Fracking Risk?

[Leonidas]

Yep. We should all be drinking from rain barrels, too. Nobody can convince me that pumping billions of gallons of water daily from underground aquifers will not have adverse effects on the Earth's structure. Earthquakes.

 

[Leonidas]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

According to the Government Accountability Office the Green River oil shale field is 3 TRILLION barrels. Mankind has consumed about 1 trillion barrels in the hundred or so years we've been using it.

Let's see.

1 trillion per 100 years
3 trillion equals how many 100 years

And that is from one field
And that includes the entire worlds consumption.

I'm brain dead. And somebody is drinking the scare mongering, liberal, tree hugging, America/capitalism hating koolaid.

 

[mike84z28]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-find-holds-oil-opec/story?id=17536852

According to the Government Accountability Office the Green River oil shale field is 3 TRILLION barrels. Mankind has consumed about 1 trillion barrels in the hundred or so years we've been using it.

Let's see.

1 trillion per 100 years
3 trillion equals how many 100 years

And that is from one field
And that includes the entire worlds consumption.

I'm brain dead. And somebody is drinking the scare mongering, liberal, tree hugging, America/capitalism hating koolaid.

Now you believe a Govt report ? Thats so against, so much I have read here !

 

[Leonidas]

You are deflecting. Provide contrary sources.

Google green river oil reserves and you'll find thousands of supporting sources. Surely some to your liking.

 

[mike84z28]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...and-what-are-the-chances-of-finding-new-ones/

While there may be a supply of oil, affordable oil will be a thing of the past in 50 years. Looking at that first 100 year span above the first 50 years were nothing as measured by yearly consumption to the next 50. The world was not developed and disposable as it is today. In the 50s, 60s and 70s there was basically one car for every average household, now there 3-4 per. Its not rocket science look around you on the interstate everyday, 90% of cars have one passenger. Im not trying to scare anyone, nor am I a tree hugger, but oil is FINITE it will run out someday thats a fact and if we want our great grand children to have some then the consumption rate needs to curve downward Worldwide.

 

[SpeedRacer]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...and-what-are-the-chances-of-finding-new-ones/

While there may be a supply of oil, affordable oil will be a thing of the past in 50 years. Looking at that first 100 year span above the first 50 years were nothing as measured by yearly consumption to the next 50. The world was not developed and disposable as it is today. In the 50s, 60s and 70s there was basically one car for every average household, now there 3-4 per. Its not rocket science look around you on the interstate everyday, 90% of cars have one passenger. Im not trying to scare anyone, nor am I a tree hugger, but oil is FINITE it will run out someday thats a fact and if we want our great grand children to have some then the consumption rate needs to curve downward Worldwide.

Yep. Unfortunately many are too partisan to look beyond politics. If you want to reduce energy use or stop and actually think about the environment we live in, the sustainability of our consumption, or better alternatives you're automatically labeled a lefty and a liberal.

 

[Leonidas]

Partisanship isn't part of the equation. I'm all for good stewardship. Sustainability, environmental awareness, minimal footprint, etc. But unfortunately refusing to buy into the hysteria du jour is enough to label one as brain dead. Facts are irrelevant.

I remember the moron Ted Danson saying that we only had 10 years left on the planet if we didn't "save the oceans." That was in 1988. 26 years ago. Don't even think about telling me that we have actually done anything useful in terms of saving the oceans.

Chicken little is alive and well. Just don't believe what she says without applying a little critical thought. The people spreading fear have an agenda. And it is NOT in your best interest.

 

[Vermiform]

Yep. Unfortunately many are too partisan to look beyond politics. If you want to reduce energy use or stop and actually think about the environment we live in, the sustainability of our consumption, or better alternatives you're automatically labeled a lefty and a liberal.

Go build me some recycled wood cabinets, hippy............

 

[Danny Abear]

Helis Oil drilling permit application ruled invalid
Updated: Aug 05, 2014 6:16 PM CDT
Written by: FOX8Live.com Staff - email


Parcel where Helis wants to drill (Source: Rob Masson)

MOST POPULAR STORIES
Family unhappy with rental found on popular website
Tom Benson hospitalized in West Virginia
Police say man tried to run over officers during high speed chase
Mom punishes teen by selling Katy Perry tickets on Facebook
Former Brusly Police Chief Jamie Whaley pleads not guilty to 4 felony charges

MANDEVILLE, LA (WVUE) -
An oil company seeking to drill a fracking well on the north shore hit a roadblock Tuesday.

