Sorry, the browser you are using is not currently supported. Disqus actively supports the following browsers:
This page is forcing your browser to use legacy mode, which is not compatible with Disqus. Please see our troubleshooting guide to get more information about this error.
Bill you are obviously uneducated on the topic and simply spreading false information to further your cause. Cease.
Accusing people of spreading lies without evidence is hardly virtuous either.
Where is the false information in the article? Or are you just one of the "flying pickets" intent on shutting down all energy industries?
Easy. Saying that methane is "only" 8.8% of total emisions. This may be true in volume but when you account for the fact that methane is 23 times more potent as a warming agent than CO2, then methane is a big problem. He should compare apples with apples (methane as CO2 equivalent). Not doing this is in fact spreading false information to further a cause-
That 8.8% is in terms of CO2 equivalent, not volume, which if you had clicked through to the referenced source, an EPA report, you would have found easily.
As leakage represents inefficiency and waste or even loss of potential production; most sites will be reluctant to give accurate values. I see burning this fuel over coal has advantages in less sulfur and particulates; but when the heat balance is calculated CO2 will be generated relative to the number of Btu's for any given process or power plant. So, you're still burning a fossil fuel.
Burning natural gas produce only half the CO2 per BTU as burning coal does -- remember the "H4" part of CH4.
The Gas gods say fracking is not disruptive? I've seen the videos of flammable tap water. My immediate inclination is not to believe that people are willfully contaminating their own drinking water, drinking it, and flushing blood from orephuses meant for waste. For once I want to see energy and manufacturing giants being honest (you too EPA - how much did they pay you?). Am I being naive to believe we have an opportunity here to value human life over profit? I, for one, will not be buying into this latest string of obviously slanted propaganda.
Rest well in your expensive beds energy gods. May you drift off peacefully to sleep with the potential for thousands of deaths on your conscience. See you in hell!
It's funny because people ARE willfully contaminating their own drinking water. They pay no attention when they drill their personal wells, and drill them into ground with natural pockets of methane gas, or into an old well that they could have easily known was there and contained methane. Your way of thinking is old and has been disproven many times over, yet you continue to cry wolf.
Gord - Your comments are valid; the energy sector has an interest in minimizing the risks, and unfortunately, the EPA has lost it's bite, and if the GOP in Congress has it's way we're in danger of even further cuts; so the EPA is running scared. Not to mention anyone worth their salt is already working for the big cake provided by the energy companies. So, the puppets left on the public dole or EPA is either on the take by the energy sector (looking for that new higher paid job), or too dim to understand the facts. It's sad, and global warming is here, and what starter as a means to become self reliant on energy has become a money grab to sell as much of our natural resources as fast as they can abroad. The concept that we have 100 yr supply is nice; but what then ? We are too quick to hand over our resource to these greedy companies, on a risky technology; that is being permitted so much faster than any environmental impact study to keep up with. Words mean little when our ground water is too polluted to drink, or our land is too polluted to grow food. There is a reason this gas is miles below our surface; and anyone that says they can horizontally split the earth that far below and ensure containment is selling something. Too bad we're too lazy to believe everything they're spewing.
Good article. Pretty bold statement to start with, but a good article in the end. I'm curious how disruptive you'd consider fracking if you weren't subjected to other people's opinions on it all the time. From the surface, it's just a natural gas well like any other. You can't tell a fracked well from a traditional well by looking, and the "damage" done is usually thousands of feet underground, and despite their efforts, nobody has yet shown groundwater contaminated with fracking fluids, so I don't see any disruption outside of the folks screaming about something they don't understand. Anyway, just my 2 cents. Thanks for the article.
It's disruptive in that it totally changed the trajectory of US natural gas production. Note the first graphic in this article and you can see why it's disruptive: http://www.energytrendsinsider...