Home » Posts tagged 'fracking' (Page 11)

Tag Archives: fracking

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Lifting Ban On U.S. Crude Oil Export Would Enable Massive Fracking Expansion

In a recent Washington Post editorial supporting oil industry efforts to lift the existing ban on exporting crude oil produced in America, the editors stated:

The most serious objection to lifting the ban comes from environmentalists who worry that it would lower fossil fuel prices and lead to more oil consumption.”

And then they make the case that this is actually a positive as there may be some negotiations that result in support for “energy research funding, efficiency programs or, in an ideal world, a charge on carbon dioxide emissions to the package could balance its possible effects on the environment.”

In an ideal world, the climate wouldn’t be changing either. But we don’t live in an ideal world, do we? And the oil industry usually gets what it wants and environmental concerns go by the wayside regardless of who is in the White House. See arctic drilling permits for recent proof.

Existing Export Ban Limits Ability of Fracking Industry to Expand

The reality is that lifting the oil export ban will result in large increases in fracking for oil in the U.S.

At the annual Energy Information Administration conference in Washington, D.C. in June, Harold Hamm, CEO of fracking giant Continental Resources, presented a slide that predicted oil production could reach 20 million barrels per day by 2025 if the crude export ban is repealed.


That is a massive increase over the existing amount of oil produced by fracking (aka “tight oil”) in the U.S. Tight oil current accounts for approximately half of the 9 million barrels a day of oil produced in the U.S. To get to Hamm’s predicted production levels that means a doubling or tripling of the scale of the current tight oil fracking industry.

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Obama Makes Fracking a Cornerstone of Climate Policy … But Fracking Does Much More Harm than Good

Obama Makes Fracking a Cornerstone of Climate Policy … But Fracking Does Much More Harm than Good

A Fracked Up Policy

“Clean natural gas” from fracking has been touted for years as a cure for global warming.   It’s a cornerstone of Obama’s climate plan.

But scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.  As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.

Cornell University researchers found in 2011 that – when measured in its entire life cycle – fracked gas emits much MORE greenhouse gas than coal.  And see this.

Last year, a study published by Purdue scientists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that fracking puts between 100 and 1,000 times more methane into the atmosphere than the EPA assumed.

And a new scientific paper published at Energy & Science Engineering by expert and gas industry consultant Touché Howard shows that previous studies cited by the EPA and the fracking industry low-balled actual fracking emission rates “by factors of three to five.”

A 2014 study by scientists from Colorado and Brown University found that fracking increases severe birth defects – including congenital heart defects – for families living within 10 miles of fracking sites.

A team of Yale scientists published a study last year in the journal Environmental Health Perspectiveswhich found that people who live near fracking sites have more health problems than those who don’t.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Once Burned, Twice Shy? Utica Shale Touted to Investors As Shale Drillers Continue Posting Losses

For the past several weeks, the drilling industry — hammered by bad financial results — has begun promoting its next big thing: the Utica shale, generating the sort of headlines you might have seen five years ago, when the shale drilling rush was gaining speed. “Utica Shale Holds 20 Times More Gas Than Previous Estimates”, read one headline. “Utica Bigger Than Marcellus”, proclaimed another.

The reason for the excitement was a study, published by West Virginia University, that concluded the Utica contains more shale gas than many estimates for the Marcellus shale, a staggering 782 trillion cubic feet.

“This is a landmark study that demonstrates the vast potential of the Utica as a resource to complement – and go beyond – what the Marcellus has already proven to be,” Brian Anderson, director of West Virginia University’s Energy Institute, told the Associated Press.

But those considering investments based on the Utica’s potential may want to pause and consider the shale industry’s long history of circulating impressive predictions, later quietly downgraded, while spending far more than they earn.

The industry has not been generating enough money to cover its capital spending and dividends,” Fidelity Investments energy fund manager John Dowd told Barrons.

Indeed, while it is clear that the shale drilling rush has produced large amounts of oil and gas, (alongside wastewater and other environmental impacts), the financial prosperity promised by its backers has not seemed to materialize.

Burning Through Cash

Companies like Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second largest producer of natural gas and one of the most aggressive advocates of the shale rush nationwide, have been hammered hard by low oil prices and high costs in 2015.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

Where In The World Is The Shale Gas Revolution?

Where In The World Is The Shale Gas Revolution?

