Moose Jaw Forum

MILANVILLE, Pa. (AP)-- What do you do when a gas company offers nearly $100,000 for the right to drill on your land?

If you're Josh Fox, you refuse the money - then make an award-winning documentary portraying the natural gas industry as an environmental menace that ruins water, air and lives.

In "Gasland," premiering Monday at 9 p.m. EDT on HBO, Fox presents a frightening scenario in which tens of thousands of drilling rigs take over the landscape, gas companies exploit legal loopholes to inject toxins into the ground and residents living nearby contract severe, unexplained illnesses.

This isn't some dystopian nightmare, Fox says, but the harsh reality in communities from Texas to Colorado to Pennsylvania. "People are feeling completely upended," the 37-year-old filmmaker said in an interview at his woodland home near the Pennsylvania-New York border, where gas companies have been leasing thousands of acres of pristine watershed land in anticipation of a drilling boom.

Gasland...the documentary

Decent documentary, although, really short on answers, and more emphasis on complaining. Energy production of any kind has its victims. Having said that, central Sask is home to significant coalbeds which will eventually see the same sort of production and techniques used, especially in the Lake Diefenbaker area.

The United States is really facing a loaded gun on this one because of dysfunctional energy policy over the past 30-40 years. Telling the gas producers to stop drilling really isn't a viable option. Now, if the US were energy independant or even a net exporter, then the American people could pick and choose which sources they would exploit, but that's obviously not the case because they need everything they can get, and twice that even.

suki wrote on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 6:27 pm: Decent documentary, although, really short on answers, and more emphasis on complaining.

Yes, it was a very well made documentary.
I thought that the answers, or answer, was pretty obvious, however.
It also seems, that I'm always having to be thankful for the complaining of others, and never honestly do enough, that can compare, anyway.

I would have to be honest, and admit, that I have heard very little, and seen even less, coming from the mainstream media regarding "fracking", until this documentary Gasland.

And, on the same token, I find it very difficult to accept all the recent controversy about the death of ducks, in the Alberta Tarsands (Oilsands).
Now; I'm not saying that this is not news worthy, or that its not important, but to risk the obvious potential, to damage hundreds of millions of gallons of water, held under the ground, and especially due to the hydraulic fracturing process...this should be more toward the top of the list of issues, to be covered in the news.

Syncrude to pay $3.2 million in fines, research funding for duck deaths

ST. ALBERT, Alta. — A judge approved what officials are calling the largest penalty in Canadian history for a single environmental offence on Friday, fining Syncrude Canada Ltd. a total of $3.2 million for the deaths of 1,600 ducks at an oilsands waste ponds in northern Alberta.

"We have strong environmental laws in this country and we expect them to be abided by," said federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, speaking Friday in Vancouver.

"For companies or people that break our environmental laws they will be subject to the full weight of the Canadian legal system and so there is a lesson in this for everyone.

"I think the carelessness that was shown was unacceptable. This resulted in environmental damage in Canada and it also was internationally embarrassing to our country. I think the historic nature of the sentence really does reflect that."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/La ... story.html

Jim Prentice: Are there ethical issues with him joining CIBC?
Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice's sudden announcement of his resignation to join the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has sparked questions about how a senior government minister can negotiate a job with a major bank without potential ethical problems.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010 ... -cibc.html

Ugly Reality of Fracking
Companion legislation (S.1215/H.R.2766) – the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act – is currently before Congress to require regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the federal US Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking fluids. New York City Council, the mayor of New York, and a New York Times editorial have all called for a ban on hydraulic fracturing throughout the watershed from which the city obtains its drinking water. That watershed is part of the huge Marcellus shale area being staked out for natural gas drilling and fracking of tens of thousands of wells.

Drilling in Canada

Meanwhile, the BC government has been pushing drilling for unconventional sources of natural gas since at least 2005, offering $50,000 (€36,500) royalty credits for every well drilled before December 2008, and selling oil and gas “sub-surface rights” at a fever pitch.

Both BC and Saskatchewan have been courting the industry with lax or no environmental regulations and promises of low royalties charged to the companies. The Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) predicts a 10 percent increase in drilling in BC in 2010, mostly in the Montney shale field of northeastern BC and the Horn River Basin near Fort Nelson.

Fracking is also in high demand in the Bakken natural gas field in southern Saskatchewan, where 1,000 wells have been drilled and fracked over the past five years. PSAC is predicting 1,935 new wells will be drilled there in 2010, and 300 new wells in Manitoba. As a result, Alberta has just announced that it is removing environmental and regulatory “hurdles” in order to entice the natural-gas industry back.

While natural gas is touted as a “clean energy” source, the method of extracting this fossil fuel is dirty indeed.
Read more: http://www.greenmuze.com/climate/energy ... cking.html

suki also wrote on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 6:27 pm: The United States is really facing a loaded gun on this one because of dysfunctional energy policy over the past 30-40 years

I'm not sure what you are referring to by dysfunctional energy policy.
Compared to whom?

suki also wrote on Sat Jan 01, 2011 at 6:27 pm:Now, if the US were energy independant or even a net exporter

Do you honestly think that the US in not energy independant?
They are--I believe.
Its more a situation of energy reserves equal world power...dominance...keeping the war machine lubricated...fueled.
I also tend to believe that the US is, a net exporter of energy...its not one of their chief (main) exports, but consider this: Oil - exports: 1.704 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
We; Canada currently purchases most of its refined petroleum (gasoline) from the US.
BTW. The U.S. ranks seventh in energy consumption per-capita after Canada, and a number of other countries.

The Energy Non-Crisis
SHADOW GOVERNMENT REVEALED-Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.

suki wrote:Decent documentary, although, really short on answers, and more emphasis on complaining. Energy production of any kind has its victims. Having said that, central Sask is home to significant coalbeds which will eventually see the same sort of production and techniques used, especially in the Lake Diefenbaker area.

The United States is really facing a loaded gun on this one because of dysfunctional energy policy over the past 30-40 years. Telling the gas producers to stop drilling really isn't a viable option. Now, if the US were energy independant or even a net exporter, then the American people could pick and choose which sources they would exploit, but that's obviously not the case because they need everything they can get, and twice that even.

With the price of natural gas in the toilet I doubt if we will be seeing any coal bed methane work here for a long time to come.
CBM (coalbed methane) wells DO NOT make use of chemicals - other than liquid nitrogen - but they can stir up methane into the water aquifer when the holes are punched.

In the US a landowner cannot stop a resource company like they can here in Canada. It is all federal law and the law down there is quite different than the law here.

truth defender wrote on Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 11:32 am: CBM (coalbed methane) wells DO NOT make use of chemicals - other than liquid nitrogen

Without intending to be an expert on this subject, I did some research and came up with the following:

Hydraulic Fracturing 101

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals - Coalbed fracture treatments use anywhere from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of various stimulation and fracturing fluids, and from 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of proppant (Sized particles mixed with fracturing fluid to hold fractures open after a hydraulic fracturing treatment. In addition to naturally occurring sand grains, man-made or specially engineered proppants, such as resin-coated sand or high-strength ceramic materials like sintered bauxite, may also be used.) during the hydraulic fracturing of a single well.[6] Many fracturing fluids contain chemicals that can be toxic to humans and wildlife, and chemicals that are known to cause cancer. These include potentially toxic substances such as diesel fuel, which contains benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide.[7] Very small quantities of chemicals such as benzene, which causes cancer, are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June, 2004. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs.

EPA reviewed material safety data sheets to determine the types of additives that may be present in fracturing fluids. Water or nitrogen foam frequently constitutes the solute in fracturing fluids used for CBM
stimulation. Other components of fracturing fluids contain benign ingredients, but in some cases, there are additives with constituents of potential concern. Because much more gel can be dissolved in diesel fuel as compared to water, the use of diesel fuel increases the efficiency in transporting proppant in the fracturing fluids. Diesel fuel is the additive of greatest concern because it introduces BTEX compounds, which are regulated by SDWA.

