« Democrat Congressman Calls Disabled Marine "White Trash" | Main | Open Thread »
October 12, 2009
Gas From Shale Would Solve Energy Problems
Posted by Van Helsing at October 12, 2009 11:09 AM
While we pay $zillions to terror-sympathetic Muslim regimes for oil, we are sitting on all the energy we will need for decades:
Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.
Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply — and rising fast. …
"There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources," he said.
However, this is only good news if the government allows us to use the new technology to unlock our own resources. The environmentalist extremists who call the shots won't like this:
Shale gas is undoubtedly messy. Millions of gallons of water mixed with sand, hydrochloric acid and toxic chemicals are blasted at rocks. This is supposed to happen below the water basins but accidents have been common. Pennsylvania's eco-police have shut down a Cabot Oil & Gas operation after 8,000 gallons of chemicals spilled into a stream.
Under the current regime, fortunes will continue to flow not only to Arabs but into futile windmill, solar, and biofuel boondoggles, while all the fuel we need waits under our feet for the moonbattery to abate. If our liberal rulers had any interest in energy independence, we would be allowed to drill our own oil, and build refineries and nuclear plants, so don't expect them to permit shale extraction on an economically meaningful scale.
On a tip from Chad.
Comments
AS THE LEFT SCREAMS....."Not In My Back Yard!"
But a windmill is as good as three or four gas wells, isn't it? Al Gore said so.
Posted by: Oiao at October 12, 2009 11:18 AM
And despite that the green freaks would oppose using it becuase it would disturb the worms or harm their earth mother they so worship
Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at October 12, 2009 11:21 AM
For crying out loud. Geologists have been screaming to use shale oil since as far back as I can remember. Heck, even my leftist geo professor when I was in college (mid 90's) talked about it as a way to extend our energy needs short term until we could all get air-powered flying cars.
Posted by: Paul H at October 12, 2009 11:22 AM
The idea for this has been around for a while, it's just that now it's becoming economically viable (in no small part from the rising price of digging a hole in the Saudi desert).
Posted by: I'm A Lasagna Hog at October 12, 2009 11:37 AM
Drill here, drill now.
Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at October 12, 2009 11:45 AM
STILL MORE bad pattern recognition from the flat-earthers...
While the radical right is apparently incensed about any sort of heathcare reform that costs any non-zero amount of $ ("Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!") you are perfectly OK with polluting that kid's water with hydrocyanic acid, or strontium-90, or whatever else.
Which is it? Are you sooo concerned about the future that we can't possibly spend a dime to fix current problems, or shoud we say "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" to really live in the now?
you apppear to want to do both (or just have no idea what you are talking about, of course... can you guess which one i think it is?)
Strange thing: shale oil is totally the answer. I may have been involved in research into that in the old grad-school days, in fact... BUT before they get that ball rolling, it is important to make sure that by using that oil now, we arent making a HUGE problem downstream.
I know, I know, that sounds an awful lot like thinking ahead... and between those of you just waiting for the Rapture to fix it and those of you who just don't care about anyone outside yourselves, thinking ahead is antithetical to your nature... but it is once again important that someone actually asks those questions before we all go off half-cocked and create yet another Superfund site we cant afford to clean up.
Too complex to process?
Posted by: Szot at October 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Interestingly here, the Eco freaks don't want windmills either if it's even remotely close to them. Look it up on Google, they made a deafening noise for everyone up to miles around the installations!
Posted by: Jay B. at October 12, 2009 12:15 PM
Windmills are bird killers! Cuisinarts of the Air!
Posted by: Cuisinart of the Air at October 12, 2009 12:27 PM
There are 50 Trillion, I repeat Trillion, cubic feet of natural gas mapped out recently in Applachia. Immediate recovery looks to be 5 Trillion CuFt and full firm belief that current developments in recovery methods will get no less than 25 Trillion CuFt out of the ground.
That will keep the lights on for the East Coast for decades perhaps up to a 100 years' worth.
So what's the delay... you'll be shocked to find out that fern fondlers have filed dozens of law suits against harming Mother Gaia.
Asshats.
Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 12, 2009 1:01 PM
Szot at October 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Too complex to process?
Maybe,... but before I conclude that your thoughts are too far above me, you might want to be more specific about what you're babbling about.
I don't think you're trying to engage in a conversation about America's environmental clean-up record, but I could be wrong.
Alternatively, you might be saying that we on this site should lobby for environmental impact studies.
