of their watertables.

NIMBY isn't anything more than people defending their property rights.

As to the science and technical issues?

I have no opinion and leave those issues to the experts to battle out
 
Real simple problem here. We can live without the natural gas. We cannot live without the water. And if they drill and frack, and 10 years down the road, the aquifers are polluted, who pays? Given past experiance, it will be the taxpayer. And the homeowner whose water supply is no longer usable.

We need a solid backup structure, and accountability for this activity.
 
People are quite reasonably concerned about the destruction of their watertables.

Sure. So they should stop worrying about hydraulic fracturing, considering the millions of times destruction of the water table has NOT happened.

editec said:
NIMBY isn't anything more than people defending their property rights.

Isn't that something any normal person would consider the cost/benefit ratio of prior to signing a lease allowing the development of their mineral rights, from which they profit handsomely?
 
Anyone who looks to entertainers for political or any real advies is pretty stupit.
They are only good for entertainment.
 
Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy
 
Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy

Are the depths of your belief so strong that you don't use these fossil fuels, or are you like so many others who still drive a car, heat your house or the water in it, power your house and your computer, with energy from fossil fuels while complaining about them?
 
Couldn't agree more with that last coment. Renewables are outstanding but are stuck at 2% and will be for decades to come because they require 100X the subsidies of gas, are intermittent and only produce about 25% of their capacity. They are a great supplement but cannot replace fossil fuels. Let's get real here!
 
Natural gas just like all fossilf fuesl resutls in a lot of pollution and when adjsuted for health/environmental effects costs more then clena energy

Are the depths of your belief so strong that you don't use these fossil fuels, or are you like so many others who still drive a car, heat your house or the water in it, power your house and your computer, with energy from fossil fuels while complaining about them?

I see so because dumbasses like you keep us on fossil fuels and auto transportation It means I'm a hypocrite. Come back when you've got something that is not retarded to say IE never
 
Couldn't agree more with that last coment. Renewables are outstanding but are stuck at 2% and will be for decades to come because they require 100X the subsidies of gas, are intermittent and only produce about 25% of their capacity. They are a great supplement but cannot replace fossil fuels. Let's get real here!

Yes you really do need to "get real"
Solar power alone could power almost the whole of America
How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation

That doesn't even include, wage, hydro, wind, biofueles/biomass, or geothermal
 
Unfortunately, logic is often trumped by politics...

We've been seeing a lot of that lately.

This is a good article, but not something that would cause me to totally write off alternatives/renewables. I do believe in supporting emerging energy technologies, but not at the direct expense of hydrocarbons as Obama is want to do.
 
Hey maybe I will support that shale thing too. After all anything that keeps the yankees up there can't be all bad.
 

Forum List

Back
Top