North American Shale
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Don't forget the infamous 'Devonian Properties".
Imperial would have probably won , or settled for less in 2005 if they had hadn't try to play cute with the Supreme Court. I actually have some bias for Imperial- they ramped petroleum production by over 400% in the war years. Oil cuttings chutes going direct tot 85 ft deep boreholes...
Smartening from what? Not leaking to not leaking even less? Public confidence was lost because of conspiracy theorist yuppies invading the countryside and drilling the snot out of the aquifers and releasing methane with a different chemical composition than what is found a km or two below. They did it to themselves and couldn't accept that fact so they sought out a scapegoat.
The samething happened on a farm in SK. They made claims that CO2 was being released from a CO2 EOR project, environauts blew gaskets and the sky fell. In the end, no CO2 was leaking.
Alarm bell article.... Alleged leak of CO2 at Sask. farm to be probed - Technology & Science - CBC News
Reality.... Carbon Management Canada » International team concludes no CO2 leak on Kerr farm
Public confidence hasn't been lost. If public confidence had been lost, the demand for petroleum would be dropping. It's the exact opposite. Part of what drives the anger behind these discussions is that people will condemn the industry, especially those who work in it (like the greasy roughneck), while at the same time buying the newest iPhone, upgrading their computer, using the internet, buying a new car made entirely of plastic but supposedly getting lower gas mileage, so they can drive around more for the same amount they used to use.... it's hollow outrage that speaks of zero inclination to effect change, and simple desire to pass the blame on to the person providing what they're demanding.
petros, the excerpt you posted clearly outlines a higher rate of methane contamination in well waters near active drilling sites, methane of a type found at greater depths than the aquifers supplying the wells. The closing statement "We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use." suggests that current levels of stewardship, data, and regulation are insufficient to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction.
Is Goodwater on top of the Lignite coal belt, Petros? drilling a water well into that stuff is , well, 'interesting'.
Its kind of a 'bitter with the better' industry, Nick. Fast expansion was needed to replace coal burning expansion.
Its like Imperial in 1940 , being told to over pump the backside out of the Turner valley fields.
Public confidence in shale-gas extraction methods (not the petroleum industry in general) is down because issues have been raised, albeit in a very sensationalist manner, about the mess being left behind, and these issues have gone largely unanswered by the industry itself. I think it's more than a little shameful of you to try and lay this off on the greasy roughnecks when we all know full well it is the big bums in the leather chairs in the Calgarys and Houstons of the world that are behind the quest to thicken their bottom line at the expense of others.
Oh pish tosh. Green sells right now, and not a single one of these companies can sell an anti-fracking agenda, because the outraged aren't willing to pay for it. They want cheap, abundant energy. In fact, we tend to see it as our right here in North America, as something our government had better provide us. It's not strictly the corporate world driving the industry, it's the consumer.
Ultimately your are correct, you'll get no argument from me on that. But as long as you and I continue to indulge our addiction to fossil fuels there will be those seeking to cash in on it. It's the "pushers" looking to maximize their profits that are leading to things like cutting corners to save a few bucks.
Last edited:
There are enough examples out there, of what they reap with that sort of thinking, that they've learned it costs them more in the long run.
Hubby spent years as a roughneck, took his petroleum engineering tech, went into completions work, then management, then quality management. His whole job was dedicated to making sure things work right, that nothing leaks, that things are safe. The industry is not full of cowboys like people think it is. There is plenty of well thought out, careful work happening, because it honestly messes with their bottom line if it's not.
Anyway- I'd pull your millions out of Bahrain right now, Petros. and Nick... If the Saudis start belt tightening, expect that place to suffer first
Thankfully you are likely correct, but can you guarantee that the industry is completely devoid of cowboys?
Fracking is still more good news than Bad, Nick. Stabilised energy costs .List of countries by recoverable shale gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, would there not be some wisdom in limiting possible opportunities for cowboys to take advantage of ?
I agree. Energy self-sufficiency, jobs and all round economic benefits, all worthy goals. Still, if you look at what has allegedly gone down in areas where shale gas extraction is already underway, how should we deal with people who have suffer a personal loss in order to keep the whole thing moving forward ? If it comes to pass that the toxic water issues are substantiated, who should cover the cost of correcting that situation?
There are already a plethora of industry standards in place.
Your assertion was that fracking is proven by documentaries to be an unsafe practice, not that a few cowboys are circumventing regulations.
I didn't say that. I said evidence exists that warrants a closer look. This evidence is available from a number of sources, television documentaries are but one source, and one that is suspect at best as their aim would be to make a few bucks by airing the thing. Try this: enter "hydraulic fracturing" into a search engine and see what happens. I tried that with Google and it yielded 16.5 million results in 1.5 seconds. Scan the first two or three pages of links quickly, looking for indications as to which side of the fence the articles is coming down on. You'll figure out pretty quick that there are a lot of people with serious concerns. Even the apparently objective articles will make a point of listing the dangers involved. You're telling me that all these people are alarmists and sensationalists and that there really is no reason not to continue with business as usual? I'm just not convinced that the status quo is adequate.
Last edited:
File:Bakken map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.oilshalegas.com/hornrivershalebasin.html
I lost some heavy cash investing in REDSTAR in the Horn river gas fields..
Last edited:
There is well in excess of 50 years of information, data and real time results. To my knowledge, none of it supports the contentions that you suggest
Despite the eco-lobby's attempts in transforming the practice of fracking into a contemporary issue, the fact remains it does not represent the doom-n-gloom scenario that is being painted. The evidence you seek is right in front of your nose and there are reams of info/documents that support the overall safety of the practice.
You want to question it, that's great - but in the absence of any tangible proof (as opposed to theory or fiction), why would the industry shut-down simply to accommodate an unfounded concern?