BobBill

Front Page: "Ban Them!"

Recommended Posts

Hold on, cowboys. Where y’all think your line, your sails, your carbon, your fuels... I can go on... all that shit comes from oil. Y’all might want to move outa those glass houses

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand, but what is point in fishing out a species...? Might as well get to changing it earlier, IMO. Business panic is product of procrastination...and ethanol sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking and anything that involves the destruction of species, pollution of groundwater, toxic run-off, and the use of God knows what chemicals, should not be a political issue. It does not matter who the fuck you want to vote for (or not vote for).

 

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AnotherSailor said:

Fracking and anything that involves the destruction of species, pollution of groundwater, toxic run-off, and the use of God knows what chemicals, should not be a political issue. It does not matter who the fuck you want to vote for (or not vote for).

 

Other than the name" Fracking" which certainly did not come from Madison Avenue....it is perfectly safe....other wise in would have been banned under Obama with his EPA Nazis

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g161/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593/

 

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

....it is perfectly safe....other wise in would have been banned under Obama with his EPA Nazis

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, except that Obama and his EPA Nazis believed in science and the scientific method and the impartiality of the court system so, regardless of their inclination for or against fracking, they actually wanted to collect data and see if it was conclusive before recommending any action that would have to be defensible.

When you don't believe in science and know the courts will back your agenda, that's when you just go ahead and do shit because you feel like it or because someone's incentivizing you to do it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IStream said:

Well, except that Obama and his EPA Nazis believed in science and the scientific method and the impartiality of the court system so, regardless of their inclination for or against fracking, they actually wanted to collect data and see if it was conclusive before recommending any action that would have to be defensible.

When you don't believe in science and know the courts will back your agenda, that's when you just go ahead and do shit because you feel like it or because someone's incentivizing you to do it. 

There is a difference between believing in science and believing the" agenda driven  scientists"  ....

  • Like 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SailBlueH2O said:

There is a difference between believing in science and believing the" agenda driven  scientists"  ....

Who still have to have the data to back up their agenda because they know the scientists who don't like their agenda will be inspecting it closely. That's the beauty of the scientific method, it doesn't give a shit about anyone's agenda. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IStream said:

Who still have to have the data to back up their agenda because they know the scientists who don't like their agenda will be inspecting it closely. That's the beauty of the scientific method, it doesn't give a shit about anyone's agenda. 

5 year EPA study FactStream....5 year study under the Obama administration 

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310157-epa-reverses-conclusion-on-fracking-safety

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing changes no belief, so don't waste the time. 

Ask those who have been affected, and answer three questions.

Is oil that necessary?

What if you are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the #1 oil producer in the world?  Saudi Arabia? NO. Russia?  No.  It's the United States. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production-russia-saudi-arabia/index.html

The ed has failed to see past the end of his nose, and to failed consider the implications of being the #1 oil producer in the world, the benefits it confers, and the consequences. Does he want to go back to being a hostage to OPEC?  I hope not. Does he want to resume sucking Russia's energy dick?  Does he want $8 a gallon at the pump? 

Fracking is no panacea, and has it's downsides, but overall it has been a huge economic and political windfall for the US. Could fracking afford better environmental procedures? Fuck yeah. That's what we need.

But, as is the specialty of the myopic, out goes the baby with the bathwater.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, IStream said:

Who still have to have the data to back up their agenda because they know the scientists who don't like their agenda will be inspecting it closely. That's the beauty of the scientific method, it doesn't give a shit about anyone's agenda. 

How do scientists develop an "agenda"?  Two ways, I suspect.  

One is by discovering a phenomenon and coming to fully believe in its validity and critical importance, so you therefore push for its acceptance.  Thus you become a politically active scientist.  Refer to Einstein and his letter regarding the feasibility of an atomic bomb.

The other is by accepting a paycheck from an employer who has an economic interest in defending a particular outcome, and thus you develop supporting arguments selected from your base of knowledge.  In that case, you are no longer a scientist, you are a fact-picker.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

How do scientists develop an "agenda"?  

