LINK: Oil Shale Reserves (http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/)


If we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil (that's about 5 times the stated reserves in KSA), then why don't we develop it and use that as an energy source?

Why continue to waste time in and on the ME? IMO they having nothing of strategic value other than oil and that's probably coming to an end in the next couple of decades.

I think most of it is in uninhabited land in the deserts of Colorado and is owned by the US government - so why don't we start utilizing that oil instead of wasting billions in Iraq and Afghanistan... and now Libya?

Because extracting it is energy intensive and environmentally devastating.

Dog in the manger

Dog in the manger

Pret a Manger

~String

Because extracting it is energy intensive and environmentally devastating.OK, that I can agree with, however, we will still need oil and I had read there's newer methods to extract the oil (such as in a gas form) with less environmental impact.

Anyhow, I was just speaking with someone who works in the field and he said his company just canned two nuclear reactors in the US (after spending $350 million) and are now focused on oil shale.

Which made me wonder what people thought about shale oil.


I support biofuel and visited a few companies last year - very impressing, some are utilizing high end technology ...and so of course I'd rather we went in that direction, along with cutting back on population densities to reach a sort of equilibrium. But, I don't think Biofuel will meet our oil needs and I think it's a waste of money taking it from the ME, so, it seems more reasonable to use our shale oil.

You guys should read FT, its online and up to date:


Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f2cc0ce-cb1b-11df-95c0-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1KP0UMasV

A band of entrepreneurial oilmen have found an economic way to extract oil from shale rock, fuelling a frenzy for prospects that has pushed up lease prices and lifted hopes of the first rise in onshore US oil production in decades.

Mineral leases in shale oil territory that would have sold for $10 an acre in the Niobrara Shale – which runs under parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming – just two years ago are going for $5,900 an acre, according to Wood Mackenzie, the consultancy.

These small independent oilmen had used hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to triple estimates of US natural gas supplies and are now applying that same technology to get oil from shale rock.


Its no longer uneconomical to extract shale oil. But the military is an employer that cannot be replaced by shale oil technology

Then you have the 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the North Dakota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation#History_of_Bakken_oil_generation_ estimates

And natural gas reserves that can by used as a subsitute for gasoline...burns cleaner and with less stress on engines.

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan2/

The US consumed 6.99 billion barrels of oil in 2010
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

So, assuming total use of the 1.5 trillion barrels(a bad assumption, as getting to the shale takes a lot of fuel for the heavy equipment) and current demand (ALSO a bad assumption-it increases 2% every year)
That would give us 21.40 years of oil, unless I'm putting my decimal places wrong.

If you go with 2.1 trillion recoverable, you get thirty years at current consumption.

I don't feel like that's cause for a grand celebration.
Plus, assume ten years to build a refinery to handle turning it into gasoline.

Apparently this new process can process coal, oil shale, wood...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0418_060418_coal_energy.html

But look...can we just please recognize fossil fuels have to be worked away from? please?
An economy doesn't turn on a dime. We need to plan this stuff decades in advance, not just keep slapping duct tape on the problems, metaphorically speaking.

But look...can we just please recognize fossil fuels have to be worked away from? please?
An economy doesn't turn on a dime. We need to plan this stuff decades in advance, not just keep slapping duct tape on the problems, metaphorically speaking.

Very true. We need a bridge fuel and that bridge fuel is natural gas. We have plenty of natural gas to be self sufficient for many decades to come.

Unfortunately those profiting from pollution are the ones sponsoring massive disinformation campaigns - reminiscent of what the cigarette industry did for a good portion of the last century and it worked.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

And there are always fool to believe them.

How much LNG is there in the USA?

While the US military may be the employer of last resort, they will bend to the will of the Citizenry IF we could get someone in office that actually walks the walk. I mean, the POTUS is Commander in Chief and could in theory cut the US military. The thing is, the Citizens WANT the military because they have zero idea how the economy works.

How much LNG is there in the USA?

While the US military may be the employer of last resort, they will bend to the will of the Citizenry IF we could get someone in office that actually walks the walk. I mean, the POTUS is Commander in Chief and could in theory cut the US military. The thing is, the Citizens WANT the military because they have zero idea how the economy works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/business/energy-environment/17views.html

"Just last month, the Energy Department more than doubled estimates of recoverable shale reserves to 827 trillion cubic feet, the energy equivalent of roughly 140 billion barrels of oil." - New York Times

LINK: Oil Shale Reserves (http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/)


If we have 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil (that's about 5 times the stated reserves in KSA), then why don't we develop it and use that as an energy source?