Perhaps you have deigned to drift from the heavens to warn the Philistines of their follies.
No.
No. I think you've discovered condescension and are now experimenting around trying to figure out how it works.
Knock yourself out. Please.
Posted by: Fiberal at October 12, 2009 1:11 PM
sznotbag up there is really too much, typical libtard overstatement and made up stuff
"While the radical right is apparently incensed about any sort of heathcare reform that costs any non-zero amount of $ "
Actually it's something like 80% of us like the health insurance we've got and don't want or need the Gubmint interferring in our personal business. Considering that there are only about 8 million truly needy folks without health insurance we could fix that by gifting them the $6,000 per family and save trillions and our first rate healthcare system. The alternative is government run Free Clinics. That's competitive as we would all have the choice of government care our personal health insurance.
"OK with polluting that kid's water with hydrocyanic acid, or strontium-90, or whatever else."
Strontium-90 is fallout from a nuke. Hydrocyanic acid is cyanide for the gas chamber executions. You are then saying we're going to dump that into the water table??! Point 2: do you even know where the major shale deposit lies? It is in a very lightly populated moutain/country area of northwest Colorado where it joins Wyoming and Utah. They also have a chunk of it. So what children are going to be poisoned out there exactly??
I admit that caution is the byword when doing chemical extraction, but none of this is impossible to remediate if there is a spill/accident.
Apparently your vision of the childrens' future is squating in a cave burning dried animal shit for light and heat. No Thanks.
Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 12, 2009 1:18 PM
For every unit of energy it takes to extract gas from shale, we would receive 4 units of energy in return. That is a sound investment.
Shale would also buy us time to implement viable alternative energy solutions, without raising energy costs or suffocating our consumption.
Win. Win.
Posted by: RICH at October 12, 2009 1:52 PM
"I may have been involved in research into that in the old grad-school days, in fact..."
"Too complex to process?"
Posted by: Szot at October 12, 2009 12:04 PM
Wow, I'm impressed. Grad school! You must be, like, super smart and stuff. I'll try to keep up with your profound wisdom.
Posted by: forest at October 12, 2009 1:55 PM
>>Actually it's something like 80% of us like the health insurance we've got and don't want or need the Gubmint interferring in our personal business.
Agreed. I would also like to see an end to Medicare and Medicaid. We need private sector, market driven solutions to support the elder or poor. Taking care of your health needs has to become a responsibility - not a right. If you are too poor to afford healthcare, then I have a simple prescription for you: Get a job! Don't like it? Move to France!
As for gas shale pollution: This nonsense has to end. Corporations are not in the business of killing us. They need us as customers after all. There is absolutely no evidence that corporations have recently in any way endangered us. On the contrary, they are the life-blood of our society and have allowed us to share in the amazing resources our country has to offer. Libtards complain that corporations have to much power and the government too little. Dear Leader agrees. But the opposite is true: Corporations need to have far more executive power to make the decisions that will move us forward as a country.
Posted by: FreeMarketGod at October 12, 2009 2:54 PM
Hydrochloric acid was the culprit, and it is not often used in Gas shale frac ing, it is used to frac oil wells, so to eco bat your wrong.
Strontium-90 is not used in fracing
Posted by: andrew at October 12, 2009 2:56 PM
strontium-90 is a byproduct of next-gen fast-breeder reactors creating plutonium to power nuke plants. I have no dog in this fight, but it is something to consider... long-lived and very, very dangerous.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2009 3:24 PM
Szot,
So now that's its been clearly demonstrated herein that you seem to be a weak, arrogant clueless liberal idiot, you may want to sober up and try again with a sensible comment.
Posted by: Fiberal at October 12, 2009 3:36 PM
And yes you can convert coal to liquid transport fuel. Fist done in the 20s.
And fracking, first done after WWII as a way to extend old oil wells productivity. The news here is the use of 3D modeling to extract gas from shale deposits.
CH4 is the basis for all hydrocarbons ...
Posted by: bill-tb at October 12, 2009 3:43 PM
strontium-90 is a byproduct of next-gen fast-breeder reactors creating plutonium to power nuke plants. I have no dog in this fight, but it is something to consider... long-lived and very, very dangerous.
Strontium 90 has a half life of 28.8 years. "Long lived high level" waste has half lives in the hundreds or thousands of years.
Its decay chain does not contain any strong gamma emitters. The decay chain is purely beta, which can be effectively shielded with thin metal.
When properly contained and stored, strontium 90 is simply not a problem. Sealed properly, it can be buried underground for a few hundred years and pose no threat to society. Even the enviromoonbats have conceded that Yucca Mountain would be safe for the next few thousand years.
Instead, thanks to rampant enviromoonbattery in Congress, Yucca Mountain remains unfinished. Nuclear waste is stored above ground on site at nuclear generating stations, where it is vulnerable to terrorist attack. The high level waste should be buried underground at Yucca Mountain where it will be safe for hundreds of thousands of years, provided nobody digs it up.
Once again, enviromoonbattery is putting human lives in danger with policies based on fiction.
But we wouldn't want to cloud this discussion with facts.
Posted by: Anonymous Countermoonbat at October 12, 2009 4:08 PM
SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK BEWARE GREENFREAK TREE HUGGER,GRANOLA MUNCHERS WE BIRDS ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR REVENGE ON YOU FOR SUPPORTING ALL THOSE PUTRID BIRD MAMING WIND TURBINES WE BIRDS ARE COMMING FOR YOU LOOK FOR US LOOK TO THE SKIES FOOLISH PATHETIC MOONBATS WE BIRDS WILL HAVE OUR REVENGE ON YOU ALL SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Posted by: Birdzilla at October 12, 2009 9:28 PM
LOOK MY FELLOW BIRDS ITS JOHN TRAVOLTAS 707 HOW MANY OF YOUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS HAS HE SUCKED INTO HIS ENGINES STRIKE MY FELLOW BIRDS ATTACK KILL,KILL,KILL
Posted by: REPLENDENT QUETZAL at October 12, 2009 11:51 PM
I know, I know, that sounds an awful lot like thinking ahead... and between those of you just waiting for the Rapture to fix it and those of you who just don't care about anyone outside yourselves, thinking ahead is antithetical to your nature... but it is once again important that someone actually asks those questions before we all go off half-cocked and create yet another Superfund site we cant afford to clean up.
Laying aside your disgusting swipe at Christians, your problem is that you're not willing to look at what it's costing the environment right now to produce the oil we're burning right now.
Do you have any idea what the river delta in Nigeria looks like? Would you care to take a look at Saudi Arabia's record on the environment? Would you like to see the technology the Chinese are using to explore for oil off the coast of Cuba...then contrast that with what Chevron uses to pump it out of the seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, or what BP uses to draw it out of the North Sea?
Superfund site. Cute. I see you're one of those people who doesn't realize that our oil extraction technology has come a long way since the 1970s. Maybe you should learn about the environmentally-friendly innovations that have occurred since then, instead of mouthing off on a blog and pissing off the regulars.
Importing so much of our fuel (over half now) is a dead-end. Even when we aren't funding terrorism, a lot of it still gets wasted building stupid crap like palaces for Arab oil sheiks or gold-dusted cakes for some wedding. Instead, it could be profiting a US corporation, which pays taxes to our government, enriches American stockholders, and employs thousands of American workers.
There's an alternative to sending billions of dollars a year to Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela....almost none of whom have our best interests in mind.
Oh, and can the smug attitude. It's so typically.....leftist.
Posted by: Cylar at October 13, 2009 2:22 AM
@ chuck in st paul at October 12, 2009 1:01 PM
What you're talking about is the Marcellus Shale formation, and yes it is frickin' IMMENSE. On top of supplying vast amounts of natural gas and possibly oil as well, think about all of the jobs that would be created in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York if drilling and frac'ing were to commense. For months now, the PA congress has been deliberating on what to do concerning this. We've covered it constantly in the news.
It's even been shown that frac'ing and frac fluid can be performed, removed, and stored safely. Still no dice.
Then again, this is the same Pennsylvania that didn't have a state budget 100+ days after it should have. Yay, Ed Rendell. Jeez.
Posted by: Murff at October 13, 2009 4:53 AM
>Then again, this is the same Pennsylvania that didn't have a state budget 100+ days after it should have.
Which is why this decision making power needs to go to corporations. Can you imagine that they would waffle around while sitting on a valuable resource? The 'people' cannot be trusted with this. There is a demand (energy) and a resource (gas, oil, whatever) and corporations are willing to connect the two. Government needs to step out of the way and let real men do their job.
Posted by: FreeMarketGod at October 13, 2009 7:15 AM


