SpiroFlo, on 23 December 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
Needs to be federal rule, but state by state works too.
Undisclosed chemical "secrets" are the main issue.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
17
#TarSands #GasFracking.
Started by Hayden, Oct 20 2011 01:59 PM
553 replies to this topic
#82
Posted 28 December 2011 - 04:53 AM
"A resurgent green movement is launching a multi-pronged counter-attack against the shale oil and gas boom
in the United States that could slow, though ultimately not stop, development.
Building upon their unexpected success in the battle against the Keystone XL pipeline, a renewed onslaught
from environmentalists
is putting the shale industry on the defensive while adding to costs, limiting expansion and potentially scuttling major projects.
Environmentalists, alarmed at what they see as unchecked industrialization of rural areas, say they are working to secure more regulation of the rapidly growing shale industry to protect fragile areas from damaging practices."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
in the United States that could slow, though ultimately not stop, development.
Building upon their unexpected success in the battle against the Keystone XL pipeline, a renewed onslaught
from environmentalists
is putting the shale industry on the defensive while adding to costs, limiting expansion and potentially scuttling major projects.Environmentalists, alarmed at what they see as unchecked industrialization of rural areas, say they are working to secure more regulation of the rapidly growing shale industry to protect fragile areas from damaging practices."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
#83
Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:52 AM
"Early last year, deep in the forests of northern British Columbia, workers for Apache Corp. performed what
the company proclaimed was the biggest hydraulic fracturing operation ever.
The project used 259 million gallons of water and 50,000 tons of sand to frack 16 gas wells side by side.
It was "nearly four times larger than any project of its nature in North America," Apache boasted.
The record didn't stand for long.
By the end of the year, Apache and its partner, Encana, topped it by half at a neighboring site.
Ben Parfitt, an analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a research institute that promotes environmental sustainability said, "We are seeing some of the largest fracking operations anywhere on earth."
The second-largest gas driller in North America, Encana also started fracking shallow coal seams, or coalbed methane,
in Alberta in the early 2000s, using nitrogen rather than water to free the gas.
Coalbed methane drilling generally requires less fluid than fracking shale but occurs much closer to drinking water.
In some cases, Encana and other companies have drilled wells directly into aquifers, injecting fracking fluids into groundwater suitable for drinking.
In Alberta, drillers can now pack wells closer together and pump more water out of shallow coal seams to free gas
more efficiently. British Columbia issued detailed regulations last year that limit where and when companies can drill and set rigorous environmental standards but also gave its Oil and Gas Commission the authority to
exempt drillers from virtually all of these provisions."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Let's see; would you rather stay warm or be able to drink a glass of clean water? Or have a glass of water
at all. At this rate, billions of gallons being used; how long before they run out?
the company proclaimed was the biggest hydraulic fracturing operation ever.
The project used 259 million gallons of water and 50,000 tons of sand to frack 16 gas wells side by side.
It was "nearly four times larger than any project of its nature in North America," Apache boasted.
The record didn't stand for long.
By the end of the year, Apache and its partner, Encana, topped it by half at a neighboring site.
Ben Parfitt, an analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a research institute that promotes environmental sustainability said, "We are seeing some of the largest fracking operations anywhere on earth."
The second-largest gas driller in North America, Encana also started fracking shallow coal seams, or coalbed methane,
in Alberta in the early 2000s, using nitrogen rather than water to free the gas.
Coalbed methane drilling generally requires less fluid than fracking shale but occurs much closer to drinking water.
In some cases, Encana and other companies have drilled wells directly into aquifers, injecting fracking fluids into groundwater suitable for drinking.
In Alberta, drillers can now pack wells closer together and pump more water out of shallow coal seams to free gas
more efficiently. British Columbia issued detailed regulations last year that limit where and when companies can drill and set rigorous environmental standards but also gave its Oil and Gas Commission the authority to
exempt drillers from virtually all of these provisions."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Let's see; would you rather stay warm or be able to drink a glass of clean water? Or have a glass of water
at all. At this rate, billions of gallons being used; how long before they run out?
