Bitcoin Forum

Recently some large deposits of shale gas have been discovered in my country.
Of course , it has sparked controversy if we should start exploit because of the risks they may pose.

I would like to ask you , since we have members from other countries here:
1) Do you agree with shale gas exploration in general?
2) Would still agree withit  if those drilling will be done close to the community where you leave?

Some arguments would be nice :)

Some of the recent news:
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-protest-romania-against-shale-gas-gold-mine-193831695--finance.html
http://rt.com/news/romania-shale-gas-chevron-652/

Some videos from the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL5ec0D9i9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_5KNExDAxw

I think we should be looking at consistent and renewable alternatives rather than digging for stuff out of the ground that will run out eventually.

I would look at studies conducted in next decade or so before going on with it. Also the regulation needs to be sufficient.

http://rt.com/usa/texas-fracking-earthquakes-azle-445/
Is this any different from fracking!

Seems like chevron just resumed work ... bigger protest?


Bravo!! on the first protest ... now come back with 10 times that many people!



Where im from people are docile and they sit on the ground and hold hands and get sprayed in the face with mace and then they get hauled away and nothing happens!


If you let them, these companys will rape your homeland of its natural resources!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/us-chevron-ecuador-idUSBRE9AP19D20131126
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-04/a-possible-overture-from-ecuador-in-the-chevron-pollution-mess

I live in an area with extensive fracking (south texas) and really am not seeing any environmental abuses or questionable practices.  There's been a lot of fear mongering and misinformation.  Hell, we have solar power and windmill fields and fracking all jumbled up together in the field....

anecdotal information does not apply to the rest of the population though. i don't know enough about the impact of fracking, but it sure seems like quite a few towns really hate it.

^^  
this

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-usa-earthquakes-fracking-oklahoma-idUSBRE9AI12W20131119

My anecdotal information surely beats information from people who have only read about it and never walked through or driven through these areas.  I'm not talking about anecdotal from a few rigs, by the way.  Think in terms of thousands.  Small towns in these areas found their few hotels booked up solid for years ahead, and found suddenly, large temporary housing fields springing up.  Some are quite ugly resulting in the towns passing ordinances.  For example, no shipping container based housing allowed.

Another example that I'm very familiar with is the Dallas Fort Worth Bartlett Shale natural gas development.  This is where they became able to get to trillions of cubic feet of gas right under the built up urban areas.  Flying over the area, you see basically tan colored gravel or base yards about every 100-200-300 meters as far as the eye can see.  Visually, and from the air, this can be called an eyesore.  From the ground, you don't really hardly notice it, just an occasional drilling rig.

In the US, about the only thing going right economically is the fracking business.  Eagle Ford shale, a field about 75 x 250 miles in size in South Texas,  is putting on over 60,000 workers in 2 years at $80,000 USD each salary or higher.

I may have fallen victim to the fear mongering! lol

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/06/04/battle-los-angeles-the-fight-to-stop-urban-fracking/


So there is an issue with pollution regarding fracking? Something about volatile chemicals released into the atmosphere ..

So how does that work. They start fracking in low income areas and a few people get rich and the neighbors get cancer?


Whats the deal with the potential for fracking to contaminate drinking water sources?



Did you know that fracking causes STD's!!   LOOOOOOOOL

 Im not making it up tho ..

http://ecowatch.com/2013/09/24/social-costs-of-fracking-rural-america/

Guess in towns where theres alot fracking going on.. people are reporting they have stds more. ( hehe )

I quote"  

Fracking is associated with more cases of sexually transmitted infections: After fracking, the average increase in chlamydia and gonorrhea cases was 62 percent greater in heavily fracked rural counties than in unfracked rural counties.

" /quote



Thats fracked up.. but Oh man i got a good laugh...  :D  



 

We need really new breakthroughs like nuclear fusion, not the shitty gas that destroys environment in the large scales!

Hey, that'd be really nice.  Let's bring it on.  Meanwhile...

I've driven around shale gas sites - they are all over the place down here - and I haven't seen any environmental destruction or degradation.

Just saying.

Hey....if it did that in the rural counties....think of what would happen when the fracking virus hits Los Angeles!

No. In my opinion, shale gas exploration leads to irreversible environmental damage.  It is not economically viable either. We should rather invest in eco-friendly initiatives such as bio-diesel and cane-ethanol.


No. The entire area will become uninhabitable.

Agreed on the 1st and 2nd sentence, but biodiesel and ethanol haven't been eco-friendly, because some devastate rain forest to obtain the raw materials for those fuels

You're right, when people use 'eco-friendly' etc. they have no idea what that actually means which is why the Toyata Prius is still being sold, I do like cane and bio-diesel because of them being renewable though the problem is going to be finding the space and keeping the cost down, there's actually a company that I looked up and I've forgotten the name now but it's currently harvesting cane sugar for fuel and it's in profit right now so it is possible, it just requires good management.

You also don't want to screw a lot of Africans out of there land as well like a lot of the oil companies have been caught doing, so environmentalists definitely want to think twice before acting self-righteous about that sort of thing if they haven't done proper research into it :D.

Even in a densely populated nation like India, 20% of the agricultural land is being kept fallow due to the lack of resources. These wastelands can be used to grow bio-fuels. Cutting down rainforest to plant sugarcane is insanity at its peak.

So...the entire Dallas Fort Worth metroplex will become unihabitable?

LOL...I guess that'd fall into the category of "claim" that would require some proof.

Does not sound credible.

Bio diesel / ethanol have a much more devastating impact on the environment that fracking:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=244663902&sc=tw&cc=share

CORYDON, Iowa (AP) — The hills of southern Iowa bear the scars of America's push for green energy: The brown gashes where rain has washed away the soil. The polluted streams that dump fertilizer into the water supply.

Even the cemetery that disappeared like an apparition into a cornfield.

It wasn't supposed to be this way.

With the Iowa political caucuses on the horizon in 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama made homegrown corn a centerpiece of his plan to slow global warming. And when President George W. Bush signed a law that year requiring oil companies to add billions of gallons of ethanol to their gasoline each year, Bush predicted it would make the country "stronger, cleaner and more secure."

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.


Wind energy kills 100 000 of birds each year. So much so pres obama signed a pass on killing bold eagles for the next 30 years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-gives-wind-farms-pass-on-killing-eagles/

The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its environmental consequences.

The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.

An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration’s reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. The White House has championed wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan.

What is the official position of the EPA regarding the risk of fracking and pollution? (hint: not a scientific position, but a political position)

http://rt.com/usa/epa-fracking-study-water-pollution-073/

The US Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its plans to further investigate whether or not fracking led to the contamination of a Wyoming aquifer, and the agency no longer plans to write a report on the matter.

The EPA in 2011 released a draft report, which revealed that hydraulic fracturing fluids used at a shale gas drilling site had likely contaminated groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming. Oil and gas companies have long argued that fracking poses no water contamination risks, but the EPA’s results demonstrated otherwise.

