Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In 2011, Fracking Was #2 In Causing Greenhouse Gas In US

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the with-a-little-ambition-it-can-rise-to-the-top dept.

Earth 210

eldavojohn writes "According to Bloomberg, drilling and fracking results in greenhouse gases second only to coal power plants in the United States. From the article, 'Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount.' According to Mother Jones, we now have more giant methane fireballs than any other country in the world and we can now see once dim North Dakota at night from space."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fræk (3, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842719)

fracking / fræk*ing /
1. The number two contributor to global warming in the U.S.
2. The leading cause of throw-downs on Battlestar Galactica.

Re:fræk (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842791)

Number 6: Gaius, you treat me like an object.
Gaius Baltar: A toaster's place is in the kitchen.

Re:fræk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843155)

At least this one didn't go for "worst" cause. There are like 40 of those.

Re:fræk (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843225)

I was hoping the cow thing would come up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm done with fracking as safe or worthwhile, especially after getting tremors here where there shouldn't be any.
Secretly, I've been hoping for some Green hippies to remedy the situation with cow buttplug filters. You know someone has been brainstorming it.

Re:fræk (0, Flamebait)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843675)

If the US was intelligent at all, they would just eliminate cow from their diet. Healthier people, cleaner water, more arable land, less GGE.

Re:fræk (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844339)

I prefer the non-hormone injected, free range black angus myself, because I'd look like an idiot hippie trying to slather K.C. masterpiece on a lump of tofu.
  Perhaps a sermon from the Reverend Horton Heat would be helpful here;

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one near?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Cowpokes'll come from a near and far
When you throw a few rib-eyes on the fire
Roberto Duran ate two before a fight
'Cause it gave a lot of mighty men a lot of mighty might

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one near?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Eat meat, eat meat, filet mignon
Eat meat, eat meat, ear it all day long
Eat a few T-bones till you get your fill
Eat a new york cut, hot off the grill

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one near?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Eat a cow, eat a cow 'cause it's good for you
Eat a cow, eat a cow it's the thing that goes "Mooooo"

Look at all the cows in the slaughterhouse yard
Gotta hit'em in the head, gotta hit'em real hard
First you gotta clean'em then the butcher cuts'em up
Throws it on a scale, throws an eyeball in a cup

Saw a big Brama Steer standing right over there
So I rustled up a fire cooked him medium rare
Bar-B-Q'ed his brisket, a roasted his rump
Fed my dog that ol' Brama Steer's hump

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

Re:fræk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842795)

2. The leading cause of throw-downs on Battlestar Galactica.

That was mostly Starbuck's fault.

For the exception of when he was on the Cylon base ship , Baltar's fracking was with his imaginary lover/angel in his head; so that really doesn't count - he wasn't even jerking off.

Left out the important qualifier... (5, Informative)

cirby (2599) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842733)

"from stationary sources"

Kinda forgot automobiles and other vehicles.

Not to mention that once you exclude cars and power plants, third place is pretty far down the list.

Mooo! (3, Interesting)

noelhenson (691861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842803)

Re:Mooo! (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843139)

They are a flatulent bunch, as I am when dining exclusively on a diet of greens.... As a cautionary tale though, I checked with the EPA website, and their figures indicate that electricity(40%) and transportation(31%) are the largest contributors to U.S. CO2 emissions from 1990-2010. It may indeed be determined one day that the sacrifice in land and water resources is too great to sustain the First World luxury that is the ribeye steak (sorry about that, grandchildren), but I would grudgingly eat lab-grown protein way, way, way before I would be willing to live without power and a horseless carriage.

Re:Mooo! (4, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843279)

As a cautionary tale though, I checked with the EPA website, and their figures indicate that electricity(40%) and transportation(31%) are the largest contributors to U.S. CO2 emissions from 1990-2010. It may indeed be determined one day that the sacrifice in land and water resources is too great to sustain the First World luxury that is the ribeye steak (sorry about that, grandchildren), but I would grudgingly eat lab-grown protein way, way, way before I would be willing to live without power and a horseless carriage.

CO2 is non synonymous with greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases include CO2. Methane is 21x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas according to this EPA methane page [epa.gov] . Therefore it's possible (at least theoretically) that the effects of leaks of natural gas can exceed the effects of burning that gas.

