U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2011, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
We have an oil thread and the Solar Swingers turn up as they always do. Solar might work in some applications but it has a long way from the big time in terms of being reliable and cost effective. People say in some year soon that it will be so cheap and easy, well CHECK BACK WHEN THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

Colorado has a wealth of oil and I say Drill Here, Drill Now. I'd rather pay for Colorado oil products than send the money to a thugocracy like iran or venezuela.

There is still tons of shale oil out on the western slope and who knows how many more undiscovered or untapped fields there are out there.
Since that appears to be a reference to my posts let me make my self clear. I am all for drilling for oil today in Colorado because what I talk about with solar is a good 10 to 20 years out. So in the mean time we need oil and if Colorado has it and it will boost our economy I am 100% for it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2011, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Wyoming
9,164 posts, read 16,515,249 times
Reputation: 13349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
They might not get to enjoy the "direct impact" from the oil drilling but they would most defiantly get to enjoy the "secondary impact" of the oil drilling. At least as long as oil is the main source of power generation which is only about 10 to 20 more years.
Oil is a non-player in power generation -- like 1 percent. Coal and natural gas fired plants provide most of our electricity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2011, 10:26 PM
 
9,816 posts, read 19,017,909 times
Reputation: 7537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Since that appears to be a reference to my posts let me make my self clear. I am all for drilling for oil today in Colorado because what I talk about with solar is a good 10 to 20 years out. So in the mean time we need oil and if Colorado has it and it will boost our economy I am 100% for it!
Cool, but let's stick to oil and gas and leave the super solar projections and rainbows for another thread, rather than revisiting it for the 237th time when even the slightest peep about energy is mentioned.

Last I checked Colorado was nearly entirely self sufficient when it came to oil and gas supplies. All refined at that Conoco refinery in Commerce City.

The great thing is that often some of the fields have other layers below them and that means being able to use the same well pad and infrastructure for drilling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 09:30 AM
 
20,304 posts, read 37,790,850 times
Reputation: 18081
Prior postings on alternative energy (aka solar, wind, nuclear) have been moved to a new thread for that topic.

Please use that thread for alternative energy topics, use this thread for oil and gas topics in the Front Range area, as per the OP's post.

Thank you.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,102 posts, read 20,348,297 times
Reputation: 4131
There was a interesting map in today's Pueblo Chieftain that is more detailed and shows a larger area that could possibly have oil and natural gas.



The link: Lower Ark Valley perks oil interests - The Pueblo Chieftain: Local

If you look at the map the area extends into El Paso county where new developers want to drill for natural gas. It also extends as far south as Pueblo, Crowley and Otero counties. So far I don't believe they have found anything this far south but if the map is correct perhaps in the near future they will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 10:53 AM
 
2,253 posts, read 5,835,868 times
Reputation: 2615
Wink EPA & fracking & your air

'In March, pollution from natural gas drilling in the Upper Green River Basin in western Wyoming triggered levels of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, worse than those recorded in Los Angeles, one of the smoggiest cities in the U.S.' [1]


Since confining ourselves strictly to the topic of oil on this thread, then what it results in should apply.

The EPA is proposing new rules that would require fracking operations to capture more of the air pollutants they presently let into the atmosphere. In Colorado this would equate with less ground-level ozone, which for anyone paying attention is already a serious problem.

A look at the map posted above shows a large concentration of such oil activity in northwest Weld County. Aside from the citizens along the front range, the degradation of Colorado's air has also had significant and negative effect on Rocky Mountain National Park. In fact due ozone and the elevation the air in that national treasure is not all that healthy to breathe at times.

Something to consider when jobs and money seem the only priority.


1) 'Fracking: EPA Targets Air Pollution From Natural Gas Drilling Boom,' Huffington Post
Fracking: EPA Targets Air Pollution From Natural Gas Drilling Boom
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 11:11 AM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,619,062 times
Reputation: 1923
There's cost / benefit to any industry. Like it or not we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels for many more decades. We're just going to have to live with it (fracking). The reality is that this industry will leave a footprint.
The tarsands are a good example.
Alberta Tar Sands: The World?s Most Destructive Project
RP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 11:12 AM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,402,860 times
Reputation: 47449
that may be so but then OPEC would not get the money and our people in washington wont stand for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 11:33 AM
 
2,253 posts, read 5,835,868 times
Reputation: 2615
Wink Canadian tar sands & Nat Geo

'Of course, pillage is a loaded word, but it applies, and I have no qualms about using it. Several of Canada's First Nations live downstream from the oil sands, and still live off the land. One study suggested that moose meat from this region has 453 times the acceptable level of arsenic. Of course, the Alberta government calls that figure preposterous, and claims that arsenic levels are just 33 times as high as they should be. As if that fact should be comforting.' [1]


If having touched upon this topic elsewhere, it certainly bears repeating here. When using oil in the United States we should be cognizant of the many costs involved in delivering it to us. Canada does supply more oil to the US than any other country. It is largely derived from the tar sands of Alberta, and they are raping their land to do so. I use that word advisedly, and it is exactly true for the massive destruction involved. Soil, air and water in the region, and beyond, are all hugely compromised in the process.

One reason I have been hardly keen on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project of TransCanada, which only encourage such behavior.

Some time ago National Geographic magazine ran an excellent article on what is transpiring in Canada with these tar sands. In looking I'm not sure if I've located the same exact article, but the following reference provides some good information and pictures. [2]


1) 'Alberta Tar Sands: The World’s Most Destructive Project,' One Blue Marble
Alberta Tar Sands: The World?s Most Destructive Project

2) 'The Canadian Oil Boom,' National Geographic
Canadian Oil Sands — National Geographic Magazine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2011, 11:40 AM
 
1,742 posts, read 2,619,062 times
Reputation: 1923
The tarsands are just part of the cost of living in the 21st century. Would you rather deplete the Middle East oil and save ours till the sheet hits the fan ($200/barrel)? RP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top