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.
You appear to believe that fracturing did not exist until after the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That is incorrect.
What happened post 2005 is tate , when dealing with Federal decisions concerning oil and gas well completions (fracture treatments are a completion technique) Federal regulators could use what is called a Categorical Exclusion, rather than going through a full Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These relate to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
From the first fracture treatment (in 1949) through the passage of NEPA in 1969 we had 20 years where there was no Federal requirement to document the effects of fracture treatments. Also from 1969 through 2005, EAs and EIS were frequently used to comply with NEPA. Literally thousands of wells were fracture treated using those type of analysis documents.
Even more importantly NEPA only applies when there is a Federal decision to be made. State approvals (the vast majority in many states) would never need a NEPA analysis, although similar environmental documentation may be a state requirement. Again, thousands of wells have been fracture treated without recourse to the 2005 Act
There've already been stories of waste being dumped into aquifers or hauled off into municipal water treatment plants.
You're FOS.
There is no way to inject disposal water into an aquifer; disposal wells have casing that isolates the wellbore from the surrounding formation.
Besides, no company would want the liability that would come with doing so. The fines, legal fees, remediation cost, and civil liability would add up to billions of dollars, which would bankrupt the company - if regulatory agencies didn't shut it down first.
We need to get to a point where we don't need oil and gas.
We'll always need oil & gas to some extent (lubricants, solvents, plastics, etc.). The way to reduce our crude oil consumption is to develop alternate fuel sources, and to do that, we need oil & gas to produce the necessary energy and resources for research & development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
No, leaving it in the ground provides future generation with the resource that may prove valuable in other, more important ways.
Nothing is more important than saving lives, heating our homes, powering our vehicles, and educating our children. But even if some more important use of hydrocarbons was invented, people like you would still oppose hydrocarbon production on ideological grounds not rooted in science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
To recover all the recoverable oil would indeed require vast areas be destroyed. Would you want to live next to a shale oil operation?
I live less than 5 miles from the nearest producing oil well. Now please stop with this ridiculous claim, because it's an outright lie. I bet you've never even seen an oil or gas well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Oil is becoming scarcer. We're using billions and billions of barrels every year. No one would even look at the shale oil and the other expensive technologies if there wasn't an issue.
You're in denial if you think that currently unrecoverable reserves will remain unrecoverable for the rest of eternity. Technology will continue to advance, and market conditions will change (have you seen the price of WTI and/or Brent over the last 90 days?).
Nothing is more important than saving lives, heating our homes, powering our
vehicles, and educating our children. But even if some more important use of
hydrocarbons was invented, people like you would still oppose hydrocarbon
production on ideological grounds not rooted in science.
That's a rather poor attempt to denounce those who aren't short-sighted and care about the planet we depend on for our lives. Clean air, safe water, those are a lot more important than powering vehicles. We can heat homes without petroleum but it simply requires more work to do so. We don't need oil to educate our children, I'm not even sure what you're trying to claim with that. Oil has likely cost more lives, from wars, drilling accidents, oil spills and their long term health impacts, etc., than it has ever saved.
Quote:
I live less than 5 miles from the nearest producing oil well. Now please stop
with this ridiculous claim, because it's an outright lie. I bet you've never
even seen an oil or gas well.
Let me guess you work for an oil company or hold oil company stock, or have relatives or friends who do. And if you aren't making this up to bolster your argument, let me guess, it's not a particularly large well. How would you like to live right next to one, a large one?
Quote:
You're in denial if you think that currently unrecoverable reserves will remain unrecoverable for the rest of eternity. Technology will continue to advance, and market conditions will change (have you seen the price of WTI and/or Brent over the last 90 days?).
Why the need to even consider shale oil if there's plenty of oil as you claim?
There is no way to inject disposal water into an aquifer; disposal wells have casing that isolates the wellbore from the surrounding formation.
Besides, no company would want the liability that would come with doing so. The fines, legal fees, remediation cost, and civil liability would add up to billions of dollars, which would bankrupt the company - if regulatory agencies didn't shut it down first.
Nothing made by humans lasts forever. Some people thought Love's Canal had enough of a barrier to be safe to live around. And we can't see what's underground that well. We can't tell where something injected into the ground is going to end up.
Some people are perfectly fine with making their fortune and declaring bankruptcy for the corporation, and then skipping out of town.
We can heat homes without petroleum but it simply requires more work to do so.
Other than coal or natural gas what would you suggest?