The Army Corps of Engineers said Helis Oil Co.'s application was invalid after listening to concerns brought up during the public comment period.

Helis wants to drill near Log Cabin Road between Highway 1088 and Interstate 12. While the company insists it has a proven track record, many St. Tammany Parish residents worry the project could contaminate the parish's sole source of drinking water.

Helis can submit a revised application.

 

[Nomad.2nd]

Public risks; public benefits.

A more accurate characterization.

I'm sorry your struggling with this simple concept, I'll do what I can to help:

The Private organizations take risks... any business does...that is not what this economic principle references. They also take home the profits (Record profits as has been discussed.) These profits DO NOT go to "The people who would be impacted if something went wrong" but to the Private company and it's owners.

Now the RISKS (Again, this economic term does not reference normal business risks) Are NOT shared by the owners of the companies which reap the profit.
The owners live many miles/thousands of miles away. These risks are the public at large in the impacted area.
The risks (Contaminated water, cancer/other heath issues fro the materials pumped into the ground... many which are hazardous and require a special waver for this method of disposal... by people/a system bought and paid for.Earthquakes, etc)... the people at risk did not receive profits from the venture, but they hold the risk... and it is likely that (Even if It's their kids who deal with the contaminated groundwater) that they will bear the cost of cleanup (If indeed cleanup is possible.)





now I suspect that you will try to say that the people "profit" from lower gas prices, and I will patiently enplane that that does not sit, because those benefits (If indeed they exist... which we will address in a second) are NOT a direct profit to the people whom take the risks...

Now Gas prices:
Nope, they aren't "Down" rather the record profits (I like how the profits from the "Byproducts" are left out the calculations)
But, the fascist form of government (Fascism is the gov and businesses working together... and if you think they aren't, try to import a tanker full of crude!)
Also this "Unholy alliance" has us driving care which get LESS gas millage than 20 years ago! (With ALLLLL the advances we have made) etc etc etc...
So lets just skip all that divergence fromt he simple economic principle that shall we...



OR:
Do you mean if they drill for oil they will be splitting up the profits in a FAR wider radius than those of people who get PAID... and paying out all the profit to the people using the qualifier, impacted by potential earthquakes (Including building costs in the future etc)

 

[CBlack]

This is getting off topic, I apologize, but:


I don't understand why people still think corporations and other large public entities should have the same rights as individual people.
Once a corporation grows large enough, they have every bit as much power and money as some nations, and the only interests they serve are the interests of their stockholders and their bottom line, not their community, state, or nation. This is especially true in the case of multi-national mega corporations.
I firmly believe that the gubermint should stay the hell out of my life, and should leave small businesses and private companies alone, but if the gov was really doing it's job, mega-corps and monopolies should be regulated.
You are right when you mention crony-ism as being a huge problem. If all levels of gov were doing their jobs, the people who have the limitless resources enough to buy out the gov would be prevented from doing so. Too late for that, though, Washington is already sold out. That is exactly the reason we need stronger regulations on those large, powerful, self-serving corporate entities; to limit the amount of power and control they can wield over us everyday citizens. That is, in my belief, one of the very few things the fed gov is supposed to be doing. Instead, we have a totally corrupt gov that gives the big corps bailouts and grants and all sorts of crony money and the reason we landed in this mess in the first place was when, back in the day, people allowed to gov to legally award the rights of a private person to corporations instead of keeping them in their own separate and regulated class. What we are seeing today is the end result that always comes from over-deregulation. I'm not advocating over-regulation, either. Profits have to be made and new ideas need to be expolred, but there needs to be a balance. There has to be. How else can you balance individuals and small groups against something like a billion dollar oil industry without gov oversite?
You say that is what the judicial system is for? So what, your solution to something like these fracking earthquakes is to wait till after greedy-corp destroys the environment and then suing them over it and just saying "oh well, our homes and land are ruined but at least we have money."??? Do you feel the same way about allowing toxic or nuclear waste to be dumped just any old place? Should we de-regulate that, too?

Yes, nuclear waste and fracking a well are so similar.

WHY??? Be cause the world is using oil at an unsustainable rate. Consumption is driving this nothing more, Fracking is just a processes that allows oil to be removed from the ground that normal drilling will not remove, and we need it to sustain our consumption levels and the balance of power. Anyone that thinks there will be oil left in 50 years at our current rate of use is brain dead. As for earthquakes you cannot convince me that removing millions of barrels of oil from the earth daily will not have adverse effects on the earths internal structure, something has to give.

