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.
So IDtheftV, I'm impressed. You have a natural gas consuming car? Mine is petroleum gas, like most people's. Fracking doesn't matter at all when I pull up to the pump atm.
Since you didn't realize most cars currently run on petro gas, you also may not realize we are wrecking our planet. Bees, bats, coral reefs, frogs, polar bears, certain trees, all disappearing and we aren't paying attention. They say fracking helps lower carbon emissions. Maybe so. But it increases methane release, which is a bigger planet heater than CO2. And this is in addition to threatening our water supply. Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases - Scientific American
Do you have children? Nieces, nephews? You should care. And not just about short term jobs for today. We're sinking the only ship we've got.
So IDtheftV, I'm impressed. You have a natural gas consuming car?
What are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverLover11
Since you didn't realize most cars currently run on petro gas,
My posts have made it abundantly clear that I understand what most cars run on.
I have also made it abundantly clear that most people against fracking are in denial about what it takes to get the gas to the nozzle of the gas pump they use.
Fracking is simply a way to get the petro to flow to the pump. There is nothing about the fracking process that "Emits" greenhouse gas.
Burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverLover11
Do you have children? Nieces, nephews? You should care.
Why would that make any difference? I care because I care.
When I lived in the city I lived in previously, I rode my bike, I walked, I took the bus.
When I lived in Dayton, I did the same thing. Now, I walk to work.
I did this when gas was under $1/gallon and I did it when it was over $4/gallon. I walk the walk.
I also know that people, when push comes to shove, won't sacrifice, they'll pay to burn gasoline and the fracking revolution has enabled them to continue to do that and that is their right to 'pay to burn.'
The fracking revolution will also enable a huge shift of fuel use from petroleum-based to LNG-based for things like long-haul trucking, trains, busses ( which you probably never ride ), city delivery vehicles, etc. which ALL reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The US is the only major industrialized country to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions for the past eight years - all due to frackking and NG substitution.
So many claims that are dubious. First, the frequency of small seismic activity along a plate has shown no bearing whatsoever on the magnitude of subsequent seismic activity. I can find no reputable study that says otherwise. In other words, you can't make future earthquakes less severe by geo-manipulating smaller quakes right now. From California Geological Survey's myths about earthquakes page:
Quote:
Small earthquakes keep big ones from happening. Each magnitude level represents about 31.6 times more energy released. It takes 32 magnitude 3s to equal the energy released in a magnitude 4, 1,000 magnitude 3s to equal a magnitude 5 … and a billion magnitude 3s to equal a single magnitude 9. So while a small quake may temporarily ease stress on a fault line, it does not prevent a large temblor.
What does happen with an expected increase in minor quake frequency is increased insurance costs for homes and businesses in the quake zones. Believe me that insurance companies will be using this to jack up costs. Maybe the boomtown economics of an oil economy are worth it, anyway, but don't gloss over the cost because you favor the outcome.
Second, the ideas that we'd be on the verge of gas shortages if it weren't for fracking, or that the US has reduced carbon emissions mainly as the result of LNG conversion are also false. Carbon emissions are down in the US over the last few years due to decreased coal generation, stabilizing and even declining automobile use, and a recession which greatly reduced travel and shipment of all types. Conversion to more carbon efficient technologies makes a minority chunk of this too, but LNG's part in this is still dwarfed by increasing solar/wind use and more energy efficient household products and transport.
Gas surpluses and shortages won't have anything to do with fracking for several more decades, if then, as the automobile industry continues to improve plug-in electric options (granted a percentage of our plug-in power may be coming from LNG power plants by then.) What fracking does do is provide an alternative source of jobs for struggling traditional coal mining regions. It could well be impacting groundwater and getting into our drinking water, some will probably find their families' health worth the trade, others won't. It does send a lot more money to Texas than winds up staying in Ohio, but that might be okay for some people too.
It does send a lot more money to Texas than winds up staying in Ohio, but that might be okay for some people too.
I'm not sure I'm in love with the idea of fracking in Ohio, but I do know that if it has to happen here, the companies need to be locally based and the executive jobs need to be here in Ohio, not Texas.
RustBeltOptimist, thanks for taking the time for such a logical, thoughtful post. It's a pity common sense must be explained, but you did a great job!! :-)
OH! OH! -- let me try! I want to see if you like my post too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist
.... First, the frequency of small seismic activity along a plate has shown no bearing whatsoever on the magnitude of subsequent seismic activity. ...