Chuck-ee wrote:Do you honestly think that the US in not energy independant?
They are--I believe.

Believe what you like, you will anyways.

US electricity exports 24 billion kWhr (2008)
US electricity imports 57 billion kWhr
US electricity consumption 3783 billion kWhr for the year

US oil exports 1.7 million barrels per day = 620 million barrels for the year {2008)
US oil imports 11.3 million barrels per day = 4124 million barrels for the year
US oil consumption 18.7 million barrels per day = 6821 million barrels for the year

US natural gas exports 30.3 billion cubic meters (2008)
US natural gas imports 106 billion cubic meters
US natural gas consumption 646 billion cubic meters for the year

Source: CIA World Factbook. (maybe it's a disinformation campaign by the illuminati)

US coal exports 73 million tons [2008)
US coal imports 31 million tons
Total US coal consumption was over a billion tons that year, a slight decline.

Source: American Coal Council

Any other mysterious sources of energy that the US has cornered for themselves?

Elihu wrote on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 6:45 am: Believe what you like, you will anyways...Source: CIA World Factbook. (maybe it's a disinformation campaign by the illuminati)

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA-World Factbook) owns everyone of any significance in the major media - William Colby – 1920-1996 - Former CIA Director – Suspicious Death

Elihu also wrote on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 6:45 am: Any other mysterious sources of energy that the US has cornered for themselves?

Now, don't be short sighted, again, and misconstrue that I'm insinuating that they have "cornered these for themselves".
Oh...this is from a source which you seem quite familiar with too:

Wind power in the United States
At the end of 2009, the installed capacity of wind power in the United States was just over 35,000 megawatts (35 GW),[2][3] making it the world leader ahead of Germany. Wind power accounts for about 2% of the electricity generated in the United States.[4]

Over 9,900 MW of new wind power capacity was brought online in 2009, up from 8,800 in 2008. In 2009 added new capacity was enough to power the equivalent of 2.4 million homes or generate as much electricity as three large nuclear power plants.[5]

Solar power in the United States
[i]Solar power in the United States is an area of considerable activity and there are many utility-scale solar power plants. The largest solar power installation in the world is the Solar Energy Generating Systems facility in California, which has a total capacity of 354 megawatts (MW). Nevada Solar One is a solar thermal plant with a 64 MW generating capacity, located near Boulder City, Nevada. The Copper Mountain Solar Facility is a 48 MW photovoltaic solar power facility in Boulder City, Nevada. The DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center is a 25 MW photovoltaic solar power facility in DeSoto County, Florida. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is a 392 MW solar thermal power facility which is under construction in south-eastern California.[2] There are plans to build many other large solar plants in the United States and the largest of these is the proposed 968 MW Blythe Solar Power Project to be located in Riverside County, California.

Solar energy deployment increased at a record pace in the United States and throughout the world in 2008, according to industry reports. The Solar Energy Industries Association's "2008 U.S. Solar Industry Year in Review" found that U.S. solar energy capacity increased by 17% in 2007, reaching the total equivalent of 8,775 megawatts (MW). The SEIA report tallies all types of solar energy, and in 2007 the United States installed 342 MW of solar photovoltaic (PV) electric power, 139 thermal megawatts (MWTh) of solar water heating, 762 MWTh of pool heating, and 21 MWTh of solar space heating and cooling.[5]

As noted in the report, solar power has been expanding rapidly in the past eight years, growing at an average pace of 40% per year. The cost per kilowatt-hour of solar photovoltaic systems has also been dropping, while electricity generated from fossil fuels is becoming more expensive. As a result, the report projects that solar power will reach cost parity with conventional power sources in many U.S. markets by 2015. But to reach the 10% goal, solar photovoltaic companies will also need to streamline installations and make solar power a "plug-and-play" technology, that is, it must be simple and straightforward to buy the components of the system, connect them together, and connect the system to the power grid.[6]

