# An Industry Reborn



## Mr. H.

Absolutely fascinating...

RIGZONE - Shale Boom, Gas Demand to Make North America LNG Exports Reality

Imagine that - the U.S. actually exporting something of value. Bringing money back_ into _this country. 

_The increase in North American natural gas due to the shale gas boom and a projected increase in global gas demand mean that North America will become a liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter within the next few years.

The recovery in global LNG consumption in 2010, combined with anticipated gas demand growth in emerging economies of China and India presents opportunities for LNG exports, as does growing demand in Europe, where gas production is expected to decline and demand for gas-fired power generation is expected to grow. Near-term LNG demand also will be impacted by Japan, where the earthquake and tsunami damaged nuclear power facilities, resulting in strong demand for natural gas to fire electric power plants. However, it is too early to tell how this will impact Japan's long-term plans._

Right on. 

USA

USA

USA

(Sing along with me - you know the words)


----------



## sparky

_Frackin' through the snow
In a caustic chemical way
O'er the fields we go
Laughing all the way
Plumbing will ignite
Making spirits bright
What fun it is to laugh and sing
'F*ck the kids' tonight

Oh, jingo bells, jingo bells
Jingo all the way
Oh, what fun it is to ride
The market's makin' hay
Jingo bells, jingo bells
Jingo all the way
Oh, what fun it is to screw
the 'lil guy on the way_


----------



## Mr. H.

^^^


One sad commentary here is the fact that we haven't done enough over the years to find new markets for our own natural gas, i.e. NGV's and power generation (outside of peaker plants).


----------



## editec

I'm ALL for it.

When they can do it without screwing up the water.


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.



Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.


----------



## Trajan

some info. 




Hydraulic fracturing -- Hydraulic fracturing is a practice used to coax oil and natural gas from hard rock formations. It involves forcing large amounts of pressurized water, a proppant (usually sand), and very small amounts of chemicals down the wellbore to create tiny fissures in the rock so the oil and gas can flow through the wellbore to the surface. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in more than one million wells during the past 60+ years.  National Geographic produced an animation illustrating the practice and  as you'll see, the fracturing occurs well below the aquifer and is separated from groundwater and drinking water supplies by hundreds or thousands of feet of solid rock.

A list of the chemicals used in the fracturing fluid is available at EnergyInDepth.org. (This information appears on an oil and natural gas-sponsored website but it comes from the Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council.)

Drinking water contamination -- U.S. government studies have found no evidence of drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study to assess the contamination potential of underground drinking water sources (UDWS) from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluid into coalbed methane (CBM) wells. EPA found "the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time." EPA also reviewed incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. It found "no confirmed cases linked to fracturing fluid injection of CBM wells or subsequent underground movement of fracturing fluid."

In 1998, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and a team of state agency representatives conducted a survey of state oil and natural gas agencies to establish an accurate assessment of the number of active CBM wells associated with hydraulic fracturing. Based on the survey of 25 oil and natural gas producing states, the GWPC concluded, "there was no evidence to support claims that public health is at risk as a result of the hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds used for the production of methane gas."

EPA is developing a study plan now for a congressionally-mandated review of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. The study is expected to be finished in 2012.

A recent documentary about hydraulic fracturing implies that fracturing has contaminated water wells in Pennsylvania. However, John Hanger, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently told Reuters, "It's our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet underground have returned to contaminate ground water." Hanger's comment appears in this Reuters article.

The Safe Drinking Water Act  - Despite claims to the contrary, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This act was enacted in 1974 to ensure water supply systems serving the public meet appropriate health standards. It was specifically designed to establish a federal-state partnership to "protect drinking water from contamination by the underground injection of waste," not the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids used to enhance oil and natural gas production. Fracturing fluids were never included under the act. To clarify this point, Congress included language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 making it clear once and for all that underground injection fluids or propping agents were excluded from the SDWA.

Critics have alleged that hydraulic fracturing was "exempted" from the SDWA and have mischaracterized the language in the 2005 law as a "loophole." These statements are not accurate.

State vs. federal regulation - Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to regulate hydraulic fracturing under federal law, rather than allow the states to continue to have regulatory authority. The GWPC examined this issue in 2009 and issued a report concluding that the regulation of oil and natural gas field activities is best accomplished at the state level where regional and local conditions are understood and where state regulators are on-hand to conduct inspections and oversee operations. 
Addressing Hydraulic Fracturing Issues One-by-One - Energy Tomorrow Blog


a graphic primer-


Breaking Fuel From the Rock


----------



## Trajan

The upset it appears is due to the use of say; kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde in Hydraulic fracking. 

I understand this, as I work with these chemicals on a daily basis and am well aware of their dangers. However, everything in measure, the purity and final ppm count is whats important. 

Toluene for instance is a classified as a level 2 health hazard on a scale of 1-4,  4 being greatest. It Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) the value that is the point at which is becomes dangerous to humans in a given exposure time is  200 parts per million at its most potent at whats called the time-weighted average (TWA) that is your total exposure  in a given work day , 8 hours. 

So in short for this chemical to adversely effect a human according to Ohsa standards requires exposure to this chem. for a total of  200 ppm over 8 hours. 

Then you get into ingestion and  dilution factors. One must drink 80.0 pure toluene that makes up 1.8 grams of  the liquid,  say water  to be fatal, in one gallon of water. 

If they use a figure I saw, of say 500 gallons of toluene in a MIXTURE of water and sand to frack, and they get leakage into ground water which is a moving refreshed resource of hundreds of millions of gallons, well, there ya go. Its the sample they pull at the end of the line that counts, from your faucet.

 Its like the old Alar scare and apples, back in the 80's and early 90's, you would have to eat 5 pounds of apples per day for 20 years to get close to the TWA  saturation level at which it would harm a human......




here is some more context on these chems-

Federal and state surveys do not show toluene to be a common impurity in drinking water supplies. Toluene was found in about 1% of the groundwater sources (wells) at amounts lower than 2 parts per billion (ppb). (This is like 1 second in 32 years). It was found more frequently in surface water samples at similar concentrations. If toluene is in your drinking water you can be exposed by drinking the water or by eating cold foods prepared with the water. Evaporation during cooking tends to decrease the amount of toluene found in hot foods or water. Additional exposure will occur when you breathe in the toluene that evaporates from water while you shower, bathe, clean, or cook with the water. 

The toluene level in the air outside your home is usually less than 1 ppm in cities and suburbs that are not close to industry.  The toluene inside your house is also likely to be less than 1 ppm. The amount of toluene in food has not been reported, but is likely to be low. Traces of toluene were found in eggs that were stored in polystyrene containers containing toluene. 

Unless you smoke cigarettes or work with toluene-containing products, you are probably only exposed to about 300 micrograms (µg) of toluene a day. A microgram is one one-millionth of a gram. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes per day, you add another 1,000 µg to your exposure. People who work in places where toluene-containing products are used can be exposed to 1,000 milligrams of toluene a day when the average air concentration is 50 ppm and they breathe at a normal rate and volume. A milligram is one-thousandth of a gram. 

Toluene: Everything You Could Ever Want to Know About This Common Toxic Chemical



so when you read these reports on Fracking etc. just be aware that when they say they found traces of toluene, read past that and look for the concentration(s),  ppm and ppb , ingestion exposure in milligrams and grams etc.


----------



## sparky

Trajan said:


> The upset it appears is due to the use of say; kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde in Hydraulic fracking.
> 
> I understand this, as I work with these chemicals on a daily basis and am well aware of their dangers. However, everything in measure, the purity and final ppm count is whats important.
> 
> 
> so when you read these reports on Fracking etc. just be aware that when they say they found traces of toluene, read past that and look for the concentration(s),  ppm and ppb , ingestion exposure in milligrams and grams etc.



_yooooookay......_


----------



## editec

RGR said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
Click to expand...

 
Tell it to these people in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.

They _might _disagree.



> ."Dave DeCristo rents out property just downhill from the Atgas well pad at Chesapeake Energy's 2H well.
> 
> That's where the equipment failure late Tuesday night caused thousands upon thousands of gallons of fracking fluid to spill.
> 
> "I really don't understand what's going on up there," said Dave DeCristo. "But you know they've got the best of the best in here, doing what they do to get the situation under control."DEP started testing nearby waterways early this morning, monitoring any changes to the water that flows into Towanda Creek and the Susquehanna River.
> 
> Some raised water concerns even before what DEP calls a gas well blowout. Tracey Kelley showed us video of her water that she took Wednesday. *The mother of two says the water has been milky white since last weekend, and it permanently stained her countertop."We're not drinking the water," said Kelley.* "My parents brought us water. And we're not showering. We've got pets at home, and they're not drinking the water."Until problems began surfacing this week, many considered the drilling operations here in this part of Bradford County to be a boom for the area.


 
source


----------



## chikenwing

editec said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to these people in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.
> 
> They _might _disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ."Dave DeCristo rents out property just downhill from the Atgas well pad at Chesapeake Energy's 2H well.
> 
> That's where the equipment failure late Tuesday night caused thousands upon thousands of gallons of fracking fluid to spill.
> 
> "I really don't understand what's going on up there," said Dave DeCristo. "But you know they've got the best of the best in here, doing what they do to get the situation under control."DEP started testing nearby waterways early this morning, monitoring any changes to the water that flows into Towanda Creek and the Susquehanna River.
> 
> Some raised water concerns even before what DEP calls a gas well blowout. Tracey Kelley showed us video of her water that she took Wednesday. *The mother of two says the water has been milky white since last weekend, and it permanently stained her countertop."We're not drinking the water," said Kelley.* "My parents brought us water. And we're not showering. We've got pets at home, and they're not drinking the water."Until problems began surfacing this week, many considered the drilling operations here in this part of Bradford County to be a boom for the area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> source
Click to expand...


Everything has a cost,she neglected to tell about all the money they have gotten and will get from gas drilling.

Bradford county has changed tremendously from gas drilling,farms that were going under have been saved,people that were just making it now don't have to worry about their futures economical.

As far as lighting your water fauset..nothing new there at all,many people in the area have had to install degasifation systems on the water wells for years.

As usual cherry pick the news you want. 

Its a huge find,they have discovered there is just as much oil as gas.


----------



## chikenwing

I kick myself for not buying land there when we were thinking about it back in the 90's


----------



## RGR

sparky said:


> _yooooookay......_
> 
> 
> YouTube - Faucet Water Ignites! Natural Gas in Well Water! THANKS DICK!
> 
> 
> YouTube - GASLAND Trailer 2010



Gasland is a joke. Please don't confuse it with evidence of anything. 60 years ago, when natural gas from coal was oozing into someone's fresh water aquifer (or actually IN someone's freshwater aquifer) and people were lighting their water on fire, there just wasn't some utube fool around with a video camera to record it.


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell it to these people in Bradford County, Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...


I already have. People like me are consulted on a regular basis to explain how all of this works, at the citizen, state and federal level. 



			
				editec said:
			
		

> They _might _disagree.



Some of them did. They didn't seem any more aware of how well design protects freshwater supplies any better than the average internet poster. Anecdotally, it is referred to as the "howling at the moon" effect. 

Landowner goes home one day...something is different...BLAME IT ON FRACING! THERE IS THIS UTUBE VIDEO!!! It's funny as hell to discuss in person, people have this blank look when you explain the particular physical or hydrodynamic laws their favorite theory breaks. When you throw in the fact that their freshwater aquifer is also a natural gas producing formation, they go cross eyed.


----------



## chikenwing

We live near the boarder of Bradford and Tioga county new york,you drive into pa,and you don't see 1 no fraking sign and few real estate for sale sign,cross back into new york and the for sale signs are numerous.alog with the no drill no spill signs next to their gas meter.alittle north is Ithaca,the Berkly of the east and the propaganda is everywhere,they want their gas as long as the don't see where it comes from.

Have there been some spills,yes but the media blows them out of reality and cherry picks what they want you to hear.

We would be in line for a nice healthy lease check,but new york can't get its act together so everything is on hold here.


----------



## Foxfyre

Every new technology brings some new dangers, accidents, and close calls but we always fix, correct, and remedy the worst problems and learn how to do things more efficiently, effectively, and safely.  And yes, the anti-industrial and anti-progress media will almost always blow the problems way out of proportion and downplay what works well which is most of it.

