Fracking to lead to a new golden age?

[Rain Man]

Dunno if this should be in DC or not, but it seems more societal than political. I thought it was interesting and had no idea that fracking would have that big an impact.

I added the bold formatting in places because doing so will draw your attention to it since I think it's interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/business/america-shale-gas-ferguson-stevens/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

U.S. set for fracking bonanza, says historian Ferguson
By Andrew Stevens, CNN
updated 12:30 PM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

Hong Kong (CNN) -- If there's been one consistent thread running through the U.S. economic story since 2008, it's been the steady drumbeat of gloom.
Outright recession or sub-standard growth, stubbornly high unemployment and fiscal crises have been the topics du jour when it comes to the world's biggest economy.

But now an unlikely champion for U.S. growth under the Obama administration has emerged -- a former adviser to a Republican Party presidential candidate and Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson, who says America could actually be heading toward a new economic "golden age."

And it has nothing to do with Washington and everything to do with energy.

Ferguson, who is also an author and commentator, believes the production of natural gas and oil from shale formations via a process known as "fracking" -- forcing open rocks by injecting fluid into cracks -- will be a game changer.

"This is an absolutely huge phenomenon with massive implications for the U.S. economy, and I think most people are still a little bit slow to appreciate just how big this is," he said in Hong Kong this week.

"Conceivably it does mean a new golden age."

U.S. energy production has been booming in recent years. The International Energy Agency made a jaw-dropping forecast two weeks ago that the U.S. would pass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer by the end of this decade -- and would achieve near energy independence by the 2030s.


That energy boom, asserts Ferguson, will create jobs in the United States.

Lots of jobs.

The energy sector currently supports 1.7 million American jobs directly or indirectly, according to economic forecaster IHS global Insight. That could rise to 3 million by 2020, it says.

"It's not only in the extraction industry and infrastructure, but more importantly cheap energy is going to create employment in manufacturing. I think you'll see a renaissance in manufacturing," said Ferguson.

"That is being helped by the fact U.S. labor costs have been pretty competitive over the past decade, even as labor costs are going up in China."

It is also, he says, a big deal for the dollar. "As the U.S. moves towards energy independence and becoming the biggest producer in the world, the dollar can only benefit. Anybody who thought the financial crisis was going to lead to the demise of the dollar as an international currency is wrong -- it's quite the opposite."

And what of U.S. engagement in the Middle East?

Ferguson says it would be naive to assume that Washington would withdraw in any significant way from the region.

"Nobody is going to step in and take the job of being global policeman in charge of Middle Eastern stability. I think everyone would be nervous, if the Chinese suddenly volunteered to take that job on, which by the way they are not going to do anytime soon," he said.

For the recently reelected U.S. president though, the energy boom looks like it could provide a welcome tailwind for his second term.

It's something that Ferguson acknowledges -- though one suspects through gritted teeth.

As a supporter of Mitt Romney he penned a controversial pre-election cover story in Newsweek headlined "Hit the Road, Barack," which was highly critical of the president's first term.

He concedes the irony that the president will now be the beneficiary of the "good times that lie ahead."

[Bugeater]

These things never live up to the fracking hype.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

I hope this ain't no Fracking joke !

[Donger]

Yes, it is an interesting prediction. However, the energy companies are under no obligation to sell and refine the crude for purely American consumption.

[penguinz]

Energy independence but a destroyed environment.

[Rain Man]

There's an interesting prediction that would come out of this. Let's say we pull this off; massive increases in oil production, a decline in energy costs, and a new golden age of the economy.

Do we...

a)...continue planning for the long term when it runs out, developing alternate energy, emphasizing efficiency, and building a conservation mentality?

b)...go back to conspicuous consumption and really big cars with tail fins?


I look forward to seeing the return of tail fins.

[Donger]

Energy independence but a destroyed environment.

I think that's somewhat overly dramatic.

[Donger]

There's an interesting prediction that would come out of this. Let's say we pull this off; massive increases in oil production, a decline in energy costs, and a new golden age of the economy.

Do we...

a)...continue planning for the long term when it runs out, developing alternate energy, emphasizing efficiency, and building a conservation mentality?

b)...go back to conspicuous consumption and really big cars with tail fins?


I look forward to seeing the return of tail fins.

No, I think that the move toward more and more fuel-efficient vehicles is a reality now.

[BigRedChief]

Energy independence but a destroyed environment.I hear fracking and I think of that video clip of that guy lighting the fracking water on fire coming out of the tap in his sink in his house.

[patteeu]

There's an interesting prediction that would come out of this. Let's say we pull this off; massive increases in oil production, a decline in energy costs, and a new golden age of the economy.

Do we...

a)...continue planning for the long term when it runs out, developing alternate energy, emphasizing efficiency, and building a conservation mentality?

b)...go back to conspicuous consumption and really big cars with tail fins?


I look forward to seeing the return of tail fins.

I don't think long term planning is one of our strengths (except maybe in the defense industry and even there I'm not sure).

[patteeu]

I hear fracking and I think of that video clip of that guy lighting the fracking water on fire coming out of the tap in his sink in his house.

We don't pipe fracking water to anyone's faucet in this country.

[cdcox]

Energy independence but a destroyed environment.

Natural gas certainly has potential to be a cleaner fuel than coal or oil. But it has to be done correctly with treatment, reuse, and proper disposal of the fracking fluid; proper well construction and inspection; and controls for methane gas release. These will add to the cost of energy production, but I think overall I think natural gas produced through proper fracking can provide energy at costs competitive with coal, but much cleaner.