Critics of the findings, including Wyoming state officials and drilling advocates, argued that the EPA conducted a poor and inaccurate study, which could ultimately harm the industry. Despite the initial wave of criticism in 2011, EPA officials planned to resume the study and continue making assessments regarding the influence of fracking on groundwater. But the EPA on Thursday abandoned those plans, announcing that state officials will instead take over the investigation into Pavillion’s water pollution and draw up a conclusion in 2014.

http://www.psmag.com/environment/has-the-epa-given-up-on-fracking-63672/

When the Environmental Protection Agency abruptly retreated on its multimillion-dollar investigation into water contamination in a central Wyoming natural gas field last month, it shocked environmentalists and energy industry supporters alike.

Another impact of "green energy" on Mother Nature? Gigantic solar panels migrating birds believe to be water from above then try to land on them.
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/are-big-desert-solar-farms-killing-birds

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/12/Oops-Solar-Energy-Plants-are-Killing-Rare-birds

Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California.
A recent article by Vice author Lex Berko notes that dead birds are being found with "singed wings" around several California solar energy facilities.
It happens that many of California's solar plants are, the article claims, in the path of "the four major north-to-south trajectories for migratory birds" called "the Pacific Flyway."
Birds are dying in one of two ways. In some cases, they imagine the shining solar panels to be bodies of water and dive straight into them. There they die when they smash into the panels from the sky.
Others "feel the wrath of the harnessed sunlight." The ultra polished solar mirrors bounce sunrays strong enough to burn the feathers off birds that quickly crash to the ground, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Many of the fowl dying as a result of their unfortunate flight paths over solar facilities are birds protected by the federal government under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Eric Davis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently told a reporter from The Desert Sun that the feds are "waiting" for more information about these bird deaths.
"Bird migration studies have to wait for bird migrations," Davis said. "It's not like we're going to have the answers in two weeks. This is going to be months and years of trying to better understand the problem and then make better management decisions as we gain more scientific understanding."
There are also thousands of birds killed by wind turbine farms throughout the country. This means that untold numbers of birds, some of them protected species, are being killed by green energy.

It's a sign that the low hanging, easy to get fruit has been taken.  Otherwise wouldn't be resorting to shale.

It's like the difference between hard rock mining and picking fat juicy gold nuggets off the surface of the ground.  The big oil gushers of oil discovery are gone.  Now they are squeezing the last drops wherever they can find it.

Starting to dredge the bottom of the barrel in terms of resources - not as cost effective and takes more energy to produce each unit of energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8)

nuff said

it's still useful for your country, more working places, bigger spending power,more purchases = stronger economy :)

Some of that fear mongering i fell for... lol


Oh man.. As much as i would like to BBQ and wash dishes at the same time.. Ive gotta say holy ****!

What else is coming out of there besides methane..? I love how at the end of the video she says its safe to drink and the water is murky white and bubbling with gas!! WTF!

...Just like bitcoin...

Never enough said. The truth shall set you free, or at least a more balanced view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WioK-rInxg

http://fracknation.com/


Fracknation is amazing when you see it side by side with gasland

I have heard good things about that movie.

I don't have a bone to pick in the ideological quarrel, just here commenting that I drive around fracking operations a good deal and have not seen ANY environmental destruction, pollution, etc.   

I would like to apologize if my posts in this thread feel like an attack against Mother Nature in any way. I had ZERO idea about all those facts. I thought gasland was the gospel. "Nuff said" I used to think myself. Then I used a tool called google and started learning about all those claims.
I believe we can't get fast enough to almost free fusion energy for everyone to use. But I also believe we should not enrich nations selling oil to everyone, collecting Ferrari in the middle of the desert not even spending 0.5% of their riches into solar energy solution from the oil Aliburton helped them getting.

Then... Matt Damon fracking film backed by big OPEC member:
http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/matt-damon-fracking/


Matt Damon's new film on fracking, "Promised Land", is generating some buzz -- though probably not the kind studio execs were hoping for.
Last week, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation pointed out that in the trailer for film, one of the financial backers listed is Image Nation Abu Dhabi.
Image Nation Abu Dhabi is, in turn, owned by Abu Dhabi Media - a state media company for the United Arab Emirates. The UAE, an OPEC member, is the world's third-largest oil exporter.
For a film that highlights the dangers of fracking -- the controversial process that has unleashed an energy boom in the United States -- this may be problematic, as evidenced by Twitter posts Monday:

Matt Damon makes anti-fracking propaganda film funded by United Arab Emirates. Trying to keep USA dependent on OPEC? blog.heritage.org/2012/09/28/mat…—
Scott Manley (@ManleyWMC) October 01, 2012
Green Weenie of the Week: Matt Damon. powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/… Has there ever been a more deserving Green Weenie winner? #tcot—
Power Line (@powerlineUS) October 01, 2012
Critics contend the UAE is trying to drum up opposition to more U.S. oil production, which could compete with its crude exports.

It's also possible the UAE -- which has financed at least a half-dozen Hollywood films -- overlooked the conflict of interest and simply thought the film was a good investment due to its all-star cast (Oscar winner Frances McDormand and John Krasinski of "The Office fame co-star) and director (Gus Van Sant).
A spokeswoman for Image Nation Abu Dhabi said that while the company gets "supporting funds" from the Abu Dhabi government, it is a "commercially-driven and independently-operated" entity.
A spokeswoman for Participant Media, which arranged financing for the film, said the funding was part of a larger deal with Image Nation Abu Dhabi  to invest in 15 to 18 films over a five year time period, "regardless of genre or subject matter."
Either way, the revelation could be a setback for a film on an important U.S. energy topic, and will only give ammunition to critics who say the movie was biased from the get-go.

:) The videos you've posted are pseudo-science at best, kind of like the propaganda the cigarette industry used to promote back in the day. I've never actually watched all of Gasland so I can't really comment or verify whether it's 100% factual.

@Spendulus  To say fracking has no environmental impact is ridiculous, extracting any toxic substance from the ground is going to cause environmental damage, especially when you consider the US has very lax regulations due to the powerful coal/gas/oil lobbyists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they make their profit margin.

I'm very left-wing, but I'm not some long haired, tree-hugging vegan. The way I see it, our climate is fucked, we're on the brink of a climate catastrophe (please don't quote me some oil corporation sponsored Alex Jones bullshit) something need to be done with reduce our carbon emissions. All the US government has to do is release all of Tesla's research and I'm pretty sure some boffin can find the solution. The Sahara desert alone receives enough solar energy to power the entire planet (with todays solar technology) but the rich coal/gas/oil elite will never give up their money or power without a fight.

Fusion energy would be great when it's feasible, but our current nuclear power technology/supplies will only last about another 50 years, then we've got a shitload of toxic waste to worry about. I don't know what the answer is but poisoning our planet even more can't be good for our future.

Look, don't read any more into my comment than what I said, please.  I've been around some very dirty places, but fracking fields are not them.  Period.  Not sure how to say it more simply than that.  The grass is green, the cows are grazing, everything is neat and tidy....

