Baryogenesis: I'm gonna guess buying local water rights is significantly cheaper than building a 1000 mile pipeline and desalinization plant.

Maybe, maybe not. Water rights are not handed out like candy here in the west. Especially on rivers like the Colorado. As I mentioned, it would likely be the most economical for the oil company to build a municipal desal plant on the coast in order to trade for the municipalities upstream water rights. The thousands of miles of pipe would not be neccessary. Both the municipality and the project would then have sources of water that would be more 'local'.

Yeah, that worked well for the people living near to that lovely fraking who got flammable tap water out of the deal. Oh, by the way, the republicans have been trying really hard to dismantle the EPA.

And that sounds like a well gone wrong. If so, don't think for a sec that the company didn't have any liability over that. Things do happen and the regulatory system needs to have the ability to adapt. While some Rs do want to dismantle the EPA, I am not in favor of that. Nor do most. Just like the Democrats, some of them on the fringes are crazy. That being said, yes, the EPA needs to be reigned in regarding some areas, and the courts have done well in that regard here in recent months.

The regulatory mechanisms that a certain political party fight against tooth and nail.

Overall, the EPA is not going anywhere. While I am more of a conservative than a Repbulican, I view them as a necessary element in today's buisness, even though I have definaly applauded them getting biatchslapped every once in a while when they need it. Like anything else, it is a balance.

At what point does optimism turn into naivete?

At which point does cynicism turn into the inability to recognize a legitimate argument or action.

HeadLever: Kazan: you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive

And do you realize you can't drink much of fresh water on the planet...lest you end up with giardia or the beaver fever. Municipal potable water is all treated to some extent. Converting salt water into fresh water can simply be done by just adding one more process to the Water Treatment Plant.

Would have been quicker to reply with "No shiat Sherlock"

HeadLever: Maybe, maybe not. Water rights are not handed out like candy here in the west. Especially on rivers like the Colorado. As I mentioned, it would likely be the most economical for the oil company to build a municipal desal plant on the coast in order to trade for the municipalities upstream water rights. The thousands of miles of pipe would not be neccessary. Both the municipality and the project would then have sources of water that would be more 'local'.

Ok, I see what you're saying about upstream water rights now.

HeadLever: And that sounds like a well gone wrong. If so, don't think for a sec that the company didn't have any liability over that. Things do happen and the regulatory system needs to have the ability to adapt. While some Rs do want to dismantle the EPA, I am not in favor of that. Nor do most. Just like the Democrats, some of them on the fringes are crazy. That being said, yes, the EPA needs to be reigned in regarding some areas, and the courts have done well in that regard here in recent months.

And that's precisely the problem. This stuff goes wrong all the time (whether by incompetence, corruption or greed) and shale oil is intrinsically more dangerous to the environment. It'd be a major issue even if oil companies had a near perfect environmental record.

HeadLever: At which point does cynicism turn into the inability to recognize a legitimate argument or action.

I asked you first!

The long and inglorious history of energy companies doing environmental damage in the name of profit makes me a realist on this issue. Coal mining, fracking, oil spills, global warming, etc, etc, things are getting farked up even with regulations in place. And you want to take this "oh, it'll be fine" approach to an incredibly dirty and expensive (i.e. incentive to cut corners) energy source?

Baryogenesis: Yeah, that worked well for the people living near to that lovely fraking who got flammable tap water out of the deal.

How come this stuff never happens in a state as Republican run as Texas? There's over 8,000 fracked wells in Texas, many near Ft. Worth's water supply, and nary a fart.

_{/or could there be another reason? nah.}

Baryogenesis: And that's precisely the problem.

And while you are likely correct, that is an area where additional regulations would be needed. Protecting water from this activity is something that I - even as an evil conservative - support.

I asked you first!

Just responding to your rhetorical question with one of my own.

And you want to take this "oh, it'll be fine" approach to an incredibly dirty and expensive (i.e. incentive to cut corners) energy source?

