 |
 |
 |
 |
#1334767 - 03/25/12 02:15 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: McLovin']
|
sc4ram
Member
Registered: 11/07/10
Posts: 50
Loc: Wayne
|
What type of needed increased economic activity would you suggest we pursue that doesnt require road matainence??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1334804 - 03/25/12 07:57 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: sc4ram]
|
Denver
Member
Registered: 06/22/09
Posts: 107
Loc: Colorado, USA
|
Why don't you people look at other states laws. Colorado as the the toughest laws for drilling & fracking and they have 100's sites all over the state. Wells can help you with the taxes too the county I live in, Weld County only one in Colorado without long-term debt. If they don't have the money they save for it. Not like Yates lets go deeper in debt.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17211013
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1335500 - 03/30/12 02:07 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: rj1]
|
rj1
Member
Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 429
Loc: ny
|
Some more activist crap bites the dust!
PA Marcellus Gas Drillers Close to Recycling 100 Percent of Wastewater, Now Use Just a Few Chemicals in Fracking One of the chief objections of those who oppose drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is the amount of water used in drilling—an average of 3-4 million gallons per well. Environmentalists raise the alarm of sourcing the water from rivers and streams, and the disposal of what’s left over.
Here’s how the numbers break down: It takes between 100,000 and 300,000 gallons of water during the drilling process itself, and another 3-4 million gallons of water gets mixed with sand and chemicals and pumped in under pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas. Anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of the water comes back out—something called “flowback.”
Drilling companies are no less concerned than environmentalists about where to find water for fracking, and what to do with it after fracking, in no small part because of the economics involved. Drillers now recycle wastewater or “flowback” more than ever—approaching 100 percent.
Dave Yoxtheimer, hydrogeologist with Penn State University’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research said:
“The majority of companies are working toward reusing 100 percent of their flowback water for several reasons. Environmentally it makes sense, and economically it makes more sense, even though they have to treat some fairly significant dissolved solids.”* Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said this about three of the biggest Marcellus Shale drillers in PA:
Range Resources…recycled 80 percent of its wastewater in 2009, at least 90 percent in 2010, and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011. Chesapeake Energy and Atlas Energy, other big drilling operators in the state, also are moving in that direction.* Mr. Gregory said some drillers are even looking at using water from abandoned coal mines.
Drillers are not only using less fresh water in their drilling operations—they’re also using fewer chemicals as well.
“Chemicals cost money,” Mr. Yoxtheimer said. “The less the companies can use without compromising production, the more it would add to their bottom line.”
Range Resources has reduced both the number and amount of chemicals it uses for fracking. The chemical parts of the fracking fluid dropped from one-half of 1 percent to approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
“In Pennsylvania, you can frack with just about anything,” Mr. Gregory said. “Of the 100 or so chemicals available, they were adding just 10 or 20. Now it’s down to just four or five.”*
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1335549 - 03/30/12 07:24 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: rj1]
|
Samuel
Senior Member
Registered: 02/07/08
Posts: 4435
Loc: Potter, NY
|
Some more activist crap bites the dust!
PA Marcellus Gas Drillers Close to Recycling 100 Percent of Wastewater, Now Use Just a Few Chemicals in Fracking One of the chief objections of those who oppose drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is the amount of water used in drilling—an average of 3-4 million gallons per well. Environmentalists raise the alarm of sourcing the water from rivers and streams, and the disposal of what’s left over.
Here’s how the numbers break down: It takes between 100,000 and 300,000 gallons of water during the drilling process itself, and another 3-4 million gallons of water gets mixed with sand and chemicals and pumped in under pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas. Anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of the water comes back out—something called “flowback.”
Drilling companies are no less concerned than environmentalists about where to find water for fracking, and what to do with it after fracking, in no small part because of the economics involved. Drillers now recycle wastewater or “flowback” more than ever—approaching 100 percent.
Dave Yoxtheimer, hydrogeologist with Penn State University’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research said:
“The majority of companies are working toward reusing 100 percent of their flowback water for several reasons. Environmentally it makes sense, and economically it makes more sense, even though they have to treat some fairly significant dissolved solids.”* Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said this about three of the biggest Marcellus Shale drillers in PA:
Range Resources…recycled 80 percent of its wastewater in 2009, at least 90 percent in 2010, and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011. Chesapeake Energy and Atlas Energy, other big drilling operators in the state, also are moving in that direction.* Mr. Gregory said some drillers are even looking at using water from abandoned coal mines.
Drillers are not only using less fresh water in their drilling operations—they’re also using fewer chemicals as well.
“Chemicals cost money,” Mr. Yoxtheimer said. “The less the companies can use without compromising production, the more it would add to their bottom line.”
Range Resources has reduced both the number and amount of chemicals it uses for fracking. The chemical parts of the fracking fluid dropped from one-half of 1 percent to approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
“In Pennsylvania, you can frack with just about anything,” Mr. Gregory said. “Of the 100 or so chemicals available, they were adding just 10 or 20. Now it’s down to just four or five.”*
Who cares what water they use. The commotion, noise, road damage, landscape destruction and potential environmental issues is too much of a risk. The only people benefiting from the natural gas is NY City residents and the contract already signed to ship it overseas.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1335551 - 03/30/12 07:51 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: Samuel]
|
sc4ram
Member
Registered: 11/07/10
Posts: 50
Loc: Wayne
|
There is no significant economic activity that wont increase traffic. (Is your campaign "I want to preserve our economically depressed area so I can get to Wal-Mart 14 min quicker"?) What landscape destruction?? Even if there was (and its not) this is a private property issue, (to my knowlege nobody is talking about drilling on public land) Nat Gas is a world market. So what if some of it is exported out of the country? The money for it is imported into the country, (+ the economic activity and 2nd order effects from the jobs and economic activity created) . We should use more of this abdundant source of energy under our feat. Support the Picken's plan. Convert the 18 wheeler fleet from Diesel to Nat Gas, it will elimiante OPEC imports by 1/3 and put less dirt in the air. Arent the advantages of this obvious??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1335583 - 03/31/12 12:30 AM
Re: fracking news
[Re: Samuel]
|
rj1
Member
Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 429
Loc: ny
|
Some more activist crap bites the dust!
PA Marcellus Gas Drillers Close to Recycling 100 Percent of Wastewater, Now Use Just a Few Chemicals in Fracking One of the chief objections of those who oppose drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale is the amount of water used in drilling—an average of 3-4 million gallons per well. Environmentalists raise the alarm of sourcing the water from rivers and streams, and the disposal of what’s left over.
Here’s how the numbers break down: It takes between 100,000 and 300,000 gallons of water during the drilling process itself, and another 3-4 million gallons of water gets mixed with sand and chemicals and pumped in under pressure to fracture the shale, releasing the gas. Anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of the water comes back out—something called “flowback.”
Drilling companies are no less concerned than environmentalists about where to find water for fracking, and what to do with it after fracking, in no small part because of the economics involved. Drillers now recycle wastewater or “flowback” more than ever—approaching 100 percent.
Dave Yoxtheimer, hydrogeologist with Penn State University’s Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research said:
“The majority of companies are working toward reusing 100 percent of their flowback water for several reasons. Environmentally it makes sense, and economically it makes more sense, even though they have to treat some fairly significant dissolved solids.”* Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, said this about three of the biggest Marcellus Shale drillers in PA:
Range Resources…recycled 80 percent of its wastewater in 2009, at least 90 percent in 2010, and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011. Chesapeake Energy and Atlas Energy, other big drilling operators in the state, also are moving in that direction.* Mr. Gregory said some drillers are even looking at using water from abandoned coal mines.
Drillers are not only using less fresh water in their drilling operations—they’re also using fewer chemicals as well.
“Chemicals cost money,” Mr. Yoxtheimer said. “The less the companies can use without compromising production, the more it would add to their bottom line.”
Range Resources has reduced both the number and amount of chemicals it uses for fracking. The chemical parts of the fracking fluid dropped from one-half of 1 percent to approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
“In Pennsylvania, you can frack with just about anything,” Mr. Gregory said. “Of the 100 or so chemicals available, they were adding just 10 or 20. Now it’s down to just four or five.”* Who cares what water they use. The commotion, noise, road damage, landscape destruction and potential environmental issues is too much of a risk. The only people benefiting from the natural gas is NY City residents and the contract already signed to ship it overseas.
That was one of your sides big issues was water contamination. Now that has been overcome you say it's no big issue. To say NYS wouldn't benefit from drilling is dumb at best. With the economy in the tank and unemployment near 10% the thousands of jobs created plus the tax revenue would surely give the economy a boost. You need to get out of Potter and get in the real world and quit being so self serving.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1336594 - 04/04/12 10:43 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: rj1]
|
rj1
Member
Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 429
Loc: ny
|
Sure could use some natural gas powered vehicles to go against $4 a gallon gasoline.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1337616 - 04/10/12 10:25 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: outlet]
|
Ambient
Member
Registered: 02/07/05
Posts: 147
Loc: Seneca Falls
|
Natural gas prices are at their lowest ever! Gasoline, on the other hand.... Thank you President Obama.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1337803 - 04/11/12 07:39 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: rj1]
|
Gluskap
Member
Registered: 09/03/11
Posts: 139
Loc: Finger Lakes
|
T-Bone Pickens, said today that OPEC controls the price of gasoline. He also said that we (USA) has the cheapest gas on earth, reporting that gas is $9/gallon in Europe. I told my son, who teaches in South Korea, that gas has gone up to $4/gallon. He told me, "So what, it is over $7 a gallon here."
You can try to blame Obama for the price of gas if you are just against everything Obama, but even Fox News has said that the President doesn't have control of the price of gas---in 2004 when George Bush was running for re-election. Now, of course they've forgotten that. Well said. I am pretty sure that I recall paying over $4 a gallon back in 2008 when President Bush was in office. I didn't think it was his fault then nor do I think it's President Obama's fault now. I heard a report on the radio recently that says studies are showing that people are indeed driving less now - that's a plus at least. Combine trips, carpool when possible. Convert vehicles to natural gas which we have a abundance of. Oh wait people like you would rather pay high prices for gas and keep the economy in the doldrums and unemployment high for your own agenda.
In the short term your suggestion sounds pretty good - converting vehicles to natural gas. However, the more demand there is for natural gas, the higher the prices will go for it as well. Thus, in turn, causing home heating (for those who use natural gas) costs to rise as well. One should at least look at the bigger picture.
_________________________
"...only the unscrupulous or shortsighted can defend pollution and degradation of the countryside."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#1337844 - 04/11/12 09:40 PM
Re: fracking news
[Re: Gluskap]
|
rj1
Member
Registered: 02/18/12
Posts: 429
Loc: ny
|
T-Bone Pickens, said today that OPEC controls the price of gasoline. He also said that we (USA) has the cheapest gas on earth, reporting that gas is $9/gallon in Europe. I told my son, who teaches in South Korea, that gas has gone up to $4/gallon. He told me, "So what, it is over $7 a gallon here."
You can try to blame Obama for the price of gas if you are just against everything Obama, but even Fox News has said that the President doesn't have control of the price of gas---in 2004 when George Bush was running for re-election. Now, of course they've forgotten that. Well said. I am pretty sure that I recall paying over $4 a gallon back in 2008 when President Bush was in office. I didn't think it was his fault then nor do I think it's President Obama's fault now. I heard a report on the radio recently that says studies are showing that people are indeed driving less now - that's a plus at least. Combine trips, carpool when possible. Convert vehicles to natural gas which we have a abundance of. Oh wait people like you would rather pay high prices for gas and keep the economy in the doldrums and unemployment high for your own agenda. In the short term your suggestion sounds pretty good - converting vehicles to natural gas. However, the more demand there is for natural gas, the higher the prices will go for it as well. Thus, in turn, causing home heating (for those who use natural gas) costs to rise as well. One should at least look at the bigger picture.
The money will stay in the USA putting Americans to work and improving our economy. Everything is based on supply and demand. Why do you think natural gas is so cheap right now?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Moderator: FL1 Staff, FL1 Mod, FL1 Tek Deluxe, FL1 Mod 2, FL1 Office, FL1 Mod 3
|
|