• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

US fracking revolution in oil and gas debunked in study a layman can understand


patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.
 

Lara2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
7,389
Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.

That's a nice a way to put it. I personally think that fracking is akin to raping the land.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,482
Twitter
twit taa woo
So, it`s no FRACKING good then is it! :shock:
Not sure. If there was no money it, why would energy companies be plowing so much investment into it? As it is its anti-fracking arguments that hinge on some shakey ground, not fracking itself. And Fracking does not have a long term future anyway, it is usually described as a 'bridging energy'. That bridge being between the fuels we use now, and the ones Green say we should be using now, but are not viable or affordable. So no fracking in 20 years? Who cares?

There are strong arguments against Fracking being made, but they are environmental, not economic. As we go on it is argued that regulation can control or reduce fracking polution, but thats yet to be seen. But fracking in the UK has not had the same results as some selective sites in the US. And even worst case US examples are a few notches below the armageddon inducing danger some envrionmenatalists are claiming will be unleashed. What we have seen are bad examples of Fracking practice, but they seem not to be on a scale that reflects the amount the fracking being done. So I will not be taking up a placard just yet.

The environmental lobby has no 'killer' argument, because we have have heard it all before. After a few years of their screaming and gurning, they got unprecidented power and influence in Europe, and only managed to puff out some pipe dreams, increase taxes on poor people and shut down some nuclear power. Anyone in the middle ground between the moral and practical, is stuck with the dilema the entwines human rights and western energy dependency. A decade of fracking seems like small potatoes when compared to reliance on Putin or Saudi Arabia, while we wait around of a windy day.

Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it. In the past the same groups making these arguments have campaigned for the closure of steel plants, that make the material wind turbines are made of.
 
Last edited:

Lara2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
7,389
I don't know, i'd just be very wary of it. I wouldn't take the chance for the sake of a few dollars to turn our rich agricultural and scenic land into an indefinitely inoperable barren wasteland.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
Not sure. If there was no money it, why would energy companies be plowing so much investment into it? As it is its anti-fracking arguments that hinge on some shakey ground, not fracking itself. And Fracking does not have a long term future anyway, it is usually described as a 'bridging energy'. That bridge being between the fuels we use now, and the ones Green say we should be using now, but are not viable or affordable. So no fracking in 20 years? Who cares?

There are strong arguments against Fracking being made, but they are environmental, not economic. As we go on it is argued that regulation can control or reduce fracking polution, but thats yet to be seen. But fracking in the UK has not had the same results as some selective sites in the US. And even worst case US examples are a few notches below the armageddon inducing danger some envrionmenatalists are claiming will be unleashed. What we have seen are bad examples of Fracking practice, but they seem not to be on a scale that reflects the amount the fracking being done. So I will not be taking up a placard just yet.

The environmental lobby has no 'killer' argument, because we have have heard it all before. After a few years of their screaming and gurning, they got unprecidented power and influence in Europe, and only managed to puff out some pipe dreams, increase taxes on poor people and shut down some nuclear power. Anyone in the middle ground between the moral and practical, is stuck with the dilema the entwines human rights and western energy dependency. A decade of fracking seems like small potatoes when compared to reliance on Putin or Saudi Arabia, while we wait around of a windy day.

Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it. In the past the same groups making these arguments have campaigned for the closure of steel plants, that make the material wind turbines are made of.
Investment boomed in fracking when natural gas prices rose to historically high prices. Some of the most productive wells offer good returns but most don't,even if prices recover. Drilling rigs have been moved out of fracking shale gas into other drilling activities.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.
I hope this post and the like I gave it goes to show my objectivity: I hate the fact that you're a (by definition) parasitical landlord who constantly attacks hard-working public sector employees as if they were worse leeches than you, but you've brought to light a little-known fact about the fracking scam, and you deserve the kudos for that.

So there you go.
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
I hope this post and the like I gave it goes to show my objectivity: I hate the fact that you're a (by definition) parasitical landlord who constantly attacks hard-working public sector employees as if they were worse leeches than you, but you've brought to light a little-known fact about the fracking scam, and you deserve the kudos for that.

So there you go.
So pay about 50% higher than the privates sector average and fantastic pensions tied to salary increases in the job held at retirement is not leeching but no more than the public sector is entitled to? And landlords who provide housing for people are leeches? Marxism/Leninism died with the break up of the Soviet Union and the only place you can find it these days is in the museums,as Ayotollah Khomeni predicted in the 1970s.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
higher than the privates sector
What, the porn industry?

Gotta love when careless spelling gives us a gem like the above. Apart from that, I'll do no more to derail your thread, and I'll reply to your idiotic off-topic pro-landlord blather over on the other thread.

