Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio

[509 posts] [52 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by Antonio
Latest reply from News

Tags:

« Previous 123…26 Next »

rus

Login to Send PM

KSquared wrote >>

rus wrote >>

paktinat wrote >>
The oil and gas industry doesn't do things because they are nice people, they do them because they know even with 5th largest lobbying body in the US government that they soon will be forced to change what they are doing because it is so bad for the environment.

Wonder how expensive energy has to be before a majority of the population cares more about energy price than environmental damage...

As much as many would like to believe otherwise, humans are all still dependent on the natural world for survival. Does it really make sense to foul our potable water instead of finding better solutions to our energy needs? I'm interested in the cost of things like desalination on a large scale versus developing and implementing alternative energy sources.

I'm not advocating anything... just remembering back to the "nuke their ass and take the gas" sentiment of the 70's during the OPEC embargo ( yes, I'm old ).

Seems like there's a tipping point there. Just wondering where it is.

As to not drinking the water or eating the food... well, guess that's why we import so much oil. Let other countries deal with the mess, eh?

Posted 1 year ago #
KSquared
Literally Hell
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

KSquared wrote >>

rus wrote >>

paktinat wrote >>
The oil and gas industry doesn't do things because they are nice people, they do them because they know even with 5th largest lobbying body in the US government that they soon will be forced to change what they are doing because it is so bad for the environment.

Wonder how expensive energy has to be before a majority of the population cares more about energy price than environmental damage...

As much as many would like to believe otherwise, humans are all still dependent on the natural world for survival. Does it really make sense to foul our potable water instead of finding better solutions to our energy needs? I'm interested in the cost of things like desalination on a large scale versus developing and implementing alternative energy sources.

I'm not advocating anything... just remembering back to the "nuke their ass and take the gas" sentiment of the 70's during the OPEC embargo ( yes, I'm old ).
Seems like there's a tipping point there. Just wondering where it is.
As to not drinking the water or eating the food... well, guess that's why we import so much oil. Let other countries deal with the mess, eh?

I didn't think you were, just responding to your throwing the idea of that sentiment out there.

Posted 1 year ago #
Antonio

Login to Send PM

Nobody else will eat it, give it to the military.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/12/armed_services_are_urged_to_st.html

Always the guinea pigs.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/08/gulf-seafood-really-safe

Posted 1 year ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
As to not drinking the water or eating the food... well, guess that's why we import so much oil. Let other countries deal with the mess, eh?

That's exactly right.

The fact that other countries DON'T deal with the mess is why its so much cheaper to get oil from other places. When you never clean anything up its really cheap. Which is why we all have dirty, bloody hands whenever we fill up the tank. If you want to drill in the Hocking Hills you better be damned careful, but nobody here gives two shits about the Niger Delta.

There ARE ways to do things cleanly, but we all have to be willing to PAY at the point of use for those things. How much more it costs to do things cleanly is a question I do not know the answer to, but I suspect that cost has been overstated by those who would lose some profit margin.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>

rus wrote >>
As to not drinking the water or eating the food... well, guess that's why we import so much oil. Let other countries deal with the mess, eh?

That's exactly right.
The fact that other countries DON'T deal with the mess is why its so much cheaper to get oil from other places. When you never clean anything up its really cheap. Which is why we all have dirty, bloody hands whenever we fill up the tank. If you want to drill in the Hocking Hills you better be damned careful, but nobody here gives two shits about the Niger Delta.
There ARE ways to do things cleanly, but we all have to be willing to PAY at the point of use for those things. How much more it costs to do things cleanly is a question I do not know the answer to, but I suspect that cost has been overstated by those who would lose some profit margin.

That's along the lines of what I was wondering... would people be willing to pay to do things cleanly, or would they demand a lower cost product? Figure it's not either/or, but more a sliding scale... and at what point does the cost outweigh the perceived environmental benefits?

Obviously that going to be different for different groups of people ( see the Sierra Club and solar panels, for instance ) but I wonder where that point is for a majority of us here in the US.

