Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Interesting thread revival. Todays news it looks like you, the taxpayer, will soon be paying to try and make coal cleanER. As I satirically called it upthread, "clean coal". The name is total bullsh#t. The US is gifted with amazing reserves of coal, and in many years, when we do figure out how to burn it without the horrific environmental destruction it causes, we'll be in fat city. But if the coal companies want to pay to make their product clean, let them, or let West Virgina (Rockerfeller is one of the West Virgina senators) pay for it. Can we re-title the thread?
"Fracking, not even close to as insane as coal"
"Rockefeller introduces bills for clean coal incentives, research
By Timothy Cama - 05/06/14 08:33 AM EDT
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced a set of bills aimed at incentivizing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and funding federal research that could improve the process.
In addition to funding CCS research, Rockefeller’s legislation would expand tax credits for companies that use CCS, fund loan guarantees for constructing CCS facilities and fund retrofits of existing CCS facilities.
CCS is the process of capturing carbon dioxide emissions and moving them into storage, so that they do not enter the atmosphere. One of Rockefeller’s bills specifically targets the process of injecting carbon dioxide into oil wells to increase the wells’ yield, a practice known as enhanced oil recovery.
“The reality for West Virginia and the rest of the country is that we need coal; we can’t meet our energy needs without it,” Rockefeller said in a Monday statement. “It is simply unrealistic to think that we can stop burning coal and shift to cleaner sources of energy instantly.”
Rockefeller said he sees his legislation as a way to preserve coal as an important energy source while reduce its harm to the environment. West Virginia is a coal-heavy state, and the mining industry fears that government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions could harm its business.
Eileen Claussen, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, praised Rockefeller’s proposals.
“Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology to cut carbon emissions while coal and natural gas remain part of our energy mix,” Claussen said in a statement. “Providing incentives to capture CO2 for use in enhanced oil recovery will help bring more commercial-scale projects online, which will help advance carbon capture technology and lower costs.”"
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/205279-rockefeller-introduces-bills-for-clean-coal-incentives-research
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Interestingly, chouchmaster, US coal exports to Europe have increased dramatically of late.
Of course, all environmental discussions on the internet are settled as soon as the disfavored activity is proven imperfect. . .
John
|
|
dindolino32
climber
san francisco
|
|
Oh the stupid sh#t humans can come up with! What is wrong with us?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
JohnE said: "Interestingly, chouchmaster, US coal exports to Europe have increased dramatically of late."
True that, chart below - they have an environmental consciousness, sell them all that they want. China (seen in the chart as a goodly part of "Asia" is all but begging for more as well.
The 1 percenters want a new coal terminal to start exporting it much more significant quantities. I like to be for free trade, but knowing that as bad as the coal in this country is (@ 1/2 of our electricity in the nation comes from coal) the Chinese are much less concerned with pollution or making it "clean". They'll burn it and release much more crap into the air which will drift over us, so F em. By the way, last time I was over there it was brought to my attention that they had had a coal mine burning continuously since the late 1800's.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 11:05am PT
|
You're advising us to believe the gubmint on this?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 11:09am PT
|
No, just Taft. I needed my James Dean fix.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
|
Yesterday morning the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted to ban fracking in the county.
Unknown to most, there are in fact a few small producing oil wells immediately adjacent to Big Basin and Castle Rock state parks. Just off Hwy 9 if you know the area. There's also a small production just above Hwy 84 west of La Honda.
Anyway, these oil formations are relatively close to the surface as evidenced by the supposed seeps (I've never seen them myself) in oil creek and coal creek. Since my water well is in an aquifer at 400 ft I have a personal concern.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
|
Holy crap High Traverse!!! So I take it the capping unit to your aquifer/groundwater source is the Monterey Shale? Is your well in a confined or semi confined aquifer?
Edit; After reading your post more closely, I don't know the groundwater geology of Santa Cruz well at all. But I would not want fracking near my well, thats for sure.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 12:37pm PT
|
Don't know if the aquifer is in Monterey Shale or above it. I know the Monterey Shale is beneath me somewhere.
We have no idea how deep the existing oil wells are.
I do know the strata slope downwards from my canyon towards Hwy 9 at a pretty steep angle. The strata could easily be 1000 feet below the surface at the wells.
Wouldn't know a capped aquifer if it bit me in the arse.
That's why I say I'm concerned about the fracking. Not freaking out. Now looks as if I don't personally have to worry.
To my conservative engineering brain, I'm very concerned about the risks and lack of transparency in fracking. I haven't yet read all of BASE104's posts on this site.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 12:42pm PT
|
Besides groundwater contamination, I'm sitting within 1/4 mile of the San Andreas Fault. I've seen reasonable reports that there may be a link between extensive fracking and fault movements.
