According to statements made by Joe Biden; is he going to ban fracking

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

So Tiny, he who has the last of the oil wins? I'm not talking my lifetime, but my heirs.

Theoretically, we could just go to harder to exploit deposits, then oil shale, then produce natural gas and hydrocarbon liquids from coal, so theoretically there are hundreds of years of supply left, or maybe thousands if at some point we just start to use the hydrocarbons for applications like plastics, jet fuel, asphalt, etc.

[rexdutchman]

He's a liar and corrupt man next question

[Muy Largo]

Tiny, You have informed opinions. We differ and that likely has more to do with our philosophies than our differing interpretations of reality. Despite living in farm country, I do have more experience with energy and energy issues than you might suspect. Here are some parting thoughts. My time on this board is limited.

Fracking: A few things to ponder. Not a comprehensive list, to be sure.
You cite 2018 Bakken figures. That information is mostly irrelevant. By 2018 the Bakken boom was ending. It was what, a ten-year boom? Wealth and fuel for our lifestyles was traded for polluted groundwater, shifts in underground chemical composition, degradation of freshwater, etc. But who cares? Well, some people do.
For starters, what happened in the Bakken is a picture perfect example of waste. Check out the abandoned housing developments in that area of North Dakota. There are thousands of empty units. Imagine all the energy that was required to build and move those units for the several years they served workers. A frugal guy like me has trouble comprehending such waste. But the oil baron in the suburbs of Denver or Dallas could give a rat’s ass about such waste.
Earlier this year the State of North Dakota obtained some $66 million from the federal taxpayer to clean up problems related to fracking in the Bakken. That’s one step in the cleanup process. Taxpayers had already paid plenty, and will continue to pay plenty.
Transportation issues. Bakken crude is highly volatile, and since the oil industry rushed to develop its new prize the only way to move the oil was by train. Big mistake. Unfortunately, by the time pipelines could be built the boom was ending. Also unfortunately, the pipelines moving tar sands oil couldn’t easily do double duty, such as move light Bakken crude, as tar sands crude is corrosive and causes big problems at pumping stations and in pipe joints. The number of leaks and explosions related to tar sands pipeline movement is astonishing. By the way, the oil pipeline industry disobeyed permits and lied through their teeth about safety issues.
How was the special sand moved to fracking sites? Impacts, and more impacts.
Water issues
Destruction of freshwater resources and wastewater issues.
I don’t share your complacency about water use, and would add water waste and water pollution to the menu of concerns. Research and production trends reveal that the water footprint of fracking will increase per produced unit, and that there will be increased amounts of wastewater. You may know more about flowback and produced water issues than me, so you already understand that disposal issues are challenging because these wastes contain fracking chemicals, brines, metals, radioactive materials and hydrocarbons. It is true that fracking's use of freshwater resources is increasing, and dramatically. More water to produce the same amount of fuel. Fracking the Permian Basin requires more water per unit of energy produced than other regions, by the way.
Research
As is the case with research in all sectors, including engineering-related research, the federal taxpayer typically underwrites the riskiest and earliest phases of research. After that, our government makes it possible for the private sector to swoop in and turn that preliminary and exploratory research into additional research, a marketable product and profit.
Biden and fracking
I don’t think Biden’s platform goes far enough. He proposes prohibiting fracking on all public lands. Private land fracking will continue. That means a small share of fracking activity will be blocked, less than 15 percent, probably.
Finally
Is there a better way to provide energy to maintain our lifestyle needs? I hope so, because we can’t continue relying on energy sources that have significant liabilities and are limited in accessibility and pose verifiable pollution threats and issues.

[matchingmole]

He could say he'll ban fracking...and Mexico will pay for it

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Your existence is remarkably pathetic, but it is yours to toss in the crapper. Go for it.

Originally Posted by matchingmole

He could say he'll ban fracking...and Mexico will pay for it

[Tiny]

Muy Largo, You do have some good points. One is about freshwater resources. You probably emphasize stewardship of the land more, while I believe economic returns to the landholder are more important. I don't know diddly squat about surface issues in the Bakken, but can say that for the areas I do know, the farmer or rancher makes a lot more selling the water to oil companies than he does using it for irrigation.

Good point also about the trains. Pipelines are superior in every way - effect on the environment, safety, and cost per barrel to transport crude. I'll add that perhaps the state should require gas pipelines be in place before oil production, except for testing, starts in earnest. There's a lot of waste associated with flared gas, and potentially hazardous health effects. I think risk associated with oil leaks are way overstated, but methane leaks should be better regulated.

From what I've observed, having lived among wells that are fracked and knowing lots of landowners and oilfield workers, some of whom I count as good friends, I don't buy into your belief that fracking creates environmental disasters. Nor do I believe that the boomtowns in North Dakota are going to dry up and go away. These things go in cycles, and if government doesn't get in the way, you'll see the North Dakota oilfield booming again when oil prices cycle back up. Finally, Biden's platform, in my opinion, goes way too far. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs.

With time as the technology develops, yes we will see more use of solar and wind and perhaps something out of left field like nuclear fusion. We'll always need oil and gas though, for chemicals, plastics, asphalt, jet fuel and many other things.