Still natural gas still puts upward pressure on climate change. I view it as a bridge technology to widespread use of renewables.

[penguinz]

I think that's somewhat overly dramatic.you are correct. We don't need clean water fr crops or livestock.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yes, it is an interesting prediction. However, the energy companies are under no obligation to sell and refine the crude for purely American consumption.

Big Oil's dirty little secret.

The gullibility and stupidity of Americans never ceases to amaze me.

[Discuss Thrower]

Fracking Cylons

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Just put two Great People together. Boom, instant Golden Age.

[cdcox]

Yes, it is an interesting prediction. However, the energy companies are under no obligation to sell and refine the crude for purely American consumption.

At the same time, fracking won't be used exclusively on energy resources located in the US.

We have LNG import facilities that were built just a few years ago. Now, with the relatively low NG production costs compared to those in Europe, some are discussing conversion of those import facilities to export facilities. However, the oil and gas industry is backing off that type of planning due to the realizaton that Europe and China have plenty of frackable resources.

Ultimately as fracking technology spreads, a global market become established with more uniform prices for NG, resulting in less incentive to export.

[Valiant]

My only problem with fracking is the pollution of the underground water tables..

[penguinz]

My only problem with fracking is the pollution of the underground water tables..someone will post soon about that being a myth.

[cdcox]

Informed look at the groundwater contamination issue:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/01/25/guest-post-water-contamination-fracking-is-not-the-problem/

The problems are:

1) the oil and gas business is extremely fragmented. There are literally hundreds of mom and pop drilling companies and not all of these are operated responsibly.
2) Therefore, proper installation and inspection of the the well doesn't always occur. This is where the big risk for groundwater contamination exists.
3) regulations vary a great deal from state to state. In some states the regulations are significant with good well inspection programs while in others the situation is much more lax. Resource development is profitable in both environments if the geology is favorable.

So if you are worried about groundwater contamination, better well head inspection programs is the key.

[patteeu]

My only problem with fracking is the pollution of the underground water tables..

That's the same reason I oppose unicorn ranching.

someone will post soon about that being a myth.

;)

[B_Ambuehl]

It is a myth. The fracking takes place well below the water tables and is sealed in with casing. When people are affected it's from inappropriate disposal of wastewater and similar stuff, which creates problems that get blamed on the actual frac site.

[cdcox]

It is a myth. The fracking takes place well below the water tables and is sealed in with casing. When people are affected it's from inappropriate disposal of wastewater and similar stuff, which creates problems that get blamed on the actual frac site.

Bad well casings and well heads are an issue too, as noted in the link I posted.

[patteeu]

Bad well casings and well heads are an issue too, as noted in the link I posted.

In your opinion, is there any significantly greater reason to fear the environmental impact of fracking than to fear that of poorly regulated oil extraction or nuclear energy production? Or for that matter, the disposal of chemical waste?

[Donger]

you are correct. We don't need clean water fr crops or livestock.

Again, you are being overly-dramatic.

[Donger]

Big Oil's dirty little secret.

The gullibility and stupidity of Americans never ceases to amaze me.

It really isn't a secret. Even though some of this oil will be exported, it's still a beneficial thing for every American.

[BigRedChief]

It is a myth. The fracking takes place well below the water tables and is sealed in with casing. When people are affected it's from inappropriate disposal of wastewater and similar stuff, which creates problems that get blamed on the actual frac site.So the video clips on you tube of people lighting their tap water on fire in the area of the country where fracking is occurring are all fake?

[penguinz]

Again, you are being overly-dramatic.
Nope

[FAX]

My only problem with fracking is the pollution of the underground water tables..

That's the issue, for sure.

There are a ton of people who are very concerned over that particular problem.

In fact, it's possible that improper fracking can reduce our dependency on oil but increase our dependency on clean water (which, of course, is already a bit of an issue).

I'm not sure which is better; a full tank of gas, dying of thirst, or breaking out in giant, oozing, boils on the face.

FAX

[Donger]

Nope

Okay, please show me one instance where fracking has lead to what you are apparently claiming.

[ROYC75]

someone will post soon about that being a myth.

Myth ? No, certain fracking fluids are just not suitable around water tables. A lot of alternative fracking fluids is being looked at now because of the concern from the environmentalist.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/chesapeake-testing-green-fracking-fluids-in-u-s-shale-wells.html

[Icon]

I hear fracking and I think of that video clip of that guy lighting the fracking water on fire coming out of the tap in his sink in his house.


I read where they were able to light the groundwater on fire is somewhere back east (Pennsylvania?). Apparently this is a natural phenomenon due to how shallow the hydrocarbons are to the surface. The Indians knew of this area and had a name for this which I don't recall and, no, it was not firewater. The environmentalists did not disclose this was a naturally occurring issue in their film because it opposed their agenda.

[penguinz]

Okay, please show me one instance where fracking has lead to what you are apparently claiming.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/drought-oil-us/index.htm

[ROYC75]

Okay, please show me one instance where fracking has lead to what you are apparently claiming.

It hasn't, yet. They just don't want it to.

I base a lot of my business off of the oil and gas projects in the US and it's in the pipeline news all the time somewhere.

But it's changing due to the concern, let the little birdies chirp.

[Donger]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/drought-oil-us/index.htm

Sorry, but you are presenting that article as evidence of a destroyed environment?

[FAX]

Sorry, but you are presenting that article as evidence of a destroyed environment?

I see nothing wrong with expressing concern for our water resource ... not that it's done much good so far, of course.