#84
Posted 04 January 2012 - 04:16 AM
It (almost) always takes a significant event to get people to wake up.
In this case, it's the earthquakes that fracking is causing.
Evidently, making documentaries on the subject, or having thousands of people drinking tainted water isn't enough.
They have to be shaken out of their apathetic "it's not a problem" slumber, and these earthquakes just might do the trick.
.............
"Earthquakes caused by the injection of wastewater that's a byproduct of high-pressure hydraulic fracture drilling, aren't new.
Yet earthquakes have a special ability to grab public attention.
That's especially true after Saturday's quake near Youngstown, at magnitude 4.0 strong enough to be felt across hundreds of square miles.
Fracking involves blasting millions of gallons of water, laced with chemicals and sand,
deep into the ground to unlock vast reserves of natural gas.
That process, though, leaves behind toxic wastewater that must be expensively treated or else pumped deep into the earth.
The wastewater is extremely briny and can contain toxic chemicals from the drilling process – and sometimes radioactivity
from deep underground.
Injection wells have also been suspected in quakes in Arkansas, Colorado and Oklahoma."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
In this case, it's the earthquakes that fracking is causing.
Evidently, making documentaries on the subject, or having thousands of people drinking tainted water isn't enough.
They have to be shaken out of their apathetic "it's not a problem" slumber, and these earthquakes just might do the trick.
.............
"Earthquakes caused by the injection of wastewater that's a byproduct of high-pressure hydraulic fracture drilling, aren't new.
Yet earthquakes have a special ability to grab public attention.
That's especially true after Saturday's quake near Youngstown, at magnitude 4.0 strong enough to be felt across hundreds of square miles.
Fracking involves blasting millions of gallons of water, laced with chemicals and sand,
deep into the ground to unlock vast reserves of natural gas.
That process, though, leaves behind toxic wastewater that must be expensively treated or else pumped deep into the earth.
The wastewater is extremely briny and can contain toxic chemicals from the drilling process – and sometimes radioactivity
from deep underground.
Injection wells have also been suspected in quakes in Arkansas, Colorado and Oklahoma."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
#85
Posted 05 January 2012 - 03:56 AM
Everyone knows it's dirty, but more studies are needed?
Gimme a break.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1184776.html
Gimme a break.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1184776.html
#86
Posted 05 January 2012 - 09:48 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 29 December 2011 - 04:52 AM, said:
The project used 259 million gallons of water and 50,000 tons of sand to frack 16 gas wells side by side.
It was "nearly four times larger than any project of its nature in North America," Apache boasted.
The record didn't stand for long.
By the end of the year, Apache and its partner, Encana, topped it by half at a neighboring site.
It was "nearly four times larger than any project of its nature in North America," Apache boasted.
The record didn't stand for long.
By the end of the year, Apache and its partner, Encana, topped it by half at a neighboring site.
I've seen pics of a small fracking job. One look at all those huge trucks and you know what an energy surge it requires.
#87
Posted 05 January 2012 - 12:15 PM
It would be interesting to see how much water used in fracking becomes unavailable for future use. If it it pumped deep in the ground, how long does it take to be available again or is it unavailable for future use for all intents and purposes. If this were the case, it would be another important point to raise against the practices of this industry. Taking river and lake water and driving it in the ground permanently would require some serious explanations at least.
#88
Posted 13 January 2012 - 05:05 AM
The Keystone/tar sands fight continues. We must be vocal in our opposition to this. E-mail Obama, congress/senate.
The only way we'll stop this is with our voices being heard. The lobbyists are pushing with $$, so we have to
fight back.
"The State Department said it would spend more time exploring alternative routes for the pipeline in Nebraska.
Many there had expressed concern that it would travel through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.
That would have effectively delayed consideration of the project until after the 2012 election.
But then Congress passed legislation forcing a decision by Feb. 21.
Now the lobbying campaigns are in full swing."
http://www.npr.org/2...ion?ft=1&f=1025
The only way we'll stop this is with our voices being heard. The lobbyists are pushing with $$, so we have to
fight back.
"The State Department said it would spend more time exploring alternative routes for the pipeline in Nebraska.