Anybody got any idea why the facts about rapid depletion of fracking sites doesn't make it into the mainstream news?

You'd imagine, if nothing else, that people whose business is shorting energy futures and stocks would be out there banging the drum about the downsides of investing in fracking?
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,995
Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it.
Clearly, you know nothing about business. There are plenty of occasions where even an unprofitable fracking well will not be dismantled and packed up overnight.

Assume an entrepreneur has spent $100,000 with the expectation of extracting $300,000 of natural gas. Assume that for either market or geological reasons he can only hope to extract $80,000 worth of natural gas. It's not true that he'll automatically shut down operations. He may very well decide to pump the $80K, in order to reduce his losses.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,444
See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.
This is the risk of the rush away from oil and coal into another fossil fuel. If gas supply is uneven due to wells running out prematurely, gas prices will be very unstable and may cost more in the long run.

Who wants to depend on a fuel that may run into supply problems in mid-winter, or may suddenly go up in price by 50%? Call me a conservative, but a degree of energy independence would not be a bad thing.

Not to mention the cost to the environment if large expanses of land are turned over to extraction by fracking. That that is even before we get to the cost in additional CO2 to add to already high levels of emissions ...
 

greenwithirony

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,785
Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.

That's a nice a way to put it. I personally think that fracking is akin to raping the land.
According to thie article below, your statement isn't even remotely an exaggeration:

Fracking Our Food Supply | The Nation

But their main concern tonight is a more insidious matter: the potential for drilling and fracking operations to contaminate our food. The early evidence from heavily fracked regions, especially from ranchers, is not reassuring.
Jacki Schilke and her sixty cattle live in the top left corner of North Dakota, a windswept, golden-hued landscape in the heart of the Bakken Shale. Schilke’s neighbors love her black Angus beef, but she’s no longer sharing or eating it—not since fracking began on thirty-two oil and gas wells within three miles of her 160-acre ranch and five of her cows dropped dead. Schilke herself is in poor health. A handsome 53-year-old with a faded blond ponytail and direct blue eyes, she often feels lightheaded when she ventures outside. She limps and has chronic pain in her lungs, as well as rashes that have lingered for a year. Once, a visit to the barn ended with respiratory distress and a trip to the emergency room. Schilke also has back pain linked with overworked kidneys, and on some mornings she urinates a stream of blood.

Ambient air testing by a certified environmental consultant detected elevated levels of benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and xylene—compounds associated with drilling and fracking, and also with cancers, birth defects and organ damage. Her well tested high for sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium; her blood tested positive for acetone, plus the heavy metals arsenic (linked with skin lesions, cancers and cardiovascular disease) and germanium (linked with muscle weakness and skin rashes). Both she and her husband, who works in oilfield services, have recently lost crowns and fillings from their teeth; tooth loss is associated with radiation poisoning and high selenium levels, also found in the Schilkes’ water.

State health and agriculture officials acknowledged Schilke’s air and water tests but told her she had nothing to worry about. Her doctors, however, diagnosed her with neurotoxic damage and constricted airways. “I realized that this place is killing me and my cattle,” Schilke says. She began using inhalers and a nebulizer, switched to bottled water, and quit eating her own beef and the vegetables from her garden. (Schilke sells her cattle only to buyers who will finish raising them outside the shale area, where she presumes that any chemical contamination will clear after a few months.) “My health improved,” Schilke says, “but I thought, ‘Oh my God, what are we doing to this land?’”
Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first (and, so far, only) peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals. The authors compiled case studies of twenty-four farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive and acute gastrointestinal problems. Exposed either accidentally or incidentally to fracking chemicals in the water or air, scores of animals have died. The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning.

Exposed animals “are making their way into the food system, and it’s very worrisome to us,” Bamberger says. “They live in areas that have tested positive for air, water and soil contamination. Some of these chemicals could appear in milk and meat products made from these animals.”

In Louisiana, seventeen cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled fracking fluid. (Most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.) In north central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately seventy cows died; the remainder produced eleven calves, of which only three survived. In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing waste pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: half their calves were born dead. The following year’s animal births were sexually skewed, with ten females and two males, instead of the usual 50-50 or 60-40 split.