FAX

[Donger]

I see nothing wrong with expressing concern for our water resource ... not that it's done much good so far, of course.

FAX

Nor do I. But I think that such overly-dramatic and unfounded prognostications aren't exactly beneficial.

[cdcox]

In your opinion, is there any significantly greater reason to fear the environmental impact of fracking than to fear that of poorly regulated oil extraction or nuclear energy production? Or for that matter, the disposal of chemical waste?

Complicated question when you look at it from a life cycle perspective.

From the stand point of putting the well in place oil drilling and NG fracking are roughly equivalent.

The main risk of fracking a well is the impact on overall water resources (how much water are you losing to the fracking process that you might need for other uses) and the removal of pollutants from the production water (the water that comes back up the well) before disposal.

For both types of wells, I think it is important to control NG emissions during the initial period before the well is put into productive operation.

During transport there is potential for natural gas leakage. Since methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, that needs to be monitored and controlled.

Oil has to be refined and there are environmental risks associated with that process, largely regulated.

Oil is a dirtier fuel than natural gas when you burn it.

Done properly with fuel reprocessing nuclear is potentially the cleanest. Fuel reprocessing is currently politically infeasible in this country. And the number of actual accidents shows that the risk of accidents is far underestimated. The financial risk for utilities is also huge, but that isn't an environmental risk.

Chemical waste disposal doesn't really fit with the others. It is a collection of diverse operations that get rid of an environmental liability, while energy production is concerned with obtaining an asset. So I'll leave that one out.

I'll throw in coal and renewables for reference.

So I'd rank them with respect to environmental friendliness once the fracking regs come to steady state:

renewables > fracked natural gas > nuclear > oil > coal

[ROYC75]

I see nothing wrong with expressing concern for our water resource ... not that it's done much good so far, of course.

FAX

So far nothing has happened. Oil drillers have guidelines they must go by with the fracking, especially in the area and knowing the potential it could do to waterways, above and in the ground.

Baker Hughes Inc. (BHI), the world’s third-largest provider of fracking services, offers a fluid called “VaporFrac” that replaces almost all of the water used in fracking with nitrogen- based foam.

[cdcox]

So the video clips on you tube of people lighting their tap water on fire in the area of the country where fracking is occurring are all fake?

Bad wells. Not the fault of the technology per se.

[Dave Lane]

Just put two Great People together. Boom, instant Golden Age.

Someone has played Civilization. :LOL:

[DaneMcCloud]

It really isn't a secret. Even though some of this oil will be exported, it's still a beneficial thing for every American.

Oh, please.

Every election cycle, people claim "But gas prices were less under "John Doe"!

The POTUS nor his policies do very little, if anything, to affect the price gasoline and anyone that claims as such is either a liar uninformed.

[Donger]

Oh, please.

Every election cycle, people claim "But gas prices were less under "John Doe"!

The POTUS nor his policies do very little, if anything, to affect the price gasoline and anyone that claims as such is either a liar uninformed.

:spock:

Why are you bringing up politics?

I was referring to there relatively suddenly being a new flow of oil coming into the global market. One of the items that is very closely watched is the global spare capacity. If we start putting millions more barrels of crude into the market, it eases the space capacity concerns.

That has nothing to do with politics.

[penguinz]

Sorry, but you are presenting that article as evidence of a destroyed environment?Evidence that the water supply can be in danger in areas that are being fracked.

[patteeu]

Evidence that the water supply can be in danger in areas that are being fracked.

That article is about how energy companies may have difficulty finding water for fracking when water supplies are scarce, not about local people having difficulty. It's pretty unlikely that local populations will put energy company access to water ahead of their own, IMO.

[NewChief]

I live in a pretty heavy fracking community and all my family is from one that is even heavier. It definitely boosts the economy, but there are serious issues with it as we'll from an environmental standpoint. And that's not just speaking as a hippie. My redneck relatives all have mixed feeling about fracking as well.

[T-post Tom]

Bad wells. Not the fault of the technology per se.

B.S.

[alnorth]

Yes, it is an interesting prediction. However, the energy companies are under no obligation to sell and refine the crude for purely American consumption.

Wouldn't the cost of export mean that our own demand will be mostly met before it economically makes sense to ship oil out?

[Shox]

So the video clips on you tube of people lighting their tap water on fire in the area of the country where fracking is occurring are all fake?

Actually I believe some of those stories were proven to be fabricated. I'm not saying it can't be a problem if not handled correctly. But, there is no reason the technology can't be used in a safe manner to benefit society and the environment.

[dtebbe]

I'm far from a tree hugger, but it's pretty clear to me that the practice poses a serious risk to the environment. A real, immediate, risk. It's not just the underground water table that's at risk, the waste water the process creates is also a major issue.

DT

[DaneMcCloud]

:spock:

Why are you bringing up politics?

I was referring to there relatively suddenly being a new flow of oil coming into the global market. One of the items that is very closely watched is the global spare capacity. If we start putting millions more barrels of crude into the market, it eases the space capacity concerns.

That has nothing to do with politics.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[Aries Walker]

My family is in the coal mining business, but my company is in the natural gas business, so I have some exposure to the experts in the field.

Fracking is a new technology. As such, it will take a while for safety, regulation, and legislation to catch up with it, but they will, just like they did with oil back in the late 19th century. As it is now, however, yes, it's dangerous to the water table in the areas around it. As far as I'm concerned, we should be regulating and monitoring all of those drilling companies more than we are, but if it helps us get away from coal and more into natural gas, it would be worth it.

