Your view on shale gas exploration ?

[cryptasm]

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

nuff said

[Kiki112]

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

[zedicus]

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

nuff said

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!

[Wilikon]

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

...Just like bitcoin...

[Wilikon]

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

nuff said

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

[Spendulus]

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

nuff said

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.   

[Wilikon]

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

nuff said

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.

[cryptasm]

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.

[Spendulus]

.....

@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......

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.

[Ekaros]

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...

[Wilikon]

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.

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

[bryant.coleman]

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…

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.

[Wilikon]

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…

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"

[Spendulus]

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…

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.

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?

[Spendulus]

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...

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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.

[Wilikon]

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.

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?

[Lethn]

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.

[Spendulus]

Shale gas isn't financially profitable without government subsidies. Plus it creates great environmental risks.

In other words, you have to pay a premium for it (compared to import rate) and you put your children/yourself at risk.

Seems like a horrible idea that could only flourish in a society funded by corruption.

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.

[Honeypot]

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.