The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Fracking

  1. #11
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...gy-revolution/
    Interesting piece on natural gas policy.

    If the energy people build their pipelines for the supplies in other places, they will have less $ available to replicate similar infrastructure in the US. So, with all this potential, we could miss the boat.

    I was unaware of the implications of the trade agreements as well. Another case of us breaking our own laws (treaty commitments)?
    The US has an excellent opportunity to be an exporter of natural gas. It must be done via LNG, since you can't build a pipe to Korea, but the largest current exporters of LNG are places where supply isn't nearly as secure: Qatar and Nigeria, for example.

    In fairness, the article makes it sound like the Obama administration is stonewalling this. It may be, but FERC was not very quick in granting permits for facilities to import LNG when gas prices were high (these are the same facilities generally that would now be interested in exporting) under the Bush administration. FERC doesn't move quickly under any administration--at least in the 20 years I have been dealing with them. I would be willing to be that the biggest impediment, when you really look into it, is the NIMBYs as well as security issues. All of these must be worked through and lots of public hearings held before a permit is granted.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    So, Doublehaul, it seems that the sooner they get started on this, the better?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #13
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    So, Doublehaul, it seems that the sooner they get started on this, the better?
    Yes, I'd say so. Because of the extremely high capital costs required for LNG facilities and tankers, very little investment is done without long term contracts. There is a spot market but it is relatively small. If the buyers lock up their supply from other sources, some of the finite demand is taken off the table, so the sooner you can feel confident enough to contract your supply, the more market you have the chance to capture.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    I recall reading some time ago (may have posted to the forum) that there has been just one permit issued for building a LNG export port. The article mentioned that these ports (as you mention) involve considerable infrastructure investment. Several other permit requests are awaiting the administration's approval.

    As you say, the boat could sail without us if contracts are signed with Australia, Canada, and others.

    I can recall when the administration was praising NG in place of oil. Now that we have it, they realize that it is also a carbon-based energy source. Duh? Always has been carbon-based, and they just found out? Oops ... nobody told them!??
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    The NY Times helps out:
    OPINION | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

    Gangplank to a Warm FutureBy ANTHONY R. INGRAFFEA

    Because of methane leaks, shale gas is not a "bridge" to a renewable energy future - it's a gangplank to more warming and away from truly clean energy investments.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,857

    Default

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...s_wedding.html
    From the Saudi oil minister:

    In an open letter to his country's oil minister Ali al Naimi and other government heads, published on Sunday via his Twitter account, Prince Alwaleed said demand for oil from Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) member states was "in continuous decline".
    If this can happen with just the oil from private lands, can we even imagine the game-changing impact of tapping the public lands that are still off-limits?

    This is equally as important:
    A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

    After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

    Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are a boost to a natural gas industry that has fought complaints from environmental groups and property owners who call fracking dangerous.

    Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface, but were not detected in a monitoring zone 3,000 feet higher. That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from drinking water supplies.
    One sort of has to believe if there was a way to corrupt this study's results, this administration would have found a way. Scandals are merely "phony" or temporary inconveniences, it would appear ... one can only hope that because the Fed govt is now too big for them to know what's going on everywhere, they overlooked this one. But we do see that the NY Times is coming up with a new tack on what the problem with fracking is ... methane release. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #17
    Member Corytdf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Walla Walla Wa.
    Posts
    44

    Default

    My best childhood friend was just killed by chemical exposer while cleaning a fracking tank. It caused him to asphyxiate in his sleep. He went to the ER the night he died with lungs %60 saturated and they sent him home with medication for pneumonia. He told the doctor that it was chemicals and that he needed better care. The doctor then told him “If you don’t like it drive to the other hospital 3 hours away”. He could not do that so he went home with his daughter and died in his sleep that night. The family is taking legal action against the doctor and I hope they win. As far as I’m concerned that doctor killed my friend.
    "Where nameless men by nameless rivers wander, and in strange valleys die strange deaths alone. I'll be found."
    (Random FB quote I liked)
    www.facebook.com/teamdeadfowl

  8. #18
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    1,748

    Default

    Corytdf....I am very sorry about your friend. I worked in the brewing industry for many years and during my time their I am aware of 3 individuals who died in 'tank' related deaths. In our industry, because our product contains carbon dioxide, which is colorless, order less and heavier than air, you can walk into a tank or even a depression on land and walk into a CO2 saturation. This usually results in death, unless someone is watching with an air Pac to pull you out. OHSA does require that a supervisor or higher trained in contained airspaces w/air pac, be watching, at all times when a worker enters a contained space. It also requires that the worker in the space where an air pac. So it is also possible that your friends employer is liable also, a good lawyer will know this and go after both the doctor and the company. No excuse for these types of injuries in the world today.

  9. #19
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    I recall reading some time ago (may have posted to the forum) that there has been just one permit issued for building a LNG export port. The article mentioned that these ports (as you mention) involve considerable infrastructure investment. Several other permit requests are awaiting the administration's approval.
    Cheniere got one. That is the only one of which I am aware, but I don't know how many have applied. There are only a few import facilities in the US and these are by far the most attractive places to do it because of existing infrastructure. A few have been built since i was heavily involved but probably still single digits--certainly less than a dozen. Really should be a no brainer since the NG market is so big, FERC's concern for market power is a non-issue in real life. But FERC is not real life, alas.

  10. #20
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Update: Another LNG export facility was recently approved. This makes three total. Dominion has one in the queue. Frankly, I don't see any more than four being built--if that many. It is a huge capital investment (although lower if you are doing it at an already constructed import facility) and a niche product.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •