Water? The water that we have too f*cking much of on the Prairie and keeps increasing with every winter that passes? That's no issue.
Come up with something realistic already.
Come up with something realistic already.
North American Shale
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
The water that would be needed to the tune of three to five times the volume of oil produced that's left, like frakking waste water, so laden with toxins that recycling is no longer an option. This information isn't hidden at all, it's out there for anyone who wants to make an informed decision. Granted you have to consider its source and take it from there, like anything you hear from an environmentalist is likely to be overstated, just as anything your hear from the industry itself is likely to be understated.
Well please, offer up another some other numbers. I make no claim to infallibility, my point is that there is reason for concern and the only responses I seem to be getting are long on criticism and short on fact.
Well please, offer up another some other numbers. I make no claim to infallibility, my point is that there is reason for concern and the only responses I seem to be getting are long on criticism and short on fact.
A lot of the prairie shale residual water can be wind evaporated. The Marcellus shale water is more problematic.
Okay, here's a plan. How about every time you fill the gas tank in your pick-up truck, we put a couple or three drums of toxic water in the cab with you and fill the box with waste rock. It wouldn't be a lot to look after, I mean you probably only fill a couple of times a month, right? After all, you've got lots of room at home right?
I'm sure there must be adequate ways to deal with the waste water, it's just that you have to get someone to commit to doing it. This is where most of the existing problems are coming from, the companies mining the stuff are intent on employing cut-and-run strategies that are leaving a mess behind just because it's cheaper that way.
Yup, the Earth produced all that oil with the sole purpose of giving humanity something to exploit. That is like saying the highest ambition of a tree is to become lumber and that of a cow is to become a steak. What an absurd statement.
Those who think that oil exists for the sole purpose is to exploit for huge profits don't give a damn about future generations. Arguing with them is like saying the sole purpose of your forehead is to beat it against a brick wall.
And trees frack the surface, not a hundred or more feet down, destabilizing the Earth's crust. We are already seeing major sink holes in the southern states as a result of fracking, but hell, as long as share holders are filling their pockets, who cares about those who are losing their homes.
I'm beginning to hope for that extinction event so the Earth can heal from human stupidity.
Last edited:
It bugs me some that those here speaking out against environmental concerns are doing so with strawman or ad hominem arguments, not from a place of informed and considered opinion. What I've read and watched while trying to familiarize myself with the issues scares me some, and this could very well be just the sort of thing our provincial premier is inviting into our back yard with LNG development in the northeast. I'd love to hear from people who can offer me some reason to think it's not going to end up being a curse on future generations.
Pumping water underground could trigger major earthquake, say scientists | Science | theguardian.com
Fracking causes minor earthquakes, B.C. regulator says - British Columbia - CBC News
Fracking could lead to an 'earthquake domino effect' as it weakens fault lines deep in the earth's crust, scientists claim | Mail Online
Fracking and energy exploration connected to earthquakes, say studies - NBC News.com
Fracking causes minor earthquakes, B.C. regulator says - British Columbia - CBC News
Fracking could lead to an 'earthquake domino effect' as it weakens fault lines deep in the earth's crust, scientists claim | Mail Online
Fracking and energy exploration connected to earthquakes, say studies - NBC News.com
Unfortunately its the nature of the industry to play 'catch me if you can' with regulators, then complain about being over regulated.
However, Waste shale is actually pretty usefull in roadbed construction, esp for railways. I agree about the toxic residues . Years ago, in the chemical business, I saw too many people play 'fast and loose'with disposal.
Fracking has been going on for decades all across the globe. Much of the theoretical boogey-men that are being forwarded are nothing more than attempts by the eco-lobby insisting that industry prove a negative on their behalf.
Clark is finally realizing that in order to fund your province and provide all the freebies and bennies that people holler for, she needs to get cash in the door.
The technology has evolved considerably since its appearance. The use of highly toxic chemical solvents in frakking fluids is pretty much standard these days. And once where only wells in specific geological formations was considered economically feasible it is now used for almost all. Of over half a million active gas wells in the continental US, 90% have undergone hydraulic fracturing.
I don't deny for a second that there is huge potential for economic benefits, a boon BC is long overdue for. The tar sands have let Alberta go virtually debt free for a couple of decades now. But...with the abundance of existing complaints and issues surrounding this sort of resource exploitation wouldn't it be wise to know just what we're getting into so that we can take steps to make sure there are safeguards built into the contracts she is so anxious to hand out ? I'm not trying to turn on a red light here, but with the available evidence one would be an idiot to not hoist a flashing yellow at least.
Sure it has, but the basic principles remain unchanged
Nonsense... Water is the most common unless the formation has lots of clays.
Acid and/or solvents are also used but to clean out the well bore and/or assist in optimazation.
Alberta has been debt free (almost) because of the O&G resource... Oil sands are only the latest in terms of economic drivers in the province.
As per the 'complaints' - look who's doing the complaining. Many 'complaints' originate from the eco-lobbies themselves or other groups with vested interests... It's not unlike the Vancouver SPCA complaining about the rodeo during Stampede week... Far be iot for the Alberta branch to keep an eye on things, it is a PR stunt by the YVR group to get some kind of attention... No different than the myriad of 'studies' that decry theoretical problems with fracking or the oil sands in general.
How debt-free will Alberta be when you're left with the clean-up and the billionaires have moved back across the border?
Those billionaires would be you and me. Damn near everything in this country is partly owned by Crown Investment Corp, CPP or EI and private pensions and besides, what is there to "clean up"?
With the sheer volume of complaints out there, regardless of their source, would it not be folly not to have an objective, third party assessment up front ?