Gasland II

[woodgeek]

Not blaming the govt, saying this is exactly a situation where govt can make it right. The market will develop and field the tech, and the govt will make sure the tech doesn't kill us.

Think about cars....crazy unsafe things that kill oodles of us. As a people, we have decided that having cars is better than not, so the govt steps in and enforces safety rules and licensing. In analogy, the documentaries in the OP are like the scare videos they show in drivers ed. You still get a license and drive.

IMO, I suspect that fracking **can** be done at scale with far less environmental impact than lots of other things humans do, like agriculture or building parking lots, and if part of a climate change mitigation strategy, it can be a net positive. It will only be done that way if regulated as part of a sensible public policy plan.

 

[Chain]

Here's a link to a recent article on NCPR.org (North Country Public Radio....my area's National Public Radio affiliate) about an effort to utilize areas near Seneca Lake (the largest of the Finger Lakes in western New York) for the storage of natural gas. As you can probably guess, this idea is quite controversial given this lake is the source of drinking water for many and supplies water to a number of the area's world class wineries, breweries, and blossoming micro-distilleries:

http://www.northcountrypublicradio....e-finger-lakes-the-place-to-store-natural-gas

 

[jebatty]

Continued and even expanding use of fossil fuels has a strong parallel to addiction, and the addiction is sweetened by increased supply and low price. While energy use is essential, the use of fossil fuels is not, because how they are now being used is not essential; instead the use is a savvy market driven love affair with a product that kills the user. The marketer side is pure greed, the same driving force as for other dealers of products that kill the user. The user side is a love affair with a product that delivers pleasure and which causes the user to ignore the consequences. Sure, we all want clean air, water, and soil, but for most the love affair with cheap energy trumps all of that, causes the user to deny the consequences of the behavior, and ultimately leads to death. But the death this time is not just the user, it is life as we know it, sufficiently delayed so as to cause the user to rationalize the final outcome as not likely, or as something that will be solved by technology, or "natural." While in reality, this behavior is plain and simple denial; which is essential if the love affair is to continue; and the outcome is terminal.

Fortunately the parallel is not exact, but it has many of the key components of addiction, both in the drive to use and in the inability to stop the use. It is a love affair with a very dangerous consort.

 

[webbie]

Here is a small piece of real science to add to the puzzle.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130726121612.htm

Quite a few samples exceeding safe levels of various chemicals.

The big problem I see with all of this is that, as usual, the profits will be made now but the liabilities will be paid for by others later. In our industrial world, you are always innocent until proven guilty. And, since we know who makes the laws, exemptions can be gained...

It's difficult putting a value on being able to drink water from underneath where you live. The value is MUCH higher than just to cost of trucking or piping in alternative water. In fact, I always had a creed that I wanted to live in places where I could drink the water from beneath me...I actually moved to the pines of NJ from Bucks county, PA because everyone in Bucks county was using bottled water. It didn't feel right....

But that's me. What is the price of our personal castles? Where do the rights of my neighbors to drill exceed my right to clean water?

Tough questions. The first answers may be gained by starting up the studies that industry managed to shut down, doing away with the Cheney exemption to the clean water act, and requiring the extraction corporations to hold some sort of bond for LONG term liability. As it stands, they can use the old shell games to avoid things in the future.

 

[vinny11950]

Because of droughts, aquifer depletion, rising temperatures, and heavy use of water for agriculture and industry (now fracking), potable water is becoming scarce in many parts of the country. And there is no relief in sight, as those conditions will only worsen.

Pretty soon a corporation is going to charge you for clean, potable water that you used to get for free.

And it is even worse in China.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/08/08/158417396/heres-where-farms-are-sucking-the-planet-dry

 

[semipro]

It seems like just more madness to me.

We find a way to extract yet more of the carbon that has been sequestered in the earth by natural processes over millions of years by
injecting waste materials into our dynamic, poorly defined, and already contaminated sources of drinking water while
rapidly releasing more greenhouse gases to our arguably threatened and poorly understood biosphere just to
avoid switching over to renewable energy sources.

The hubris of humankind(?) is astounding.
We really understand little about the highly complex systems we live in yet we're willing to risk our children's future with steadfast adherence to unsustainable ways -- basically all in the name of greed and comfort.

I look back at the way my parents' generation treated the earth and I see ignorance based on lack of science.
I look at current generations and what we know and what we're doing about it I see maliciousness, greed, and a different kind of ignorance.

 

[semipro]

Check out what else is being injected below ground.
http://people.uwec.edu/piercech/HazwasteWebsSp04/DeepWellInjection/DeepWellInjection.htm

 

[eclecticcottage]

I truly feel that it partly depends on your own life experiances on if you want to believe the industry/government or not. Living where I do, I am pretty jaded when it comes to believing them. Love Canal (which is now Black Creek, and occupied) was the tip of an iceburg many people would like to ignore...but that's about as smart as the Titanic doing so. Niagara Falls is pretty bad in general, you'd have to poke about to find out all the spots, but it's there. A lot Manhattan Project legacies are still here. A friend that worked at a Praxair saw men in white suits with geiger counters on site-and this wasn't more than 5 years ago. The LOOW...so frightening. I can't seem to find the whole "The Bomb that fell on Niagara" series, but here's one of the articles: (broken link removed to http://artvoice.com/issues/v7n39/the_sphere) . Of course, on part of the old LOOW land, there's also a CWM site. Fun stuff. South of us, there's the West Valley Demonstration Project. If you really ask around, you'll find crazy stories about encounters with toxins. Look at this-this creek ends at Lake Ontario: http://lockportjournal.com/local/x2...erties-along-Eighteenmile-Creek/?state=taberU We have an extremely high rate of cancers in WNY. If I were to walk around where I work, there would be fewer people without a closer personal cancer story (parent, sibling, SO, themselves) than not.