Re:Mooo! (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843783)

Temporarily, methane is a more potent threat. There is also a school of thought that implies burning natural gas instead of coal for electrical production saves on CO2 emissions, but detractors contend the greenhouse gases emitted during it's recovery aren't factored in. There is no perfect, sustainable, nonpolluting source of energy available to us yet.

Re:Mooo! (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843909)

There will never be a perfect, sustainable, nonpolluting source of energy, because perfect is 100% subjective.* What we do have are some sources of energy that are pretty good, pretty sustainable, and minimally polluting, and we would be in a lot better place if we adopted those rather than staying the course and using the awful stuff until unicorn poop becomes available on the market.**

* Except unicorn poop
** Unicorn poop has the same energy density as gasoline, and, when burnt, it smells of fresh roses and releases a healthy mix of oxygen and nitrogen into the air.

Re:Mooo! (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844165)

Not sure about your definition of "perfect"... (probably something that will never be possible to attain anywhere, anytime).
I'm also not sure if you're trolling (in which case, "I has been trolled"), but, we do have good sustainable options... wind, solar and geothermal are all sustainable and emit no greenhouse gasses during operation and only small amounts depending on how they are manufactured.

Re:Mooo! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844561)

And can provide a fraction of our energy needs now, before we have converted all cars to Electric... Once we do that, we will be even more screwed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative energy, but there is a cost for everything, and if the cost isnt huge, Hippies will make it huge...

Lets see, Solar? Well, if we went massive solar, then it would impact the habitat of arnimals, or it would suck up too much heat from the atmosphere, causing global cooling, or the production of that much germanium or whatever would require strip mining, or there would be something else.

Geothermal? Well, sucking heat from the earths core might sound like a good way to offset AGW, but then you have AGC in the long term, and in a much less "reversible" manner

Wind? Even econuts are backing down on this one for the Nimby effect, the economics and the poor dead birds...

That said, lets invest in all of the above, but realize petrolchemicals are going nowhere soon, and make recovery as clean as possibly, because even after they arent a fuel, they will still be "mined" for plastics, fertilizers, etc...

And realize that all articles about this will have an agenda (Quoting Mother Jones as a reliable source??? REALLY???)

Re:Mooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844169)

If a pipeline is leaking ~1/20th of the gas it carries then... well, words escape me.

Re:Mooo! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844631)

If a pipeline is leaking ~1/20th of the gas it carries then... well, words escape me.

I said it was theoretically possible, not likely.

Re:Mooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843755)

Not spending near enough time converting them into food.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842919)

Still, considering that's just the *extraction process* for natural gas, and it's second to coal power, before that NG is even burned...that's REALLY fucking bad.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (0)

egamma (572162) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843043)

Still, considering that's just the *extraction process* for natural gas, and it's second to coal power, before that NG is even burned...that's REALLY fucking bad.

It's not cost-effective to frack for natural gas. Fracking is done to get oil out of the ground. The natural gas is just an additional benefit.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843475)

Incorrect. Although the natural gas price has been dropping for a couple of reasons (oversupply being one), there are many wells that are frakked for nat gas. And oil. And nat gas and oil. What you may be getting confused about it the fact that they are flaring a lot of natural gas because the price is low.

This just points out to one of the many insanities about how we go extracting resources. Natural gas pretty much requires pipelines to make it recovery sensible in economic terms. No pipeline, you flare it. But if you have a pipeline, you sell it.

The economics of the shale plays (tight gas / tight oil) are complicated and resemble the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch in more ways than one.

TL'DR - head out to the Oil Drum [theoildrum.com] for more than you ever wanted to know about this.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844147)

You're not comparing it by unit of energy gained so you don't really know if it is "REALLY fucking bad". It doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at these things but the way this article is written is deceiving. If we had almost perfectly clean energy and everyone used that type of energy but the recovery of that energy cost us a bit of CO2 emissions we could say that was the number one human made emitter of CO2. That doesn't necessarily make it bad as it may be the best, least harmful way we have to get energy we need to survive past the age of 30 and not be killing each other with sharp sticks. I'm not saying this is the case with nat gas. I'm just saying we should get serious about how we measure, analyze, and manage our effects on the environment, society, and the quality of human life as a whole rather than taking a siloed emotional response to everything and either being completely against or completely for a technology or activity. It requires a global perspective and the balancing of concerns to make the best choices going forward. There will never be a perfect solution to the human condition but we need to do our best to improve it and to make informed decisions about the best ways we can advance as a people and a society.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (2, Insightful)

hallkbrdz (896248) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843095)

