89 replies to this topic

[GostHacked]

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

Watched this last night. Absolutely horrible. We are using a hell of a lot of natural resources and a hell of a lot of energy to extract energy from the ground, all the while contaminating the water table throughout. The documentary starts with Josh Fox on his remote home in New Jersey, and he had an offer of over $100,000 to allow the gas company to come in and install wells on his property to extract natural gas, through a method called hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

http://en.wikipedia....ulic_fracturing

And it looks like Dick Cheney/Haliburton operation.

When Fox was traveling around the country to see what this really is, I was ... stunned, to see some of the residents in the documentary set their tap water on fire. No joke! The water table in the US and even Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec) will be screwed because of this insane method of extracting gas.

1h 45 mins, and it's quite shocking to say the least.

[TimG]

1h 45 mins, and it's quite shocking to say the least.

2 hours of enviro porn? Must have been hell to sit through considering that the majority was likely a gross exaggeration, if not outright fabrications.

The fact is we need energy and every energy sources messes up the environment in some way. We can minimize but not eliminate this damage. As long as enviros take the position that no damage is acceptable then they have little useful to contribute to the discussion.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 07:45 AM.

[GostHacked]

2 hours of enviro porn? Must have been hell to sit through considering that the majority was likely a gross exaggeration, if not outright fabrications.

When the guy was able to light the water coming out of the tap on fire with a simple lighter, that shows it's not an exaggeration. I am assuming you have not seen this documentary. And from what he was able to film around the US, did not look like an exaggeration.

Then again you are the same one who said I was crazy for saying that Fukushima was worse than 3-Mile Island. It's now on par with Chernobyl.

The fact is we need energy and every energy sources messes up the environment in some way. We can minimize but not eliminate this damage. As long as enviros take the position that no damage is acceptable then they have little useful to contribute to the discussion.

We are using just as much energy to extract the energy. We are using a lot of natural resources to extract this energy. We are contaminating the environment by extracting this energy.

Near the end of the video, the gas execs/experts listed off the chemicals they used in the process. They are 100% hazerdous to animal and plant life.

Yes we need energy. And we need to use greener and alternative energies.

Maybe you are better off watching a couple hours of Jersey Shore if it satisfies you.

[TimG]

When the guy was able to light the water coming out of the tap on fire with a simple lighter, that shows it's not an exaggeration.

An ancecdote is not 'data'.

Then again you are the same one who said I was crazy for saying that Fukushima was worse than 3-Mile Island. It's now on par with Chernobyl.

It is nothing like Chernobyl and you know it. The IEA scales are quite course and do not imply equivalency.

Near the end of the video, the gas execs/experts listed off the chemicals they used in the process. They are 100% hazerdous to animal and plant life.

So? Where is the evidence that these chemicals are used in a quantity that are likely to use damage the environment?

Yes we need energy. And we need to use greener and alternative energies.

If enviros had their way we would be freezing in the dark because there are no energy sources that can satisfy their various obsessions.

Bottom line: if we want to actually have heat and light we need to tell the enviros to go pound salt because they have nothing useful to contribute to the debate as long as they are attempting to ban energy sources. Now if they want to rethink such mindless opposition and come up with constructive ways to reduce the impact then their contribution would be very useful.

Unfortunately, "big green" depends on "shock journalism" in order to fund their operations. They can't afford to take a nuanced approach to these issues.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 08:20 AM.

[GostHacked]

An ancecdote is not 'data'.

If you can set your water on fire, it no longer becomes an anecdote. That becomes real. These people who have this drilling on their lands, can no longer use their water wells. Some of these farms, can no longer drink or bathe in the water. They cannot feed it to their livestock, they cannot water their crops with it.

It is nothing like Chernobyl and you know it. The IEA scales are quite course and do not imply equivalency.

Time will prove me right.

So? Where is the evidence that these chemicals are used in a quantity that are likely to use damage the environment?

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/06/list-of-78-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-in-pennsylvania/

Much of what the gas execs said in the documentary during the congressional hearings in the US.

If enviros had their way we would be freezing in the dark because there are no energy sources that can satisfy their various obsessions.

It does not have to be that way, there are many other alternatives we can use. But that would take a mentality shift in how you approach energy extraction and consumption.

Bottom line: if we want to actually have heat and light we need to tell the enviros to go pound salt because they have nothing useful to contribute to the debate as long as they are attempting to ban energy sources. Now if they want to rethink such mindless opposition and come up with constructive ways to reduce the impact then their contribution would be very useful.

