Quote :

"We've got one of the biggest and most important hubs for technological advancement in NC by way of RTP. I think instead of pursuing a short-term solution in fracking to temporarily solve our energy needs, we should invest in long-term research to solve our energy issues. We have so much technical muscle here in NC and I don't think for a second that it is beyond the grasp of the resources we have. "

Ah, so maybe if the geniuses in RTP try "just" a bit harder we'll finally figure out nuclear fusion? Seems unrealistic to me.

The mindset of a lot of the people in this thread is doing more harm that good in several places around the globe. Loneshark mentioned it briefly. In Africa there is lots of opposition against constructing coal plants. Meanwhile most villages have no electricity and for heat (and cooking) they burn wood/dung/charcoal fires which are far more unhealthy as a whole than a few power plants. They are less energy efficient, encourage deforestation and give off more particle pollution.

[Edited on July 3, 2012 at 8:49 AM. Reason : k]

7/3/2012 8:42:37 AM

What does that have to do with anything?

7/3/2012 9:05:31 AM

Running out of fossil fuels? Horse shit, technology will always keep pace with demand, tar sands, shale, fracking, there will always be a new technology to get the next wave of harder-to-get fossil fuels.

Converting to green fuels? Horse shit, stupid liberals believe technology is magic.

[Edited on July 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/3/2012 11:20:18 AM

Quote :

"The mindset of a lot of the people in this thread is doing more harm that good in several places around the globe. Loneshark mentioned it briefly. In Africa there is lots of opposition against constructing coal plants. Meanwhile most villages have no electricity and for heat (and cooking) they burn wood/dung/charcoal fires which are far more unhealthy as a whole than a few power plants. They are less energy efficient, encourage deforestation and give off more particle pollution."

The problem in Africa is in part infrastructure. To use any of those energy methods they need powerlines to get the power to homes, which they don't have. It's one of the reasons a decentralized power system is much more cost-effective there. Solar could even work...

7/3/2012 12:34:25 PM

Quote :

"Running out of fossil fuels? Horse shit, technology will always keep pace with demand, tar sands, shale, fracking, there will always be a new technology to get the next wave of harder-to-get fossil fuels."

Don't you love it when someone's argument is supported by a claim that is actually untrue by basic logic?

7/3/2012 1:43:45 PM

and what claim would that be?

7/4/2012 1:23:01 AM

I would think the phrase "technology will always keep pace with demand" wouldn't be followed by a bunch of dead-end resources.

I can't tell if whoever wrote that was trying to be ironic, or if they've been deluded by the oil industry.

Fossil Fuels will be mostly supplanted by other technologies within the next 50 years.

7/4/2012 1:55:18 AM

Quote :

"I love this one: Quote : "Rep. Hamilton, who voted for fracking veto override, was "2012 Rising Star" of League of Conservation Voters:" I'd love to see them tarred and feathered for this..."

Her rising star was revoked.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/03/2177934/hamilton-falls-in-eyes-of-conservation.html

7/4/2012 3:14:10 AM

There are several fators aside from the worst NCGA in decades as a whole.

1. Follow the money:

Rucho received a total of $20,500 from the companies the NCVCE study considered. Other top recipients of the industry's contributions were Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R), who received $46,700, and House Speaker Thom Tillis (R), who received $43,650. Berger and Tillis played key roles in advancing pro-fracking legislation.

2. Rep. Carney's fatal mistake:

From WRAL:

Just after the vote, Carney's voice could be heard on her microphone, saying "Oh my gosh. I pushed green."

Carney said she turned her light on, but Speaker Thom Tillis would not recognize her, so she went to the front to speak to him.

"I made a mistake, and I tried to get recognized to change it, as people have been doing all night on other bills, and it was too late," Carney said. "Because it would have changed the outcome of the vote."

Under House rules, members can change their vote if they've made a mistake - unless the change would affect the bill's passage.

"I feel rotten, and I feel tired," Carney said. "And I feel that mistakes are made constantly when people are tired. And I feel rotten about it, but I take responsibility for my vote."

