OT: Fracking banned in NY State

[christian]

Originally Posted by rnhood

I wish the gas/oil companies could ban the sale of gas/oil produced by fracking to states than ban the process.

They could, but as they are in the business of maximizing profit for their shareholders, they don't.

[johnmdesigner]

Originally Posted by firerescuefin

Not trolling you, but didn't you swear this place off and ask for the mods to delete your account about a year ago?

This thread was predictably volatile. I knew where it was going when JohnM initially posted it....and I suspect John knew as well (given other posts I've read of his about similar issues....and that's not slighting John). I actually was encouraged that it stayed on track as much as it has.

Getting worked up about this thread is a little bit of a Tempest in a Teacup.

Hey fella that's a little unfair.
Don't shoot the messenger...

I've spent enough time in upstate New York to know that there are two sides of the issue. Them damm Manhattanites with their weekend homes and the farmers who have to eek out a living the other 9 months of the year.

Let's not forget all the other upstate people who sacrificed a lot of time and effort on this issue because it mattered to them to keep the land pristine.

I'm originally from southern Ohio and witnessed first hand strip mining and the "wonderful" way the mining companies "restored" the land.

Sure, any process is safe as long as it's regulated. And we saw how regulation protected Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[likebikes]

didn't read any of this thread, but fracking has been banned in NYS since 2008 at the least, not sure what if anything has changed...?

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Hmmm, interesting. Every study - or I should say article - I've seen points to the pipeline having lower risk to the environment than rail. Can you link one that points to the pipeline being higher risk than rail?

your assuming that there will be oil or gas to truck. The economics are going south on tar sands. And the real risk isn't so much the transportation as the long term impact of the extraction, both the greenhouse gases and the massive permanent destruction of what was a very productive and important habitat.

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by 93legendti

Lol.

It's safer to truck in oil from Canada...just ask Warren Buffett- he owns trucking companies that bring in oil in from Canada. And we know tankers never have accidents. Right?

And how many miles of pipeline already exist-60,000 miles of oil pipelines and 306,000 miles of natural gas pipelines?


re relative risk - see response to Rnhood's earlier comment - in short the real risk isn't in the transportation.

BTW, are YOU paid to fight oil and gas?

Please don't Gruber the discussion.

Nope I've got no financial interest in this fight, my career no longer involves trying to get the oil and gas industry to do the right thing. Just someone who cares about the long term future of the earth. Jobs don't mean sh8t if we're dead.

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by gdw

This could be a pretty good discussion if we refrain from bringing politics into it. Please leave McConnell, Landrieu, Buffet, etc out of it and stick to fracking.

This issue is unavoidably political. Fracking occurs only because our politicians - and us - make it economically feasible.

From a scientific risk/reward, from a long term human health and societal good perspective, the extraordinary lengths that we are going to prop up the carbon economy make little sense, at least to me, and in my opinion are only possible because politicians allow them to be, and they do that to keep contributors happy. This isn't a D or R problem, its a politics and human nature problem as old as civilization itself.

If we actually internalized the true cost and long term risk of relying on these methodologies, if we limited drilling to areas where we didn't have to worry about long term deterioration of casings leading to major groundwater aquifer contamination, there's a significant chance that the cost would be so high, less dangerous alternatives would be more cost competitive. But as long as the extraordinarily wealthy oil and gas companies can keep their costs down through lobbying and political contributions that keep subsidies flowing, regulation and enforcement substandard, subsidized below market lease rates on federal lands, and no adequate bonding costs for long term remediation, they have no incentive to do anything other than to bleed the earth dry before moving on to another source. And this is compounded by Wall St. When CEOs and CFOs get pummeled on a quarterly basis if they miss the beancounters estimates, and as a result their jobs are on the line, there is a huge incentive to do everything they can to hit those numbers. We're all implicated in this, on a daily basis.

[rab]

Not hard to avoid thinking about the future when the profits are so good today.
Although that may be changing a bit now?

Hard to really assess the risk vs reward since a lot of the data is still out there and we may not know the degree of negatives until it is too late to do anything other than start trying to remediate.

Spent a lot of time thinking about this riding around the fracking riddled region of north texas. Saw a lot of land chewed up by this, but what worries me is that once you change things geologically (talking below the surface now), you can't really go back and set things back to how they were. Heard lots of denials that fracking/injection wells had anything to do with the increase in earthquakes for a while, but that eventually seemed to dissipate in the face of increasing evidence supporting it. Quite simply, it shouldn't be surprising if you change the composition of the earth that it might shift some, no?
I doubt the investors/stockholders are that concerned about that though...

[goonster]

Originally Posted by OtayBW

The third issue

Another risk factor is the presence of old, uncapped, abandoned and undocumented wells, which start to leak with nearby drilling activity. Apparently there are thousands of these in PA alone.

