Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 08:52 am
Quote:
After USGS Analysis, EIA Cuts Estimates of Marcellus Shale Gas Reserves by 80%
By Stephen Lacey on Aug 26, 2011 at 11:58 am

The U.S. Geological Survey released its estimates for natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale formation this week, concluding that earlier estimates were significantly inflated.

According to the USGS, there are about 84 trillion cubic feet of technically-recoverable natural gas under the Marcellus Shale, a massive sedimentary rock formation below eight East Coast states. Previous estimates from the Energy Information Administration put the figures at 410 trillion cubic feet.


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/26/305467/usgs-marcellus-shale-gas-estimates-overestimated-by-80/

Quote:
Friday, September 09, 2011
Mireya Navarro, environmental reporter for The New York Times focused on the New York region and the author of Green Wedding: Planning Your Eco-Friendly Celebration (Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 2009), talks about the state DEC report on hydraulic drilling for natural gas, the economic impact of drilling, and the start of the public comment period.


http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2011/sep/09/fracking-report/
Despite Farmerman's expertise, I'm still not convinced that hydrolic fracking is a safe and economically winner for New York and the northeastern US.
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 01:23 pm
@tsarstepan,
Now, just hold on there, young feller. You can't come close to showing that the old curmudgeon has claimed that fracking is environmentally sound. I don't agree that if it isn't, it couldn't be.

Still, he is the geologist around here, and I always pay attention to his opinion - except for politics, of course.
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 08:12 pm
@tsarstepan,
I thought this was going to be a thread about Battlestar Galactica Smile
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 08:20 pm
@roger,
Did you read his responses in my review thread on the documentary, Gasland? I drop the link here but I can't copy and paste very well using my iPod Touch.

He's definitely prohydraulic fracking.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 11:21 pm
@tsarstepan,
I didn't, but I'll put Gasland into the search window and see what comes up.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2011 11:29 pm
@tsarstepan,
Found it.

Okay, I said you couldn't come close, and you did. Still, on that page he was more unhappy with the content of the video, than anything. On the other hand, he is much more positive on the process in that thread than I recalled from other threads.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2011 07:08 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/08/1043463/-EPA-finds-Fracking-Fluid-Chemicals-in-Wyoming-drinking-water-?via=siderec

EPA finds fracking fluids in WY drinking water, after the various drilling companies swore up and down that this was impossible.

Cycloptichorn
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2011 08:36 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you Cycloptichorn for that important update.
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 12:23 am
Big controversy in Oz right now. Farm lands being polluted.....
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 05:06 am
@margo,
From natural gas extraction Margo?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 05:55 am
@tsarstepan,
Youre full of **** Tsar. Ive started a thread about directional drilling in Pa and have put in both pro and con opinions. Your not close enough to understand the issues. You get everything you know from doctored news articles that dont even quote the USGS corectly and its not my job to stand around and play Setanta and argue fly **** in pepper.
I am involved in this program as a member of an industry committee and having said that, I must now resign from A2K as it may interfere with my assignment.
All you need to know about me is that Im trying to keep a fuckin open mind and not, like most people on A2K, jump to some goddam conclusion with minimal understandings and information.

This really fucks me over nicely by proposing a position that may or may not be correct.
A2K is not able to police itself to maintain a members anonimity.

Too bad cause there finally has been a woodworker to talk to on the board
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 10:20 am
@farmerman,
Sorry to have put you in a bind FM Sad I wish I hadn't posted the news now.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 9 Dec, 2011 01:26 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Your not close enough to understand the issues.


Some people might say that you're too close to see your own bias. All I said above was you haven't convinced me. And most of my sources aren't fly off the cuff blogs but Pulitzer winning institutions (Propublica, NY Times, NPR, etc...) so if you don't want to take their research into account than that's your problem not mine.

Your personal attack is highly unnecessary.
0 Replies
 
margo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 02:52 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

From natural gas extraction Margo?

Coal seam gas. In, or under, some of the big farming, and wine areas, north of Sydney.

Politicians jumping in all directions.....
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 05:57 pm
@margo,
Interesting. I didn't know most of the country had enough water for widespread fracking. They're not talking about a few thousand gallons per well.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 10:11 pm
From what I've read, there is fracking and fracking. I'm against the horrible, of course, but not sure I'm against the smarter. Not qualified to judge, but reading along.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 10:20 pm
@ossobuco,
Neither am I, which is why I tend to follow fm on the subject. I've worked for well servicing companies, but those have a very minor supporting role in the operation. I doubt even the Haliburton frack crews are really knowledgeable about undesired consequences.

It might seem odd, but the power plant I worked for had its own Weatley frac pump. It was used for breaking up clinkers in the boiler, which tells me nothing about the frack process, of course.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 10:25 pm
@ossobuco,
There was a useful article on fracking in the new yorker probably a bit more than a year ago now, quite specific re practices here and there. This is part of why I sound iffy - I gather some practices are poor and some are not (or are they).

My subscription lapsed and the NYer is a strangely hard website to search, even for someone like me that loves it. It was also hard to search while I had a subscription and will be again when I sign up again. For such bright lights, the search thing is among the worst I've seen.

However, that was a good article.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 10:31 pm
@farmerman,
I'm sorry, fm, if you leave, beg you not to, but get it if you do.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Dec, 2011 10:35 pm
@ossobuco,
Also, farmer, I've no idea who you are in real life and you and I have known each other for something like ten years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Fracking Wastewater Treatment - Question by jem018
The oil leaks and fracking thread - Discussion by edgarblythe
What is fraccing fluid? - Question by oristarA
Earthquake Strikes Near Ohio Fracking Site - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Hillary Clinton and Fracking - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Illustrating a twisted set of values - Discussion by plainoldme
Police violence at anti franking protest - Question by FOUND SOUL
Jobs in franking - Question by lee manning
 
  1. Forums
  2. » To Frack or Not to Frack?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/25/2020 at 07:06:03