Then why haven't there been earthquakes offshore where fracking has been ongoing for decades? Try again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...and-what-are-the-chances-of-finding-new-ones/

While there may be a supply of oil, affordable oil will be a thing of the past in 50 years. Looking at that first 100 year span above the first 50 years were nothing as measured by yearly consumption to the next 50. The world was not developed and disposable as it is today. In the 50s, 60s and 70s there was basically one car for every average household, now there 3-4 per. Its not rocket science look around you on the interstate everyday, 90% of cars have one passenger. Im not trying to scare anyone, nor am I a tree hugger, but oil is FINITE it will run out someday thats a fact and if we want our great grand children to have some then the consumption rate needs to curve downward Worldwide.

False. They are finding new reserves underneath older fields. And they're finding more oil and fields that have been "depleted" or deemed marginal. The better the seismic and drilling technology gets, the more they find.

Partisanship isn't part of the equation. I'm all for good stewardship. Sustainability, environmental awareness, minimal footprint, etc. But unfortunately refusing to buy into the hysteria du jour is enough to label one as brain dead. Facts are irrelevant.

I remember the moron Ted Danson saying that we only had 10 years left on the planet if we didn't "save the oceans." That was in 1988. 26 years ago. Don't even think about telling me that we have actually done anything useful in terms of saving the oceans.

Chicken little is alive and well. Just don't believe what she says without applying a little critical thought. The people spreading fear have an agenda. And it is NOT in your best interest.

Didn't the green movement say in the 70's that we only had 10 years before the next ice age or some other such nonsense? The green movement is nothing more than the communist party changing their colors and cause.


Fracking is the least of peoples worries. If the well is not sealed properly, fracking fluid is the least of your worries.

 

[CBlack]

I'm sorry your struggling with this simple concept, I'll do what I can to help:

The Private organizations take risks... any business does...that is not what this economic principle references. They also take home the profits (Record profits as has been discussed.) These profits DO NOT go to "The people who would be impacted if something went wrong" but to the Private company and it's owners.

Now the RISKS (Again, this economic term does not reference normal business risks) Are NOT shared by the owners of the companies which reap the profit.
The owners live many miles/thousands of miles away. These risks are the public at large in the impacted area.
The risks (Contaminated water, cancer/other heath issues fro the materials pumped into the ground... many which are hazardous and require a special waver for this method of disposal... by people/a system bought and paid for.Earthquakes, etc)... the people at risk did not receive profits from the venture, but they hold the risk... and it is likely that (Even if It's their kids who deal with the contaminated groundwater) that they will bear the cost of cleanup (If indeed cleanup is possible.)





now I suspect that you will try to say that the people "profit" from lower gas prices, and I will patiently enplane that that does not sit, because those benefits (If indeed they exist... which we will address in a second) are NOT a direct profit to the people whom take the risks...

Now Gas prices:
Nope, they aren't "Down" rather the record profits (I like how the profits from the "Byproducts" are left out the calculations)
But, the fascist form of government (Fascism is the gov and businesses working together... and if you think they aren't, try to import a tanker full of crude!)
Also this "Unholy alliance" has us driving care which get LESS gas millage than 20 years ago! (With ALLLLL the advances we have made) etc etc etc...
So lets just skip all that divergence fromt he simple economic principle that shall we...



OR:
Do you mean if they drill for oil they will be splitting up the profits in a FAR wider radius than the 1 mile of people who get PAID... and paying out all the profit to the people using the qualifier, impacted by potential earthquakes (Including building costs in the future etc)

What is with people and "record profits"? Their profit MARGINS haven't changed, ever.

I don't see you complaining about the insane profits AND margins of big pharma, big banks, etc. The banks of done more to hurt this economy and this country than big oil.

 

[Leonidas]

I'm sorry your struggling with this simple concept, I'll do what I can to help:

The Private organizations take risks... any business does...that is not what this economic principle references. They also take home the profits (Record profits as has been discussed.) These profits DO NOT go to "The people who would be impacted if something went wrong" but to the Private company and it's owners.

