How much natural gas ( global warming Methane) is leaking from the fracking rock?

Searosia wrote:

Quote:

In my quote I mention different fracking techniques only. You are the one conflating these different techniques with 'hydraulic fracturing'.

 Ugh...hydraulic fracturing is reduced to "Fracking"....there are different fracturing techniques sorrounding fracturing that are not referred to as 'fracking'. I find your use of symantic arguements in this thread quite tiring...So when KenS said we don't know much about fracking (in reference to shalebed fracking) and you responded with

Quote:

Who doesn't know a lot about fracking? The expertise and information is available.

you actually meant "We know alot about a semi-related process of fracturing and not 'fracking'"?. Please don't let me put words in your mouth, I'm still waiting to see this 'lots of available expertise'...link me if you can find anything that remotely backs you up.
to come back to it, you also said (and I missed it):

Quote:

In the last ten years, industry has committed $40 billion in NE BC alone. Its huge and will alter the public revenue stream in a significant, positive way.

Please prove me wrong if you can...but I gotta call bullshit. Coalbed methane is barely 10 years old in theory....Shalebed fracturing is 2009+. Good to know industry is comitting billions to technologies yet to exist...and you're horribly idealizing industry partenering.

(edit to add....is this one of those times you were saying inudstry invested 40 billion, but referring to the entire industry and not fracking?..and you'll post a smug 'I meant the industry not just fracking :)' response?) Of course I refer to industry-wide investment, not just one small segment thereof

Quote:

I can't speak to issues in New York or elsewhere. In my area, the extent of the shale gas plays encompass roughly 50% uninhabited bush and 50% farmland of varying degrees of usefulness from marginal scrub to fertile grain growing. At present, the water use by industry is of some concern as we have literally thousands of wells

 

Another one where I feel you're using invented numbers...Our knowledge in shalebed methane surveys is tiny as is, I've got no idea what you're looking at to be able to say 50/50% like this, and if there is something...please share.

 

Like I said...please prove me wrong and back yourself up, but I get the feeling you're full of shit in this thread.

 

Quote:

Fracking isn't a new process.

I'll say it again, you're wrong with this. Fracking is brand new...don't try to use 'but we kinda used a sorta fracturing process in the past' as an arguement to say fracking is anything but brand new

I get the feeling that you are unable to comprehend this subject and resort to insults in order to badger compliance with your rather uninformed opinions. All the information to construct an informed opinion is available on the web.

Any effort at doing your homework for you will ultimately be met with the same sort of closed-mindedness as above.

You can as easily be proven wrong on the remainder of your assertions as you have been on 'fracking' but I doubt you will accept reality and choose to remain true to your own creations.

Searosia wrote:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/hydraulic-fracturing-bann_n_820... bans Fracking[/url]

 

Mostly for the show of it, most fracking doesn't happen near buffalo.

 

For some terminology...Fracking refers to injecting sand, water, and a chemical bath into [B]SHALE FORMATIONS[/B] to break them up and release gas. Just to stress is, Fracking only refers to shalebed hydraulic fracturing.

From wikipedia (which I somehow think you will also have an issue with ):

Hydraulic fracturing (called "frac jobs"[1] or "frac'ing" in the industry,[2] with the spelling "fracking" being common in media reports[3]) is a process that results in the creation of fractures in rocks. The most important industrial use is in stimulating oil and gas wells, where hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 60 years in more than one million wells.[citation needed] The fracturing is done from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations to increase the rate and ultimate recovery of oil and natural gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

I would agree that the term "fracking" has been coined by individuals with no knowledge whatsoever of the oil and gas industry but, frac jobs and fracing, or the new term "fracking" have always been necessary to stimulate wells into production.

KenS wrote:

But fracking that has been practiced for decades is nothing like the scale and intensity now being used. So once again: we have very little experience what this kind of practice will bring.