Make sense?

I'm not sure that is left or right wing, I am just reporting what I have seen.  Because if you read what some people say, and you haven't seen these places, you get the impression they are going to look like the surface of the Moon or something.

Even if the fracking method is technically sound and doesn't contaminate surroundings. I'm not so sure about storage of the fluids above the surface.

The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...

I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...

I am very libertarian/right wing or whatever label people are using now = not a fan of ideologies in love with powerful centralized solutions for the rest of us.
I believe to pollute without consequences is atrocious for the planet. That is why we should never repeat what happen to the Aral Sea and the Soviet central planning socialist abomination:

http://youtu.be/dp_mlKJiwxg

While it is true that the OPEC pours billions of $$$ every year to the anti-exploration lobby, the damage it can cause to the environment is difficult to ignore.

Rather than doing anti-environmental practices such as fracking, the focus should be shifted to green energy. I know that there are a lot of arguments against green energy, but most of them are funded by the same people who want the OPEC dominance to continue.

I am still a strong supporter of cane-ethanol.

That is why humans invented the concept of Politic: the mirror reflection of Faith. No matter the facts.

We can love the planet and try to have as little impact as possible on a personal level every day. I am not sure why buying fuel from across the globe using bigger and bigger tankers that need fuel to push their cargo (exxon valdez?) to you is worse than getting energy from your own hole from your own background. Why can't I recharge my Made in China iPad from it instead of oil from the Saudis?

Ethanol is great for the environment? Have ever heard of a country called Uruguay? It is in Latin America. A country as big as Germany. Only 6 millions souls. Even less trees left. Forests cut down on a major scale to make room for the production of ethanol (green energy). Uruguay is pretty much flat, so perfect for large scale farming.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=uy&product=ethanol&graph=production
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Spains-Abengoa-Corp.-To-Construct-Bio-Ethanol-Plant-In-Uruguay.html

I could be a strong supporter of ethanol myself. If I had money invested in it. Not because I would be for "saving the planet,  being green"

Odd how it's always American companies/Exxon that are so EVIL, while the Saudis in the background never get a word of negative publicity, isn't it?

Most of the drillhead sites in an area like under DFW do not have any fluids on the surface.  A couple storage tanks and bottles, a gravel yard, a fence around it.

I am saying this again and again. Producing Ethanol doesn't mean that we have to cut down trees. We have billions of acres of fallow land all over the world. This can be used for growing cane plantations.

And regarding Uruguay. Only 8.6% of Uruguay's area is forest. Why this needs to be cut down, when more than half of the remaining 90%+ is remaining fallow / barren.

Yes you are saying it again and again but reality is not a projection of one's desire:
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/8434/study-exposes-sugarcane-ethanols-environmental-flaw

Brazilian sugarcane ethanol has been promoted for years as the world’s most environmentally friendly biofuel. Policies have been created worldwide which give sugarcane ethanol preference over corn ethanol due its perceived lack of environmental impacts. In the U.S., this has led to a situation whereby domestically produced corn ethanol is being exported to Brazil while at the same time Brazil is exporting its sugarcane-based product to the U.S. to meet low-carbon blending requirements. But now, a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Merced and recently published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change offers a differing view of the true environmental impacts of Brazilian sugarcane production.

“There is a big strategic decision our country and others are making, in whether to develop a domestic biofuels industry or import relatively inexpensive biofuels from developing countries,” UC Merced professor Elliott Campbell said. “Our study shows that importing biofuels could result in human health and environmental problems in the regions where they are cultivated.”

Corn based ethanol created havoc on the price of food all over the world:
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/07/ethanol-mandate-leads-to-social-unrest/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/13231-ethanol-mandates-plague-developing-countries-with-rising-food-prices
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/201210993632838545.html
http://www.wdtv.com/wdtv.cfm?func=view&section=5-News&item=Corn-Based-Ethanol-Badly-Hurting-the-Environment12812

How could shale gas be worse than ethanol or the Saudi's oil?

You guys should also consider there are varieties of bacteria that produce the needed components for fuel ( ethanol etc. ) by themselves or through some scientific trickery, there's also algae out there too and I have always been an advocate of Hydrogen Fuel Cells because they only produce water as a byproduct so everybody is happy that way.

I would disagree that importing gas is smarter than producing it.  Importing gas requires pipelines and/or tankers.

The phrase "gas" means here natural gas.  Less easy to move around than crude oil or gasoline products.

It is a more or less tacitly understood fact that OPEC nations are lying out of their asses about how much oil they have left.

It is also more of less understood that the most economically viable and outright physical presence of shale oil deposit in the world, about 70% of them, are situated in US, which is enough to power US domestically for at least 80 years down the road including increased oil usage over time.

Shale GAS is another issue, but gas isn't as profitable or as easily used as oil. US and its allies control the majority of physical shale gas reserves estimated so far, but china has about 50% surplus above US in terms of what is, presently, technically recoverable in their own respective territories.

The only sticking point here is that we should make sure other nations use up their resources while we keep ours close at hand. It was a good move to get the first hand into the game, but we must make sure we come out on top. I am sure other nations won't complain to being given market prices for their natural resources - they only have themselves to blame if their government is too corrupt to spread that around.

Why blame the OPEC when your own leaders are under the control of the petroleum lobby.

How many people know that bio-diesel is much cheaper (at current) rates when compared to crude oil?

Still, most of the nations levy unrealistic taxes on bio-diesel and discourages the production.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Diesel_prices.jpg/382px-Diesel_prices.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/BioDieselGe.jpg

http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/biodiesel/files/2012/11/German-gas-sign.jpg

I don't recall 'blaming' anyone, but I suppose your filter gave you that idea. Fuck OPEC, sure. I also find it amusing you can talk about 'our leaders being under the control of petroleum lobby'.

Industry and political figures form a give and take relationship. It's a complex, symbiotic relationship where much of it is a balancing act of influence, finances, and political advancement coupled with economic domination assisted by such acts which ultimately work to secure national interests. It's not so simple as squealing 'they are all under the REAL control of ***** lobby!!!!11!!!!!1!!'.

If you want to spout simplistic bullshit about conspiracies, I suggest you try wikipedia instead.

Yeah, biodiesel is not cheap or easy to produce in quantity.  What's easy to produce is methane from natural gas, that can be delivered to the pump for less than 2USD/gallon.  Process is simply passing high temperature steam over the methane to strip some H+, let the carbon pick up OH, then concentrate the methanol that falls out.   One or two more steps and you have dimethyl ether, which runs in diesel engines.

Interesting problem is people with a preference for 'bio' this and 'green that' don't like alcohol produced from natural gas...but it's half the price.  

....what it means for us to come out on top.  We need a positive balance of payments based on energy exports, since the fracking revolution is what will pull us out of the current depression.  And it's the only thing that will.  Yes that means we would not have to do the bidding of Saudi kings, but they do have some problems over there that merit some kinds of support.

