|
|
Post by Clipper on Mar 30, 2013 10:06:14 GMT -5
energytomorrow.org/blog/fiddling-while-new-yorkers-struggle-to-find-jobs/#/type/allI don't have a horse in the race but I am interested to see what you all have to say about it. I guess I wonder how much risk there actually is to wells and the water supply. I wonder how much of the fear is justified and how much is simply overblown by environmentalists. If there is a SAFE way to do it, I am all for it, but if it is going to jeopardize people's access to potable water and pollute their wells, it should be restricted or forbidden. We have watched the ongoing debate between the energy industry and the little guy for a long time here in the south. Mountain top removal strip mining has in many cases caused pollution of potable water supplies and wells in SW Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky. In some extreme cases, mining has eliminated water sources completely by destroying springs or covering up creek beds.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Mar 30, 2013 14:51:38 GMT -5
 Clip, wow we agree fully on another issue. That's getting pretty scary. 
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Apr 1, 2013 6:16:10 GMT -5
I am generally for resource recovery but when the subject started coming to the table, I knew almost nothing about it other than what tons of people just like me (clueless) were saying. You know I work at Colgate, we have a Geology department with 3 world renowned Geologists on staff that know all about fracking.
The first 2 are Tenure profs with over 70 combined years of research and teaching under their belts. They are so respected that Albany has brought them down to testify about the longterm effects of Fracking. The Third is a PHD that has spent 3/4s of his 30 years as a geologist in the oil and Natural Gas fields across the nation.
None of these folks are paid by developers, all are purists; they eat, sleep and drink Geology and would never ever think about promoting anything that would damage their outdoor laboratories. Ive know each of them for 15-18 years, fixed and created new gizmos for them and they are as good as it gets. I dont get jumpy when science is debated by folks without any background in it, I decided to talk to those who know the "Real Deal" considering I work with them.
All three took time out of their day to chat with me about the subject on separate occasions. Each brought a little different view of the practice of the Shale Fracture recovery process then and now but all concluded virtually the same things, done using modern best practices and monitoring, its very safe.
1- There are at least 3 major watersheds that we should protect with a standoff from all forms of mining, not just fracking, that leaves 2/3rd of the Shale open to mine.
2- Multi layered, Steel cased, cement lined conduits dont leak or blow up and they extend so far into the shale they cannot possibly effect water wells that are barely below the surface in comparison.
3- Best practices use inert pressurizing compounds that arent toxic to humans or vegetation.
4- Hydro Geologists trained in best practices need to be hired by NY and paid for by the developers to monitor all aspects of the process to ensure compliance.
5- The places that have created environmental damage from fracking have had lousy track records protecting it in the past, they are the posterchildren for "how not to frack" not "why not to frack".
The overblown reports of communities destroyed across the nation youve heard and untrained talking heads screaming the sky is falling has overshadowed the real science of the debate. Were not taking about cutting the tops off mountains, blowing up nukes underground or burying our garbage for people to dig up in 1000 years but thats all we hear.
I remember when the the reports were that the Alaska Pipeline was going to kill all the animals in the great white north. Caribou wouldnt migrate, seals would die by the boatloads and the snowpack would look like the La brea tar pits overnight. None of that happened, the Caribou actually enjoy the heated pipeline and millions of gallons of Diesel fuel were not burned to transport that crude over the roads and rails yet reached their destinations without hurting anyone.
What BHO and Andy have done by closing their ears and eyes to the facts is said they want more Exon Valdez, more coastal tragedies, more burning coal fields, more mountains turned into plateaus, more Truckers flying down the roads with billions of gallons of toxic flammable sludge on board in your towns and thats what we will get!
The environmentalists have been telling us for decades, burn more Natural Gas and less oil! Now we have a chance to create 1thousands of high paying jobs and capture that which mother earth spits unburned into the atmosphere 24/7/365 and the enviro-dudes say stop right there!
Why do we pay billions for scientists to research these things when were gonna listen to a tree hugger instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Apr 1, 2013 10:04:31 GMT -5
Very interesting, JR, and excellent first-hand research. I'm impressed that as probably fairly liberal college professors your subjects are through science open to development of resources. With only a bit of light of light reading on the topic, it seemed to me that it should be safe, but only if it is well regulated as your professors pointed out in your discussions with them. That's the rub, I believe, since it is becoming more and more difficult to trust government to do that. Today, we look at a 50 year history of the government continually backing down. What has the state insurance commission or energy or transportation commissions done for us lately?
As an example, I've posted about the FAA and the Boeing Dreamliner, but put it in another thread so as to not hijack this conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by virgilgal on Apr 1, 2013 10:52:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by JGRobinson on Apr 1, 2013 16:12:37 GMT -5
VG, i did look at those reports but honestly, most of what Ive read is not from independent research, its from groups with Billions invested in crushing any conversation about the subject. There are very few news outlets I will ever trust again, most will agree with anything just to get the interview and they move on immediately after. I really do trust the Scientists I know, they are the real experts. Two out of three wouldnt even give me a personal opinion on if we should do it, just presented the facts and told me I need to make my own decision. I have decided that looking at states who never cared about their environments wont tell me anything about how we should do it. Using the right methods and oversights is the right thing to do. |
|
Clip, wow we agree fully on another issue. That's getting pretty scary. 
