HeartOfDixie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
This is great news.
Anti-fracking nutjobs have no real argument.
|
|
01-01-2018 04:14 PM |
|
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
Let me be clear...... I’m not anti or pro fracking. What I am is pro monitoring and regulating. How could you be against that? But this board would vote for a pedophile because he has an R next to his name so as long as an R proposes no regulations or monitoring those that can’t think for themselves will cheer it on.
|
|
01-01-2018 04:20 PM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 68,826
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 7006
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-01-2018 04:20 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Let me be clear...... I’m not anti or pro fracking. What I am is pro monitoring and regulating. How could you be against that? But this board would vote for a pedophile because he has an R next to his name so as long as an R proposes no regulations or monitoring those that can’t think for themselves will cheer it on.
we're not mach....it there's one thing that our side understands in full, is checks and balances.....that's a fair statement based on the past 2 years.....c'mon man....
I'll agree that both sides have whiffed it en macro over decades......it's why #henceDJT......you have to at least acknowledge some semblance of that at this point....
and the pedo thingy was nothing more than a latch-key effort to regain a vote in the senate....
that comparative is night and day in relevance....it's unfair....
this was never about left or right......it was about best method coupled with right or wrong......
surely you know that about me by now....and it lends to your goal in premise.....
(This post was last modified: 01-01-2018 05:05 PM by stinkfist.)
|
|
01-01-2018 05:01 PM |
|
Love and Honor
Skipper
Posts: 6,925
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 237
I Root For: Miami, MACtion
Location: Chicagoland
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
|
|
01-01-2018 06:34 PM |
|
stinkfist
nuts zongo's in the house
Posts: 68,826
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 7006
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-01-2018 06:34 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
1. they'd kill to capture this at the bottom of the sea mass...they're limited due to preventing 'escape' due to failure
2. that seismic activity is irrelevant relevant to mass....here's a linky for the largest recorded https://gizmodo.com/shattering-the-world...1751407116
3 & 4. yes...there are vast resources relative to water below certain grades....
5. not relative to containment as it currently exists....
6. lends to opening statement relative to containment....it's a real concern....the hazardous scale and chemicals that are used in the system are what most don't know about (or published).....the 'scrubbing' that occurs would blow your mind.....it's why the containment pools are the real concern.....
I'm all for fracking.....however, staying on top of it should be of the utmost concern for many that have to deal with the supply side of the equation....that simply has to have redundant oversight in place to prevent a potential ecological disaster.....
|
|
01-01-2018 07:23 PM |
|
JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,573
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1731
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
|
Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-01-2018 04:20 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Let me be clear...... I’m not anti or pro fracking. What I am is pro monitoring and regulating. How could you be against that? But this board would vote for a pedophile because he has an R next to his name so as long as an R proposes no regulations or monitoring those that can’t think for themselves will cheer it on.
Lololol
Mach, babe, we (kinda) get the pent up, leftist, knee jerk angst. Your corrupt gal lost and the tears still flow amighty.
But! I would challenge you to find one person, ONE, that is relatively active on this board, that would fit your outrageous description above.
R’s and conservatives in general are the ones out there taking care and being good custodians of our open spaces, lands, parks etc. We camp, fish, hunt, live in the very environs we’re talking about. Don’t live in the high density concrete jungles and monotonously and constantly moan about things we know nothing about.
Monitoring and regulation? Of course. No one would suggest anything counter.
As far as the pedophile “comments”..., that’s just a tad disturbing that you went THERE.
|
|
01-02-2018 09:47 AM |
|
usmbacker
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,677
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 1320
I Root For: Beer
Location: Margaritaville
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
America could become oil king of the world in 2018
This is great news and why Trump reducing regulations on fracking matters.
Quote:The United States is poised to ramp up crude oil production by 10% in 2018 to about 11 million barrels per day, according to research firm Rystad Energy.
Surging shale oil output should allow the United States to dethrone Russia and Saudi Arabia as the planet's leading crude oil producer, Rystad predicted in a recent report. The U.S. hasn't been the global leader, nor ahead of both Russia and Saudi Arabia, since 1975.
"The market has completely changed due to the U.S. shale machine," said Nadia Martin Wiggen, Rystad's vice president of markets.
The prediction shows how the fracking revolution has turned America into an energy powerhouse -- a transformation that President Trump has vowed to accelerate by cutting regulation. This long-term shift has allowed the U.S. to be less reliant on foreign oil, including from the turbulent Middle East.
U.S. oil production slipped -- but didn't completely collapse -- after Saudi-led OPEC launched a price war in late 2015 aimed at reclaiming market share lost to shale and other players. A massive supply glut caused crude to crash from around $100 a barrel to a low of $26.
Cheap prices forced shale companies in Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere to dial back. Domestic output bottomed at 8.55 million barrels per day in September 2016, down 11% from the recent peak in April 2015, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Keep reading here.
|
|
01-04-2018 10:47 AM |
|
Marc Mensa
You'll Get Nothing and Like It
Posts: 14,253
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 682
I Root For: The Underdog
Location: Samaria
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
We'd be like The Abe Froman of Oil business.
|
|
01-04-2018 11:10 AM |
|
Fo Shizzle
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-01-2018 06:34 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
If the technology has improved and eliminated past issues?...Im fine with it. I still think we need to watch it very closely in populated areas. All it will take is one disaster to set off mass hysteria.....Remember 3 mile Island? Without that we likely would have lots nuclear energy produced today.
|
|
01-04-2018 12:20 PM |
|
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
yes, I went there with Roy Moore because it shows just how absurd the GOP can be when it comes to voting. If he has an R next to his name the base is going to vote for him. Doesn't matter is he was a pedophile. That is VERY DISTURBING!
|
|
01-04-2018 02:21 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,762
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3208
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-04-2018 02:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: yes, I went there with Roy Moore because it shows just how absurd the GOP can be when it comes to voting. If he has an R next to his name the base is going to vote for him. Doesn't matter is he was a pedophile. That is VERY DISTURBING!
As opposed to democrats who voted lockstep for Ted “Blond in the Pond” Kennedy?
|
|
01-04-2018 02:28 PM |
|
Brookes Owl
Heisman
Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-04-2018 12:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (01-01-2018 06:34 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
If the technology has improved and eliminated past issues?...Im fine with it. I still think we need to watch it very closely in populated areas. All it will take is one disaster to set off mass hysteria.....Remember 3 mile Island? Without that we likely would have lots nuclear energy produced today.
I work in this industry (environmental side, with energy clients). The highest risk involved here is in L&H's #5 and #6 above, but not exactly as described. Contamination of groundwater by toxic compounds is most likely to occur because of unsound practices at the surface, where containment of these compounds is insufficient, protection against leakage is not managed, and spills/releases are not addressed quickly and/or appropriately. But this is nothing new in any industry. The Clean Water Act and EPA, in addition to many local regulations (and regulatory agencies), already have rules upon rules for how to deal with hazardous substances and how they are handled. Fracking-specific rules (related to gw contamination, anyway) are redundant.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 04:39 PM by Brookes Owl.)
|
|
01-04-2018 04:38 PM |
|
Kaplony
Palmetto State Deplorable
Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-04-2018 04:38 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: (01-04-2018 12:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (01-01-2018 06:34 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
If the technology has improved and eliminated past issues?...Im fine with it. I still think we need to watch it very closely in populated areas. All it will take is one disaster to set off mass hysteria.....Remember 3 mile Island? Without that we likely would have lots nuclear energy produced today.
I work in this industry (environmental side, with energy clients). The highest risk involved here is in L&H's #5 and #6 above, but not exactly as described. Contamination of groundwater by toxic compounds is most likely to occur because of unsound practices at the surface, where containment of these compounds is insufficient, protection against leakage is not managed, and spills/releases are not addressed quickly and/or appropriately. But this is nothing new in any industry. The Clean Water Act and EPA, in addition to many local regulations (and regulatory agencies), already have rules upon rules on how to deal with hazardous substances and how they are handled. Fracking-specific rules (related to gw contamination, anyway) are redundant.
But redundant rules are the type of rules the government does second best behind confusing and just slightly ahead of conflicting.
|
|
01-04-2018 04:41 PM |
|
Brookes Owl
Heisman
Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Trump Is About To Repeal Obama-Era ‘Fracking’ Regulations
(01-04-2018 04:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (01-04-2018 04:38 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote: (01-04-2018 12:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (01-01-2018 06:34 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: There are legitimate safety concerns with fracking, but like much of business in general, there is a clear incentive for companies to follow the rules and make continuous improvements to prevent any crises. As Peter Zeihan points out if any of you have read The Absent Superpower, here are the concerns (most serious being first):
1. Methane leakage. Any natural gas released from fracking contributes to the greenhouse effect, but any company in the fracking industry has all the reason in the world to work on limiting any leakage for the simple reason that it's lost product that could be sold.
2. Earthquakes. Fracking itself involves seismic activity, but any earthquakes resulting from it come from the water disposal that's part of it. But again, anyone in the shale sector has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible to limit water used (and the associated costs) via recycling and research to identify where disposal will not trigger small earthquakes.
3. Water usage. Many shale fields are in water-scarce regions, but providers actually prefer to use ground water below the table used for the drinking supply because it's a lot easier to treat. And fracking as a process uses far and away the least water of any major fuel source anyways.
4. Landscape/noise complaints. Fields have become a lot more efficient in terms of space usage in recent years however, so the operation footprint today is much smaller than it was a decade ago.
5. Toxicity. About 0.1% of fracking fluids are toxic, with the rest being water, sand, or everyday materials (e.g. sodium chloride); the industry trend is to make it entirely non-toxic as a PR matter to the point where chemical execs have posted videos of them drinking the liquid.
6. Drinking water contamination. Many fields drill through the water table, where the only chance of contamination is in the shaft because the frack itself is over a mile below the surface. However, operators encase that portion of the pipe in solid concrete and have created a standard in which cases of leakage are statistically insignificant compared to all wells in existence. If this was truly a threat then the Obama administration would've shut it down for sure, so the fact they didn't speaks volumes about the safety question.
If the technology has improved and eliminated past issues?...Im fine with it. I still think we need to watch it very closely in populated areas. All it will take is one disaster to set off mass hysteria.....Remember 3 mile Island? Without that we likely would have lots nuclear energy produced today.
I work in this industry (environmental side, with energy clients). The highest risk involved here is in L&H's #5 and #6 above, but not exactly as described. Contamination of groundwater by toxic compounds is most likely to occur because of unsound practices at the surface, where containment of these compounds is insufficient, protection against leakage is not managed, and spills/releases are not addressed quickly and/or appropriately. But this is nothing new in any industry. The Clean Water Act and EPA, in addition to many local regulations (and regulatory agencies), already have rules upon rules on how to deal with hazardous substances and how they are handled. Fracking-specific rules (related to gw contamination, anyway) are redundant.
But redundant rules are the type of rules the government does second best behind confusing and just slightly ahead of conflicting.
For sure. Without them, I might be out of work.
|
|
01-04-2018 04:55 PM |
|