Green Energy versus Permian Basin Blues and fossil fuels

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by agrarian

Folks who defend wind typically fail to mention the lifespan issues related to wind turbines.

Folks on here who relentlessly attack wind never bring up this issue.

They attack wind using lame rationale, like bird strikes or lubricant leaks. Bird strikes?
If you're concerned about birds you'd better start comparing the bird killing done by fossil fuels versus bird strikes caused by turbine blades. Lubricant leaks? Practically zero problems. There are other problems related to wind, like noise or looks or down time. Wind will fill a niche, especially in windy regions, but should never be looked at as a primary source.

Well i hope they do not build a wind farm where there is no wind.. Fucking brilliant.
It is my hope that if one more lachidarius uropti aka the striped brown headed tree thrush of the western variety, is killed by one of these turbines. That they will all be closed down.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I hate to tell you IB but wtf this says is that there should be better safeguards on the mining of such material.

Just like there should be on say that tar oil from Canada.

You get right to the crux of the actual problem and then you go partisan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I hate to tell you IB but wtf this says is that there should be better safeguards on the mining of such material.

Just like there should be on say that tar oil from Canada.

You get right to the crux of the actual problem and then you go partisan.

"Better safeguards" translates into "greater expense", and that's why the U.S. can't compete with third world producers. And that's why there is so much pollution in the mining of rare earth minerals because it is outsourced to countries which do not enforce pollution laws.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by agrarian

Name the largest oil field in the world. It’s the Permian Basin in western Texas and southeastern New Mexico. [/FONT]

In the debate over energy sources fossil fuel advocates have pointed out the environmental shortcomings of solar energy, often specifying the “rare earth” requirements of solar panels and the water pollution caused by mining these elements. Understand this: rare in this case doesn’t mean hard to find. It more generally means that an element is found in limited locations. It must be acknowledged that mining causes environmental degradation, so creating solar panels does, in fact, create some pollution.

But let’s also try to understand the pollution problems of oil and gas fracking development in the Permian Basin. This is what Permian Basin boosters already now. Their association has presented the following information to them. Fracking wells in the Permian Basin require prodigious amounts of water: A median of nearly 11.8 million gallons of water per well. That is an amount that can supply 73,000 households with water for a day. The fracking/oil industry lobbied to prevent the public from knowing all the chemicals used during the fracking process, so the consequences of fracking’s pollution impacts on earth’s underground and underwater resources and other resources are not fully understood.[/FONT]

In the Permian Basin, 252 to 336 gallons (6 to 8 barrels) of water are “produced” per gallon of oil that is yielded. What is “produced water”? This is water that is pumped from a well with oil and gas and contains salts, minerals, and other petroleum residues. It is dirty, polluted water. What do frackers do with the polluted water? They hide it, injecting it back inside the earth. It's what many frackers across the nation do with produced water.
There are about one million onshore oil and gas wells in the U.S. Nearly every one generates “produced” water. To supply the oil we need we “produce” more than 21 billion barrels of “produced water” each year. That’s almost 900 billion gallons of dirty water.

What's the point in someone from Boston or Berkeley or Kansas City criticizing hydraulic fracturing in the Permian Basin? Do you drink the water or use it for crops? The vast majority, perhaps 90%+ of residents in Odessa, Midland, Hobbs, Andrews, Pecos, Artesia, etc., support hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA has tried to get involved in this. It should not. This is something that people should decide at the local and state level. It should not be dictated from Washington.

The statement that 252 to 336 gallons of water are produced for every gallon of oil is ridiculous. Whoever you're quoting is feeding his readers a load of crap.

[Yssup Rider]

Respectfully, Tiny, the people may favor whatever they like. But I don’t believe that’s a sound not scientific way of determining environmental policy.

I’d like to see that data if you’ve got it handy.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Respectfully, Tiny, the people may favor whatever they like. But I don’t believe that’s a sound not scientific way of determining environmental policy.

Yssup, Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. You want bureaucrats and voters living a thousand miles away to decide what environmental trade-offs are acceptable, not the people who are effected?

Agrarian's comments about carbon emissions, which he appears to confuse with air pollution, have more merit, because they potentially effect people outside the Permian Basin. I still disagree, but my arguments aren't as strong.