This statement indicates that you completely missed the point of my =>
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
.
=> post and don't have a good understanding of plate tectonics.
The reason that one seismic activity shows no bearing whatsoever on the magnitude of subsequent seismic activity is that the frequency and intensity are random based on an effectively infinite number "sticking points" along the plates rubbing against each other.
What is NOT in dispute is that each earthquake reduces the pressure and will tend to put off the next event. That is why if it is possible to trigger a small event then it would be wise to systematically do this all along the fault. The reason why a small earthquake doesn't appear to put off the subsequent events is that every quake sets-up new pressure points in a random system.
Note that I don't buy the theory that fracking triggers earthquakes. The above is just a factual exercise.
Note also that although the media repeats that the earthquakes are caused by fracking, it is the injection of fracking wastewater that is actually being blamed.
What is also NOT in dispute is that OH is not on a plate boundary, so quakes in OH are a result of plate compression and crust rebound due to the melting of the glaciers. Some quakes in OH can cause damage.
In our arrogance, we think that just because we haven't seen a severe earthquake in human memory, that it doesn't happen here. There is no reason not to believe that someday the earth will 'twitch' in OH and bridges will come down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist
Second, the ideas that we'd be on the verge of gas shortages if it weren't for fracking, or that the US has reduced carbon emissions mainly as the result of LNG conversion are also false.
This is a baseless assertion without citation.
The US was building LNG import facilities as recently as 2009 because we were deemed to be on the verge of gas shortages. In and around 2010, it was deemed that these were not going to be necessary due to increased production due to fracking and by 2011, the idea of exporting LNG was floated and the partially-built facilities underwent conversion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist
Carbon emissions are down in the US over the last few years due to decreased coal generation, stabilizing and even declining automobile use, and a recession which greatly reduced travel and shipment of all types. ...
It's funny how in Europe and Asia, the very same recession resulted in increased emissions of carbon.
Hmmm, "decreased coal generation" yet electric power production in the US increased from 3,900 to 4,100 TWh from 2004 to 2013 yet carbon emissions decreased by an even greater percent than generation increased.
Coal went from 2,000 to 1,600 TWh and NG went from 710 to 1,100 TWh. -- Yup, another baseless assertion. We are substituting a tremendous amount of power using NG.
We will substitute more in the future as LNG is used as a transportation fuel and OH will be a big part of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist
LNG's part in this is still dwarfed by increasing solar/wind use and more energy efficient household products and transport ....
Solar and wind together don't total 5% of US generation capacity.
Note that I am all for more solar and wind generation capacity because I believe in not being overwhelmingly dependent on one source and I like wind and solar. I like the practice of continuing to subsidize these sources until they both reach double-digit percentages of US generating capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist
... fracking ... does send a lot more money to Texas than winds up staying in Ohio, ....
You are just stating stuff that's not true to win the argument.
Sorry, paying landowners in OH for drilling rights doesn't send money to TX.
Paying people to build drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX.
Setting up drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX ( other than parts sourced there ).
We are now on the cusp of exporting LNG and every cf of NG that OH produces will most certainly put money into the state as well as produce jobs getting it.
In addition, the huge new supplies of NG from OH and other places have produced a much lower price for gas in the US. It is about 1/3rd the price paid in Europe and has been as low as 1/10th(!!) the price in Asia.
This will be driving more and more manufacturing back to the US as low energy prices overwhelm the advantage of low wages elsewhere.
If the weenies that hate the idea that we are using a fossil fuel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so much, they should be more clever about it. All the new drilling activity could be taxed to help further subsidize the building of solar, wind, and geothermal facilities. They can put an additional tax for this purpose on gasoline as far as I'm concerned.
They are wasting an opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverLover11
... we know from other cases around the world that if you have an increasing number of small earthquakes, the chances of a larger one will go up."
This is ridiculous on the face of it. The source of the energy that generates faults is magma convection deep in the earth. Small earthquakes have no ability to generate a larger one. Just because some scientist says something doesn't mean the logic cannot be argued with. There are quacks in every profession.
If you are going to make such statements, then you need to show the mechanism. Mr. Williams needs to explain the mechanism behind his assertion.
Anyone can rub a couple of rough boards together to get the idea that for a given amount of pressure, every 'jolt' reduces it.
The problem with tectonics is that there isn't a 'given' amount of pressure, but a continuing supply of new pressure, but on a human timescale, the pressure is pretty-much constant.