Nope, If you are truely worried about these impacts, why make is so expensive as to result in exporting these activities to places where there are very little environmental safeguards. Go look a the USGS commodity summaries sometime at how much of our raw materials we import from countries like South Africa, Ghana, China, Russia, etc. How much do you think that they are paying attention to their environmenal degredation? How do you feel about your actions and you standard of living directly contributing to this problem? What are you doing about it?

Or are you like many on the enviro community that are incapable of looking past thier nose and that say, "fark them, I have mine"? If I am going to have to make the mess, at least I'll be man enough to do something about it and try not to make it someone else's problem. For me, out of sight is not out of mind.

WelldeadLink: Baryogenesis: Yeah, that worked well for the people living near to that lovely fraking who got flammable tap water out of the deal.

You mean those whose water was flammable in 1936 due to naturally occurring gas? Josh Fox thought that was not relevant enough to mention in his "Gasland" film.

Come back with something other than wattsupwiththat.blog.globalwarmingdenier as a source and I might consider it.

SVenus: Baryogenesis: Yeah, that worked well for the people living near to that lovely fraking who got flammable tap water out of the deal.

How come this stuff never happens in a state as Republican run as Texas? There's over 8,000 fracked wells in Texas, many near Ft. Worth's water supply, and nary a fart.

/or could there be another reason? nah.

Because there's no water left to contaminate? But seriously, it doesn't have to happen everywhere for it to be an issue.

HeadLever: Nope, If you are truely worried about these impacts, why make is so expensive as to result in exporting these activities to places where there are very little environmental safeguards. Go look a the USGS commodity summaries sometime at how much of our raw materials we import from countries like South Africa, Ghana, China, Russia, etc. How much do you think that they are paying attention to their environmenal degredation? How do you feel about your actions and you standard of living directly contributing to this problem? What are you doing about it?

This makes no sense. You were just arguing that these energy companies would comply with regulations and we'd have nothing to worry about. Oh, oops, unless they can take advantage of a 3rd world country where the local govt doesn't give a fark about the environment . Yeah, real upstanding corporations for sure. We should definitely relax regulations so it's cheaper for them to destroy the environment here too! And the best part is somehow the folks concerned about the environment are the ones to blame for corporations evading US regulations to do the cheapest possible thing all in the name of a quick buck regardless of the environmental cost. Tell me, why aren't you holding those energy companies directly responsible for the environmental damage they cause as part of their business? Why do they get to foist part of the true cost (the externality of pollution) of their business onto the general public?

When did the ruthless pursuit of profit at any cost somehow become more noble than protecting the environment? Oh, we can't fault those noble corporations for protecting their bottom line, but we sure can blame those awful environmentalists for daring to put regulations in place to begin with. Why can't you regulate the whole world yet you stupid environmentalists? Holy fsm, that's some twisted logic you've got working.


By the way, there are UN initiatives and non profit organizations dedicated to protecting the global environment. It's sorta difficult to FORCE regulations on independent nations especially when powerful corporations are plying them with tons of money.

HeadLever: Or are you like many on the enviro community that are incapable of looking past thier nose and that say, "fark them, I have mine"? If I am going to have to make the mess, at least I'll be man enough to do something about it and try not to make it someone else's problem. For me, out of sight is not out of mind.

This is an absolutely formulaic "accuse your opponent of your biggest weakness" argument. That line you typed...that's *exactly* what these energy companies are doing. They're making a mess and doing everything in their power to avoid taking responsibility for it because PROFIT.

Baryogenesis: You mean those whose water was flammable in 1936 due to naturally occurring gas? Josh Fox thought that was not relevant enough to mention in his "Gasland" film.

Come back with something other than wattsupwiththat.blog.globalwarmingdenier as a source and I might consider it.

State of Colorado Natural Resources
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

Baryogenesis: You were just arguing that these energy companies would comply with regulations and we'd have nothing to worry about.

That entire post is nothing but a long and drawn out strawman. Where did I ever say that there was nothing to worry about? In fact, I have clearly stated that monitoring and flexibility in the regulatory environment was very important. The fact is that both environmenal protections and economic viability are both equally important. Again, it is a balancing act.

