Gyroscopic Investing

It's not as if the people of western North Dakota don't want any oil drilling. Almost all of the farmers and ranchers who express concern about fracking at one time either worked for the oil companies themselves or have family members who did. Oil-related jobs are often the only way to get the money to build a farm or ranch. But the current boom – largely unregulated and proceeding without careful consideration for the long-term impacts – isn't facilitating rural livelihoods anymore. It's destroying them. Even some veteran oil patch workers express surprise at the Wild West frenzy underway. A rancher near White Earth recalls a conversation he had with an oil worker last summer. "There's going to be nothing left in northwest North Dakota," the oilman said. "I'm 62 years old and I've worked 40 years in oil fields all over the country, but I've never seen any place like this. It's a free-for-all out here. It will be a toxic waste dump. No one will be able to live here."
...

The Schilkes know they are being poisoned, but they can't prove the source. They want to leave their home, but they fear that, because of the oil wells, their home and grazing lands are close to worthless. "We want to get out of here and move to Montana, but we can't," Jacki says with bitterness in her voice. "Every penny is tied up in this land. Hundreds of places around here are for sale or rent. We're living in the middle of hell."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... oom-family

Fracking can't be stopped.  It's worth too much money.  Plus it gives the morons in Washington a chance to talk about "Energy Independence" and how much better our lives are going to be once it happens. 

What we should be doing is researching a clean way to use fracking.  I don't expect the Petroleum companies to do it on their own.  The free market is a powerful thing, but it tends to drive improvements by way of increasing profit.  Right now there's no profit in a clean fracking process.  They were debating a law to force companies to declare their chemicals, but I don't think there's anything to prevent them from using toxins while fracking.

This is the problem with the environmentalists right now.  They've got us so worked up talking about carbon this and carbon that, nevermind that CO2 isn't actually a toxin unless you hold a bag full of it over your head.  CO2 has so dominated the discussion that actual toxins that will kill you are given less prominence.

I think this issue has gotten plenty of attention from the environmental community. The New York times runs an article on fracking nearly every other day it seems. Frankly, I wonder how many proponents of fracking would feel comfortable with it happening under their well water.

RuralEngineer wrote: 

What we should be doing is researching a clean way to use fracking.  I don't expect the Petroleum companies to do it on their own.  The free market is a powerful thing, but it tends to drive improvements by way of increasing profit.

Couldn't agree with you more!

doodle wrote: I think this issue has gotten plenty of attention from the environmental community. The New York times runs an article on fracking nearly every other day it seems. Frankly, I wonder how many proponents of fracking would feel comfortable with it happening under their well water.

RuralEngineer wrote: 

What we should be doing is researching a clean way to use fracking.  I don't expect the Petroleum companies to do it on their own.  The free market is a powerful thing, but it tends to drive improvements by way of increasing profit.

Couldn't agree with you more!

There is also the matter of earthquakes that are caused by fracking.

This issue will get more coverage as time passes.  Living in Texas, I had never experienced an earthquake until a year or so ago when I got to experience a pretty nice small one (I live in an area with a lot of fracking activity).

As I recall, it was the earthquake issue that generated a lot of opposition to fracking in Europe.

TennPaGa wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: What we should be doing is researching a clean way to use fracking.  I don't expect the Petroleum companies to do it on their own.  The free market is a powerful thing, but it tends to drive improvements by way of increasing profit.  Right now there's no profit in a clean fracking process.  They were debating a law to force companies to declare their chemicals, but I don't think there's anything to prevent them from using toxins while fracking.

So who is going to do it, and what will the motivation be?

This is the problem with the environmentalists right now.  They've got us so worked up talking about carbon this and carbon that, nevermind that CO2 isn't actually a toxin unless you hold a bag full of it over your head.  CO2 has so dominated the discussion that actual toxins that will kill you are given less prominence.

How is this a problem with environmentalists?  To me it sounds like a convenient reason to excuse petroleum companies for destroying land.

I'm not sure what organization is going to perform the research, but if it's going to happen it will have to be publicly funded.  As I said, the petroleum companies will pursue what's profitable until they're forced to develop clean methods.  I suppose if legislation was introduced preventing the use of toxic chemicals during fracking after a given period of time, say 5 years, that the petroleum companies might be forced to do the necessary research on their own.