Many there had expressed concern that it would travel through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.
That would have effectively delayed consideration of the project until after the 2012 election.
But then Congress passed legislation forcing a decision by Feb. 21.
Now the lobbying campaigns are in full swing."
http://www.npr.org/2...ion?ft=1&f=1025
#89
Posted 17 January 2012 - 04:15 AM
"Environmentalists have zeroed in on the huge amount of water injected into oil and gas wells to fracture rock formations,
and the exotic chemicals added to help carry the frack sand into the cracks, reduce corrosion and remove excess drilling mud.
The average oil well produces 7.6 barrels of water for every barrel of crude.
The water/oil ratio can rise to as much as 24:1 or even 42:1 in states like Florida and Illinois.
On average, 88 percent of the material brought to the surface from an oil well is water,
rising to 98 percent for wells nearing the end of their productive lives.
For gas wells, 260 barrels of water are produced for every million cubic feet of natural gas.
In 2007, the daily output of the U.S. oil and gas industry was 4.8 million barrels of crude,
66 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 58 million barrels of waste water,
according to a study by the Argonne National Laboratory's Environmental Science Division ("Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the United States", Sep 2009).
The industry is already handling more than 60 million barrels per day of waste water contaminated with high-levels of
salt and cancer-causing chemicals, most of that from wells that would be considered "conventional" rather than fracked."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
(Study references noted on link.)
and the exotic chemicals added to help carry the frack sand into the cracks, reduce corrosion and remove excess drilling mud.
The average oil well produces 7.6 barrels of water for every barrel of crude.
The water/oil ratio can rise to as much as 24:1 or even 42:1 in states like Florida and Illinois.
On average, 88 percent of the material brought to the surface from an oil well is water,
rising to 98 percent for wells nearing the end of their productive lives.
For gas wells, 260 barrels of water are produced for every million cubic feet of natural gas.
In 2007, the daily output of the U.S. oil and gas industry was 4.8 million barrels of crude,
66 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 58 million barrels of waste water,
according to a study by the Argonne National Laboratory's Environmental Science Division ("Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the United States", Sep 2009).
The industry is already handling more than 60 million barrels per day of waste water contaminated with high-levels of
salt and cancer-causing chemicals, most of that from wells that would be considered "conventional" rather than fracked."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
(Study references noted on link.)
#90
Posted 17 January 2012 - 02:13 PM
SOFIA, Bulgaria — "Bowing to public pressure, Bulgaria's government says U.S. oil company Chevron cannot
explore for shale gas in the country using the extraction technique known as "fracking."
Energy Minister Traicho Traikov said that under Tuesday's decision "Chevron can still have the right to test for oil and gas, but without using the controversial technology of hydraulic fracturing."
Over the last weeks, thousands of people gathered at protest rallies across Bulgaria to protest against shale gas
extraction and the use of fracking, fearing it could have a hazardous impact on the environment and people's health."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Voices raised in protest are being heard! Yay!
explore for shale gas in the country using the extraction technique known as "fracking."
Energy Minister Traicho Traikov said that under Tuesday's decision "Chevron can still have the right to test for oil and gas, but without using the controversial technology of hydraulic fracturing."
Over the last weeks, thousands of people gathered at protest rallies across Bulgaria to protest against shale gas
extraction and the use of fracking, fearing it could have a hazardous impact on the environment and people's health."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Voices raised in protest are being heard! Yay!
#91
Posted 18 January 2012 - 10:57 AM
Keystone XL-Obama administration announcing it will not go forward with plan.
(Maybe premature-but anyway.)
"The State Department will not approve a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline across the
U.S.-Canada border, sources told multiple media outlets on Wednesday.
The news comes after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced at a Tuesday afternoon press conference that President Barack Obama cannot approve the pipeline by the February 21 deadline imposed by Congress.
It also comes after House and Senate lawmakers signaled they would introduce new legislation pushing the permit
forward even if the Obama administration rejected the proposal.