Now the RISKS (Again, this economic term does not reference normal business risks) Are NOT shared by the owners of the companies which reap the profit.
The owners live many miles/thousands of miles away. These risks are the public at large in the impacted area.
The risks (Contaminated water, cancer/other heath issues fro the materials pumped into the ground... many which are hazardous and require a special waver for this method of disposal... by people/a system bought and paid for.Earthquakes, etc)... the people at risk did not receive profits from the venture, but they hold the risk... and it is likely that (Even if It's their kids who deal with the contaminated groundwater) that they will bear the cost of cleanup (If indeed cleanup is possible.)





now I suspect that you will try to say that the people "profit" from lower gas prices, and I will patiently enplane that that does not sit, because those benefits (If indeed they exist... which we will address in a second) are NOT a direct profit to the people whom take the risks...

Now Gas prices:
Nope, they aren't "Down" rather the record profits (I like how the profits from the "Byproducts" are left out the calculations)
But, the fascist form of government (Fascism is the gov and businesses working together... and if you think they aren't, try to import a tanker full of crude!)
Also this "Unholy alliance" has us driving care which get LESS gas millage than 20 years ago! (With ALLLLL the advances we have made) etc etc etc...
So lets just skip all that divergence fromt he simple economic principle that shall we...



OR:
Do you mean if they drill for oil they will be splitting up the profits in a FAR wider radius than those of people who get PAID... and paying out all the profit to the people using the qualifier, impacted by potential earthquakes (Including building costs in the future etc)

No. I mean the public benefits.

Virtually every product you buy has been transported by ship burning......oil.
Or by truck burning......oil.
Most people go to buy those goods in cars burning....oil.
Go to school, work or anywhere else burning....oil.
Many are kept from dying from exposure in winter burning.....oil.

If relatively inexpensive, widely available energy were not there, turn the clock back to the 19th century. I'm sure most would not like it there.

If there were no immeasurable public benefit, explain just US domestic consumption of 7 billion barrels annually. Capitalism works to everyone's benefit. It is myopic to condemn profit while ignoring benefit.

 

[Leonidas]

I'd like an answer from someone knowledgeable about my earlier question about the huge risk we are taking in tapping aquifers for water.

Next, why did the earth not burst and then cave in on itself before fracking, or for that matter simple drilling. I saw the video from Iraq war one. Those hundreds of burning wells that took months or however long to extinguish. Why didn't somebody just switch off the pumps? Or were those blowouts fed by.........naturally pressurized petroleum?

 

[CBlack]

I thought earthquakes were caused by tectonic plates rubbing against each other....

 

[mike84z28]

I believe that's water that falls from the sky almost daily, not oil

 

[paddle007]

Argh! All this noise is making my head hurt. This forum is typical of an event such as fracking. I don't want it in my backyard but without petroleum my computer would not run and I would be out of work.

I'm an automotive/light truck tech. I make my living with things that suck squeeze and boom with petroleum. I love that cold air coming from my household AC. You get the point.

I'm basically OK with the well but I will forever have concerns. Stuff happens. Haliburton had an accident in Ohio last month. Sounds like a hydraulic line blew on a piece of equipment and a fire broke out. Nothing to do with the well itself or the fracking process but part of the risk. It took a week to put the fire out. The complications of undisclosed chemicals did not help. Sounds like they were close enough to a creek to contaminate it. An estimated 70,000 fish died and a towns water supply was threatened. **** happens even with a major player like Haliburton. If you don't like my source search a little, there are more. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shulman/got-science-ohio-wake-up_b_5639164.html

I have a longtime customer who is a scientist involved in the oil industry. Something he explained to me is the layer of shale targeted with this well is only 175 to 100 feet thick. The shale is around 13,000 feet. The aquifer is no deeper than the mid 3,000 foot range. We have close to 10,000 feet between the shale and aquifer. The fracking will be in narrow band of shale. That helps sooth my mind.

The estimated water consumption is 5 million gallons and it will be surface water. For you guys in the industry doesn't the water need to be clean? Surface water satisfies the requirement?

Along with the fresh water is the drilling mud and the fluids used in fracking. How much of this is recovered and how is it reclaimed?

Something else I learned is refineries have to make substantial changes to handle the lighter oil harvested from shale. Obviously this is good for our economy because it puts more hands to work.

One challenge that I propose is all the business with the No Fracking signs so boldly displayed refuse to do business with the industry if it comes to our area. I drive thru Abita Springs almost daily and the signs are everywhere. I expect to see these guys and gals turn down the money coming to town. Yea right.

 

[SpeedRacer]

http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/northshore/2014/12/19/permit-fracking-helis/20661099/