Again far to many unknowns about this tracking business.
Transparency would be a good thing all around.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 12:53pm PT
|
So here's some more precise info on Santa Cruz County
From the Santa Cruz Sentinel.
The move, however, is largely symbolic: There are no known oil leases in Santa Cruz County, nor has it been targeted by oil prospectors. I believe this is wrong. I mentioned above I've been told by reputable people there are some wells.
I was wondering myself what regulatory authority Santa Cruz County has.
While the state regulates underground wells, Tuesday's vote bans above-ground production support facilities. In doing so, the new law echoes a similar local effort from the 1980s to ban facilities for offshore oil drilling, an effective regulatory tool that became a model for coastal communities across California.
and it appears there is less oil in the Monterey Shale than earlier thought
Monterey Shale, a vast rock formation lying more than a mile underground that extends south through the San Joaquin Valley. While the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimated it to hold nearly 14 billion barrels of untapped oil, on Tuesday the agency downgraded its potential to 600 million barrels — possibly enough to deflate the debate over the issue.
I was also wondering about this
While fracked wells use water located far below drinking water aquifers, among Leopold's concerns is that wells could be breached and contaminate scarce local supplies.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
|
Just a comment. Anybody with a water well as a drinking water (or any use for that matter) source can sample their water and have it tested to establish some sort of baseline for the well. Best to repeat the test a few times at different times of the year. Say, for instance before and after recharge events (ie substantial rainfall in many cases).
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
|
I was talking to a co-worker the other day when she told me she signed up for a program that cut her gas bill significantly.
I asked "How do they do that? Are they using a different kind of gas? Maybe more abundant? Or is your utility just wanting to grease the slippery slope for their profits..?...
Then I thought are they doing what drug dealers figured out long ago.... first taste is practically free... because they know you'll be back for more... and by then it's too late.. the environmental damage is done
nothing to worry about at all..
Unless you like drinking water...
When will humans begin to get serious about their energy needs and their ENVIRONMENTAL NECESSITY!!!
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
|
I guess the way I asked the questions got the right thoughts rolling around in the head because she said she "hadn't thought about it that way?" (My first thought after hearing this was "And you never will, why should you?" But in the end her second thoughts will change nothing. It will not get her to actually stop and think about the "deal" in a long term scope.
My mentioning it here will result in nothing either.... let's all just keep thinking while we make it impossible for humans to exist on the only planet that we know harbors life.....
All for money.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
|
DMT,
Most of the shale activity is located in areas that weren't tectonically busted up as much as your cross section shows.
I would go into this again, but nobody understands the technical stuff. I've tried over and over. I suggest some reading. Go buy a basic Petroleum Geology book and glean from it what you can. You can learn a lot from a basic book.
Fracking is a red herring. There are tens of thousands of these wells now and there are very few accidents. In Oklahoma and Texas, most of the activity is in the horizontal plays right now. The rigs are all busy drilling horizontals.
Groundwater contamination is not a big problem. I haven't seen a single instance yet. Nothing like you will hear by watching fake Youtube videos or reading environmental blogs.
I do know of 3 cases of gas getting in the groundwater down in the deep Anardako Basin, but they were vertical wells that were super high pressure. The shale gas wells produce at a low flowing pressure.
This has me in a weird spot. I am a connoisseur of wilderness. I am adamantly opposed to drilling in the Arctic Refuge and have spoken out against it in the media quite a few times.
This is different. Most of it happens on land that is not in any way wild, in areas with a long history of oil and gas production. The problems that it brings are aesthetic in nature. It involves a lot of trucking of water and sand around until the area is developed. That is where the environmental risk lies.
I've seen the pro-development side lie through their teeth on things like ANWR. I've seen the environmental side lie through their teeth on fracking. It has worked. It isn't based on facts, but operators can't ignore public opinion. In Oklahoma, people are used to it. Still, there is a fairly vocal anti-fracking group. They do a really good job of screwing up reporting on it in an honest way.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
|
OK. Everyone was all freaked out about the chemicals used in fracks. I'm pretty sure that all of this info has now been released.
It is pretty technical. Halliburton is the largest oilfield services company, and they have their own methods. There are other companies who do the fracks as well, though. Schlumberger, etc.
Yeah, Dick Cheney is probably the most evil American of my lifetime, but Halliburton is the best, as well as the most expensive.
It really is intellectual property, but I'm glad that they finally disclosed that.
This is just one of those things that has so much disinformation. I read false stuff regularly, even by supposed "science" writers.
edit: I just saw the above post about North Carolina. North Carolina isn't very prospective for oil and gas. I'm not aware of a single producing well. So the law is one of those stupid "masturbation" laws.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!