Hydraulic fracturing does not release CO2, burning fuels does. It just helps get about 30% of what is trapped in rock, out of the ground for our use. However they are accurate when they state that “This report confirms that major carbon reductions from power plants wouldn’t be possible without a reliable and affordable supply of domestically produced natural gas," Yes, carbon-based energy sources do release some CO2, although Natural Gas by quite less a margin than Coal or Oil. Now if you want to write a story on something worthwile, how about one on the worthless DOE and NRC. They should be encouraging the use of Atomic energy with new generation breeder reactors that can use up of the "spent" fuel from old-style light water reactors instead of having it lie around parking lots in rusty containers. And meanwhile also continue research on Fusion reactors. But no, we have to push minor energy sources such as wind and solar. And then even negative energy sources (actually drains) like Ethanol. But to be honest, what I really want to know is - why I never see articles on banning soda pop, beer, or champagne? They also release mass amounts of CO2 when consumed. I know - Science has nothing to do with this - it is all political (AKA who's paying me the most to tear down their opponents). Sigh...

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (3, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843295)

Hydraulic fracturing does not release CO2, burning fuels does. It just helps get about 30% of what is trapped in rock, out of the ground for our use. H

Fracking releases methane. That's the greenhouse gas they're talking about.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (5, Informative)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843759)

Hydraulic fracturing does not release CO2, burning fuels does.

OK, I work in the industry. I am pro-hydraulic fracturing. But, how exactly do you think hydraulic fracturing works? It's a very energy-intensive process. On a fairly low end frac in a gas shale, you're trying to force 2500 gpm down a 2 mile long 4.5" ID pipe against 8000 psi of pressure. You burn a lot of diesel doing that. A ballpark number for a well in my field (which is much more difficult - higher rate, longer pipe, smaller ID, and higher pressure) is 80 kgal of diesel. Luckily, it only happens once for most wells, so if you average it out over the 20 year life of the well it's not bad, but it's actually all happening in about a week.

Don't ruin a good comment with glaringly obvious incorrect facts.

Re:Left out the important qualifier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843609)

Not true... Raising livestock accounts for nearly a third of ghgs.

Incorrect Headline (5, Informative)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842735)

Everyone in the comboxes of the second article points out this error. From TFA:

Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, the government said, emboldening environmentalists who say tighter measures are needed to curb the emissions from hydraulic fracturing.

[Emphasis mine]

Re:Incorrect Headline (2)

Entrope (68843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842849)

You don't even have to get that far, you just have to minimally comprehend the bit that the blurb quotes from the article: "Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants".

Re:Uncorrect Headload (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843167)

Oh Yeah!? Well, "Emissions from drilling, including fracking" Your Mom!

Chicken little hysteria (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842749)

Fracking! It causes giant sinkholes and poisons water!
Science: Uh... No it doesn't... ... Well er ... Fracking! It causes global warming!

Re:Chicken little hysteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843033)

What about "paid shill hysteria?"

Re:Chicken little hysteria (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844283)

What about "paid shill hysteria?"

professional shysteria?

"Emissions from drilling" != "fracking" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842757)

Plain, old drilling for oil and gas releases plenty of CO2 because the drilling operations and all the other equipment run on diesel, natural gas is often burned off for safety reasons, there is often CO2 in the natural gas, and the gas itself is mostly methane (CH4), a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

Drilling for oil and gas is an energy-intensive operation that itself can release greenhouse gasses. Fracking has little to do with it, and the headline is misleading because it makes it sound like if only we stopped hydraulic fracturing, there would be no issue. No. Most of these emissions are from "normal" operations.

Misleading Post and 2nd Article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842759)

Comments posted in 2nd article:

"The reference article is based on the oil and gas industry as a whole being the number 2 CO2 contributer. The study didn't look into the contributions of fracking operations seperately. The title of this article is misleading."

"The post misrepresents the report. The 225 million metric tons of CO2e is for all oil and natural gas production, processing, storage, and transport (it does not include refineries). It is not just fracking. Furthermore, that's only 6.8% of emissions. Power plants top the list at 67.4%. The next two after oil and gas, refineries and chemicals, tie at 5.5%. So even if the 224 Mt were all from fracking then it would still not be a significant contributor relative to other sources."