This...if you want to keep your job or get a job in academia 

 

The other is by accepting a paycheck from an employer who has an economic interest in defending a particular outcome, and thus you develop supporting arguments selected from your base of knowledge.  In that case, you are no longer a scientist, you are a fact-picker.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but what did Obama actually accomplish in terms of "protecting the environment?" He renamed Denali, which is symbolically not insignificant, but that involves zero environmental protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Hold on, cowboys. Where y’all think your line, your sails, your carbon, your fuels... I can go on... all that shit comes from oil. Y’all might want to move outa those glass houses

This is quite funny - and so are the people who reacted to it.  We just discussed this over in PA - how the nature of all species is to pay attention to immediate comfort.  Food, sex, and comfort are the drives, and fuck the future generations because we really just can't make ourselves care about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like fracking - but fracking for natural gas has basically eliminated the long term investment of coal power plants in the United States, and basically made up a large part of the carbon emission reduction since 2008.

A reliable, cost effective and sustainable national energy grid looks different depending on what each country is working with?

 In France? The strategy was to standardize and invest heavily in nuclear power plants.

In Germany? The difficulty has been balancing energy demands from German industries, security demands re importing gas from the east, without using nuclear energy because of constituent concerns.

In the US? We haven't relied on government investment (e.g. we don't have a "standardized" nuclear reactor design w/ government integrated fuel reprocessing & reactor specifications), and have sort of regulated in piece meal. Thankfully the unexpected (15 years ago) viability of fracking gas has allowed a lot of utilities to modify boilers to natural gas heated - which allow a wider efficient range, fires up quicker than coal, easier to maintain emission standards and easier to purchase standardized fuel (coal varies greatly). 

In some countries, you can build a lot of dams without hurting unique species. In the US west, solar has been a huge part of emission reduction. In the US east and central/south? Gas has helped us kill off dirty coal. 

It isn't a one size fit all solution, and diversified sources isn't inherently evil. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fair to have some doubts about science, but ... do not forget that this is how politics works: checks, donations, interests etc etc. 

2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Miffy said:

I don't particularly like fracking - but fracking for natural gas has basically eliminated the long term investment of coal power plants in the United States, and basically made up a large part of the carbon emission reduction since 2008. 

Yes !...exactly the way I feel...I so wish for real clean efficient and effective energy , wind and solar are neither

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, VWAP said:

https://www.ineos.com/sustainability/

 

A STRATEGIC OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABILITY AT INEOS

" Global population is rising at an unprecedented rate.".......

 

this is the biggest problem of all facing humanity 2018 going forward...if only it got as much attention as clean vs petroleum energy going forward

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool?

If it was red?

 

responsible-care.jpg?width=500

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EvaOdland said:

I am sure we can find an oil planet.

 

 

No need....it is being naturally replenished faster than we can get in out of the ground   :D   simply could not find a more natural energy source than the combination oil and fire to turn it into usable energy 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, AnotherSailor said:

Sorry, but what did Obama actually accomplish in terms of "protecting the environment?" He renamed Denali, which is symbolically not insignificant, but that involves zero environmental protection.