As soon as the vote was cast, House Majority Leader Paul Stam used a procedural move called a "clincher" to ensure the veto override could not be reconsidered. (scumbag in my view)

3. Let's all go to the movies with Rep. Susi Hamilton:

From NC Policy Watch:

Her vote for the fracking override came in exchange for the extension of a tax giveaway to the movie industry (Rep. Hamilton is from the Wilmington area and has reportedly rented her home to movie industry employees). This is the equivalent of selling out her party and principles for “30 pieces of silver.”

[Edited on July 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .]

7/4/2012 10:31:30 AM

7/4/2012 12:02:22 PM

Quote :

"I would think the phrase "technology will always keep pace with demand" wouldn't be followed by a bunch of dead-end resources. I can't tell if whoever wrote that was trying to be ironic, or if they've been deluded by the oil industry. Fossil Fuels will be mostly supplanted by other technologies within the next 50 years."

Governemt have been predicting an oil shortage for 150 years now, and every year we have a surplus of oil. We will also push new extraction methods because it is profitable to do so.

We will never run out of oil and natural gas; we will merely reach a price point at some time in the future where other energy production methods become cheaper. At that point, we'll transition off of burning petroleum products and shift to using them almost exclusively for manufacturing. That is going to be many centuries away though, and we'll probably prove by then that there are abiotic sources of fast renewable oil/natural gas at depths we currently cant reach.

7/4/2012 1:04:14 PM

ahahahaha, what a dumb bitch.

7/4/2012 4:31:09 PM

Quote :

"Governemt have been predicting an oil shortage for 150 years now, and every year we have a surplus of oil. "

]

What the fuck is this? Are you talking about globally or nationally?

7/5/2012 10:13:10 AM

our national government has been predicting a global oil shortage for as long as we've been commercially producing oil. Russia doesn't support our peak oil theory.

7/5/2012 11:50:10 AM

^bingo

7/5/2012 11:59:31 AM

That's utter nonsense.

Quote :

"our national government has been predicting a global oil shortage for as long as we've been commercially producing oil."

Source please. The USGS only announced the likelihood of peak oil a few years ago. They'd been predicting increasing reserves non-stop up until then.

Quote :

"Russia doesn't support our peak oil theory."

"Our"? The peak oil "theory" is common sense: A resource that renews more slowly than it is produced will eventually reach a high point in production, then begin falling. That is fucking common sense.

Or maybe you're referring to the theory of "abiotic oil", which was advanced by a tiny handful of Soviet scientists decades ago, and has since fallen out of favor even in Russia because it completely failed to make any predictions about where oil deposits could be found. A few wackos on the right wing have embraced the theory not because it's scientifically credible (it's not, at all), but because it's a fairy tale that fits in nicely with the other fairy tales that make up their worldview.

[Edited on July 5, 2012 at 3:41 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2012 3:40:51 PM

Hell, we can even entertain the notion of abiogenic oil, but it doesn't make a difference, because the proof's in the pudding. Whether or not oil comes from decaying organic life or from mystery-processes deep within the mantle, it's obvious that our old fields are not replenishing, and it's getting harder and harder to hunt down oil. Regardless of its source, it's quite clear we're consuming it faster than it's generated, that's why the peak oil "theory" is about as theoretical as "If you continue to bleed out of that gash in your wrists, you will die."


[Edited on July 5, 2012 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2012 3:53:42 PM

are you seriously trying to argue that our government hasn't been crying wolf about oil shortages? They were predicting we'd run out of oil at any minute before the first commercial well was drilled in Pennsylvania 150 years ago. 30 years after that well was opened, they predicted we would run out of oil in 4 years. They had a full on panic attack about oil shortages 40 years ago during the Arab embargo. And now, we hear the same shit over and over again every day on the news.

If abiogenic oil is true, and the Russians most definitely think it is with their quest for super deep wells, then oil is hardly a nonrenewable resource. The amount of oil that would be trapped under the mantle will dwarf our known reserves. Considering that Russia has switched from a net importer to one of the largest oil producers in the world, I'd think they might be on to something. The only only reason we are in love with middle eastern oil is because it's so cheap to extract compared to oil sands and deep offshore fields. We have plenty of oil, and technology keeps improving to allow us to get to the vast quantities of oil that were once deeper and harder to get to.