Conversely, the same media will play up the good points re solar, wind farms, hydro power, etc. and sort of ignore or downplay the downside to these same technologies.

The fact is, as new technology creates more oppotunities, options, and jobs, we have more affluence.  And affluence has generally produced demand for greater standards of clean soil, clean air, clean water, and aesthetic beauty.

We shouldn't discourage anything that helps make the American people more free and more prosperous.  The positives will invariably outweigh any negatives.


----------



## Mr. H.

Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing. 

Good points folks, but I mean hey look - here's something this country is about to embark upon whereby we will actually be exporting a lot of something that has a lot of value. Exporting - selling natural gas overseas. Cold hard cash coming into the U.S. 
It'll help the trade deficit, create jobs, boost manufacturing. 

Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already. 
This shit is groundbreaking news.


----------



## RGR

Mr. H. said:


> Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing.



The advent of modern hydraulic fracturing has given new life to an industry, and areas, previously ignored. This is good.



			
				Mr.H said:
			
		

> Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already.
> This shit is groundbreaking news.



Absolutely. US as a natural gas exporting superpower, as we were once an oil superpower, is a good thing. Bring on the fracking and lets all get busy!


----------



## dilloduck

Mr. H. said:


> Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing.
> 
> Good points folks, but I mean hey look - here's something this country is about to embark upon whereby we will actually be exporting a lot of something that has a lot of value. Exporting - selling natural gas overseas. Cold hard cash coming into the U.S.
> It'll help the trade deficit, create jobs, boost manufacturing.
> 
> Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already.
> This shit is groundbreaking news.



Wouldn't that drive all the mom and pop fracking companies out of business ?


----------



## Mr. H.

That joke itself is groundbreaking. 

I give up LOL. Think I'll just get drunk.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Absolutely. US as a natural gas exporting superpower, as we were once an oil superpower, is a good thing. Bring on the fracking and lets all get busy!



And there it is... finally... laid bare for all to see. 

RGR's enthusiastic, cornucopian agenda. Shale gas. Why didn't you just admit this earlier, instead of hemming and hawing and dancing around all the shale gas questions I asked of you months ago. 

Replete with the "fool with a camera on utube" canard. Great stuff. As if the numerous legit concerns brought up throughout Gasland can be brushed aside with another surface quip. 

Even if gas-from-shale managed to offset existing conventional decline rates enough to pass seamlessly into this new paradigm (and it never will), you're advocating an entire industry that would need to be whipped into shape on a massive scale, requiring an enormous amount of capital. The infrastructure expansion alone being a logistical nightmare of epic proportion, for a country whose growth has slowed almost to a halt the past several years. I'll guess your infectious optimism insists it can all be done quickly, too, for a nation enjoying a W-shaped recession. (assuming it HAS an end). Subsidies to the rescue?

Tell us, when the double dip hits later this year as the post-Fukushima 2Qs start rolling in (July?), where will the investment come from to triple the hydraulic fracking industry right here in Star-Spangled America? 

Meanwhile, thanks to Chindia (and neocon hubris), peak is here already. ... Slept too late, missed the alarm ... Why? Because the world listened to people like you for too long. 

The same people who brought us WMDs, color-coded terror scales, "Operation Iraqi Liberation," and "we'll be greeted as Liberators!"


----------



## editec

It only takes one fracking disaster to permanently destroy a local water supply.

When we can do this SAFELY we ought to.

Of course that* safe* fracking will no doubt cost more.

But there's no sense forever destroying the water supplies for millions of people just to extract a little gas.

We need to exploit these resources, but the emphases has got to be that we do it SAFELY.


----------



## Old Rocks

I suggest that we pass a law that before any drilling and fracking is done, that the well water from the area be tested extensively, all known aquifers. Then, if these aquifers are contaminated after drilling, the people doing the drilling be responsible for supplying clean water to all those affected until such times as the contamination is found to be gone. 

This seems to be a fair answer to the statements made by both sides. If the aquifers are already contaminated, but suffer no further degradation, then the drillers, and the company that hires them are home free. If the water is pure and remains so, the same. But if there is significant degradation, then the drillers are held responsible for the degradation to all those affected, even if it is the whole of New York City. 

Simple accountability.


----------



## editec

Old Rocks said:


> I suggest that we pass a law that before any drilling and fracking is done, that the well water from the area be tested extensively, all known aquifers. Then, if these aquifers are contaminated after drilling, the people doing the drilling be responsible for supplying clean water to all those affected until such times as the contamination is found to be gone.
> 
> This seems to be a fair answer to the statements made by both sides. If the aquifers are already contaminated, but suffer no further degradation, then the drillers, and the company that hires them are home free. If the water is pure and remains so, the same. But if there is significant degradation, then the drillers are held responsible for the degradation to all those affected, even if it is the whole of New York City.
> 
> Simple accountability.


 
AFter they destry the aquirers they CAN'T clean them up.

And therein is the problem that we need to solve.

We're trading a temporary benefit for a permanent disadvantage if we don't do this safely.


----------



## Trajan

sparky said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The upset it appears is due to the use of say; kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde in Hydraulic fracking.
> 
> I understand this, as I work with these chemicals on a daily basis and am well aware of their dangers. However, everything in measure, the purity and final ppm count is whats important.
> 
> 
> so when you read these reports on Fracking etc. just be aware that when they say they found traces of toluene, read past that and look for the concentration(s),  ppm and ppb , ingestion exposure in milligrams and grams etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _yooooookay......_
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA&feature=player_detailpage]YouTube - Faucet Water Ignites! Natural Gas in Well Water! THANKS DICK![/ame]
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=player_detailpage]YouTube - GASLAND Trailer 2010[/ame]
Click to expand...




hows your knee?


----------



## Samson

RGR said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
Click to expand...


You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)

Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch _Gas Land_ and ignore the facts
*Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water* http://www.9news.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=119472&catid=339

There are millions of jobs in fracking, a highly labor intensive activity: However these jobs won't be found in NYC, Chicago, LA, the NE, the NW, or any other Democratic Party Stronghold:







Democrats would much rather extend a $500/week unemployment check ($12.5/hr) to their consituants, than to see job creation at a $15/hr minimum rate among their non-constituants.