Why continue to waste time in and on the ME? IMO they having nothing of strategic value other than oil and that's probably coming to an end in the next couple of decades.

I think most of it is in uninhabited land in the deserts of Colorado and is owned by the US government - so why don't we start utilizing that oil instead of wasting billions in Iraq and Afghanistan... and now Libya?

Because its cheaper. Think about it, if we use it now then sooner or later it will run out. And when it runs out the ME will know that we HAVE to buy from them so they will jack up the price.

Essentially its one of our bargaining chips, if they don't keep the prices steady/low then we will stop buying from them until we run out. And that will mean devestation to many of their economies.

Back in the day when I was drilling for oil in Kansas region, it proved uneconomical because the wells typically came in at 3 barrels/day, and with oil at $18/barrel it cost more to service the well than the value of the oil that was pumped out. There was a huge reservoir, but in tight rock, so the wells were slow to produce, even after doing a frac. But with oil at $100/barrel or higher, it becomes economical again. And shale oil is likewise uneconomical at $18/barrel, but becomes very economical at $100/barrel. But the economic policy is to use other countries' oil first, while saving the US reserves for later.

...used hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling...

Yeah, and fracking destroys the ground water supply, among other things. They just quit doing this in Missouri due to about 100 "unexplained" earthquakes, most likely from fracking there.

Michigan is #2 in NG reserves and right in line for fracking to get at them. The oil and gas companies have been pumping themselves on the tv nonstop for 6 months now, they for sure have plans to frack here soon. I have wells within a mile of my home. They start fracking here and I will go into very serious protest mode. I will have lots of company.

No, fracking is far too costly in terms of lives and environmental quality. :(

Yeah, and fracking destroys the ground water supply, among other things. They just quit doing this in Missouri due to about 100 "unexplained" earthquakes, most likely from fracking there.

Michigan is #2 in NG reserves and right in line for fracking to get at them. The oil and gas companies have been pumping themselves on the tv nonstop for 6 months now, they for sure have plans to frack here soon. I have wells within a mile of my home. They start fracking here and I will go into very serious protest mode. I will have lots of company.

No, fracking is far too costly in terms of lives and environmental quality. :(

Since Missouri sits on top of the nations largest fault, the New Madrid fault, there is nothing suprising about earthquakes in Missouri. They happen all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone

There have been allegations of ground water contamination associated with fracking, but this far evidence has been painfully absent. It has yet to be proven that there is any ground water contamination associated with fracking. And there is no evidence to show that fracking causes earthquakes. Most of the natural gas reserves are not on or near fault lines (e.g. Missouri).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866701/

The New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone is relatively new. Its 16 Dec1811 quake was the worst ever known to occur in north America . Magnitude ~8 or more than 50 times more powerful than the recent on in Japan!

California is also waiting for the "big one" but it should not be nearly as strong - perhaps like the recent one in Japan. Certain sections of the fault line seem to be pinned so as other section move with minor quakes the stress (stored energy) is building up in the pinned section - making the "big one" even bigger when it comes. More than a decade ago, it was suggested thatwhat is now called "fracking" be done in small parts of the pinned section to induce smaller quakes (they hoped) that would relieve some of the accumulating stress. This, AFAIK was never done due to possible damage claims, etc.

Perhaps fracking for NG etc. in the New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone may prevent the "Really Big One"? If it is a repeat of the 16Dec1911 one, the wiki article suggests:

"...an 8.0 earthquake could do to the New Madrid Region. An earthquake of that size on the New Madrid Fault would destroy 60 percent of Memphis, killing tens of thousands and causing over $50 billion dollars in property damage in the city alone [22]. ..."
and
"... Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure.[21] The earthquake is expected to also result in many thousands of fatalities, with more than 4,000 of the fatalities expected in Memphis alone. ..."

SUMMARY: Dammed if we do and Dammed if we don't, but at least with fracting there will be profits to tax and more domestic energy to use.

The New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone is relatively new. Its 16 Dec1811 quake was the worst ever known to occur in north America . Magnitude ~8 or more than 50 times more powerful than the recent one in Japan!

BillyT: The recent quake in Japan was pegged at 9.0; far more powerful than the New Madrid quake of two centuries ago.