Agreed. Traditional downhole well bores were used to tap reservoirs in relatively easy formations. Acid etching, for lack of a better descriptor or liquid nitrogen fracing was utilised to improve well flows where shallow bores were spaced at ~ 2-8 per section with one bore per drilling pad.

Horizontal drilling technology, on the other hand, can drill a large number of bores from the same pad which creates a much smaller surface footprint: shared use of sumps and water holes, less roads, camps etc. but this one pad whipstocks its bores horizontally at the depth of the hydrocarbon zone in whatever directions the zone dictates.Tight gas molecules do not release themselves from the host rock. It is simplistic to refer to hydraulic fracturing as opening up cracks in rock to let the gas escape.

Every formation is different and whether or not it is possible for gas to escape the formation and "leak" depends on the permeability of the host rock. In the western sedimentary basin's western edge, along the eastern foothills of the Rockies, the host rock consists of impermeable formations on top of a hydrocarbon shale layer that is ~100 ft thick (EnCana's Cutbank Ridge) at a depth of 3,000+ meters.

In this area, the present concerns relate more to the amount of water used and its safe rehabilitation and disposal than concerns with gas 'leaks'.

Quote:

This summer, construction will start on a new wastewater treatment plant that will upgrade the quality of about 400,000 cubic meters of sewage a day to a standard that makes the water useable by the oil and gas industry.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/dawson-creek-joins-forces-with-shell-canada-to-recycle-sewage/article1526928/

Quote:

Geoscience BC, in partnership with seven natural gas producers and the Government of British Columbia, is pleased to announce today at the BC Energy Conference the launch of the $950,000 Phase 1 Montney Water Project to create a comprehensive data baseline of water resources in the Montney Shale Gas Play area in northeastern British Columbia.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Geoscience-BC-Announces-Montney-Water-Project-1335198.htm

Quote:

In 2008, Geoscience BC secured $5 million in funding from the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, dedicated to geoscience studies supporting timely and efficient appraisal and development of the enormous shale gas resource of the Horn River Basin. In consultation with the Horn River Basin Producers Group (HRBPG), Geoscience BC determined a key geoscience challenge in identifying aquifers capable of producing high volumes of water to support completions (fraccing) operations, and also capable of accepting disposal of large volumes of spent frac fluids.

http://www.geosciencebc.com/s/HornRiverBasin.asp

Canada will review PetroChina's proposed $5.4-billion purchase of half of a shale gas project from Encana Corp. (ECA-T31.03-0.99-3.09%) , Industry Minister Tony Clement said Friday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/canada-to-review-petrochinas-encana-gas-bid/article1903505/
An interesting development in a deal that started small, only $1.5 billion for a piece of EnCana's Horn River play and spiralled into an offer for half of the prolific Cutbank Ridge play.
EnCana remains in control of the asset as operator. These plays have a large gas liquids component that adds value to the dry gas price. The Chinese are very interested in technology transfer to help them develop their own shale gas assets.

But I guess the question is....should protection of the environment have to involve such confrontation, and finding out that only through confronting the bastards with their own completely mercenary agenda that maybe, just maybe,  the despoilation of vast tracts of agricultural land, river and forest has been prevented?In perpetuity? Why hasn't  the Gulf of Mexico horror brought us to a sane level of regulatory expectations?  Why are we still in thrall to such an unethical industry...to the extent that the revelation i.e. only  liquified petroleum gas is  being used in their fracturing of sedimentary rock layers , by one company, is to be taken as reassuring? 

Lets have some regulatory teeth and a regulatory agency that isn't in the pocket of Ottawa/Alberta and the industry.  

David seemed one of the most sincere, but I'll take your word on what he said re going along with big oil.

Here's what he's een up to lately:

Current roles:

• President of World Fisheries Trust, since 2007

• Cowichan Watershed Board Member, since 2010

Contact David, and inquire more about his keynote speaker topics and how they fit into your conference plans.

I'm itching to "contact David" and ask what he thinks today...

