Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
Wouldn't it be most practical to continue buying most of our oil from Canada and Mexico while shifting our consumption from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East to Venezuela and Brazil?

I know people freak out over Chavez, but he's not connected to an ideology that funds terror against us.  Saudi Arabia is.

If we just spent less time messing with the Middle East and South Asia while improving our relations with Latin America, we'd probably be better off both in terms of making alliances and in establishing an oil trade mostly unaffected by the turmoil between Iran, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

Besides, Brazil is set to become a major oil supplier anyway.

And of course, we could increase domestic drilling and refining.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

At first, the enviros liked fracking because they saw natural gas as a superior alternative to coal and oil. Now they've turned against it because they realize that hundreds of years worth of cheap natural gas makes solar and wind completely irrelevant. They've conducted dozens of studies on the safety of fracking, and have found no issues.
You're sure its not that the oil companies are injecting long-lived carcinogens into aquifers?

Most people I speak to are fairly rational and believe burning gas instead of oil makes sense, but not if we're permanently poisoning our agricultural land and water supply.
Most people understand there's a carbon cost to renewable energy too, they aren't all bobble-hatted nutballs.
Pretty much.  I support more domestic drilling, but we should be careful still.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS
There have already been multiple documented instances here of damage to the geological strata from fracking, as evidenced by non-biogenic natural gas leaking into the water table and being detected on the surface. I'm not convinced at all that due diligence has been performed by the coal-seam gas companies here (and this applies to shale oil extractors or anyone else trying to pump shit out of the ground by fracking near or in artesian basins)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
13rin
Member
+977|6449
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

13rin wrote:

^not at Spark...

How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up?
They should call that the "zip it" gun.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Spark wrote:

Brin may actually be right on the oil. The cost of shale oil extraction - which North America has gargantuan amounts of - has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. The concept of peak oil may become irrelevant in the forseeable future.

However, doing it on land, in water catchments and especially near people raises all sort of issues wrt the method of extraction - ie. hydrofracking. Still not entirely convinced by the industry claims that they follow due process in ensuring that the obscenely toxic hydrofracking chemicals don't A. damage the geological strata which holds the water or B. leak into the water table. Either of which would ruin absolutely everyone's day.
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6470|so randum
fwiw i'm quite in favour of fracking, although it's sort of been put on hold around here after apparently inducing (low magnitude, around 3 iirc) earthquakes
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Brin may actually be right on the oil. The cost of shale oil extraction - which North America has gargantuan amounts of - has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. The concept of peak oil may become irrelevant in the forseeable future.

However, doing it on land, in water catchments and especially near people raises all sort of issues wrt the method of extraction - ie. hydrofracking. Still not entirely convinced by the industry claims that they follow due process in ensuring that the obscenely toxic hydrofracking chemicals don't A. damage the geological strata which holds the water or B. leak into the water table. Either of which would ruin absolutely everyone's day.
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Brin may actually be right on the oil. The cost of shale oil extraction - which North America has gargantuan amounts of - has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. The concept of peak oil may become irrelevant in the forseeable future.

However, doing it on land, in water catchments and especially near people raises all sort of issues wrt the method of extraction - ie. hydrofracking. Still not entirely convinced by the industry claims that they follow due process in ensuring that the obscenely toxic hydrofracking chemicals don't A. damage the geological strata which holds the water or B. leak into the water table. Either of which would ruin absolutely everyone's day.
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.
Then they're doinitrong.

There's a large fracking operation just south of here, and no matter how hard people try to say it's so, there is no evidence of the chemicals leaking upward, thousands of feet, through rock, into the water table.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX
So at one site there isn't currently evidence?
Wow, that proves its OK then.