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842827)

Misleading?

It's a flat out lie.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (3, Informative)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842853)

They used a link from Mother Jones in TFS. I expected no less.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

605dave (722736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844257)

No, the link was to Motherboard. So perhaps you should have higher expectations.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844317)

Fox is not God. Stop trying to allow it dominion over your life, as well as the life of others.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842995)

Where are all the comments that Bloomberg and Mother Jones have no credibility anymore?

In any case, our schools are doing a great job making sure the next generation will have already decided that fracking is bad. It's a lot easier to debate and convice 4th graders.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130113/NEWS/301130319 [recordonline.com]

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843031)

Bloomberg has since changed the headline to be inclusive of oil and gas production. Did Fox News, ever, air a mea culpa?

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843833)

There's no need for comments, because Bloomberg and MotherJones had no credibility in the first place.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I hope you all can join me.

Fuck Michael Bloomberg.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (2, Interesting)

605dave (722736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844239)

A couple of points. First off the link is to the Motherboard site, not Mother Jones. And there are no links in that article to Mother Jones.

Secondly, I am not sure why you think Mother Jones has no credibility. As a board member of that organization I am proud of our journalism, and the many awards we have received over the years.

http://www.motherjones.com/about/press/awards-accolades [motherjones.com]

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

akeeneye (1788292) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844569)

MJ does a fantastic job of investigative journalism, so keep up the good work.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

605dave (722736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844647)

Thanks. I am at a loss to understand how my original comment was modded a Troll. I simply pointed out that the link was not to MJ, and that we have been recognized as a good source of journalism. How is that being a troll???

So thanks for the compliment...

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1, Interesting)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843053)

Don't let reality get in the way of the eco-commies. Can and should better efforts be made at the well head and over pipelines to capture leaks? Sure. But in the end, its not a significant contributor. From 2006:

400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843177)

The reference article is based on the oil and gas industry as a whole being the number 2 CO2 contributer. The study didn't look into the contributions of fracking operations seperately. The title of this article is misleading.

It's a census of industrial sites. If you want to, you could figure out which sites were engaged in hydraulic fracturing, and come up with a pretty good idea of fracking's contributions.

That's why it doesn't include cars-- too expensive to survey hundreds of millions of "mobile" emissions sources.

Re:Misleading Post and 2nd Article (1)

XyrusV (2800885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843821)

Thanks for the clarification. I did some checking too and you are right! This really shows the agenda some radical groups have. I want the plain and simple truth. No spin, no agenda. Just simple honesty. Is that really too much to ask? Left wing or right wing, they both spin the truth and use that against the uninformed, uninterested and unintelligent voters. And people wonder why everything is so screwup today.

Why do we still flare ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842763)

Why not use that energy to do something useful with it ? Apparently energy is still too cheap if we can afford that.

Re:Why do we still flare ? (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842927)

It's too expensive to build lines to port off the gas. It's even more expensive to ship it off in bobcat trucks. The US still has ceilings on how much gas can be flared so the companies resort to that. It used to be much much worse btw, even in municipal areas with drilling like Los Angeles you would have areas that never experienced darkness owing to all the flaring going on. NG was just too low value a product.

Re:Why do we still flare ? (2)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843061)

I've always thought it strange they don't use a gas turbine or something similar to generate electricity, either to help power the drill site or to feed back into the power grid.

Re:Why do we still flare ? (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843523)

Cost money. A fair amount of money.

In North Dakota, they are starting to do exactly that - build out a compressor / filter plant and hook it next to a turbine to run the rigs. Economically viable only in areas that are 1) starved for power and 2) have enough infrastructure density to make spending a half a million on the plant sensible.

Remember, places that don't have pipelines are often the same places that don't have high voltage feeder lines. The Middle of Nowhere.

Re:Why do we still flare ? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843699)

Fair enough. I'm sure that people have done the math from every angle. Still, even with the high capital costs, seems like there would be some people out there sensing a business opportunity. For instance, this [gereports.com] or this [wikipedia.org] .

Internet Science... What a joke! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842775)

This is such fudge that it could only appear on Mother Jones and Slashdot. ROFLMAO

Re:Internet Science... What a joke! (1)

605dave (722736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844271)

It didn't appear on Mother Jones, it appeared on Motherboard. But keep laughing.

And the #1 (5, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842779)

And the #1 reduction in US emitted greenhouse gasses is due to coal power plants being replaced by less Co2 emitting natural gas electricity generation.

So What (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842785)

If we sit around worrying about CO2, eventually we will be sitting around in the dark.

America largest Co2 contributer to the planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842801)

America largest Co2 contributer to the planet

No supprises there.

Re:America largest Co2 contributer to the planet (2)

SunSw0rd (1946218) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843027)

America largest Co2 contributer to the planet

No supprises there.

Actually, that would be China.

Yep it's true (-1, Troll)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842831)

I follow this closely. It's true. It's unfortunate because natural gas has the potential to be key player in reducing CO2 emissions. See this for how we can leverage today's, existing technology into an effective response to global warming.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/ [princeton.edu]

We need to speak with ONE voice- "fracking" needs to be the most tightly regulated industry in the history of humankind- all but nationalized in fact. No secret formulas. No fracking without studies on everything from earth quakes to CO2 emissions to groundwater contamination and constant detail monitoring. The companies will make their profit, but there is NO room for laissez-faire jack shit.

If you're into exciting unregulated industries with 1000% profit margins, fuck you, go invest in next year's Xmas toy fad. This industry needs to have all the excitement of a yearly WD-40 shareholder stock dividend event.

There's some good, even essential, baby in that bathwater - don't throw it out; regulate the holy fuck out of the entire industry.

Re:Yep it's true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842851)

Denier = terrorist

Oh, fuck you, you fascist wannabe prick.

So explain the cusal chain here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843487)

Calling some retard denier a denier and a terrorist is being a facist wannabe prick HOW, exactly?

Because you are a denier and don't like the fact that you're using terror tactics to get your own political way is being shown up as the terrorist tactic it is?

("It would wreck the economy!", "It would give us over to the Russians!", "It's a way to give our money to the blacks in Africa!" etc.).

Re:Yep it's true (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843129)

Apply their "rules", or lack there of, to most any other industry. Let's say I want to dispose of assorted farm waste into the environment so I claim it's mostly water, which it is, but the composition of this farm material is patented and the government isn't allowed to restrict it since it's exempt from the clean air and water acts. Within a decade they've turned some of the cleanest air in the country into some of the dirtiest, not even debated it's an established fact. There have been numerous releases and accidents which have left locals sick and some have died of cancer. Due to the fact most people in these areas don't own their mineral rights they can come onto your property, leave it an ecological disaster then leave without even attempting to restore it. The rest of the country is supposed to look the other way so we can keep getting cheap oil and gas and just feel thankful we don't live in one of these pristine areas that are being destroyed. Check out "Split Estate", it's on Netflix, if you want your eyes open. After everything I've seen and read I want fracking banned but it stands to make the oil companies a fortune so it's here to stay and we have no rights or say in the matter.

Re:Yep it's true (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843211)

There's some good, even essential, baby in that bathwater - don't throw it out; regulate the holy fuck out of the entire industry.

> Implying Babies are Good.
> Implying you haven't had kids.
Makes sense, this is Slashdot. I mean, who would want to bring another innocent life into this cruel and unjust parent's basement?

Re:Yep it's true (2)

kick6 (1081615) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843215)

I follow this closely. It's true. It's unfortunate because natural gas has the potential to be key player in reducing CO2 emissions. See this for how we can leverage today's, existing technology into an effective response to global warming.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/ [princeton.edu]

We need to speak with ONE voice- "fracking" needs to be the most tightly regulated industry in the history of humankind- all but nationalized in fact. No secret formulas. No fracking without studies on everything from earth quakes to CO2 emissions to groundwater contamination and constant detail monitoring. The companies will make their profit, but there is NO room for laissez-faire jack shit.

If you're into exciting unregulated industries with 1000% profit margins, fuck you, go invest in next year's Xmas toy fad. This industry needs to have all the excitement of a yearly WD-40 shareholder stock dividend event.

There's some good, even essential, baby in that bathwater - don't throw it out; regulate the holy fuck out of the entire industry.

So what is it, exactly, that you follow closely? Cuz so far you've demonstrated very little knowledge of the O&G industry. Well, beyond environmentalist boilerplate. So is that what you follow closely?

That's (1)

olip85 (1770514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842843)

fracking surprizing...

Buddy Hall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842857)

The WHOLE STATE from SPACE???? Buddy Hall would be so proud!

Mother Jones?! (3, Interesting)

Walzmyn (913748) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842865)

After all the whining and complaining that goes on this site when Foxnews is cited, we're posting articles from Mother Freaking Jones?

Re:Mother Jones?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844371)

You appear to be shocked and angry when a media company is found to be producing news with a different slant from Fox et al. Don't worry, you'll get used to it.

More politics on /. (5, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842889)

From the article:
> “We know how to fix many of these problems; we just need to make the decision to do it.”

From this article, U.S. CO2 emissions are at a 20 year low [huffingtonpost.com]

Combine the two ideas and you have to wonder if there are people with an agenda to kill fracking no matter what the facts are as opposed to ensuring fracking is done sensibly.

Re:More politics on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842967)

Well, at least on /. you can be sure that fracking will be defended no matter what. So that evens it out I guess. I'm just surprised nobody yet mentioned how we need more nuclear power plants and GMO crops. Probably still to early.

Re:More politics on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843013)

Nuclear and GMO deniers are worse than AGW deniers.

Re:More politics on /. (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843019)

Combine the two ideas and you have to wonder if there are people with an agenda to kill fracking no matter what the facts are as opposed to ensuring fracking is done sensibly.

If the fracking industry wanted fracking to be done sensibly, you wouldn't have to ask that question

Notice low votes on corrections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42842957)

you can't fight the church of warmistas....

Not just fracking (5, Interesting)

jamesl (106902) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842959)

From TFA ...
In its second-annual accounting of emissions that cause global warming from stationary sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time included oil and natural- gas production. Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount.

1. From stationary sources -- how about planes, trains and automobiles.
2. Fracking is just part of what is included in "oil and gas production."
3. "The EPA report showed the benefits of fracking, as it attributed the reduction to cuts in coal use and increased use of gas as fuel by electricity generators."

Good grief. (4, Insightful)

rayvd (155635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42842989)

Slashdot has become entirely too political. This isn't even close to being accurate and with all the shots the site takes at Fox News and such you'd think there'd be some pot calling ketlte black type self-awareness when throwing this sort of thing out there...

I'll miss the true technical stuff, but time to yank the site out of the ol RSS reader and find something better.

MOD THESE SHITS UP!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843081)

truf hertz

Re:Good grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843343)

Slashdot has become entirely too political.

No disrespect to tatooed hipster faggot web designers, but, slashdot has gone progressively[!] down hill over the past dozen years as coders and engineers have been marginalized by the influx of such people. I used to quite like the slashdot hive-mind, I now find it cancerous.

Re:Good grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843397)

Don't worry, they'll go away when being a "nerd" stops being cool. Please take note of the quotation marks.

Re:Good grief. (1)

emarkp (67813) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843989)

Agreed. I've been debating the same thing for a while. I get better and more timely tech news 90% of the time from other sources. For all the progressive news I could just hang out at MSNBC.

It's been fun /. !

Re:Good grief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844437)

At the time of writing, everyone --- without exception --- in this thread appears to be a fucking imbecile. "Oh no a Mother Jones link! Oh no something that criticizes the fossil fuel industry! Why can't I get my fix of The Blaze links from Slashdot!? The Reds have taken over Slashdot! Progressives are going to nationalize my wife and make sure that niggers can put their hands in my pocket!"

Good riddance. Back to watching Fair and Balanced & shoving burgers up your arses while the adverts are on, cunts.

This is going to be hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843023)

when the entire country switches over to NG for power because it is cheap and emits less CO2. Then we go & ban fracking and the gas goes poof!.

Yanks don't care about climate change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843091)

They believe the Intelligent Designer is making the planet warmer.

http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org]

What about greenhouse gases over the entire planet (0)

Squeezer (132342) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843137)

I think what is more important are the release of greenhouse gases worldwide versus just the USA. Worldwide volcanoes, undersea fractures in the ocean floor, and underwater magma displacements put more greenhouse gases into the air in a year than man can in a year. I also recall an article that says that methane releases from cows contribute more greenhouse gases than man does as well.

Re:What about greenhouse gases over the entire pla (1)

goldstein (705041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843229)

Which crappy website did you get this misinformation from? This has ben refuted many times e.g., http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm [discovery.com] http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf [agu.org]

Methane fireball statement in headline is false (1)

whoda (569082) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843175)

The article states we have more than any other country except Russia, Iraq and Iran.

