Drill Waters Run foul

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by W. Dan Chance on April 21, 2009 at 10:35am

You put a nice point on the issue Scott. I have worried about using good drinking water to force fossil fuels to the surface so we can burn it and create more pollution myself.

Permalink Reply by Arga Blarg on September 3, 2009 at 8:08am

There are technologies for desalination and purification of frac and brine water.
I would be willing to set up an operation on my land in Ohio
to do this if anyone is interested in being invloved.

Permalink Reply by Scott Baker on September 3, 2009 at 8:59am

Still nothing from Boone Pickens on this. It's impossible that he doesn't know about the issue - he's in the thick of this. I really think he needs to make his position clear on this. There are several bills in Congress and movement in the EPA to examine this issue more closely, as it should be. We can't sacrifice our health and water supply, even if it means getting off foreign oil.

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on September 3, 2009 at 10:05am

This will become a very critical issue.

If the expanded NAT GAS reserves being touted over the past 18 months as over abundandt,
are in fact going to produced using this technology, than Houston, we've got a problem.

(cancer rates are soaring in Iraq while oil and NG drilling increases, but you rarely hear about that here). There are a lot of possible causes for cancer rates to be soaring in Iraq. Mainly the ammo be used by the waring parties. The Country must be filthy with carcinogens. So, might not actually be a good control... Although this source can't be ruled out.

Certainly, more research needs to be done and dissiminated.

Opponents will certainly pick-up on this; Coal Producers. Had a few marigritas with a very intelligent young Lady who works for Peabody Coal. I actually mentioned this high water pressure method of releasing the NAT GAS from the shale. AND, that I'd heard concerns that there might be a risk to ground waters; Aquifers? I stated I didn't have any facts on this. Just that concerns could be raised. She retorted that they most assuredly will be! Facts, or not. Any rumors to prevent this NAT GAS from being brought on-line, including exploitation of irrational, or rational fears will be resorted to. This could be a deal buster...

Permalink Reply by Scott Baker on September 3, 2009 at 10:13am

Wow, leave it to the coal lobby to point fingers at dirty Nat Gas. Strange times indeed.
In addition to Iraqis getting cancer, people living near nat gas wells, especially those with known aquifer contamination, are getting cancer in higher numbers too - much as they do in the South's cancer ally, near the refineries. Coal, of course, is ruining communities and surface waterways with mountaintop removal. The cleanest fuels are renewables, though by no means perfect - nothing is.

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on September 3, 2009 at 10:28am

40% of the the energy, electricity, being used in the US today is produced by coal. There's a lot of it, and it's cheap. The battle that's being staged today is to replace the coal in many of these Power Plants with NAT GAS. Which would be nice if the capturing and distribution of the NAT GAS didn't cause major environmental ills. And, if as has been reported, they've found double the reserves of it than were thought to exist 18 months ago.

Coal is dirty stuff. Has to be hauled by RR Freight, or River Barge. That costs energy, and produces pollution, environmental damage. (Our major Rivers are shot!) So, it would be a panticea if the NAT GAS could be subsituted for the Coal.

Believe me, a Major Fight has already begun over this very issue. The Coal Companys are already actively campaigning against switching to NAT GAS. Looks like it's gonna be a knock - down - drag out...

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on September 3, 2009 at 11:12am

Copied from: "The Progress Report" 11:a.m.

"ENVIRONMENT -- VERIZON SPONSORING ANTI-CLIMATE RALLY BACKED BY COAL INDUSTRY: This Labor Day, tens of thousands of people are expected to gather at the "Friends of America Rally" in Holden, WV to protest the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation. Right-wing celebrities such as Sean Hannity and Ted Nugent will join the demonstrators, and coal giant Massey Energy is the driving force behind the event. Massey's CEO Don Blankenship has even recorded a video inviting people to attend the rally, saying they would learn about how "environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs." While a variety of regional oil, gas, and coal companies are sponsoring the rally, Verizon Wireless has also signed on. Verizon Wireless spokeswoman Laura Merritt told the Charleston Gazette that Verizon's decision to sponsor the rally was made "at the local level to support the community." "It wasn't an effort to take a position on any particular issue," she added. However, the pro-coal policies Verizon is now sponsoring actually hurt communities in West Virginia. As the Wonk Room's Brad Johnson has written, "Despite $118 million in coal-mining annual income, West Virginia has the nation’s lowest median household income, worst educational services, worst social assistance, the highest population with disabilities, and nearly a quarter of West Virginia children in poverty." Verizon openly brags about "environmental stewardship" being "ingrained in Verizon's heritage," and the company has an entire page on its website dedicated to its "green initiatives." Take action here and tell Verizon that if it really wants to be green, it needs to stop sponsoring global warming denial rallies."

Permalink Reply by Scott Baker on September 3, 2009 at 11:39am

Yes, it's amazing that more people aren't aware that states, like OPEC countries, can suffer from the resource curse. That's where an oligarchy keeps the profits from resources - which they monopolize - and the ordinary workers, if there are any, get the absolute minimum the companies can afford to pay. Under a Georgist system, BTW, the 'rent' on resources - which, rightfully, belong to all of us, since they were not "created" by resource companies, merely exploited - would return to the community from which they came. "Communist" Alaska does this with its oil revenues, so hold it with the name-calling.
The Single Tax on resources used or abused (air/water/land) is the only fair tax that that is also good for the environment, AND encourages productivity by untaxing it. Check it out here: http://www.change.org/actions/view/a_new_form_of_capitalism_geonomics

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on September 3, 2009 at 12:23pm

I'd like for you to get back to your origional subject matter.

This is timely, and going to have a very high impact on the passage of the up-coming Legislation - the NAT GAS Act.

We need to know if this new underground high pressure water blasting of the shale, to release the NAT GAS is safe! Where do they get the water? How much water does it take? What happens to the water? Water has been pumped into falling wells to bring up oil for years. I've been told that the water is than trapped in that void, by the oil coating it. (?).

Also, what quanity of the newly discovered reserves of NAT GAS would have to be produced using this method? Is it already being widely used? If so, what's the data? How costly is it? So, if in fact it's found to be un-safe, can it be prohibited? And what will the revised quanity of NAT GAS reserves be?

Permalink Reply by Scott Baker on September 4, 2009 at 2:35am

Fracking is used virtually everywhere in America there are new discoveries. Indeed, it is more accurate to say there are new discoveries in how to get Nat Gas out of the ground, than actual new discoveries of nat gas itself. Propublica an Scientific America have the best layman-oriented coverage of this issue that I've seen, but the fact is, partly due to industry obstructionism, and partly form the wrecking ball of the Bush Administration on the EPA and similar agencies, we just don't have the science to answer fully the potential damage questions. One thing though, once an aquifer is polluted it'll be difficult to impossible to clean it up. It's not hard to see why - these events happen hundreds of feet underground, is deep, dense, rock (hence the need to force gas out in the first place) and it's much easier to inject stuff in than to remove it again. And no, it doesn't just all bubble back up with the gas. That's naive to think that.

Permalink Reply by KENN DRESCHER on September 4, 2009 at 8:52am

You must be a NightOwl, or just back from Last Call... I don't blame Ya!
Bush was elected by a hate fueled mob. (The resurection of which were seeing today...) They were a pack of lying degenerates. They've gotten away with so many crimes... Here, now, were learning of more.

Cheney's Halliburton developed this method of extraction: Halliburton Shale Gas Solutions - Unconventional Solutions for Unconventional Challenges.

"Halliburton is uniquely positioned to offer a wide range of solutions for Shale Gas exploration, development and production. Read more in this brochure. And Halliburton has a seamless network of nationwide tech teams to help producers maximize their shale gas assets—no matter where in North America they may be. For more information on how Halliburton is helping producers meet their shale gas challenges, view a presentation on the Halliburton advantage.

No one knows shale like Halliburton. From chemostratigraphy for accurate well placement to fracturing systems that use field-produced brine water, Halliburton combines our leading technologies to create solutions that mean improved efficiencies in drilling shale reservoirs, maximum drainage in producing them, and greater accuracy in monitoring and optimization. When it comes to unlocking shale gas, only Halliburton can supply it all."

"No one knows shale like Halliburton?" Oh, well now, that's certianly reasuring...

They do state they use field-produced brine water for the operation.

I'm beginning to wonder if signing the petition to support the NAT GAS Act was the right thing to do?

This certianly requires more study and debate. Placing Our trust in the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton would be a damn foolhardy thing to do.
Looks like a pac with the Devil!

Permalink Reply by Scott Baker on September 4, 2009 at 9:46am

Yeah, I stopped following Pickens' recommendations blindly some time ago. He's not coming clean with nat gas, and he really needs to. I still believe - even more strongly - in the other half of his plan, to develop wind farms to create electricity. The estimates of how much of our national needs could be produced are all over the map, and basically say more about the expert's bias than anything else. I'm reading a book by Jeff Siegal "Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks" that essentially says that EACH of the major renewables alone - Solar, Wind, Geothermal - could produce enough electricity to power the country, cleanly and forever. Well, the title of the book says it all. He and his research team also believe ALL fossil fuels, incl. nat gas will peak within 20 years. We've been hearing that for some time, of course. It's hard to know what to believe, but I think we should be emphasizing what's clean and green, not what's dirty and dangerous.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page