I'm not sure I understand your second point.  I'm saying that we need more focus on the toxic chemicals used in fracking and less on CO2, which is not actually a toxin.  Perhaps you can clarify how this relates to excusing petroleum companies to destroy land.

RuralEngineer wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: What we should be doing is researching a clean way to use fracking.  I don't expect the Petroleum companies to do it on their own.  The free market is a powerful thing, but it tends to drive improvements by way of increasing profit.  Right now there's no profit in a clean fracking process.  They were debating a law to force companies to declare their chemicals, but I don't think there's anything to prevent them from using toxins while fracking.

So who is going to do it, and what will the motivation be?

This is the problem with the environmentalists right now.  They've got us so worked up talking about carbon this and carbon that, nevermind that CO2 isn't actually a toxin unless you hold a bag full of it over your head.  CO2 has so dominated the discussion that actual toxins that will kill you are given less prominence.

How is this a problem with environmentalists?  To me it sounds like a convenient reason to excuse petroleum companies for destroying land.

I'm not sure what organization is going to perform the research, but if it's going to happen it will have to be publicly funded.  As I said, the petroleum companies will pursue what's profitable until they're forced to develop clean methods.  I suppose if legislation was introduced preventing the use of toxic chemicals during fracking after a given period of time, say 5 years, that the petroleum companies might be forced to do the necessary research on their own.

I'm not sure I understand your second point.  I'm saying that we need more focus on the toxic chemicals used in fracking and less on CO2, which is not actually a toxin.  Perhaps you can clarify how this relates to excusing petroleum companies to destroy land.

Industry often responds to government incentive. My toilet uses 1.28 gallons to flush (and does it like a champion) because of government pushing industry to innovate.

No one is arguing that CO2 is a toxin. But it is a greenhouse gas (along with a host of other gases) that has an proven effect on the regulation of our planets temperature. As far as I'm concerned the science is strong enough surrounding this issue to merit serious attention. I think that to ignore this issue or fail to come up with long term mitigation strategies in the event of the worst case scenario is the height of irresponsiblity. Yes, science might be wrong....but they also might be right. I for one prefer to take a more cautious and careful approach regarding all of these issues (fracking included) before we end up causing a lot of future problems for ourselves.

When I read these stories, I remember MT's tagline: 

"Early in life I noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper." 
-George Orwell

Really?  I hate those high efficiency toilet.  You always end up having to flush twice. 
They do a crappy job.  (Pun intended.)

When it comes to how many times you need to flush those "high-efficiency" toilets, it's really a crap shoot.

Pointedstick wrote: When it comes to how many times you need to flush those "high-efficiency" toilets, it's really a crap shoot.

Yes.

I wouldn't point to modern toilets as an example of successful government intervention to improve a product that worked fine.

Don't most water utilities recycle water anyway?  It's not like when you flush that water is permanently removed from the biosphere.

Even if you assume the science is solid, the CO2 issue can't be fixed. The various nations aren't going to tolerate crippling their economies to reduce emissions. Maybe if green energy were remotely feasible, but it's just too expensive. Even if the U.S. cripples its economy with burdensome regulation, the developing world seals the deal.

I'm not sure where this obsession with fighting unwinable battles comes from, but we can still win the fracking issue. We have to start focusing our resources on solvable issues.

RuralE,

I happen to be a big believer in renewables combined with energy efficienct devices and more intelligent building designs. My town just put up its first energy neutral building. The orientation, wall thickness, windows, shading etc were all considered in design. The lighting is entirely LED and the roof is covered in solar panels. Sure the up front cost is higher but that initial high cost will be paid off in energy savings over a decade or so at which point there will be a return on investment.

As far as toilets, i crap once a day and tinkle about 5. Having to flush twice once a day is no problem.

Cost of electricity by source. Renewables don't stand out as being absurdly high and this cost doesn't even factor in the externalized pollution costs from traditional fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_el ... nt_sources

MediumTex wrote: As I recall, it was the earthquake issue that generated a lot of opposition to fracking in Europe.

I'd be worried about the increasing likelihood of sinkholes, too!

doodle wrote: As far as toilets, i crap once a day and tinkle about 5. Having to flush twice once a day is no problem.

Surprising, for a guy named Doodle.