I was one of the most active editors in Wikipedia until 2011. I know very well how the propagandist organizations are using it right now.. I will not use it even for basic information.

Maybe getting fuel from algae on a massive scale will have less impact than sugar cane/corn? But some may think having to use genetically modified bacteria for a better production output could unleash another type of disaster.

That's the thing there are so many ideas out there that are actually realistic, it's just a matter of applying them in the right way.

100 years from now they will look back at us with our oil/shale gas/mid air bird frying massive solar panels solution and think "Wow I can't believe we were that primitive" while sipping a green goo, enjoying the view on Earth from their space villa bought in bitcoins...

Fracking may increase health risks, scientists warn

Study of water pollution at sites in the US finds hormone-disrupting chemicals in the environment

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/fracking-increase-health-risks-hormone (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/17/fracking-increase-health-risks-hormone)


"Fracking may increase health risks from hormone-disrupting chemicals released into the environment, say researchers.

Scientists sounded the warning after studying water pollution at sites in the US where the controversial natural gas drilling technique is used.

The team looked at 12 suspected or known "endocrine disrupting chemicals" (EDCs) used in fracking operations and measured their ability to mimic or block the effects of reproductive hormones.

Water samples from drilling sites with a record of spillages had levels of the chemicals high enough to interfere with the body's responses to male hormones, as well as oestrogen".

Nothing can be achieved without exponentially larger funding for the research in to green-oil. The funding is difficult to achieve, as the OPEC cartel is using various blackmail tactics.

We need really new breakthroughs like nuclear fusion, not the shitty gas that destroys environment in the large scales!

Even the current technology of generating electricity using nuclear fission is far better than burning gas or coal to generate the same. I don't know why all those environmentalists oppose nuclear energy. If you take all the necessary security precautions, nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy which is available to us.

The nuclear industry would collapse overnight without government subsidies, it's one of the most inefficient ways to produce electricity. If people want small government, who's going to pay for the handouts to the nuclear industry?

If you're talking about cold fusion and other forms of Nuclear Power that don't have major meltdowns which will cause the end of humanity then I'm all for it but these people who think it's a good idea to put nuclear bombs right next to highly populated areas scare the shit out of me and it makes you realise just how little they give a fuck about human beings.

Nuclear bombs?

Nuclear is best CO2 free way of producing energy. Coal and shale gas isn't bad if pollution is something not cared about.

EPA Covers Up The Safety Of Fracking



[...]
The EPA has extended public comment periods on the draft report three times since it came out — twice last year and again this year. Each extension delayed the peer-review plans.

[...]
The Environmental Protection Agency declines to have outside experts review its study claiming water contamination from fracking in Wyoming. Why confuse an analysis based on ideology with the facts?

…

In 2011, the EPA released the non-peer reviewed report on Pavillion in which the agency publicly linked fracking and groundwater contamination for the first time. However, then-EPA administrator Lisa Jackson stated that there is “no proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

[...]
First, the contamination was found in two “monitoring wells” drilled by EPA outside of town, not in water wells that actually supply residents their water. EPA use of “dense soda ash” to drill its monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon-bearing layer probably skewed the results.

According to the industry research group Energy in Depth, “dense soda ash has a recorded pH (11.5), very similar to the level found in the deep wells, creating the possibility that the high pH recorded by EPA could have been caused by the very chemicals it used to drill its own wells.”

What the EPA report doesn’t say is that the U.S. Geological Survey has detected organic chemicals in the well water in Pavillion for at least five decades, long before fracking was done. The deepwater wells that EPA drilled are situated near a natural gas reservoir.

Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells near Pavillion, says it didn’t “put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA’s deep monitoring wells. Nature did.”

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062113-661014-epa-rejects-peer-review-of-fracking-study.htm?p=full

I disagree.  There are subsidies to just about all kinds of energy production, worst of all are the so called 'renewables'.  And of all the forms of energy, the massive red tape and regulatory nightmare that has caused it to be virtually impossible to build a new nuclear power plant .... well, they'd be lucky if any subsidies they got even paid for a part of those start up costs.

As for what is cheapest, I imagine it depends on where you are.  If your town is next to a natural gas or coal mine, guess what's cheapest?  If it is isolated and has high ridge lines to put windmills, they should be seriously looked at.  Etc, etc.  Lots of places nuclear makes perfect sense.

By the way, if the environmentalists had not created all these road blocks to nuclear, we might not even be going in the direction of fracking.  Interesting, right?

Shale gas exploration and fracing has and will continue to disrupt the water table. For the minimal returns they are seeing from this shallow formation they would do less harm to the environment and see a larger ROI by investing in more sound projects, like the oilsands for example.

As far as my experience, I disagree.  Somewhere, certain geological conditions, maybe.

In this area we have water tables at 150 to 1200 feet, and fracking uses pressure cemented drill holes and goes down past a mile.  No issues with water table contamination.

Check this...

after a year of monitoring, the researchers are finding that the drilling fluids used in fracking stayed thousands of feet below the shallow areas that supply drinking water

http://www.caloilgas.com/study-shows-no-fracking-contamination/

but he also says...

But he cautioned that the single study does not prove that fracking cannot pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

And what is your real world experience?

Yes it's true that they frac into cemented holes, but the process involves cracking the formation by hammering high pressure water gel and sand into the rock. As the rock cracks the sand fills the fissures and holds these cracks open and allows the gas to flow to the surface.
This practice is used to fracture in both vertical and horizontal operations.
The theory is that they will only affect they're intended payzone, but this is not always what happens.

The simple fact of the mater is that residents in certain areas of the united states are seeing wells that have produced clean water they're entire lives all turn contaminated within certain areas of community. Some are even able to light the methane gas coming off of they're kitchen sink taps due to the high level of communication between the fracing operations and the water table.

This in itself is a huge problem, that will continue. There's also a massive increase in small earthquakes just over the last couple years believed to be associated with the fracing operations. And then there is a whole other issue associated with the waste water disposal contamination.

It is a real problem, and it will continue.

I think I adequately qualified my comment.  Hell yes there are some places fracking should not be done.  I am not qualified to say where and when but it just seems logical.  But that can not be used as a general condemnation of the process, that just makes no sense.

There is certainly a lot of documentable fear mongering about fracking going on.  The problem with that in my opinion is it prevents actual understanding of the good and bad of the process.

Regarding the hammering that occurs, it is fairly simple to calculate the spread of those pressure waves through the strata.  As a crude analogy consider standing a half mile from some type of explosion.  It has to be huge to feel any pressure wave at that distance.  Sound and light, yes.  Force declines as function of cube root of distance.
I am simplifying, but that's not a terribly bad analogy.  Same physics at work.

I think the issues can be worked out safely and without environmental damage.  Studies support this - I have not read them but in the area I live there are massive numbers of these fracking operations and I'm just not seeing or hearing any of the issues such as have been raised in the media.

I'm sorry man but your just wrong here. Do a bit of research on well water contamination and methane gas contamination in the water table.

