Mitt Romney wants to lay an oil pipeline over this water supply...

[kentuck]

...Do you think it is a good idea?

http://www.hpwd.com/the_ogallala.asp

[badtoworse]

1. I have no problem with it

The country is already criss-crossed with millions of miles of pipelines. With few exceptions, they operate safely. Yes, there are some small risks, but I'm comfortable with them.

In my experience in the energy business, it doesn't matter what kind of infrastructure you want to build. Some group or NIMBY will have a problem with it.

[kentuck]

2. Why do you support it?

<snip>
The Ogallala aquifer (pronounced OH-GA-LA-LA) is one of the largest aquifer systems in the world. It stretches across all or portions of eight states generally from north to south to include South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas and underlies about 174,000 square miles. N.H. Darton is credited with describing and naming the formation in 1899 after the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.

The Ogallala aquifer lies relatively near the land surface in most of the above-described area with a maximum thickness of about 1,000 feet with a few hundred feet more the norm. Even in those areas of only a few feet of thickness, the aquifer can almost always be counted on to yield water to a well drilled into it. Some wells yield only a few gallons of water per minute, while others yield 1,000 gallons of water per minute or more.
...more

[rufus dog]

3. I do!

Not a NIMBY thing, but a Patriotic thing. They want to build a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to ship refined oil to China and India. So the U.S. takes the risk without any reward. In fact it will impact U.S. refineries, costs jobs in the U.S., and increase cost of gas within the U.S.

[badtoworse]

7. No reward?

There jobs at the refineries and the valued added from the refining process reduces our trade deficit. Refined products don't have to be exported and could be used here if supplies get tight.

[rufus dog]

11. So instead of current jobs at refineries in the midwest the jobs get transferred to Houston

Net gain of zip, nada, nothing. Then instead of the refined oil being used in the Midwest, based upon the product existing and being distributed in the Midwest, the product will be loaded onto tankers and sold in foreign countries.

To simplify:

1. The oil needs to be refined. It can be refined at the point of extraction, but there is not a large enough market in Canada. It can be refined in the upper Midwest, where a large market exists. (current state) Proposed pipeline is to have the product shipped to a free trade zone, refined in Houston, where it then can be sold in a market that includes China, India, the entire world. So how would refining jobs be created? They can either exist in Canada, where then the refined fuel needs to be transported to the U.S. market, or in the upper Midwest or Texas. The only thing the pipeline does is transfer the jobs from the Midwest to Texas.

2. You really aren't trying to argue that Oil companies give two shits about U.S. jobs are you? It is Canadian product, refined in a free trade zone shipped to the world market, all while the U.S. takes the environmental risks.

[badtoworse]

18. What capacity are the mid-west refineries operating at?

I was under the impression that refinery capacity is pretty tight right now. What makes you think US producers couldn't use the pipeline as well?

[FarLeftFist]

43. Not to mention every expert says it will raise gas prices.

[kentuck]

44. It makes sense...

If they use the refineries we have to produce oil and gas for overseas, then we would have a shortage here because our refineries were being used Chinese and other foreign purposes.

[rustydog]

55. No, the oil WILL go on the world market. Just like our Gulf oil does, Alaskan oil does....

[badtoworse]

58. Why should the oil not be sold at the world price? I would expect that.

[yellowcanine]

4. Some group or NIMBY will have a problem with it. Yes well, I would rather have a few delays

from Nimbyism rather than mountain tops blown off and deposited in stream valleys to get a little coal which is going to be burned and contribute to global warming. So let's hear it for NIMBYs!

[badtoworse]

6. I'll bet you're one of the ones screaming when the lights go out because of inadequate reserves

Either that, or you're demanding more renewable energy, but fighting tooth and nail against the new transmission line near your house that will bring the renewable energy from where the resources are to where the power is needed. Maybe you're not, but there's plenty of hypocrisy here.

[rufus dog]

12. Back at ya!

Were you one of those screaming that it was California Tree Huggers that caused the rolling blackouts in CA when in fact it was market manipulation by the Energy Industry?

[badtoworse]

14. That was market manipulation in 2000, largely by one company - Enron

The market rules that allowed that were changed and areas of the country that have competitive markets have safeguards in place to deal with unfair trading activities. Has nothing to do with NIMBY's.