BillyT: The recent quake in Japan was pegged at 9.0; far more powerful than the New Madrid quake of two centuries ago.I assume thanks are due. I had 7.2 in stuck my head for it - hence my factor of ~50 more powerful.

The lands in Colorado are referred to as the Great American Desert and were set aside to power the US Navy (back in the 1800s). Seeing as in no one really lives there, I think it should be the ideal land to take the oil from???

To distill this down, all we need to do is wait for market prices to adjust properly.

Trust me, when it's time, we (Americans) will, in fact, extract, process and distill the shale oil that we have.

Just prior to the "Mad-Max" era beginning... :D

Dog in the manger

I agree with this statement.

At least I think she means what I mean.

To distill this down, all we need to do is wait for market prices to adjust properly.

Trust me, when it's time, we (Americans) will, in fact, extract, process and distill the shale oil that we have.

Just prior to the "Mad-Max" era beginning... :D

No that is not a good distillation. What is needed is to make alternative fuels available to compete with oil (e.g. natural gas).

We live in a buzzy body nanny state set up by the Democrats. Earlier social changes, created by the Democrats, made people stupid, therefore the nanny gets more and more defensive protecting her increasing stupid constituency. Anything new will get the nanny all defensive, until her foot dragging makes it far too expensive and the opportunity is lost.

One has to deal with the nanny first, such as lock her in a closet, and then let the rational people deal with the problems.

We live in a buzzy body nanny state set up by the Democrats. Earlier social changes, created by the Democrats, made people stupid, therefore the nanny gets more and more defensive protecting her increasing stupid constituency. Anything new will get the nanny all defensive, until her foot dragging makes it far too expensive and the opportunity is lost.

One has to deal with the nanny first, such as lock her in a closet, and then let the rational people deal with the problems.

What was all that Medicare Part D thing all about then? Those people who held a 3 AM meeting and held what was supposed to be a 15 minute vote that turned out to be a 2 hour vote.

All of those congressmen and the president who signed the greatest expansion of entitlements in more than sixty years and who lobbied for the bill and voted for the bill at 3AM were Republicans...one of them minor details so called conservatives like to forget or one of those many facts of which Republicans/Tea Party dittoheads have no knowledge. :)

We live in a buzzy body nanny state set up by the Democrats. Earlier social changes, created by the Democrats, made people stupid, therefore the nanny gets more and more defensive protecting her increasing stupid constituency. Anything new will get the nanny all defensive, until her foot dragging makes it far too expensive and the opportunity is lost.

One has to deal with the nanny first, such as lock her in a closet, and then let the rational people deal with the problems.

Without that "nanny", corporations would rape us and leave us bleeding in the street while they count their money. The thing that makes people stupid is lack of education, which the state provides, and which republicons want to take away or privatize, or otherwise destroy.

Without that "nanny", corporations would rape us and leave us bleeding in the street while they count their money. The thing that makes people stupid is lack of education, which the state provides, and which republicons want to take away or privatize, or otherwise destroy.I agree, but let me tell same story another way:

In contrast to almost all other advanced societies the US has a "For profit" medical system* (very weak "nanny," except for the FDA.)

European countries have a strong "nanny" running their medical systems. The state pays the doctors and nurses a salary, buys masses of drugs in large orders much more cheaply than drug stores do, etc. So the result of US lacking a strong "medical nanny" in medical services is that Americans pay more than twice as much for their health care (even though poor Americans get hardly any) and live 2 to 3 years less than Europeans do.
--------------------
* Part of the profits collected from Americans for their private medical system is taken by the insurance companies issuing medical policies - don't forget, that too is a needless cost not present in socialized medicine.

What amazes me is how brainwashed some are in opposition to socialized medicine when the facts about much lower cost and longer life expectancies it provides are well known. Most American can not think - just parrot back what the wealthy few have repeatedly told them.

Indeed. The opposite of a regulating government is a free for all of exploitation. Of course it's possible to take it to far in the opposite direction too, but we are far from that. In Germany, you need a permit to cut down a tree in your property!

... In Germany, you need a permit to cut down a tree in your property!If that is one of the few trees in a polluted city block, that seems like a good law to me, but not if the tree is part of a large forest next to your farm. You do need such permits in Sao Paulo too and even in the rural forested areas. Brazil has the world's toughest tree protection laws - but individual high value trees are cut illegally.

One can be worth more than a year's salary at the minimum wage - so of course they are cut. The sad thing is that to hide the crime, usually large areas of the forest are burned. This is all the result of rich people, usually foreigners, loving beautiful wood furniture. It has been going on for more than three centuries - Brazil is named after a tree* which both had fine wood for cabinets and gave a deep reddish purple dye used in royal robes and the clothes of nobles, etc,

I had cattle farm about 100 miles from Sao Paulo. When I bought it the pasture was in terrible shape. The ~100 acres would only support 10 scrawny steers as they spent too much energy walking up and down the hills looking for grass they could eat. It had been for sale for several years - I got it very cheap. ($23,000, much less than the two small houses on it cost to build.) In the US I would have paid that much just for the couple acres of lake behind the earthen dam. 10 years and about 3000 dollar later, spent on plowing and seed, I sold it with 50 fat steers on it, for big profit in dollars and a not bad profit in Brazilian Reais.

A few years before I sold it one of my cows got sick and died. My hard working care taker who knew everything about grass and cows told me that a storm had blown many green leaves from a tree in the pasture which were poisonous when I made my twice / month weekend visit to the farm.

I said: "Well cut the dam tree down and burn it." He replied: "Oh No! We can't do that." The government's planes fly over every few months and photograph - they will send you to jail, or at least give you a huge fine.

He knew exactly what to do and had already done it before I arrived. Near the base of the tree there was a deep circular cut all the way around. After the planes had photographed it as dead, then we could cut it down.
-------
* "... The tree which gave its name to the South American nation, is almost extinct. The tree was extracted from the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest to satisfy the European royalty's thirst for red dye for about 375 years. With the advent of synthetic dyes, the tree was forgotten and since so few remain, most Brazilians have never seen a Brazil tree. ..."
From: http://www.australfoto.com/Environment/Brazil-Wood-the-Tree-that/3741082_tNxKc#215003352_HPTb8

Indeed. The opposite of a regulating government is a free for all of exploitation. Of course it's possible to take it to far in the opposite direction too, but we are far from that. In Germany, you need a permit to cut down a tree in your property!

LOL

The city of Atlanta has a strict tree ordinance that strives for the preservation of Atlanta’s green area. This means that for every tree that is cut down, an equal amount of green area must be replanted. Trees under 6 inches in diameter or trees that have died of natural causes or that are deemed dying or hazardous can be removed with a simple, free permit. But healthy, safe trees over 6 inches in diameter require special permits. The owner must pay recompense to the City of Atlanta to be used for the planting of additional trees, and there is a two week waiting period to allow residents to dispute the cutting of the trees. Only then can the permit be issued.

Standard recompense is calculated using the following formula:


Recompense = $100*(# trees removed – # trees replaced) + $30*(# inches removed – # inches replaced)
So if you removed ten trees with 12 inch diameters and replace them with five trees with 2.5 inch diameters (the minimum size allowed for replacement trees, with a cost of about $500 each professionally installed) then your recompense would be:

Recompense = $100*(10 – 5 = 5) + $30*(120 – 12.5 = 107.5) = $500 + $3225 = $3725

This doesn’t include the cost of the installed trees, which in this example would be around $2000. If no trees were planted as replacements in the case above, then the recompense would be $4600.

I agree, but let me tell same story another way:

In contrast to almost all other advanced societies the US has a "For profit" medical system* (very weak "nanny," except for the FDA.)

European countries have a strong "nanny" running their medical systems. The state pays the doctors and nurses a salary, buys masses of drugs in large orders much more cheaply than drug stores do, etc. So the result of US lacking a strong "medical nanny" in medical services is that Americans pay more than twice as much for their health care (even though poor Americans get hardly any) and live 2 to 3 years less than Europeans do.
--------------------
* Part of the profits collected from Americans for their private medical system is taken by the insurance companies issuing medical policies - don't forget, that too is a needless cost not present in socialized medicine.

What amazes me is how brainwashed some are in opposition to socialized medicine when the facts about much lower cost and longer life expectancies it provides are well known. Most American can not think - just parrot back what the wealthy few have repeatedly told them.

In The United States the nanny protects the special interests, not the the average Joe or Jane...the very reverse of every other industrial country.

Well, we exported our GDP, our actual economy, to China - for short term gain in the form of bonuses to Banksters and Wallstreet assholes.

So, it's gone. They won.

Now all that's left is to goad China into WWIII much like we did to Japan, by cutting off their major energy investments, beginning with Libya. Who knows, if we're lucky these psychopaths in the US military will use nukes again, or even biological agents.

OR, we could, kill the Bankers. My guess is it'll be shit hitting the fan iunstead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/business/energy-environment/17views.html

"Just last month, the Energy Department more than doubled estimates of recoverable shale reserves to 827 trillion cubic feet, the energy equivalent of roughly 140 billion barrels of oil." - New York Times



The shale is an old story a few decades back there was a lot of noise in recovering oil from shale then as oil prices drop, so do the enthusiasm and the research.
During Carters presidency the big enthusiasm was solar power as idiot Regan come into the white house he removed the program.
In this country we are nose maker. We are not long range planners.:p

YUANBA, China — China has spent tens of billions of dollars buying into energy resources from Africa to Latin America to slake the unquenched thirst for fuel from its growing industry and burgeoning cities.

But China may have more energy riches under its own soil than policy makers in the world's second-largest economy ever dared imagine.

Just over a year ago, Beijing awakened to a technology revolution that has unlocked massive reserves of gas trapped within shale rock formations in the United States.

Once deemed too costly to extract, shale gas has turned around U.S. dependence on foreign gas imports. Just a few years ago, the United States was building scores of expensive facilities to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), looking at booming long-term demand forecasts and wondering which countries would supply the huge volume of imports it needed.

Instead, the United States is turning import facilities into export terminals, because its shale gas reserves are estimated to be big enough to meet domestic demand for 30 years. This is an American dream that China wants to emulate.

"America's shale gas production alone has exceeded that of total Chinese gas output. That gives us a lot of confidence," said Zhang Dawei, deputy director of the Strategic Research Center for Oil and Gas in the Ministry of Land and Resources(MLR).

China's confidence has been bolstered by a new report of its estimated reserves of shale gas, which shows them to be, by far, the largest in the world.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency in a report last month estimates China holds 36.1 trillion cubic meters (1,275 trillion cubic feet) of technically recoverable shale gas reserves -- significantly higher than the 24.4 tcm (862 trillion cubic feet) in the United States, which has the second-most.

Industry estimates in China peg shale gas resources slightly lower -- but still huge -- at 26 trillion cubic meters (tcm), although they have yet to give their own forecasts of how much of that is recoverable.

China's imminent shale rush comes at a critical point.

It will soon overtake the United States as the world's top energy user and is already the world's biggest coal burner. China also pumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other country.

Beijing's bureaucrats thus face a daunting challenge: how to clean up its brown skies while meeting the world's fastest growing energy demand.

Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels and installing gas-fired power generation is cheaper and easier than building nuclear plants. The problem is China cannot meet its rising demand for gas with its limited reserves of conventional gas. It faces the prospect of becoming as dependent on international markets for gas as it is for oil, where China is the world's second-largest importer.

But shale gas may not be as clean as advertised, according to a study released last week by Cornell University in New York. This study argues that significant amounts of methane -- a potent greenhouse gas -- escape into the atmosphere during production in wells and distribution in pipelines.

Regardless, China is racing to find out how much shale gas it can exploit -- and how quickly it can get the technology and build the infrastructure it needs to pump it to market -- to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of gas.

Auction action
The starting gun for that race is about to fire any day now.

The MLR said it would hold the first auction of shale gas blocks by the end of the first quarter of this year, so it is already overdue. The ministry had previously delayed the auction, initially scheduled last November, to open up the bidding to more domestic companies -- inject more competition into the process and quicken the pace of shale development.

The auction is for eight exploration blocks covering 18,000 square kilometers in four inland provinces: southwest Sichuan, Chongqing and Guizhou, and central Hubei province.

"We are aiming for major breakthroughs in locating the reserves in five years, and in eight years shale gas should take a significant position in China's energy mix," said Zhang at the land ministry. He talked of having shale gas account for one-tenth of China's total gas output by 2020.

China has identified shale gas as one of the country's top targets for technological breakthroughs in the 2011-2015 five-year plan, which means that Beijing will be opening the funding faucets for shale gas research.

China's National Energy Administration is setting up a shale gas laboratory in Langfang, near Beijing, to be financed mostly by PetroChina, and that will become China's national shale gas research center, officials say.

Experts say shale, which needs intensive drilling and many wells, plays to China's strengths.

