I know I'm an industry insider being a petroleum engineer, but when confronted with the pure bullshite spewed forth under the guise of a documentary - I can't help but marvel at the ignorance. I can reaffirm my industries statements - hydraulic fracture stimulation of gas and/or oil wells does not contaminate drinking water. Unless of course the drinking water is coming from 2 miles down. Have water wells been contaminated? Indeed, but not because of fracing. Most contamination has occurred because there were no regulations or standards for more then 50 years when the industry began. Now, we are second only to the nuclear industry as far as regulations we must follow. I know most of you will quip "big oil" and write off this tirade as just self interest, but I have learned that any fool with a camera can slam any industry and make them sound like the devil's own spawn. My take away - never trust any "expert" or news report as fact. It takes a rocket scientist to make a rocket but any idiot can claim the sky is falling.
I've been meaning to watch that since the paper I work for did a review of it. I know it was own tonight, but the wife wanted to watch the Courtney Love Behind the Music that she recorded. Will have to watch that later.
No problem here! But a question if I could since you're Pet. E. As background:I am a 4 time combat veteran US Army Special Forces(Green Berets). Before every mission we had to plan the mission in intricate detail including ALL contingencies. Then during the 'Brief Back' to the commander before authorization to launch;he wanted to know what action is to be taken if A or B or C.....goes wrong.So.....shouldn't a drilling/rock fracturing/oil company know/plan ahead for exactly what to do BEFORE the well blows out and not drill until that contingency is covered?Or, in the case of fracturing rock layers,"okay guys,we accidentally fractured the upper layers of rock also and so consequently the water table has now sunk from 50ft to 2000ft so now we go to plan B(This actually happened in Waco,TX approx 50yrs ago. Before fracturing there were artesian wells and springs galore. One little explosion to fracture and they were all gone).I'm not trying to cause a fight or anything like that. We have to have petroleum but, PRIOR PLANNING PREVENTS PISS POOR PERFORMANCE. Yes? What's the deal? What's the skinny? Inquiring minds want to know. Jason De Oppresso Libre
MINIMaybee, NPR Fresh Air recently did a program on the industry, including the filmmaker of Gasland. I'd be interested to hear your comments. Part 1: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127561853 Part 2: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127593937 Also available on iTunes podcast.
I may be missing the obvious, but I think you(all) are talking about two different things?? Gasland is not about BP or the leak in the gulf...
Fracturing Rock Layers He's talking about Gasland Fracturing rock layers,hence the question Jason De Oppresso Libre
My mistake. I was looking at the NPR link I guess.... I think given the current climate it's easy to intermix the issue of BP's safety record (which is clearly lousy) with more general topics (e.g. gas extraction). ...on the other hand if BP is the only company doing gas extraction that way, then I guess they are intertwined...are they?
I'm all fine and good with advanced technology... but I do have problems with exemptions to clean air and clean water provisions of environmental protection. If the technology is so good, then there should be no problem with environmental compliance. Exemptions to environmental compliance laws just invites abuse. There are both good people in petrochemicals, and there are some that are extremely profit oriented. The quest for maximum profits leads to a "whatever we can get away with" mentality. To say that the industry is pure as the driven snow because of it's history or ever increasing regulatory complience ignores the historical record and also ignores the efforts of lobying to reduce exposure to consiquential damages and requirements for risk mitigation. So, I'm an "original source" kind of guy and I went to Colorado's BLM site (BLM Colorado | Oil and Gas Leasing Instructions) about leasing BLM land for oil and gas.... We the taxpayers get 12.5% royalty, but it doesn't say ( on this page) if that's on gross sales or net sales. Either way, that's better than I feared and much worse than I'd hoped. What I did find interesting is that the rental fees for the land are $1.5 per acre per year for the first 5 years, and $2 per acre per year for the next five years (BLM leases are 10 years). Also the lease can be exteneded as long as the wells are commercially viable. Another shocker was that the bond required against environmental damages is "at least $10k", but it doesn't specifiy how the bond amount is calculated. Since the leases are about 2500 acres, that's $4 per acre, or almost nothing. This is worrysome as it implies it's cheaper to sacrafice the bond than the really clean up and mitigate once the lease is done. I'd have to dig a lot deeper to see what real bond levels actually are. Anyway, this has the usual look of lots of things that happen when big business and government start working on things that most of us are ignorant of: there is some lip service to being fair to the people of the US, but there is heavy bias towards those that will make the big money on the actual resource extraction. For example, is it fair that we the tax payers get only 1/8th of the value of the resouce that is extracted? Wouldn't it still be profitable for the oil and gas companies if they were to get 2/3rds or 1/2 the value? Sure would help our nation as we the people would make more from the resource sale. I don't know the answer, but how many of you would sell your extra car for 1/8th of blue book just because you werent driving it and someone offered to take it off your hands.... I'm sure that this is more complicated than MINIMabee implies, and probably less of a mess on average than GASLAND implies. Matt
Part 1 of the NPR program began with a discussion about BP and moved on to the topic of fracking. Part 2 is an interview with the filmmaker of Gasland.