Posted 1 year ago #
GeoKel
Clintonville
Login to Send PM

Just some points from someone who used to work in Ohio Oil and Gas Regulation:

The Marcellus and Utica shales are more than a mile below the ground. Any stimulation (hydraulic fracturing) of these units will not effect potable drinking water or the surface in Ohio. Problems with proper disposal of brine (waste) water is an issue east of Ohio, but in Ohio the geology is suitable for disposal wells to properly dispose of the brine water. This is the Underground Injection Control program, which has more stringent regulations in Ohio than the USEPA.

Gasland has quite a few inaccuracies in it. States with oil and gas regulatory programs throughout the country have had to clarify the issues raised in Gasland, which diverts time from regulatory activities. There are also groups in Ohio and many sites on the internet that spread similar misinformation about oil and gas drilling. Oil and gas drilling is not without risk and inconvenience, but there are more constructive ways to stop it than blatant lies.

I'm all for switching to cleaner energy, but until most of Ohio (and a good portion of the country) stops using gas to heat homes, drilling is likely to continue here for quite a while. Also until politicians stop taking contributions from oil companies (and it's just about all of them) I don't think we'll see an end to tax breaks for them any time soon.

Before completely dismissing oil and gas drilling in Ohio as a horrible thing, I suggest you do more research. You may still have the same opinion after, but at least you'll have more evidence to support it than Gasland.

Posted 1 year ago #
solpwr
Columbus
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote >>

rus wrote >>
As to not drinking the water or eating the food... well, guess that's why we import so much oil. Let other countries deal with the mess, eh?

That's exactly right.
The fact that other countries DON'T deal with the mess is why its so much cheaper to get oil from other places. When you never clean anything up its really cheap. Which is why we all have dirty, bloody hands whenever we fill up the tank. If you want to drill in the Hocking Hills you better be damned careful, but nobody here gives two shits about the Niger Delta.
There ARE ways to do things cleanly, but we all have to be willing to PAY at the point of use for those things. How much more it costs to do things cleanly is a question I do not know the answer to, but I suspect that cost has been overstated by those who would lose some profit margin.

That's along the lines of what I was wondering... would people be willing to pay to do things cleanly, or would they demand a lower cost product? Figure it's not either/or, but more a sliding scale... and at what point does the cost outweigh the perceived environmental benefits?
Obviously that going to be different for different groups of people ( see the Sierra Club and solar panels, for instance ) but I wonder where that point is for a majority of us here in the US.

Owners will end up paying one way or another. I can see why a farmer would sign a lease and allow a gas company to drill on their property. Supplementing farm income with a gas lease must seem like heaven on earth. But in the long run, when they want to sell the property and their water is tested and bad, is there going to be any equity for their heirs? I can't see how a bank would even lend on a dead property. If real estate appraisers are to be the shepherds of values, they need to look deeply into the past environmental practices have on values. Gasland covered all aspects of gas fracking regarding landownership...asthetics,quality of air, water and the ability to continue raising stock and produce. The banjo playing was also pretty cool.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

GeoKel wrote >>
Just some points from someone who used to work in Ohio Oil and Gas Regulation:
The Marcellus and Utica shales are more than a mile below the ground. Any stimulation (hydraulic fracturing) of these units will not effect potable drinking water or the surface in Ohio. Problems with proper disposal of brine (waste) water is an issue east of Ohio, but in Ohio the geology is suitable for disposal wells to properly dispose of the brine water. This is the Underground Injection Control program, which has more stringent regulations in Ohio than the USEPA.
Gasland has quite a few inaccuracies in it. States with oil and gas regulatory programs throughout the country have had to clarify the issues raised in Gasland, which diverts time from regulatory activities. There are also groups in Ohio and many sites on the internet that spread similar misinformation about oil and gas drilling. Oil and gas drilling is not without risk and inconvenience, but there are more constructive ways to stop it than blatant lies.
I'm all for switching to cleaner energy, but until most of Ohio (and a good portion of the country) stops using gas to heat homes, drilling is likely to continue here for quite a while. Also until politicians stop taking contributions from oil companies (and it's just about all of them) I don't think we'll see an end to tax breaks for them any time soon.
Before completely dismissing oil and gas drilling in Ohio as a horrible thing, I suggest you do more research. You may still have the same opinion after, but at least you'll have more evidence to support it than Gasland.

Thanks for that. Obviously, one should not take a single source at face value. Any suggested links/resources for the interested parties who don't have a background in the subject matter?

Posted 1 year ago #
solpwr
Columbus
Login to Send PM

Hopefully anyone that has been enlightened by the tread would watch Gasland themselves and then investigate natural gas extraction if there is any further interest.

Posted 1 year ago #
goldenidea

Login to Send PM

Gasland is a slanted documentary that, at the very least, borders on being propaganda. I suggest not giving too much attention to an art-school educated film maker that implies he's being objective in his portrayal a complex geotechnical process and its impacts. While the film is artful, it lacks any science, engineering, or even statistics behind its implied conclusions.

Anyone who would base an important personal financial decision (like leasing vs. not leasing), or anyone who might create energy or environmental policy, or even form opinion on these matters, on the basis of this film alone is ill-informed and foolish. Give me a camera and I-phone, six months off, a credit card to buy gas, and a good soundtrack and I'll find the right people and places to make a film that convinces you there are aliens living among us.

Posted 1 year ago #
solpwr
Columbus
Login to Send PM

goldenidea wrote >>
Gasland is a slanted documentary that, at the very least, borders on being propaganda. I suggest not giving too much attention to an art-school educated film maker that implies he's being objective in his portrayal a complex geotechnical process and its impacts. While the film is artful, it lacks any science, engineering, or even statistics behind its implied conclusions.
Anyone who would base an important personal financial decision (like leasing vs. not leasing), or anyone who might create energy or environmental policy, or even form opinion on these matters, on the basis of this film alone is ill-informed and foolish. Give me a camera and I-phone, six months off, a credit card to buy gas, and a good soundtrack and I'll find the right people and places to make a film that convinces you there are aliens living among us.

An opinion about Gasland is duly noted but no link of research to support it.
Mother Jones
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/fracking-safe-coca-cola#
Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/the-hard-facts-about-fracking
and more...
http://dprogram.net/2011/01/25/fracking-chemical-and-biological-risk-assessment-for-natural-gas-extraction-prof-ronald-e-bishop/
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.

After all, who cares what we think?

Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

The Gasland people have a point-by-point rebuttal to that.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

I'm sure that the oil and gas producers who fund energyindepth wouldn't have their own agenda or anything.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

The Gasland people have a point-by-point rebuttal to that.
A.

They do.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

I'm sure that the oil and gas producers who fund energyindepth wouldn't have their own agenda or anything.

But gasland was created without agenda?

Posted 1 year ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

solpwr wrote
Owners will end up paying one way or another. I can see why a farmer would sign a lease and allow a gas company to drill on their property. Supplementing farm income with a gas lease must seem like heaven on earth. But in the long run, when they want to sell the property and their water is tested and bad, is there going to be any equity for their heirs? I can't see how a bank would even lend on a dead property. If real estate appraisers are to be the shepherds of values, they need to look deeply into the past environmental practices have on values. Gasland covered all aspects of gas fracking regarding landownership...asthetics,quality of air, water and the ability to continue raising stock and produce. The banjo playing was also pretty cool.

The couple of families in PA that I know sold gas leases on their farms got enough money out of the deal to move south, pay cash for a house & retire in their early 50's in an extremely comfortable fashion. My guess is they couldn't care less about what happens to the farm, so long as the money keeps coming in.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

I'm sure that the oil and gas producers who fund energyindepth wouldn't have their own agenda or anything.

But gasland was created without agenda?

yes, that's exactly what I typed.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Posted 1 year ago #