Tweet
The bigger and more substantial complaint that I have heard re: fracking is the lack of pollution controls and the toxicity of the fracking chemicals. I expect those issues to be addressed and for tighter controls to be imposed on frackers someday. It will increase the breakeven cost for oil but it won't eliminate the process.
-
-
Hoss you don't seem like a regulations kind of guy. I think it goes without saying that regulation is there to protect consumers, but it also goes without saying that that system doesn't work very well and expecting it to in the energy industry is perhaps noble but not realistic.
IMO as for what should be done you have to separate oil and gas in terms of markets. Gas is the key one for me. It's a chance to kill the coal industry and use gas for electricity. Much cleaner, and the Marcellus is right next to the most densely populated area of the country. Using gas instead of coal will go a long way toward solving the climate-change problem.Comment
-
Is that a separate issue? I don't know for sure, and it makes sense that it would be based on a layman's understanding of what would happen when you empty an underground reservoir of something, but I don't know enough to really know.Originally posted by Hannibal View PostComment
-
You are squirting a bunch of chemicals and water way underground to create a mini earthquake to break up the rocks that contain hydrocarbon. The frackers will tell you that those chemicals stay safely thousands of feet underground. The anti-frackers will tell you that they haven't. That's the #1 complaint that I have heard about the process. I haven't heard of the earthquakes being as much of an issue, but depending on how poplated the area is, I could see that being a really big one. There are other issues too, like the air emissions from facilities that process the oil and relatively risky transportation by rail, which has led to some accidents. I think that some of it is inevitable and some of it isn't. I'm not a leading expert on fracking, but when my company looked into some related assets we were taken aback by how nonexistent the regulations were on various facilities in the system. IMHO the benefits outweigh these costs by miles, but there are probably a lot of people right now bearing those costs when it should be the producers who do that.Originally posted by hack View PostLast edited by Hannibal; January 6, 2016, 10:24 AM.Comment
-
Right -- sounds like it. I'm just saying I don't know if having that fracking fluid down there is a cause of the earthquakes or not.Comment
-
It essentially is. The chemicals help facilitate the earthquakes.Comment
-
Gotcha. Thanks.Comment
-
My biggest concern about fracking isn't the earthquakes but the affect on the ground water supply from the gas and chemicals. I'd rather not trade cheap gas for poisoned water. If the environmental damage can be mitigated, I'm all for it.Comment
-
I don't trust big oil to be honest about the risks or even care about them..Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
as for voting... I'd rather see BS than Hillary or Trump. At least I know nothing would happen during his term. I still think Hillary is the most dangerous and least trust worthy.Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
As I understand it, its also the disposal of the toxic wastewater that's at play.Originally posted by hack View Post
The frackers will tell you its not what they're doing of course, but people- like my brother and his family- who live in fracking territory and are seeing a substantial increase in earthquake frequency and strength since fracking began will say otherwise. The one they experienced last week was strongest ever recorded where they live, and was very close to the strength where infrastructure damage begins to occur. This in an area where there was little seismic activity beforehand.Comment
-
"Hillary's godawful. I will not vote for her in the primary. If the R's lose their minds and nominate Trump I'll hold my nose and vote for her. 30 years ago she would've been considered a moderate to right-leaning Republican."
Have detested that woman ever since she declared herself czar of the Clinton Whitehouse in 1993. Insight on this scheming woman was introduced early on by the late Barbara Olson in her book "Hell to Pay". (Barbara Olson died in the airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11)
Hillary is a war monger of the first order. If she gets in she'll take her orders from billionaire Haim Saban and the "lobby". IOW, likely another ME war. That would make it 3 for 3 for her: Iraq, Libya, and .......Iran?
Actually there is nobody running I am really excited about. I just wish we would get the hell out of the ME.Comment
-
I find politics interesting from the perspective of how perceptions are set.. Many believe Hillary will help fix wall street and the republicans are bought by big corporations. Yet, according to Forbes, 6 of the 10 largest hedge fund managers donated money to Hillary. The Clintons raised $36M the year prior to starting her campaign doing corporate speeches (and I'm sure they were without any expectations). She also gets a lot of support from women's rights groups, yet she supported a husband whose actions are exactly what many of these groups have fought to change in the workplace.
Trump would not be a good president, but I do find him entertaining. If nothing else, he has saved us from months of people talking without saying anything.Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.Comment
-
Actually there is nobody running I am really excited about. I just wish we would get the hell out of the ME.
Me too. And I'm sure there are many like us.Comment
-
Hillary at least is not a hardcore leftist idealogue like Obama and as such would not do the same type of lasting and transformative damage.Comment
Comment