Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob R. Hensley on February 11, 2011 at 11:31

I have not seen it, but I will now find it and see what it is saying.

Thank you for keeping me informed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on February 12, 2011 at 10:08

Gasland likely will get the award for best documentary.  The pro shale side needs to do as well in a documentary.  Haynesville is about the economic boom in an area while Gasland highlights the environmental issues.

 

The industry has been SLOW to respond to Gasland.  I am now seeing a few pro-shale ads on the news, but between the water quality fears and explosions promoting "safe, clean, natural gas" is not easy.  I live in an area where most of the electric power comes from hydroelectric dams on rivers. No one in my state wants anything to do with natural gas. Very few new housing developments have ng lines to them, just electric wires.

 

I've been getting po'd as the anti-ng voices have ruled the dialog. The lobbyists & PR people really blew this one.  I get money from ng, but I am not a Pollyanna about it.  There are risks with rewards and much of the general public outside of O&G areas is very afraid of NG explosions and groundwater pollution.  We have to effectively answer that if we want NG prices to rise. People do have free choice about fuel, and right now they are choosing to run away from NG.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on February 13, 2011 at 4:08

Logger,

 

I live in an area where most of the electric power comes from hydroelectric dams on rivers.

 

Those same dams played havoc on the fish returning up river.  Great battles were fought and a lot of people wanted them torn out and the rivers restored.  Did they?  No.  They engineered a way for the fish to bypass the dam.  Your cost of electricity went up because of this. 

 

Did the lights go out from high electrical cost?  No.  What changed the public's mind?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on February 18, 2011 at 10:07

"The oil and gas industry SHOULD be better regulated."

 

Absolutely.  Unfortunately, "better regulated" does not equate to "more regulation." 

 

Bureaucracy can stop people from using newer, better and safer technology, because it's not as "proven" as an older technology that's well understood, but is less safe and cause more damage to the environment.  Bureaucracy tends to concentrate on "politically correct" regulation, not what's actually best for the people and the environment.

 

Don't forget, when the lights go out or people can't fill their gas tanks, environmental concerns go out the window.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Polly Ann Foote on February 20, 2011 at 17:45

"Need to Know", a PBS hourly program had a update on a previous segment about fracking contaminating water supplies. According to the documentary, in 2005 Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger agreed to not use diesel in certain situations. Halliburton and BJ Services have now admitted to the EPA to using Diesel in their fracking. The EPA has a mandate to regulate diesel as it contains benzene. They have informed the companies they intend to regulate their fracking operations. The companies have said EPA cannot do so until it has filed the proposed regulations and asked for comments. The pro-publico representation explaining all this says the companies have a point and it is now up to the EPA. Also he said the EPA has tested 33 wells in a small town in Wyoming and 11 of the wells were contaminated. Encana is now supplying that town with drinking water. The town is pronounced as if it were spelled Pallatin, but I am not sure that is the correct spelling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on February 20, 2011 at 18:54

Not true, Polly Ann.  Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger agreed not to use diesel only in the fracking of COAL BED METHANE operations, not the fracking of gas shales such as the Haynesville and Marcellus.  This is a big difference, as coal bed methane is commomly found much shallower than gas shales and sometimes coal bed methane is actually found within drinking water aquifers.  The Haynesville Shale formation is found over TWO MILES below any fresh water located in the Haynesville Shale area of Northwest Louisiana. No diesel from fracking gas shale has ever been reported in fresh water aquifers of Louisiana, according to the Regulatory Agency in Louisiana.   Also, EPA has taken NO ACTION regarding regulating diesel in the hydraulic fracturing of gas shales such as the Haynesville.  EPA has also found no evidence that fracking has caused any contamination of fresh waterquifers.  EPA may never regulate diesel for this reason.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on February 20, 2011 at 18:35

In the few instances where methane has been found in drinking water aquifers, it has been determined to be "biogenic" methane, which is formed 100% by vegetation decomposition.  (Also known as naturally occuring methane).  The type of methane that has its origin in petroleum reservoirs is called "thermogenic" methane.  Thermogenic methane has not been found to be associated with any gas shale fracking operations.  The movie, Gasland, is hell-bent in blaming fracking operations for causing aquifer contamination for nothing but political reasons.  Science does not back up Gasland's theory.  Shame on you, Gasland! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Polly Ann Foote on February 27, 2011 at 6:57

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-docume...
The above is a link to a New York Times article on Natural Gas's Toxic Wastes. Hope the link works

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on February 28, 2011 at 5:53

well at least gasland didn't win an oscar, i guess it's just not up to the sterling standard of "an inconvenient truth"

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page