"Shale gas projects are sometimes referred to as manufacturing operations. Which countries globally are particularly good at manufacturing?" said Robert Clarke, global head of unconventional gas research for Wood Mackenzie.

"China certainly comes to the forefront of your mind -- good in controlling costs, looking at efficiencies, and continually learning from earlier mistakes."

PetroChina, which produces nearly 80 percent of China's total gas output, just last month :mad:

I guess that's good for China. Maybe they can meet their own energy needs? Maybe they'll have enough energy to build a first world economy?

The hypothesis has been presented that fracking hasn't contaminated ground water.


...It has yet to be proven that there is any ground water contamination associated with fracking...


It takes only 1 counterexample to kill an errant hypothesis. Surface water contamination from a fracked NG well blowout:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/chesapeake-blowout-idUSN2127616820110421

If its in the surface water it is on the way to the ground water...if it isn't already there. ;)

...and from Wiki:
...in a study published in 2010, the EPA has discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamanatanes. Many of these contaminants are known to cause a variety of illnesses such as cancer, kidney failure, anaemia, and fertility problem...




The hypothesis has been put forward that fracking does not cause earthquakes:


...there is no evidence to show that fracking causes earthquakes...

Maybe so, maybe no. The jury is still out:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/fracking-shutdown-earthquakes-arkansas_n_851930.html




Frack that.

The hypothesis has been presented that fracking hasn't contaminated ground water.

It takes only 1 counterexample to kill an errant hypothesis. Surface water contamination from a fracked NG well blowout:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/chesapeake-blowout-idUSN2127616820110421

If its in the surface water it is on the way to the ground water...if it isn't already there. ;)

...and from Wiki:

The hypothesis has been put forward that fracking does not cause earthquakes:

Maybe so, maybe no. The jury is still out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/21/fracking-shutdown-earthquakes-arkansas_n_851930.html

Frack that.

The bottom line here is that there has been no proven contamination of drinking water from the fracking process. As proof of ground water contamination you offer a blow out accident...a small issolated incident. Blowouts occur in natural gas wells as well as oil wells. So the bottom line here is that fracking has not been proven to be more dangerous than any other kind of drilling.

There is nothing wrong with caution, but one must be objective in the analysis of evidence. And at this point in time, the evidence does not support the allegations in the case of fracking.

Well gee, I figured that EPA report would be at least a bit cautionary, guess not to all of us.

Mebbe you should move closer to where they want to frack then, and drink a lots of well water with all those goodies in it. :) Let me know how that works out for you.

I will not tolerate fracking here though, and will do what I can and must to prevent it, as I drink well water.

I know, I know..."drill baby drill". :bugeye:

Well gee, I figured that EPA report would be at least a bit cautionary, guess not to all of us.

Mebbe you should move closer to where they want to frack then, and drink a lots of well water with all those goodies in it. :) Let me know how that works out for you.

I will not tolerate fracking here though, and will do what I can and must to prevent it, as I drink well water.

I know, I know..."drill baby drill". :bugeye:

:) Prove that fracking has contaminated drinking water or could realistically contaminate drinking water and you have a case. But until then you don't. If it can be proven that fracking is a hazzard to public health, then by all means it should not be done. But it should not be ditched just because someone doesn't feel good about it.

..and your casual dismissal of what I have already found and cited gives a good indication of where your bias lies. Surface water contamination has already occurred, as I noted above. Your 'straw man' rebuttal fails to contradict that point.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of geology can see serious potential problems in cracking the bedrock with a "proprietary" recipe of chemicals that will remain underground after use. This especially in areas where people depend on well water to drink, like here where I live.

We also bottle that "spring water" and sell it to folks like you to drink. ;)

..and your casual dismissal of what I have already found and cited gives a good indication of where your bias lies. Surface water contamination has already occurred, as I noted above. Your 'straw man' rebuttal fails to contradict that point.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of geology can see serious potential problems in cracking the bedrock with a "proprietary" recipe of chemicals that will remain underground after use. This especially in areas where people depend on well water to drink, like here where I live.

We also bottle that "spring water" and sell it to folks like you to drink. ;)

Your definition of contamination is so broad, you would have to include yourself or anyone who turns on an auto or who flips a light switch or turns on a computer.

As for the strawman claim, I suggest you go back to school and learn what a strawman arguement is my friend.

Facts are our friends, if you have proof of a hazzard related to fracking great. Let's see it. But you don't. And that is the issue. You have speculation not grounded in science. Decisions should be made on reason and facts, not speculation.

I will not tolerate fracking here though, and will do what I can and must to prevent it, as I drink well water.I'm impressed. Yourignorance is quite multi-dimensional in scope; not just limited to one or two areas of incompetence.

I am still unimpressed by your rank amateur trolling. Ramp up your game or find a less educated audience.

If you had anything factual to contribute to a discussion, you would not need to start out by name calling and insult. Since you consistently do, you consistently don't. Perhaps an education would help you out in this respect. Please consider going back and finishing high school, for your own good as well as ours. :o


...You have speculation not grounded in science...


...and you have nothing at all beyond your own personal opinion.

However, since you seem to believe in the innocence of the petrochemical industry as well as the tooth fairy, perhaps you would like to berate the current law suit against fracking:

http://www.ashcraftandgerel.com/practiceareas/hydraulic-fracturing-fracking-carcinogen-lawsuit/?gclid=CLXT14CJwKgCFcO8KgodZyDmwA

Excerpt, as I recall you do not read very well or very far:


The use of fracking by energy companies has increased dramatically around the country in the past few years. There are hundreds of chemicals used in fracking, many of which are known carcinogens, including benzene. These toxic chemicals are being introduced into the environment, both underground and above ground, and as a result are causing well water poisoning, land devaluation, i.e., a severe drop in the value of land affected by the fracking process. Some property owners have reported that their well water is contaminated and is no longer safe for drinking, bathing, or washing clothes. In addition, people have reported trouble breathing due to hazardous chemicals that have been released into the air. These serious health concerns associated with fracking or hydrofracking have adverse effects on people, drinking water, air and property values.


Mebbe you should ring these lawyers up and give them some of your 'facts'. I am sure they, and the clients in the class action law suit, would love to hear from you. :)

Then there is that pesky uranium, though I am sure this does not concern you either:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025172926.htm

Again, in deference to your reading difficulties:


We found that the uranium and the hydrocarbons are in the same physical space," says Bank. "We found that they are not just physically -- but also chemically -- bound.
"That led me to believe that uranium in solution could be more of an issue because the process of drilling to extract the hydrocarbons could start mobilizing the metals as well, forcing them into the soluble phase and causing them to move around."
When Bank and her colleagues reacted samples in the lab with surrogate drilling fluids, they found that the uranium was indeed, being solubilized.
In addition, she says, when the millions of gallons of water used in hydraulic fracturing come back to the surface, it could contain uranium contaminants, potentially polluting streams and other ecosystems and generating hazardous waste.

Then there is the matter of that silly US Congress and EPA that seem to share my concerns:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411103724.htm

Again, as I know you won't be reading that:


The EPA is now doing additional study on the relationship of hydraulic fracturing and drinking water and groundwater after congress stated its concern about the potential adverse impact that the process may have on water quality and public health. Kittner attended an EPA hearing and also interviewed people in the hydraulic fracturing industry. She says billions of dollars from domestic as well as international sources have been invested in the industry.
The chemical cocktail used in the process is actually relatively small. The mixture is about 95-percent water, nearly five percent sand, and the rest chemical, yet, Kittner says some of those chemicals are known toxins and carcinogens, hence, the "not in my backyard" backlash from communities that can be prospects for drilling. The flow-back water from drilling is naturally a very salty brine, prone to bacterial growth, and potentially contaminated with heavy metals, Kittner says. In addition, there's the question of how to properly dispose of millions of gallons of contaminated water, as well as concerns about trucking it on winding, rural back roads.

You know what else the US floats on? Iron!! There is a shitload of iron in the Earth core.

Of course it is a little deep down and a little too hot, but boy, would that make good steel!!! I am having a wet dream...

Before all the economic consideration, there is simply not enough WATER in the West to get the oilshale in big quantities. End of story...

But for wet dreamers there is an energy consideration too. If it takes 100 barrels of oil (energywise) to extract 101 barrels, the deal suddenly doesn't seem to be so good, even if it is still economical...

I am still unimpressed by your rank amateur trolling. Ramp up your game or find a less educated audience. Unfortunately you have made this an insurmountable challenge.


If you had anything factual to contribute to a discussion, you would not need to start out by name calling and insult. Since you consistently do, you consistently don't.The name calling and insult are reserved for those individuals and situations that merit it. You just seem to come at the top of the list with an awesome persistence.