  1. Jumpstarting the green economy. The stimulus provided $90 billion dollars for a bevy of green initiatives, including $29 billion for improving energy efficiency, $21 billion for renewable energy generation, $10 billion for the grid, $18 billion for rail, and several smaller initiatives.
  2. EPA Endangerment Finding. For the first time, EPA made an official finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger human health and welfare. This finding was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court declined review.
  3. GHG Standards for New Vehicles. EPA issued the “tailpipe” rule, cutting CO2 emissions from new cars by almost a billion tons. This was also upheld by the courts.
  4. GHG Standards for Power Plants and Factories. At the same time as the “tailpipe” rule, EPA issued a rule requiring GHG cuts for major new facilities; most of that rule was upheld by the Supreme Court. More importantly, EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, addressing emissions from existing power plants. The legality of that rule is now before the D.C. Circuit.
  5. Mercury Controls for Power Plants. Using its authority to regulate toxic chemicals, EPA established a rule cutting mercury emissions, which will save thousands of lives, primarily by cutting dangerous particulates. The rule is now in front of the D.C. Circuit on remand from the Supreme Court, but most of the industry has already complied.
  6. Social Cost of Carbon. For the first time, the government tried to measure the harm that CO2 causes, for purposes of future cost-benefit analyses. The current figure is around $35 per ton.
  7. National monuments. Obama has established more national monuments than any other president in history. They also cover more acreage than any previous president’s.
  8. Oceans. Obama designated some 580,000 square miles off Hawaii as a national monument. He also cleaned up the mess from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, twisting BP’s arm into setting up a compensation fund for victims, and then ultimately obtaining billions of dollars in criminal and civil penalties. He also reformed regulation of deepwater drilling after the disaster, with no help from Congress.
  9. New environmental legislation. Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which finally fixed the nearly moribund Toxic Substance Control Act. He also signed the Food Modernization and Safety Act in 2011, which substantially strengthened the FDA’s power to safeguard the food supply. Given the near-total gridlock of today’s Congress, obtaining any new legislation is something of a minor miracle.
  10. Interstate air pollution. EPA established its first major rule addressing interstate transport of particulates and ozone, something that had been attempted unsuccessfully by the Bush Administration. The major features of the rule have been upheld by the Supreme Court; some lesser matters are still before the D.C. Circuit.
  11. Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama blocked construction of this pipeline to take Canadian tar sands oil to market.  The pipeline had come to symbolize the profligate use of fossil fuels.
  12. Mountaintop mining. In decisions in 2013 and 2016, the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obama EPA’s effort to curb mountain top mining, an extremely destructive variant on strip mining, even when that means withdrawing or modifying an existing permit.
  13. Endangered species. As of April 2015 (the latest figures I could find), the Obama Administration had listed 299 species, bringing them under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. It had also delisted 12, and had 35 listings in progress.
  14. Fracking. In 2015, the Administration issued new rules regulating fracking on public lands, designed to protect against groundwater pollution. This year, EPA followed up with rules to restrict methane emissions from natural gas operations.
  15. Energy efficiency. In December 2015, the Department of Energy issued a standard governing commercial air conditioners and furnaces, which covers heating and cooling for about half of the country’s commercial space. The new rule is estimated to save a total of $167 billions in energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 885 megatons.
  16. International mercury agreement. The Obama Administration entered into the Minimata Convention on Mercury, which bans mercury mining and regulates mercury products, processes, and pollution.
  17. Coal ash. EPA issued the first-ever regulation of coal-ash impoundments, imposing new requirements for structural integrity and for groundwater protection.
  18. Stricter air quality standards. After dodging the issue in the run-up to the 2012 election, the Administration finally issued a new air quality standard for ozone, cutting the allowable level from 75 to 70 ppb. In 2013, EPA had also issued a new standard for particulates, cutting the permissible level of PM2.5 from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12 μg/m3.
  19. Protecting wetlands. The Administration issued the Water of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which clarified the reach of federal jurisdiction over wetlands. The rule is now mired in litigation.
  20. International climate negotiations. Last but far from least: President Obama succeeded in obtaining the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and more recently the 2015 Paris Agreement, the first international agreement including developing nation commitments to address emissions.   Even more recently, the Administration was successful in negotiations to curb super-strong greenhouse gases using the Montreal Protocol and in negotiations for emissions limitations on commercial aviation.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

There is a difference between believing in science and believing the" agenda driven  scientists"  ....

Science gave you Love Canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Science gave you Love Canal.

false jumble of words

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many people here actually have an in-depth understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and have the requisite science/engineering background, including well construction/design and groundwater hydrology, to actually assess for themselves the risks and rewards of "fracking"?

For those who see dangers, what are they? What is the pathway to damage groundwater resources? How does that work, do you think?

What are the "scary chemicals" people talk about?

The EPA did a looong study under the Obama Administration, certainly no friend to oil and gas interests, and could not find a connection between fracking, especially as practiced today, and groundwater pollution.

Perhaps one reason is that it is exceeding rare to find freshwater resources deeper than 2000 feet below surface. Also, due to the need for thermal maturity to cook the keragens from biological decay into oil and  gas, commercial shale deposits are rarely found shallower than 7,000', giving a full mile of vertical separation between the oil and water zones. In some wells in which I have an interest, the water bottoms out at 350 feet, the pay is at 14,000. 2 and 1/2 miles of separation.

A typical fract treatment costs $3-5,000,000 and they are normally run 3 at a time, meaning a capital committment of 9-15 million bucks, excluding the cost of land and of drilling and casing the wellbore. All up cost of a 3 well pad runs $15-21 million exclusive of land costs. 

Fracture treatments which find their way outside of the target zone make no money. Polluting fresh water costs a LOT of money. The entire point of well design and construction is to ensure the treatment goes into the zone you want, and nowhere else, especially fresh water zones. 

Right now I have 10 wells drilling on my lands, and 3 fracking. The 3 fracking are a 24 hour operation that has been going on since September 29 and today is about 1/2 done, stage 30-31 out of 62 stages. We're in for $1.8 million frac cost so far on each well, plus $2 mil each for the drilling. 