When the exploiters of the natural world start assuming the moral high ground, as you have done, it is indeed time to head for the regulatory hills.  Yours is the argument of Davey Cameron's Big Society, where "the people" work it out to everyone's satisfactiion at the level of the local village. And your patter about my empty glass (never my friend :)  ) and gloom and doom is that of a revival meeting, concluding with:

"Or, will technological change be embraced to raise the lifestyle of all toward a sustainable planet?" As though "raising the lifestyle of all" and "sustainable planet" are not completely contradictory, oxy moronic nattering. No, we of the privileged capitalist world have to take less, much less, from Earth.

You have absolutely NO concern for the lives of those to follow this massive exploitaion of Earth's resources, and can put forward NO solution for either what is happening now or a formula for that future. I live by the precautionary principle. You have chosen the Big Society...which many now identify by its acronym. 

You had entered very nicely into discussion of the "doom and gloom" crowd looking at the realities of the food situation. However, the "first worlders" (what a nostalgic concept) cannot "consume less" as you would have it, while "Successful exploration and development of hydrocarbons will do its share to keep the energy component of food production costs under control until such time as the next generation of renewable energy can replace fossil fuels."

That is the wishful thinking that was gifted to the developed world by the Bruntland commission back in the 1980s and there has been absolutely no evidence of progress toward that goal of sustainability ever since...a quarter century now. But there I go, taking us back to an empty glass.Well, half empty.

Could they still be panning those fluvial deposits?

George Victor wrote:

You had entered very nicely into discussion of the "doom and gloom" crowd looking at the realities of the food situation. However, the "first worlders" (what a nostalgic concept) cannot "consume less" as you would have it, while "Successful exploration and development of hydrocarbons will do its share to keep the energy component of food production costs under control until such time as the next generation of renewable energy can replace fossil fuels."

 

That is the wishful thinking that was gifted to the developed world by the Bruntland commission back in the 1980s and there has been absolutely no evidence of progress toward that goal of sustainability ever since...a quarter century now. But there I go, taking us back to an empty glass.Well, half empty.

Hm thats a depressing thought. Perhaps, you can share with us your vision and solutions to an increasing demand for the world's resources and the strains it imposes on sustainablity?

Roscoe wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Could they still be panning those fluvial deposits?

Dawson Creek presents an interesting example for groundwater demand. Its water supply is very limited via the Kiskatinaw River which is pretty much in the middle of the Groundbirch area of the Montney formation.

The results of the groundwater survey underway will be enlightening.

This "angry old man" was just attempting some fun, based on Dawson Creek's volume of flow..      No, eh?

As for this one from you, Roscoe;"Hm thats a depressing thought. Perhaps, you can share with us your vision and solutions to an increasing demand for the world's resources and the strains it imposes on sustainablity?"

What's increasingly apparent is that to begin with, we would all have to develop a worldview diametrically opposite to your own for the species to have a snowball's chance in the hell-on-Earth that your type faithfully  promotes. 

McGinty is caught between the rock of feel-good environmentalists who reject neclear power, with all the costs left behind by his predecessors who did bugger all in upgrading both transmission and generation facilities, and the hard place of Hudak, who like Conservatives worldwide get elected on "lower taxes" and leave behind the fiscal messes we see in the U.S....and now Ontario, with its industrial base destroyed by the petrodollar.    I'm afraid any premier trying to do the right thing has only an ignorant electorate to appeal to.   And Hudak will complete the privatization that Big Mike started.  We'll see how much the public appreciate the prices they will pay for that electricity..  And the Cons will only be getting started ...ready to extend the 3P principle to a whole host of public agencies.  Folks here haven't heard how badly they've fared in England since '92 thanks to 3P.

"Hell on earth" doesn't come from ideology, Roscoe.  There's a mathematical relationship between atmospheric carbon and climate change. 

By the way, Conservatives, worldwide, are looking for places to expand investment opportunity for all those backed-up $billions in pension funds, so they can sell the idea of privatization of utilities, toll roads, etc. I'll bet you have some picked out.

Solutions? In the atmosphere of greed and ignorance that determines political outcomes? Lay in some 12 year old single malt.

Incidentally..I beleive the Gov't of Alberta really plays down shalebed reserves as it's competition for the full steam ahead oil sands projects.  Shalebed seems much more abundant (outside of alberta/bc/sask) and located where traditional gas's aren't.  Perhaps just speculation, but I can see the oil sands players having reason to resist shalebed developement

Roscoe wrote:

I ignore you, Brian because you are a potty-mouthed jerk

Name-calling doesn't advance a position.  Please refrain.  Thanks.

Searosia wrote:

Shale-bed reserves (I beleive) are less energy intensive to create than the oil sands and the reserve figures are on an exponetial level compared to traditional sources (so much so that it makes peak oil a silly concept). We have little experience to get it (point 1 above), not much investment as of yet (point 2), and have barely scratech the surface of the potential reserves (point 3, there is no map of that accuracy yet..the reserves are rough estimates at best)...I'll be happy to know if any of these points aren't true as you say, but I don't think you can back up the statements (except for point 1 where you've admitted otherwise to Ken finally).  Well, I have a couple other points (what chemicals?) and water concerns (namely the 'water officers' have no authority), but you seem to be agreeing with them.

I believe you are talking about shale gas reserves and production. It is still largely the question of how much energy is required to exploit these reserves that will determine how much is ultimately recoverable, but it does throw the question of new peaks in gas production somewhat into the future (there was a peak in gas production in North America in 2001, but production has rebounded and has likely surpassed that figure), assuming people put up with the environmental and health consequences.

Shale Oil is a different kettle of fish entirely, and peak oil remains anything but a silly concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil

Brian White wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

Brian White wrote:

Roscoe, In an earlier post you quoted  400,000 cubic meters of sewage a day in Dawson Creek

I noted that this  amounted to 34.7 cubic meters of sewage per man woman and  baby in Dason Creek per day.  (Over 30 tonnes of shit per day per person for those of you who are not good on metric).

Why should anyone take you seriously when you quote crazy figures like that and ignore it when people call you on your whacky facts?

I ignore you, Brian because you are a potty-mouthed jerk with no interest in the topic that you presented. You have a legitimate complaint regarding factual info in the article that I quoted. Basically, the Globe and Mail is the only media source that regularly pays any attention to these issues but their 'reporting' is suspect because they prefer embellishment to drive revenues rather than editorial integrity.

Look at the source of the quote, Brian. I noticed that error and simply discounted it to the Globe and Mail's penchant to favour exaggeration over editorial accuracy. Most likely, some gofer keyed in too many zeros and no-one bothered to check it.

The correct figure should be ~4,000 m/3. This process should be of great interest to those who profess such passion for 'consuming less' for the sake of 'future generations' but the only responses are from angry old men and immature blamers eagerly awaiting becoming angry old men

So, other than waxing poetic over an editing error, do you have any comment about the process itself or are you only interested in wallowing in the ecstacy of potty-mouthed vituperations?

 

How come I noticed the error at all?  What is potty mouthed about explaining the volumes of shit that your quoted figures suggested?

"the correct figure should be ~ 4,000 m/3"   Are you sure?   

( more bullshit from Roscoe the clean mouthed)

I cannot believe you could make the basic error above in your correction and STILL take yourself seriously.  You havn't a clue, Roscoe and you probably don't even know what I am talking about.  Somebody else can tell you.

The little squiggly line means approximately, Brian. You bully and bluster without adding any relevant info. What is the correct figure, Brian?

The figures I quote are from sewage plant data. Roughly 1 cube per 4 residents per day.

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion regarding the sewage treatment proposal?

Searosia wrote:

Roscoe-

Quote:

I get the feeling that you are unable to comprehend this subject and resort to insults in order to badger compliance with your rather uninformed opinions. All the information to construct an informed opinion is available on the web.