Demand for oil will one day peak, but supply never will.

7/5/2012 8:36:41 PM

abiogenic oil. Ha.

7/6/2012 9:07:37 AM

For all you wing nuts talking out your assess without having read the report, you can find it here:http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/shale-gas

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THE PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND DENR COMMENTS STARTING ON PAGE 473. kthx

For the lazy, here's the tl;dr of the report:

Geology
In North Carolina, Fracking will be limited to the two geologic formations shown here:

Please note that Jordan lake and Falls lake take up a large area of the basin.
Triassic basins and the primary bedrock is mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. In the Durham and Sanford sub-basins, there is some shale.

Findings from the report state that out of the out of the 785,000 acres that make up the Deep River Basin, an area of more than 59,000 acres in the Sanford sub-basin as the most promising location for organic-rich shale and coals from which natural gas can be extracted.

The shale formation in this area can be found at depths generally ranging between 2,100 and 6,000 feet below the surface. This particular shale formation has a maximum thickness of 800 feet and an average thickness that ranges from 180 to 540 feet.

The sedimentary rocks in the Sanford sub-basin tend to have very low permeability due to the presence of fine-grained material commonly occurring within the spaces between the larger grains. There are no defined “aquifers” in the customary sense in the Sanford sub-basin, such as those that occur in the Coastal Plain region of the state. Instead, most water supply wells in the Triassic Basins actually derive their water from fractures in the rock.

Numerous thin bodies of igneous rock intrude(diabase) into the sedimentary rocks of the basin. Most often in the Triassic Basins, they occur as nearvertical dikes cutting across older sedimentary rocks. The diabase intrusions are highly fractured, along with the sedimentary rocks immediately adjacent to them and are therefore capable of yielding sufficient quantities of water to support water supply wells. Groundwater can often flow freely for great distances along the edges of these diabase intrusions, but when the diabase intrusions are relatively thick they tend to restrict groundwater flow.

Understanding of the hydrogeology of the Triassic Basins is limited to information that can be recovered from water supply wells, which typically only extend a few hundred feet deep.

Fracking
Fracturing fluids may be composed primarily of water and a proppant (such as sand) to keep the fractures open. Water and sand represent between 98 percent and 99.5 percent of the fracturing fluid. The fluid also includes chemical additives used to condition the water. Additives may be used to thicken or thin the fluid, prevent corrosion of the well casing, kill bacteria or for other purposes.

The exact makeup of fracturing fluid varies from company to company and may also be adjusted based on conditions at the individual well site. Several hundred chemical compounds have been identified by the industry as chemicals that have been used in fracturing fluid. Any single fracturing fluid generally contains between 6 and 12 chemical additives. Some chemicals that have been used in fracturing fluids, such as diesel fuel, have raised concern because of potential health impacts. EPA has discouraged use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing.

Groundwater
Water supply wells of up to 1,000 feet deep have been found in North Carolina’s Triassic Basins and the depth to which freshwater extends is unknown.

Percentage of population relying on groundwater
Anson - 11
Chatham - 58
Durham - 22
Granville - 57
Lee - 19
Montgomery - 30
Moore - 76
Orange -21
Richmond - 16
Rockingham - 47
Stokes - 56
Wake - 23

Methane (For TerdFerguson)
A study in Pennsylvania found that water supply wells close to active exploration and production wells in the Marcellus shale have higher levels of dissolved methane than wells farther away. The study did not find constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids in any of the water supply wells that were sampled. The study did find methane in water supply wells. The methane had an isotopic signature indicating that it originated from deep, thermogenic sources consistent with a Marcellus shale source, rather than from shallow biogenic sources. The lack of pre-drilling groundwater samples make it difficult to definitively link the methane to drilling practices.

Waste Disposal (For TerdFerguson)
In many states, flowback or produced water from a drilling operation can be disposed of by underground injection. N.C. General Statute 143-214.2(b) prohibits the use of wells for waste disposal. Triassic Basins in North Carolina generally do not have suitable hydrogeologic conditions for disposal by injection. Some wastewater streams can go to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. These waste streams can be difficult to treat in a conventional wastewater treatment plant, however, and it would be advisable to require pretreatment.

EPA has exempted “drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy” from regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -- the federal statute that regulates hazardous waste.[b]

Since some exploration and production wastes may have the characteristics of hazardous wastes, but are not regulated under RCRA, oil and gas-producing states have generally developed specific standards for handling exploration and production wastes. North Carolina does not have standards that specifically address disposal of or transportation of exploration and production waste.

Since North Carolina statutes and rules have not been written to address these particular types of wastes, [b]existing state rules would allow disposal of all RCRA-exempt exploration and production wastes (other than oils and liquid hydrocarbons) in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. Although North Carolina has strong standards for design and construction of both industrial and MSW landfills, those standards were not developed for disposal of hazardous waste.

Risk
Amount of material expected to be recovered from the Deep River Formation (from USGS):
95% - 779
50% - 1,527
5% - 2,990
Units: billion cubic feet of gas.


Based on the report, my only concern is fracking near a diabase dike. Other than that go ahead.

[Edited on July 7, 2012 at 9:55 PM. Reason : -]

7/7/2012 9:52:42 PM

I don't know why you are singling me out, I've been even handed this entire thread. I've already linked to a letter from the DENR head mentioning that fracking could be done safely in NC.

Quote :

"Methane (For TerdFerguson) A study in Pennsylvania found that water supply wells close to active exploration and production wells in the Marcellus shale have higher levels of dissolved methane than wells farther away. The study did not find constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids in any of the water supply wells that were sampled. The study did find methane in water supply wells. The methane had an isotopic signature indicating that it originated from deep, thermogenic sources consistent with a Marcellus shale source, rather than from shallow biogenic sources. The lack of pre-drilling groundwater samples make it difficult to definitively link the methane to drilling practices. "

We just aren't lucky enough to have groundwater samples from both before and after, this is a case of scientist being way to careful by saying the conclusion is non-definitive. I appreciate their carefulness and not wanting to make assumptions about the beginning state of the aquifer before they studied it, but here is how I come to my conclusion:


-In people's water wells, which they've been using for years with no trouble, suddenly they have methane concentrations many times higher than the action level after fracking has occurred.
-the methane matches the signature of methane that was being fracked, not the usual type of methane that is found near the surface
-water wells over the marcellus shale that were more than a km from a fracking operation all showed very low levels of methane

Even if the methane that showed up in this study is somehow unrelated to the nearby fracking operations it still exposes the gas industry's claim of "Its basically impossible for methane or fracking fluids to migrate through all that rock up to drinking water depths." Its very obvious it can, and there is no way that causing larger fractures to the rock and small earthquakes on a weekly basis is going to help that situation. Either way you interpret the study, it still raises a huge amount of questions.

Quote :

"Since North Carolina statutes and rules have not been written to address these particular types of wastes, [b]existing state rules would allow disposal of all RCRA-exempt exploration and production wastes (other than oils and liquid hydrocarbons) in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. Although North Carolina has strong standards for design and construction of both industrial and MSW landfills, those standards were not developed for disposal of hazardous waste. "

Since they haven't actually crafted any fracking specific regulations yet, it remains to be seen how they will dispose of the waste. My thoughts are that carting the huge volume of waste from the fracking site to the local landfill isn't going to be economically viable, If the industry gets what it wants it will be exempted and allowed to dispose of them underground (which may be safe in some places actually, as long as the casing is strong enough, the well deep enough, etc.)

Quote :

"Based on the report, my only concern is fracking near a diabase dike. Other than that go ahead. "

These things dot the geography all over the place (who is going to map them out?), we don't know what a safe setback could be, we don't even know if there is a safe setback.

These are the type of questions that need to be answered, or atleast better understood, before we allow fracking to go ahead. DENR could study it, and, as the DENR head said, "we can frack safely with proper regulation and oversight."

The problem is that after the most recent bill passed, DENR only has two years to come up with the answers. Oh and their budget was just cut by 40% (I seriously doubt they will be given any extra anytime soon)

So I see two things happening: The EPA will finalize its study before fracking is allowed in NC and we will be able to use its findings to craft decent regulations or we are going to get a bunch of half-assed regulations.

If we are really unlucky then some of our state representatives will get their way and we will implement generic regulations that are all but written by the gas industry:
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/06/will-nc-lawmakers-let-fracking-industry-fund-its-own-regulators.html

and that is exactly how we will fuck this up. We are going to get weak regulations that don't address the real problems with the industry and the industry will keep making the same mistakes like they always do. We should only consider ourselves lucky that the amount of gas we likely have is miniscule and relegated to a small corner of the state

7/8/2012 11:34:42 AM

I was only addressing a couple of your posts and not trying to single you out.

As far as diabase goes, it's important to note that the things are filled with boulders that get larger and flatter with depth and contain highly plastic silts with low permeability. Mapping diabase dyke locations isn't hard but should be included in geophysical site surveys. Some big ones are already on the detailed NC Geologic Map.

7/8/2012 2:23:53 PM

Quote :

"are you seriously trying to argue that our government hasn't been crying wolf about oil shortages? They were predicting we'd run out of oil at any minute before the first commercial well was drilled in Pennsylvania 150 years ago. 30 years after that well was opened, they predicted we would run out of oil in 4 years. They had a full on panic attack about oil shortages 40 years ago during the Arab embargo. And now, we hear the same shit over and over again every day on the news."

Again, the USGS just announced the likelihood of peak oil only a few years ago, up until then they had always predicted larger and larger and larger reserves. Why? Turned out oil industry elements were constantly urging them to, for decades, in order to discourage investment in alternative energy.

Quote :

"If abiogenic oil is true, and the Russians most definitely think it is with their quest for super deep wells, then oil is hardly a nonrenewable resource. "

No, they don't believe that, at least their scientists certainly do not. No respectable scientists do, only a few crackpots (like you) who are full of wishful thinking and not objectivity. The Russians still look for new wells based on what we all know about the past of organic life on Earth and where it was distributed. Abiogenic theories have no proposed full chemical mechanism, and most importantly, have utterly failed to predict where oil would actually appear.

Quote :

"The amount of oil that would be trapped under the mantle will dwarf our known reserves."

Even if it were true, this would be entirely irrelevant. The amount of energy necessary to reach under the mantle would far exceed whatever we could get out, and beyond that, it's obvious that it would be escaping the mantle slower than we're extracting it (That's why oil wells RUN OUT).

Quote :

" Considering that Russia has switched from a net importer to one of the largest oil producers in the world, I'd think they might be on to something."

Again, the Russians do not believe in abiogenic oil, and have not for over 50 years. Even then, it was a fringe theory supported by only a small handful who ruined their careers once their predictions of where oil fields would be under their theory completely failed.

Quote :

" The only only reason we are in love with middle eastern oil is because it's so cheap to extract compared to oil sands and deep offshore fields. We have plenty of oil, and technology keeps improving to allow us to get to the vast quantities of oil that were once deeper and harder to get to."

Nope, sorry, you are absolutely delusional, fueled by misinformation and wishful thinking, and enabled by a fundamental ignorance of science.

Quote :

"Demand for oil will one day peak, but supply never will."

Most retarded thing said in this entire thread. You are a profoundly stupid and gullible person.

[Edited on July 9, 2012 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

7/9/2012 10:00:46 AM

I also think the vote for fracking should have been limited reps from counties involved and not the whole state.

7/9/2012 5:47:49 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of its source, it's quite clear we're consuming it faster than it's generated, that's why the peak oil "theory" is about as theoretical as "If you continue to bleed out of that gash in your wrists, you will die.""

No doubt, but it matters a lot whether I'm a mouse or an elephant. As the earth is not transparent enough for us to measure how much oil that is actually accessible on the planet given today's primitive technology, we have no way of predicting whether death will occur soon enough for us to risk killing ourselves racing to the hospital at 120mph.