When your environment becomes to toxic to live in, you can look back at telling those green weenies to pound sand and ask why they did not make more of a fuss. It's always hindsight that people start to realize what is going on.

Unfortunately, "big green" depends on "shock journalism" in order to fund their operations. They can't afford to take a nuanced approach to these issues.

If this hydralic fracking is not shocking to you, and a nuclear disaster is not shocking for you, then nothing else is going to convince you that a shift is needed.

[TimG]

Much of what the gas execs said in the documentary during the congressional hearings in the US.

From your link:

2.When fracking fluid is pumped into the ground, the vertical hole down which it’s pumped is lined with concrete to protect surface water supplies from chemicals. The fracking fluid goes down some 5,000 feet to where it’s used to help break rock apart releasing the natural gas, and then most of the fluid is pumped back out again and carted away where it’s treated at a regulated and approved facility. For the fluid that stays behind, it’s down some 5,000 feet. That’s almost a mile of solid rock between where it sits and surface water supplies (which are located at about 300 feet). There’s no way any of that fluid will “seep up” into water supplies. And remember that most fluid is pumped back out again. So less than one percent of the fluid are chemicals from this list, and most of that comes out again, leaving behind a very very small amount of chemicals a mile below the surface and heavily diluted by water and sand.

IOW - this is yet another gross exageration by enviros.

It does not have to be that way, there are many other alternatives we can use. But that would take a mentality shift in how you approach energy extraction and consumption.

Do you think that wind and solar are 'harm free'? Then why are the enviros blocking those projects when they are proposed?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/23/business/la-fi-solar-plant-20101023

Environmentalists fought the project for years, concerned about its effect on the habitat of a rare tortoise. Others see the developer, Oakland-based BrightSource Energy Inc., as just another "Big Solar" corporation chasing down profits on the public dime.

If this hydralic fracking is not shocking to you, and a nuclear disaster is not shocking for you, then nothing else is going to convince you that a shift is needed.

How about alternatives that actually provide power in useful quantities? As long as there are no alternatives I can live with the risks associated with exploiting these power sources.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 08:41 AM.

[TimG]

The biggest problem with enviros is they focus on miniscule risks are are never able to factor in the benefits.

For example, nuclear power produced 2.5 million GWh of electricity per year.
That is 250 billion dollars in economic value in ONE year (assuming 10 cent/KWh).

If we have one Level 7 accident per 25 years
and that accident costs 100 billion to clean up (a gross over estimate).
The total cost of risk is about 1.6% or about 0.16 cents/KWh.
A cost that low enough to justify the risk.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 09:34 AM.

[GostHacked]

The biggest problem with enviros is they focus on miniscule risks are are never able to factor in the benefits.

For example, nuclear power produced 2.5 million GWh of electricity per year.
That is 250 billion dollars in economic value in ONE year (assuming 10 cent/KWh).

If we have one Level 7 accident per 25 years
and that accident costs 100 billion to clean up (a gross over estimate).
The total cost of risk is about 1.6% or about 0.16 cents/KWh.
A cost that low enough to justify the risk.

Why is the focus always on a money risk and rarely if ever, on the environmental risk?

[TimG]

Why is the focus always on a money risk and rarely if ever, on the environmental risk?

I did factor it in and it turns out that the environmental risk of nuclear power is inconsequential. Part of the problem is you seem to think environmental risk has nothing to do with money. That is a myth - environmental risk is the cost of fixing things or the cost of living with environmental damage. In many cases, those costs are much less than the value we derive from the activity.

We must accept risks if we are going to keep our society going. All we can be do is manage those risks.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[GostHacked]

I did factor it in and it turns out that the environmental risk of nuclear power is inconsequential.

It's not inconsequential. Money does not solve all the problems.

Part of the problem is you seem to think environmental risk has nothing to do with money.

It's got everything to do with money. To think otherwise is very foolish. How many companies lobby government to bypass or get regulations changed so they don't have to worry about how much environmental damage happens?

That is a myth - environmental risk is the cost of fixing things or the cost of living with environmental damage. In many cases, those costs are much less than the value we derive from the activity.

If the companies were forced to follow and adhere to regulations, then their cost would be so high, they would not even bother with that method of extraction. So again, that shows that it is all about the dollar.

We must accept risks if we are going to keep our society going. All we can be do is manage those risks.

Eventually there is a tipping point in managing those risks, then it's straight downhill with no hope of recovery.

[TimG]

It's got everything to do with money. To think otherwise is very foolish. How many companies lobby government to bypass or get regulations changed so they don't have to worry about how much environmental damage happens?

Of course companies try to reduce their liability. Government needs to stop them from doing this. However, expecting companies to pay for damages caused by their activities not require that an activity be banned.

If the companies were forced to follow and adhere to regulations, then their cost would be so high, they would not even bother with that method of extraction. So again, that shows that it is all about the dollar.

It is impossible to eliminate all risk. The challenge to find to right balance between accepting risk and the benefits that society gains by expoiting resources. The US has taken the approach that they would rather take zero risks and simply import what they need from places which don't care about such things. I see such thinking as hypocritical and short sighted. If Americans could not get what they wanted from foreign suppliers you can bet they would tell the enviros to go pound salt.

Eventually there is a tipping point in managing those risks, then it's straight downhill with no hope of recovery.

Why? We have been managing risks for thousands of years and we are getting better at it. There is no rational basis for your claim of a 'tipping point'.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 10:08 AM.

[GostHacked]

Of course companies try to reduce their liability. Government needs to stop them from doing this. However, expecting companies to pay for damages caused by their activities not require that an activity be banned.

But we've seen it time and time again, where a company (like BP and the Deepwater Horizon) will end up paying a small amount compared to the long term environmental impact of the disaster. It's a drop in their bucket of profits. When you make those fines higher and with the real threat of jailtime you can then have some accountability. Big companies are in bed with big government. So don't expect the government to put the boots to them when those companies screw up.

It is impossible to eliminate all risk. The challenge to find to right balance between accepting risk and the benefits that society gains by expoiting resources. The US has taken the approach that they would rather take zero risks and simply import what they need from places which don't care about such things. I see such thinking as hypocritical and short sighted. If Americans could not get what they wanted from foreign suppliers you can bet they would tell the enviros to go pound salt.

I agree it is impossible to eliminate all risk. But for this fracking, from what I understand there are environmentaly safe chemicals the companies can use to extract the gas. Why is that not being done? Why would a company chose to throw all these toxic chemicals down the well knowing the risk?

Why? We have been managing risks for thousands of years and we are getting better at it. There is no rational basis for your claim of a 'tipping point'.

The risks involved with the current technology we use is about 100- 150 years old (along with a huge population boom and urban sprawl). We've done more damage to the planet in the last century than the entire period that humanity has been around prior to that. Until real accountability is in place, the 'getting better at it' will never come to light.

[TimG]

But we've seen it time and time again, where a company (like BP and the Deepwater Horizon) will end up paying a small amount compared to the long term environmental impact of the disaster.

Got any evidence to back that claim up? The 'environment damage' is turning out to be a lot less than BP has already paid.

I agree it is impossible to eliminate all risk. But for this fracking, from what I understand there are environmentaly safe chemicals the companies can use to extract the gas. Why is that not being done? Why would a company chose to throw all these toxic chemicals down the well knowing the risk?

Obviously the alternatives either cost too much or are not as effective. At this point you have to consider the risk. I do not consider minor leakage in a mile deep hole to by a high risk that we need to worry about.

Of course, not all shale gas deposits are a mile deep and those deposits need different regulations. Perhaps we can simply choose to leave the shallow deposits alone since alternatives are available. Trying to ban all fracking is not an option.

We've done more damage to the planet in the last century than the entire period that humanity has been around prior to that.

More damage? Based on what metric? European and American cities are a lot cleaner than they were 100 years ago. Most so called 'environmental damage' is not damage to the environment but changes which reduce its economic usefulness to humans, For example, Chernobyl is a wildlife refuge today.

[ToadBrother]

Got any evidence to back that claim up? The 'environment damage' is turning out to be a lot less than BP has already paid.

There is at least some evidence that it ended up on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Time will tell. In other words, the jury is out on the extent of the damage. Neither side should be proclaiming any kind of victory yet.

[TimG]

There is at least some evidence that it ended up on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Time will tell. In other words, the jury is out on the extent of the damage. Neither side should be proclaiming any kind of victory yet.

There is other evidence that bacteria has consumed the majority of it. That said, we will never find out the 'truth' because there is an entire industry dedicating to finding any 'effect' that can be blamed on BP. The financial incentive on both sides makes most research suspect.

Edited by TimG, 14 April 2011 - 01:47 PM.