----------



## Samson

dilloduck said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing.
> 
> Good points folks, but I mean hey look - here's something this country is about to embark upon whereby we will actually be exporting a lot of something that has a lot of value. Exporting - selling natural gas overseas. Cold hard cash coming into the U.S.
> It'll help the trade deficit, create jobs, boost manufacturing.
> 
> Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already.
> This shit is groundbreaking news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that drive all the mom and pop fracking companies out of business ?
Click to expand...


Interesting you ask: actually, both the "mom-and-pop" frackers as well as the biggies (e.g. Haliburton, Schlumberger, BJ/Baker) are unable to meet demand to such a degree that Operators (e.g XTO, Chesapeak) are starting their own fracking companies. Happily, the only way for them to staff their own companies will be to offer higher wages and benefits compared to Halliburton, et al.


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. US as a natural gas exporting superpower, as we were once an oil superpower, is a good thing. Bring on the fracking and lets all get busy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is... finally... laid bare for all to see.
> 
> RGR's enthusiastic, cornucopian agenda. Shale gas. Why didn't you just admit this earlier, instead of hemming and hawing and dancing around all the shale gas questions I asked of you months ago.
> 
> Replete with the "fool with a camera on utube" canard. Great stuff. As if the numerous legit concerns brought up throughout Gasland can be brushed aside with another surface quip.
> 
> Even if gas-from-shale managed to offset existing conventional decline rates enough to pass seamlessly into this new paradigm (and it never will), you're advocating an entire industry that would need to be whipped into shape on a massive scale, requiring an enormous amount of capital. The infrastructure expansion alone being a logistical nightmare of epic proportion, for a country whose growth has slowed almost to a halt the past several years. I'll guess your infectious optimism insists it can all be done quickly, too, for a nation enjoying a W-shaped recession. (assuming it HAS an end). Subsidies to the rescue?
> 
> Tell us, when the double dip hits later this year as the post-Fukushima 2Qs start rolling in (July?), where will the investment come from to triple the hydraulic fracking industry right here in Star-Spangled America?
> 
> Meanwhile, thanks to Chindia (and neocon hubris), peak is here already. ... Slept too late, missed the alarm ... Why? Because the world listened to people like you for too long.
> 
> The same people who brought us WMDs, color-coded terror scales, "Operation Iraqi Liberation," and "we'll be greeted as Liberators!"
Click to expand...

Jiggs, you're such a defeatist.
Well-versed, articulate, and literate. 
But a perennial defeatist. 



editec said:


> It only takes one fracking disaster to permanently destroy a local water supply.
> 
> When we can do this SAFELY we ought to.
> 
> Of course that* safe* fracking will no doubt cost more.
> 
> But there's no sense forever destroying the water supplies for millions of people just to extract a little gas.
> 
> We need to exploit these resources, but the emphases has got to be that we do it SAFELY.


And after 60 years of fracking, we're still looking for that water aquifer that's been permanently destroyed. 



Old Rocks said:


> I suggest that we pass a law that before any drilling and fracking is done, that the well water from the area be tested extensively, all known aquifers. Then, if these aquifers are contaminated after drilling, the people doing the drilling be responsible for supplying clean water to all those affected until such times as the contamination is found to be gone.
> 
> This seems to be a fair answer to the statements made by both sides. If the aquifers are already contaminated, but suffer no further degradation, then the drillers, and the company that hires them are home free. If the water is pure and remains so, the same. But if there is significant degradation, then the drillers are held responsible for the degradation to all those affected, even if it is the whole of New York City.
> 
> Simple accountability.



Maybe not a bad idea. But in the initial assessment, you'll be hard-pressed to find a water well that does not contain nitrates or phosphates or choliforms put there by agriculture.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> And there it is... finally... laid bare for all to see.
> 
> RGR's enthusiastic, cornucopian agenda. Shale gas. Why didn't you just admit this earlier, instead of hemming and hawing and dancing around all the shale gas questions I asked of you months ago.



Why don't you fire off a neuron in a useful direction? Here is what happens to Hubberts peak of natural gas in the early 1970's, and certainly, shale gas is only the most recent component. Hey! What happened to peak natural gas in the early 70's! Gee! Peak nonsense doesn't work for natural gas either!








			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Even if gas-from-shale managed to offset existing conventional decline rates enough to pass seamlessly into this new paradigm (and it never will), you're advocating an entire industry that would need to be whipped into shape on a massive scale, requiring an enormous amount of capital.



Look at that graph Jiggsy. Its already happened on a massive scale, the capital has been spent, Hubberts decline completely reversed, and now it's time to ask the question, Hey! Lets export some!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Tell us, when the double dip hits later this year as the post-Fukushima 2Qs start rolling in (July?), where will the investment come from to triple the hydraulic fracking industry right here in Star-Spangled America?



Any true peaker would never admit that there had been a RECOVERY, thereby allowing another recession in the door. You are slipping Jiggsy, straying from Dogma. Better be careful, the instant you start thinking for yourself the most likely outcome is you will realize what a pig in a poke you've been trying to sell to your betters.


----------



## Samson

Mr. H. said:


> Jiggs, you're such a defeatist.
> Well-versed, articulate, and literate.
> But a perennial defeatist.



When you've been singing the same "Peak Oil" tune for the past 60 years, don't expect a drastic change.

And you give him way too much credit: his is an academic POV he's regurgitated to impressionable college freshman all his career.

He wouldn't know a pump truck from a sand truck from a coiled tubing truck if his life depended on it.


----------



## Mr. H.

Why haven't I seen any data on "Peak Ethanol"?


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> It only takes one fracking disaster to permanently destroy a local water supply.



So what? And you are wrong anyway. Frac fluid volumes are limited, and just don't have the size to permanently destroy anything.

Where do people get this stuff?



			
				editec said:
			
		

> When we can do this SAFELY we ought to.



Safety in any human endeavor is an illusion. You are using electricity to make this post? Odds are, the creation of that electricity isn't safe, why the hell would you require it for fracking wells when you don't require for everything else?



			
				editec said:
			
		

> But there's no sense forever destroying the water supplies for millions of people just to extract a little gas.



It isn't a "little" gas, it is enough to completely reverse production decline in one of the worlds largest producers of natural gas, and it doesn't forever destroy anything. 