Great deflect...insult, dismiss and accuse, but not address. Rabble regular by any chance? None of my posts were insults, just calling the "facts" you're putting on this boad as the non-facts they are.

You're feelings are quite wrong, I'm a ex-rig pig (hence my interest in the thread) and in my 5 or so years I have never once heard the term 'fracking' as used here. Most of the 'fracking' that you linked from wiki is covered by what we'd call injection perhaps preassure injection (heh, first wiki entry on hydro fracturing = 2007) . In hindsight, I may have heard frac job in reference to closed bore wells, but nothing close to shale-bed fracking...in any case, suggesting shale-bed hydro-fracturing is anything but new is disingenuous, but it looks like you've backed off on that point with Ken

I'm a medium sized oilfield contractor actively engaged in shale gas development with several major explorers. I have been active in the industry for over 40 years.

I haven't made up my mind on shalebed fracking either...I don't beleive we have the experience to garentee minimal leaks/blowouts as of yet, especially dumb to try it in a heavily populated area and is why we need to guinea pigs (sorry Ken).

 

care to address the points, or deflect again?:

- Past fracking (which wasn't called fracking) barely qualifies as experience in the field...Shalebed fracking like this is very new and we have little idea what could happen here as of yet. This includes capping an exhausted well (americans don't have to bother with that, we do). Looks like you've agreed on this point with Ken and have stopped insisting we have tons of experience with shalebed fracking though, so ignore this line.

I'll say it again: 'we' as in industry do have the experience. I have no idea what you mean by "tons". Just because you don't understand does not mean that the technology is naescent. Most oilfield technology is not publicly disseminated.

your quote

Quote:

In the last ten years, industry has committed $40 billion in NE BC alone. Its huge and will alter the public revenue stream in a significant, positive way.

- $40 billion investment in 10 years towards shalebed reserves in North East BC? Or are you referring to all petro investment...in which case, the pipeline to the BC coast for Asian shipping is included in there...I could see 40. Were you refering to $40 billion in shale (in which case, please link I'm curious), or were you referring $40 in general, in which case..why mention it in a fracking thread beyond a want for more oil investment money?

All investment is geared toward natural gas and all the major plays are unconventional. There is no significant oil exploration here, its all gas and it is larger than generally known. I'm refering to $40 billion invested in BC's northeast gasfields in the last 10 years, not counting the billions and billions in recent joint-venture investment from Asian and European interests. Where did the $40 billion number come from? Gordon Campbell - he told me.

This investment is generating a response from service companies like Trican, Calfrac, Sanjel, Haliburton etc. That response is to add more horsepower to their capacity.

your quote

Quote:

In my area, the extent of the shale gas plays encompass roughly 50% uninhabited bush and 50% farmland of varying degrees of usefulness from marginal scrub to fertile grain growing.

- 50/50 distribution of shalebed gas reserves in your area? Please, link me to something that'll show this distribution...I don't think you can (such things don't exist yet), but would be happy to be proven wrong there. If you remove the word 'shale' from your quote above, it might be accurate?

Whatever are you on about? Cutbank Ridge and the greater Montney (shalegas) formations are generally in rural/ag areas while Horn River is in isolated muskeg. Generally, productive land is interspersed with muskeg and boreal forest on a roughly 50/50 basis.

Shale-bed reserves (I beleive) are less energy intensive to create than the oil sands and the reserve figures are on an exponetial level compared to traditional sources (so much so that it makes peak oil a silly concept). We have little experience to get it (point 1 above), not much investment as of yet (point 2), and have barely scratech the surface of the potential reserves (point 3, there is no map of that accuracy yet..the reserves are rough estimates at best)...I'll be happy to know if any of these points aren't true as you say, but I don't think you can back up the statements (except for point 1 where you've admitted otherwise to Ken finally).  Well, I have a couple other points (what chemicals?) and water concerns (namely the 'water officers' have no authority), but you seem to be agreeing with them.

