8 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

www.bloomberg.com said:

The boom in American natural-gas production is doing what international negotiations and legislation couldn't: reducing U.S. carbon-dioxide pollution.

With decade-low prices, natural gas is easing out coal in power generation, a change that cuts greenhouse gases by half at the smokestack.

Read more...

  

As noted several times before: We are ruled by incompetents!

[Clyde the Glyde]

It's also going to create ALOT of jobs here in my home state.

[Rafterman]

Which also goes back to the point that we need to be exploring ALL avenues when it comes to energy production - and not just paying it lip service like many in Washington.

And while we're at it, a true US energy policy would probably be helpful too.

[Karlis]

questionmark, on 10 April 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

As noted several times before: We are ruled by incompetents!

Yes; here's just a few points out of many: ... consequences to aquefer water have not been yet determined. During fracking multiple chemicals are pumped into the ground; are absorbed into the underground water resource, *and* the chemicals also flow into surface water sources in huge quantities. The compositions of the chemical mixes are not published ( trade secrets etc.).

Excerpts from the article:

... Hydraulic fracturing, in which chemically treated water is forced underground to shatter rock and let gas flow, has opened up vast new shale-gas deposits to companies ...

... the long-term environmental impact of cheap gas is still being debated, as communities complain that their water is being polluted by the chemicals leaking into wells from fracking. Local opposition has prevented fracking in New York and Maryland as state rules are developed, and the EPA and other federal agencies are considering a series of regulations to force disclosure of the chemicals used during drilling, mandate wastewater cleanup and limit toxic air emissions. ...

And that's touching on only a few of the many unknowns concerning fracking.

Edited by Karlis, 10 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Clyde the Glyde, on 10 April 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

It's also going to create ALOT of jobs here in my home state.

What good is a job if one cannot bathe in or drink one's tap water?

That the public cannot be told which chemicals are being injected is a sure sign that some sort of shenanigans are going on within the industry.  I think we have Dick Cheney to thank for that.  

[Karlis]

Babe Ruth, on 10 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

What good is a job if one cannot bathe in or drink one's tap water?

That the public cannot be told which chemicals are being injected is a sure sign that some sort of shenanigans are going on within the industry.  I think we have Dick Cheney to thank for that.  

I have not looked up if the areas for fracking in the USA are prime agricultural land, or not. Prime food-producing land should be out of bounds for fracking, and similar mining projects *IF* the mining would destroy the productivity of the land.

Here in Australia, the mining companies seem to have lobbied State Governments to allow the "breadbasket of Oz" to be mined. Only very recently has there been some effective legislation proposed -- but not yet enacted -- to evaluate the potential destruction of prime farming lands.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 10 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

What good is a job if one cannot bathe in or drink one's tap water?

That the public cannot be told which chemicals are being injected is a sure sign that some sort of shenanigans are going on within the industry.  I think we have Dick Cheney to thank for that.  

http://fracfocus.org/

Currently has chemical disclosure on about 7,000 wells in the US and that number is expanding weekly with more than 80 companies on board.

[Clyde the Glyde]

Babe Ruth, on 10 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

What good is a job if one cannot bathe in or drink one's tap water?

That the public cannot be told which chemicals are being injected is a sure sign that some sort of shenanigans are going on within the industry.  I think we have Dick Cheney to thank for that.  

I understand your concern. But we are sitting on an awful lot of natural gas. That means alot of energy and alot of jobs.  This isn't some Solyndra solar pipe-dream either which would go bankrupt. This is pretty much a guaranteed bet. And as long as safety concerns are met, I say " Full Steam Ahead "

[questionmark]

Clyde the Glyde, on 10 April 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

I understand your concern. But we are sitting on an awful lot of natural gas. That means alot of energy and alot of jobs.  This isn't some Solyndra solar pipe-dream either which would go bankrupt. This is pretty much a guaranteed bet. And as long as safety concerns are met, I say " Full Steam Ahead "

It is not the solution but the better of two evils. If it gets overdone I can see some tectonic instability which will put a lot of people on a joyride.

Solyndra is more of a solution, and the problem is not that they don't have a neded product, the problem is that the Chinese can make the same thing cheaper.