• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Technology opens HUGE new oil reserves in USA . . .

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
What do you bet that the EPA, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and President Obama prevent the companies from recovering the oil?

They are talking about 2 MILLION jobs that will be created and a LARGE portion of our oil imports can be eliminated. :wow:

Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output

FULL STORY => http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html

. . . the economic benefits of pumping previously inaccessible oil from fields that could collectively hold two or three times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay . . .

the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.

“It’s the one thing we have seen in our adult lives that could take us away from imported oil,” said Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, one of the most aggressive drillers. “What if we have found three of the world’s biggest oil fields in the last three years right here in the U.S.? How transformative could that be for the U.S. economy?”. . .

 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I have to agree it will be interesting how the government chooses to handle this . It could be just what we need to be self sufficient in producing our own oil but at what cost ?

This part from the article does concern me a little bit as it is a problem my area has been dealing with for decades and that is ground water contamination from the surrounding oil wells as well as the pipelines that run through and adjacent to our property that have had several leaks in the past several years . I'll be curious to here ETF's thoughts on this as well as a few others that know quite a bit about oil production . :unsure:



"But water remains a key issue. In addition to possible contamination of surface and underground water from fracking fluids, the sheer volume of water required poses challenges, especially in South Texas, which faces a severe drought and rapidly diminishing water levels in the local aquifer.
At the rate wells are being drilled, “there’s definitely going to be a problem,” said Bay Laxson, a local water official."
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
No question that water needs to be considered, but I suspect we can pipeline in water as easily as we can pipeline out oil!
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
No question that water needs to be considered, but I suspect we can pipeline in water as easily as we can pipeline out oil!
Thats true but with Texas having a major drought problem as well as KS to a lesser amount , I have to wonder where the water would come from . :unsure:

Its a shame that so many taxpayers dollars go to waste on unneeded studys and other crap instead of trying to figure out how to take things some have to much of and figure out how to get it to others in need .:smile:

I know thats getting kind of far out there but the latest flooding comes to mind , I'm sure those folks along the mississippi would gladlly get rid of the water it seems they will be stuck with for quite awhile yet . :unsure:
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Re. the water, I'm sure the government will drag this out for so long that you'll have the drought well behind you before any drilling occurs.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
My question is how will effect the price per gallon at the pumps? Now the last year production has been cut not from a lack of oil but due to consumption. So with that said the price has continued to rise which is due to speculators running up the price per barrel of crude. Folks more oil doesn't mean lower cost per gallon of gas and never has.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
My question is how will effect the price per gallon at the pumps? Now the last year production has been cut not from a lack of oil but due to consumption. So with that said the price has continued to rise which is due to speculators running up the price per barrel of crude. Folks more oil doesn't mean lower cost per gallon of gas and never has.

Joe, nobody seems to credit the speculators when they drive the price down, but they get blamed when they drive the price up?!? Hardly seems fair. But in honesty the speculators do both.

As for the price going up, at the end of every spring did any of you ever notice the fact that prices go up about 40 to 50 cents a gallon with the onset of summer. Most people MISTAKENLY believe that is because of increased driving but that is not the major reason for the increase. The main reason the price goes up this time of the year is because the EPA reinstalls the "boutique fuel" requirement.
 

EastTexFrank

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
I'll be curious to here ETF's thoughts on this as well as a few others that know quite a bit about oil production . :unsure:



"But water remains a key issue. In addition to possible contamination of surface and underground water from fracking fluids, the sheer volume of water required poses challenges, especially in South Texas, which faces a severe drought and rapidly diminishing water levels in the local aquifer.
At the rate wells are being drilled, “there’s definitely going to be a problem,” said Bay Laxson, a local water official."

I don't know what I can tell you Cowboy except that there really isn't anything new here. They've been fracturing wells for well over a 100 years. It goes back to the days when they literally dropped a bottle of nitroglycerine down the well and ran like hell. Hydraulic fracturing, like they do now has been around for about 60 years.

The Haynesville Shale in NE Texas and NW Louisiana has been blowing and going for a number of years for natural gas. The only thing that is slightly different here is that they are doing it in a shale to produce oil.