A new slogan! Stop the fracking propaganda! More science...less hysteria!


----------



## chikenwing

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. US as a natural gas exporting superpower, as we were once an oil superpower, is a good thing. Bring on the fracking and lets all get busy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is... finally... laid bare for all to see.
> 
> RGR's enthusiastic, cornucopian agenda. Shale gas. Why didn't you just admit this earlier, instead of hemming and hawing and dancing around all the shale gas questions I asked of you months ago.
> 
> Replete with the "fool with a camera on utube" canard. Great stuff. As if the numerous legit concerns brought up throughout Gasland can be brushed aside with another surface quip.
> 
> Even if gas-from-shale managed to offset existing conventional decline rates enough to pass seamlessly into this new paradigm (and it never will), you're advocating an entire industry that would need to be whipped into shape on a massive scale, requiring an enormous amount of capital. The infrastructure expansion alone being a logistical nightmare of epic proportion, for a country whose growth has slowed almost to a halt the past several years. I'll guess your infectious optimism insists it can all be done quickly, too, for a nation enjoying a W-shaped recession. (assuming it HAS an end). Subsidies to the rescue?
> 
> Tell us, when the double dip hits later this year as the post-Fukushima 2Qs start rolling in (July?), where will the investment come from to triple the hydraulic fracking industry right here in Star-Spangled America?
> 
> Meanwhile, thanks to Chindia (and neocon hubris), peak is here already. ... Slept too late, missed the alarm ... Why? Because the world listened to people like you for too long.
> 
> The same people who brought us WMDs, color-coded terror scales, "Operation Iraqi Liberation," and "we'll be greeted as Liberators!"
Click to expand...


What???? totaly clueless

Gas drilling and fraking is going will go on and has provided many well paying jobs,enriched land owners and will supply the whiners and blubbers clean energy for sometime to come.

My company is just starting to expand into Pa supporting drilling companys its a very good thing. 

Trucking,gravel,restaurants,excavation company's,start up of all kinds,all the self absorbed
no nothings will get their gas their electricity,their food processed even as they cry and blubber about something they no little.

you appose this,you should lose your access to natural gas,and it touches you in more ways than you know.you don't need a gas meter at your house.


----------



## chikenwing

Mr. H. said:


> Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing.
> 
> Good points folks, but I mean hey look - here's something this country is about to embark upon whereby we will actually be exporting a lot of something that has a lot of value. Exporting - selling natural gas overseas. Cold hard cash coming into the U.S.
> It'll help the trade deficit, create jobs, boost manufacturing.
> 
> Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already.
> This shit is groundbreaking news.



Fracking is the linch pin without it the resource go back to the stone age.


----------



## Mr. H.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (ie. OP):

Here's a brief assessment of LNG opportunities. Kind of thin, but there are additional links in the article -

LNG Exports is a Potential Business Opportunity For U.S. Natural Gas Industry


----------



## Samson

chikenwing said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surpirsed this has devolved into a discussion on hydraulic fracturing.
> 
> Good points folks, but I mean hey look - here's something this country is about to embark upon whereby we will actually be exporting a lot of something that has a lot of value. Exporting - selling natural gas overseas. Cold hard cash coming into the U.S.
> It'll help the trade deficit, create jobs, boost manufacturing.
> 
> Forget the fracturing debate - there's plenty of threads for that already.
> This shit is groundbreaking news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fracking is the linch pin without it the resource go back to the stone age.
Click to expand...




Mr. H. said:


> Meanwhile, back at the ranch (ie. OP):
> 
> Here's a brief assessment of LNG opportunities. Kind of thin, but there are additional links in the article -



Fracking and Excess Natural Gas supply cannot be seperated.

Its like saying Corn prices have nothing to do with Farming.


----------



## chikenwing

Samson said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs, you're such a defeatist.
> Well-versed, articulate, and literate.
> But a perennial defeatist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you've been singing the same "Peak Oil" tune for the past 60 years, don't expect a drastic change.
> 
> And you give him way too much credit: his is an academic POV he's regurgitated to impressionable college freshman all his career.
> 
> He wouldn't know a pump truck from a sand truck from a coiled tubing truck if his life depended on it.
Click to expand...


Lets put this in simple terms,peak my ass!!

upon further exploration they have discover more gas then originally thought 150-200 years worth at projected consumption rates,then here's the reall cherry on top,there is just as much oil there also,this being the Marcellus basin.

Take a drive threw northern Pa. I do several times a week,its happening whether you like it or not,and the folks that live there support it.


----------



## chikenwing

Mr. H. said:


> Meanwhile, back at the ranch (ie. OP):
> 
> Here's a brief assessment of LNG opportunities. Kind of thin, but there are additional links in the article -
> 
> LNG Exports is a Potential Business Opportunity For U.S. Natural Gas Industry




We work on the trade deficit by NOT IMPORTING energy at present rates,fix that then sell what we don't need,but we should not look at nature gas as a big exporting resource until we develop it for US first.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is unfortunate that we have a segment of society that seems to be defeatiist, anti-industrial, anti-risk.  Ironically such people often describe themselves as 'progressives'.

Again we cannot have life without risk.  Government cannot protect us from all the hazards of living our lives, and when it tries inappropriately to do so it generally creates more problems than it solves not the least of which is confiscation of our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, vision, imagination, and initiative.

If we had these people around, nobody ever would have dared to hook up a horse to a wheeled vehicle.  Or attempt to use a horse for riding for that matter.  No ship would ever have dared sail out of the sight of land.  Maybe nobody would have attempted to build a structure that floats and can carry people and cargo.   We would have no railroad system, no automobiles, no airplanes, no public utilities, no space program, and only a fraction of the medical science that is saving lives and making them better.

Humankind has advanced itself by taking risk.  And it has improved ithe quality of life for billions by learning from and correcting mistakes.  Few things worth doing in the world have been accomplished without some mishaps along the way.


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.



Total Agreement.


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Agreement.
Click to expand...


They've been doing it for the past 45 years without screwing up the water: The Flaming Water Faucet on "Gas Land" had biogenic methane (not from fracking) in it.


