You are once again, incorrect. The Wyoming situation is not close to what we are talking about. It is however, another GIANT leap by the EPA radicals to shut down our economy.I Wear Pants;1016098 wrote:May 24th is the key there motherfucker.
December 8th...
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf
You are wrong.
They have EVERY motivation to make sure what they do is safe, or else they would get shut down and there goes at least $20 trillion down the tubes over the next half century - at a minimum. Why in hell would they jeopardize the greatest energy opportunity in the world today? Get in the game.I Wear Pants;1016143 wrote:And the oil/gas/any companies don't have the exact same motivation to say that everything they do is safe?
Why did we have an environmental disaster in the Gulf? Wasn't an accident.QuakerOats;1016246 wrote:They have EVERY motivation to make sure what they do is safe, or else they would get shut down and there goes at least $20 trillion down the tubes over the next half century - at a minimum. Why in hell would they jeopardize the greatest energy opportunity in the world today? Get in the game.
QuakerOats;1016236 wrote:You are once again, incorrect. The Wyoming situation is not close to what we are talking about. It is however, another GIANT leap by the EPA radicals to shut down our economy.
And, if you want to call that name to my face let me know where we can meet.
I humbly suggest then, that you examine the record of fracking --- over 1.2 million wells and zero incidents. That is an astonishingly good safety record. Thanks for making my point.queencitybuckeye;1016264 wrote:Why did we have an environmental disaster in the Gulf? Wasn't an accident.
I'm a capitalist pig as much as the next guy, but to pretend that companies will act in a safe manner to protect their long-term profits is simply absurd. There will always be some dumb **** whose job is in jeopardy or who wants a short-term boost in profits who can cause enormous amounts of damage.
As was the record of deep sea oil production. Until someone created an epic disaster.QuakerOats;1016279 wrote:That is an astonishingly good safety record. Thanks for making my point.
Yes.ManO'War;1016290 wrote:Was that really an "epic disaster"??
Not that much that fast. Billions weren't being spent on the cleanup just for P.R. purposes.From what I've read there wasn't much damage to the beaches, and considering seeping oil is a natural occurrence, there are biological systems in place to handle it.
I agree completely. What I disagree with is the notion that unfettered capitalism will keep it safe due to companies' desires to protect their long-term profits. Oversight is needed.You can't shut down entire industries due to freak accidents, or we may as well go back to the stone age.
I need to re-read the thread. I haven't seen the first post that remotely says or implies this.QuakerOats;1016306 wrote:
I guess if you want to live in the dark, and be cold and hungry, then go ahead and shut them all down. How brilliant.
I'm an operator at a refinery and we refine sour crude, but I believe that the powers that be are planning on producing some new products to possibly export. Currently we just produce and sell to the regional market. Our money makers right now are jet and diesel and SR gasoline in the warmer months seems to be the money maker.j_crazy;1015471 wrote:Utica scale supposedly has a pretty good ngl yield. That's light sweet crude. Really pure high price stuff. The marcellus is a wet gas. It produces mainly water.
And its not oil its petroleum. Natural gas is being liquefied and sold overseas. We still import more oil than we produce. Much more.
queencitybuckeye;1016264 wrote:Why did we have an environmental disaster in the Gulf? Wasn't an accident.
How long did it take them to even start cleaning up? From what I recall they were very slow in reacting.queencitybuckeye;1016304 wrote:Not that much that fast. Billions weren't being spent on the cleanup just for P.R. purposes.
Tell that to Chernobyl.ManO'War;1016354 wrote:How long did it take them to even start cleaning up? From what I recall they were very slow in reacting.
Microbes ate up most of the oil, which shows nature can correct pretty much anything that man screws up.
OK, you're the SME here. What was the technical (at a non-engineer's level) and what what the human factor behind the cause?j_crazy;1016350 wrote:Are you saying that it wasn't an accident? Because I take issue with that.
No one said to shut down any industries. And yes, it was a massive fucking disaster.ManO'War;1016290 wrote:Was that really an "epic disaster"??
From what I've read there wasn't much damage to the beaches, and considering seeping oil is a natural occurrence, there are biological systems in place to handle it.
You can't shut down entire industries due to freak accidents, or we may as well go back to the stone age.
queencitybuckeye;1016407 wrote:OK, you're the SME here. What was the technical (at a non-engineer's level) and what what the human factor behind the cause?
How about all the streams and land being contaminated by these people that put profits first, such as the drillers that find it more profitable to just dump the chemicals in the streams and pay the fines instead of disposing of it properly. They are shutting sites down all the time because of this, but I am sure you never heard any of that. I am not against the drilling as we have leased land to Chesapeake and are ready to sign another lease for another 300 acres, but I think they could do things a little better. You need to look at West Virginia and see some of the things these guys try and get away with.QuakerOats;1016279 wrote:I humbly suggest then, that you examine the record of fracking --- over 1.2 million wells and zero incidents. That is an astonishingly good safety record. Thanks for making my point.
If you care so much about it, why are you leasing your land to them? That makes you somebody who "puts profits first" and a hypocrit.password;1016679 wrote:How about all the streams and land being contaminated by these people that put profits first, such as the drillers that find it more profitable to just dump the chemicals in the streams and pay the fines instead of disposing of it properly. They are shutting sites down all the time because of this, but I am sure you never heard any of that. I am not against the drilling as we have leased land to Chesapeake and are ready to sign another lease for another 300 acres, but I think they could do things a little better. You need to look at West Virginia and see some of the things these guys try and get away with.
My post was about some of the drillers, not all of them. I know that there will always be accidents in any type of work but some of them don't care about the area because they don't live here. We are leasing to them because of around 2 million dollars plus royalties and hoping that things are more under control by the time they start drilling on the land and with a couple of the clauses that were added to the contract, it may make it more expensive to take short cuts.Pick6;1016700 wrote:If you care so much about it, why are you leasing your land to them? That makes you somebody who "puts profits first" and a hypocrit.
Not so fast oat man! Looks like all those jobs were one great big overestimation by the oil companies. Surprise, surprise!QuakerOats;1016347 wrote:Report: US's Vast Natural Gas Shale Reserves Could Create A Million Manufacturing Jobs.
The Philadelphia Inquirer (12/15, Maykuth) reports, "The abundance of natural gas from formations such as Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale may spark a US manufacturing renaissance that could add one million jobs by 2025, according to a report released" by PwC. According to the report, "manufacturers could save as much as $11.6 billion a year by 2025 from lower gas prices. Natural gas is used as a fuel source and as a raw material for commodities like plastics and fertilizer."
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (12/15, Napsha) reports National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons said that "the amount of gas in the Marcellus shale reserves in Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, and about 25 other shale plays in the United States, estimated at 862 trillion cubic feet, is sufficient to be 'absolutely a game-changer for the US economy.'" Robert McCutcheon, US industrial products leader for PwC, which produced the report with the manufacturer's association, said "the jobs would be created by companies expanding or building new plants, as well as companies bringing manufacturing jobs back to the" US. "The number of US chemicals, metals and industrial manufacturing companies that disclosed shale gas potential and its impact so far in 2011 easily surpassed that of the last three years combined, indicating this is of growing importance in the outlook of US manufacturers," McCutcheon said.
Also covering the story are IndustryWeek (12/15, Katz), Politico (12/15, Reis), the Pittsburgh Business Times (12/15, Spencer, Subscription Publication) "Energy" blog and NorthCentralPA online (12/15).
Pick6;1017999 wrote:I heard something today about some frack water from Pennsylvania being transported and put back in the ground near cambridge.... can anyone comment on this?