In addition to the cases documented by Bamberger, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed around well pads in New Mexico found petroleum residues in fifty-four of fifty-six animals. In North Dakota, wind-borne fly ash, which is used to solidify the waste from drilling holes and contains heavy metals, settled over a farm: one cow, which either inhaled or ingested the caustic dust, died, and a stock pond was contaminated with arsenic at double the accepted level for drinking water.
Schilke’s troubles began in the summer of 2010, when a crew working at this site continued to force drilling fluid down a well that had sprung a leak. Soon, Schilke’s cattle were limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves; they lost from sixty to eighty pounds in a week; and their tails mysteriously dropped off. (Lab rats exposed to the carcinogen 2-butoxyethanol, a solvent used in fracking, have 
lost their tails, but a similar connection with cattle hasn’t been shown. In people, breathing, touching or consuming enough of the chemical can lead to pulmonary edema and coma.)
 

patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
According to thie article below, your statement isn't even remotely an exaggeration:

Fracking Our Food Supply | The Nation
The Cornell study has been widely debunked. As for the farmer case above,a sample of one is hardly statistically reliable. The damage to the farm was probably caused by careless spills from trucks,not fracking itself deep underground.

Documentary film reporting is biased by the need to present dramatic footage. A film showing no evidence of environmental damage would not sell. Greens are also biased,many of them being modern Luddites.
 

greenwithirony

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,785
The Cornell study has been widely debunked. As for the farmer case above,a sample of one is hardly statistically reliable. The damage to the farm was probably caused by careless spills from trucks,not fracking itself deep underground.

Documentary film reporting is biased by the need to present dramatic footage. A film showing no evidence of environmental damage would not sell. Greens are also biased,many of them being modern Luddites.
By whom? The fracking industry? The Nation article states quite clearly that it's "the first (and, so far, only) peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals"

Did you read the article? There's clearly more than one farm cited. "Probably" your ar$e...

A little too quick with your circle-jerk 'like' there venusian.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.

If it doesn't pay, companies won't do it.

If they don't get the expected return, they won't do it.




This study is pointless. Why bother posting this? What is your conclusion? That companies should be banned from exploring for or developing gas resources because a study says they won't make any money out of it?
 

zakalwe1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
5,306
whats your alternative?
nuclear, oil any other source of constant energy production?

fracking may be the stopgap between reverting to 1850's technology and powering ourselves into the next century. i for one, want my children to have central heating (however based) and hot water and functioning hospitals. i don't want a re-emergence of old diseases and mortality rates from the time of the famine.
 

junius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,700
i for one, want my children to have central heating (however based) and hot water and functioning hospitals. i don't want a re-emergence of old diseases and mortality rates from the time of the famine.
............then get them properly educated in matters of sustainability, get yourself a plot of land if you haven't already got one and start planting some hardwood trees for their future which can be cut down little by little and replaced with more saplings etc..... Buy yourself a cast iron multi fuel burner with integrated boiler and send your kids out to get their hands dirty planting their saplings and keeping them thinned out and the weeds down around them - then they'll get natural immunity and exercise and an appreciation of hard work and reality which will stand them in great stead for their healthy and sustainable future!
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
whats your alternative?
nuclear, oil any other source of constant energy production?

fracking may be the stopgap between reverting to 1850's technology and powering ourselves into the next century. i for one, want my children to have central heating (however based) and hot water and functioning hospitals. i don't want a re-emergence of old diseases and mortality rates from the time of the famine.
If you don't want to return to 19th century standards of living, then let the market provide the energy. Things not to do include, banning certain technologies or fuels, distorting the market with subsidies or regulation that demand certain fuels or tecnhologies are used etc. etc.

We don't have shoes on our feet because an academic or a government have researched and declared what types of shoes should be made in what numbers in what ways or by whom. Same with energy, our human ingenuity unleased provides.


Anyway, there are estimates of UK gas reserves coming imminently. Someone who claims to have seen the data tweeted this:

Total UK resource estimate will be confirmed by DECC scientists, not Cuadrilla posturing. I've seen the logs: MONSTROUS
The DECC being the UK Department of Energy and Cuadrilla a company interested in investing.
 

Pat Gill

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
5,301
Website
www.energyco-ops.ie
Twitter
Pat_Gill
If you don't want to return to 19th century standards of living, then let the market provide the energy. Things not to do include, banning certain technologies or fuels, distorting the market with subsidies or regulation that demand certain fuels or tecnhologies are used etc. etc.

We don't have shoes on our feet because an academic or a government have researched and declared what types of shoes should be made in what numbers in what ways or by whom. Same with energy, our human ingenuity unleased provides.


Anyway, there are estimates of UK gas reserves coming imminently. Someone who claims to have seen the data tweeted this:



The DECC being the UK Department of Energy and Cuadrilla a company interested in investing.
Trainwreck,

The market in the US has already decided that fracked gas has a minimum cost of production which is a lot higher than the market price being achieved at the moment, hence the dramatic decline in new shale gas production over the last two years.

But I have a question. Where do you stand on the rules of the road ? are they necessary ?
 
Top