But if the question were about WMD would you suddenly flip and say then tiniest speck of evidence is enough to prove guilt?
Injecting carconigens into the ground beneath your feet will kill more Americans than Iraqi WMD ever would have - if they'd existed - mark my words.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|6623

FEOS wrote:

There's a large fracking operation just south of here, and no matter how hard people try to say it's so, there is no evidence of the chemicals leaking upward, thousands of feet, through rock, into the water table.
So long as the fracking is sub-water table, it would be less likely to have chemicals reach the table (they would be going against gravity, relying solely on diffusion for transport, etc.). But they go somewhere. And logic would dictate that they would reach the water table at some point. Whether or not the chemicals have become less toxic at that point, all depends on timeframes and conditions...

There should be extensive geologic data collected and examined for any of these operations to minimize this sort of thing, but I don't give energy companies too much credit with being very careful in a general environmental sense. Especially when a failure is probably going to be much less visible than, for example, a giant oil spill, and when it might take decades (or longer) to be discovered by outside sources. (unless it's a big quake!)


In the wake of the Gulf spill, and the anti-fracking sentiment that already exists, they probably are in fact very cautious, but this is relatively new technology and it's hard to predict the exact impact. It's been clearly evidenced that these operations can trigger geologic events like earthquakes, so what is and is not a part of - or in proximity to - the water table could very well shift over time...and the shifts could be sudden.


Again, all of this based on lectures from a few years ago, I'm no expert, etc...I support the technology, but as I said, it's hard to trust energy companies to always put safety first.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

Anyone else chuckle when they read the word "fracking?"
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5229|foggy bottom
catherine black chuckles
Tu Stultus Es
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6741|PNW

I'm sorry Catherine Black doesn't meet the critical approval of your lizard woman.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
Arlington County Housing Division Hosts "Housing 4 Hipsters" Happy Hour to Help Hipsters Find Housing Assistance

Peter Suderman | March 5, 2012

No, I am not making this up.

In the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., the Arlington County Housing Division is hosting in a happy hour called "Housing 4 Hipsters." This is a real event. That is actually happening. With the "4" in the title and everything.

The purpose? To help people of the hipster-American variety (presumably) discover ways to take advantage of the county's various housing assistance programs. Doug Myrick, an official with the Housing Division, tells Arlnow.com that the county is holding the event because, “We want people to understand there is housing assistance available across a wide range of incomes." Is it possible to take advantage of rent restrictions and/or housing subsidies ironically? Myrick also says that “when people see government assistance, they often think it must be for low income or they won’t qualify.” I can't imagine why anyone would assume that housing assistance would be limited to those with low-incomes. But at this point, I guess it's for everyone. Will hipsters still like housing assistance now that it's gone mainstream?

Or maybe the idea is to take insane, widely discredited housing policy ideas and make them retro-cool: The event page on the Housing Division website—which exists because, as I cannot stress enough, this is an actual real thing—includes the following teaser: "Options include buying your first home with little as 1% down!" Because that's always worked out so well. Also, "There will be door prizes and complimentary refreshments." Apparently, it's not enough to merely subsidize housing for middle-class young professionals; we also have to bribe them into taking advantage of it.

At Forbes, Josh Barro sets expectations: "Phrases I expect will be heard at this event include 'it’s an obscure housing assistance program; you’ve probably never heard of it' and “I liked the old FHA mortgage qualification guidelines better.'"
http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/05/arlin … sion-hosts
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Would be cool if you put some original content with that. Otherwise /care

If any of us wanted to read reason.com, we would read reason.com.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

Would be cool if you put some original content with that. Otherwise /care

If any of us wanted to read reason.com, we would read reason.com.
If I wished to add commentary and/or turn it into a discussion, I would've created a new thread for that purpose. Thank you for your contribution to this site and thread. The next time I wish to say something I will run it by you first because your opinion is very important to me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5229|foggy bottom
every hipster ive known is an ayn rand fan. true story.
Tu Stultus Es
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Would be cool if you put some original content with that. Otherwise /care