You're also rat-hole-ing the earthquake discussion. Fracking and injections don't cause earthquakes. Not having good jobs DOES cause social unrest. The American middle class has been decimated in this depression and the natural gas production revolution holds the hope for reversing part of that.
The problem is that ivory-tower types don't like the idea of blue collar workers making six-figure incomes. They're dirty.
What is NOT in dispute is that each earthquake reduces the pressure and will tend to put off the next event. That is why if it is possible to trigger a small event then it would be wise to systematically do this all along the fault.
I'm short on time, but I just want to share an actual scientific & expert view on the facts...
"Robert Williams, a research geophysicist with the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program in Golden, Colorado, told Live Science. "But we know from other cases around the world that if you have an increasing number of small earthquakes, the chances of a larger one will go up."
And yes, it is the fracking wastewater injections deep into the earth that cause the quakes, and the wastewater is a byproduct of fracking. Without fracking to the degree we are seeing today, there wouldn't be such an uptick in earthquakes. Oklahoma has 4000 injection wells. Dwarfs Ohio's 242.
OH! OH! -- let me try! I want to see if you like my post too!
This statement indicates that you completely missed the point of my =>=> post and don't have a good understanding of plate tectonics.
The reason that one seismic activity shows no bearing whatsoever on the magnitude of subsequent seismic activity is that the frequency and intensity are random based on an effectively infinite number "sticking points" along the plates rubbing against each other.
What is NOT in dispute is that each earthquake reduces the pressure and will tend to put off the next event. That is why if it is possible to trigger a small event then it would be wise to systematically do this all along the fault. The reason why a small earthquake doesn't appear to put off the subsequent events is that every quake sets-up new pressure points in a random system.
Note that I don't buy the theory that fracking triggers earthquakes. The above is just a factual exercise.
Note also that although the media repeats that the earthquakes are caused by fracking, it is the injection of fracking wastewater that is actually being blamed.
What is also NOT in dispute is that OH is not on a plate boundary, so quakes in OH are a result of plate compression and crust rebound due to the melting of the glaciers. Some quakes in OH can cause damage.
In our arrogance, we think that just because we haven't seen a severe earthquake in human memory, that it doesn't happen here. There is no reason not to believe that someday the earth will 'twitch' in OH and bridges will come down.
This is a baseless assertion without citation.
The US was building LNG import facilities as recently as 2009 because we were deemed to be on the verge of gas shortages. In and around 2010, it was deemed that these were not going to be necessary due to increased production due to fracking and by 2011, the idea of exporting LNG was floated and the partially-built facilities underwent conversion.
It's funny how in Europe and Asia, the very same recession resulted in increased emissions of carbon.
Hmmm, "decreased coal generation" yet electric power production in the US increased from 3,900 to 4,100 TWh from 2004 to 2013 yet carbon emissions decreased by an even greater percent than generation increased.
Coal went from 2,000 to 1,600 TWh and NG went from 710 to 1,100 TWh. -- Yup, another baseless assertion. We are substituting a tremendous amount of power using NG.
We will substitute more in the future as LNG is used as a transportation fuel and OH will be a big part of this.
Solar and wind together don't total 5% of US generation capacity.
Note that I am all for more solar and wind generation capacity because I believe in not being overwhelmingly dependent on one source and I like wind and solar. I like the practice of continuing to subsidize these sources until they both reach double-digit percentages of US generating capacity.
You are just stating stuff that's not true to win the argument.
Sorry, paying landowners in OH for drilling rights doesn't send money to TX.
Paying people to build drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX.
Setting up drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX ( other than parts sourced there ).
We are now on the cusp of exporting LNG and every cf of NG that OH produces will most certainly put money into the state as well as produce jobs getting it.
In addition, the huge new supplies of NG from OH and other places have produced a much lower price for gas in the US. It is about 1/3rd the price paid in Europe and has been as low as 1/10th(!!) the price in Asia.
This will be driving more and more manufacturing back to the US as low energy prices overwhelm the advantage of low wages elsewhere.
If the weenies that hate the idea that we are using a fossil fuel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so much, they should be more clever about it. All the new drilling activity could be taxed to help further subsidize the building of solar, wind, and geothermal facilities. They can put an additional tax for this purpose on gasoline as far as I'm concerned.
They are wasting an opportunity.
This is ridiculous on the face of it. The source of the energy that generates faults is magma convection deep in the earth. Small earthquakes have no ability to generate a larger one. Just because some scientist says something doesn't mean the logic cannot be argued with. There are quacks in every profession.