We are going to lose anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 MW of coal-fired generation in the next three or four years because of EPA actions and changing economics. Many here are cheering that, but at the same time, they are fighting against the shale gas development that will fuel the natural gas plants being built to replace the retiring coal plants. Does this make sense? Not to me.

IMO, it's questionable whether the power grids will be as reliable over the next few years as they've historically. If they are not and we do have blackouts, NIMBY's will likely be wearing a lot of the blame.

[yellowcanine]

13. Ok don't assume. You don't have a clue what I complain about. Even if I did complain the way you

are saying it would not invalidate my argument. That is not a fair way to debate and I am calling you on it. Make your point and defend it if you can. But don't invalidate other people's arguments because you think you know what they might be thinking. You don't, so address the argument on its merits, not on what you think about the person making the argument.

[badtoworse]

16. Some practices are very damaging to the environment, some only involve manageable risk

Pointing to an environmentally damaging mining practice doesn't change anything.

Anytime a new pipeline, transmission line, generating station (ANY technology), oil or gas exploration or production, refinery or mining operation is proposed, NIMBY's are in court the next day suing to stop it. The same people expect 100% reliability from the electric company at low cost and expect gasoline, natural gas and fuel oil will be cheap and plentiful. Sorry, but that's been my experience over 30 years in the electric power industry.

[yellowcanine]

21. Ok, you made a crack about Nimbyism. I pointed out that Nimbyism isn't all bad - that it can stop

very harmful practices which may be irreversible, such as mountain top mining. Then you proceeded to to debate me by making all kinds of assumptions about how I must complain about unreliable electric power all the while opposing developing new sources of power. Sorry, but you are not an effective debater. Make your point. Defend it. Make arguments, don't attack straw man targets.

[badtoworse]

24. OK, I'll give you that NIMBYs sometimes stop bad projects.

But since they try to stop virtually everything, good and badly needed projects get delayed or cancelled.

[yellowcanine]

27. That's better. IMO a good project will easily be able to stand up in the face of arguments only

based on Nimbyism. But what happens sometimes is Nimbyism delays a project and then low and behold, after further scrutiny - scrutiny which should have been done in the first place but wasn't- it becomes clear that the project is a bad idea or needs to be modified.

[badtoworse]

39. The biggest problem is the lack of a time clock.

Nimbys know that projects can be stopped if they're tied up in court long enough. The developer runs out of money or the project economics deteriorate to the point where it's unviable. The Cape Wind Project was held up for 10 years with that tactic. Most projects would not have survived that long regardless of their merits. There should be limit on the amount of time available to block projects in the courts.

[yellowcanine]

46. That's a problem with our courts/approval process, not nimbyism per se.

And the developers themselves are to blame sometimes. They try to short circuit proper environmental reviews by playing political insider cards and then lo and behold, the sh*t hits the fan and then there are going to be big delays until everything sorts itself out.

[badtoworse]

47. Your point about developers is not true,...

...at least not in my experience, which spans 30 years. I've never seen developers of energy projects try to do it that way. In any case, it would be difficult or impossible to finance a project that had not complied with all of the required regulatory reviews and received all of its permits. Lenders are very risk averse and hire independent consultants to confirm that a project has satisfied all of the requirements before they lend money. The loan is usually secured by the project itself, so they don't want to risk having a project they financed shut down after the fact because the developer failed to comply with the permitting requirements.

I agree with your point about the problem being with the approval process.

[yellowcanine]

52. It is in mine. We had a case just about a month ago where the developers actually

sent out a fake "survey" to homeowners in the area complete with stacked questions that had only one reasonable answer - the one the developers wanted regarding a needed zoning change. The survey was designed to look as if it came from the county commissioners. Well the sh*t hit the fan when some of the homeowners started complaining about the survey to the county commissioners. The upshot was that the developer withdrew the project for now. Funny thing is, before the fake survey, there was at least an even chance that the zoning change would have been approved. This kind of crap happens more than you think, particularly in smaller jurisdictions. And your comments about lenders doesn't square with recent banking history. They were handing out money like a parade clown with candy.

[badtoworse]

53. I'm not familiar with the case so I can't comment

The projects I'm talking about cost in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and the lenders' only recourse is to take over the project. They won't lend unless they are convinced everything is 100% legitimate and even then, it can be like pulling teeth to get financing.

I'm not talking about a housing development or a subdivision. I can see how someone might try to cut corners with something like that.

[yellowcanine]

54. Well there have been some pretty big boondoggles so I am not so sanguine as you.

The Big Dig in Boston comes to mind. How does a cost overrun of $8 billion ($6 billion vs. $14.6 billion, 2006 dollars) strike you? That big enough for you? The only difference between big projects and small projects is scale. Human nature being what it is, people will cut corners if they are given the opportunity. Greed is greed.

[badtoworse]

57. Cost overruns are a completely different matter

They are not uncommon and they can be disasterous to the developer. You have get past the Nimbys and through the permitting and financing stages before they become an issue. In my opinion, greed is not so much the issue in cost overruns as incompetence. You would be surprised at the blunders that developers can make in estimating the total cost of a project. Greed is an issue that can comes into play in capturing upside. As a rule, you need to make conservative assumptions for your base case and if you err substantially, you can wind up in deep trouble.

[yellowcanine]

59. Well gee you just said banks won't finance projects until all of the bases are covered.

Cost would seem to be such a basic concern of banks that that they would have those consultants you were talking about all over it. Cost overruns are due to lack of proper planning, including unexpected environmental challenges as well as failure to monitor subcontractors and hire qualified workers, among other issues. They are not a completely different matter. It is exactly these sorts of issues which should hold up some projects. How a project is done, how long it takes, what environmental safeguards are put into place during the construction phase, etc, can be just as important in terms of environmental impact as the finished project.

[badtoworse]

60. You are correct, but the cost overruns are equity's risk

The bank is not going to lend more money to cover the additional cost. If there is an overrun, the developer has to come up with the money and his returns go down the crapper. The lenders and the developers do the best job they can in the diligence that precedes financing, but even with the best diligence, project development is a risky business. The developer will generally target returns in the 18 - 20% range to justify the risks he takes - you don't get returns like that with a safe investment.

[yellowcanine]

61. And if the cost overruns enough the equity is tied up in an uncompleted project.

At that point the bank's investment is pretty much in the crapper as well.

[badtoworse]

62. That sometimes happens

[underseasurveyor]

9. "With few exceptions, they operate safely."

That you know of because after all historically energy companies have always been open and honest with the public.

With "millions of miles of pipeline" how can you say that there are only small risks? That's a lot of pipeline to take care of and so let's say there are only small problems here and there. Each individual mishap may not be much in and of itself but taken collectively as a whole the problems and dangers increase with each and every small mishap.

It's foolish and shortsighted and not worth the risk further contaminating the water in that aquifer.

[trumad]

15. Gasland.

nuff said.

[badtoworse]

17. Gasland is a crock

There has been a lot of study work done about fracking and Gasland does not present a balanced picture. Methane in ground water has been known long before fracking was developed.

[trumad]

19. I knew you come back and post that shit.

The Gas industry payed millions to debunk the film and failed.

Only Gas Industry stooges say otherwise.

Educate yourself.

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/affirming-gasland

[badtoworse]

20. I follow developments in the natural gas and electric power businesses for a living

I'm advising a fund that is looking to invest in clean energy - gas-fired generation and renewables, as well as the midspace in natural gas (pipelines, gathering systems and processing facilities). I'm paid to give them objective advice on what to invest in and have substantially more sources of information at my disposal than Gasland. I actually read the studies published on both sides of the issue.

[99Forever]

22. Hmmm.

"I follow developments in the natural gas and electric power businesses for a living.


Tells me everything I need to know about what drives your clear bias on this thread. My son, daughter and grandchildren LIVE almost in the center of the Ogallala Aquifer and quite frankly, their health and lives are more important than your "making your living" or the antisocial corporations you pimp for.

[badtoworse]

25. You know nothing about our investment criteria...

but you somehow know I work for an antisocial corporation and I'm a pimp.

[99Forever]

41. Your words betray you.

I know a big oil apologist when I smell one, and your posts smell like a refinery.

[badtoworse]

45. My background is no secret on DU

I've described it in past posts, but I'll repeat it here. I've spent 30 years in the electric power business, most of it developing natural gas-fired power plants, both domestically and in South America. I've also managed power plant construction and spent 5 years managing three power plants (about 1,000 MW) in the northeast. In recent years, I've done development work with renewable energy, both wind and solar power. My background is diversified and I have a deep understanding of the power business on a lot of levels including operational, commercial, regulatory and environmental. Because the natural gas industry and the electric power business are so intertwined, I have good knowledge of the natural gas business as well, though not so much on the E&P side.

I was going to retire about a year ago, but I got a very good offer from an infrastructure fund that planned to invest in energy infrastructure in North America. They have all the financial types they need, but they also wanted some industry experts on the team - that's me and a few others. The plan is to invest in low carbon generation, mid-stream natural gas and electric transmission. These are all areas in which the country will need many billions in new investment to supply us with clean energy in the future. The great majority of those projects will be funded by private investors. I make no apology for my background. Providing the country with the reliable electric power that is taken for granted is no small task and I'm proud to be part of the industry that does it.

I've actually had no experience in the oil and gas industry, but they too perform a necessary task. We use an enormous amount of primary energy and maintaining a reliable supply is no small task either. I generally support what they do because I like to have gasoline available when I need to fill up the car and I don't mind paying the world price.

No industry has a spotless safety and environmental record and the energy businesses are no exception. Given the magnitude of the task, I think the track record is good. I have worked for three different power companies - safety and environmental stewardship were the highest priorities at all three.

I value the environment as much as anyone on DU. I like to hunt, fish and backpack. I breath the same air and drink the same water you do. Do you really think I want the environment trashed?

Last thing: I see lots of posts on DU trashing the power companies, big oil, private equity and other big businesses, but I never see anything posted that comes even close to being a viable substitute. What are your ideas?

[trumad]

23. sure

DEBUNK away.

[badtoworse]

29. I've been down this road on DU before

Any studies that are positive for fracking were done by stooges for the gas industry and objectivity of studies that are negative about fracking are never questioned.

I'll point out though that on May 11, the EPA declared the water in Dimock to be safe to drink. Are the Gasland folks highlighting that?

[trumad]

31. So---you're a pro-Fracker?

[badtoworse]

33. I believe it can be done safely

Proper design and construction of the well casings is essential. Careful handling and disposal of the fracking fluids is also extremely important. I believe we can and will develop fluids that are less hazardous.

There aren't any energy technologies that are without risk. We need to the best we can to manage them.

[trumad]

34. Do you beleive that Nuclear Power can be done safely?

[badtoworse]

48. Yes, but I also believe that some of the design decisions that have been made were flawed.

The location of Fukishima's emergency generators is a good example. Locating nukes in seismicly active areas is another example (e.g. Diablo Canyon).

Safe does not mean zero risk, because risk can never be completely eliminated. It means that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize risk and the remaining risk is prudent to take in light of the potential rewards. You will never get universal agreement on that kind of an evaluation.

[trumad]

51. The risk far out gains the rewards in mho.

[blue neen]

35. So, let's slow down the drilling and let the technology catch up.

The gas isn't going anywhere.

You're correct--careful handling and disposal of the fracking fluids is essential, but right now, in the real world that is not always happening. That is a fact in Pennsylvania and other states where the greed got way ahead of common sense.

There is a glut of natural gas now because of the rush to drill before safe practices were enacted. The price is low. Wouldn't it be a good idea to slow down and do it right, rather than ruining peoples' health and properties?

[badtoworse]

38. It's already happening for economic reasons.

Wells are being shut in for economic reasons

[blue neen]

42. That's good, but it should also be happening for the good of the public.

Ultimately, what's good for the public is good for the companies, too. I hope the drillers soon realize that.

[blue neen]

32. Well, let's highlight this (very close to Dimock):

"State environmental regulators say methane had to be vented from a pair of private drinking wells near a northern Pennsylvania natural gas drilling well."

"The Department of Environmental Protection says gas bubbling has also been reported in wetlands near the homes in LeRoy Township, Bradford County."

"The DEP says the source of the methane hasn't been determined but driller Chesapeake Energy is screening all private wells within 2,500 feet of its Morse drilling pad."

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/05/22/3204364/methane-reported-in-2-northern.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

[badtoworse]

36. Good to know. I'll look into it.

I would say it's a bad cement job on the casing. It's also possible the methane is biogenic. It's possible to test and determine which is the source.

Any fracking fluids detected in the ground water?

[blue neen]

26. Well, I guess it's not just "nimby's" that are concerned.

"Couple Denied Mortgage Because of Marcellus Gas Drilling"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10741487

It seems that the banks are now viewing drilling, pipelines, wells, wellpads, etc. as calculated risks that they don't want to take on.

Thank you for introducing me to the term "nimby". I had never heard it before.

[badtoworse]

28. Interesting, this is the first I've heard of a lender taking this position on a natural gas well.

It's not surprising, though. Property values are driven by many things including perception.

The term NIMBY has been around for a long time

[blue neen]

30. It's been going on in other states; it's just starting to happen in PA.

"Clean Water Action said that in other parts of the country, when shale gas drilling has arrived, mortgages at nearby properties sometimes get denied. This is the first case they've heard in Pennsylvania."

"The banks aren't stupid," said Myron Arnowitt, director of Clean Water Action in Pennsylvania. "They're going to look at that and be more cautious in terms of what they are willing to mortgage."

"If I can't refinance, could somebody get a loan to purchase my house? And that would be my concern. That's definitely a worry," Brian Smith said.

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/investigations/Couple-denied-mortgage-because-of-gas-drilling/-/12023024/12865512/-/ohf26fz/-/index.html#ixzz1vj5rxNRJ

You say that specialize in investments. For most people, the major investment of their life is their home. Declining property values, denied mortgages...some families' financial lives are being ruined in the name of profits for the drillers. When you are living in the middle of it, it's not just "perception"--it's reality.

[badtoworse]

37. That's a fair point and it applies to than just well drilling

Many kinds of infrastructure can impact home values. Today, virtually everywhere is in somebody's backyard. Should we just stop building infrastructure?

[blue neen]

40. Infrastructure does not equal fracking chemicals. It's not the same at all...

"There is good reason to be curious about exactly what's in those fluids. A 2010 congressional investigation revealed that Halliburton and other fracking companies had used 32 million gallons of diesel products, which include toxic chemicals like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, in the fluids they inject into the ground. Low levels of exposure to those chemicals can trigger acute effects like headaches, dizziness, and drowsiness, while higher levels of exposure can cause cancer."

"Pennsylvania law states that companies must disclose the identity and amount of any chemicals used in fracking fluids to any health professional that requests that information in order to diagnosis or treat a patient that may have been exposed to a hazardous chemical. But the provision in the new bill requires those health professionals to sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they will not disclose that information to anyone else -- not even the person they're trying to treat."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/for-pennsylvanias-doctors-a-gag-order-on-fracking-chemicals/255030/

In Pennsylvania, a doctor is not allowed to tell you what chemical you have been exposed to. Come on! If they are so safe, then why are the drillers and gas companies trying so hard to hide just exactly what these chemicals are?

We just had major roadwork done near our home. The banks didn't deny anyone a mortgage because of it.

[badtoworse]

49. How about a wind turbine next door or a transmission line in your yard?

Such a development could also reduce the value of your property causing lenders to decline a refinancing.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I think it's a bad idea, some places should be off limits to oil drilling and pipelines

major sources of fresh water being one of them and food being another.

I used to love eating shrimp but I haven't eaten any since the BP oil gusher ruined the gulf and poisoned the food supply and it will probably be a few more years before I try it.

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.

[jwirr]

8. No but then I don't think they should be able to continue using this water for irregation either.

[KansDem]

10. We don't know what's under the surface of the Earth

This earthquake that struck Oaxaca, Mexico* on March 20, 2012, affected the water in Devil's Hole, Death Valley, California.

If toxic fracking chemicals are pumped underground, there's no telling where they'll wind up. Could be hundreds of miles (1,000s?) away.

And if BP can't get rid of the toxins released during its Deep Water Horizon disaster, what will happen when aquifers are poisoned deep underground?
______
The title of the video cites "Oaxaca (over 2,000 miles away), the comments claim it was in "Mexicali" (450 miles away).

[spanone]

50. i oppose everything mitt romney wants to do....period

[goclark]

56. Ditto