Quote:
We don't need oil to educate our children, I'm not even sure what you're trying to claim with that. Oil has likely cost more lives, from wars, drilling accidents, oil spills and their long term health impacts, etc., than it has ever saved.
Look around you, nearly everything you see in some way shape or form has been made possible by fossil fuels. Our entire world as we know it built on fossil fuel energy and products derived from them. Cement? Produced with heat from fossil fuels. Steel and other metals? Produced with energy from fossil fuels starting at the mine until it arrives at your front door. Dry wall? Gypsum from coal plants. Plastics? Produced with oil products. Even the wood in your home(assuming standard construction) was produced with fossil fuel energy. Pharmaceuticals, schools, hospitals, streets, sidewalks, airports.....
If you don't think those things have improved peoples lives you're being foolish.
Some people thought Love's Canal had enough of a barrier to be safe to live around.
Have you actually read the history of this? This dump was created long before people had concerns about it and apparently the School Board was warned about it numerous times.
Here's from the transfer of the deed for $1.
Quote:
Prior to the delivery of this instrument of conveyance, the grantee herein has been advised by the grantor that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof. It is therefore understood and agreed that, as a part of the consideration for this conveyance and as a condition thereof, no claim, suit, action or demand of any nature whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, its successors or assigns, against the grantor, its successors or assigns, for injury to a person or persons, including death resulting therefrom, or loss of or damage to property caused by, in connection with or by reason of the presence of said industrial wastes. It is further agreed as a condition hereof that each subsequent conveyance of the aforesaid lands shall be made subject to the foregoing provisions and conditions.
In January 1954, the architect of the school wrote to the education committee informing them that during excavation, workers discovered two dump sites filled with 55-US-gallon (210 l; 46 imp gal) drums containing chemical wastes. The architect also noted that it would be "poor policy" to build in that area since it was not known what wastes were present in the ground, and the concrete foundation might be subsequently damaged.[12] The school board then moved the school site eighty to eighty-five feet further north.[3] The kindergarten playground also had to be relocated because a chemical dump lay directly beneath. Upon completion in 1955, 400 children attended the school, and it opened along with several other schools that had been built to accommodate students. That same year, a twenty-five foot area crumbled exposing toxic chemical drums, which then filled with water during rainstorms. This created large puddles that children enjoyed playing in
Sounds to me like the most responsible party is the school board, yes? FYI a very large percentage of the worst toxic dump sites in the nation were created and owned federally.
That's a rather poor attempt to denounce those who aren't short-sighted and care about the planet we depend on for our lives. Clean air, safe water, those are a lot more important than powering vehicles. We can heat homes without petroleum but it simply requires more work to do so. We don't need oil to educate our children, I'm not even sure what you're trying to claim with that. Oil has likely cost more lives, from wars, drilling accidents, oil spills and their long term health impacts, etc., than it has ever saved.
You're ignorant of how many products are made from oil. Everything made of or containing plastic is made from oil, and that includes practically everything used in the healthcare field. Oil & gas also are responsible for much of the energy that heats & powers our homes, schools, vehicles, and workplaces. I favor a transition from coal to NG as the main fuel source for our electrical generation facilities, for economic and ecological reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
Let me guess you work for an oil company or hold oil company stock, or have relatives or friends who do. And if you aren't making this up to bolster your argument, let me guess, it's not a particularly large well. How would you like to live right next to one, a large one?
It's not one large well, it's hundreds of small (vertical) wells that were drilled in the 1960s. Each produces 200-400 bbls (8,400 to 16,800 gallons) per month. I almost did live next to an oil well; there's a dry hole about 300 yds from my back porch. And I wouldn't mind if a producer drilled a high-producing oil or gas well on my property, because I'd love to get that royalty check each month!
I don't work for an oil company, but I do work for a midstream (pipeline) company. I've been on hundreds of locations at various stages from drilling to fracturing to production, have witnessed with my own eyes what happens, and have talked to everybody from the frac hands to the geologists and company representatives so that I can learn firsthand about what happens, when, and why / why not.
Why the need to even consider shale oil if there's plenty of oil as you claim?[/quote]
Much of it is shale oil. I never claimed otherwise, as you are implying.
Some people thought Love's Canal had enough of a barrier to be safe to live around.
Love Canal wasn't an SWD, so your comparison is apples-to-oranges.
[quote=arctichomesteader;39449779] And we can't see what's underground that well. We can't tell where something injected into the ground is going to end up.[quote]
Do some research into seismology, MWD / LWD, and of course geology. Plus, there's the old-school way of counting joints as they go into (and trip out of) the hole.
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.