If any of us wanted to read reason.com, we would read reason.com.
If I wished to add commentary and/or turn it into a discussion, I would've created a new thread for that purpose. Thank you for your contribution to this site and thread. The next time I wish to say something I will run it by you first because your opinion is very important to me.
Well this thread has CHAT in the name. If we wanted a newsfeed from reason.com the thread title would be named "DST Newsfeed''. So you should add some content to your post otherwise the great majority of the forum is just going to roll its eyes at your shitty reason link that no one ever reads anyway.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

'-CARNIFEX-[LOC wrote:

'So long as the fracking is sub-water table, it would be less likely to have chemicals reach the table (they would be going against gravity, relying solely on diffusion for transport, etc.). But they go somewhere. And logic would dictate that they would reach the water table at some point. Whether or not the chemicals have become less toxic at that point, all depends on timeframes and conditions...

There should be extensive geologic data collected and examined for any of these operations to minimize this sort of thing, but I don't give energy companies too much credit with being very careful in a general environmental sense. Especially when a failure is probably going to be much less visible than, for example, a giant oil spill, and when it might take decades (or longer) to be discovered by outside sources. (unless it's a big quake!)


In the wake of the Gulf spill, and the anti-fracking sentiment that already exists, they probably are in fact very cautious, but this is relatively new technology and it's hard to predict the exact impact. It's been clearly evidenced that these operations can trigger geologic events like earthquakes, so what is and is not a part of - or in proximity to - the water table could very well shift over time...and the shifts could be sudden.


Again, all of this based on lectures from a few years ago, I'm no expert, etc...I support the technology, but as I said, it's hard to trust energy companies to always put safety first.
There are complex subterranean water flows, and thats besides the flows created by the injection of fracking material and the injection of other water used to force the gas out.
There are also complex interstrata flows, the strata being broken up and linked all over the place, not least by the thousands of drill holes typically used to drill through the aquifers and into the gas bubbles underneath them....
Many of the materials used in fracking simply won't degrade in that environment, and I think if any industry can be trusted to put short-term financial gain ahead of long-term social responsibility it would the oil companies.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Brin may actually be right on the oil. The cost of shale oil extraction - which North America has gargantuan amounts of - has fallen off a cliff in the last few years. The concept of peak oil may become irrelevant in the forseeable future.

However, doing it on land, in water catchments and especially near people raises all sort of issues wrt the method of extraction - ie. hydrofracking. Still not entirely convinced by the industry claims that they follow due process in ensuring that the obscenely toxic hydrofracking chemicals don't A. damage the geological strata which holds the water or B. leak into the water table. Either of which would ruin absolutely everyone's day.
Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.
Well that, and there's the issue of gas getting into the water lines.

There are areas out west where people can literally light their faucets from their well line.

FEOS wrote:

Then they're doinitrong.

There's a large fracking operation just south of here, and no matter how hard people try to say it's so, there is no evidence of the chemicals leaking upward, thousands of feet, through rock, into the water table.
They clearly are doing it wrong when natural gas is going through people's faucets.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-03-06 07:57:05)

Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Brazil has claimed the UK's spot as the world's sixth largest economy after official figures showed its economy rose 2.7% last year against the UK's 0.8%. France remains in fifth place behind Germany, Japan, China and the US.

The per capita income of Brazilians remains less than a third of that enjoyed in the UK at $11,000 (£7,000) per head, but the situation is improving all the time while western economies largely stagnate.

The economic thinktank, the CEBR, predicted last year that Brazil would climb above the UK in 2012 and would itself be leapfrogged by India and Russia by 2020.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 … th-largest
China overtook Japan for the #2 spot a few years ago. China is set to overtake us in a few decades though their per capita is still going to be very much below ours. At least, the top 6 are all western nations (France, Germany, U.S., U.k., Brazil,) or our allies (Japan).

The slow growth of the U.K.'s GDP is depressing .8%. Ours is set to grow 2.6% this year.

Just found this interesting
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Kind of hard for something occurring thousands of feet below the water table to leak into the water table. Gravity and all...
It's the fracking chemicals which leak into the water table.
Then they're doinitrong.
And that, in essence, is the problem.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard