http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/scien ... =true&_r=0

This seems hard to deny.

danivon wrote:Oil and gas technology hasn't got many places to go. In terms of improvements, the law of diminishing returns applies. Additionally, as the 'easy' oil and gas is used up, the cost (in dollars and crucially, in energy) to extract it will increase. That will tend to offset any improvements in efficiency over time.

I disagree. Fracking, which creates cheap and plentiful natural gas is transforming a wide variety of industries and markets in this country. And it is still largely a US phenomena. The shale formations where the process works exist all over the world and none of them have been touched. Why would this technology, which has been so transformative in this country not have the same impact elsewhere? We're just getting started.

tom

wow, just wow, really?

Yes really. Becasue the way it works is you make an assertion and back it up with evidence that you think is credible.
Your way, I google and take something off the top ofthe list, and offer you an explanation of why its bunk.
When I google as you asked I got to a web site called C3 headlines.
Compare what it says and the follwing debunking...
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/11/glob ... gency.html

http://thesnufkin.blogspot.ca/2011/03/h ... a-set.html

I get why your confused, if the denialist sites are your only source of information. Just becasue its poublished on the Internet doesn't make it right...
Here's a tip, the next time your email leads you to a "denialist" claim. Google Debunking "whatever the name is"..
Usually, because the negative claims are all pretty old now, a genuine scientist has explained why its BS.
Just as is illustrated if you follow the two links above.
And who are C3headlines?
Why don't they tell readers who they are? Who funds them? Etc.

IPCC 1990 original prediction:
.7 to 1.5 C rise in temps
but what we saw was a gradual rise of .2 up to 2000 followed by a slight decrese
...FAIL

The IPCC predicted glaciers in the Himalayas were rapidly melting
they have grown
...Fail

They claimed in 1990 that the east coast beaches would be gone by 2020
I guess the jury is still out but do you see anything happening like this in 7 more years?
...Fail

Deserts in Africa were to expand
But they have gotten greener
...Fail

Permafrost melt would result in increased methane in the atmosphere
But the increase has been slight at best, barely noticeable and well below even their most conservative predictions
...Fail

Antarctic Sea Ice would retreat
While the Arctic has receded recently, the Antarctic is growing (ok, maybe right on the Arctic ...maybe), but the Antarctic
...Fail

They claimed more warmer European winters, resulting in flooding, loss of glaciers and permafrost, loss of species, etc
but none of that has come to fruition
...Fail

GJ maybe we haven't been subsidising fracking like you do. We have had some here though in the Irish Sea off Blackpool. It was suspended for a while due to earthquakes but is restarting. Near my home town is another site, which is being fought against by the conservative locals.

There are questions about the process of fracking, though. Pumping lots of noxious chemicals and water into rock to break it up and release the oil/gas isn't necessarily a good idea, and extra costs due to environmental damage should be borne by the industry.

There's no evidence that frakking is a dangerous technology. All of the studies so far carried out have said that it's safe enough. Granted, we do need to be vigilant, but there's been a lot of scaremongering about it that hasn't turned out to be accurate. People still go on about the bit in Gasland where the guy was able to light the water coming from his tap, but this turned out to be a naturally occurring phenomenon in the area caused by methane bubbling to the surface which predated the frakking and was not causally linked in any way.

Fact is that since the frakking revolution the price of natural gas in the US has plummeted. We'd be mad not to want the same here. It has the potential to free us from our dependence on Russia and Qatar for our energy supplies.

sass

There's no evidence that frakking is a dangerous technology

Not entirely true. We do know that in areas with frakking there is evidence that mild earthquakes follow... And there is evidence that some methods of frakking can poison the water table.
I think it would be safe to say that the oil industry hasn't been as transparent as it should be, but there is significant research into the practices now. And its likely that a largely safe method has been arrived at...or can be arrived at without too great a expense.
Some of the chemicals being used in frakking are known carcinogens.... but most oil companies are not publishing the list of chemicals they use...
so I don't think its safe to say that frakking has been proven 100% safe.. On the other hand, its obviously going to be pursued as long as the benefits are so great.

danivon wrote:There are questions about the process of fracking, though. Pumping lots of noxious chemicals and water into rock to break it up and release the oil/gas isn't necessarily a good idea, and extra costs due to environmental damage should be borne by the industry.

This is an example of the left being anti-science. New York State EPA just did an exhaustive study on fracking that basically says it is safe. Pennsylvania did one a couple of years ago with the same result. Of course the environmental movement wants to ignore all that and go with the authoritative anectdotal evidence.

