Wide spread use of fracking only dates back to the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill of 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005>Current methane measurements would be interesting to compare to the data Gregory mentions! I am clueless about what, if any, contributions to GE research the industry is currently offering. However, I believe support for GE research would be important to their strategic long term plans. If anyone can point out any oil/gas industry funding activity *directly related* to GE, I would like to read the info. Thanks, On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>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" <voglerl...@gmail.com> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