As for Niall Ferguson, I haven't read any of his books myself, but he doesn't have a great reputation among historians who have. This is second hand, of course, but I'm not sure I would automatically assume every position he takes is representative of the academic consensus.

[Donger]

Wouldn't the cost of export mean that our own demand will be mostly met before it economically makes sense to ship oil out?

Not if the importing party is willing to pay the export costs. We also don't exactly have much spare refining capacity.

[Donger]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I must admit, you are confusing the hell out of me right now, Dane. I wasn't being political at all if that is what you are saying.

[teedubya]

Can we please move to renewable resources? JFC.

[Rain Man]

As for Niall Ferguson, I haven't read any of his books myself, but he doesn't have a great reputation among historians who have. This is second hand, of course, but I'm not sure I would automatically assume every position he takes is representative of the academic consensus.

I just quoted him because he was on the Internet, which gives him credibility to me.

[Donger]

Can we please move to renewable resources? JFC.

Sure. You like darkness and cold?

[NewChief]

This, clearly, is another one of those delineating, partisan issues. There could be double blind studies coming out with 90% of the population in a fracking area coming down with cancer, and a certain group of people would say "treehugger pussies! You want to send us back to the dark ages?" And another group would say, even if the fuel source was the perfect one, "OMG! It's the death! Run from Saruman!!!" Sad really.

[SPATCH]

I truly believe that my generation is going to be the one to stand up and put an end to the issues being posed by our reliance on combustible, non-renewable fuels as our energy sources.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it will when the current generation dies off.

[patteeu]

I truly believe that my generation is going to be the one to stand up and put an end to the issues being posed by our reliance on combustible, non-renewable fuels as our energy sources.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it will when the current generation dies off.

I don't know which generation is yours, but whoever they are, my bet is that they'll end up selling out just like the hippies of the 60s did.

[cdcox]

I truly believe that my generation is going to be the one to stand up and put an end to the issues being posed by our reliance on combustible, non-renewable fuels as our energy sources.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it will when the current generation dies off.

Even if we had unlimited solar and wind, there are real infrastructure and technology limitations that prevent us from using 100% renewables at this time.

Electricity has to be generated the instant there is demand for it. If there is demand when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, it cannot be met.

We need to develop electrical storage technologies and smart grid to increase renewable usage above a certain fraction. Plus we need better grid infrastructure. All this is under development, but it is some time off. Natural gas is far, far better than coal in the meantime.

[FAX]

I guess I'm going to have to move forward with inventing cold fusion. It's really the only reasonable solution to the energy problems facing humanity. I've been putting it off, but I suppose I need to go ahead get it done.

FAX

[go bo]

yeah! get er done, mr. fax!!! :BLVD:

[FAX]

yeah! get er done, mr. fax!!! :BLVD:

Okay. Step one is completed, Mr. go bowe. I made a bunch of ice in the ice maker. In fact, the little container thing is overflowing with little half-moons of ice.

Now that that's done, I am already half-way to cold fusion. I just need to find something to fuse. I'll keep you posted.

FAX

[DeezNutz]

Okay. Step one is completed, Mr. go bowe. I made a bunch of ice in the ice maker. In fact, the little container thing is overflowing with little half-moons of ice.

Now that that's done, I am already half-way to cold fusion. I just need to find something to fuse. I'll keep you posted.

FAX

Vodka should be considered for step two. If you suggest decent Scotch with ice, the erasers will visit your homestead presently.

[TinyEvel]

If there was a way to extract energy from fapping, then the world's energy problems would truly be solved.

Just sayin'

:D

[TimeForWasp]

Meet the Frackers.

[mdchiefsfan]

For those that are curious about how this process works


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VY34PQUiwOQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[displacedinMN]

great video

[Braincase]

I'm sure the energy companies will take all of the environmental issues into consideration and proceed as responsibly as they've always done.

[mdchiefsfan]

I'm sure the energy companies will take all of the environmental issues into consideration and proceed as responsibly as they've always done.

:thumb:

[FAX]

I'm sure the energy companies will take all of the environmental issues into consideration and proceed as responsibly as they've always done.

Which begs the question; If the energy companies over-frack, can they make the entire planet explode? 'Cause that would be bad for the fishes and water fowl.

FAX

[cdcox]

I'm sure the energy companies will take all of the environmental issues into consideration and proceed as responsibly as they've always done.

Of course they won't, that's why we need regulations. As Aries Walker said, regs are presently lagging behind the technology and vary greatly from state to state. Right now, many of their operations are exempt from the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Air Act. There may be reasons for not applying those acts to the drilling industry, but that doesn't mean they should be completely unregulated. Done well, natural gas has the potential to be far greener than coal at competitive cost.

[ROYC75]

Of course they won't, that's why we need regulations. As Aries Walker said, regs are presently lagging behind the technology and vary greatly from state to state. Right now, many of their operations are exempt from the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Air Act. There may be reasons for not applying those acts to the drilling industry, but that doesn't mean they should be completely unregulated. Done well, natural gas has the potential to be far greener than coal at competitive cost.

Just throwing things out there , aren't you.

Link ? Exempt from the Clean Water & Air Act ?

Yes, Natural Gas is our future for energy independence in the US

Drilling companies have to follow guidelines & regulations. Currently because of the fear of fracking, Chesapeake & Hughs Baker are both working on an environmentally safe foam fracking fluid that will secure the water safety even further that what it is today.

[cdcox]

Just throwing things out there , aren't you.

Link ? Exempt from the Clean Water & Air Act ?