[redir]

Originally Posted by djg21

interestingly, the treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning is an IV drip of ethanol, i.e., grain alcohol. I grew up in the household of a Vet and saw the treatments fairly often. The alcohol stops the ethylene glycol from being metabolized into more toxic compounds.

Did the dogs and cats get drunk?

[malcolm]

Originally Posted by djg21

interestingly, the treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning is an IV drip of ethanol, i.e., grain alcohol. I grew up in the household of a Vet and saw the treatments fairly often. The alcohol stops the ethylene glycol from being metabolized into more toxic compounds.

Yes old school. Now they have fomepizole for ethylene glycol and methanol poisoning. Hemodialysis is also an option.

[54ny77]

I prefer Prestone anti-freeze in my drinking water. Wait, no, make that Quaker State.

[JAGI410]

Originally Posted by joosttx

This maybe a moot point since the oil prices have dropped. I read it becomes unprofitable when oil is lower than $80.

For many North Dakota rigs...the break even point is at $35/barrel. Fracking isn't evil, and as advances are made it will just become safer and more socially acceptable.

[GeorgeTSquirrel]

Originally Posted by goonster

Another risk factor is the presence of old, uncapped, abandoned and undocumented wells, which start to leak with nearby drilling activity. Apparently there are thousands of these in PA alone.

That's my primary concern... not your specific example, but hidden subsidies for the drilling companies, generally speaking, in that they don't actually pay the true cost of acquiring the gas and shift the burden to tax payers (water treatment being one possible example, risk to abandoned wells being another). Having a new governor in the near future gives me a bit more faith that PA will reconsider some of its policies, but who knows...

I'm glad that several people in this thread have been pushing the idea that fracking needs to be looked at as cost/benefit vs. alternatives. It's too easy to get caught up on minor points with an emotional appeal (such as the "antifreeze" in food argument). There's so much misinformation out there, especially in regards to toxicity, which is concentration dependent.

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by JAGI410

For many North Dakota rigs...the break even point is at $35/barrel. Fracking isn't evil, and as advances are made it will just become safer and more socially acceptable.

I'd like to see a recalculation of this break even point that accounts for the close to zero cost leases on BLM lands, at least sufficient lease rates to pay for adequate regulation, inspection and enforcement; the inadequate royalties to all of us tax paying citizens; the elimination of other federal subsidies; the cost of appropriate and currently available emission control technology on well heads; the cost of avoidance of areas of high risk to groundwater and seismic activity; safer working conditions; and adequate bonding and other financial assurances both for remediation upon well closure and for future groundwater monitoring and any clean up necessary. Then for yucks add in the societal cost and factor into the lease payments and a state taxing structure adequate funding to deal with all of the social ills that accompany these towns - the well documented drug abuse and crime for starters. I suspect the break even point that internalizes these costs, that are currently foisted on all of us, would be much, much higher.

You are right though, the technology of fracking isn't evil. Until we get to the self aware machines of the Terminator fantasy world (which seems more possible every year), its hard to pin moral/ethical baggage on technology. Its sorta like the argument in the gun debate - technology doesn't kill people, people do. Same for fracking. It could be made much, much safer RIGHT NOW. The technology exists. The willingness to invest, not so much.

[1centaur]

Originally Posted by joosttx

This maybe a moot point since the oil prices have dropped. I read it becomes unprofitable when oil is lower than $80.

There is a cost curve across shale formations in the US and across the geologies globally. In US shale the cost curve is from let's say the $30s to the $80s, and globally it is from $30ish in the Middle East to well over $100 in some locations. But not all infographics specify the nature of the costs. If you already have a working well the break evens to keep pumping can be very low while if you just have a plot of land and have to start from scratch the costs can be very high.

Importantly, shale extraction is fairly cheap to start and stop compared to other extraction methods. General consensus is that 2015 shale extraction will be flat to up because the recent drop in prices will just slow its growth. More importantly, when oil prices recover (quite possibly in late 2015) to the $70-$80 range, let's say, most shale production growth will resume. Saudi Arabia knows this. The media story that SA is doing this to really hurt shale oil therefore makes no sense. They are losing a lot of potential income with their current tactic. Logic suggests that they would not do that just for a brief pause in shale growth. So anybody who thinks that the current drop in oil prices implies that shale extraction will be much reduced for any length of time would be wise to think otherwise.

By the way, as we ponder externalities, the long-term impact of a) not spending billions on shale extraction; b) not employing a whole pile of people with limited skills for years; and c) spending more for energy than was necessary should be put into the mix with environmental assumptions. This whole story is far from black and white (on either side, I am at pains to add, lest anyone think otherwise).