I think it is also important to remember the difference. Every reasonable effort will be made to capture any methane they can as it can be sold as energy. The same is not true of CO2, and with the higher background, leaks may well be harder to detect unless some tracer is added to the sequestered CO2.
Mike MacCracken On 6/1/11 4:39 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > I quite like fracking because it gets the oil industry to fund lots of > extremely expensive geoengineering research for us, and the only harm is a > load of methane and the odd earthquake. > > Seems like a fair trade off to me! > > Obviously, it's a completely unacceptable technique for oil extraction in its > current form. Nice data set, though. Shame it doesn't bode well for CCS, > though - although I'm sure views may vary. > > If only we could get the oil industry to build us some cloud machines and high > altitude planes... > > A > > On 1 Jun 2011 21:25, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Folks, >> > >> > After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking into the >> > methane release being caused by "Fracking". Here is a link to a resent film >> > on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8 If you are >> > interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage you to take the >> time >> > to view this film. I do realize that any "media" based documentary is >> > subject to dispute and debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 >> > reasons. >> > >> > 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed for massive CO2 >> > geological storage. Fracking is rapidly taking that option off the table. I >> > have never believed oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, >> this >> > type of information should raise profound questions about the entire >> concept >> > of geological CO2 sequestration. >> > >> > 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread use of this >> > drilling method can equal all other anthropogenic GHG sources at >> > the regional level. >> > >> > Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. And, oil field >> CO2 >> > sequestration is in direct opposition to the current oil and gas industry >> > activities. I believe the question of; *Should the oil and gas industry be >> > relied upon at the geological time scale needed for massive CO2 >> > sequestration?*, should be asked. The issue of fracking related pollution >> is >> > important and should not be ignored. However, the issue of paying this >> > industry to provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be >> viewed >> > with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car salesmen. I do apologize >> > to all used car salesmen for the comparison. >> > >> > Thanks for your patience. >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