And don't forget that it is not always BP that is working in these 3rd world countries mining and producing our raw materials for us. Many times it is the small local buisness that do just as much environmenal harm as the huge international companies.

Well this should be enough oil to keep me living comfortably until I die.

My kids? Don't have any and don't plan on having any.

Oh by the way, the real question is what will all that sequestered carbon do to the environment when dug up and combusted into CO2?

Very interesting indeed.

Once they get started, they will drain the aquifers and then weasel their way out of responsibility.

It's the American Way!

Oh, and here is a great example in my neck of the woods of how these companies '(a)re making a mess and doing everything in their power to avoid taking responsibility for it because PROFIT.'

One thing is for certain, you sure know how to stuff straw into an empty suit.

HeadLever: Baryogenesis: You were just arguing that these energy companies would comply with regulations and we'd have nothing to worry about.

That entire post is nothing but a long and drawn out strawman. Where did I ever say that there was nothing to worry about? In fact, I have clearly stated that monitoring and flexibility in the regulatory environment was very important. The fact is that both environmenal protections and economic viability are both equally important. Again, it is a balancing act.

And don't forget that it is not always BP that is working in these 3rd world countries mining and producing our raw materials for us. Many times it is the small local buisness that do just as much environmenal harm as the huge international companies.

Dude, that was what I kept grilling you about. You kept saying if they followed regulations that there wouldn't be any major problems to worry about. And I kept calling you naive for thinking that A) regulations are always followed to the letter and B) current regulations are strict enough thanks to lobbying and the GOP's hate for the EPA.

Here's an example of you essentially saying "it'll all be fine". Now, if you don't think current regulations will be fine then you're on my side of the issue.

HeadLever: much of it can be overcome or mitigated with applying the correct technology. The more environmentally destructive this type of energy can be, I'll agree that we need to better ensure that these companies do stick with the environmental permits and do have a legitimate and funded reclamation plan in place.

And that after you kept telling me these corporations would follow regulations and most of the problems associated with accessing shale oil would be dealt with you completely flipped positions. Now, these corporations are so burdened by regulations that they have to outsource or move entirely abroad to make a profit. And *somehow" corporations choosing profit over protecting the environment and paying for the full cost of their business is the fault of the folks who want regulations in the first place. *Somehow* these energy corporations doing everything they can to avoid regulations (notice point A above) are not at fault.

HeadLever: If you are truely worried about these impacts, why make is so expensive as to result in exporting these activities to places where there are very little environmental safeguards.

"Wahh, those greenie meanies are *making* us exploit the 3rd world with their expensive environmental safeguards."

HeadLever: Oh, and here is a great example in my neck of the woods of how these companies '(a)re making a mess and doing everything in their power to avoid taking responsibility for it because PROFIT.'

One thing is for certain, you sure know how to stuff straw into an empty suit.

It's great to see not all businesses are corrupt. That doesn't mean other ones aren't doing their best to reduce regulations and shirk responsibility whenever possible. The global warming debate is a prime example of such behavior.

Ctrl-f: canyonee *boink*

jayhawk88: tomWright: Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well, unless you want to just turn western Colorado into an inland ocean. And oh yea, we'll need to pipe the oil out of course to refineries.

But investing in solar or wind power infrastructure? Crazy talk.

No need to pump oil out too far, there is an oil refinery in Commerce City, CO.

Baryogenesis: You kept saying if they followed regulations that there wouldn't be any major problems to worry about.

Strike one. No I did not. Another strawman. Stuff that suite a little bit more.

The regulations are there to provide a framework for protection - it is not perfect. However, it does attempt to strike a balance on allowing these industries to survive. For the 100th time, it is a balance.

Here's an example of you essentially saying "it'll all be fine".

Really? A post of me indicating that many of the problems CAN be overcome with technology and mitigation is now me saying that everything will be fine? Nope - Strike Two.

And that after you kept telling me these corporations would follow regulations

Where did I say that? Strike Three.

