07-03-2012, 04:09 PM | #121 |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Expand. In academic research or industry?
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
07-03-2012, 04:42 PM | #122 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Also necessary is to define every chemical in that fracking fluid so that all (even generations later) know exactly what was put in there. The earth is chock full of fissures. That means corrupt fracking companies can know they are creating a disaster. And the disaster does not appear in the drinking water for decades. Since those chemicals are unknown (a secret), then corrupt fracking companies have little fear about dumping toxic chemicals elsewhere. First step to addressing the issues and to gain public trust is for fracking companies to be brutal and excessive with their bad apples. No such structure exists. The fracking industry would have you believe the entire industry is good because the other 'apples' try to be honest. Credibility means the industry viciously attacks and 'corrects' their bad apples. If not, the industry has a serious credibility issue. |
|
07-03-2012, 06:23 PM | #123 |
erika
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: "the high up north"
Posts: 6,127
|
both! you made the point that right now, the cost vs profit just isn't there, and there isn't enough interest by corporations in putting their money into technology, research, and actual execution, with no hope for real profit in the near future.
That's what government is for. to step in when the market fails. We need infrastructure spending anyway. we need clean or renewable energy anyway. we need more research anyway. all of those things will return on their investments hugely, but not in a time frame that makes economic sense for corporations or private capital. Thats why we have a government.
__________________
not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh |
07-03-2012, 07:19 PM | #124 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Fortunately, no one ever makes a mistake and pushes the wrong button.
ABC News RALEIGH, N.C. July 4, 2012 (AP) NC State Rep Pushes Wrong Button, Overrides Veto Quote:
|
|
07-05-2012, 12:54 AM | #125 |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
MIT issued a 178-page report called “The Future of Natural Gas”
With over 20,000 shale wells drilled in the last 10 years, the environmental record of shale gas development has for the most part been a good one — but it is important to recognize the inherent risks and the damage that can be caused by just one poor operation. (page 39) The fracturing process itself poses minimal risk to the shallow groundwater zones that may exist in the upper portion of the wellbore. (page 40) The physical realities of the fracturing process, combined with the lack of reports from the many wells to date of fracture fluid contamination of groundwater, supports the assertion that fracturing itself does not create environmental concerns. (page 41) The report also finds that it’s very likely we’ll see an increase in the number of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles due to the abundance of cheap natural gas. It’s a fascinating report. Take the time to at least scan it.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
07-05-2012, 12:19 PM | #126 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Classic, I actually had "scanned" that report earlier. I don't remember
all my thoughts, but IIRC I felt it was a valid engineering study. By that, I mean... as written from the "technical side" of the industry. In scanning the Study Group Participants, it looks as though all are well-credentialed members from engineering, management, or banking. For a technical study group, that is fine. (I do believe this) But I looked for people that might be representing public health or environmental aspects, and found only one... maybe there are others. Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible. But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage, and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs. It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc. As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago. Urgency is a factor in making decisions, but short term economic needs should not overwhelm planning for long term (unintended) consequences. My major concerns to avoid repeating our history in Montana and Appalachia, are the technical "how-to's" and the $cost of cleanups after a water supply is contaminated. For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter. |
07-05-2012, 01:18 PM | #127 | |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
Quote:
|
|
07-05-2012, 01:49 PM | #128 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
UT, just to be argumentative... If by "natgas" you mean "natural gas" or methane,
so are 02 and CO2 (in high enough concentrations). I was referring to the compounds they add to the fracking fluids, such known carcinogens as benzene and s2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) (Scientific American. Nov 2011). EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells, and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers. . |
07-05-2012, 02:33 PM | #129 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Newsmax
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012 04:29 AM By Sandy Fitzgerald Kasich-Backed Bill Keeps Some Fracking Compounds Secret Quote:
|
|
07-05-2012, 06:57 PM | #130 | |||||
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
Also, it is possible that reducing greenhouse gases requires more research in producing cleaner fossil fuels than research in alternative energy. Then, as technology catches up, alternative energy can take off. Although, if you really want to promote non-fossil fuel sources as energy, push nuclear. The technology is there and it is safe and clean. The only obstacles are politics and a lack of incentive for private companies to invest in new nuclear facilities (that is where the government comes in). Quote:
On the other hand, environmental groups also need to be more technical. The basic concepts of fracking are not that difficult (unlike financial regulation) but there seems to be a refusal to learn. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so) and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel. And remember, this is going against gravity! In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient. If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction, which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface. Also, gas companies are not deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground. I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology. What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer. This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. Last edited by piercehawkeye45; 07-05-2012 at 07:04 PM. |
|||||
07-05-2012, 08:39 PM | #131 | ||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
the link/article I cited above was pretty explicit. Quote:
for many years, and so technology has (almost certainly) improved. But nonetheless, that aquifer is now contaminated. Other than "dilution is the solution", what does the industry offer to mitigate such events, particularly if 20 years from now we find that today's best practices are not sufficient. |
||
07-05-2012, 08:50 PM | #132 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
PH45, in an earlier post you mentioned nanotechnology.
Is that something like the "Fabreze" deodorizer in which the offending smell molecule is physically trapped inside the deodorizer chemical... e.g. inside a special "Bucky-ball" ? |
07-05-2012, 09:41 PM | #133 | |||
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
Yet, even if the number of reported incidents are only a tenth of the actual amount of contaminated wells, which is still unacceptable, that is most likely a regulation issue. In other words, something that can be avoided. Although, I fully support additional testing of groundwater around fracking locations. That would give invaluable information of what borehole sealant designs works and the reliability of them. Quote:
Quote:
Although, if we ever get to that point, it won't be for centuries.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|||
07-06-2012, 12:55 AM | #134 | ||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
we are talking about "old" drilling (and early fracking) situations. But I'm not so sure when it comes to the idea that it's (only ?) a regulation issue, given there are so many "stove pipe" regulators throughout different states. Although not an academic or technical paper, the 12-page, ProPublica article includes a layman discussion of the Pinedale Anticline (p4), and the potential magnitude of contaminated mid-western aquifers. Quote:
|
||
07-06-2012, 07:10 PM | #135 |
NSABFD
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MS. usa
Posts: 3,908
|
Not to worry. My old buddy is on job inspecting in upper PA. Ya trust him!!!
__________________
I've haven't left very deep footprints in the sands of time. But, boy I've left a bunch. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|