No problem but my answer would be, since in googling a subject of this sort, either you or I could find massive evidence to confirm our bias (I don't really have a dog in this fight, just saying people around here are not reporting weird water...)

...I'd just ask one or several of my friends who are petroleum engineers with a couple decades of experience...

No way. Even without the government subsidies, nuclear energy is very much cheaper than any other form of energy. See this:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/projected_electricity_costs_finland_2003.png

 :) The World Nuclear Association is a 'non-profit' propaganda mouthpiece for the nuclear industry, its members consist of the following:

    American Council for Global Nuclear Competitiveness
    ANSTO
    Areva
    Areva NC
    Areva NP
    Argonne National Laboratory
    Association for Regional and International Underground Storage (ARIUS)
    Atomic Energy Authority of Egypt
    Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd
    Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
    Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research
    ATOMINFORM
    Bechtel Nuclear
    Berkeley Resources Limited
    BHP Billiton
    British Energy
    British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL)
    Bruce Power
    Cameco Corporation
    Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance
    Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
    Centre Nationale de l Energie des Science et des Techniques Nucleaires
    CEZ a s
    China National Nuclear Corporation
    Chubu Electric Power Co Inc
    Chugoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Concentric Energy Corp
    Constellation Energy Group
    Conuar SA
    ConverDyn
    Daya Bay Nuclear Power Operations and Management Co Ltd (DNMC)
    Dioxitek SA
    Dominion Energy
    Duke Energy
    Eastern Ore Dressing Complex
    Edlow International Company
    Electric Power Development Co Ltd (J-POWER)
    Electricite de France
    EnBW Kraftwerke AG
    Endesa Generacion S.A.U
    ENEL S.p.A.
    Energo Russian-Austrian Joint Venture Trading Company Ltd
    Energoatom
    Entergy Nuclear
    ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas SA
    EOn Energie AG
    EOn Nordic
    Eskom
    Euratom Supply Agency
    Excel Service Corporation
    Exelon Generation LLC
    Federal State-owned Unitary Enterprise Concern Rosenergoatom
    GE Energy
    Herbert Smith LLP
    Hitachi Ltd
    Hokkaido Electric Power Co Inc
    Hokuriku Electric Power Co Inc
    IBERDROLA
    Idemitsu Kosan Co Ltd
    Imperial College London
    Industrias Nucleares do Brasil S A (INB)
    International Center for Environmental Safety of Minatom of Russia (ICES)
    International Development and Promotion Company (IDPC)
    Internexco GmbH
    Israel Atomic Energy Commission
    ITOCHU Corporation
    Japan Atomic Energy Agency
    Japan Atomic Power Co
    Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd
    Japan NUS Co Ltd (JANUS)
    Kansai Electric Power Co Inc
    KAZATOMPROM
    Kernkraftwerk Gösgen-Däniken AG
    Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt AG
    King & Spalding LLP
    Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
    Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co
    Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety
    Kozloduy NPP plc
    Kyushu Electric Power Co
    Laramide Resources Ltd.
    Lietuvos Energija AB
    Lithic Metals & Energy Ltd.
    Marubeni Corporation
    Mitsubishi Corporation
    Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd
    Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems Inc
    Mitsui & Co Ltd
    N Dollezhal Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering (RDIPE)
    NAC International
    NATO Parliamentary Assembly
    Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combine
    New York Nuclear Corporation
    North West University
    Nuclear Cargo and Service GmbH
    Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited
    Nuclear Fuel Complex
    Nuclear Management Company LLC
    Nuclear Materials Authority of Egypt
    Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
    Nuclear Power Plants Authority of Egypt (NPPA)
    Nuclear Research Institute Rez plc
    Nuclear Resources International Inc (NRI)
    Nuclear Safety Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences (IBRAE)
    Nufcor International Ltd
    NUKEM GmbH
    Ontario Power Generation
    Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission
    PAKS Nuclear Power Plant Ltd.
    Paladin Resources Ltd
    PBMR (Pty) Ltd
    Planergie Group
    Power Resources Inc
    PricewaterhouseCoopers
    Progress Energy
    Rio Tinto plc
    RRC Kurchatov Institute
    RSB Logistic GmbH
    RWE Power AG
    Scientific Development & Integration (Pty) Ltd.
    Shikoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Shimizu Corporation
    Siberian Group of Chemical Enterprises (SGCE)
    Silex Systems Limited
    Skoda JS a s
    Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica SA
    Sojitz Corporation
    South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa)
    Southern Nuclear Operating Company
    State Scientific Production Enterprise
    Strathmore Minerals Corp
    Sumitomo Corporation
    Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB)
    Synatom SA
    Taiwan Power Company
    Techsnabexport (TENEX)
    Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO)
    Thorium Power Inc.
    Tohoku Electric Power Co Inc
    Tokyo Electric Power Co
    TradeTech
    Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK)
    TVEL
    University of Central Lancashire
    Ur Energy Inc
    Uran Limited
    Uranium One Inc.
    Urenco Ltd
    US Energy Corp
    USEC Inc
    UxConsulting Co
    Vattenfall
    W M Mining International Ltd
    Westinghouse Electric Co
    Westlakes Research Institute

No conflicts of interest there, honest  ;D

The UK government wont even release the official government figures for nuclear subsidies due to the fear of a public backlash. To clean up Sellafield, just one toxic waste dump, will cost the taxpayer over £60 billion. Corporate socialism at its finest.

Technology has advanced so much that the nuclear waste disposal is not much of a concern as it was earlier. And considering the  massive environmental damage caused by the thermal power plants, I have no plans to withdraw my support for nuclear energy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311217/Nuclear-power-station-leaking-radioactive-waste-months-says-Environment-Agency.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311217/Nuclear-power-station-leaking-radioactive-waste-months-says-Environment-Agency.html)
"A nuclear power station in Kent has been leaking radioactive waste, which can increase the risk of developing cancer, for months according to the Environment Agency".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/firm-guilty-of-14year-radioactive-leak-1548532.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/firm-guilty-of-14year-radioactive-leak-1548532.html)
"A nuclear power station operator was today found guilty of allowing radioactive waste to seep from a decontamination unit for 14 years, the Environment Agency said.
Waste leaked into the ground from a sump at Bradwell nuclear power station near Maldon, Essex, between 1990 and 2004".

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/may/17/safety-scares-at-sellafield (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/may/17/safety-scares-at-sellafield)
"New safety scares at Britain's largest atomic site – including a 14-month radioactive leak and the loss of two toxic containers."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindustry (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindustry)
"A leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric acid, enough to half fill an Olympic-size swimming pool, has forced the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant.
The highly dangerous mixture, containing about 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, has leaked through a fractured pipe into a huge stainless steel chamber which is so radioactive that it is impossible to enter".

I think what Bryant was trying to say is that with something like coal power, we really do know the number of increased fatalities due to the mining, and the additional bad stuff that goes into the air, and it is orders of magnitude higher than that from atomic power.

Exactly.

Note down the number of people who have died during the last century from respiratory illnesses.

Then, note down the number of people who have died of radiation poisoning during the same period.

Which one will be higher? Any guesses?

Also separate the ones who have died from radiation related diseases resulting from particles released in coal burning...

Yes. Definitely. But even then the number of people who have died from pollution caused by the thermal power plants will be exponentially higher than those who lost their lives due to nuclear pollution.

Ok, and now count the number of deaths caused by wind farms.

Over 100...

Now just to compare it to produced energy...

Well, ya, 'renewables' have turned out to be something of an embarrassment to the left.  Too bad about that, really.   Who knows, out of dozens of large scale attempts to get it right, maybe they'll have one or two successes.

Source?

You know what worries me, is as we move toward higher AI and even the final AI, they could get hooked up with these windfarms and take them over, then mobilize them and start toward our cities.  Amoured, wind powered war machines towering into the sky, destroying everything in their path on their way to world dominion.

And they don't need fossil fuels to do it!  Neither would they get the fossil fuels, because the deadly, ultra advanced Exxon AI which had taken over the oil rigs...

Okay, I'll shut up now..

Wind energy is extremely expensive. And it destroys the natural beauty as well. I will not support wind farms, unless they are capable of producing energy at the rate of less than $ 0.02 per KWH.

With 90% availability over the course of year... Never forget that factor.

Price isn't the real killer, it's the consistency.  Hydro is good solution in many ways, but there isn't that much of it in most places...

I am not a big lover of hydro energy. For generating hydropower, huge dams should be constructed which results in the flooding of millions of hectares of forest and agricultural land. It also alters the natural flow of water.

True, but it is superior compared to other techniques in many ways. Price, availability, reliability and ability to change amount of production is superior compared to any other method. Point is that hydro is nearly one viable option to compensate the renevables.

Well, depends on your definition of expensive.
Here in Germany it's 0.08 Euro/kWh, sometimes less.
And the natual beauty...
What do you prefer?
More hurricanes, more cancer or less natural beauty in areas with lots of wind?

You will be able to produce nuclear energy for 0.02 Euro / kWh. Then why depend on expensive forms of energy?


I prefer none of the above.

Does not matter.  Hydro is tapped out, while power needs are growing by 2% a year (USA, but probably at least that, worldwide).

A 'tapped out resource' does not compensate for anything which is trailing behind in production...

Oh god.. I don't want any more hydro power dams. Just take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam

Another 122,200 acres of Amazon forest gone. And more than 600 species of fish will become extinct.

There is also a proposal for another dam at Babaquara. It will destroy 1,517,000 acres of Amazon forest.

Just curious.

How does putting about a 14x14 square mile piece of land under water kill off 600 species of fish?

It will destroy the route of migrating fish and you can't compare the lake that will form behind the dam with a river. Some species will lose their natural habitat forever

Really?  And all salmon go up the same river?

Just asking.  I mean, come on.  600 species of fish?

Hospital surgeries were cancelled, phone service was knocked out and technicians were sent scrambling on Quebec's north shore after a beaver dam collapsed, chopping a fibre-optic cable.

The Internet was also cut off when the large rodent-made structure gave way on Monday evening along a highway 750 km northeast of Montreal.

The cable was severed at a point where it crosses a river.

The local health network was hit hard. Some labs at the hospital in Sept-Iles, Que., were shut down and appointments were cancelled as a precautionary measure to avoid possible errors during manual data entry.

This past spring, a beaver dam flooded a north shore highway.

BEAVER: FRIEND OR FOE?

Canadians have had a love-hate relationship with our national critter, as evidenced in these stories from recent years:

— Conservative Sen. Nicole Eaton, peeved about chunks chomped from the dock of her cottage, pushed for the polar bear to replace the beaver as Canada's official animal. The senator called the beaver "a has-been" and "a big rat, that doesn't reflect our new values."

— Officials in Bonnyville, Alta., blew up more than 70 beaver dams that threatened to flood farmland.

— Ramara Township, Ont., paid trappers $100 per beaver after the rodents overran the area. "They breed faster than we can trap them," one official said.

— Residents of Ottawa's Stittsville community successfully rallied to prevent the city from killing two beavers that had moved into a local pond.

https://i.imgur.com/lDxIZW7.jpg (http://imgur.com/lDxIZW7)


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/10/02/beaver-dam-collapse-wreaks-havoc-on-quebecs-north-shore

Cool....

Airstrikes?

CIA Drones...

What were those dam beavers going to do with all that hyroelectirc power anyway?

Only bryant would know  ;)

HEADLINE:  600 Species of Fish Lost to Dam Beavers

Massive fish depopulation and species extinction is highly correlated with beaver dams, scientists say in the new issue of Climatic Changersaurus.  Initial conclusions are that all the fish were eaten.  Additional research is needed. 

Beaver dam funding is needed for the good of the dead fish says the UN.

The upper region of Xingu river is having a great variety of aquatic species, most of which is not found anywhere else. The ecology is very delicate and needs moving water to survive. If the water becomes static, then the food chain will become affected and the entire system will collapse.

First of all, 'aquatic species' is a way different thing than 'fish'.

As for the entire system collapsing, I don't think that's correct.

Change would occur as the two major rivers mixed their waters.  Maybe several species of fish would die.  Others of course, would thrive.

There isn't anything sacred about the pristine untouched state of nature.  It's okay if we screw around with it.  Now that we can mess with DNA, maybe we could bring species back, too.  Some really weird ones would be cool.  After all, this is the 21st century.

Either way, I am not comfortable with so many species dying out.


Hmm... let me guess. Let's destroy this planet and its living things. After that what we'll do? Will we go to some other planet and do the same?

Yeah...but by this logic, not a single city would exist today.  No farms, ranches, mines, quarries, and most fishing would not be allowed.  Obviously war could not be permitted (lol).  And here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land he does it on.  Once you start talking about co2, then you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.

Have fun!


You can't walk down the street without crushing some helpless micro organisms.  So where are you going to draw the line?  More importantly, who draws the line?

If I go camping, shoot a deer, a rabbit and a pig, then collect some dead branches to make a fire and cook them with, I have altered the pristine untouched state of nature.  So yes in part, you can say that we are going to 'destroy (a part of) the planet' with every single thing we do.

But we invented barbecue sauce for those tasty treats that we kill, skin and eat.

Must have been a reason.

Exploration should be done sonographically rather than physically. The results of physical, on-the-job experience have unknown consequences for the future of the land where this is taking place.  There is some correlative data to suggest fracking has caused localized earthquakes in Ohio, at least.

Again, you are generalizing everything. The Alto Xingu region is one of the areas with highest biodiversity in the whole planet. Destroying 122,000 acres there is like destroying 122 million acres somewhere else, like Canada. We should at least preserve 1% of our planet, where the maximum amount of living species are found. Already only around 15% of the earth's area is under primary vegetation. The remaining has been cut down or destroyed by humans during the last few centuries.

Yes, I used generalization to illustrate your logical errors.  Then I concluded with the end result of your manner of thinking...

here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.

In this particular occasion we were talking about the Belo Monte dam. It doesn't have anything to do with the CO2 emissions.

I don't think that really matters.  You want to control this, you want to control that.  You don't like this, you don't like that.  People should do this, people should do that.

Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?

And who gives the right to destroy the planet, for which every living organism is having an equal right?

Well, the river of logical fallacies runs deep here.  They need to be dammed up, certainly.

Thank you kindly for reminding me that I, after all, am no more than a bug or a worm.

Wait, something is not quite right there...

I don't care what you are. If you want to build a dam, buy a few acres of land near your house and build one. Don't destroy the entire planet for your greed.

So NOW you agree with me.

here you are talking about the direct impact of man's changes on the land.....you want to control his activities for the alleged impact of them half way around the world.

No. Specifically, you wanted the construction of the Belo Monte dam to go ahead. I opposed it.

You wanted the burning of fossil fuels to continue. I disagreed.

Actually, no.  You have it all completely wrong.  We are discussing this assertion I made.

 You want to control this, you want to control that.  You don't like this, you don't like that.  People should do this, people should do that.

Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?

What is actually true is that I couldn't care less about some damn dam or some fuel of one type or another.  Your assertion of moral equivalence point to point is therefore negated.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/resources/images/2826596.jpg?type=articleLandscape

ANTI-FRACKING protesters who glued and chained themselves to petrol pumps in Great Lever over the weekend were at the wrong garage, it has emerged.

Four people were arrested on Saturday after anti-fracking protesters used glue and bike locks to attach themselves to fuel pumps at the petrol station in Rishton Lane.

The group had chosen to base the protest next to a Total petrol station after the French firm announced it would be investing more than £12 million in the UK’s shale gas industry.

However, it emerged later that the petrol station was no longer owned by Total - but the new owners had not got around to taking the signs down yet.

Petrol station manager Reezwan Patel said: “We had to close for six hours, so with the loss of custom and the damage to the pumps, it could be a couple of thousand pounds we have lost.

“The thing is, Total don’t own the station any more. It is owned by Certas Energy, but the signs haven’t changed yet.

"The peaceful protesters were very polite and actually apologised for what happened, but the others were very stupid and have cost us a lot of money.”

Three men, and a woman, were in police custody yesterday after the protest, which forced the petrol station to close temporarily.

Those arrested were from a campaign group which has been protesting against test drilling at Barton Moss, in Salford.

A peaceful protest, organised by the newly-formed Bolton Against Fracking group, and attended by members of the Bolton Green Party, was already taking place at the petrol station, and was not linked to the campaigners who attached themselves to the pumps.

The rally was organised to protest about the potential use of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in the UK, a controversial method of extracting shale gas from underground rocks by cracking them with jets made up of water, sand and chemicals.

The unknown activists were criticised by Bolton Green Party chairman Alan Johnson. He said: “I was very annoyed, and I have to stress that these people have nothing to do with our protest.

“We were there to protest peacefully, and warn people about the dangers of fracking, and these people have put themselves, and others, in danger with what they did.

“We want to warn people that fracking could lead to a poisoned water supply and contaminated soil.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10950219.Anti_fracking_protesters_who_glued_themselves_to_pumps_were_at_wrong_petrol_station/?ref=mr

Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/5/1391616829617/Picture_131.png

And with the new development in Ukraine the situation has changed 180%.

If last year the country has seen large protest against the fracking in some regions in Romania , for the first time this year I start to hear voices that are for the explorations.

What is worse , from people who last year were against it.

And , basically with nobody protesting anymore the first exploration for shale gas has been opened right at Silistea the place where all started last year.

Last year:

http://storage0.dms.mpinteractiv.ro/media/1/1/1688/11747619/1/chevron-afp.jpg?width=400


Now:

http://image.stirileprotv.ro/media/images/600x375/May2014/61510401.jpg

I'm not against exploration, but let's wait and see what will happen in Poland with the actual extraction,
evaluate the risks to the environment, then maybe try it in Romania in less populated areas.
If Russian gas will become too scarce, then if the risks are low enough, allow extraction.

I have some water wells in the areas of Texas mentioned, and I will tell you this.  The state of Texas does not need a newspaper from England cherry picking data and fashioning conclusions.

Texas regulates water well output by permit, and this is related to the particular underground aquifers in the area that the permit is in. 

Therefore, there is no problem such as what is described by the Guardian.   If the State determines that one aquifer is going low, it will simply reduce the allotment for wells in that area.  There are also Stage 1 thru Stage 6 drought restriction formulas in use.

The first exploration for the following shale gas extraction is as close as half a kilometer to a village.
Also most of the wells will be in medium populate areas , and in areas where there villagers already face water shortage in mid summer.

I am against fracking and I would love to see a natural alternative like in the oil case being found here too

Think we should keep that shit in the ground, with technology these days we should be able to generate enough energy from solar, wind and tidal power.

You can't replace gas with solar energy in fertilizer plants , glass, plastics and many more.

Let's give it to the Koch brother.  Then let's defer taxes on the land they need to exploit the resource, or just lease it to the for $1.00.  Then let's give them 'zero interest loans' to set up to exploit it along with some more even more free money to do us the favor of developing it (the all important 'energy independence' you know?)  Then lets pay them a premium for the honor of burning the gas.  Then lets take back the parts of the gift that ended up contaminated with toxic waste and pay to clean it up.   If this doesn't make sense to you then you are not important enough to interest a lobbyist.  Or you don't watch enough Fox News.

There are at least a thousand fracking style natural gas wells in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.  Right in the middle of the city.  They have been there, most of them for at least five years.  So we should have some actual, real live information on a subject like this.

But you could place those energy-intensive industries right next to a nuclear power plant.

I'm not from the us , my only source of information are articles that might contain false information :




Shutting down gas powered power plants and then again use extra energy to replace ammonia production with hydrogen electrolysis....

How many nuclear power plants we might need?

Adding to those numbers replacing gas heating with electricity and we might run into uranium supply problems.

I'm thinking more of a way to replace gas extraction with some kind of gas production from .. algae?

Because when they melt down the workforce need to commute from the safe zone in expensive buses and work in funny looking suites?

No.

I guess that's the short answer.  If you want I can elaborate.

Regarding this...

I'm not from the us , my only source of information are articles that might contain false information :

[/i]

I don't see that as any big deal.  Basically drilling is an industrial operation, and my earlier comment was exactly that - that it was being done all over, right in the middle of the city and the suburbs.  Normally, one would think there would be some level of separation between industry and housing, whether by zoning or whatever.

But this is way different than the original post, which talked about dangers and worries and the water table and whether fracking should be anywhere close to a city.

We've polluted our planet enough, seems a bit backward digging up that dirty black stuff.

Why not stick a load of solar panels across the Sahara desert?

Because they would be stolen / destroyed?

Don't worry.  The rapture is going to happen pretty soon so it won't matter.  Only Godless heathens (and Communists) worry about changes in the makeup atmosphere.

