O/T: Hey Canucks

[Lew Hodgett]

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

[Robatoy]

Shades? Try whole cloth. He's taking our natural resource to those willing to pay.

People have very little knowledge on how that 'sands' process works. It is actually quite clever and surprisingly clean from an environmental standpoint. It can be said that the whole process cleans the environment. We are doing a good thing and making a few bucks along the way.

[Dr. Deb]

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world does not have to do what they want, just because they want it.

Deb

[PV]

Cleans the enviroment....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

It's enviromentally disaster in the making with the massive tailing ponds, water contamination and destruction of thousands of square miles for forest.

And for the record, I have been there, worked there and seen the damage first hand. If we are going to destroy Northern Alberta then there is no way we should be shipping raw bitumen anywhere. It should be refined here so we can take full advantage of the resulting oil and other petro products that result and then sell it at world prices.

Harper is a GWB wannabee and lord help us we are stuck with him.

[Dave]

Kind of an opposite statement isn't it? On one hand, you're concerned about environmental implications. On the other hand, you'd have us process it and then ship it. What about the environmental effects of processing it on Canadian soil? Just as long as the processing isn't done in the US eh?

What about the environment implications if some of that highly refined oil somehow finds its way onto American soil?

And then there's the added cost to the US if we did the processing first before shipping it. At least if you're refining it, you save some money. Money that is apparently in short supply in the cash strapped US.

[Leon]

No kidding, you can say that again and again.

[Han]

Dave wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Sorry, Dave, if I wasn't clear. I'm still against "harvesting" tar sands oil. But if you really want to make money off of it, and prevent DOWNSTREAM damage, process it right there. I bet you it'll be more investment, but also more profit, unless the world will turn around and start real conservation. Oh wait, this is the real world. Don't worry.

[Robatoy]

Maybe that was copy written by the same crew that writes about 'clean coal'? There seems to be no way we can harvest oil without damaging the environment. So we switch to the 'lesser-of-evils' mode. That fracking process of which you speak, has nothing to do with the tarsands. Totally different processes.

devastate the environment than what we're doing at the tar sands.

We have lots of natural gas without fracking. Sufficient in fact to sell a LOT to the US AND to use to separate the oil from the sand.

Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas): a) The separation of oil from sand b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable. Also, the oil we extract from the sand is already being processed to a more readily acceptable product so that any refinery can use it.

We take 'dirty' sand, take out the oil, and put the clean sand back. When I called that a 'clean' process, I should have changed fonts to Sarcastica.

[Dave in Texas]

Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas): a) The separation of oil from sand b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable.

This is fracking:

in Houston

[Larry Jaques]

That and 'dehydrated water'.

Yeah, I realize that. I made an unsignaled segue into shale oil. So solly.

 >>I wasn't talking about fracking. That process is far more likely to

True, but the oil sand has to be cooked, and that takes natural gas.

I see. ;)

-- Energy and persistence alter all things. --Benjamin Franklin

[Morgans]

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years, and perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the change in attitude?

-- Jim in NC

[clare]

Fracking near minor fault lines apparently has the distinct possibility of turning them into active fault lines.

[Lew Hodgett]

------------------------------- Especially if you cut corners in the fracking process to save a few bucks.

----------------------------------

Morgans wrote:

--------------------------------------- After the strip miners got thru raping SE Ohio, what's left to save?

Belmont County comes to mind.

Lew

[Morgans]

Fracking near minor fault lines apparently has the distinct possibility of turning them into active fault lines.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ One could reason that if a fault line became active sooner than natural forces would cause, that the resulting quake would release the energy sooner, and be less severe than the natural, later quake.

But really, are there _any_ documented, proven cases of fracking causing a quake?

I do not know of any negative results due to fracking in Ohio when I lived there.

The waste water from drilling operations, and the proper cleanup of the area after drilling was sometimes an issue when those corners were cut.

-- Jim in NC

[Larry Jaques]

Successfully? Has anyone's well out there been tested? Probably not, due to the isolation and wilderness areas they've likely been working in. Or have they been more careful in their drilling practices? Injecting benzene and 595 other nasties into the ground anywhere near an aquifer, as oil companies here apparently have been doing, is tantamount to mass murder and rape of the land, in my eyes. And deliberately setting aside air and water regulations to allow said rape is no better and should warrant capital punishment, for the deaths it has and will continue to occur as a result of that action.

-- Energy and persistence alter all things. --Benjamin Franklin

[Han]

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:38ed4$4f367101$4b75eb81$ [e-mail]:

Fracking itself isn't the problem at all (except the distinct possibility of stimulating earthquakes). The problem is inadequate quality control in the lining of the boreholes - especially where they penetrate sensitive geologic formations such as aquifers. The other points of trouble are what to do with the waste, how to conserve water resources, and traffic, noise etc problems. For instance, I don't think you'd do any fracking directly under the White House, or the Empire State Building. But what about Uncle Al's farm in the wilds of Ohio? What consideration to his farming, drinking water protection, traffic and noise for his neighbors?

[Morgans]

Fracking itself isn't the problem at all (except the distinct possibility of stimulating earthquakes). The problem is inadequate quality control in the lining of the boreholes - especially where they penetrate sensitive geologic formations such as aquifers. The other points of trouble are what to do with the waste, how to conserve water resources, and traffic, noise etc problems. For instance, I don't think you'd do any fracking directly under the White House, or the Empire State Building. But what about Uncle Al's farm in the wilds of Ohio? What consideration to his farming, drinking water protection, traffic and noise for his neighbors?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why not under the Whitehouse? You would never know it. Can anyone point to cases where fracking did all (or part) of the above nasty things? Until there is a history of problem, don't go hysterical. They have been doing it for decades, so if there were problems, there would be cases of problems to study.

-- Jim in NC

[Han]

"Morgans" wrote in news:jh6j0g$pk9$ [e-mail]:

Just in case you recently arrived on this Earth, there are plenty of problems documented, although very few have a direct connection to the fracking itself. Noise, above ground pollution, trampling on individuals' rights due to defective regulations/disclosures/contracts, and bad practices regarding sealing of the walls of the wells,disposal of waste, and so on and so forth. Nothing that can't be overcome (I hope!!) by proper regulation and enforcement, and properly disclosed and arrived at contracts.

[Swingman]

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G business myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one simple concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY other industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence is involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

[Swingman]

Case in point:

Pfizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S. history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for illegal marketing of four of its drugs: Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica. Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years.