----------



## Intense

Fracking (also often referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking) is a process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into oil or methane gas deposits to fracture the rock above and release the liquid or gas below. The process and its aftermath has generated controversy because of harm to drinking water and health where it has been used, in Colorado and New Mexico [1], and more recently in expanded drilling plans in the Marcellus Shale in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic states.[2]

Fracking -- which uses enormous amounts of drinkable water along with toxic chemicals and which also releases radioactive materials and other hazardous substances in shale deposits -- has raised significant environmental and health concerns.[3] In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.[4]

The industry lobbied the Bush Administration and Congress with its claims that the "fracking fluid" should be considered "proprietary" and exempt from disclosure under federal drinking water protection laws.[5] Led by Halliburton and aided by the former CEO of Halliburton, then-Vice President Dick Cheney, the industry obtained this exception in the law along with favorable treatment by political appointees and regulators in the "Environmental Protection Agency." As a result of the "Halliburton loophole" to the law, drilling companies have not been required to divulge the cocktail of chemicals that are in the fracking fluids used at each of the proposed or continuing drill sites across the country.
Fracking - SourceWatch


----------



## Intense

President Barack Obama enthusiastically backs gas drilling, and these days 90 percent of it is done by fracking, which involves forcing below ground chemically treated water under high pressure to smash through layers of rock, thus freeing the gas to flow upward. Along with wind, solar, and nuclear power, natural gas is crucial to Obama's goal of producing 80 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. But the drilling is taking place with minimal oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State and regional authorities are trying to write their own rules&#8212;and having trouble keeping up. 

Now, reports of contaminated water and alleged disposal of carcinogens in rivers have caught state and federal regulators, and even environmental watchdogs, off guard. Sometimes the fracking mix includes diesel fuel. Between 2005 and 2009, drillers injected 32 million gallons of fluids containing diesel into wells in 19 states, an investigation by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) concludes. Just as it recovers its footing from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Administration faces a new threat, again involving a risky drilling technology and charges of lax regulation. Obama is "evaluating the need for new safeguards for drilling," says White House spokesman Clark W. Stevens. "It's likely that the science is going to say we need to regulate fracking," says Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for Public Citizen, a liberal advocacy group. "But Obama's political team is going to say don't regulate, and I think the political team will win." 

The Marcellus Shale may contain 490 trillion cubic feet of gas&#8212;enough to heat U.S. homes and power electric plants for two decades, says Terry Engelder, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. That makes it the world's second-largest gas field behind South Pars, shared by Iran and Qatar. The shale gas rush is creating thousands of jobs and reviving the economy in states such as Wyoming, Texas, and Louisiana. In Pennsylvania, where 2,516 wells have been drilled in the last three years, $389 million in tax revenue and 44,000 jobs came from gas drilling in 2009, according to a Penn State report. Perhaps best of all, natural gas emits half the carbon emissions of oil. 

While there have been no documented cases of fracking fluids flowing underground into drinking water, there have been spills above ground. Fracking produces millions of gallons of wastewater; some of it containing benzene has spilled from holding tanks. The wastewater can overwhelm treatment plants not equipped to handle high levels of contaminants. A Feb. 26 New York Times article, using documents from the EPA and state regulators, described how radioactive wastewater is being discharged into river basins. Sierra Club Deputy Executive Director Bruce Hamilton says Obama "has been sold a bill of goods." But even the Sierra Club has struggled with fracking. Last year it overruled New York and Pennsylvania chapters calling for a national fracking ban; now it's reconsidering that decision, Hamilton says.
Fracking: The Great Shale Gas Rush - BusinessWeek


----------



## Intense

The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q]YouTube - The Who - Won&#39;t Get Fooled Again[/ame]


----------



## chikenwing

Fracking -- which uses enormous amounts of drinkable water along with toxic chemicals and which also releases radioactive materials and other hazardous substances in shale deposits -- has raised significant environmental and health concerns.[3] In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.[4]


So wrong not funny.they use zero zip potable water non. and just what is enormous amounts anyway,ya just don't know do ya,repeat what is heard not what is true.

No drill no gas its really that simple.

Take the high road and refuse to use or buy anything that used natural gas in its manufacturing. But the alarmist will not do this,they will demand their food,their heat their electricity selfishness beyond belief.


----------



## RGR

Intense said:


> While there have been no documented cases of fracking fluids flowing underground into drinking water, there have been spills above ground.



This particular factoid really bugs the crap out of NIMBY anti-fracing types, don't it? Hydraulic fracturing started in the 40's, and has been done millions of times now. And there are no documented cases of fluids polluting drinking water....BUT LETS REGULATE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE WE'RE ALL IGNORANT AND WATCH UTUBE VIDEOS AS OUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION!


----------



## sparky

Samson said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)
> 
> Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch _Gas Land_ and ignore the facts
> *Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water* Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water | 9news.com
> 
> There are millions of jobs in fracking, a highly labor intensive activity: However these jobs won't be found in NYC, Chicago, LA, the NE, the NW, or any other Democratic Party Stronghold:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats would much rather extend a $500/week unemployment check ($12.5/hr) to their consituants, than to see job creation at a $15/hr minimum rate among their non-constituants.
Click to expand...







From the Rockies to the Gulf, from the Upper Midwest to Pennsylvania&#8217;s Allegheny Front there are complaints of fouled wells, stinking air, dead streams, earth tremors, and, in at least one West Virginia case, an entire river gone dry. It&#8217;s all part of a frantic rush to tap and drain America&#8217;s shale gas fields before meaningful regulations can be enacted to protect drinking water and public health. 

Unfortunately, as this American catastrophe unfolds in gas-producing states, *Congress does worse than nothing. U.S. legislators have made fracking exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act* and other federal environmental regulations.

_<snip>_
Then there&#8217;s the problem of frack water &#8212; the public doesn&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in it, and fracking companies won&#8217;t say. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 65 commonly used fracking chemicals are hazardous, including *formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol and hydrochloric acid. They cause asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, autoimmune diseases, liver failure, cancer, headaches, nausea and sleeplessness. Oh, and frack water is flammable*. In one case, shown in the film &#8220;Gasland&#8221;, water from a homeowner&#8217;s faucet ignites on camera.

Now there is evidence that naturally occurring radioactivity, trapped in bedrock, is coming out of the ground along with fracking fluid. But we wouldn&#8217;t know much about that if we relied on the EPA. The agency hid studies about radioactive drilling wastewater dumped into America&#8217;s waterways, reports The New York Times.

