"Oil and gas production from fracked wells thus starts out high but suffers ferocious decline rates—up to 90% in the first year alone."
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-end-of-sh...
Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#22In other news, the wanton, unregulated, for-profit destruction of our water table and environment is projected to last for decades.
If not here, then elsewhere. We're decades away from a green economy. We would be decades away even if we decided to invest what was necessary to get us there, and with the current levels of investment, I would be unsurprised if we're still drilling for oil full blast when I die.
Oh, it's definitely elsewhere as well. They're doing it on the outskirts of Melbourne now, too. Australia is full of the stuff and it's only just now beginning to be exploited.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar is not even close to free. The systems and materials you need to collect it cost huge amount of both money, and environmental impact.
Nuclear plants and coal-powered plants also require environmentally-unfriendly material to build and maintain, no?
Coal-powered plants, sure (they even release radioactivity, moreso than nuclear plants). But while nuclear power plants are generally huge (no good reason for that, though, you can make them the size of car too), their environmental impact relative to their production is almost nil.
Why ?
Calculations suggest that nuclear power has less impact than solar power installations (panels need to be produced, contain lots of toxic chemicals, take yet more toxic chemicals to produce, and -eventually- end up in the garbage can. Add to that, that panels are only specced to produce about 20x their energy production cost over a period of roughly 20 years. Installing solar panels means that the first 3-4 years (more if you're not in Florida) you're actually making the co2 problem worse). The worst nuclear power plants produce 50000 times the energy needed to build them on a yearly basis (compare solar panels, perfectly placed, 1/4th to 1/3rd). For the best ones, that factor is tens of millions.
If you actually need power, of course the only metric that matters is environmental impact relative to power production. Now we can argue about what is included in that and what isn't, like mining (coal, of course, has mining too, and much worse). And look at that graph, in reality uranium mining is less impactful than coal mining for thousands of time more energy.
I also like the argument that when people say "but nuclear plants produce long-lived radioactive waste". Well, no, technically they massively reduce long-lived radioactive waste. If we don't use it, it's effectively in the ground, massively dispersed over large areas (generally not deep), and not dug up, constantly irradiating humans and animals. There's a city (in Iran, called Ramsar) where the natural background radiation level is more than in the reactor of a nuclear power plant. It's healthier to swim in the reactor pool of a nuclear reactor than to walk around in that city. Yet people just live there, unaware and unbothered.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#24This is based on an enormous unproven assumption, which is that fracking can be done without incurring catastrophic environmental costs. Coal mining and cigarettes look economical too as long as you foist the real costs onto the general population.
I think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the projection.
It is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the projection.
It is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
If our anonymous downvoter has information to the contrary, it would be helpful if they would post it.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the projection.
It is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
I think he means that the companies have a history of not being stuck with environmental cleanup costs or other secondary costs- and thus even if there will be enormous damages, it won't impact their profits.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
I think he means that the companies have a history of not being stuck with environmental cleanup costs or other secondary costs- and thus even if there will be enormous damages, it won't impact their profits.
Ah yes, under that interpretation I would agree wholeheartedly.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#28Well, solar boom has been going on for billions of years and predicted to last billions of years. And most of it is FREE or LOW MAINTENANCE. Oil guys should think about it.
I would not be so enthusiastic. It has also been well established that this solar curse is the driving force behind global warming. To be more fair natural gas is our perfect bridge fuel to a renewable future. Coal powerplants can be replaced right now instead of waiting for unsubsidized competitive solar. Nuclear powerplants can be brought down for maintain and improvements. Cheaper energy will drive manufacturing a…
Problems exist to be solved, fracking's problems are no exception and the reward is progress.
Yes, we just need to get the drilling industry to recognize there is a problem. Necessity is the mother of invention, and regulation is good way to create necessity. Auto manufacturers fought clean air restrictions and fuel efficiency requirements, but those regulations spurred them to innovate. I'm sure the drillers would as well.
Re: Gas Boom Projected to Last for Decades
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he means that the companies have a history of not being stuck with environmental cleanup costs or other secondary costs- and thus even if there will be enormous damages, it won't impact their profits.
Ah yes, under that interpretation I would agree wholeheartedly.
Eh, yeah and that's the correct one. In the interests of brevity I guess I left some ambiguity there in what I meant.