7/9/2012 5:55:15 PM

Peak oil theory has been trumped by oil's surprising price elasticity of supply.

Turns out that there are a hell of a lot more unconventional fossil fuel reserves than geologists ever imagined. At $100+ per barrel of oil, these unconventional reserves become very economical to develop.

Quote :

"Again, the USGS just announced the likelihood of peak oil only a few years ago, up until then they had always predicted larger and larger and larger reserves. Why? Turned out oil industry elements were constantly urging them to, for decades, in order to discourage investment in alternative energy. "

While I don't deny that oil companies have had incentives to pressure the USGS to predict outrageous reserve amounts, the reality tells a different tale. The USGS has consistently underestimated new discoveries, reserve growth and advances in technology over the past few decades. In 1970, at the US oil's peak, the USGS predicted 39 billion barrels of proven reserves. Since then the US has pumped more than 80 billion barrels of oil out of the ground, and the EIA now predicts about 200 billion barrels of recoverable (conventional) oil under US soil. If you want to look at unconventional reserves such as bitumen and kerogen, estimates range into the trillions of barrels.

7/9/2012 6:58:53 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/11297964/

7/10/2012 8:12:42 AM

^
I am very skeptical of this coming so soon after the SB 820 veto was overturned. I almost feel like I am being conditioned to accept fracking as a good safe practice (If you read in depth it doesn't say completely that brine contamination can't occur). Additionally the real problem is well casing failure which leads to gasses being forced upward into aquifers (hence lighting water on fire), not to mention illegal dumping of waste chemicals that has occurred elsewhere.

7/10/2012 11:34:53 AM

Quote :

"Why? Turned out oil industry elements were constantly urging them to, for decades, in order to discourage investment in alternative energy. ""

Interesting measure of incentives. Such a position also discourages investment into energy exploration, making it harder for oil companies to borrow money. Such a widespread belief would also dramatically depress the stock price of oil companies. As such, to believe oil companies were lobbying to get the government to say there will never be an energy problem you'd have to believe the oil companies cared nothing for either their own bonuses, stock options, or current investors all in the name of screwing over future energy consumers.

7/10/2012 2:43:55 PM

^^^clearly Duke University is on the take.

7/10/2012 4:54:48 PM

It's funny because eyewall sounds like TKE-Teg on global warming.

'I don't believe that study because of blah, blah, blah... those scientists are wrong and I know more than them.'

7/10/2012 6:13:32 PM

he did preface with "i am skeptical" and "i almost feel..."

and this is one single study, not quite the same as global warming.

7/10/2012 6:21:30 PM

The WRAL link doesn't contain info that exonerates fracking... am i missing something...?

No human advancement/technology is going to leave the environment untouched, at least probably not for another 100 years.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to pretend fracking doesn't hurt anything. It obviously would and does.

The real question is how manageable is this, and what can be done to mitigate it?

With proper regulation, fracking seems more enviro-friendly that oil drilling, and burning natural gas is cleaner than burning gasoline, isn't it? if we could replace oil usage with natural gas usage, and oil wells with gas wells (fracked or otherwise), we're doing better by the environment.

Meanwhile, continue to push towards renewable energy (which seems to be picking up pace to me-- i've see an increasing number of volts on the streets recently).

7/11/2012 1:22:11 AM

Quote :

"It's funny because eyewall sounds like TKE-Teg on human caused catastrophic global warming."

corrected for accuracy

7/11/2012 8:34:12 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure why anyone would want to pretend fracking doesn't hurt anything. It obviously would and does."

Because in most areas it doesn't.

7/11/2012 8:38:12 AM

Weird that a Duke researcher had a different POV in this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22045-can-fracking-contaminate-drinking-water.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

7/11/2012 10:01:10 AM

Quote :

"Because in most areas it doesn't."

just the fact that is uses millions of gallons of water, and pumps a slurry of all kinds of different chemicals into the earth is damaging.

7/11/2012 12:20:18 PM

Damaging to who? No one and no thing I can think of.

7/11/2012 4:53:30 PM

Classic Lonesnark. If it doesn't effect his wallet or any human that he can think of, then it isn't a problem.