Most farmers and ranchers in the Permian Basin, who are those most affected, strongly support hydraulic fracturing, even the ones who have no rights to the oil and gas. This is because they make lots of money by selling water, and from surface damages and right of ways, more than they make from agriculture.

And arguments like the ones Agrarian spouts are far overstated. There's actually not much risk of pollution of potable water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing is occurring at depths around 9,000 feet. Nobody's using water from these zones for drinking or irrigation. The cities and towns have clean, safe drinking water and will continue to. Admittedly, it may become more expensive, but the economic benefits from hydraulic fracturing will pay many times over for their cost to maintain water supplies.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

What's the point in someone from Boston or Berkeley or Kansas City criticizing hydraulic fracturing in the Permian Basin? Do you drink the water or use it for crops? The vast majority, perhaps 90%+ of residents in Odessa, Midland, Hobbs, Andrews, Pecos, Artesia, etc., support hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA has tried to get involved in this. It should not. This is something that people should decide at the local and state level. It should not be dictated from Washington.

Just as long as these locals do not then call for the EPA in on some superfund cleanup.

Just as long as the companies set aside enough of their profits for potential environmental concerns and not hode under the protection of bankruptcy.

See, we Libertarians do not like it when companies rape the environment and expect future generations to pay for it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Better safeguards" translates into "greater expense", and that's why the U.S. can't compete with third world producers. And that's why there is so much pollution in the mining of rare earth minerals because it is outsourced to countries which do not enforce pollution laws.

Are you saying we should ban imports on that type of dirty mining?

I would agree with that, especially if we were part of some large pact like say the Paris Climate Accord or the TPC treaty.

Wow, wonder who doesn't want that?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Are you saying we should ban imports on that type of dirty mining?

I would agree with that, especially if we were part of some large pact like say the Paris Climate Accord or the TPC treaty.

Wow, wonder who doesn't want that?

Green weenies, like Odumbo, et al, seem to be just fine with "China's green technology" as long as the pollution is in China.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Green weenies, like Odumbo, et al, seem to be just fine with "China's green technology" as long as the pollution is in China.

Well , that does fit into Tiny's perspective of letting the locals decide.

Just as long as your pollution does not effect me or future generations.

Who wants deforestation like in Haiti? A small group of people get rich early on and the rest of the world has a long term problem.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well , that does fit into Tiny's perspective of letting the locals decide.

Just as long as your pollution does not effect me or future generations.

Who wants deforestation like in Haiti? A small group of people get rich early on and the rest of the world has a long term problem.

But green weenies do like to "pretend" it isn't happening.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Just as long as these locals do not then call for the EPA in on some superfund cleanup.

Just as long as the companies set aside enough of their profits for potential environmental concerns and not hode under the protection of bankruptcy.

See, we Libertarians do not like it when companies rape the environment and expect future generations to pay for it.

I've got absolutely no problem with any of that. As mentioned in reply to Yssup, the environmental concerns are way overblown. Also the oil companies pay property taxes locally amounting to around 8% of their top line revenues from sales of oil and gas. In the Permian Basin, this is far in excess of what government will spend on clean ups for bankrupt companies, making up for lost water, etc.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Green weenies, like Odumbo, et al, seem to be just fine with "China's green technology" as long as the pollution is in China.

Really, this is the crux of the real problem (not an imaginary one like hydraulic fracturing), carbon emissions. China's are double the USA's. Going forward, there's little we in the USA can do about the situation. It will be in the hands of China, India and other developing countries.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

But green weenies do like to "pretend" it isn't happening.

I think that was what the Paris Climate Accord was addressing.

If not, it sure shoulda been.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Really, this is the crux of the real problem (not an imaginary one like hydraulic fracturing), carbon emissions. China's are double the USA's. Going forward, there's little we in the USA can do about the situation. It will be in the hands of China, India and other developing countries.

Why do you think China is working so hard on green energy? Because they know how big a problem pollution is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene...nergy_in_China

That is why we should have signed on to the TPP and Paris Climate deals.

To moniter other polluting countries , not so we can pollute more.