The report also places some of the responsibility with electric utilities, which will need to take advantage of the benefits of solar power, incorporate it into future "smart grid" technologies, and create new business models for building solar power capacity. The report also calls for establishing long-term extensions of today's investment and production tax credits, creating open standards for connecting solar power systems to the grid, and giving utilities the ability to include solar power in their rate base.[6]

These new installations place the U.S. on a trajectory to generate 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030 from wind energy.[2] Growth in 2008 channeled some $17 billion into the economy, positioning wind power as one of the leading sources of new power generation in the country, along with natural gas. New wind projects completed in 2008 account for about 42% of the entire new power-producing capacity added in the U.S. during the year.[6]

On an end note--Did you realize, that while I did mention that I do believe that the U.S. is in fact, energy independent, I did made specific mention of them wanting to maintain their obvious RESERVES...like for a RAINY DAY WAR (CONFLICT), off in some new exotic international setting...ENERGY RESERVES is their TRUMP CARD for the "Super Powerdom", END GAME.

Until they design their F18s to work on AIR POWER (Air Hogs...the toys?) like the Car, or better yet...jet fighters with self contained NUCLEAR REACTORS...like the USS ENTERPRISE...they will always be needing to maintain these RESERVES...purchasing energy from other countries, does not necessarily mean, they don't have enough ("Believe what you like, you will anyways").

We share the same Continent...remember?

No; purchasing energy from other countries does not mean they are running out, or don't have enough...its a great deal for them (win, win)...they have trade imbalances with certain countries (hint, hint), and, it is in their best interest, to maintain their future reserves...simply using energy from other sources at a great price.

The big thing is Chuckee I have been on well over 300 fracturing operations for Coal Bed Methane and the coal seams are NOT saturated with chemicals.
I have never even seen a chem(ical) van on location, just nitrogen pumpers that turn the liquid into gas and then use pure horsepower to pressure up the coal seam and break or fracture it to allow the gas to better flow into the well chamber.
CBMs that they did in Alberta do not even inject fracturing sand to allow the gas tp migrate through it.
Now if you go to Estevan with the fracturing going on there, yes they do inject all sorts of chemicals down the Bakken oil wells to allow oil to flow to the wellbore more freely. They also use sand and chemicals for ordinary gas wells.
This new technology has literally fueled the big boom in the Saskatchewan economy.
In areas prone to a lot of wax in the oil - remember Parowax on grandma's jellies (an oil product) - they do inject acid blends into the formation in an effort to break the wax and other things up and allow the oil to flow more readily.
To say though that gas wells do not allow methane to flow from gas bearing zones into others would also be a lie as yes it does happen as methane can sometimes migrate to other layers including acquifers but you will find though that the chemicals themselves are not there, just the methane.
Cementing casing has developed a lot and if done correctly it not only anchors the well casing into the well bore but it also prevents this gas migration.
Sorry but I do not know a lot about shale gas but by its definition it is not coal bed methane that is being recovered there. I would think they use chemicals and frac sand for this deep gas.

Take a look at the following it might explain the different structures in the gas fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GasDepositDiagram.jpg

truth defender wrote on Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 1:10 pm: The big thing is Chuckee I have been on well over 300 fracturing operations for Coal Bed Methane and the coal seams are NOT saturated with chemicals.

No offense big guy, but I believe that it goes much deeper than just that.

Many years ago, I also worked in the "Oil Patch". I did my time with NL. McCullough, out of Calgary, Alberta...many times having been in contact with the guys from "FrackMaster".

Anyway, as I said before; am no expert on the subject, but I'm very capable of finding endless amounts of materials on this very subject (CBM - Coal Bed Methane). And, of which, I'm only supplying for reference purposes.

For additional examples:

4.1 Introduction

Hydraulic fracturing fluids are used to initiate and propagate fractures, as well as
transport proppant into fractures in coalbed formations to increase permeability and
enhance methane production. Proppants are sand grains or other granular substances that
are injected into the formation to hold or “prop” open coal formation fractures that have
been created by hydraulic fracturing. Proppants wedged within the fracture serve to
increase the permeability of the formation, which promotes liberation of the methane gas
from the coal, and thereby enhances coalbed methane gas production. The fracturing
fluids injected into the formation during hydraulic fracturing are subsequently pumped
back out of the well in the process of extracting the methane gas and associated ground
water. Some fracturing fluid may remain in the formation due to “leakoff” or due to the
fluids being stranded in the formation.

The types and use of fracturing fluids have evolved greatly over the past 60 years. Their
composition varies significantly, from simple water and sand, to complex polymeric
substances with a multitude of additives. Service companies have developed a number of
different oil and water-based fluids and treatments to more efficiently induce and
maintain permeable and productive fractures. Water-based fracturing fluids have become
the predominant type of coalbed methane fracturing fluids. In some cases, nitrogen or
carbon dioxide gas is combined with the fracturing fluids to form foam as the base fluid.
Foams perform comparably to liquids, but require substantially lower volumes to
transport an equivalent amount of proppant. A variety of other fluid additives (in
addition to the proppants) may be included in the fracturing fluid mixture to perform
essential tasks such as formation clean-up, foam stabilization, leakoff inhibition or
surface tension reduction.

Based on the availability of the scientific literature, it is evident that hydraulic fracturing
fluid performance became a prevalent research topic in the late 1980’s and the 1990’s.
Most of the literature pertaining to these fracturing fluids relates to the fluids’ operational
efficiency rather than the potential ramifications of their use relative to environmental or
human health concerns. There is very little documented research on the environmental
impacts that result from the injection and migration of these fluids into subsurface
formations, soils and underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Some of the
existing research does offer information regarding the basic chemical components present in most of these fluids.

4.2 Chemical Constituents in Fracturing Fluids

The main goal of coalbed hydraulic fracturing is to achieve a highly conductive fracture.
Fracturing fluids are formulated to provide sufficient viscosity to transport and place
proppant into a fracture, and should degrade or “break” into a low viscosity fluid to allow
for rapid flow-back and clean up.
Read More: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... ntType=pdf

Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Wells:
A Threat to Drinking Water
The greatest concern about the hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane wells is that the fracturing fluids
being pumped into ground water are likely to contain toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Efforts by several
environmental and ranching advocacy organizations to obtain chemical compositions of hydraulic fracturing
fluids and other materials used in coalbed methane production have not been successful – oil and gas
companies will not reveal what they say is proprietary information. A Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) 1998 Environmental Impact Statement lists the hazardous substances potentially used as gelling
agents in fracturing include toxic substances such as benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, napthalene, methanol, sodium hydroxide, and MTBE.5 The gelling agents
are added to improve the ability of the hydraulic fracturing fluid to transport sand particles into widened
and new fractures.6 The 950 gallons of hazardous gelling agents used in each well accounts for
approximately 71% of the fracturing materials by volume (not including sand).7 Very small quantities of
toxic chemicals such as benzene are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water.

For example, only 28 tablespoons of MTBE could contaminate millions of liters of ground
water at concentrations that would render it unusable.8
Read More: http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas/cbm/

Two things here Googlemeister,

1)Solar and Wind Energy are both part of the electrical generation figures and

2) You believe what you want regardless of evidence presented.

Do you know how EASY it is to be you? To accept sources with the luxury of not actually knowing anything about science and to reject sources based on nothing more than a rationalization? You are a guy who can proactively create his own religion as he goes, simply because your worldview is malleable at will. You're not accountable to anything or anyone, especially reality.

It's like full-time Dr. Seuss.