If you are going to make such statements, then you need to show the mechanism. Mr. Williams needs to explain the mechanism behind his assertion.
Anyone can rub a couple of rough boards together to get the idea that for a given amount of pressure, every 'jolt' reduces it.
The problem with tectonics is that there isn't a 'given' amount of pressure, but a continuing supply of new pressure, but on a human timescale, the pressure is pretty-much constant.
You're also rat-hole-ing the earthquake discussion. Fracking and injections don't cause earthquakes. Not having good jobs DOES cause social unrest. The American middle class has been decimated in this depression and the natural gas production revolution holds the hope for reversing part of that.
The problem is that ivory-tower types don't like the idea of blue collar workers making six-figure incomes. They're dirty.
The estimates of future gasoline shortages five or six years ago were mainly petroleum industry sourced propaganda, using old projections they knew at the time were already obsolete given gas consumption was going down drastically. They needed to drum up fear to reduce offshore drilling regulation before it was too late. Otherwise, they were coming from peak oil conspiracy projections, which were also heavily biased and equally dubious.
LNG electric power is certainly a large part of what's replacing coal, I didn't mean to imply I thought otherwise, as my statement that plug in electric vehicles would be running on LNG in that form in the future was meant to indicate. I actually thought it was funny a couple of years ago when many were saying that electric cars were going to be running on coal, when they didn't realize what their own championed energy sector was doing to the coal industry. LNG is still carbon based and not ideal, and will ultimately be a temporary fix, so like you, I favor the expansion of other sources as well
***
Early in the thread you consistently indicated that these small quakes would lower the chances of a large one occurring (hence your saying they should frack around the San Andreas) this remains untrue. Additionally, for Ohio, quakes can occur due to fault stress as well as glacial causes. From the EPA, well before this fracking risk came about:
Quote:
The origins of Ohio earthquakes, as with earthquakes throughout the eastern United States, are poorly understood at this time. Those in Ohio appear to be associated with ancient zones of weakness in the
Earth's crust that formed during continental collision and mountain-building events about a billion years
ago. These zones are characterized by deeply buried and poorly known faults, some of which serve as
the sites for periodic release of strain that is constantly building up in the North American continental
plate due to continuous movement of the tectonic plates that make up the Earth's crust.
The study that says fracking increases quake risk checks out. It's not fake science, and again, I guarantee that insurance companies will see it as real science too.
There also should be no doubt that TX benefits more from fracking operations than local populations do, or else we'd see more money and economic activity in cities like Williston, ND and Laramie, WY than we are in Houston TX. No doubt Williston and Laramie are doing well, and their GDP growth rates have been very good, but it's also pretty clear that Houston is taking $2 for every $1 they give back. It boggles me sometimes that this state can be so protective of other states taking our water, but it's a-ok to ship out our natural gas.
I actually don't care if people make money off of fracking as long as their entire community's involved in the process, informed, and agrees that the benefits outweigh the risks, and as long as downstream communities aren't going to be affected by chemicals in the drinking water. I come from West Virginia coal mining, steel working stock, and I know the economic windfall will prove too powerful given how their communities have been decimated by those industry collapses. I also know that like coal and steel, this is a temporary short lived band-aid that will benefit a few over the many, the out of state more than the local, rather than a long term economic fix and the eventual bust will hit these cities hard.
As for social unrest. HA. LOL. Coming from that stock, let me be clear that nobody outside cares. Coal miners striking or rioting in the hills of WV will not ever make a dent in the national psyche. If they get trapped in a mine, okay, but if the poverty and health of Appalachia was ever a real concern, leaders of any party have had plenty of opportunity to fix it over the last 150 years and we can tell by where the cities are today how high a priority it's been.
Sorry, paying landowners in OH for drilling rights doesn't send money to TX.
Paying people to build drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX.
Setting up drilling rigs in OH doesn't send money to TX ( other than parts sourced there ).
No one is debating that local land owners and municipalities are getting paid. That's obvious, because these residents and towns would not allow it if it were not financially lucrative to them. The question, however, is that for every dollar they're getting paid, how much wealth is going back to Texas (or Oklahoma or wherever these companies are headquartered)? If it's more than a dollar, I think we're getting a raw deal. But my suspicion is that in some cases it's more than ten dollars leaving the state, which shouldn't be happening.
I could be wrong, but I'd love to see a breakdown of the numbers and just how much of our wealth is leaving the state considering the risk we may be taking on for these operations.
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.
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.