That bill, drafted by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), (figures- ) would have shut the White House out of the decision
making process around Keystone, leaving Congress full authority to issue approval of the pipeline,
which would stretch an estimated 1,700 miles from tar sands in Canada to oil refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org said,
(Maybe premature-but
anyway.)"The State Department will not approve a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline across the
U.S.-Canada border, sources told multiple media outlets on Wednesday.
The news comes after White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced at a Tuesday afternoon press conference that President Barack Obama cannot approve the pipeline by the February 21 deadline imposed by Congress.
It also comes after House and Senate lawmakers signaled they would introduce new legislation pushing the permit
forward even if the Obama administration rejected the proposal.
That bill, drafted by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), (figures-
) would have shut the White House out of the decisionmaking process around Keystone, leaving Congress full authority to issue approval of the pipeline,
which would stretch an estimated 1,700 miles from tar sands in Canada to oil refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org said,
"Assuming that what we're hearing is true, this isn't just the right call, it's the brave call. The knock on Barack Obama from many quarters has been that he's too conciliatory.
But here, in the face of a naked political threat from Big Oil to exact 'huge political consequences,' he's stood up strong. This is a victory for Americans who testified in record numbers, and who demanded that science get the hearing usually reserved for big money.
We're well aware that the fossil fuel lobby won't give up easily. They have control of Congress. But as the year goes on, we'll try to break some of that hammerlock, both so that environmental review can go forward, and so that we can stop wasting taxpayer money on subsidies and handouts to the industry. The action starts mid-day Tuesday on Capitol Hill, when 500 referees will blow the whistle on Big Oil's attempts to corrupt the Congress."'
#92
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:00 AM
Yeah, this one's all the main issue in the oil and gas industry right now (though really, everything went as oredicted and nthing has changed).
Of course, Republicans had to force Obama to make a decision before his re-election (since on this one, two key Democratic voting groups -- the unions and envionmentalists -- are at odds), but, of course, he cited the time crunch as the reason for the rejection, not th merits of the project. Bleh, politics.
Any thoughts on this:
resident Obama said, “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security – including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.”
Of course, Republicans had to force Obama to make a decision before his re-election (since on this one, two key Democratic voting groups -- the unions and envionmentalists -- are at odds), but, of course, he cited the time crunch as the reason for the rejection, not th merits of the project. Bleh, politics.
Any thoughts on this:
resident Obama said, “In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security – including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.”
#94
Posted 19 January 2012 - 04:31 PM
It might be cleaner to burn than other fossil fuels, but the process is the issue.
Pumping millions of gallons of water is one thing, which is bad enough-.
but it's the hundreds (over 600) of chemicals that are used in the process that is tainting so many
waters in the areas of fracking.
And
the fact that these "companies" (to put it nicely) claim intellectual privacy/protections on the "ingredients"
of these chemicals. We don't know what half that *^&^% junk is.
Thanks for the pix.
Pumping millions of gallons of water is one thing, which is bad enough-.
but it's the hundreds (over 600) of chemicals that are used in the process that is tainting so many
waters in the areas of fracking.
And
the fact that these "companies" (to put it nicely) claim intellectual privacy/protections on the "ingredients"
of these chemicals. We don't know what half that *^&^% junk is.
Thanks for the pix.
#95
Posted 19 January 2012 - 05:04 PM
File this story under "huh" or what were they thinking?
Why in the world would the epa deliver water (via tax payer money) rather than clean up the mess in the
first place with stronger restrictions-regulations on all those &^%^&^% chemicals?
Call me baffled.
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Why in the world would the epa deliver water (via tax payer money) rather than clean up the mess in the
first place with stronger restrictions-regulations on all those &^%^&^% chemicals?
Call me baffled.
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
#96
Posted 22 January 2012 - 05:39 AM
Reports of what we have in gas reserves are incorrect, or even downright lies.
http://www.slate.com...ed_states_.html
http://www.slate.com...ed_states_.html
#97
Posted 23 January 2012 - 10:09 AM
Eh, I don't put any stock in articles like that (or estimated reserves in general), given that, over the last 30 years, we've used 2.5 times more oil than the reserves say we should have. (Yeah, I know, that's oil, not gas, but the principle still applies.)