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

Gasland.  Nice to hear from a completely unbiased person with no vested interests giving us the facts CL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want hydraulic fracturing then stop using products produced from it.   That would be almost all nat gas currently produced in the US and about 2/3 of US oil production.  The hypocrisy of politics (and the non-inquisitive like Ed.)  is to make the easy attacks on the faceless, voteless producers of commodities while spreading false virtue to the retail consumers (and btw, voters) of same.   

80% of the carbon footprint of a gallon of gas comes from combusting it, just 20% (at most) from extracting (this would be the fracking part) , pipelining, refining and distributing it to the end pump.   So why is all the protest against the 20% that simply serves to indulge the 80%?   Because hypocrisy is easier than action.   If we would be honest with ourselves and target shame on consumption, production will naturally take care of itself.  E.g. If you don't want rhino poaching do you prosecute the impoverished rhino poacher in Africa or the limp-dick affected consumer of powdered rhino horn in Beijing?  We don't the latter, but we should.  Same with say shark fin soup, so should be same with fossil fuels.    Realistically, GM, Ford, Boeing, Airbus all make things that do much more harm to the environment (as their products generate the 80% portion of the carbon footprint) than what a petchem plant or pipeline would facilitate.   We are all free to drive less and fly less (or try this, Ed.) use hemp sailcloth but isnt it so much more convenient to ignore that inconvenient truth and, with mob-think virtue, protest an Ineos or a pipeline.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I'm curious how many people here actually have an in-depth understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and have the requisite science/engineering background, including well construction/design and groundwater hydrology, to actually assess for themselves the risks and rewards of "fracking"?

For those who see dangers, what are they? What is the pathway to damage groundwater resources? How does that work, do you think?

What are the "scary chemicals" people talk about?

The EPA did a looong study under the Obama Administration, certainly no friend to oil and gas interests, and could not find a connection between fracking, especially as practiced today, and groundwater pollution.

Perhaps one reason is that it is exceeding rare to find freshwater resources deeper than 2000 feet below surface. Also, due to the need for thermal maturity to cook the keragens from biological decay into oil and  gas, commercial shale deposits are rarely found shallower than 7,000', giving a full mile of vertical separation between the oil and water zones. In some wells in which I have an interest, the water bottoms out at 350 feet, the pay is at 14,000. 2 and 1/2 miles of separation.

A typical fract treatment costs $3-5,000,000 and they are normally run 3 at a time, meaning a capital committment of 9-15 million bucks, excluding the cost of land and of drilling and casing the wellbore. All up cost of a 3 well pad runs $15-21 million exclusive of land costs. 

Fracture treatments which find their way outside of the target zone make no money. Polluting fresh water costs a LOT of money. The entire point of well design and construction is to ensure the treatment goes into the zone you want, and nowhere else, especially fresh water zones. 

Right now I have 10 wells drilling on my lands, and 3 fracking. The 3 fracking are a 24 hour operation that has been going on since September 29 and today is about 1/2 done, stage 30-31 out of 62 stages. We're in for $1.8 million frac cost so far on each well, plus $2 mil each for the drilling. 

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

Please go away.  Your knowledge, experience, common sense and logic have no place here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fracking is just a reflection of the real problem... being too damn many people, all wanting energy for modern conveniences. 

keep growing the population at an exponential rate and we're pretty much doomed.  It's laughable when rabid environmentalists have 3, 4, or 5 kids and have the gall to whine about stuff like fracking while they're sailing around in oil-based boat and eating steak.  What a joke.

Fracking is a symptom of the real disease, over-population. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I'm curious how many people here actually have an in-depth understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and have the requisite science/engineering background, including well construction/design and groundwater hydrology, to actually assess for themselves the risks and rewards of "fracking"?

For those who see dangers, what are they? What is the pathway to damage groundwater resources? How does that work, do you think?

What are the "scary chemicals" people talk about?

The EPA did a looong study under the Obama Administration, certainly no friend to oil and gas interests, and could not find a connection between fracking, especially as practiced today, and groundwater pollution.

Perhaps one reason is that it is exceeding rare to find freshwater resources deeper than 2000 feet below surface. Also, due to the need for thermal maturity to cook the keragens from biological decay into oil and  gas, commercial shale deposits are rarely found shallower than 7,000', giving a full mile of vertical separation between the oil and water zones. In some wells in which I have an interest, the water bottoms out at 350 feet, the pay is at 14,000. 2 and 1/2 miles of separation.

