U.S. Fracking's Larger Implications

Discussion in 'Energy' started by Mr. H., Nov 26, 2011.

  1. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    I could have buried this in one of the many existing threads on Fracking, but it deserves it's own look.

    The article touches on the effects of increased U.S. natural gas production in far-flung parts of the world including the Middle East, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

    U.S. Shale Boom Reduces Russian Influence Over European Gas Market

    The U.S. shale gas boom has not only virtually eliminated the need for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports for at least two decades, but significantly reduced Russia’s influence over the European natural gas market and "diminished the petro-power" of major gas producers in the Middle East and Venezuela.

    And here's the kicker- Obama's proposed tax policies are directed at bringing the American oil and natural gas industries to it's knees:

    Changes to U.S. tax policy for upstream oil and gas, including proposed changes to expensing rules, investment credits, and/or royalty rates, could also make shale exploration and production unprofitable at current prices.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. chikenwing
    Online

    chikenwing VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,390
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +457
    Not to mention the added influence US citizens would gain over their own economic futures.

    The no drill/no spill anti gas crowd are at the peak of hypocrisy as they pound their signs in their yards next to the gas meter feeding their home.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. KissMy
    Online

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,214
    Thanks Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +1,885
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    This is so preliminary and fraught with potential errors. Why was this "report" released so early?

    Here are some hard documented facts regarding agrigulture and livestock pollution:

    •California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitrate pollution in more than 100,000 square miles of polluted groundwater.


    •In Oklahoma, nitrates from Seaboard Farms' hog operations contaminated drinking water wells, prompting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue an emergency order in June 2001 requiring the company to provide safe drinking water to area residents.


    •In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots.


    •High levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or "blue-baby syndrome," which can kill infants.


    •Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform, which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure.


    •In May 2000, 1,300 cases of gastroenteritis were reported and six people died as the result of E. coli contaminating drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. Health authorities determined that the most likely source was cattle manure runoff.


    •Manure from dairy cows is thought to have contributed to the disastrous Cryptosporidium contamination of Milwaukee's drinking water in 1993, which killed more than 100 people, made 400,000 sick and resulted in $37 million in lost wages and productivity.


    •In this country, roughly 29 million pounds of antibiotics -- about 80 percent of the nation's antibiotics use in total -- are added to animal feed every year to speed livestock growth. This widespread use of antibiotics on animals contributes to the rise of resistant bacteria, making it harder to treat human illnesses.


    •Large hog farms emit hydrogen sulfide, a gas that most often causes flu-like symptoms in humans, but at high concentrations can lead to brain damage. In 1998, the National Institute of Health reported that 19 people died as a result of hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure pits.

    Shall we shut down farming and livestock production?

    NRDC: Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms
     
  5. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Taoist Wood Dragon

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,905
    Thanks Received:
    3,399
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +3,420
    Fracking also brings small earthquakes and flammable water.

    Still think it's a good idea?
     
  6. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    That's a loaded question.
    Loaded with bullshit.

    After six decades and tens of thousands of wells, proper fracturing techniques have proven themselves.
     
  7. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Taoist Wood Dragon

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,905
    Thanks Received:
    3,399
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +3,420
    Used to be that way until they quit using water and started using propietary chemicals in the mixture.

    Watch Gasland sometime.

    And yeah.......fracking has caused earthquakes, just ask the UK.
     
  8. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    Re: Gasland...

    "...according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." Instead the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural gas pocket."

    http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND DOC.pdf

    Earthquakes? Likely...

    UK firm says shale fracking caused earthquakes | Reuters

    However, there are over 1 million naturally occuring earthquakes each year.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. Middleoftheroad
    Offline

    Middleoftheroad Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    589
    Thanks Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +53
    From your link
    Magnitude 3 earthquakes don't count. You would basically have to be standing on the fault line to even feel it, even then you might not notice. No one would be injured and no damage would be done. I used to live in California, and I can tell you that most people don't notice anything below a 4.0. Personally I have not even noticed low 4's.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,257
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +119
    Small earthquake...sure....no different than a train passing by really. And no,a frac doesn't make flammable water. Less propaganda....more actual thinking please...
     
  11. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,257
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +119
    Thats the name of the propaganda. Apparently gasland didn't realize that if you actually were fracing, what 3000 psi does to home water piping.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  12. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    Anyhow- getting back to the first post- the practice of hydraulic fracturing which has been employed for nearly 60 years is just now granting the U.S. access to previously untapped reserves of hydrocarbons. In so much that it is turning world energy markets upside down and rewriting the hydrocarbon-political landscape.

    Obama doesn't recognise this. He isn't capable of connecting the dots. He'll choose to stamp our nation's true assets into oblivion while outsourcing real economic development in the name such noble causes as perceived environmental gain and redistribution of wealth from the true creators of commerce to the non-productive consumer.
     
  13. Crackerjack
    Offline

    Crackerjack Too sick for a cure

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Thanks Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Your momma's house
    Ratings:
    +765
    Gasland is chock full of bullshit.