Plus, given gas values in comparison to oil (which has gone up, leaving gas way behind), right now the oil and gas industry doesn't care about gas much at all.
Plus, given gas values in comparison to oil (which has gone up, leaving gas way behind), right now the oil and gas industry doesn't care about gas much at all.
#99
Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:38 AM
The gas/oil parasites move into Kansas to frack for gas despite the ongoing drought.
Need a drink of water?
Take a number. Thousands of gallons of water are going to the frack process, so we're just sol.
"Even as sections of Kansas struggled with drought last year, oil exploration companies pushed into the state to drill
for oil and gas with horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a method that relies on water.
The burst of drilling pushed temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in Kansas to a nearly 30-year high.
Chelsea Good, spokeswoman for the Kansas Division of Water Resources, said the division received more than
600 applications for temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in 2011 and approved all but two.
A vertically fracked well would use about 10,000 to 50,000 gallons of water.
A horizontal well would require about 2.7 million gallons of water in Kansas.
His company (Sandridge) has about 1.4 million acres in Kansas for drilling and expects to have at least 57 wells
in the state by the end of the year.
Federal drought disaster declarations were issued for 79 Kansas counties in 2011, according to the Kansas Water Office."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Need a drink of water?
Take a number. Thousands of gallons of water are going to the frack process, so we're just sol.
"Even as sections of Kansas struggled with drought last year, oil exploration companies pushed into the state to drill
for oil and gas with horizontal hydraulic fracturing, a method that relies on water.
The burst of drilling pushed temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in Kansas to a nearly 30-year high.
Chelsea Good, spokeswoman for the Kansas Division of Water Resources, said the division received more than
600 applications for temporary water permits for oil and gas exploration in 2011 and approved all but two.
A vertically fracked well would use about 10,000 to 50,000 gallons of water.
A horizontal well would require about 2.7 million gallons of water in Kansas.
His company (Sandridge) has about 1.4 million acres in Kansas for drilling and expects to have at least 57 wells
in the state by the end of the year.
Federal drought disaster declarations were issued for 79 Kansas counties in 2011, according to the Kansas Water Office."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
#100
Posted 26 January 2012 - 03:57 AM
"House Democrats took the political offensive on Keystone Wednesday, seeking to probe connections between
the multi-billion dollar project and Koch Industries, the Kansas-based energy conglomerate that has funded many
a conservative cause.
At a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday,
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called for subpoenaing representatives from Koch Industries over their alleged financial
stakes in an approval of Keystone XL, arguing the committee has an "obligation" to understand who would benefit if the controversial oil pipeline was constructed.
In a letter to subcommittee chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asking for the subpeonas, Waxman and eight other House Democrats called for a day of hearings featuring Koch Industry executives.
They cited, as evidence for their suspicion, a Koch subsidiary's assertion during a Canadian proceeding that the company
has a "direct and substantial interest" in the pipeline.
"Last year news organizations reported that one company, Koch Industries, would be one of the big winners if this
pipeline were constructed," Waxman said at the hearing. "We asked Koch whether this was true and were told
they have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline.
But then we learned that they told the Canadian government that they have a direct and substantial interest.
Something does not add up."'
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
the multi-billion dollar project and Koch Industries, the Kansas-based energy conglomerate that has funded many
a conservative cause.
At a hearing before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday,
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called for subpoenaing representatives from Koch Industries over their alleged financial
stakes in an approval of Keystone XL, arguing the committee has an "obligation" to understand who would benefit if the controversial oil pipeline was constructed.
In a letter to subcommittee chairman Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) asking for the subpeonas, Waxman and eight other House Democrats called for a day of hearings featuring Koch Industry executives.
They cited, as evidence for their suspicion, a Koch subsidiary's assertion during a Canadian proceeding that the company
has a "direct and substantial interest" in the pipeline.
"Last year news organizations reported that one company, Koch Industries, would be one of the big winners if this
pipeline were constructed," Waxman said at the hearing. "We asked Koch whether this was true and were told
they have no interest whatsoever in the pipeline.
But then we learned that they told the Canadian government that they have a direct and substantial interest.
Something does not add up."'
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