Peak oil may be a 'silly' concept but Peak Affordable OIl is anything but.

I don't think you have any grasp of the issue. Just because you have no knowledge of the extent of shalegas development and technology does not prove your 'points'. Start googling. Check the major explorer sites and review their conference calls and NRs. Inform yourself - the info is available although none of the industry players are very forthcoming on specifics.

As far as  shalegas development and the fracking industry is concerned, it will keep expanding and growing. If certain areas choose to not participate, the industry will move on, taking their investment dollars with them.

If you could dumb it down, it might be gold George Victor.

George Victor wrote:

quote: "As far as  shalegas development and the fracking industry is concerned, it will keep expanding and growing. If certain areas choose to not participate, the industry will move on, taking their investment dollars with them. "

That's the story of the Chicago School's innovation in the 70s, Roscoe. And a freedom lover like yourself has learned to lie back and love it, right ?

It squeezes out all those nasty social developments providing some kind of equity of access to medical care, schooling and food, leading to the downward spiral we're now experiencing.  The energy providers have us by the other short hair, because of course. we need the product, not capital in this case, but the energy upon which we've all become so utterly dependent.

Does this give you a feeling of freedom, somehow? Or just a competent cipher?

Chicago School? Not so much, more like parts of Ludwig and Freiderich.

I keep asking for your solutions, George but you simply keep whinging on, blaming others but refusing to take responsibility for your own dependencies. I don't believe I've ever heard such self-pitying tripe before.

If you feel "utterly dependent", do something about it.  Jack Layton's proposals to the PM are worthy of support. The key to reducing dependencies is to support Canadians in equal access to health, education and standard of living so that all are capable of contributing to both their own well being and society at large.

Saudi depletion rates are larger than previously assumed while their net oil flows are less than even the tightly controlled data hints at. Canada will be an energy superpower, like it or not. Is it not better to fight to make sure that this largess benefits Canadians in general than indulge in whinging and blaming?

Brian White wrote:

I wasn't talking about the squiggly line.  I was talking about m/3.    Anyway, I am at a loss for words now.

It is a sad victory.

 

Roscoe wrote:

"the correct figure should be ~ 4,000 m/3"

 

The little squiggly line means approximately, Brian. You bully and bluster without adding any relevant info. What is the correct figure, Brian?

The figures I quote are from sewage plant data. Roughly 1 cube per 4 residents per day.

Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion regarding the sewage treatment proposal?

George Victor wrote:

Roscoe: "Chicago School? Not so much, more like parts of Ludwig and Freiderich."

 

When you can find time from your busy investment forays and retirement plans, consider reading Robert Reich and what the economics that came out of Chicago from the 1960s onward has done to the political scene there and here. When you glibly say that "The key to reducing dependencies is to support Canadians in equal access to health, education and standard of living so that all are capable of contributing to both their own well being and society at large" you ignore how Wee Jimmy's economic position makes that impossible. And the ignorance of the Canadian electorate - demonstrated by your own backwardness   Um, George, it appears that you miss the point that I'm agreeing with you about "Wee Jimmy's economic position". If that means my backwardness, does that infer your own bassackwardness? LOL.- allows him to diss CPP improvements and turn added pension developments over to the finance industry. The insurance companies are preparing for mushrooming business.

 You really gotta try and keep up, George. I suppose, in your defense, its not often that anyone agrees with you.

(p.s.  They let Friedrich into the university only through the back door, did you know?  The committee on social thought. He and Leo Strauss. They fit right in together in creating the basis of the current bankrupt monstrosity dependent on public funding.)

Notable past members of the committee have included Marshall G. S. Hodgson and

• writers T. S. Eliot, Saul Bellow, and J. M. Coetzee, and
• political theorists Hannah Arendt, James E. Block, Allan Bloom, and David Grene, and
• sociologist Edward Shils,
• anthropologist Victor Turner,
• poet and philologist A. K. Ramanujan,
• philosophers Mircea Eliade, Yves Simon, Leszek Kołakowski, Stephen Toulmin, Paul Ricoeur and
• economist Friedrich Hayek.

