Fracking - where is it headed ?

[Griff]

Some good news for this thread.

CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.

"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.

In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.

[classicman]

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because
it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action

[Griff]

People only see what they want to see.

[piercehawkeye45]

I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.

http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/

[xoxoxoBruce]

What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources,...

No shit, business will always choose the cheaper alternative... that's not new.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.

http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/

Nice series so far, bears watching.

[xoxoxoBruce]

People are right to question things that have to potential for major consequences. When you eat that hot fudge sundae and then say I shouldn't have done that, you can live with the damage, it can be corrected. But when there's a chance of major environmental damage, like making a large area radioactive, killing off a million acres of trees, or in this case fucking up the water supply for millions of people, you better be damn sure of what you're doing. That's pretty hard when the people doing it are not forthcoming with information. Especially when those people, I pointing at you energy companies, have not proven very trustworthy in the past.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree that drilling companies who frack should be subject to strict regulations and the chemical names should be released to the public. Hell, most of the frackers I've met agree with that. Gas and oil companies will push against it, but outside of them, there should be a wide consensus.

I hate wording it like this (the whole "it's there fault!" argument) but the problem I have with the 'ban fracking' crowd is that they push way to hard and most of their arguments are not grounded in reality. For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue. There will always be a risk associated with those, but groundwater pollution can be largely reduced (like almost 0%) with strict regulation. Also, from what I have heard, big gas companies are usually good with their designs but some of the independent companies have a tendency to skip corners and that is where accidents occur. That is why most frackers I've encountered tend to support regulations. Yet, if people think there is a fundamental risk associated with fracking and not a regulation issue, they will immediately try to ban it.

I think this will eventually just turn into another "not in my backyard" situation. Not that I don't think it is a legitimate justification (it's always easier to tell other people to suck it up), but if we get rid of shale gas we go back to coal, which is worse in almost every aspect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue.

Fracking fluids are pumped back out in mass quantities - on the order of millions of gallons. Why so much stress on roads? They have that much fracking fluid to dispose of.

Many drilling companies say that fluid can be stored in large ponds lined with plastic. And then unilaterally dispose of that water in some cases by any convenient means - such as the public sewer system.

Always be suspicious when companies refuse to define what materials are being used. And instead, pay a Governor massive sums to 1) keep all regulations away from fracking, and 2) take the mineral rights virtually tax free.

It is not about fluids two miles down. It is about the blantant attitude of some fracking companies. They even ignore the large pools of fracking fluid stored on the surface as if the only threat was only two miles down. And the 'powers that be' are acting as if on the take. Plenty of reasons to be suspicious.

[piercehawkeye45]

Like I said, there are good reasons to be suspicious with fracking and fracking fluid disposal is one of them. On the other hand, many environmentalists need to stop going FOX news on everyone by putting emotion over science. When your bullshit arguments get debunked time and time again, people stop listening to you when you actually have a few legitimate concerns.

Shale gas going to be a extremely beneficial resource so it will be extracted. It just needs to be extracted responsibly. Easier said than done but any other outcome is far worse.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.

Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.

Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought.

kind of like the list of ingredients on Romney's tax forms, eh?

[Lamplighter]

Carbon storage is touted as a future part of the solution
of the environmental (climate change) due to burning oil and natural gas.
But what I don't understand (yet) is how it will work.

If liquified carbon dioxide is pumped underground for storage,
is it not to be expected that eventually this "liquid" will warm up enough to revert to CO2 gas,
and create enormous back-pressure - leading to fracturing of rock
--- and leakage back up into the atmosphere ?


NY Times
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
9/6/12

Shell to Test Capturing of Carbon in Canada

HOUSTON — In a bid to make oil sands production less polluting,
Royal Dutch Shell announced on Wednesday that it would go forward with
the first carbon capture and storage project ever tried in the fields of western Canada.<snip>

The project, which is scheduled to begin operations by 2015,
is intended to capture and permanently store underground more
than a million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which Shell estimated
was equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road.

Carbon capture projects have lost favor in recent years because of concerns
about their heavy costs, which have typically been subsidized by governments<snip>.

Shell said it was hoping to reduce the carbon emissions from a treatment plant in Scotford,
outside Edmonton, that processes extra-heavy oil called bitumen
so it can be shipped to refineries in the United States.

The Quest project will pipe liquefied carbon dioxide to injection wells
and then store the substance nearly a mile underground under
multiple layers of rock and mineral formations.

The oil sands will originate from the Athabasca Oil Sands project,
a giant mining endeavor operated by Shell in a partnership with
Chevron and Marathon.<snip>

[piercehawkeye45]

Same reason why our core is solid at the center and liquid outside of that. High pressures tend to turn elements and molecules into solid/liquid states.

CO2 sequestration has many issues right now and it is doubted whether it will ever be a realistic alternative. However, much research on it is being done right now. There have been many times when a streak of innovations have changed what we view as "realistic".

[Lamplighter]

The fracking industry was counting on New York to set the
environmental standard for the other states to follow.

Now, not so much...

NY Times
DANNY HAKIM
Published: September 30, 2012

Shift by Cuomo on Gas Drilling Prompts Both Anger and Praise

ALBANY — A few months after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was poised
to approve hydraulic fracturing in several struggling New York counties,
his administration is reversing course and starting the regulatory process over,
garnering praise from environmental groups and stirring anger among
industry executives and upstate landowners.

Ten days ago, after nearly four years of review by state regulators,
the governor bowed to entreaties from environmentalists to conduct another study,
this one an examination of potential impacts on public health.

Neither the governor nor other state officials have given
any indication of how long the study might take.