I am going to stop here. You have that strawman bursting at the seams. Hey if you want to have an argument with that 20 foot straman you have been building, I'll step out of the way and let you two go at it. Leave me out of it.

Now if you want to acually respond to the points that I have been making, feel free.

HeadLever: Really? A post of me indicating that many of the problems CAN be overcome with technology and mitigation is now me saying that everything will be fine? Nope - Strike Two.

Pick a position. Either you think current technology and regulatory mechanism are sufficient (i.e. everything will be fine) with regards to shale oil extraction or you think that current regulations and technology aren't enough to protect the environment and especially the water supply from the effects of shale oil extraction.

HeadLever: Baryogenesis: You kept saying if they followed regulations that there wouldn't be any major problems to worry about.

Strike one. No I did not. Another strawman. Stuff that suite a little bit more.

The regulations are there to provide a framework for protection - it is not perfect. However, it does attempt to strike a balance on allowing these industries to survive. For the 100th time, it is a balance.

Dude, if we have major environmental problems to worry about then regulations or the enforcement thereof are lacking in the extreme. "Not perfect" would be the understatement of the century. It's entirely possible that shale oil extraction isn't worth the cost. If allowing these industries to survives means the overuse and contamination of limited water supplies (in addition to stuff like greenhouse gas emissions) then they shouldn't be allowed to operate. The balance point will not always be in the realm of profitability.

HeadLever: And that after you kept telling me these corporations would follow regulations

Where did I say that? Strike Three.

So...they won't follow regulations?

SVenus: Baryogenesis: You mean those whose water was flammable in 1936 due to naturally occurring gas? Josh Fox thought that was not relevant enough to mention in his "Gasland" film.

Come back with something other than wattsupwiththat.blog.globalwarmingdenier as a source and I might consider it.

State of Colorado Natural Resources
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

It's a step up from random dude's blog, but don't you think there might be a conflict on interest here?

Baryogenesis: State of Colorado Natural Resources
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

It's a step up from random dude's blog, but don't you think there might be a conflict on interest here?

If you have gas coming out of the tap, and you actually analyze it, and it doesn't match the gas from the zone you fracked in, there's not much proof fracking caused that gas, other than to say the vibrations from the actual fracking operation caused the gas to locally migrate into the aquifer.

The conflict of interest also exists when the local farmers draw down the aquifer and blame the lack of water on unrelated operations conducted by companies that just happen to have deep pockets.

Baryogenesis: Either you think current technology and regulatory mechanism are sufficient (i.e. everything will be fine) with regards to shale oil extraction or you think that current regulations and technology aren't enough to protect the environment and especially the water supply from the effects of shale oil extraction.

Sorry, bud. I refuse to let my paintbrush to grow that big. If you want a response, this is how I see it: Every project is different. Some projects will have no problems keeping impacts minimized under the current regulatory framework and others may be much more problematic where current regulations will be inadequate to address some concerns.

Dude, if we have major environmental problems to worry about then regulations or the enforcement thereof are lacking in the extreme.

If all you need is a an uninformed 'worry' to state that the 'regulations or the enforcement thereof are lacking in the extreme' then the system is broken. There would be no balance. If there are legimate holes in the regulatory framework that can be scientifically shown to be a threat to the requirements of the Clean Water/Clean Air Acts and not just some vauge 'worry' then we need to beef up some reguations.

It's entirely possible that shale oil extraction isn't worth the cost. If allowing these industries to survives means the overuse and contamination of limited water supplies (in addition to stuff like greenhouse gas emissions) then they shouldn't be allowed to operate. The balance point will not always be in the realm of profitability.


With this I can somewhat agree. The environmental protection as required is just another cost of doing buisness. If they can still turn a dollar while doing everything necessary per the prudent environmental standards, there would be no reason not to allow them to operate. If they can't turn a dollar because the cost is too high, then there should be no project.

So...they won't follow regulations?

Again, it depends upon the company. Some do. Some don't. Some will. Some won't. In any case you need to watch them very closely and fine the piss out the the don't and won't cases.

Don't need to 'crucify' them necessarily, though