Well, I would be most concerned about contamination of the water with the numerous chemicals contained in the water sent down. And the EPA will not be doing actual tests of ground water. http://www.timesherald.com/article/2013 ... irect=true

You send a million gallons of water filled with dangerous chemicals into the ground and you should be concerned about the water. Maybe it is or can made to reasonably safe, but with billions of dollars at stake I would be concerned that we find this technology is found to be "safe" and ten to 20 years later water near fracking sites is contaminated.

Russ, I don't think it's an example of the left being 'anti-science' per se. Rather, I think that the anti-frakking activists don't really care that much about the safety angle one way or the other, it's just a convenient tool to try and get frakking stopped. They don't want to see cheap hydrocarbons because they have too much invested in the idea of pushing renewables and know that the only way they'll ever get off the ground (with current renewables technology at any rate) is if the price of hydrocarbons continues to rise. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but it does come across that way to me.

Sassenach wrote:Russ, I don't think it's an example of the left being 'anti-science' per se. Rather, I think that the anti-frakking activists don't really care that much about the safety angle one way or the other, it's just a convenient tool to try and get frakking stopped. They don't want to see cheap hydrocarbons because they have too much invested in the idea of pushing renewables and know that the only way they'll ever get off the ground (with current renewables technology at any rate) is if the price of hydrocarbons continues to rise. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but it does come across that way to me.

Rob, aren't they doing exactly what they accuse the right of doing when it questions AGW? Ignoring the science when it goes against the position they want to push. Doesn't that make them just as anti-science as the right then?

freeman2 wrote:Well, I would be most concerned about contamination of the water with the numerous chemicals contained in the water sent down. And the EPA will not be doing actual tests of ground water. http://www.timesherald.com/article/2013 ... irect=true

You send a million gallons of water filled with dangerous chemicals into the ground and you should be concerned about the water. Maybe it is or can made to reasonably safe, but with billions of dollars at stake I would be concerned that we find this technology is found to be "safe" and ten to 20 years later water near fracking sites is contaminated.

From the neighboring County paper today http://www.phillyburbs.com/ap/commentar ... d7fcc.html It discusses a number of different studies of groundwater that showed no contamination. For example

A study that examined the water quality of 127 shallow domestic wells in the Fayetteville Shale natural gas production area of Arkansas found no groundwater contamination associated with gas production,” the U.S. Geological Survey announced Wednesday. — “Significant adverse impacts on human health are not expected from routine HVHF,” or high-volume hydraulic fracturing, according to a February 2012 preliminary report from New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation. New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pondered this issue since 2010 and promises further contemplation, including another draft of what DEC now calls an “outdated summary.”

I am not sure what you posted Archduke is science, mostly anecdotal comments. Tests of groundwater at a substantial number of locations at 5,10, 15 years after fracking is done would be scientific evidence. "I am not aware" evidence is not very convincing. I have no reason to believe that fracking is unsafe, but when you're talking about massive amounts of fracking that is going to be done it is only prudent that people should be concerned. Why shouldn't there be extensive actual testing of groundwater at existing sites so we know whether are risks or not?

Rob, aren't they doing exactly what they accuse the right of doing when it questions AGW? Ignoring the science when it goes against the position they want to push. Doesn't that make them just as anti-science as the right then?

Perhaps, but I do think there's a difference. Those (primarily on the left, but not always) who argue against frakking or GM foods are not being actively hostile towards science or ascribing nefarious motives to scientists, which is what you often see from the wilder fringes of the anti-AGW crowd. All they're doing is adopting an excessive interpretation of the precautionary principle. I'd argue that it's motivated largely by mistrust of big business, which leads them to a much greater assessment of the risks, and to an extent there's an element of cynicism in that it's very convenient to apply the precautionary principle to try and halt frakking because that ties in with their wider agenda anyway.

I don't think it's terribly helpful to describe the environmental debate in left/right terms btw. I know that the debate does split along party lines to a large degree in the US but this is a recent development and isn't likely to be permanent. In other parts of the world the dividing line is less overtly political.

Sass's assessment is pretty accurate. There is no
doubt that the left is not immune to questioning science when it suits them; however, right-wing bias tends to be rooted in the fact that science has had results (evolution, textual analysis, etc) that undermine religious belief. So someone not thrilled with scientific pronouncements about evolution is going to have a ready scepticism towards Global Warming. There really is no parallel motivation on the left to be against science