A typical fract treatment costs $3-5,000,000 and they are normally run 3 at a time, meaning a capital committment of 9-15 million bucks, excluding the cost of land and of drilling and casing the wellbore. All up cost of a 3 well pad runs $15-21 million exclusive of land costs. 

Fracture treatments which find their way outside of the target zone make no money. Polluting fresh water costs a LOT of money. The entire point of well design and construction is to ensure the treatment goes into the zone you want, and nowhere else, especially fresh water zones. 

Right now I have 10 wells drilling on my lands, and 3 fracking. The 3 fracking are a 24 hour operation that has been going on since September 29 and today is about 1/2 done, stage 30-31 out of 62 stages. We're in for $1.8 million frac cost so far on each well, plus $2 mil each for the drilling. 

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

That would be a highly unusual way of fracking (without a bunch of "other" ingredients).  Not saying you are lying through your teeth but there is a lot of different mixtures used for fracking and most do include a bunch of chemical additives.  Somewhere between 750 and 1000 chemicals are known to be used in fracking - and then there are the compounds that the well adds to the fracking water - obviously depends on the location/depth, etc of the well.  Oh BTW - have a background in analytical chemistry and the petrochemical industry is naturally one of the big sectors for analytical chemistry - so not just talking out of my ass - have actually helped out a fair bit with developing GC, GC/MS, HPLC, HPLC, HPLC/MS, and other analysis methods for the petrochemical and environmental sectors

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said above I'd rather live with natural gas and fracking than coal. 

 

That being said? From an environmental standpoint my personal concerns are brine disposal whether via injection or precipitate and dump can be done right or done extremely poorly. Brine water can be "clean" with minimal contamination, or carry heavy metals out of the geology. 

Injection disposal? Too much too quick? Earthquake. 

Let's not pretend things in real life are either or false dichotomized choices. Fracking and gas is cleaner than mining coal, but it isn't perfect. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Left Shift said:

How do scientists develop an "agenda"?  Two ways, I suspect.  

One is by discovering a phenomenon and coming to fully believe in its validity and critical importance, so you therefore push for its acceptance.  Thus you become a politically active scientist.  Refer to Einstein and his letter regarding the feasibility of an atomic bomb.

The other is by accepting a paycheck from an employer who has an economic interest in defending a particular outcome, and thus you develop supporting arguments selected from your base of knowledge.  In that case, you are no longer a scientist, you are a fact-picker.  

 

My son has a Bio Chem degree and works for one of the Nations largest Asphalt companies.
They do Roofing, Bridging and sealant technology.
All is Petrochemical based.

If you are ready to do away with industries that modern living need, then lets go ahead and make sure we have enough thatched roofing needs available.

Scot Tempesta is an example of a nutty left wing idiot who really knows nothing.
In fact all he knows is how to make a living off of other peoples work and the bitch about how those other people get around and do their job.

I am amazed at the idiocy of the left and the stupid shit they listen too.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am amazed at the idiocy of the left and right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

false jumble of words

Perfect for you then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

My son has a Bio Chem degree and works for one of the Nations largest Asphalt companies.
They do Roofing, Bridging and sealant technology.
All is Petrochemical based.

If you are ready to do away with industries that modern living need, then lets go ahead and make sure we have enough thatched roofing needs available.

Scot Tempesta is an example of a nutty left wing idiot who really knows nothing.
In fact all he knows is how to make a living off of other peoples work and the bitch about how those other people get around and do their job.

I am amazed at the idiocy of the left and the stupid shit they listen too.

Let's all fuck the planet and kill life as we know it so Mead Wad's son has a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The all or nothing approach to oil is ridiculous in both extremes.

I may drive an electric car to my sailboat, but I still need petrochemical based components in my car and I still have a diesel engine in my sailboat.

We need access to petrochemicals, but I have no problem with enforcing regulations that raise the cost of those chemicals to drive market based innovation and maintain a cleaner environment.

Also, this is funny

image.png.432360d5304613cee1c514c2a8e5a241.png

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

My son has a Bio Chem degree and works for one of the Nations largest Asphalt companies.
They do Roofing, Bridging and sealant technology.
All is Petrochemical based.

If you are ready to do away with industries that modern living need, then lets go ahead and make sure we have enough thatched roofing needs available.