However, since you seem to believe in the innocence of the petrochemical industry as well as the tooth fairy, perhaps you would like to berate the current law suit against fracking:
1. The lawsuit has not been won, (or lost).
2. You have employed the logical fallacy represented by this example.
Hitler was an evil monster.
Hitler was a man.
Therefore all men are evil monsters.

That was why I noted your deep ignorance, since only an ignorant person would assume that all formation fracturing was always bad.

The link your provided also has some inaccurate statements. for example they say "Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking” or hydrofracking, is a drilling process ......". Well, no it isn't. It is a completion process. The reference to the "large amount of water and toxic chemicals" omits to mention that there are, indeed, large amounts of water, but the chemicals constitute less than .5% of the total volume and those chemicals are either inert (e.g. hydroxyethyl cellulose) or everyday compounds (e.g. salt).
http://www.energyindepth.org/frac-fluid.pdf

Finally, when did you sell your car, refuse to use public transport, purchase no packaged goods from the supermarket, wear only natural textiles and write with a quill pen? Your deep concern over the effects of fracking must surely have led yu to abandon all and every product of the practice.

:) Prove that fracking has contaminated drinking water or could realistically contaminate drinking water and you have a case. But until then you don't. If it can be proven that fracking is a hazzard to public health, then by all means it should not be done. But it should not be ditched just because someone doesn't feel good about it.

From Science:

=================
Study: High-Tech Gas Drilling Is Fouling Drinking Water

by Richard A. Kerr on 9 May 2011, 3:02 PM

Drilling for natural gas locked deep in a shale formation has seriously contaminated shallow groundwater supplies beneath far northeastern Pennsylvania with flammable methane. That’s the conclusion of a new study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The analysis gives few clues, however, to how pervasive such contamination might be across the wide areas of the Northeast United States, Texas, and other states where drilling for shale gas has taken off in recent years.

Problems with shale gas drilling have already gotten attention in less scientifically rigorous arenas. The documentary film Gasland, nominated for an Oscar this year, dramatized the issue by showing a homeowner set fire to well water gushing from a faucet. The implication was that nearby drilling into shale 1000 meters or more deep had somehow unleashed natural gas—mostly methane—that ended up in groundwater less than 100 meters deep. The obvious culprit, in the film at least, was “fracking.” That’s the essential process of pressurizing a wellbore until the shale shatters in innumerable fractures, releasing the tightly bound gas.

So shale gas and fracking were getting plenty of public attention, but environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, found it “surprising how little peer-reviewed data there is” on well water contamination near shale gas drilling. So he and three Duke colleagues, including geologist Stephen Osborn, sampled well water across 175 kilometers of far northeast Pennsylvania centered on the town of Dimock, made infamous by Gasland. A few samples were also taken in an area 75 kilometers from Pennsylvania in adjacent New York.

Analyses of 60 wells paint a picture of contamination near active gas wells. Almost all water wells more than a kilometer from an active gas well had only a few parts per million methane in their water. But most wells 1 kilometer or less from a gas well produced water with 19 to 64 parts per million methane. That’s at and above the “action level” of federal safety guidelines for methane, which can displace air’s oxygen to cause asphyxiation. The higher levels are also in the flammable range. “I watched one homeowner light his water on fire,” Jackson says.

Crucially, additional chemical and isotopic analyses in effect “fingerprinted” the well water methane. Those results, the authors say, suggest that the gas from high-methane, close-in water wells was produced in the deep shale. The low-level, background methane from more distant water wells would have come from methane-generating bacteria living in shallow rock.

“There’s a strong indication something’s going on,” says geologist Adam Schoonmaker of Utica College in New York. “I would be concerned.” He would also consider more sampling before and after shale gas drilling over a broader area, as the paper’s authors recommend in a white paper released today. One concern is that shale gas formations vary greatly one to the next. They extend continuously from upstate New York to Alabama and in patches across Texas and up the Rocky Mountain states to Montana. Each shale formation will have its own distinct geologic setting that could be crucial to the release of gas during drilling and fracking. In response to the many unknowns, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on 5 May the formation of a blue-ribbon panel to recommend ways to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas fracking. Any immediate recommendations are due in 90 days.
==================

Here is the link (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf+html)to the article, which is available in full at no charge.

Note again: no conatamination by fracturing fluids.