If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   All you conspiracy nuts raving about a huge night time light source in North Dakota that wasn't there six years ago can just relax. It's only oil frackers burning off massive amounts of natural gas   (npr.org) divider line 215
    More: Scary, North Dakota, Water pumping, Great Plains, gasfields, Bakken, conspiracy, gas wells, natural gas  
•       •       •

6586 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 7:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 06:32:54 PM

Solon Isonomia: Dancin_In_Anson: Paris1127: Now, call me crazy, but why don't they, you know, use that natural gas?

Sometimes. It's cheap as shiat right now and they are drilling primarily for oil. It's not worth the effort or investment to build the infrastructure to pipe it out. Now, if there was say an overseas market that would be willing to pay a metric farkton more than it's bringing domestically...Oh wait!

That being said, flaring gas at the well site is nothing new. My Dad told me that back in the 50s you could drive through the fields south of Electra Texas at midnight at it was almost  as bright as day.

Still, it feels like they're leaving money on the table, even with the cost of infrastructure in comparison to the massive desire for natural gas. It's a limited resource, why not just gather and store?


There's no money in it for them. They don't care about conserving limited resources, or about pollution resulting from burning the gas. The only thing they care about is profit.

If corporations are people then they are sociopaths.
 
2013-01-20 06:38:16 PM
The problem here in North Dakota with gas flaring is actually the result of indoor plumbing in Canada.

"Back in the day", most of Saskatchewan and Manitoba had outdoor "bathrooms", called Outhouses. With the advent of indoor plumbing, these were removed. There is now very little stopping the arctic winds from howling down into North Dakota.

(The local news is on this very moment - and the Wind Chills around here are presently as low as -55F)

The gas flares are just an effort to warm this place up!

// Yes, it IS a conspiracy
 
2013-01-21 08:51:51 AM

Maul555: Chaghatai: I saw one post where someone said that storage cost would be way to high to do safely given the hazard. But if extraction industries cannot be viable while paying the full and true long-term cost of their business, then it was never a responsibly viable business model to begin with.

It is viable... they are a business... Do you really think that there would be all of this activity without a profit?


And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.
 
2013-01-21 12:29:03 PM
I await the day when greedy humans realize that because something make good economic sense, money is not the trump suit.
It is not good sense period when it is not good sense but shortrun profitable.
 
2013-01-21 01:22:45 PM

Speaker2Animals: And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.


When your plan is to leave everyone living in neolithic mud huts toiling away on subsistence "sustainable" farms, the guy who promises "living in the late 19th century" starts to look pretty good.
 
2013-01-21 01:38:38 PM

Tatterdemalian: everyone living in neolithic mud huts


Well, in truth, they'd be more "post modern" mud huts.
 
2013-01-21 01:47:21 PM

SVenus: Tatterdemalian: everyone living in neolithic mud huts

Well, in truth, they'd be more "post modern" mud huts.


hipster huts?
 
2013-01-21 01:53:15 PM

Tatterdemalian: Speaker2Animals: And profit is the only thing worth worrying about, eh? No need to think about the environmental costs, because they would affect profit. Shouldn't you be living in the late 19th century? Oh wait, you think that's where you are.

When your plan is to leave everyone living in neolithic mud huts toiling away on subsistence "sustainable" farms, the guy who promises "living in the late 19th century" starts to look pretty good.


So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age? If that's a troll, +1. If you're serious, that's one of the dumbest f*cking things I've ever seen on here.
 
2013-01-21 02:17:32 PM

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age? If that's a troll, +1. If you're serious, that's one of the dumbest f*cking things I've ever seen on here.


On its face, no. The way it's applied by a lot of environmental groups, yes.

There is no reasonable standard or allowable level of emissions to some of them. Think of the groups saying that 'there's no such thing as clean coal' even if they could cut emissions 80% from what they are now.
 
2013-01-21 02:28:39 PM

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage = send everyone back to the stone age?


The way you propose it, yes.

/we have already minimized and mitigated environmental damage as much as possible without sending everyone back to the stone age
//the only way to do more is to send everyone back to the stone age
///and you probably even have the gall to think that it's really everyone else's fault for failing to find a "third way" that literally cannot exist, because finding one and taking it would only lead to demands that we do even more
 
2013-01-21 02:36:38 PM

Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage


Say you decide to shut in the oil field, and replace that oil with that shipped in from overseas. Assuming America is importing the maximum from Canada, what with all the pipeline issues and all...
What is the trade off in emissions just to get that oil here? What is the cost in emissions per barrel to import oil from the Middle East? Lost jobs in that two year delay? Materials to drill new wells are paid with profits from currently producing wells. The entire thing is slowed down, and future capacity isn't known until the wells in an area are put on stream. So, you have to drill the wells, test the wells, and then shut them in for 18-24 months, not recouping THAT investment until new rights of way secured by legal agreement, the gas is hooked up and sales contracts are signed? We're talking several bunker oil burning super tankers worth of emissions, here. Not to mention the place where some of that oil would come from is flaring THEIR gas.

Who's the troll here?
 
2013-01-21 03:17:26 PM

Tatterdemalian: /we have already minimized and mitigated environmental damage as much as possible without sending everyone back to the stone age
//the only way to do more is to send everyone back to the stone age


LMFAO!

The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!? You're reading these words on something decidedly not Stone Age.
 
2013-01-21 03:31:31 PM

Speaker2Animals: The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!?


We get a recession that keeps getting deeper until the regulations are relaxed... and the relaxation of those regulations are exactly what you're whining about.

/one good thing I will say about Obama, he learns from his mistakes
//it would be nice if he could learn from other peoples' mistakes so he doesn't have to make the same mistakes Jimmy Carter did, but baby steps are better than nothing
 
2013-01-21 03:35:27 PM

Tatterdemalian: Speaker2Animals: The same argument has been used against every anti-pollution measure imposed for the last 40 years. Somehow industry is dragged kicking and screaming into compliance and guess what!!?!?

We get a recession that keeps getting deeper until the regulations are relaxed... and the relaxation of those regulations are exactly what you're whining about.

/one good thing I will say about Obama, he learns from his mistakes
//it would be nice if he could learn from other peoples' mistakes so he doesn't have to make the same mistakes Jimmy Carter did, but baby steps are better than nothing


Wow. And I thought the Great Recession was caused by lax oversight of banks and you're telling me it's because of those damned environmentalists. Who knew?
 
2013-01-21 08:43:55 PM

SVenus: Speaker2Animals: So expecting companies to minimize and mitigate environmental damage

Say you decide to shut in the oil field, and replace that oil with that shipped in from overseas. Assuming America is importing the maximum from Canada, what with all the pipeline issues and all...
What is the trade off in emissions just to get that oil here? What is the cost in emissions per barrel to import oil from the Middle East? Lost jobs in that two year delay? Materials to drill new wells are paid with profits from currently producing wells. The entire thing is slowed down, and future capacity isn't known until the wells in an area are put on stream. So, you have to drill the wells, test the wells, and then shut them in for 18-24 months, not recouping THAT investment until new rights of way secured by legal agreement, the gas is hooked up and sales contracts are signed? We're talking several bunker oil burning super tankers worth of emissions, here. Not to mention the place where some of that oil would come from is flaring THEIR gas.

Who's the troll here?


Don't know where he said he wanted to shut down all the oil fields here. But he has a point about making them impact the environment as little as possible.

The problem with humanity is its supreme arrogance. We need to dial it back, be more humble, and realize that the more we fark up our only home in the universe, the worse we're going to be affected down the line. We also need to try to suppress our incredible greed.
 
Displayed 15 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report