Even *U.S. Energy Secretary Ken Salazar*, a longtime ally of the gas industry, says fracking could kill the industry, and with it any chance capitalizing on the benefits of gas &#8212; including the role of gas in decoupling the U.S. from foreign oil. *Salazar is concerned that if the industry can&#8217;t extract shale gas without depleting and fouling freshwater, the American public will turn against natural gas.* He may be right.






Halliburton and BJ Services acknowledged to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2008 that they had used diesel in the some of their fracking projects in violation of a *voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (&#8220;EPA&#8221.* The current investigation may be gaining the momentum it would require to make the case for federal regulation. 
U.S. Congress to investigate shale gas &#8220;fracking&#8221; process | Horn River News









The diesel fuel was used by drillers as part of a contentious process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand *and chemical additives &#8212; including diesel fuel *&#8212; into rock formations deep underground. The process, which has opened up vast new deposits of natural gas to drilling, creates and props open fissures in the rock to ease the release of oil and gas. 

But concerns have been growing over the potential for fracking chemicals &#8212; particularly those found in diesel fuel &#8212; to contaminate underground sources of drinking water. 

&#8220;We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought &#8212; *and no state and federal regulators have issued &#8212; permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing*,&#8221; said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and two other Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the letter. &#8220;This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.&#8221; 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/energy-environment/01gas.html?_r=1


At the risk of fighting in the war room, I'll take the manure, thanks....

~S~


----------



## Samson

sparky said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)
> 
> Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch _Gas Land_ and ignore the facts
> *Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water* Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water | 9news.com
> 
> There are millions of jobs in fracking, a highly labor intensive activity: However these jobs won't be found in NYC, Chicago, LA, the NE, the NW, or any other Democratic Party Stronghold:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats would much rather extend a $500/week unemployment check ($12.5/hr) to their consituants, than to see job creation at a $15/hr minimum rate among their non-constituants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the Rockies to the Gulf, from the Upper Midwest to Pennsylvanias Allegheny Front there are complaints of fouled wells, stinking air, dead streams, earth tremors, and, in at least one West Virginia case, an entire river gone dry. Its all part of a frantic rush to tap and drain Americas shale gas fields before meaningful regulations can be enacted to protect drinking water and public health.
> 
> Unfortunately, as this American catastrophe unfolds in gas-producing states, *Congress does worse than nothing. U.S. legislators have made fracking exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act* and other federal environmental regulations.
> 
> _<snip>_
> Then theres the problem of frack water  the public doesnt know whats in it, and fracking companies wont say. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 65 commonly used fracking chemicals are hazardous, including *formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol and hydrochloric acid. They cause asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, autoimmune diseases, liver failure, cancer, headaches, nausea and sleeplessness. Oh, and frack water is flammable*. In one case, shown in the film Gasland, water from a homeowners faucet ignites on camera.
> 
> Now there is evidence that naturally occurring radioactivity, trapped in bedrock, is coming out of the ground along with fracking fluid. But we wouldnt know much about that if we relied on the EPA. The agency hid studies about radioactive drilling wastewater dumped into Americas waterways, reports The New York Times.
> 
> Even *U.S. Energy Secretary Ken Salazar*, a longtime ally of the gas industry, says fracking could kill the industry, and with it any chance capitalizing on the benefits of gas  including the role of gas in decoupling the U.S. from foreign oil. *Salazar is concerned that if the industry cant extract shale gas without depleting and fouling freshwater, the American public will turn against natural gas.* He may be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton and BJ Services acknowledged to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2008 that they had used diesel in the some of their fracking projects in violation of a *voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).* The current investigation may be gaining the momentum it would require to make the case for federal regulation.
> U.S. Congress to investigate shale gas fracking process | Horn River News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diesel fuel was used by drillers as part of a contentious process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand *and chemical additives  including diesel fuel * into rock formations deep underground. The process, which has opened up vast new deposits of natural gas to drilling, creates and props open fissures in the rock to ease the release of oil and gas.
> 
> But concerns have been growing over the potential for fracking chemicals  particularly those found in diesel fuel  to contaminate underground sources of drinking water.
> 
> We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought  *and no state and federal regulators have issued  permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing*, said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and two other Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the letter. This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/energy-environment/01gas.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> At the risk of fighting in the war room, I'll take the manure, thanks....
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


Point?

That the NYT is once again out in left field.


----------



## Foxfyre

Not just the NYT but almost all media that tilts left and aids and abets the 'greenies' and the Obama administration in trashing all fossil fuels and promoting 'green energy'.  They are often dishonest in how they do it.

For instance they use pictures of ANWR like this to illustrate how tragic it would be to allow oil companies to take the vast oil reserves there:











When in reality the tiny part of ANWR (2000 scattered acres which is a tiny fraction of the whole thing) where the oil leases are looks like this:






\






Again there are very few things worth doing for the benefit of humankind that does not come with some risk.  Ironically it is often the same people who oppose new and different forms of mining natural gas and crude oil because there is some risk of harm being done who insist that other programs that do more harm than good are okay because they do some good.

Personally I think energy independence is a worthy goal and I think we should explore all our options to accomplish that.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Not just the NYT but almost all media that tilts left and aids and abets the 'greenies' and the Obama administration in trashing all fossil fuels and promoting 'green energy'.  They are often dishonest in how they do it.
> 
> For instance they use pictures of ANWR like this to illustrate how tragic it would be to allow oil companies to take the vast oil reserves there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in reality the tiny part of ANWR (2000 scattered acres which is a tiny fraction of the whole thing) where the oil leases are looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> \
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again there are very few things worth doing for the benefit of humankind that does not come with some risk.  Ironically it is often the same people who oppose new and different forms of mining natural gas and crude oil because there is some risk of harm being done who insist that other programs that do more harm than good are okay because they do some good.
> 
> Personally I think energy independence is a worthy goal and I think we should explore all our options to accomplish that.



When unemployment is 10% and energy prices rise (right now, natural gas prices are low), it really won't matter what the NYT, Ken Salazar, or CA Congressmen Waxman (note there is no frackable shale in CA), thinks.

