No way to tell what impact Fukishima has had, it’s too early and it’s not even over with.
But your post says the same thing I’m saying, numbers don’t lie. But people don’t care about numbers.
There’s no way anybody is going to get a permit to build nuclear power plants in the USA.
Can’t happen, won’t happen, no point to discussing it. Whether that’s logical or not is a separate question.
Definitely against fracking, groundwater is a more precious resource than energy.
The water well was drilled in areas nearby shallow methane deposits. These areas have had methane leaks for decades. It has nothing to do with any hydraulic fracturing.
Then most people would kind of seem a bit ignorant. Oil lives on the world market, how much domestic oil we use is based on what percentage of the world oil supply comes from us. “Our own oil” is meaningless. I mean, why Keystone XL in the first place?
I think you are not seeing the real lesson that people took away from Macondo. It was that operating in the deepwater is not something to be undertaken by any but the largest of companies with the deepest of pockets. It’s why we should feel lucky that it was BP operating and not Anadarko, for example. I say this knowing that BP was likely uniquely negligent.
You know who else learned this lesson? The investment community and oil companies. They don’t like dealing with the potential risks which also include windstorms. They don’t like dealing with the costs. They know that the rate of return is potentially significantly larger, but they like the low risk repeatable nature of the shale plays.
That’s what seems to be lost somehow. These shale plays are not incredibly profitable. They are just incredibly repeatable. The investment community loves the almost manufacturing type of process in the shale plays. They like its statistical nature. The investment community also loves the low risk nature of the shale plays. This is evident in the metrics used to value them. The unconventional producers are valued at much higher metrics than the conventional producers. It’s not even close.
This is already required. It’s part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. You may think it is insufficient, but it requires companies to carry Oil Spill Financial Responsibility insurance in an amount equal to the potential worst case oil discharge. There is a prescribed way of calculating that potential worst case discharge set by the BOEM (old MMS) or the EPA depending upon the location of the facility. It’s a basic requirement to operate.
Now look who is ignorant. Our own oil is absolutely not meaningless. Our own oil (and gas) provides us with jobs, tax revenue, royalty revenue, a host of ancillary businesses and industries servicing it, low chemical feedstock costs, etc. Why does the economy do better in places with oil and gas production? It’s because there is tremendous benefit to producing oil and gas yourself.
By the way, how did the Allies win World War 2? The answer is bodies from Russia and the East Texas Oil Field.
Further, oil may live on an international market, but gas does not.
Stranger, to answer you and elfkin477 and speaking as a minerals owner:
I have no problem rationalizing the concept that if you drill thousands of feet below aquifer zones through known impermeable strata to your target, that despite pressurizing and acidifying the zone you can contain the distribution and recovery of the fracking fluids and the fluid and gaseous material released as a result of the process. The most common reason for contamination in the past has been from fluids that leaked from the reservoir up through the annulus and into lower pressure strata above, often permeable groundwater zones. There’s two things that need to be done to prevent this from happening. One, the driller/operator needs to design and perform a good cement job. This means having an accurate interpretation of the overlying strata, especially its weak points where it may be prone to circulation loss, and taking care to insure the casing is centered in the annulus so that a good, uniform cement seal can prevent any leaks or migration up the annulus. Then a competent cement bond log can be run to prove that the seal is in fact complete. This is where BP and Macondo screwed up, in short they tried to save money by shorting the number of centralizers that would have kept the casing in the middle of the twisted hole and not leaning against the side where the injected cement could not form a bond between it and the proximal strata. The centralizers themselves aren’t expensive but the additional trips downhole and the rig time involved would have run into at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars owed to the rig owner, Transocean.
The problem comes when, as you allude to, this is not done correctly whether it be due to incompetence, monetary considerations, indifference or whatever. It’s an expensive process, the temptation to cut corners will exist for some operators short on conscience and I think it’s imperative some form of incentive must be present to insure that the downside of not meeting a necessary standard will far outweigh any perceived windfall gained from cutting corners.
The way we addressed that issue was twofold. First, once we began to hear that tracts were being leased I found out who it was (not necessarily easy because they tend to want to remain quiet, think Disney buying swampland around Orlando decades back) I did the requisite due diligence on the company. Once satisfied of their competence and record we talked with our attorney and built into the lease agreement strong wording that provided for very handsome compensation, strong to the point of painful for them, should any contamination of groundwater or areable land occur. You need to detail what proof constitutes that as well.
One thing that really helped our position is that our place is a rather extensive property, I won’t give a number but many tens of thousands of acres. We partnered with another rancher who’s place is larger still and forced them to give us both the same attractive terms, 4 times the offered lease rate, twice the standard royalty and punitive expenses should they not operate to the highest environmental standard.
My advice to anyone that has a decision to make about fracking on their property is to first listen with an open mind to the science, do your due diligence because operators and geologic scenarios will vary considerably and by all means get impartial, professional advice and assistence from an experienced geologist and a lawyer. A good lawyer.
Wholeheartedly agree but money in this and every other market is like water flowing downhill, it follows the path of least resistance. I can assure you we talked to the wind farm folks with just as much of an open and accepting mind. Our minimum wind speeds were just short of their baseline but hopefully that can be amended in the future.