7/11/2012 5:46:55 PM

I guess your point is that it makes God angry and is therefore bad?

Otherwise I can't figure out why something that hurts no one and no thing can be a bad thing.

7/11/2012 7:07:33 PM

Contaminated and/or depleted water hurts nothing? Please try and attempt to minimize the impact of massive waste water pools. I know, I know, in your mind, the land used to drill for natural gas is more valuable than any ecological benefit that could come from not raping and pillaging it, so fuck it and any impacted species can just move, adapt or die.

7/11/2012 7:54:42 PM

Drilling doesn't use much land and it doesn't seem to harm the environment beyond the actual drilling site of a few dozen acres. Meanwhile nearly all farms plow over hundreds to many thousands of acres and do undeniably dump poisons into not just the environment but our drinking water. Do you think we should all starve to death in addition to the freezing to death in the dark you are already calling for?

Life is tradeoffs. Farming is very destructive to the environment, but it is worth it. The good done for mankind far outweighs the damage. Meanwhile it seems natural gas fracking not only does very little damage, but actually prevents damage to the environment by displacing coal consumption, reducing emissions of mercury and sulfur into the natural environment.

Life is tradeoffs. Don't conclude that just because I have concluded the benefits are worth the costs doesn't mean I believe there are no costs. That said, I don't think you fully understand the benefits.

7/11/2012 11:55:55 PM

Quote :

"Please try and attempt to minimize the impact of massive waste water pools."

You line a pond with a two layer geosynthetic to prevent waste water from seeping back into the ground (but it wont because you're in the Triassic Basin anyways) Then you wait for the water to evaporate. Then you clean up the remaining contaminated sand and silt. You recycle as much as you can, and you safely store the remaining until you figure out what you can do with it.

7/12/2012 9:07:59 AM

^(the triassic basin only covers a very, very small portion of NC, less than 5%)

7/12/2012 9:38:05 AM

I know this. What is your point?

7/12/2012 12:27:42 PM

I was merely pointing it out. Your post seemed to suggest that NC was in the triassic basin, and i wanted to clear that up... and besides, the triassic basin do allow some infiltration, although it is very minimal.

I like how you ended your post "you can store the waste until you figure out what to do with it".

7/12/2012 12:31:20 PM

Quote :

"I was merely pointing it out. Your post seemed to suggest that NC was in the triassic basin, and i wanted to clear that up..."

Your posts seems to suggest that you didn't read my first post on this page.

Quote :

"and besides, the triassic basin do allow some infiltration, although it is very minimal. "

Agreed. Typical hydraulic conductivities of 10^-9 cm/s (or less) are very, very minimal. It would take 1000 years for fluid to travel 1.0 foot.

Quote :

"I like how you ended your post "you can store the waste until you figure out what to do with it"."

Is that not a valid solution? Double line the top, seal it off with some clay, throw down some topsoil, grow crops or make a pasture. It's how most solid waste landfills work.

I'll concede that it's not the best solution but it certainly shouldn't be disregarded. A better (possibly more costly) solution would be to blend the waste fracking fluid with cement and then building houses or condos on top of the solid, high strength, durable mass. A bad solution would be to leave a wastewater management pool hanging out.

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 1:54 PM. Reason : -]

7/12/2012 1:48:46 PM

Quote :

"Your posts seems to suggest that you didn't read my first post on this page."

okay, i see it now. and i appreciate the healthy debate. that does seem to be the most valid solution.

7/12/2012 2:25:32 PM

No prob ;D

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Reason : -]

7/12/2012 3:00:02 PM

Darvaza Gas Crater - a 60 meters x 20 meters hole in the Karakum desert in Turkmenistan. The hole is NOT of natural origin, it's a result of a Soviet gas exploration accident that occurred in 1971.
While drilling the Soviets accidentally tapped into a massive underground natural gas cavern, causing the ground to collapse and the entire drilling rig to fall in. To prevent escape of poisonous gas into the atmosphere, geologists lit it on fire. They thought the fire would use all the gas in a few days.
41 yrs later it's still burning

7/13/2012 6:08:38 PM