Data in Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843187)

I just wonder...
Who took the data for all these "Facts"?
Or facts in news are marginelly important to the Agenda!

Misleading title (0)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843191)

No, you lying dumbasses, it is not "Fraking is #2..." It is "Drilling is #2...". For fucks sake, IT SAYS IT IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY:

'Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes ... second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount

So, who is the sensationalistic piece of shit, timothy or eldavojohn?

Do It With Algae (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843241)

Obviously, we are reaching the time that we have to "grow our own". When our crop growth captures as much CO2 as our energy use produces, we will have balance. It is pure madness to rely on fossil any longer than we have to do so.

Cap'n Crunch whistles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843253)

Did anyone else picture some John Draper with his old Captain Crunch whistle, weaving his way through the phone systems, and his devoted script kiddie wanna-be's exuding greenhouse gases from their dorito-overloaded basement dens of unwashed post-pubescent manhood? Especially when they wouldn't let their mommas in to do the laundry because they were *busy* in a Quake tournament? Or did I just know too many people like that from my youth?

I specialized in setting up any girl they liked with a boy who actually *was* smart, and who bathed.

So when you combine sources... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843331)

...you get one really big source? "Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases" -- why stop there? "Natural gas and oil production, plus coal power plants, is the very largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas. This group may also include cow farts."

Don't forget no more drinkable water either. (1)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843467)

"Only when the last tree has withered, and the last fish caught, and the last river been poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money."
-Cree

Useful idiots ? (1)

jacekm (895699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843627)

I find it a suspicious coincidence that when Russia is loosing it's influence, some leftist movements are coming up with sky ifs falling protests. In the 70's it was "peace movement" against short range nuclear weapons in Europe. Those weapons and other reagan policies in fact ruined evil empire and brought freedom to literally millions of Europeans. Later it turned out it that the "movement" was heavily controlled, steered and financed by KGB. No counting bunch of useful idiots in the west who did the work for Russia for free. These days Russia influence is mainly in energy supply. When Gasprom started to loose large chunks of gas business due to cheap plentiful clean gas obtained by fracking from US, the green movement jumped back to action. Somehow they do not care, that the gas is in most cases replacing coal, the dirtiest and most potent source of CO2. I have a feeling that if not KGB or whatever the secret police in Russia is called these days, the useful idiots are back at work.

JAM

Re:Useful idiots ? (1)

Marxdot (2699183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844535)

Paranoid bollocks speculation. Bollocks recital of history from an parallel universe.

Yeah, clearly the green movement (and "leftists" too, just to tar even more people with an even bigger brush) are "useful idiots" for the Russian intraterrestrial lizardmen. In reality it's God who changes the climate over time, and capital is God's gift to mankind. The lizardmen are jealous of your freedom.

Quality posting.

Watch the numbers (2)

redelm (54142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843707)

... figures don't lie, but liars figure.

In this case, it looks like they've added all the natgas pipeline losses & emissions -- both the fugitives (methane at high CO2 equivalence multiplier) and the turbocompressor stations. Nevermind that most are on conventional gas.

Frac'ing * drilling most certainly have some emissions (mud outgassing) but these are too small to make a nice headline.

giant methane fireballs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42843791)

Why can't the gas being flared off be used for electric production?

methane is irrelevant (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42843979)

Methane doesn't matter much as a greenhouse gas because its atmospheric half life is so short; it turns into CO2, which has a much smaller greenhouse effect relative to methane. Scary numbers based on methane emissions are just FUD.

(IPCC tries to get at this via the "GWP" measure, but that measure still overestimates the effect and danger from methane.)

So, no it's not. (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844409)

"Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011 ..."

So, no it's not. Emissions from a number of sources, added up, are this "#2 cause," and fracking is including in that list of emissions, but with no indication whether it makes up 99.999% of these 225M tons... or 0.00001%. But hey, fracking is the latest energy technology that the global warming ideologues and other assorted neo-luddites hate, so why not spread blatantly false information like this about it?

Oh noes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42844489)

Some part of our economy isn't declining. Just Awful. It must be stopped!

Mother Jones? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844543)

What are we going to quote next? The Daily Mail?

USE PRIMARY SOURCES PLEASE.

Obvious (0)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42844615)

The main reason you can now see North Dakota from space is the simple fact that oil workers make $90,000 a year and live in an area where an average house sells for $75,000. So they can afford to leave their lights on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>