It is currently Oct 15, 2018 9:55 pm 




If you enter a post in this forum that violates the Pinecam Terms of Service,
you may get a suspension with no warning.

note: quotes must be 4 or fewer sentences/the source cited, by URL if online



Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Previous topic | Next topic 

  Print view


How Are You Voting on This Proposition?
Yes (for) 30%  30%  [ 17 ]
No (against) 68%  68%  [ 38 ]
Undecided 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 56
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 9, 2018 8:52 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Sep 21, 2018 7:32 pm
Posts: 16
Hi All! I recently had an interesting discussion explaining why we have to frac, so I’ll give a quick primer on what it is and why we must do it. Basically, the good ‘ol days of “pools” of oil under the ground are over. It used to be that things were easy to get to, almost like a slushy. We could put our straws into the reservoir and suck all that tasty juice out relatively easily. We still fracked to get it out, but life was good.
Our slushy is gone, or rather we don’t want to drink from that slushy anymore because it hates us and makes us fat. Now, we’re working with something more like a popsicle (imperfect analogy but I’m rolling with it). Our rocks have very few holes in them (low porosity) and low connectivity between those holes (low permeability) which means that we can’t just put our wells in the ground and wait for the oil to come to us. We have to pave a bit of a highway for it, so we create tiny cracks in the rocks (seriously...less than 1/4” of an inch thick) using water that we pump at high pressure, and we use sand to prop those cracks open. That’s what fracking is. If we don’t do that, we can’t get the oil to come to the wellbore, no matter how hard we suck (tee hee). Let’s be honest, we’ve all been at the end of the slushy, sucking as hard as we could, and are simply crushed when no juice comes out. Imagine doing that, but with a $10 million dollar wellbore.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 11, 2018 9:28 am 
Posts pretty often
Posts pretty often
User avatar
Joined: Mar 30, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 51
Great post, 303mtngirl. Ahhh the slushy days. That's when it wasn't so expensive to drill wells and so wells made a lot of money for a lot of people. People in jobs like ours even got a percentage of the wells, but not now. I missed those days, too young, that's why I'm still working!

Those were the Dynasty and Dallas days. Also back then, the derricks that drilled the wells stayed on the wells, what an eyesore, and pictures of oil gushers when they 'hit the big one', are from the old days. Now, equipment is minimalized after well work is complete, locations are kept clean, a gusher could mean deaths of personnel and definitely and environmental and regulatory nightmare.

I think many people have the 'old days' in their minds when they think of the oil & gas industry. A lot has been learned since then, and learning never ends. Bad things still happen, there's no brushing over that, but they are learned from and hopefully never repeated. Footprints are smaller, air and ground is cleaner and better protected, wells cost a lot more for operations and for safety and regulations. We can only continue to improve. Today's technology helps us to improve more quickly.

Prop 112 is not an improvement on technology, on safety, on regulations, on anything. It just takes us backwards.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 3:01 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Sep 21, 2018 7:32 pm
Posts: 16
Some numbers to explain why renewables can’t meet our needs yet and why fossil fuels must still play a big part. This is an example is how short solar falls.
A 2009 EIA report https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residen ... pdf/CO.pdf shows that the average electricity use for a CO household in a year is about 7,500 kWh. That’s about 20 kWh per day per household. The size of Denver is about 750,000 households (rounded down), which means that every day, Denver requires about 15 million kWh or 15,000 megawatts.

This article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -southwest) is citing how solar energy is cheaper than natural gas in some parts of the country. They tout their facility, which will be finished in three year, with a 100 megawatt capacity and 25 megawatt batteries than can help the power plant supply energy for a whopping four hours past collection time. That means you could have your lights and heat on all the way until 10 or 11 p.m. depending on when the sun sets! What progress. Of course, that negates the 14,900 megawatt shortage such a plant would cause for the city of Denver.

Renewables just can’t produce the capacity we need, let alone when we need it. Keep extraction local, where we can regulate it and benefit most from the jobs and revenue it generates.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 4:06 pm 
Posts pretty often
Posts pretty often
Joined: Aug 27, 2015 7:42 am
Posts: 132
energy source - so don't forget BTU's - https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_btu

be open minded: solar does have its place as a supplemental energy source not necessarily as a total solution. for example i have countless solar powered items that i consider supplemental energy for convenience without the need to pay additional cost to bring power onto the property or expand my existing panel box.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 4:49 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
User avatar
Joined: Jan 4, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 34
I'll admit, 2500 feet (~ half mile) may be a bridge too far right now - but I'm not sure if it's as dire as the fossil fuel industry claims though. A couple of considerations in all of this; First, fracking for oil is not done "using water that we pump at high pressure". That may be the case when fracking your water well, but O&G companies use proprietary mixtures that we are prohibited from knowing-they claim "trade secret" exemption for divulging them.

Second, the high pressure does create cracks to allow the oil to seep to us, but it also has the potential of forcing the chemical soup to places they cannot control - which is why so many fear impact to water tables. We don't even know what chemicals to test for in order to verify there is no seepage.

Finally, the fact that "gusher days" are behind us correlates with "peak oil" theory. If quality oil and gas are more difficult to find and extract, then we are likely on the way toward limited supply. Granted, the US Gov has been stock piling the stuff for decades in anticipation of military needs but that will do little for my car.

There are reserves elsewhere, but shouldn't we be decreasing consumption and re-balancing or investments toward renewables? Biofuels, hydrogen, solar and wind are all options even if solar cannot fill 100% of the need. Perhaps 112 would force that choice? But 1/2 mile?...I don't know.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 7:36 pm 
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
User avatar
Joined: Dec 28, 2006 1:22 pm
Posts: 1740
Location: In the grave
So if "Amendment 74 Compensate Owners Due To Regs/Laws" passes can companies affected by Proposition 112 (if it passes) collect billions because of losses?


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 7:44 pm 
Scanner Monitor
Scanner Monitor
Joined: Mar 24, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 16976
daisypusher wrote:
So if "Amendment 74 Compensate Owners Due To Regs/Laws" passes can companies affected by Proposition 112 (if it passes) collect billions because of losses?

They could seek compensation but the State probably doesn't have anywhere near the money necessary to handle that amount of damage.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 14, 2018 8:54 pm 
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
Whoa momma! A top Pinecam poster!
User avatar
Joined: Dec 28, 2006 1:22 pm
Posts: 1740
Location: In the grave
Taxes may need to be raised and debt acquired.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 15, 2018 6:49 am 
Pinecam Hall of Fame poster!
Pinecam Hall of Fame poster!
User avatar
Joined: May 3, 2002 7:41 am
Posts: 17227
Location: Pine CO at Shaffers Crossing at 8,200 feet
Rak wrote:
daisypusher wrote:
So if "Amendment 74 Compensate Owners Due To Regs/Laws" passes can companies affected by Proposition 112 (if it passes) collect billions because of losses?

They could seek compensation but the State probably doesn't have anywhere near the money necessary to handle that amount of damage.

So the state shouldn't pass laws/regs that take value from property owners.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 15, 2018 11:34 am 
Posts pretty often
Posts pretty often
Joined: Aug 27, 2015 7:42 am
Posts: 132
Eva_Gabor wrote:
I'll admit, 2500 feet (~ half mile) may be a bridge too far right now - but I'm not sure if it's as dire as the fossil fuel industry claims though. A couple of considerations in all of this; First, fracking for oil is not done "using water that we pump at high pressure". That may be the case when fracking your water well, but O&G companies use proprietary mixtures that we are prohibited from knowing-they claim "trade secret" exemption for divulging them.

Second, the high pressure does create cracks to allow the oil to seep to us, but it also has the potential of forcing the chemical soup to places they cannot control - which is why so many fear impact to water tables. We don't even know what chemicals to test for in order to verify there is no seepage.

Finally, the fact that "gusher days" are behind us correlates with "peak oil" theory. If quality oil and gas are more difficult to find and extract, then we are likely on the way toward limited supply. Granted, the US Gov has been stock piling the stuff for decades in anticipation of military needs but that will do little for my car.

There are reserves elsewhere, but shouldn't we be decreasing consumption and re-balancing or investments toward renewables? Biofuels, hydrogen, solar and wind are all options even if solar cannot fill 100% of the need. Perhaps 112 would force that choice? But 1/2 mile?...I don't know.


i do not believe in "peak oil" theory something brought up during the 70's, but i do believe in the "abiotic theory of oil" and convinced technology will continue to find what we need or if there is a demand - https://enviroliteracy.org/energy/fossil-fuels/abiotic-theory/


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: Proposition 112 Oil & Gas Setbacks
Post Posted: Oct 15, 2018 12:19 pm 
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Infrequent Pinecam poster
Joined: Sep 21, 2018 7:32 pm
Posts: 16
In regards to the excellent questions about fracking from Eva. A significant portion of the fluids used is water. Generally at least around 90% and most of that other 10% is made up of sand. A smaller portion (usually less than 1%) includes other chemicals, most of which are disclosed on frac focus but some of which (as you correctly stated) are propriety. Those chemicals generally change how well the water can carry that sand and, again, most are disclosed. A couple are trade secrets, but a lot have even their CAS numbers published.

The high pressures used do create cracks. They're generally about 1/4" thick and usually a couple of hundred feet high. There are thousands of feet of solid rock between our wells, those cracks, and our aquifers. We simply can't create cracks that are high enough to reach our water sources. Also, many of the workers in oil and gas live right where we're fracking. They don't want to poison their own water, and there's no concern of that happening.

Good observation regarding the change in extraction methods, but it doesn't mean we are running low on supply. We are starting to frack more because the technology has gotten cheaper and oil prices have remained relatively high, making it economic to use these more expensive methods to extract the oil. Such technology has revealed an exponentially greater volume of oil than we used to think was down there. So, instead of fracking because there's less oil, fracking increased our ability to access the vast supply that is down there. Think of it like riding a horse vs. driving a car. While riding a horse, you can travel a certain distance, but you're limited by how far the horse can travel, not because there's less space to travel. When you get in a car, though, you can access more of that space. That's what fracking has done for us with oil. It was always down there, we just didn't have the technology to make extracting it economic. It is now. We're doing fine on supply, but those were all great and insightful questions.


Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Who is online

In total there are 7 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 2823 on Mar 26, 2012 7:26 pm

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 6 guests





Powered by phpBB © 2000-2012 phpBB Group

This website copyright © 1994-2018 by
Pinecam.com is a member of the Platte Canyon Area Chamber of Commerce