Eliot, Bellow, Coetzee, and Hayek have been awarded Nobel prizes.

 

 

Somehow, you can separate politics and economics, and that, Roscoe, puts you firmly in the cipher camp. Clearly we need to sharply regulate energy development within this "energy superpower", (to parrot the PM), for a host of environmental reasons, not to gift a burnt out planet to the kids.

Gifting a non-burnt out planet to 'the' kids by denying life to other peoples' kids is ok though? Who gets to choose which of 'the' kids lives and which does not? 

Canada needs to seriously consider the implications to our future as the American Empire sleepwalks over the cliff. We need to address the real concern that Canada will be dragged down by the undertow. Using our commodity resources wisely to protect ourselves could be construed as a gift to the 'kids'. There won't be much in the way of Canadian social programs left if the American debt bomb goes off while their political system myopically focusses on rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

To repeat, I call for regulation based on the precautionary principle. Look it up. You will again say, I'm not offering any solutions, only whining.

No, thats a step forward.  I'm all for regulation based on the precautionary principle that isn't based on the political expediency lack of principle.

Bully boys such as yourself should somewhere along the line, get an inkling as to how dumb that begins to sound, Roscoe.

Can you detect any unintentional irony in your last sentence, George? 

Just happened to run into this thread.....There is a lot more going on that meets the eye that's for sure ....for one thing the phrase "out of sight ,out of mind" should be the motto of the whole oil and gas industry. For decades they have been poisoning and taking advantage of rural people in particular...using the land, their environment as a guinea pig testing ground ,usually by water contamination although sour gas has it's own set of problems....which sadly doesn't concern city dwellers in the least.

But they aren't getting off scott free ...as besides the toxic by products of CO (respiratory toxin) from their use of natural gas and all the ailments that even low trace amounts are responsible for they can add radon to the list...there is more data on that using web searches that used to be on the net, that's for sure...but the fact is radon finds it's way into natural gas and pipelines and eventually in your home ...and FYI there is no such thing as a safe amount of radiation. I may also add that government knows this, the industry knows this and what they are doing to people is no different than chemical warfare. except if you do it to them it's called an act of terror and they have the police to protect them from you the victim,should you get out of hand.

Don't get consumed by this because it will eat you up...just take the simple fact that our government, police and oil and gas company's are no different and in some cases are worse than any terrorist you can imagine and accept it. You will be able to see thru every single wool-pulling trick they pull off...and beware of Delphi techniques and sneaky back door decisions like trashing environmental assessment agencys..watch dogs..and even tax breaks under a variety of disguises for experimentation purposes

Regarding methane and global warming. I just have this to say...when the tundra starts melting and rotting away there is going to be so much methane in the atmosphere ,you better hope it doesn't make up 5% of the atmosphere..If it does ...you can kiss the planet goodbye as that is the air/gas ignition point for methane....one big planetary fireball thanks to these REAL TERRORISTS....

This crap happens even under an NDP government too so it's not something that can be pinned on any particular political party...but at least in Canada they cover the cost of medical expenses for the ailments they cause...not like other countries that lack medicare...and that my dear friends is the only positive thing.

George Victor wrote:

"Gifting a non-burnt out planet to 'the' kids by denying life to other peoples' kids is ok though? Who gets to choose which of 'the' kids lives and which does not?  "

 

There's no arguing with someone in endless moral turmoil...agonizing over the kids while making a buck, Roscoe. Define precautionary, eh? And while you're at it, life itself. What rhetorical nonsense.

Yeah. I should give up and follow your lead: insert fingers in ears and sing LALALA really loud. I don't consider myself in "moral trurmoil", George but its much better than the moral hypocracy you espouse.