It's amazing what you learn when you google BLM and Oil and Gas Leases So, here's another link... BLM approves new gas well drilling this is a story in the Cortez Journal about a new lease (article date June 17th, 2010) in the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. So, a couple things I learned.... 80% of the monument is currently leased. This new lease to Questar is on the site of an abandoned well. The Envirnomental Assessment is implied to say that there is no significant impact because it's all on the abandonded well site. This also means that the abandonded well site wasn't mitigated to pre-well conditions after abandonement. There are links in the article to how to get copies of the Envirnomental Assessment, but they just go to informational pages from CO's BLM, and no real documents are available for download. Just another example of how it's hard for citizens to really find out what's up with the land that is supposedly heald in trust for us. Far as I can tell, the only way to get a copy of the EA is to go to a specific building, or phone them to see if they will send you a hard copy! Another interesting passage.... This is about BLM contracting people or companies to do EAs and EISs..... "The BLM in Colorado does very little contracting for environmental document preparation, and we do not maintain a list of approved contractors. Information concerning work that may be available is best obtained from the individual field offices. Most contracted work is done through a third party contract process in which a project proponent contracts with an environmental firm that is acceptable to the BLM." So, no on-line depository of documents, no structured BLM oversight of EA preparation, and all document preparation is done by those that have an financial interest in finding no or acceptable levels impact. This does make one wonder... Matt
I wish it was ignorance. They know exactly what they are doing. Turn the public against big biz and help socialism move right in. We are in trouble, folks. Don't doubt it for a second.
Way I read it... is that the socialism is already here. We take land that is in trust for the people, and give it to big business for pennies on the dollar. Thing is, it's the companies that are getting the distribution of wealth. Or is $1.50 a year "rent" on land a fair market price? I don't know the answer, but I sure can see that there is more than one side to that question. It's easy to spout out that the sky if falling because we all hate big business. What I posted I found from BLM documents, not some nutjob doing a tar and feather ad-hominem attack on this interest or that. Matt
No Problem here. I'm sure that my rambling paragraph was confusing as usual. I did want to know more about 'Fracturing' and I did:nonod:slip a question in about contingencies when bad things happen. Thanks Jason De Oppresso Libre
Interesting reading... http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/leasing_reform.Par.11912.File.dat/BLM_Energy_Reforms_Q_A.pdf is about reforms to oil and gas leasing procedures. But it's a bit confusing. They quote that in 1998, only 1% of leases were protested and in 2008, 49% were. But they don't say why. (It could be because there is a conspiricy to stop resource developement, or it could be because of industrias abuses in resource developement. This is just two very different examples of what could lead to increased levels of protest that have very different origins.) So the scope of the document seems to both say that they want to do a better job protecting the interrests of a diverse group of stakeholders (which I would assume leads to a greater degree of scrutiny) as well as reduce the rate of lease objections. While these seem like mutually exclusive goals, I think the BLM is saying that increased predictibility of the leasing process will lead industry to not apply for leases where they are likely to get more pushback, and as such, reduce objection rates. Anyway, the goal is to standardize the review process. But what is really interesting comes later on in the document. There is something called a "catagorical exclusion" to the need to file an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment that was introduced in the 2005 energy legislation. This got a huge push-back from the citizens of our nation, along with conservation groups (as well as many in congress). So the OMB tool a look at it and found that it was very vague. The idea is that if something is following on an existing project, no one had to really review potential impacts, no environmental assement was required. It was a "free pass" for considering potential negative impacts. So the OMB said that these CXs needed to be better defined so that an objective standard can be used to see if a CX covers some new activity or is an umbrella for allowing something with a very large change in associated impact risk. This, in general, seems like a good thing, but I'm a bit baffled at the logic. Say I want to do something under a CX, and there is no required study to asses potential impact. In the absence of any new information, how do I know if I'm covered by the CX or not? It's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.... (It seems that the BLM is proposing a checklist that you go down, if you answer "no" to everything, then you get to keep doing what you wanted to!) Anyway, this is in process now, and the BLM is supposed to come forth with two new policy documents. One that addresses the concerns of the public and congress, and one that addresses the issues raised by the OMB. Anyway, it always is an eye opener to me when I start looking under some of these "rocks" to see what's hidden. As ususal, is very surprising indeed. Matt
I'm not going to respond to everything above but here are a few points: Currently the going rate in PA for prime Marcellus leases is about $10,000/acre since most of this is private land this is a negotiated price between mineral owners and companies. Leases with the BLM or MMS (offshore) are via competitive bidding. Only cattle ranchers get to pay the minimum BLM rental fees. A current lease sale in Colorado fetched about $3,500/acre (keep in mind that a single well is mandated to occupy up to 640 acres - that's $2,240,000 just for the lease) Over and above the typical 1/8 royalty, states extract a severance tax, property tax and then of course income tax and filing fees. Historically oil companies generate an 8% return on investment - Walmart 35% To drill a well you will need about $2,500,000 and then to complete the well so it is capable of producing you will need another $3,000,000 add to this the cost to operate at about $4,000/month and you can see how the industry generates such low rates of return Now as far as what happens and how does the planning incorporate contingencies: Wells are planned to minimize cost, meet regulations and maximize production potential. BP cut corners, ignored the advice of experts and hoped for the best. They got the worst and are deserving of every bit of criticism they are receiving not to mention the amount of cash it will cost them. Despite all the planning - things can go wrong. You are dealing with Mother Nature after all. Usually though if an incident gets out of control it is because of the 6P's mentioned earlier. Keep in mind that wells can be miles deep and everything must take place within a diameter between 3" and 12". My last comments on the subject need to be considered before condemning a necessary and important part of our economy: Minerals are a tangible asset owned and controlled by the mineral owner. Sometimes this is the same as the surface owner and sometimes not. When not, there has always been and will always be jealousy, envy and hard feelings. Hydrocarbon is totally organic and has been seeping to the surface for millions of years. Nature has ways of dealing with hydrocarbons and if left alone it will be 100% consumed by bacteria and microbes. The last major oil spill was off the coast of Santa Barbara about 40 years ago. How many accidents has NASA had in the same time period? So I'm not trying to justify the BP accident, nor excuse unethical practices by some companies. I am saying that the information put forth by Gasland was at best inaccurate and at worst outright fraud aimed as swaying the opinions of those too ignorant or lazy to get the real story.