How could anyone be against this? >cheap >expands nation's

>nobody can argue against fracking
Thought not.

>>8857245
>how do I collect all this natural gas
>shit let's just burn it senpai

>>8857245
>cheap
relative to what?
>proven to not cause seismic activity
source?

>>8857276
>cheap
Relative to traditional petroleum techniques, solar, wind, etc

https://spectator.org/is-fracking-causing-earthquakes/
Proof for the other thing.
>>8857272
That doesn't happen at all?

>>8857278
Totally doesn't happen. No, totally doesn't even happen. There exists absolutely no natural gas trapped in the shale. None. Literally none. It's all just oil. The process in which the resource deposits the fracking attempts to reach certainly doesn't produce natural gas.

Conservation of matter is a lie.

>>8857287
Nothing I've read indicates this. Can you provide some sources to back up your claim?

>>8857245
The main concern is the extremely toxic chemicals involved that get put into the ground. They carry a high risk of getting into drinking water supplies. Only the EPA has really done studies on the effects. Go read their reports.

>>8857245
It's the ignorant growth it creates that's the problem. It allows humans to expand and grow their industries at an incredible rate compared to alternatives, and we know for a fact that it won't last forever. So it's kind of like we thought our stash of heroin was running low, but then remembered we had an emergency stash hidden in the walls, so now we are back to the normal routine of shooting up everyday.

The longer humans stay dependent on petroleum/derivatives of petroleum, the worse the crash will be. We should be taking measures now to lessen it's need. Not saying Solar, Wind, Tidal, or whatever is the answer, but that all the derivatives we depend on are slowly replaced by renewable forms.

Too much of the problem lies in the economics though. Replace too many derivatives with other options and the petroleum market takes a hit on their margins, making it harder for the industry to stay producing at the level we need it too. One of the big reasons why getting off it will be so hard.

fracking doesn't cause earthquakes in Oklahoma (the real culprit is wastewater injection) but it's an issue in Canada and parts of the Northeast.
and of course there's the issue of fracking fluids migrating into groundwater because the operator didn't properly survey the geologic setting to see what communicates with what.

I'm for fracking because it helps us get off coal, but it has its risks and needs to be regulated.
>https://scits.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/isfc_2_rubenstein_pap_srl-2015067.pdf

>>8857278
>Relative to traditional petroleum techniques
lol no

>>8857295
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Natural_Gas.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/how-is-natural-gas-formed
http://www.ct.gov/pura/cwp/view.asp?a=3363&q=414224
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/data/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_home
http://www.fe.doe.gov/education/energylessons/coal/gen_howformed.html
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC27WkocDTAhWnz4MKHQRzASIQFggtMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2F197.14.51.10%3A81%2Fpmb%2FENERGETIQUE%2Fenergie%2520renouvlables%2FAdvanced%2520Natural%2520Gas%2520Engineering.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE1BGWX_i4xAg5LzJA0dNn2_kO4Wg
http://cee.utexas.edu/ce/petex/aids/pubs/plant-processing-natural-gas/
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC27WkocDTAhWnz4MKHQRzASIQFgg6MAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.marathonoil.com%2Fcontent%2Fdocuments%2Fnews%2Feagle_ford_fact_book_final.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFReb4SisPuiLV6cTwZSiY0BmQ0ug
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC27WkocDTAhWnz4MKHQRzASIQFgg_MAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Flibrary.e.abb.com%2Fpublic%2F34d5b70e18f7d6c8c1257be500438ac3%2FOil%2520and%2520gas%2520production%2520handbook%2520ed3x0_web.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH6QpLCTvLYPVTOfPpryu1eInrU6w
http://www.miningandenergy.ca/technology/article/liquefied_natural_gas_engine_technology_in_the_works_for_mining_trucks/
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=19&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiYgqDeocDTAhXo3YMKHc_YDvA4ChAWCFAwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca%2F2013%2Fsp%2Fpdf%2Fministry%2Femng.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFqTSAZ2XdTMIPJ8sPBSKcpvEQ4Ww
Yes.

>>8857278
Since you're so interested I found a bunch of papers saying that they are linked. Or do you only read through articles that support your own belief?

https://www2.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/man-made-earthquakes/

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract%22

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/1225942

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrb.50247/abstract;jsessionid=4CC6B2944E2A95B7AEDAF046C4FB0914.d01t04

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/164

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/543

>>8857295
>>8857320
Some more.
https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/flaring_and_venting
http://pubs.sciepub.com/jephh/1/1/2/
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=27&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj879i4osDTAhUjzoMKHUudBgo4FBAWCEcwBg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mge.com%2Fimages%2FPDF%2FBrochures%2Fcommunity%2FControlNaturalGasEmergencies.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFEYt3RK-i8RtPc44ywXvoGRN-v3Q
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=46&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2i63LosDTAhVq0oMKHejoAwE4KBAWCDwwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffile.scirp.org%2Fpdf%2FEPE20120400008_89114740.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG_RTX2fncY-eRAY7tg1buAQBFLwQ

>>8857295
>>8857320
>>8857328
And if you care for less reputable commercial domains:
http://www.shell.com.ng/media/nigeria-reports-and-publications-briefing-notes/potential-in-natural-gas.html
https://guardian.ng/features/weekend/nigeria-burns-off-5-billion-resources-yearly-from-gas-flaring/
Just a few. It's almost like I can't make this stuff up.

>>8857320
>>8857328
>>8857335
I'm going to be honest, I didn't really understand or hear of flaring and venting until this thread. Gonna be looking into this, thanks.

>>8857307
There is no real viable replacement for fossil fuels, many people will have to leave the planet before schedule. That will reduce demand for awhile and rinse repeat until they are all gone. The fuels not all the people but most of them are going to have to go.

>>8857348
Knowing is half the battle. Like almost every other form of energy generation and resource collection out there, there are pros and cons. Knowing what you're digging up, and knowing how you can and can't deal with it is important. It's not like the majority of people burn natural gas for fun, but often there are scenarios where they could have just not have fracked wacky gasses that they must now burn for several reasons- besides the fact that they may not understand the importance and value of said gas.

All those billions, up in the atmosphere.

>>8857349
I mean, ya, that's one solution. It's the most likely scenario too; continue unchecked population growth, resources become more scarce, conflicts for resources/control of trade flow, disease. All that adds up to population going down if they play out in tandem.

But given artificial manipulations of economies, which is most definitely going on, if those people who hold the cards really care, things could start changing to negate some of the problems above. This idea of perpetual growth is treated as infinite, when it should be treated as a finite value, meaning, max efficiencies in economics for the sake of re-investing for growth isn't practical for the long term. Ways in which investing is funneled into the industries centered around alternatives is needed sooner rather than later.

>>8857295
Looks like OP really delved deep into this subject before making big clams about it on the internet.

>>8857245

It's environmentally hazardous and we don't actually need all the energy since we are mostly wasting it. People 200 years ago didn't consume so much and neither should we.

Speaking as a person who lived in Kansas for a couple years, the place has become VERY geologically unstable. They get earthquakes of various sizes several times a week, sometimes daily. The locals attribute that to fracking. I don't know, but I don't think Kansas has traditionally been an earthquake-prone area.

>>8857425
>1 billion people
>ball on a stick
>horse
>punch cards
>10 mph train
>gentleman's war

>7 billion people
>the internet
>electric street lights
>water treatment
>planes
>diesel trains
>refrigerators
>cars
>factories
>buildings with electric utilities
>R&D
>medicine
>refining materials
>consumerism
>MOAB

File: gas flaring.jpg (94KB, 500x234px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x234px

>>8857245
>How could anyone be against this?
The technique of fracking itself? By having fucked up priorities, that's how.

Though there are other arguments to be made regarding the pros and cons of petroleum extraction overall (and where and when it happens).

>cheap
>expands nation's buying power
Yeah, but I personally think it's a bit short-sighted to piss away your country's oil and gas reserves for a short-term competitive advantage. Oil reserves are highly strategically valuable.

That and there's also the whole greenhouse gas thing too, so yeah.

>proven to not cause seismic activity
It's still a little soon to say, but the general view according to the USGS is that some earthquakes are induced by fracking, but the majority of induced earthquakes are due to wastewater disposal practices. Also induced earthquakes are generally small and non-destructive (or even non-felt).

>>8857272
Yeah, this pisses me off. Hopefully with GTL processes we'll see a significant reduction in gas flaring though.

>>8857278
>Purports to be knowledgable about petroleum extraction
>He's never heard of gas flaring
It literally happens ALL THE TIME, especially at wells which are not serviced by pipeline. Tankering natural gas isn't economically feasible, so they just burn it as it comes out of the well.

>>8857301
>The main concern is the extremely toxic chemicals involved that get put into the ground.
It's mostly water, with a few benign additives. NOTHING in frac fluid is "extremely toxic." I'd be more worried about toxic minerals that are already underground leaching into the aquifer than the frac fluid itself.

>>8857313
>I'm for fracking because it helps us get off coal
Honestly I'd rather use up our coal and save the petroleum for when we REALLY need it. Or better yet, find something renewable to use (synfuels seem pretty interesting).

>>8857387
Thanks again for your links. I'll be perusing through them.

I probably was pretty close minded. If people can throw out more issues with fracking that would be great.

>>8857245
>cheap
Average break-even cost of shale oil is $80/bbl, with some wells reaching to $100/bbl. Not exactly cheap when currently oil is sitting at $50/bbl.

>expands nation's buying power
That works so well for Venezuela and Russia, right? The only country that has shown itself capable of managing their oil resources prudently is Norway.

>>8857648
>Also induced earthquakes are generally small and non-destructive (or even non-felt).
This is only the case in earthquake-prone areas where things are built to withstand earthquakes. Where I live, magnitude 7 earthquakes have happened and caused no real damage besides maybe a few buckled roads, because everything is designed with earthquakes in mind. In places like Kansas or Oklahoma though, which hardly ever get earthquakes, a magnitude 4 earthquake can be devastating. I know this because there was an incident earlier this year where that exact thing happened in a corner of Oklahoma and was attributed to dumping wastewater.

>>8858080
>In places like Kansas or Oklahoma though, which hardly ever get earthquakes, a magnitude 4 earthquake can be devastating. I know this because there was an incident earlier this year where that exact thing happened in a corner of Oklahoma and was attributed to dumping wastewater.
"Devastating," huh? How much damage are we talking about? Injuries? Any?

I have no problem acknowledging the consequences of these activities, and taking appropriate action. But jumping straight to "oh noes, there are consequences to doing this! Ban it!" is unreasonable. The consequences should be weighed against the benefits to make a proper decision regarding how to proceed - and I bet you that even if you hold the oil companies liable for all damages caused by their induced earthquakes (which should be done, certainly), it'll barely make a dent in their bottom line.

wtf I love fracking now

wtf I hate fracking now

I continue to loudly advertise that I categorically refuse to believe anything about any political matter.

I like reading discussion on this topic and when poorly informed OPs get destroyed. Bump.

>>8857349
Nuclear, plus synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from atmospheric CO2 or CO2 pulled from the ocean, plus hydrogen from nuclear electricity. Voila. There's a decent chance that this could work, and with a cost comparable to today.

>>8857245
>proven to not cause seismic activity
L0Lno fgt pls

>>8859537
>a chair fell over in Oklahoma
>fuck fracking