Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[waldo]

Companies with a long history and lot of expertise are investing a lot of their own money in fracking. They are not getting government subsidies. One would have to be an idiot to assume that a single graph about decline in output tells the complete story. And even if they are wrong: it is still their own money.

oh my! Pimping ain't easy, hey? It's not as if you had any actual credibility in anything you say concerning fossil-fuel related subsidies, but really... this, your latest gem, reads directly from the industry/right-wing stink tank playbook! How about a little reality check, hey?

Decades of federal dollars helped fuel gas boom

Over three decades, from the shale fields of Texas and Wyoming to the Marcellus in the Northeast, the federal government contributed more than $100 million in research to develop fracking, and billions more in tax breaks.

Now, those industry pioneers say their own effort shows that the government should back research into future sources of energy — for decades, if need be — to promote breakthroughs. For all its success now, many people in the oil and gas industry itself once thought shale gas was a waste of time.

.

[ReeferMadness]

Companies with a long history and lot of expertise are investing a lot of their own money in fracking. They are not getting government subsidies. One would have to be an idiot to assume that a single graph about decline in output tells the complete story. And even if they are wrong: it is still their own money.

Ah, yes. It's all about the money, isn't it? As long as it's someone else's money being used to pump poisonous chemicals into the bowels of the earth, nobody should care. And if this portends a world where energy prices skyrocket because we are wasting time trying to go down a false trail, well, it's OK because (for now at least), it's only someone else's money.

That's the idiocy of laissez faire economics.

[TimG]

As long as it's someone else's money being used to pump poisonous chemicals into the bowels of the earth, nobody should care.

Last time I checked the earth's crust is full poisonous chemicals so you really don't have any basis to complain unless there is actual evidence that fracking rock a mile or so underground presents a danger to those on the surface. Guess what: you don't. All you got is you religious belief that "poisonous chemicals" must be bad (a belief that is really no different than someone who thinks that the world was created 6000 years ago).

And if this portends a world where energy prices skyrocket because we are wasting time trying to go down a false trail, well, it's OK because (for now at least), it's only someone else's money.

Let's see: I think that renewables are technological dead end and there is no point investing public money in deploying them. Jurisdictions like Britain and California that have pushed them obsessively are looking at serious grid stability problems, skyrocketing energy prices and periodic blackouts. Yet you think the government should spend even more money because you "believe" that they can be made to work.

OTOH: you see one graph with no context about declining shale production and you complain that "oil companies" are spending their own money to lead us to an energy dead end.

Sorry, I have more faith in the market then I have in people who make investment decisions based on what sounds "yucky".

Edited February 28, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Let's see: I think that renewables are technological dead end and there is no point investing public money in deploying them.

luddites-R-Us!!!

[waldo]

Last time I checked the earth's crust is full poisonous chemicals so you really don't have any basis to complain unless there is actual evidence that fracking rock a mile or so underground presents a danger to those on the surface. Guess what: you don't. All you got is you religious belief that "poisonous chemicals" must be bad (a belief that is really no different than someone who thinks that the world was created 6000 years ago).Let's see: I think that renewables are technological dead end and there is no point investing public money in deploying them. Jurisdictions like Britain and California that have pushed them obsessively are looking at serious grid stability problems, skyrocketing energy prices and periodic blackouts. Yet you think the government should spend even more money because you "believe" that they can be made to work.

keep an eye out for that upcoming 2014 EPA report... meanwhile, here's an example, of many, for your insightful consideration:

... PNAS study/responses:

- Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

- Hydraulic fracturing remains a possible mechanism for observed methane contamination of drinking water

- Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

[bush_cheney2004]

keep an eye out for that upcoming 2014 EPA report... meanwhile, here's an example, of many, for your insightful consideration:

The EPA and NAS are American (as usual).....please find some Canadian research that applies to and is relevant to energy production in Canada.

[shortlived]

The EPA and NAS are American (as usual).....please find some Canadian research that applies to and is relevant to energy production in Canada.

Environmental Performance Agreements

http://www.ec.gc.ca/epe-epa/default.asp?lang=En&n=69737ECC-1

[bush_cheney2004]

Environmental Performance Agreements

http://www.ec.gc.ca/epe-epa/default.asp?lang=En&n=69737ECC-1

Thank you...at last...real Canadian content !

[waldo]

The EPA and NAS are American (as usual).....