Scot Tempesta is an example of a nutty left wing idiot who really knows nothing.
In fact all he knows is how to make a living off of other peoples work and the bitch about how those other people get around and do their job.

I am amazed at the idiocy of the left and the stupid shit they listen too.

17 minutes ago, random said:

Let's all fuck the planet and kill life as we know it so Mead Wad's son has a job.

You are an idiot.
You want to end life as we know it for an article on the Front page of Sailing anarchy.

God damned , we are a doomed species.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sunol said:

We need access to petrochemicals, but I have no problem with enforcing regulations that raise the cost of those chemicals to drive market based innovation and maintain a cleaner environment.

this .

Sadly gas prices need to rise to a price that will drive innovation , and the current North American " Driving Season " needs to rapidly become a fading memory .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sunol said:

The all or nothing approach to oil is ridiculous in both extremes.

I may drive an electric car to my sailboat, but I still need petrochemical based components in my car and I still have a diesel engine in my sailboat.

We need access to petrochemicals, but I have no problem with enforcing regulations that raise the cost of those chemicals to drive market based innovation and maintain a cleaner environment.

Also, this is funny

image.png.432360d5304613cee1c514c2a8e5a241.png

 

Not just funny - we have a few of their ancestors right here on this site.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

this .

Sadly gas prices need to rise to a price that will drive innovation , and the current North American " Driving Season " needs to rapidly become a fading memory .

That is an emotional senseless ass backwards, failed notion....

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put , Gas is way too cheap .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal experience working under administrations of both parties, both parties have embraced or ignored scientific evidence to suit their political agendas. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NaptimeAgain said:

In my personal experience working under administrations of both parties, both parties have embraced or ignored scientific evidence to suit their political agendas. 

pollotices licke relligione demandes science conformes to theire beliefes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mid said:

Simply put , Gas is way too cheap .

Bwhahahahaha....by what measure ?

the price is set by supply and demand.......not a punitive greenweenie on a power trip mandating the impractical to the market place......you want an "alternative energy source"...bring it to market and let the market decide....if there was a solution of scale the evil greedy capitalists would be all over it...

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

pollotices licke relligione demandes science conformes to theire beliefes.

example ?...in particular the demand part

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SailBlueH2O said:

example ?...in particular the demand part

deniers, and Gallileo                           :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snaggletooth said:

deniers, and Gallileo                           :)

Al Gore would have been my guess...

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Al Gore would have been my guess...

Goode man, you reminde me my grandfathere.   Rocke on pappey!                                  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

you want an "alternative energy source"...bring it to market and let the market decide....if there was a solution of scale the evil greedy capitalists would be all over it...

not going to happen whilst gas prices remain low , supply and demand does not factor in environmental destruction and whilst your current angst is about maintaining employment for your son , what about your son's sons ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the mythical front page:

"And there is a thread, where sailing cavemen are singing the praises of fracking. Holy fuck are we one dumb collective motherfucking people…"

But on the bright side, lots of the sailing cavemen have kindly outed themselves in this thread.

So now we know more of who dumb motherfucking people are in this collective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark Set said:

i <3 fracking. Fracking is cool. eat me, Ed.

unless you're joking, that's offensive and you're human garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mid said:

not going to happen whilst gas prices remain low , supply and demand does not factor in environmental destruction and whilst your current angst is about maintaining employment for your son , what about your son's sons ?

I don't buy into the "destruction" part of the argument.....it is scare tactic easily accepted by the emotionally  irrational .....take your protest banners to China and India and the many smaller 3rd world polluters.....and say....where is Green Peace and the Ocean Keepers while China is dredging and fill tropical atolls and barrier reefs ?....as it has always been...build a better mouse trap....

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

There is a difference between believing in science and believing the" agenda driven  scientists"  ....

the more you say, the more I enjoy calling you a fkg moron.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SailBlueH2O said:

I don't buy into the "destruction" part of the argument

nothing to be gained here , you've effectively shut down this conversation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mookiesurfs said:

The ed has failed to see past the end of his nose, and to failed consider the implications of being the #1 oil producer in the world, the benefits it confers, and the consequences. Does he want to go back to being a hostage to OPEC?  I hope not. Does he want to resume sucking Russia's energy dick?  Does he want $8 a gallon at the pump

The amount of oil produced by the USA despite its current #1 status has absolutely fuck all to do with gasalone pricing. The world is tied to the OPEC teat and there is no greater hostage than America who will pay for it regardless.

