Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Liberals To Be Triggered In 3..2..1.. - Fracking Has Cut More CO2 Emissions Than All Renewable Energy Combined

But Russia

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 05:07 PM

Bil is not a fan of this report:

 

Hydraulic fracturing has done more to cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in the last decade than all renewable energy sources and nuclear power combined, according to data from the Energy Department’s statistical arm.

 

The shift from coal to natural gas alone cut CO2 emissions more than 2 billion metric tons in the last decade, which is about 72 percent more than emissions reduced through increased “non-fossil generation.”

 

“Between 2005 and 2016, CO2 emissions declined by a cumulative 3,176 [million metric tons] as a result of these two factors,” the Energy Information Administration notes in a new report on U.S. emissions.

 

Utilities have been investing more in power plants, and converting many coal-fired plants, to burn natural gas in recent years, spurred by the massive increase in shale gas production.

 

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling has allowed drillers to unlock once out of reach shale gas reserves. The fracking boom collapses the price of natural gas since 2008, giving utilities a low-cost alternative fuel as environmental regulations forced coal plants to install expensive equipment or retire.

 

“It is now clearer than ever that if we are interested in addressing climate change, natural gas must play a significant role,” Steve Everley, spokesman for the industry-backed Texans for Natural Gas, said in a statement.

 

Environmentalists have given natural gas a mixed reception. Many groups see the shift from coal to lower-emitting natural gas as a positive step, but at the same time oppose fracking into shale.

 

Activists argue fracking can contaminate groundwater — of which there’s little evidence — and releases methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Environmentalists backed Obama administration regulations on fracking on federal lands and rules to limit methane emissions.

 

The Trump administration is working to repeal Obama-era rules restricting oil and gas drilling, but environmentalists are using the courts and working through state governments to put areas off-limits to fracking.

 

The Interior Department entered into a legal settlement in May with the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD). The Bureau of Labor Management had effectively banned fracking on 1 million acres of federal land in California. That area of California will continue to be off-limits to drilling.

 

Nearly 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide has been reduced through the “growth in non-carbon electricity generation, especially wind and solar,” but that figure also included hydropower and nuclear energy, estimated the Energy Information Admistration (EIA).

 

“Although total electricity generation use grew by about 1% from 2005 to 2016, related CO2 emissions fell by 24% over that period,” EIA found, attributing most of this decline to natural gas.

 

“The EIA’s report may be an inconvenient truth for the ‘Keep It In the Ground’ campaign, but it’s further confirmation that affordable energy is linked to a cleaner environment,” Everley said.

 

http://feelthelibert...nergy-combined/



#2 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 4,269 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 05:12 PM

yea but catastrophic earthquakes and poisoned water..its not all about just air..playing Devils Advocate



#3 moons314

moons314

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • LocationKansas

Posted 09 October 2017 - 07:08 PM

yea but catastrophic earthquakes and poisoned water..its not all about just air..playing Devils Advocate

I know.  The earthquakes are overstated.  I don't know if fracking does or doesn't contribute to seismic activity, but if it does, it's not like it's causing 7 or 8 point quakes, and it's not like these quakes are occurring in areas with no fault lines that had never previously had them anyway.



#4 omahacolt

omahacolt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,580 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:01 PM

I know.  The earthquakes are overstated.  I don't know if fracking does or doesn't contribute to seismic activity, but if it does, it's not like it's causing 7 or 8 point quakes, and it's not like these quakes are occurring in areas with no fault lines that had never previously had them anyway.

doing something to the earth that causes earthquakes is not a no big deal kind of thing.  hahaha wtf man



#5 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:06 PM

doing something to the earth that causes earthquakes is not a no big deal kind of thing.  hahaha wtf man

There are earthquakes where I live now.  It isn't directly due to fracking, it's due to water injection wells that deliver ancient saltwater found in productive zones to the Arbuckle Formation, which isn't a commercially-viable formation.  They aren't really earthquakes, they are slips and rubs because ancient fault lines that are dormant are now being lubricated by the injection water.  SO FAR it hasn't created any large earthquakes, but some of them shake the houses pretty good.  However, they seem to have slowed now that companies are forced to be more cognizant of what was happening.



#6 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,818 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:08 PM

I know.  The earthquakes are overstated.  I don't know if fracking does or doesn't contribute to seismic activity, but if it does, it's not like it's causing 7 or 8 point quakes, and it's not like these quakes are occurring in areas with no fault lines that had never previously had them anyway.

We had one last October. The epicenter was Cushing, Oklahoma. Never had one here before.

#7 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 4,269 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 10:14 PM

We had one last October. The epicenter was Cushing, Oklahoma. Never had one here before.

 

 

never..or just not in the last  150+/- years??

 

Never is a long time



#8 Semo

Semo

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 4,785 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 11:33 PM

I live right on top of the New Madrid fault line. We have them every week. Usually don’t even feel them.

#9 omahacolt

omahacolt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,580 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 11:34 PM

There are earthquakes where I live now.  It isn't directly due to fracking, it's due to water injection wells that deliver ancient saltwater found in productive zones to the Arbuckle Formation, which isn't a commercially-viable formation.  They aren't really earthquakes, they are slips and rubs because ancient fault lines that are dormant are now being lubricated by the injection water.  SO FAR it hasn't created any large earthquakes, but some of them shake the houses pretty good.  However, they seem to have slowed now that companies are forced to be more cognizant of what was happening.

so a company was fucking up the environment and the government said stop it.  thank jesus for regulation on this stuff.  too bad trump is going to get rid of all of it.  



#10 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 09 October 2017 - 11:51 PM

It's not as simple as your peon brain proposes...  The Oklahoma economy is driven by oil and gas, without it, there is no economy.  During the fracking boom it created enormous jobs and wealth for a lot of people living in the state, and allowed OKC to go out and get the Thunder, etc, etc...  Years after all the fracking began they realized that it was causing some slips and rubs in existing faults, so they had to slow injection and isolate it to mitigate the problems.  Sometimes you just don't know the extent of what could happen until it happens.  Even then it's incredibly difficult to isolate it given there are hundreds of companies who drill the same way, over hundreds of thousands of square miles. 

 

The state of Oklahoma has very little regulation because it knows that if you kill drilling, you kill jobs, therefore you kill tax revenue, and the result is you have no state economy. 

 

It's like anything else, you weigh the good with the bad then attempt to proceed in the most logical manner.  Your hero, Obama, didn't grasp that very simple concept because he's never had a real job in his life and never had to worry about paying salaries and keeping food on tables. 



#11 omahacolt

omahacolt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,580 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:12 AM

It's not as simple as your peon brain proposes... The Oklahoma economy is driven by oil and gas, without it, there is no economy. During the fracking boom it created enormous jobs and wealth for a lot of people living in the state, and allowed OKC to go out and get the Thunder, etc, etc... Years after all the fracking began they realized that it was causing some slips and rubs in existing faults, so they had to slow injection and isolate it to mitigate the problems. Sometimes you just don't know the extent of what could happen until it happens. Even then it's incredibly difficult to isolate it given there are hundreds of companies who drill the same way, over hundreds of thousands of square miles.

The state of Oklahoma has very little regulation because it knows that if you kill drilling, you kill jobs, therefore you kill tax revenue, and the result is you have no state economy.

It's like anything else, you weigh the good with the bad then attempt to proceed in the most logical manner. Your hero, Obama, didn't grasp that very simple concept because he's never had a real job in his life and never had to worry about paying salaries and keeping food on tables.

destroying the environment is not a weigh the good and bad scenario. It is only bad.

Looks like the people of Oklahoma should have studied harder and got better jobs. Or does that only fit with minorities? I always forget when personal responsibility is relevant with you republicans

#12 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 02:19 AM

destroying the environment is not a weigh the good and bad scenario. It is only bad.