    Attacking natural gas is about the dumbest thing environmentalists can do if they are actually interested in the environment. It's about the cleanest, safest fuel we have available to us today. If they actually gave a shit about the environment, they'd be beating down the White House door to have Obama clear the way for the Keystone XL and further natural gas drilling.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  14. JiggsCasey
    Offline

    JiggsCasey VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +118
    lolfail

    Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks
    June 28, 2011 4:46 pm ET
    A Wall Street Journal editorial obscured the fact that a Duke University study strongly suggested methane from a natural gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, contaminated water supplies.

    WSJ Dismisses Duke University Findings On Methane Contamination
    WSJ Suggested There Is No Evidence The High Methane Concentration Was From Fracking Operations. The editorial said of the Duke study: "They had no baseline data and thus no way of knowing if methane concentrations were high prior to drilling":

    A second charge, based on a Duke University study, claims that fracking has polluted drinking water with methane gas. Methane is naturally occurring and isn't by itself harmful in drinking water, though it can explode at high concentrations. Duke authors Rob Jackson and Avner Vengosh have written that their research shows "the average methane concentration to be 17 times higher in water wells located within a kilometer of active drilling sites."

    They failed to note that researchers sampled a mere 68 wells across Pennsylvania and New York--where more than 20,000 water wells are drilled annually. They had no baseline data and thus no way of knowing if methane concentrations were high prior to drilling. They also acknowledged that methane was detected in 85% of the wells they tested, regardless of drilling operations, and that they'd found no trace of fracking fluids in any wells. [Wall Street Journal, 6/25/11]

    In Fact, Duke Geochemical Analysis Strongly Suggested The Wells Are Source Of Water Contamination. The Journal editorial failed to mention that "that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground," as reported by ProPublica:
    For the rest of the article go to the link

    Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks | Media Matters for America

    Right-wing rag hit piece op-eds? Really? Do better.

    Regardless, NGLs don't make diesel.

    NGLs have 50% of the BTUs that the same volume of crude oil has. You can't get the same ooomph from it barrel for barrel.

    It does have a market. NGLs, are largely used to make plastic. That's fine and dandy, and even meaningful, but the world's populace can be fed without plastic. It can't be fed without crude pushing tractors and trucks around.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2011
  15. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,257
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +119
    Welcome back parrot.

    NGL's can make anything you'd like. Heavier NGLs we used to put right in the gas tanks of our Ford well tending trucks. Keeping the NGLs in the natural gas stream, and you can refine the stuff into synthetic crude which can refined into jet fuel. Or diesel.

    Qatar First to Fly with Jet Fuel Based on Natural Gas - US News and World Report

    Looks like you didn't use your time away to actually learn anything parrot.
     
  16. JiggsCasey
    Offline

    JiggsCasey VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +118
    LOL... The snake oil sales continue. I'm noticing you're a lot of talk, but never any source. The one link you DID provide shifts gears to jet fuel, not diesel that might power 18-wheelers to deliver food and other goods, which is what we're obviously talking about. Dishonest much?

    Regardless, from your own fucking link, loser:

    But high production costs mean Qatar's new fuel is unlikely to seriously challenge existing jet fuel any time soon.

    "The capital costs are still a concern ... It's pretty expensive to convert natural gas even if you have a low cost feedstock" like Qatar has, Yeasting said.

    Do better.

    I know you don't read my links that routinely put your tired denialst screed to bed, but you DO actually read your OWN links, right? Jesus, do you suck at this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
  17. KissMy
    Online

    KissMy Free Breast Exam

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10,214
    Thanks Received:
    1,778
    Trophy Points:
    192
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +1,885
    Jet fuel is nearly the same as diesel. I had a cheap source of jet fuel for a while. I ran more than a thousand gallons of jet fuel in my diesel truck.
     
  18. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,257
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +119
    I am not required to. You said that you can't make diesel from NGLs, you didn't say anything about economics, capital investment, or anything else beyond your usual categorical, and wrong, statement. You can make jet fuel from NGLs just like you can diesel fuel. Like I said before, you should have taken your time away from the board to learn something. And find us someone with a brain please, your incessant ignorance, while amazing, is also tiring.
     
  19. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,257
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +119
    Jet fuel is like kerosene. And kerosene is like diesel. Which is why Jiggsy comes off as nothing but a mindless parrot. If he parroted accurate information, none of us would object as much I imagine.
     
  20. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    33,862
    Thanks Received:
    6,741
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +7,413
    $4.5 billion investment capital coming into the U.S. economy...
    Nothing to sneeze at.
    Let's see Obama top this.

    Sinopec, Total pour $4.5 billion into U.S. shale

    Sinopec, Total pour $4.5 billion into U.S. shale - Yahoo! News

    (Reuters) - China's Sinopec <600028.SS> and France's Total SA made major purchases into the U.S. energy sector on Tuesday, pouring $4.5 billion into deals to buy into booming production from shale rock formations.

    The ventures showed that the global appetite for U.S. energy assets remained strong, with foreign oil and gas producers eager to invest in several of the mostly undeveloped fields that are believed to hold billions of cubic feet of natural gas and liquids.
     

Share This Page