Global warming is a bigger potential concern in my opinion than what's worrying you. But if you put the American oil and gas industry on ice, it's not going to accomplish much. We'll probably just the buy oil from foreigners and burn more coal instead. Or we'll end up making electricity and transportation unaffordable. And in any event whatever we do will be a drop in the bucket on a global scale. It's China and India and other developing countries that will be calling the shots. They want electricity, they want cars, and they're not going to stop consuming oil and gas and coal on our account.

Our emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen from 6 billion tons in 2004 to 5.1 billion tonnes in 2019. Why? A large part of the reason is because of fracking. Low cost natural gas, which emits less carbon, has replaced coal. China's emissions meanwhile over the same period have increased from 3.9 billion tons to 7.3 billion tons. Give it some time, add other developing nations, and we're not going to be a significant CO2 emitter compared to the rest of the world.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

Tiny, You have informed opinions. We differ and that likely has more to do with our philosophies than our differing interpretations of reality. Despite living in farm country, I do have more experience with energy and energy issues than you might suspect. Here are some parting thoughts. My time on this board is limited.

Fracking: A few things to ponder. Not a comprehensive list, to be sure.
You cite 2018 Bakken figures. That information is mostly irrelevant. By 2018 the Bakken boom was ending. It was what, a ten-year boom? Wealth and fuel for our lifestyles was traded for polluted groundwater, shifts in underground chemical composition, degradation of freshwater, etc. But who cares? Well, some people do.
For starters, what happened in the Bakken is a picture perfect example of waste. Check out the abandoned housing developments in that area of North Dakota. There are thousands of empty units. Imagine all the energy that was required to build and move those units for the several years they served workers. A frugal guy like me has trouble comprehending such waste. But the oil baron in the suburbs of Denver or Dallas could give a rat’s ass about such waste.
Earlier this year the State of North Dakota obtained some $66 million from the federal taxpayer to clean up problems related to fracking in the Bakken. That’s one step in the cleanup process. Taxpayers had already paid plenty, and will continue to pay plenty.
Transportation issues. Bakken crude is highly volatile, and since the oil industry rushed to develop its new prize the only way to move the oil was by train. Big mistake. Unfortunately, by the time pipelines could be built the boom was ending. Also unfortunately, the pipelines moving tar sands oil couldn’t easily do double duty, such as move light Bakken crude, as tar sands crude is corrosive and causes big problems at pumping stations and in pipe joints. The number of leaks and explosions related to tar sands pipeline movement is astonishing. By the way, the oil pipeline industry disobeyed permits and lied through their teeth about safety issues.
How was the special sand moved to fracking sites? Impacts, and more impacts.
Water issues
Destruction of freshwater resources and wastewater issues.
I don’t share your complacency about water use, and would add water waste and water pollution to the menu of concerns. Research and production trends reveal that the water footprint of fracking will increase per produced unit, and that there will be increased amounts of wastewater. You may know more about flowback and produced water issues than me, so you already understand that disposal issues are challenging because these wastes contain fracking chemicals, brines, metals, radioactive materials and hydrocarbons. It is true that fracking's use of freshwater resources is increasing, and dramatically. More water to produce the same amount of fuel. Fracking the Permian Basin requires more water per unit of energy produced than other regions, by the way.
Research
As is the case with research in all sectors, including engineering-related research, the federal taxpayer typically underwrites the riskiest and earliest phases of research. After that, our government makes it possible for the private sector to swoop in and turn that preliminary and exploratory research into additional research, a marketable product and profit.
Biden and fracking
I don’t think Biden’s platform goes far enough. He proposes prohibiting fracking on all public lands. Private land fracking will continue. That means a small share of fracking activity will be blocked, less than 15 percent, probably.
Finally
Is there a better way to provide energy to maintain our lifestyle needs? I hope so, because we can’t continue relying on energy sources that have significant liabilities and are limited in accessibility and pose verifiable pollution threats and issues.

Is there a better way?

Solar.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Is there a better way? Solar.

So-Lyn-Dra
Shovel ready projects
Cash for Clunkers

[rexdutchman]

Better way CNG, and Nuclear , but again that's thinking solar and wind ain't gonna

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Joe challenged Trump to post on his website where he said he would ban fracking.
Did you really think Trump would not take that bait?!?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1319491234042269696


C'mon M....

Joe Biden obviously has an advanced case of CRS (Can't Remember Shit).

[rexdutchman]

C'mon M.... isn't it funny people believe what s on the interwebs But don't look at these fools own website and see they back "green New old trillions deal and fracking ban -doing away with oil , I just don't get it

[Muy Largo]

Tiny,
Changes in the atmosphere's chemical composition is the MAIN and most significant problem associated with using fossil fuels. We've been warned about this since the late 1980s. I did some political work on this issue in the late 1990s stretching into this century. Unfortunately, our current president denies that human-caused pollution causes climate change and he seems to believe that it isn't a problem at all. He is reinforcing the foolish notion that atmospheric degradation is baseless. Measuring carbon concentrations in the lower levels of the atmosphere for today's scientists is as simple and precise as taking water samples from a stream. We also understand what increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere do to our climate. Some people think that carbon pollution goes up into the air and magically disappears. I'm still amazed that the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. And during Shrub Bush's presidency!

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

... I'm still amazed that the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. ...

Tell me that story about photosynthesis and what trees breath in and what they exhale as a result again. It's one of my faves.