Halliburton is already reformulating frack chemicals (that make up a very small % of the total fluid) into components acquired from the food industry:



> The CleanStim formulation is designed for use in hydraulic fracturing. Even though all the ingredients are acquired from food suppliers, the _CleanStim fluid system should not be considered edible_



Regardless, The Green Fringe remains unimpressed.

Not sure what, short of moving the entire population of the USA into mud huts, will ever make this group competely happy.


----------



## RGR

Samson said:


> Halliburton is already reformulating frack chemicals (that make up a very small % of the total fluid) into components acquired from the food industry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CleanStim formulation is designed for use in hydraulic fracturing. Even though all the ingredients are acquired from food suppliers, the _CleanStim fluid system should not be considered edible_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, The Green Fringe remains unimpressed.
> 
> Not sure what, short of moving the entire population of the USA into mud huts, will ever make this group competely happy.
Click to expand...


Oh this is great. Near edible frac fluids. Love it! And of COURSE it isn't good enough for the greens, until all economic activity ceases, they won't be happy. I'm beginning to wonder if eco isn't becoming synonymous with human-haters.


----------



## Mr. H.

BIN LADEN IS DEAD! 




Hey- it's my thread- I'll celebrate if I wanna.


----------



## RGR

Mr. H. said:


> BIN LADEN IS DEAD!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey- it's my thread- I'll celebrate if I wanna.



Watching on TV. Good deal. See ya Osama, wouldn't wanna be ya!


----------



## sparky

Samson said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)
> 
> Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch _Gas Land_ and ignore the facts
> Point?
> 
> That the NYT is once again out in left field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be _kiddin' _me Sam
> 
> you're presented with a complete dialog of how _fubar_ the system is, right on up to and including Congressional intervention _(who apparently can't decipher their own legislation from a frackin' hole in the ground), _and come back to the table with this?
> 
> who's _distracting _from the OP pal?
> 
> 
> Tell you what, here's a few facts most Americans are also too stupid to understand>
> 
> 
> Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900
> 
> 2005
> (per 100,000 population)
> Year Tuberculosis,
> all forms Malignant
> neoplasms
> *(cancer) Major*cardiovascular
> diseases Influenza
> and pneumonia Motor
> vehicle
> accidents
> *1900* 194.4 *64.0* 345.2 202.2 n.a.
> 1910 153.8 76.2 371.9 155.9 1.8
> 1920 113.1 83.4 364.9 207.3 10.3
> 1930 71.1 97.4 414.4 102.5 26.7
> 1940 45.9 120.3 485.7 70.3 26.2
> 1950 22.5 139.8 510.8 31.3 23.1
> 1960 6.1 149.2 521.8 37.3 21.3
> 1970 2.6 162.8 496.0 30.9 26.9
> 1980 0.9 183.9 436.4 24.1 23.5
> 1990 0.7 203.2 368.3 32.0 18.8
> 2000 0.3 200.5 340.4 24.3 15.2
> 2001 0.3 194.4 323.9 21.8 15.4
> 2002 0.3 193.8 318.3 22.9 15.5
> 2003 0.2 191.5 310.3 22.4 15.4
> 2004 0.2 187.4 293.8 20.9 15.0
> *2005 *0.2 *188.7 *288.8 21.3 15.3
> 
> Source: 1900-1970, U.S. Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual, Vol. I and Vol II; 1971-2001, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report); and unpublished data.
> 
> 
> Read more: Death Rates by Cause of Death, 19002005  Infoplease.com Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900
> 
> 
> yeah, we all wanna kick a smoker right?  all those ppm's gotta be their fault, b*stard spawn of satan that they are
> 
> ~S~
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Samson

sparky said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be _kiddin' _me Sam
> 
> you're presented with a complete dialog of how _fubar_ the system is,~S~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about, and really don't take your "complete dialog" very seriously.
> 
> 
> But you go ahead with your bomb-throwing campaign.
> 
> It won't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about, and really don't take your "complete dialog" very seriously.
> 
> 
> But you go ahead with your bomb-throwing campaign.
> 
> It won't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're ever talking about. ESPECIALLY in regards to energy and its relationship with the economy. None. Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## editec

Samson said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ALL for it.
> 
> When they can do it without screwing up the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total Agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've been doing it for the past 45 years without screwing up the water: The Flaming Water Faucet on "Gas Land" had biogenic methane (not from fracking) in it.
Click to expand...

 

And here we go again, Sam.

The public does not KNOW what to believe.

On one hand there's you telling us this is safe. And, SAM, if your ricebowl didn't depend on that, we would have no reason _whatever _to question _your claims_.

ON the other hand, we have the complaints about fracking by citizens who have no vested interest in this issue other than their desire NOT to be poisoned by FRACKING problems.

You see the problem for most citizens, right?

The *very same energy industry* that periodically experiences enormous SPIKES in pricing, spikes that are market driven and that systematically make it impossible for so many of us to thrive; the same industry that takes oil depletion allowances that we citizens end up paying for while it is making BILLION in profits, is now telling us that everything is okay, and that _our fellow citizens_ --people who are telling us that they can no longer drink their water! -- are alarmists.


Those of us who are no in a position to KNOW, naturally have our doubts about the veracity of the claims of the people who we KNOW don't give a flying fuck about us and who DO have a very good reason NOT TO TELL US THE TRUTH

Do I think _YOU'RE_ a liar?

ABSOLUTELY _not_.

But do I trust _your masters?_

Not a far as I can throw an oil rig.

Their indifference to what their activities do to the indigenous populations AROUND THE WORLD, are well documented.

I don't blame you for that, but amigo?

*That is the hump of credibility that you guys are going to have to overcome.*


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're ever talking about. ESPECIALLY in regards to energy and its relationship with the economy. None. Don't flatter yourself.



Coming from the parrot, that statement is hysterical.


----------



## Mr. H.

The term is "drilling rig" not "oil rig". 

This industry that revels in "price spikes" is the same said industry that often falters from price drops. 

I suggest that you invest in the oil business. Not as a passive investor, but as an active participant. 
Hire a geologist, hire a drilling contractor, lease some acreage, employ an engineer or two. 

Put that "oil rig" on location, sit back, and see what happens. 

Go ahead you gutless fucks. Risk it. Pony up.


----------