Now...the point...is all of this was (is) "safe" according to the government and industries. Just believe us, they said. I'm not so sure I want to anymore.

 

[semipro]

A recent piece on fracking in Ohio.
They are experiencing many earthquakes there where they had few or none before, apparently a result of the deep injection disposal of water water used for fracking.
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...arthquakes-and-ohio-how-regulators-are-r.aspx

 

[Mark Richards]

I am no pawn of the oil industry but I do understand the benefits of oil to mankind. I have watched both gas land and Fracknation and have made informed decisions on my own knowledge of the situation. I remember when alarmist in the climate change arena told us that by 2013 all ice in the Arctic would be gone. Today it is revealed that there is 60% more than last year and apparently the South Pole has record ice coverage also. I live in SW Minnesota where there are wind towers as far as the eyes can see. They are proven killers of migratory birds and a complete eyesore upon the natural beauty of my homeland, not to mention noisy as hell. But because it is "green energy" it is somehow above suspicion as being adverse to the environment and is not discussed because of the hideous partnership btwn big "wind", big govt and big corruption. All energy demands a corresponding cost to the environment and we as responsible people must do what we can to limit our use of it. But the hypocrisy of the political class and green movement people truly astounds me. They say conserve,conserve, conserve to me in my little 1600 Sq ft house and my Toyota corolla and then we find out that they are all living in 4000 sq ft homes, driving luxury cars and flying all over the planet. One day of their lives energy use would last me for weeks if not months. I burn wood because it is renewable but just like oil it releases CO2 into the atmosphere and just like oil it only releases the amount it absorbed during its life cycle.

 

[semipro]

Mark,
While variations from year to year may occur its really long-term changes that matter. I suspect that your info on arctic and antarctic ice is incorrect.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...s-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UjivAMash8E

 

[woodgeek]

The bigger problem is that a lot of our carbon emissions are invisible, embodied in our food, products like cars, etc. The green movement is as imperfect as every other movement---and the fallible people that make it up. Hypocrisy is easy to find, but also to make up and over-hype. The solution is learning to separate truth from scams and denial. In fact, people are using less energy overall, progress, but seemingly smaller than the improvements that need to be made.

 

[begreen]

Mark,
While variations from year to year may occur its really long-term changes that matter. I suspect that your info on arctic and antarctic ice is incorrect.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...s-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UjivAMash8E

Correct and though better than last year, this year was nothing to brag about. Long term trends still point to a steady decline of sea ice.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-record-low

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Mark,
While variations from year to year may occur its really long-term changes that matter. I suspect that your info on arctic and antarctic ice is incorrect.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...s-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UjivAMash8E

meanwhile down south

 

[semipro]

What's your point Doug?
I'm talking long-term and worldwide. Showing data for only the antarctic and for only 30 years is not representative of what's going on worldwide and long-term.
The same data from the same source for Arctic ice: (broken link removed to http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-near-minimum/)

 

[Doug MacIVER]

What's your point Doug?
I'm talking long-term and worldwide. Showing data for only the antarctic and for only 30 years is not representative of what's going on worldwide and long-term.
The same data from the same source for Arctic ice: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-near-minimum/[/quote]sorry it was bg's link that shrunk the conversation. , worldwide ice not in bad shape doesn't get a lot of attention1979 baseline for ice observation. sat era.

 

[begreen]

 

[jackatc1]

I watched most of this movie last night when I got home from work. What I found most disturbing was the information the professor from Cornell University provided regarding the concrete casing of the wells themselves and their failure rate. Which partly explains why Methane is leaking from a good size portion of the natural gas distribution system all across the country.

Also, I found the comments from the gentleman from Australia quite intriguing. He observed that this global push for natural gas extraction is the fossil fuel industry's last gasp as the world begins to transition away from dirty, non-renewable fuel.

Finally, the information about how the gas industries push for liquified natural gas ports of distribution and how the pipelines being proposed are really an effort to aid exportation to overseas markets supports what many have suspected for a long time. That is that America's new found reserves of crude oil and natural gas will do very little to lower prices for domestic users in the long run. So any argument for increased drilling that includes lower prices domestically is really a red herring and not true. The Keystone crude oil pipeline being such an example.

http://naturalgasnow.org/fugitive-methane-problem-emanates-from-cornell-itself/#more-1415

 

[vinny11950]

Are we really supposed to believe miles long casings of concrete are not going to crack and let gas escape?

I am not saying I know the quantity and frequency of this happening, but it is not a far fetched idea that it happens, as any one who has ever worked with concrete sees that it settles, flexes and cracks over its life time.

The bigger leap of faith is that it contains leakage.

And knowing industry, they probably spend as little and skimp a lot to maximize profit and bury the consequences. Do they spend billions of dollars to build it right, or do they spend a few hundred million advertising that they have done it right? Two different things, and in many management classes they are taught and rewarded to choose the greatest profit at the least cost.

 

[jackatc1]

Hi vinny.
The drillers do not use concrete, they use cement, think rubber cement.
But in their case they use a plastic type that is solid, but it's flexible to some extent.
Four 5/8" thick steel pipes and four layers of cement.
The cement glues the pipes together.

http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/News/Infographics/Cementing_A_Seal_For_Safety.pdf

 

[vinny11950]

thanks, Jack, i keep reading different things about the casing and the material. i will read up on it and make sure i get the facts right.