The technology isn't new, it's been around for a long time. Like anything else, to be done successfully certain things are required. The primary thing is that you need a really good cement job on your production casing. As BP found out in the Gulf, a bad cement job can lead to all kinds of grief but that applies to every oil well not just these fractured horizontal wells.

Can it lead to ground water contamination? With a bad cement job, it's a possibility but if everything is done properly and correctly, the probability is small. Besides, what you are pumping down the hole to fracture it is all water or water based chemicals. Surface water contamination shouldn't even be a possibility. The frac fluid is pumped out of 500 barrel tanks. Once you have initiated the fracture and propogated it, you follow with a proppant (sand) slurry to keep the fracture open. When you are finished and release the pressure the fluid that flows back is returned to the frac tanks. It's too darned expensive to drop on the ground or dump in the nearest lake. :smile:

Just the act of drilling an individual oil well uses fairly large quantities of water but not as much as you would think. The additional water required for fracturing won't increase that substantially. You have to make a choice. Do you want the financial benefits to the individual and the community that the oilfield brings or do you want to try and preserve your water in poverty? That's a tough one.

The oilfield infrastructure in the States is getting old, just like our roads and bridges and a lot of it is in need of repair or replacement. Doing that isn't just a case of slapping your money down and doing it. There are legal battles going on right now all over East Texas because people don't want new pipelines crossing their property. As for the actual production equipment on many of the well sites, well that's another story. Let's just say that during the lean years with low oil prices, some oil companies, especially the smaller ones, cut back on preventative maintenance in order to maintain profitability and they (and we) paid and are paying a price for it.

For someone who didn't have a lot to say I sure typed a lot. :yum::yum:
 
Last edited:

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't know what I can tell you Cowboy except that there really isn't anything new here. They've been fracturing wells for well over a 100 years. It goes back to the days when they literally dropped a bottle of nitroglycerine down the well and ran like hell. Hydraulic fracturing, like they do now has been around for about 60 years.

The Haynesville Shale in NE Texas and NW Louisiana has been blowing and going for a number of years for natural gas. The only thing that is slightly different here is that they are doing it in a shale to produce oil.

The technology isn't new, it's been around for a long time. Like anything else, to be done successfully certain things are required. The primary thing is that you need a really good cement job on your production casing. As BP found out in the Gulf, a bad cement job can lead to all kinds of grief but that applies to every oil well not just these fractured horizontal wells.

Can it lead to ground water contamination? With a bad cement job, it's a possibility but if everything is done properly and correctly, the probability is small. Besides, what you are pumping down the hole to fracture it is all water or water based chemicals. Surface water contamination shouldn't even be a possibility. The frac fluid is pumped out of 500 barrel tanks. Once you have initiated the fracture and propogated it, you follow with a proppant (sand) slurry to keep the fracture open. When you are finished and release the pressure the fluid that flows back is returned to the frac tanks. It's too darned expensive to drop on the ground or dump in the nearest lake. :smile:

Just the act of drilling an individual oil well uses fairly large quantities of water but not as much as you would think. The additional water required for fracturing won't increase that substantially. You have to make a choice. Do you want the financial benefits to the individual and the community that the oilfield brings or do you want to try and preserve your water in poverty? That's a tough one.

The oilfield infrastructure in the States is getting old, just like our roads and bridges and a lot of it is in need of repair or replacement. Doing that isn't just a case of slapping your money down and doing it. There are legal battles going on right now all over East Texas because people don't want new pipelines crossing their property. As for the actual production equipment on many of the well sites, well that's another story. Let's just say that during the lean years with low oil prices, some oil companies, especially the smaller ones, cut back on preventative maintenance in order to maintain profitability and they (and we) paid and are paying a price for it.

For someone who didn't have a lot to say I sure typed a lot. :yum::yum:


I agree with your last line Frank :yum: . Thats some great info , I knew you had mentioned the fracturing thing before in one of the BP threads, but I couldn't remember exactlly what the process was so thanks for the lesson again . :biggrin:

Sure sounds a heck of a lot safer then doing it out in the gulf at least , but I guess they been doing that all over the world for years to with not that many major accidents considering the amount of wells drilled. Sure dont seem to here much about the BP spill these days for all the attention it got . :unsure:
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
I did a little reasearch and ran across a few older articles about the fracking process and thought some here might find them interesting . Theres 3 articles and there a bit long . Sorry for the thread jack MD but I thought it was kinda related .:wink:
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/2005-Energy-Act.htm
Key paragraphs from the
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
SEC. 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(B) excludes—
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’.

SEC. 323. OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION DEFINED.
Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(24) OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION.—The term ‘oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities’ means all field activities or operations associated with exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or transmission facilities, including activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such field activities or operations may be considered to be construction activities.’’.

Frac-Chemicals.jpg

'Fracking Convention' in Greene County, Pa.

Public Citizen’s Analysis of the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005
OIL & GAS REGULATORY ROLLBACKS
Section 322
"Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called “hydraulic fracturing,” a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates—with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...-All-the-Chemicals-They-Use?via=sidebyuserrec
Leaked Congressional Report: Even 'Fracking' Companies Can't Identify All the Chemicals They Use
Last year the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, then chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, undertook an investigation of the hydrofracking process companies use to pry natural gas from shale and other tight geological formations. Last night, media broke an embargo, so the committee released its report two days ahead of the originally scheduled release on Monday.
raiderswarehouse.jpg_w_535_h_354.jpeg
One perspective on U.S. government archives

Written by Waxman, Rep. Edward Markey and Rep. Diana DeGette, the report is devastating. It puts an official imprimatur on what critics have been saying for a long time: Energy companies are engaging in reckless disregard for how fracking may affect the environment and human health, they themselves don't know all the chemicals they're using, and they are resisting effective regulation. But, as always, the question is what will be done about what the committee's investigators have reported. They themselves made no recommendations. Is their investigation headed, like so many government reports, for a shelf deep in some archive like that revealed in the final scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark? The crux of the report:
Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products – not including water added at the well site – between 2005 and 2009. Some of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and generally harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant coffee and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. Appendix A lists each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in hydraulic fracturing products between 2005 and 2009.
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol, which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol (used in 274 products), 2-butoxyethanol (used in 126 products), and ethylene glycol (used in 119 products).
Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.
The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.
In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to provide the Committee with a complete chemical makeup of the hydraulic fracturing fluids they used. Between 2005 and 2009, the companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. Committee staff requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information. Although some companies did provide information about these proprietary fluids, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical suppliers. In these cases, the companies are injecting
fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.
Let me repeat that: Fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.
And what is the industry's response? Not much so far. But Ian Urbina at The New York Times wrote Saturday night:
Matt Armstrong, an energy attorney from Bracewell & Giuliani that represents several companies involved in natural gas drilling, faulted the methodology of the congressional report released Saturday and an earlier report by the same lawmakers. "This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report on diesel use -- it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of the hazardous chemicals contained within those products," he said. "This generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these chemicals over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted within the timeframe of the report."
Here's some context. The Environmental Working Group reported in Drilling Around the Law:
In a worst case scenario, the petroleum distillates used in a single well could contain enough benzene to contaminate more than 100 billion gallons of drinking water to unsafe levels, according to drilling company disclosures in New York State and published studies. (NYDEC DSGEIS 2009, Pagnotto 1961) That is more than 10 times as much water as the state of New York uses in a single day. (NYDEC DSGEIS 2009) Fracking has already been linked to drinking water contamination and property damage in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and other states. (Lustgarten 2008a, 2008b)
Despite the risks, Congress in 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing, except fracturing with diesel fuel, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Diesel is the only substance for which drillers must seek a permit before it is injected underground. (SDWA 2009)
Based on a six-month investigation of chemical disclosure records filed by several of the largest drilling corporations and interviews with regulators in five states, Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that:
1. Companies are injecting natural gas wells with millions of gallons of fracking fluids laced with petroleum distillates that can be similar to diesel and represent an equal or greater threat to water supplies. The distillates typically contain the same highly toxic chemicals as diesel: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Distillates disclosed in records analyzed by EWG have been found to contain up to 93 times more benzene than diesel but require no authorization prior to use. ...
And that is just one of the known toxic chemicals involved in fracking.
As Urbina writes, an EPA report on how fracking may be tainting drinking water "has been made more difficult by companies’ unwillingness to publicly disclose which chemicals and in what concentrations they are used." While the industry plans to start a public database of the chemicals, disclosure is voluntary and does not include the identity of those considered. Given the nature of voluntary reporting, there is no way to tell whether companies already skirting regulations will accurately report information about what chemicals they are using and in what amounts.
Last week, there was another leaked report on fracking. This one was written by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell University. They put an arrow through the heart of the argument that natural gas pried from tight formations will make a huge difference in the amount of CO2 emissions compared with the coal that advocates have touted it as being a replacement for:
“The greenhouse gas footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years… These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured -- as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids -- and during drill out following the fracturing.”​
Since Ronald Reagan gutted research into renewable energy 30 years ago, the United States has been captive to fossil-fuel interests who have done all they can to prevent a full-bore effort dedicated to conservation, improved efficiency and renewables. These days, the focus is on domestic drilling on- and off-shore, production from tar sands, other environment-wrecking "unconventional" sources of oil and natural gas and the chimera of clean coal.
In Congress, Republicans have, of course, been the tip of the spear for this push while sneering and sniping at alternative approaches. But too many Democrats, coal-state Democrats mostly, but others as well, have neither put up obstacles to the fossil-fuel giants nor vigorously supported renewable alternatives. To its credit, the Obama administration has focused more attention on, and provided more funding for, renewables than any administration since Jimmy Carter's. The President's recent speech on energy included some additional indication that this support and funding will continue. But it also gave succor to the fossil-fuel industry, to the deep-water drillers, to clean-coal advocates and to those who say natural gas will rescue us. Down that path is a dead-end.
Persuading Congresspeople, including many members who are progressives except when it comes to energy matters, that they should take a fresh approach is no easy matter. Energy companies fill so many of their pockets with campaign cash. And even those not beholden in that way worry about the jobs associated with the industry, a legitimate concern for both them and us. So persuasion is a step-by-step process. We can press it forward by opening their eyes with documents like the Waxman-Markey-DeGette fracking report and with other studies, such as the recently published A Solar Transition is Possible by Peter D. Schwartzman & David W. Schwartzman.
Of course, persuasion often requires other action as well, from lawsuits to peaceful but not passive confrontation on the front lines.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/20/733374/-Close-the-Halliburton-Loophole
Congress Should Close the Halliburton Loophole
Hydraulic fracturing should be regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act

glassdrop.jpg

Only one industry in the U. S. can legally inject known toxins directly into sources of drinking water without federal regulation, but as early as this week, legislation may be introduced in Congress to overturn the exemption granted to Big Oil by the 2005 Congress at the urging of Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO


Hydraulic fracturing (FRACKing) is a technique that was developed by Halliburton. Millions of gallons of fresh water, mixed with sand, and often containing a witch’s brew of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are injected under high pressure miles down the drilling hole to fracture the underground formation and release the oil and gas trapped within. Ninety percent of all U.S. oil and gas wells undergo hydraulic fracturing to stimulate the production of oil and gas.
These chemicals can be lethal! Last month 16 cattle died a gruesome death when a spill of hydraulic fracturing fluid landed in their pasture.
Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Hinchey that she believed her agency should review the risk that fracturing poses to drinking water in light of various cases across the country that raise questions about the safety. Some of those cases are detailed in a 2 page hydraulic fracturing FACT SHEET developed by Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil and Gas Accountability Project and Western Organization of Resource Councils to help counter Big Oil’s 14 page "Response to Allegations" document sent to our Congress Members.
The following key points from the fact sheet prove there is no legitimate reason to keep this exemption:

Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not shut down drilling or mandate a burdensome new permit process.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not require disclosure of proprietary trade secrets or confidential business information.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would provide a minimum federal standard to prohibit drinking water contamination and shine a light on hydraulic fracturing.

The domestic drilling agenda has expanded the number of U.S. wells enormously. There are already hundreds of thousands of wells in 34 states from New York to California, and hundreds of thousands of more wells are anticipated—each one involving the use of toxic chemicals.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
i would think the obama crew would rather have oil produced in states like texas and oklahoma than trying to do it in the arctic prudho bay is runnng out when it runs dry than the pipeline has to go which means no more drilling in the north country we also have lots of oil here i just love how the fedral government sells a lease than the epa says you can't drill on it
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
i would think the obama crew would rather have oil produced in states like texas and oklahoma than trying to do it in the arctic prudho bay is runnng out when it runs dry than the pipeline has to go which means no more drilling in the north country we also have lots of oil here i just love how the fedral government sells a lease than the epa says you can't drill on it
This would be the same Obama who has effectively prohibited drilling on American land ranging from shallow water to ANWR, and has publicly stated that higher gas prices is a good thing as it forces us into alternate energy.

The oil shale and oil sand reserves extend from the southern border to well into Canada, and some believe that it is the largest reserve in the world.
 

Snowtrac Nome

member formerly known as dds
GOLD Site Supporter
that's the same guy he dosn't have to heat his house with heating oil how would he like to fill a 500 gallon tank at 5 bucks per gallon?oh' i forgot he can afford to write a check to convert to alternitive energy
 

EastTexFrank

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
Cowboy, be very careful when when reading some of these reports. Most of them are written by journalists who have no technical understanding of what they are reporting on. I could go through it line item by line item but that would take about 4 volumes. A lot of it seems to be a politically motivated witch hunt against Dick Chaney and Halliburton and I quote:

"Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not shut down drilling or mandate a burdensome new permit process.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not require disclosure of proprietary trade secrets or confidential business information.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would provide a minimum federal standard to prohibit drinking water contamination and shine a light on hydraulic fracturing."


And speak about exaggeration and scare mongering to try and make your point:

There are already hundreds of thousands of wells in 34 states from New York to California, and hundreds of thousands of more wells are anticipated—each one involving the use of toxic chemicals.

No mention that what these wells themselves are producing is pretty damned toxic. Try drinking a gallon or so of crude and see how well you feel. Where do they think that all the benzene and toluene comes from in the first place ... crude oil.

No, the oil companies in the US are an easy target because everybody uses their products and almost nobody understands what the hell they're buying apart from the fact that they pour it into their tanks and it makes their cars go from point A to point B.

Sometimes a little education is a very dangerous thing.
 

Cowboy

Wait for it.
GOLD Site Supporter
Cowboy, be very careful when when reading some of these reports. Most of them are written by journalists who have no technical understanding of what they are reporting on. I could go through it line item by line item but that would take about 4 volumes. A lot of it seems to be a politically motivated witch hunt against Dick Chaney and Halliburton and I quote:

"Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not shut down drilling or mandate a burdensome new permit process.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would not require disclosure of proprietary trade secrets or confidential business information.
Closing the Halliburton Loophole would provide a minimum federal standard to prohibit drinking water contamination and shine a light on hydraulic fracturing."


And speak about exaggeration and scare mongering to try and make your point:

There are already hundreds of thousands of wells in 34 states from New York to California, and hundreds of thousands of more wells are anticipated—each one involving the use of toxic chemicals.

No mention that what these wells themselves are producing is pretty damned toxic. Try drinking a gallon or so of crude and see how well you feel. Where do they think that all the benzene and toluene comes from in the first place ... crude oil.

No, the oil companies in the US are an easy target because everybody uses their products and almost nobody understands what the hell they're buying apart from the fact that they pour it into their tanks and it makes their cars go from point A to point B.

Sometimes a little education is a very dangerous thing.

Thanks again for your input Frank , I agree I just thought it was interesting and more then likelly the same arguments will surface again because of this new ( supposed ) find .

I visit with the pipeline guys that maintain the lines running through and adjacent to our property quite a bit when their out here, and they have been talking about these new finds for years . :biggrin:
 
Top