Inflation adjusted the second highest price in history (highest in 1918) of $3.66/gall occured in 2012.

In late 2014, OPEC started a “price war” to fuck oil sands and shale oil investment/production and prices fell drastically putting short-term prices very near 1972 lows and below 1947 and 1931 lows. The bottom occured in 2016 when national average dropped below $1.90/gal which coincided with OPEC's low barrel price of $40.00. 

Today the national average is $2.90/gallon or a dollar a gallon more than less than 3 years ago. It is also well above the historical average of $2.64 as at 2016. Why this huge jump you may ask if the USA is such a large oil producer ??? 

Simple the OPEC barrel price today is over $80 / barrel or has doubled in that 2/3 year period and America's/the world's love affair with fosil fuel derivatives continues unabated. 

Note. $1.48 per gallon in 1998 is the lowest inflation adjusted price in history. People did not know this but they did notice a smaller portion of their budgets was being spent on gasoline so started buying a new invention called the SUV and carbon race boats started to be the norm not the exception.

 

Inflation-Adjusted-Gasoline-Jan-2016.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a long time since I visited this super SAILING SITE It's great to see how the site has grown, Good job Scot!

Art

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meat Wad said:

 

You are an idiot.
You want to end life as we know it for an article on the Front page of Sailing anarchy.

God damned , we are a doomed species.

Meat Wad..........Aloha! I have an idea GO FUCK YOURSELF!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

I'm curious how many people here actually have an in-depth understanding of the process of hydraulic fracturing and have the requisite science/engineering background, including well construction/design and groundwater hydrology, to actually assess for themselves the risks and rewards of "fracking"?

For those who see dangers, what are they? What is the pathway to damage groundwater resources? How does that work, do you think?

What are the "scary chemicals" people talk about?

The EPA did a looong study under the Obama Administration, certainly no friend to oil and gas interests, and could not find a connection between fracking, especially as practiced today, and groundwater pollution.

Perhaps one reason is that it is exceeding rare to find freshwater resources deeper than 2000 feet below surface. Also, due to the need for thermal maturity to cook the keragens from biological decay into oil and  gas, commercial shale deposits are rarely found shallower than 7,000', giving a full mile of vertical separation between the oil and water zones. In some wells in which I have an interest, the water bottoms out at 350 feet, the pay is at 14,000. 2 and 1/2 miles of separation.

A typical fract treatment costs $3-5,000,000 and they are normally run 3 at a time, meaning a capital committment of 9-15 million bucks, excluding the cost of land and of drilling and casing the wellbore. All up cost of a 3 well pad runs $15-21 million exclusive of land costs. 

Fracture treatments which find their way outside of the target zone make no money. Polluting fresh water costs a LOT of money. The entire point of well design and construction is to ensure the treatment goes into the zone you want, and nowhere else, especially fresh water zones. 

Right now I have 10 wells drilling on my lands, and 3 fracking. The 3 fracking are a 24 hour operation that has been going on since September 29 and today is about 1/2 done, stage 30-31 out of 62 stages. We're in for $1.8 million frac cost so far on each well, plus $2 mil each for the drilling. 

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

You have heard about the current issue with heavy ship fuel ( 380 cst) with some nasty chemical in it. Its has stopped some ships. The source of the fuel has been traced to fracked supply. It has had phenols and styrene in it which crude doesnt so there was no process to remove it or check for it.

https://insurancemarinenews.com/insurance-marine-news/contaminated-bunker-fuel-hits-ships-in-singapore/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

...I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering, also studied groundwater hydrology in college as an elective, and have over 40 years experience in drilling and fracking.

I offer this only as information. I learned long ago that, for most people, a lack of knowledge will never prevent them from having strongly held opinions on any subject. I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind, as poorly trained minds tend to be inflexible beasts, and most minds are poorly trained. 

That was a good read but unfortunately you are simply putting forward an argument it is a safe practise devoid of risk and the opposite to what the doom and destruction crowd say. The debate around fracking needs to start with some honesty from all sides not "closed minds".

The bottom line is there are risks involved in any industrial activity and that risk varies location to location, particularly fracking as it involves a practise occuring in unchartered territory below ground. To not think carefully about how those risks are managed, rather than trying to claim it is a safe activity or not as both sides are doing is as dumb as batshit.