This is the Bulgarian anti shale gas facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ecobg/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/ecobg/). We share the same underground natural water reservoirs in some of the Bulgarian and Romanian shale gas exploration regions. Those water reservoirs are used in plant-growing, farming and drinking. With shale gas the question is not if but when the pollution will come - and more of the times it's coming right away after the exploration had started.

Given that shale gas exploration is all over the Dallas Fort Worth area (check it out, look at Google Earth) don't  you think other people have studied this and have actual facts on it?

The general issue is that the fracking is done way, WAY deeper than underground water and the drilling is done with concrete sealed pipe systems.

Here's an article about the shale gas under Fort Worth.

http://geology.com/research/barnett-shale-gas.shtml

I think if your fears about water contamination were even in part accurate, we'd hear complaints about contamination from Ft. Worth??  I mean, there's like 5000 wells right in the middle of the populated areas of the city?

It's a karst topography there with earth movements, deep crevices and faults - no way to keep the pollution contained.

It depends on technology. Anhydrous fracking is safe if everything is running according to technology. But this technology is relatively costly, so the most of wells are made using the water solutions as reagents.

P.S. Anhydrous fracking uses liquid propane or butane instead of water. It's now used in USA (Texas), China, Canada and there are plans to use it in Russia, Austria and India.

Yes, it depends on the technology and the geological factors of the place. Wikipedia: "A challenge to preventing pollution is that shale gas extractions varies widely in this regard, even between different wells in the same project; the processes that reduce pollution sufficiently in one extraction may not be enough in another." The current hydraulic fracturing technology is not safe at all especially with this geology and they want to extract it with hydraulic fracturing.

Simple question, isn't this exactly the sort of thing that companies working in the field with a staff of PhD geologists would advise on?  They would say drill here, not there, based on stability of formations, etc.  I thought this was the only way it was done.

I suppose it is possible that political or money interests could actually attempt to frack in unsuitable areas.  Hard for me to believe, here in Texas this is highly regulated.  Here 'anti fracking' interests use lots of appeals to fear, outright false arguments and so forth.  In other words, they poorly understand science and engineering, and argue quite literally against the opinions of PdDs in the field with decades of experience.

All fossil fuels are only temporary solutions.

Nuclear is the future. Fusion is the savior.

this

I'd be the first to object to that if it happened around here.  I know sometimes things go wrong with those wells, any one that's worked out there can tell stories.  But that's way way different than putting a well down a mile in unstable ground.

What I know is that there are extensive geologist reports done before any drilling, not just to determine where the oil deposits are, but obviously to avoid unstable areas.  These reports are engineering reports, not politically oriented things.

Maybe they should be made public?  Or if they didn't exist or someone refused to make them pubiic, that would be telling.

I couldn't say what the result of that would be, it might not support the anti-fracking lobby.  It might support some of their ideas but not others.  All I can tell  you is that in Texas - you know we have a long history of producing oil - this kind of thing such as "drilling without caring about the unstable ground formations" would not be tolerated.

To get an idea of the extent of the regulation, say if a roughneck working on a fracking job was told to mix concrete and pour it down the hole, (essential for protecting the underground water from contamination) but he didn't.  He signed the work log asserting he did do it, but lied. 

That's a criminal offense - jail time.

^Isn't the hydraulic fracturing excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm))? It seems they passed something similar here and there may be no ecological expertise needed for hydraulic fracturing. I was in Texas A&M and the taste of the water... I'm not sure if it's a pollution or just the natural taste of your drinking water, but it's definitely not to my taste.

Edit: I forgot to add about the smell of the drinking water there. Both the taste and the smell are hard to describe.

Right now, environmental damage due to shale gas extraction is getting more and more noticeable in regions such as Canada. The ground water has been made unusable in the regions where gas extraction is being made. Huge amounts of methane are being released in to the atmosphere, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, as well as to the local air pollution.

Phew, as a sowshalist I was beginning to get a bit scared. May the Koch brothers deliver us from evil.

One thing I forgot to add about the shale gas exploration in the case that started the thread...

I don't know the situation in Texas ...
-wiki only mentions 2 larger than 6 Richter scale earthquakes last century and I don't know how far they are from the wells-
but in the case of the Pungesti exploration , it is in a 100 km range from the most active earthquake center in my country which triggered 5 7+ Richter scale earthquakes last century.

Quite a few places that produce bad tasting and bad smelling water naturally.   There are a variety of reasons.  Not related to safety.

Generally one would not consider injection of fluids at 5000-10k depth in concrete pressure sealed wells to affect underground water at 200-1000 feet.

Wouldn't it be a team of experts that mapped out the areas that had valuable energy deposits, and determined the subset of them in which it was safe to drill? 

The days of wildcatters going out and drilling where ever they wanted are long over.   That doesn't work with fracking anyway.

About those experts... I've seen so many different opinions about the explorations in that area that I won't take anyone side.
And there were a lot of people that were indeed specialists in earthquakes, not the casual guest to a talk show , people who worked in the INFP  for a long time and they still had different opinions.

Hmm...yeah "exploration"  provides physical cores, which tells the geologists a lot about what's down there. traditional, wells were drilled and a lot turned out to be "dry holes."  Fracking, I think pretty much every time they drill they frack.

The effects of fracking liquids disposal on quake frequency, last I heard, were not clearly understood.  So there would be no certainty in guidance on that issue. 

Drillers are illegally using diesel fuel to frack, doctoring records to hide violations: report

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/15/drillers-are-illegally-using-diesel-fuel-to-frack-doctoring-records-to-hide-violations-report/

" A new report charges that several oil and gas companies have been illegally using diesel fuel in their hydraulic fracturing operations, and then doctoring records to hide violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report, published this week by the Environmental Integrity Project, found that between 2010 and July 2014 at least 351 wells were fracked by 33 different companies using diesel fuels without a permit. The Integrity Project, an environmental organization based in Washington, D.C., said it used the industry-backed database, FracFocus, to identify violations and to determine the records had been retroactively amended by the companies to erase the evidence".

...

"The report asserts that the industry data shows that the companies admitted using diesel without the proper permits. The Integrity Project's analysis, the report said, then showed that in some 30 percent of those cases, the companies later removed the information about their diesel use from the database.

"What's problematic is that this is an industry that is self-reporting and self-policing," said Mary Greene, senior managing attorney for the environmental organization. "There's no federal or state oversight of [filings with FracFocus]."

The article doesn't actually say what you assert as fact.  It lists those ALLEGATIONS, then debunks them.

Cheers!

Although there are some places in the world that it is thought that the edges of tectonic plates sit, this is not a 100% known fact. Also there are some places where earthquakes are more common, but in reality earthquakes can happen in any place at any time.

If fracking is done in places where the risks of earthquakes is greater, then more precaution can be taken to protect against the effects of earthquakes; similar to what is done to buildings in these kinds of places.

Trust me , the so called Vrancea area is at the edge of 3 not two tectonic plates.