Yes, Natural Gas is our future for energy independence in the US

Drilling companies have to follow guidelines & regulations. Currently because of the fear of fracking, Chesapeake & Hughs Baker are both working on an environmentally safe foam fracking fluid that will secure the water safety even further that what it is today.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass-for-Oil-and-Gas/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Exemptions

I'm in favor of fracking. It just needs to be regulated properly.

[FAX]

I like a good frack as much as the next guy, but I am also acutely aware of and will no longer underestimate the sheer power of greed.

I'm sure that we had a whole passel of awesomely cool regulations designed to prevent the Gulf Of Mexico from becoming a giant wok, too. Point being; regardless of how many rules you make, you can be certain that somebody, somewhere, some time down the line will cheat or forget or feign incompetence in order to clear a few more bucks and the result will be millions of dead animals and hundreds of thousands of Americans bathing in imported Chinese beer.

FAX

[cdcox]

I like a good frack as much as the next guy, but I am also acutely aware of and will no longer underestimate the sheer power of greed.

I'm sure that we had a whole passel of awesomely cool regulations designed to prevent the Gulf Of Mexico from becoming a giant wok, too. Point being; regardless of how many rules you make, you can be certain that somebody, somewhere, some time down the line will cheat or forget or feign incompetence in order to clear a few more bucks and the result will be millions of dead animals and hundreds of thousands of Americans bathing in imported Chinese beer.

FAX

Yep. But BP paid dearly. Was it enough to change their behavior in the future? Maybe not. However, us all being humans and all, we are going to screw things up. We'll try to make things right, but we we'll screw that up as well. But I don't know what else to do but to go forward and keep trying. I'd much rather go forward with well regulated NG that depend on coal. And I'd rather use coal that nothing. Renewables can play a role, but they can't deliver all the power we need when we need it right now. Right now, NG is the cleanest technology that we have that can reliably deliver the power we need for our way of living. Of all the bad options, it seems the least bad.

[FAX]

Yep. But BP paid dearly. Was it enough to change their behavior in the future? Maybe not. However, us all being humans and all, we are going to screw things up. We'll try to make things right, but we we'll screw that up as well. But I don't know what else to do but to go forward and keep trying. I'd much rather go forward with well regulated NG that depend on coal. And I'd rather use coal that nothing. Renewables can play a role, but they can't deliver all the power we need when we need it right now. Right now, NG is the cleanest technology that we have that can reliably deliver the power we need for our way of living. Of all the bad options, it seems the least bad.

I don't disagree, Mr. cdcox. Not one bit. I don't hug trees every day or anything, but I'm just ... I don't know ... skeptical, I guess.

A lot of people view frackage as totally manageable and safe technology ... and it may be very soon (I don't think it's there yet). However, if there's one thing that big, enormous, oil companies know how to do, it's squirm their way through fine print in order to gain an advantage.

The problem in this case is that a bad fracking problem could have very, very serious and long-lasting ramifications that could dramatically affect the quality of life for a whole lot of people (not to mention livestock and crops). And, of course, after the fan is thoroughly doused in feces, the oil company executives won't give a damn because they won't have to live with the consequences of their actions ... just the residents of whatever locality they've ecologically destroyed.

That's probably an over-statement, but you get the idea.

FAX

[DaneMcCloud]

I must admit, you are confusing the hell out of me right now, Dane. I wasn't being political at all if that is what you are saying.

I'm not saying that you're being political. I'm saying that the masses are constantly fooled into believing that the POTUS somehow has an affect on gasoline and oil prices.

If public lands were to be opened up to oil companies and production were increased, there is absolutely no guarantee that prices at the pump would be considerably reduced, nor are there any guarantees that the oil extracted from public land would be available exclusively to Americans.

That's the dirty secret.

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

[bevischief]

North Dakota has a unemployment rate of 3.1% lowest in the country and a billion dollar budget surplus. Also North Dakota surpassed Alaska this year in oil production.

[Mr. Laz]

until the fracking fluid gets into the water table and we start giving birth to 3-headed babies.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I don't disagree, Mr. cdcox. Not one bit. I don't hug trees every day or anything, but I'm just ... I don't know ... skeptical, I guess.

A lot of people view frackage as totally manageable and safe technology ... and it may be very soon (I don't think it's there yet). However, if there's one thing that big, enormous, oil companies know how to do, it's squirm their way through fine print in order to gain an advantage.

The problem in this case is that a bad fracking problem could have very, very serious and long-lasting ramifications that could dramatically affect the quality of life for a whole lot of people (not to mention livestock and crops). And, of course, after the fan is thoroughly doused in feces, the oil company executives won't give a damn because they won't have to live with the consequences of their actions ... just the residents of whatever locality they've ecologically destroyed.

That's probably an over-statement, but you get the idea.

FAXFracking sounds like an outstanding solution as long as it doesn't occur within 1000 miles or so of my home.

[Mr. Laz]

Fracking sounds like an outstanding solution as long as it doesn't occur within 1000 miles or so of my home.
you really think that 1000 miles is going to save you if enough of it gets into the water table?

[Rain Man]

I apparently don't understand water filtering.

So I turn on my water tap. In my case, that water started out on top of a mountain, and then it flowed down and went into a reservoir. Then it flowed down a big rock tunnel to Denver, went through a bunch of pipes, and via some sort of magic it comes out of my sink.

At some point in that process, that water got treated, right? Someone had to filter the water bugs out of it and the giardia and stuff. Are there things that a filter can't get out? Or is the problem figuring out what to do with the stuff that gets filtered out?

I've seen simple filtering systems in survival kits that are basically a plastic tent. You let the water evaporate inside it, and it recondenses in the heat on the tent. Then it drips down and you drink it. The stuff that recondenses is presumably two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It contains no water bugs or giardia or fracking solutions, and the filtering costs nothing.

[patteeu]

I'm not saying that you're being political. I'm saying that the masses are constantly fooled into believing that the POTUS somehow has an affect on gasoline and oil prices.

If public lands were to be opened up to oil companies and production were increased, there is absolutely no guarantee that prices at the pump would be considerably reduced, nor are there any guarantees that the oil extracted from public land would be available exclusively to Americans.

That's the dirty secret.

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

There are never any guarantees, but it's highly likely that opening public land up for drilling would expand supply and Econ 101 says that would put downward pressure on prices.

Whether the oil was consumed domestically isn't very relevant.

[patteeu]

I apparently don't understand water filtering.

So I turn on my water tap. In my case, that water started out on top of a mountain, and then it flowed down and went into a reservoir. Then it flowed down a big rock tunnel to Denver, went through a bunch of pipes, and via some sort of magic it comes out of my sink.

At some point in that process, that water got treated, right? Someone had to filter the water bugs out of it and the giardia and stuff. Are there things that a filter can't get out? Or is the problem figuring out what to do with the stuff that gets filtered out?

I've seen simple filtering systems in survival kits that are basically a plastic tent. You let the water evaporate inside it, and it recondenses in the heat on the tent. Then it drips down and you drink it. The stuff that recondenses is presumably two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It contains no water bugs or giardia or fracking solutions, and the filtering costs nothing.

Big Water won't let cheap filtering solutions come to market because it cuts into their bottom line. They're also blocking space-age technologies that would let us "cut the pipe" and drink our own home-recycled urine.

[Rain Man]

Big Water won't let cheap filtering solutions come to market because it cuts into their bottom line. They're also blocking space-age technologies that would let us "cut the pipe" and drink our own home-recycled urine.

That would indeed be the solution. We could be a bunch of closed loops, plus it would be great research for the space program.

I do find it interesting to hear about "water shortages". Again, I suspect that I'm naive, but the earth is more or less a closed system. The water that we're drinking right now is the same water that a woolly mammoth drank 30,000 years ago, and the same water than one of those six-foot scorpions drank 500 million years ago. Based on my fifth-grade science class with Mrs. Carder at Hickory Hills Elementary School, water follows a big cycle from clouds to rain to rivers to ocean to clouds. So it seems like we would never have a water shortage the way it's portrayed. It's just being stored in another part of the cycle.

[patteeu]

That would indeed be the solution. We could be a bunch of closed loops, plus it would be great research for the space program.

I do find it interesting to hear about "water shortages". Again, I suspect that I'm naive, but the earth is more or less a closed system. The water that we're drinking right now is the same water that a woolly mammoth drank 30,000 years ago, and the same water than one of those six-foot scorpions drank 500 million years ago. Based on my fifth-grade science class with Mrs. Carder at Hickory Hills Elementary School, water follows a big cycle from clouds to rain to rivers to ocean to clouds. So it seems like we would never have a water shortage the way it's portrayed. It's just being stored in another part of the cycle.

Yeah, I guess it's a matter of getting it to the place you want to use it.

[penguinz]

That would indeed be the solution. We could be a bunch of closed loops, plus it would be great research for the space program.

I do find it interesting to hear about "water shortages". Again, I suspect that I'm naive, but the earth is more or less a closed system. The water that we're drinking right now is the same water that a woolly mammoth drank 30,000 years ago, and the same water than one of those six-foot scorpions drank 500 million years ago. Based on my fifth-grade science class with Mrs. Carder at Hickory Hills Elementary School, water follows a big cycle from clouds to rain to rivers to ocean to clouds. So it seems like we would never have a water shortage the way it's portrayed. It's just being stored in another part of the cycle.

There are more people and fewer sources of safe drinking water.

[AustinChief]

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

Fixed. "Cold" fusion is currently a complete fantasy... "HOT" fusion on the other hand is very real and nearing a level where we can produce substantial energy yields.

Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion is currently the most exciting. We'll know by this time next year if the theories regarding it are viable. In theory, a MagLIF reactor could produce a 1000x return on energy expended. Combine this with the massive tech leaps we are starting to make in energy storage and you really WILL have a new golden age. It's criminal how little we spend on this research. I can't imagine any single thing that is more important to our national security.

[Saul Good]

I'm not saying that you're being political. I'm saying that the masses are constantly fooled into believing that the POTUS somehow has an affect on gasoline and oil prices.

If public lands were to be opened up to oil companies and production were increased, there is absolutely no guarantee that prices at the pump would be considerably reduced, nor are there any guarantees that the oil extracted from public land would be available exclusively to Americans.

That's the dirty secret.

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

Harnessing unicorn farts is the answer.

[cdcox]

I apparently don't understand water filtering.

So I turn on my water tap. In my case, that water started out on top of a mountain, and then it flowed down and went into a reservoir. Then it flowed down a big rock tunnel to Denver, went through a bunch of pipes, and via some sort of magic it comes out of my sink.

At some point in that process, that water got treated, right? Someone had to filter the water bugs out of it and the giardia and stuff. Are there things that a filter can't get out? Or is the problem figuring out what to do with the stuff that gets filtered out?

I've seen simple filtering systems in survival kits that are basically a plastic tent. You let the water evaporate inside it, and it recondenses in the heat on the tent. Then it drips down and you drink it. The stuff that recondenses is presumably two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It contains no water bugs or giardia or fracking solutions, and the filtering costs nothing.

Denver has 30 MGD (millions of gallons per day) of recycled water treatment capacity (soon to be increased to 45 MGD). It treats water from one of your sewage treatment plants and dumps it into your drinking water reservoirs. Denver wouldn't resort to recycling water unless the water demand of the city did not exceed what can be provided by those mountain streams. Sounds like Denver is in a water stressed area.

Denver has three other convention drinking water treatment plants that treats river water. Each of those plants are between 250 to 300 MGD. So somewhere around 3% of Denver's water is currently recycled. You can read about the conventional treatment process here:

http://www.denverwater.org/WaterQuality/TreatmentProcess/

This process is designed to move turbidity (particles that make the water cloudy, probably very little from those mountain streams) and microorganisms. It won't remove salts and dissolved organics that might be part of fracking fluids. The fracking fluids can be removed from water, but it might make the water 4 or more time expensive to treat.

Your tent style water purification system requires distillation. For the little amount of water that is required for a camper or two, solar energy can provide the needed energy. To distill 900 MGD or so would require a tremendous amount of energy and be prohibitively expensive.

Your statement about the earth being a closed system with respect to water is correct. But it is a matter of the amount of fresh water available at a given location. Of the total amount of water in the world only ~0.007% of it is in lakes and streams and ground water supplies that are easily accessible for human use. Growing population, the lack of water where people live, and increasing pollution levels, and changing precipitation patterns due to climate change all put additional stress on water supplies. It's a monumental problem on a global scale.

[FAX]

Which is why we need to be far more conscious and careful of our water resource ... not more daring and potentially abusive.

Have you ever drunk from a clean, clear spring, Mr. cdcox? Or a rock-bottom, mountain creek in the early spring? It tastes pretty darn good and it's good for you, too. I'm thinking that whoever had the pure, clean, natural water idea had a pretty good one.

FAX

[Rain Man]

I'm really glad that they remove the turbidity from my recycled sewer water.

[cdcox]

I'm really glad that they remove the turbidity from my recycled sewer water.

The recycled water plant has a lot more steps in the treatment process. It takes effluent from the sewer plant, treats it, an dumps it into the drinking water reservoir. I think the regular treatment plants are located between the reservoir and your faucet. So water that is flushed down the toilet is treated by three different treatment plants before you drink it again: the sewage treatment plant, the recycle plant and the drinking water plant.

[opraider]

Fracking has been going on in the oil fields since the the '70's, nothing new.

[Braincase]

I was being a bit sarcastic when I made my previous post. I have no doubt that energy companies will meet the absolute minimums when it comes to the environment. They are out to maximize profits. I'm not an idiot. If the groundwater gets contaminated, oh well... they don't live there.

[Rain Man]

The recycled water plant has a lot more steps in the treatment process. It takes effluent from the sewer plant, treats it, an dumps it into the drinking water reservoir. I think the regular treatment plants are located between the reservoir and your faucet. So water that is flushed down the toilet is treated by three different treatment plants before you drink it again: the sewage treatment plant, the recycle plant and the drinking water plant.

Interesting stuff.

Maybe this is normal, but I learned something odd a while back. I was at a conference in the mountains, and one of the things we did was a boat tour of a lake. (It was an outdoor recreation conference.) The local guide said that swimming isn't allowed in the lake because it's part of Denver's water supply. I guess I wouldn't have thought that a few swimmers would really make a difference next to all of the dirt and rocks and raccoons washing crayfish and stuff.

[DaneMcCloud]

There are never any guarantees, but it's highly likely that opening public land up for drilling would expand supply and Econ 101 says that would put downward pressure on prices.

Whether the oil was consumed domestically isn't very relevant.

There is no way you can guarantee that prices would fall and it's most particularly relevant that it would be used state side.

[DaneMcCloud]

Fixed. "Cold" fusion is currently a complete fantasy... "HOT" fusion on the other hand is very real and nearing a level where we can produce substantial energy yields.

Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion is currently the most exciting. We'll know by this time next year if the theories regarding it are viable. In theory, a MagLIF reactor could produce a 1000x return on energy expended. Combine this with the massive tech leaps we are starting to make in energy storage and you really WILL have a new golden age. It's criminal how little we spend on this research. I can't imagine any single thing that is more important to our national security.

Whoa.

You're talking Fusion. Fusion is this close? If Fusion were to be realized, not only would the world's energy problems be solved in less than a decade after implementation, all transportation would almost immediately be converted to electric and for the most part, the world would be free of human pollution.

Also, that energy source would be used to power starships and the push toward the speed of light could begin.

It's seriously that close? I've never heard that before.

[patteeu]

There is no way you can guarantee that prices would fall and it's most particularly relevant that it would be used state side.

You keep hiding behind the absolutist language of a guarantee.

Where that specific oil ends up being consumed doesn't matter as long as it expands the supply in the global market.

[prhom]

There is no way you can guarantee that prices would fall and it's most particularly relevant that it would be used state side.

It seems to me that whether it is used domestically, or internationally is irrelevant. It's all about the net import or export when measuring trade deficits, and that's a pretty important factor as well. If we can make more money by exporting our oil than we can by using it domestically, then why not export it? That situation implies that the oil we are exporting is worth more than the oil we are importing. If that is true, why wouldn't we sell oil for more than we spend to buy it?

[Donger]

I'm not saying that you're being political. I'm saying that the masses are constantly fooled into believing that the POTUS somehow has an affect on gasoline and oil prices.

If public lands were to be opened up to oil companies and production were increased, there is absolutely no guarantee that prices at the pump would be considerably reduced, nor are there any guarantees that the oil extracted from public land would be available exclusively to Americans.

That's the dirty secret.

Okay.

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

Nuclear power works for me, but even then, it would be a massive and costly conversion from fossil fuel vehicle power to EV.

[Donger]

I apparently don't understand water filtering.

So I turn on my water tap. In my case, that water started out on top of a mountain, and then it flowed down and went into a reservoir. Then it flowed down a big rock tunnel to Denver, went through a bunch of pipes, and via some sort of magic it comes out of my sink.

At some point in that process, that water got treated, right? Someone had to filter the water bugs out of it and the giardia and stuff. Are there things that a filter can't get out? Or is the problem figuring out what to do with the stuff that gets filtered out?

I've seen simple filtering systems in survival kits that are basically a plastic tent. You let the water evaporate inside it, and it recondenses in the heat on the tent. Then it drips down and you drink it. The stuff that recondenses is presumably two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. It contains no water bugs or giardia or fracking solutions, and the filtering costs nothing.

The treatment of the water you drink is pretty complex. In most cases, you are actually drinking your (and everyone else's) "dirty" water.

[Donger]

Fixed. "Cold" fusion is currently a complete fantasy... "HOT" fusion on the other hand is very real and nearing a level where we can produce substantial energy yields.

Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion is currently the most exciting. We'll know by this time next year if the theories regarding it are viable. In theory, a MagLIF reactor could produce a 1000x return on energy expended. Combine this with the massive tech leaps we are starting to make in energy storage and you really WILL have a new golden age. It's criminal how little we spend on this research. I can't imagine any single thing that is more important to our national security.

Oh stop it.

[Baby Lee]

I hear fracking and I think of that video clip of that guy lighting the fracking water on fire coming out of the tap in his sink in his house.

Surprised you'd admit to succumbing to such facile propaganda.

[Baby Lee]

Even if we had unlimited solar and wind, there are real infrastructure and technology limitations that prevent us from using 100% renewables at this time.

Electricity has to be generated the instant there is demand for it. If there is demand when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, it cannot be met.

We need to develop electrical storage technologies and smart grid to increase renewable usage above a certain fraction. Plus we need better grid infrastructure. All this is under development, but it is some time off. Natural gas is far, far better than coal in the meantime.

Agree with first bolded, but to fair, as to the second, there are reservoirs, flywheels, compressed air, batteries, and liquefied hydrogen

[Ace Gunner]

srsly, you'd think we are in an energy shortage century. we are not. the crooks just keep a bottleneck in the process to rape folk$. If y'all think that's going to change in some peaceful way with the crooks in charge, god help ya.

[Baby Lee]

I don't disagree, Mr. cdcox. Not one bit. I don't hug trees every day or anything, but I'm just ... I don't know ... skeptical, I guess.

A lot of people view frackage as totally manageable and safe technology ... and it may be very soon (I don't think it's there yet). However, if there's one thing that big, enormous, oil companies know how to do, it's squirm their way through fine print in order to gain an advantage.

The problem in this case is that a bad fracking problem could have very, very serious and long-lasting ramifications that could dramatically affect the quality of life for a whole lot of people (not to mention livestock and crops). And, of course, after the fan is thoroughly doused in feces, the oil company executives won't give a damn because they won't have to live with the consequences of their actions ... just the residents of whatever locality they've ecologically destroyed.

That's probably an over-statement, but you get the idea.

FAX

The broad outlines of this argument could be applied to most every human endeavor outside of participating in drum circles.

[Baby Lee]

That would indeed be the solution. We could be a bunch of closed loops, plus it would be great research for the space program.

I do find it interesting to hear about "water shortages". Again, I suspect that I'm naive, but the earth is more or less a closed system. The water that we're drinking right now is the same water that a woolly mammoth drank 30,000 years ago, and the same water than one of those six-foot scorpions drank 500 million years ago. Based on my fifth-grade science class with Mrs. Carder at Hickory Hills Elementary School, water follows a big cycle from clouds to rain to rivers to ocean to clouds. So it seems like we would never have a water shortage the way it's portrayed. It's just being stored in another part of the cycle.

Reminds me of that guy in college who would bitch about guys in the dorm wing showers for not turning off the water when soaping and shampooing because they were wasting water.

He'd keep bitching no matter how many times he was asked 'where did this wasted water disappear to?'

[notorious]

Fuck Fracking.


Build a Dyson Sphere.

[Rausch]

**** Fracking.


Build a Dyson Sphere.

LMAO

[Rausch]

Dunno if this should be in DC or not, but it seems more societal than political. I thought it was interesting and had no idea that fracking would have that big an impact.

Worth a watch...

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

[cdcox]

Agree with first bolded, but to fair, as to the second, there are reservoirs, flywheels, compressed air, batteries, and liquefied hydrogen

I'm only familiar with reservoirs being applied on a commercial scale for electrical power storage presently. I think there are relatively few new geographical locations that can support that technology. All of the others you mentioned need to be developed and demonstrated at commercial scale as I mentioned in my post. Of the options listed, it seems liquefied hydrogen might have the best potential at large scale. I think we will eventually get there, but if we had the solar and wind capability today, we would not have the storage and infrastructure in place to do away with fossil fuels for some time.

[cdcox]

Oh stop it.

LMAO

Fussion -- always 50 years around the corner.