Topic: Your view on shale gas exploration ? - page 2. (Read 18654 times)

Given that shale gas exploration is all over the Dallas Fort Worth area (check it out, look at Google Earth) don't  you think other people have studied this and have actual facts on it?

The general issue is that the fracking is done way, WAY deeper than underground water and the drilling is done with concrete sealed pipe systems.

Here's an article about the shale gas under Fort Worth.

http://geology.com/research/barnett-shale-gas.shtml

I think if your fears about water contamination were even in part accurate, we'd hear complaints about contamination from Ft. Worth??  I mean, there's like 5000 wells right in the middle of the populated areas of the city?

This is the Bulgarian anti shale gas facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ecobg/. We share the same underground natural water reservoirs in some of the Bulgarian and Romanian shale gas exploration regions. Those water reservoirs are used in plant-growing, farming and drinking. With shale gas the question is not if but when the pollution will come - and more of the times it's coming right away after the exploration had started.

Don't worry.  The rapture is going to happen pretty soon so it won't matter.  Only Godless heathens (and Communists) worry about changes in the makeup atmosphere.

Because they would be stolen / destroyed?

We've polluted our planet enough, seems a bit backward digging up that dirty black stuff.

Why not stick a load of solar panels across the Sahara desert?

No.

I guess that's the short answer.  If you want I can elaborate.

Regarding this...

I'm not from the us , my only source of information are articles that might contain false information :

[/i]

I don't see that as any big deal.  Basically drilling is an industrial operation, and my earlier comment was exactly that - that it was being done all over, right in the middle of the city and the suburbs.  Normally, one would think there would be some level of separation between industry and housing, whether by zoning or whatever.

But this is way different than the original post, which talked about dangers and worries and the water table and whether fracking should be anywhere close to a city.

Because when they melt down the workforce need to commute from the safe zone in expensive buses and work in funny looking suites?

I'm not from the us , my only source of information are articles that might contain false information :



Shutting down gas powered power plants and then again use extra energy to replace ammonia production with hydrogen electrolysis....

How many nuclear power plants we might need?

Adding to those numbers replacing gas heating with electricity and we might run into uranium supply problems.

I'm thinking more of a way to replace gas extraction with some kind of gas production from .. algae?

But you could place those energy-intensive industries right next to a nuclear power plant.

There are at least a thousand fracking style natural gas wells in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.  Right in the middle of the city.  They have been there, most of them for at least five years.  So we should have some actual, real live information on a subject like this.

Let's give it to the Koch brother.  Then let's defer taxes on the land they need to exploit the resource, or just lease it to the for $1.00.  Then let's give them 'zero interest loans' to set up to exploit it along with some more even more free money to do us the favor of developing it (the all important 'energy independence' you know?)  Then lets pay them a premium for the honor of burning the gas.  Then lets take back the parts of the gift that ended up contaminated with toxic waste and pay to clean it up.   If this doesn't make sense to you then you are not important enough to interest a lobbyist.  Or you don't watch enough Fox News.

You can't replace gas with solar energy in fertilizer plants , glass, plastics and many more.

Think we should keep that shit in the ground, with technology these days we should be able to generate enough energy from solar, wind and tidal power.

The first exploration for the following shale gas extraction is as close as half a kilometer to a village.
Also most of the wells will be in medium populate areas , and in areas where there villagers already face water shortage in mid summer.

I am against fracking and I would love to see a natural alternative like in the oil case being found here too

I have some water wells in the areas of Texas mentioned, and I will tell you this.  The state of Texas does not need a newspaper from England cherry picking data and fashioning conclusions.

Texas regulates water well output by permit, and this is related to the particular underground aquifers in the area that the permit is in. 

Therefore, there is no problem such as what is described by the Guardian.   If the State determines that one aquifer is going low, it will simply reduce the allotment for wells in that area.  There are also Stage 1 thru Stage 6 drought restriction formulas in use.

I'm not against exploration, but let's wait and see what will happen in Poland with the actual extraction,
evaluate the risks to the environment, then maybe try it in Romania in less populated areas.
If Russian gas will become too scarce, then if the risks are low enough, allow extraction.

And with the new development in Ukraine the situation has changed 180%.

If last year the country has seen large protest against the fracking in some regions in Romania , for the first time this year I start to hear voices that are for the explorations.

What is worse , from people who last year were against it.

And , basically with nobody protesting anymore the first exploration for shale gas has been opened right at Silistea the place where all started last year.

Last year:




Now:

Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas

ANTI-FRACKING protesters who glued and chained themselves to petrol pumps in Great Lever over the weekend were at the wrong garage, it has emerged.

Four people were arrested on Saturday after anti-fracking protesters used glue and bike locks to attach themselves to fuel pumps at the petrol station in Rishton Lane.

The group had chosen to base the protest next to a Total petrol station after the French firm announced it would be investing more than £12 million in the UK’s shale gas industry.

However, it emerged later that the petrol station was no longer owned by Total - but the new owners had not got around to taking the signs down yet.

Petrol station manager Reezwan Patel said: “We had to close for six hours, so with the loss of custom and the damage to the pumps, it could be a couple of thousand pounds we have lost.

“The thing is, Total don’t own the station any more. It is owned by Certas Energy, but the signs haven’t changed yet.

"The peaceful protesters were very polite and actually apologised for what happened, but the others were very stupid and have cost us a lot of money.”

Three men, and a woman, were in police custody yesterday after the protest, which forced the petrol station to close temporarily.

Those arrested were from a campaign group which has been protesting against test drilling at Barton Moss, in Salford.

A peaceful protest, organised by the newly-formed Bolton Against Fracking group, and attended by members of the Bolton Green Party, was already taking place at the petrol station, and was not linked to the campaigners who attached themselves to the pumps.

The rally was organised to protest about the potential use of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in the UK, a controversial method of extracting shale gas from underground rocks by cracking them with jets made up of water, sand and chemicals.

The unknown activists were criticised by Bolton Green Party chairman Alan Johnson. He said: “I was very annoyed, and I have to stress that these people have nothing to do with our protest.

“We were there to protest peacefully, and warn people about the dangers of fracking, and these people have put themselves, and others, in danger with what they did.

“We want to warn people that fracking could lead to a poisoned water supply and contaminated soil.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10950219.Anti_fracking_protesters_who_glued_themselves_to_pumps_were_at_wrong_petrol_station/?ref=mr

Actually, no.  You have it all completely wrong.  We are discussing this assertion I made.

 You want to control this, you want to control that.  You don't like this, you don't like that.  People should do this, people should do that.

Who gives you the right to your attitude and beliefs being superior to those of others?

What is actually true is that I couldn't care less about some damn dam or some fuel of one type or another.  Your assertion of moral equivalence point to point is therefore negated.