Looks like the people of Oklahoma should have studied harder and got better jobs. Or does that only fit with minorities? I always forget when personal responsibility is relevant with you republicans

I get that you aren't smart enough to grasp many of these concepts, but there are these cool little things called resources.  Resources dictate local economies.  For instance, areas near the ocean have fishing.  Warmer/wetter regions can grow lots of fruits.  Some areas have gold mines, coal, whatever.  Oklahoma has oil and gas.  That is what drives their economy.  There are plenty of educated and intelligent people, but the core job industry is oil and gas.

 

No idea where the minority thing comes from other than you're a race-baiting troll with a low IQ.  So yeah.



#13 xen

xen

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,676 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:47 PM

All i know is i live in the middle of all these new fracking earthquakes and if my fracking house falls down because of these fracking assholes i shall be suing the holey fracking shit out of them.

#14 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 4,269 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 12:57 PM

All i know is i live in the middle of all these new fracking earthquakes and if my fracking house falls down because of these fracking assholes i shall be suing the holey fracking shit out of them.

:lol:



#15 moons314

moons314

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • LocationKansas

Posted 10 October 2017 - 02:46 PM

We had one last October. The epicenter was Cushing, Oklahoma. Never had one here before.

Was it catastrophic?



#16 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,818 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 10 October 2017 - 03:29 PM

I see.  Since it wasn't catastrophic I guess I just have to learn to live with them right?   If the tornado wasn't an F5 there's no need to worry.  Its a question of kind not degree.



#17 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 03:42 PM

I see.  Since it wasn't catastrophic I guess I just have to learn to live with them right?   If the tornado wasn't an F5 there's no need to worry.  Its a question of kind not degree.

Nah, I suspect (well it's clearly what's occurring) that they will begin to cycle through injections, etc, to limit the exposure these wells have to lubricating prehistoric faults, it should dramatically reduce the number of seismic events in the future.



#18 robgar

robgar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:12 PM

So the fault lines are new?

https://www.quora.co...mas-fault-lines

No that wasn't the largest earthquake in Oklahoma I suggest a trip to one of several natural history museums in the area.

And yes fracking did have something to do with it. Perhaps turned it from a 3 to a 5

#19 moons314

moons314

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • LocationKansas

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:34 PM

I see.  Since it wasn't catastrophic I guess I just have to learn to live with them right?   If the tornado wasn't an F5 there's no need to worry.  Its a question of kind not degree.

False equivalence.  A 2 or 3 point earthquake isn't even going to be comparable to an F1 or a even a microburst in terms of damage caused.  Basically you're comparing earthquakes that would be the equivalent of a 35 mph wind gust on a sunny midwest day.  I'm not discounting that fracking may or may not have an effect on the earthquakes, because I honestly don't know.  That said, earthquakes in the midwest have been occurring for centuries prior to fracking, so it's not a new concept, it's just getting more attention.  If fracking is increasing the earthquakes, then it's obviously very minimal, because we aren't suddenly feeling California or Italy type earthquakes. 



#20 BroncoStud

BroncoStud

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,759 posts

Posted 10 October 2017 - 07:35 PM

We built a home in a really pretty part of Oklahoma back in like 2009.  Backed up to woods, etc.  Then the earthquakes started.  I actually remember working at my computer one night really late, and felt the house shake, had no clue what it was.  Found out the next day it was an earthquake.  The first one I believe I had experienced.

 

From there we started having them several times per day, anywhere from 2.5 to 3.0, not strong, but annoying.  They eventually stopped.  But I did some research of an old Gulf Oil fault map of the Anadarko Basin (geological structure that runs through OK), and when looking at the map it made perfect sense how lubricating those faults would case that precise area to have seismic activity.  If the Arbuckle Formation, 10k feet below the Earth there, is typically dry, and has been for millions of years. injection water filling those tiny pores in faults would most likely cause the rubbing and bumping. 

 

Years later it's a given that it is the cause and effect, but then it was all new.  I don't believe they are noticeable at this point, so clearly the industry is figuring out how to minimize the impact.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: But Russia

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users