Been doing this for decades. This isnt something new. There is always a risk for environment damage when doing any kind of extraction.
at first blush, this seems to have devastating consequences. are you saying these consequences are worth it to delay the inevitable?
Been doing this for decades. This isnt something new. There is always a risk for environment damage when doing any kind of extraction.
Yeah... ask the folks in Pennsylvania and West Virginia that thought they would reap in the royalties off leasing their mineral rights to the gas companies that went fracking under their properties.
And you all thought the Love Canal was bad...
i wish we would just switch over to natural gas. i know it wouldnt be that much cheaper then oil but at least we would have about 1000 years to figure out fusion power and carbon nanotube supercapacitors.
The water sure is strong in your area. Shale gas extraction isn't an easy business. They have drilling problem including leaks and explosion as well as water contamination.Its a shame the "progressives" in government will never allow this new drilling method to see the light of day.
Its so nice how they say we need to "get off" foreign energy and then stone wall all economically viable options.
There are some oil in most NG fields, however salt domes, coal beds, and shale contained very little to no oil.NG and oil are typically in the same fields. If you are extracting NG, may as well get the oil as well.
Been doing this for decades. This isnt something new. There is always a risk for environment damage when doing any kind of extraction.
Promoting this as domestic production that will help free us from reliance on the major oil producing countries is laughable. The US exports oil as well as importing it and these are huge international companies that owe no allegiance to anyone. They wouldn't hesitate to sell the oil to China or any other country if they could make a buck.
A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.
Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]oil [COLOR=#366388 ! important]deposits[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.
This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.
"That's a significant contribution to [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]energy [COLOR=#366388 ! important]security[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil_3
Is this as good as the plan to harvest petroleum from shale by five kiloton A-bombs?
simple fact is the sun supplies multiple times more energy then we use. we just have to harvest it, and the only reason we dont is because of corporate greed.
the reason we don't is because the sun provides us with about 1 watt/sq meter. not nearly enough, even under the best of circumstances.
Good, but it WILL eventually run out .. needs to spend those billions on finding new sources of energy.
at first blush, this seems to have devastating consequences. are you saying these consequences are worth it to delay the inevitable?
the reason we don't is because the sun provides us with about 1 watt/sq meter. not nearly enough, even under the best of circumstances. are you going to cover the entire country with panels, including farmland? they are pretty worthless under a foot of snow, too.