There are countless instances worldwide where the practise has resulted in things going to shit, some very serious. The reason is a complex underground landscape and a detailed understanding of what is there and how this extractive process interacts is incomplete.

This is why in countless jurisdictions worldwide the practise of fracking is either suspended or banned pending further studies to establish and reduce risk if it was to occur.

Nothing in this world is completely safe and fracking is no exception. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USA out produces OPEC with just the GoM, since about 2014, USA doesnt care whether oil price goes up or down, when you produce more then you need.

Not to mention gas, I read that by 2020 it might be up there with Australia as 2 or 3rd largest exporter in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J105 said:

Meat Wad..........Aloha! I have an idea GO FUCK YOURSELF!

You're a quick study. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J105 said:

Been a long time since I visited this super SAILING SITE It's great to see how the site has grown, Good job Scot!

Art

 

then you know the routine 

let me help a bro out

 

25669_12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailabout said:

USA out produces OPEC with just the GoM, since about 2014, USA doesnt care whether oil price goes up or down, when you produce more then you need.

Who ever is telling you that are having a serious tug on your winky....you need to pull your pants up :-)

OPEC-15.jpg

 

Saudi-Arabia.jpg

chart.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sailabout said:

The source of the fuel has been traced to fracked supply. It has had phenols and styrene in it which crude doesnt so there was no process to remove it or check for it.

Yes contained chemicals not from petroleum refining but from fracking or from extracting shale oil distalates containing ketones, ethers, hydroxybenzene and resorcinol series phenols. Where did those phenols and styrenes etc go which didn't end up in the extracted product? Did they mysteriously just vanish or are they heading for the nearest aquifer?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Hold on, cowboys. Where y’all think your line, your sails, your carbon, your fuels... I can go on... all that shit comes from oil. Y’all might want to move outa those glass houses

Max to go with your post I found  a cartoon of a Preacher reading from the Branson Gospel of Hypocrisy.

IMG_20181013_152833.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG- so much emoting, so little real thought.  It's posts like this that remind me the bell shaped I.Q. distribution has a mid point, and half the population falls on the left side of the curve.  So few really think, fewer are capable of thinking, even fewer would dare to stand on their own feet if they did think.  Most just bark like trained seals at their political master's command.

If the EPA, under the control of the black jesus, says that fracking isn't damaging the planet then who are we to argue?

And Scot is an idiot- but we all knew that.  So what.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Population. Security. Survival. The former will destroy the rest.

Species does not matter, rational or not, 'cept to say, until the end, "I got mine!" 

crying_indian-op.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cruisin Loser said:

Fracking is is exceedingly simple, the components are water and sand. That's it. If a gelling agent is used, it's called guar. The same stuff used to thicken salad dressing and catsup. That's it. If you were, by accident, to pump water and sand at high rates into a water zone, what would be the harm? I'm not sure how it would happen, given how we drill and construct wells, and all of the pre and during-frack testing that is done to ensure wellbore integrity. 

 

tad more than simply water and sand

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/scary-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracking-2012-3#btex-compounds-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh- don't ya love the ill informed rush to tell the level headed informed they know sweet FA and to shut up, quoting bias non evidence biased articles, rather than scientific research. And if they do use anything nearing science, then that will not preventing them misquoting and misinterpreting it. Finally, when challenged, resort to abuse and shouting.

so here one for them -  did you realise fracking uses that damn evil nasty Dihydrogen Monoxide 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

hz9mx6jw.bmp

 

and for those with a brain here's a clue .... DiHydrogen Monoxide literally floats our boats

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Empty barrels make the most noise!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top climate scientist blasts UK’s fracking plans ‘as aping Trump’

 

Quote

 

James Hansen, who is known as the father of climate science, warned that future generations would judge the decision to back a UK fracking industry harshly.

“So the UK joins Trump, ignores science… full throttle ahead with the worst fossil fuels,” Hansen told the Observer. “The science is crystal clear, we need to phase out fossil fuels starting with the most damaging, the ‘unconventional’ fossil fuels such as tar sands and ‘fracking’.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/13/top-climate-scientist-james-hansen-attacks-uk-fracking-plans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth will go on and the fittest will survive.  Tralaa........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 3to1 said:

ainslie should find another sponsor...

you should find another sport 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VWAP said:

then you know the routine 

let me help a bro out

 

25669_12.jpg

More plastic there then in the great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites