PickensPlan

Transition

Some time ago, we introduce this discussion by stating, "This is an mature adult conversation about things done that relate to things to be done. If you have a sincere desire to move the Picken's Plan forward, check in here!" Somewhere along the way, the question of integrity became an issue with reference to the the web sites founder and benefactor, T. Boone Pickens. 

From this point forward, we want to be clear about certain points;

  • The Discussion creator and participants are not agents nor are they employed by Pickens or his corporate affiliates
  • The topic TRANSITION is a term employed to describe how individuals can interact with the goal of getting a national energy policy enacted by the federal government of the United States
  • The sole objective of this discussion is to help others, who may be new to the concept, Get Started

Transition is still a lively but insightful discussion of the political ramifications and requirements to employ NG as a bridge fuel to future energy independence; AND a equally informative forum for the side issues that naturally arise in the associated ideas that form the components of action. Participants engaged in this discussion lend their keen minds to unifying a common strategic objective by commenting on the various alternatives with respect to the political agenda necessary to generate a National Energy Policy.

Transition is many voices in addition to the founders. They speak of changes in the American community with regards to energy consumption and production. These voices may come from liberal, progressive, right-wing and conservative thinking, but more importantly they are collaborative. We are looking for the people with knowledge who are willing to share their expertise and intuitions with their neighbors to find a consensus necessary to unity.

Please, add your voice to this discussion by considering what you have to offer in the way of your personal expertise, experience and understanding of alternative fuels such as natural gas, solar or wind energy, hydro or thermal power, and chemical or biological process. If politics are not your forte, keep the following in mind:

  • The strength of a nation is unity in efforts that provide the greatest benefits for the most citizens
  • What will work in one region won't in another so sensible policy must accommodate the regional requirements 
  • The United States doesn't exist in a vacuum, foreign ideas and opinions are just as valuable as domestic ones.
Political people don't necessarily have the technical knowledge to make sound decisions, don't leave their educations to the paid corporate lobbyist, use the tools provided here by your neighbors. 

 

Tags: Alternative, Biofuel, Bridge, Congress, Grassroots, LNG, NG, Nuclear, Politics, President, More…Senate, Solar, Tide, Wave, Wind, energy, experience, fuels, geothermal, independence, opinion, security

Views: 265

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on March 28, 2011 at 8:30am

Guys,

 

  Knock it off! 

 

WAY WAY WAY OFF TOPIC  

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 28, 2011 at 8:06am

I see why you are offended.  OK - If it looks like a Pope and Talks like a Pope it is probably a Pope.  If it looks like a Muslim and talks like a Muslim, it is probably a Muslim. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it is probably a duck.

I'm just not impressed by people who have to flaunt their credentials.  As far as I am concerned - there is no difference.

Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on March 23, 2011 at 10:44am

EPA Bureaucrats Struck Down on Barnett Shale Gas Fracking by Findings of the Texas Railroad Commission!

Grandstanding, media mongering, EPA regulators issued Endangerment and Mitigation order on Range Resources for contaminating drinking aquifers without backing up their conclusions with scientific eveidence.  This EPA "finding" created the firestorm of media hype last December (Videos showing igniting gas coming from the water faucets etc.).  Chemical analysis clearly indicates that the gas in the water wells under the order is not from the Barnett Shale and that the residents in this area have had to deal with gas in their drinking water from the shallow gas formation crossing the reservoir for decades, long before drilling started in the Barnett Shale.

 

Another fraudulent extortion by the EPA .

 

http://palestineherald.com/breakingnews/x1498160880/Texas-agency-Ga...

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 24, 2011 at 7:45pm
Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on March 25, 2011 at 7:22am

The "opinion" article is fallacious.  Very little water is required for fracturing ("fracking") a shale gas well and veirtually all of it is recovered before the well is placed into service.  I believe the ignorant author does not know the difference between coal bed methane production and fracking for shale gas.  I am not an advocate of coal bed methane production.

 

Lou,

It would serve you well to get the facts straight before spreading "media lies" about shale gas production.

Permalink Reply by Sharon Reddy on March 25, 2011 at 5:32pm
Fraudulent?  Extortion?  My goodness, how did all those evil creatures pass the Civil Service test ?  They certainly aren't making a personal profit from it and they aren't making friends who'll pay them a whole lot of money as lobbyists in a few years, either.  The job is do what we said we want done in congress.  Somebody complained and they moved fast because its extremely dangerous.  This time it was too fast.  They didn't do their homework.  If Range Resources did theirs, they can already prove they didn't cause or contribute.  If they didn't, they have stall time until the EPA finishes the homework.  If it agrees Range Resources didn't cause or contribute, the EPA will ask for funding to find a way to mitigate what is a severe environmental danger to those people.  It's in the job description.
Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on March 28, 2011 at 7:39am

Sharon,

 

It is already proven that the water wells under question are not a result of the Range Resources shale gas fracturing.  The gas in the waters wells is from a shallow gas reservoir and has a different compostion from the gas composition of the shale gas.  The water well driller disclosed that gas was found when the well was drilled two years before Range Resources showed up to dirll for the shale gas.

 

The land owners are simply "gold digging" opportunists trying to stick it to the minerl rights owners.  The EPA did not not do its due diligence and got caught with their pants down.

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 25, 2011 at 7:50pm

So we take water and mix it with mud and undisclosed stuff and pump it into the ground.  Do we use our limited potable water or are we pumping wastes into our water table?

How much water is needed to recover how much gas?

What is the percentage of water recovered and can you drink it?

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 26, 2011 at 9:32pm

Another good movie   http://www.newworldorderinfo.com/fall-of-the-republic/

Maybe the gas thing is not that important.

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 26, 2011 at 5:53pm
Is it possible that David Franklin is promoting something that he knows nothing about?
Permalink Reply by David A. Franklin on March 28, 2011 at 7:32am

Obviously you and the author of the article that you referenced don't appear to know the difference between Coal Bed Methane production by pumping water out of a non-potable water reservoir and Shale Well Gas fracturing "fracking" of deep shale and removal of the fracking fluids to promote natural gas production.  The fracking fluids from shale gas production are primarly removed, contained and recycled.

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on March 28, 2011 at 7:54am
I do know that if you pump dirty water down one well it shows up in all the other wells around and if you dump just about anything into run off water it affects the lifeforms downstream.  There is no way to extract gas from any type of strata that is not going to influence the natural water cycles that we rely on to provide the potable water we depend on.  Methane is a natural gas and believe it or not it can also be used as an energy source.  Why can't we just capture the methane that escapes from the excrement that we currently flush down the toilet.  That source would be sustainable and clean up our rivers at the same time.

RSS

© 2013   Created by PickensPlan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Community Guidelines  | Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service