As it stands the global shale gas revolution is missing in action. To be sure, its impact in the United States – and the subsequent ripple worldwide – was nothing short of game-changing, but the wave of enthusiasm has yet to produce substantial results outside of North America.

Still, the dream is far from dead and exciting prospects abound from Argentina to China, and elsewhere in between. Both shale gas and tight oil – more than happenings in Iran, or drilling in the Arctic – look primed to be the dominant market movers in the short- to medium-term.

The U.S. experience is hard to replicate, and with the custom-tailored approach that hydraulic fracturing demands, it’s a difficult template for shale hopefuls to follow verbatim. It does however, provide a basic outline for what works and what doesn’t – an outline that explains the muted success abroad.

First, a helpful tax regime minimized the risk for early, pre-commercial, shale wildcatters. Between 1980 and 2002, tax credits via the federal governmentsubsidized shale gas producers by between 20 to 60 percent of market prices. Also of note is the U.S.’ extensive – and unbundled – pipeline network, robust service sector, and the relative widespread availability of water.

Related: China Doubles Down On Dirty Fuel

Perhaps more important though, are mineral rights. One of the key ingredients to the shale revolution in the U.S. is the ownership of mineral rights for landowners. That gives them a stake in the boom. But that is rare outside of the U.S. – in many other countries the government owns the mineral rights beneath a landowner’s land. That has slowed development in China, and contributed topreventing shale gas development across mainland Europe.

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Shale Gas Reality Check

Shale Gas Reality Check

shale-gas-reality-check-blog-top

In October 2014, Post Carbon Institute published the results of what likely remains the most thorough independent analysis of U.S. shale gas and tight oil production ever conducted. The process of drilling for shale gas and tight oil is known colloquially as “fracking” and has drawn a great deal of controversy—considered by some as an energy revolution and others as an environmental and human health catastrophe.

Much of the cost-benefit debate over fracking has come down to the perception of just how much domestic oil and gas it can produce and at what cost. To answer this question, policymakers, the media, and the general public have typically turned to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), which every year publishes its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).

In Drilling Deeper, PCI Fellow David Hughes took a hard look at the EIA’s AEO2014 and found that its projections for future production and prices suffered from a worrisome level of optimism. This lead us and others to raise important questions about the wisdom of some energy policies and infrastructure projects (for example, the approval of Liquified Natural Gas export terminals and the lifting of the crude oil export ban) that have been pursued largely on the basis of the EIA’s rosy forecasts.

Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA’s projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeperand up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays. What follows are Hughes’s findings regarding shale gas. The AEO2015’s tight oil projections will be reviewed in early September 2015.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Higher-risk ‘Shallow Fracking’ More Common than Suspected: Study

Higher-risk ‘Shallow Fracking’ More Common than Suspected: Study

Lessons for BC, Alberta in new Stanford report.

The fracking of oil and gas less than a mile from aquifers or the Earth’s surface now takes place across North America with few restrictions, posing increased risk for drinking water supplies, says a new Stanford study.

The study examined the frequency of so-called shallow fracking, described by the researchers as occurring less than a mile underground. Shallow fracking poses a greater risk to drinking water than fracking that occurs much deeper under the Earth’s surface.

Out of 44,000 wells fracked between 2010 and 2013 in the United States, researchers found that 6,900 (16 per cent) were fractured less than a mile from the surface and another 2,600 wells (six per cent) were fractured above 3,000 feet, or 900 metres.

“What surprised me is how often shallow fracturing occurs with large volumes of chemicals and water,” said lead researcher and environmental scientist Robert Jackson in an interview with The Tyee.

The majority of shallow fracking now takes place in Texas, California, Arkansas and Wyoming. Although the study largely excludes Canada, shallow fracking also takes place in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, and sometimes at depths less than 500 metres.

Due to poor data reporting by industry and its regulators, “the occurrence of shallow hydraulic fracturing across the U.S. is underestimated in our analysis,” added the study.

During shallow fractures, the industry injects fluids into vertical or horizontal wells to crack rock directly below or into groundwater. In many reported cases, the resulting fractures can travel up to 556 metres into other hydrocarbon zones, water formations or other energy well sites.

As a result, shallow fractures can connect to aquifers used for drinking water.

“Even fractures that do not extend all the way to an overlying aquifer can link formations by connecting them to natural faults, fissures or other pathways,” explained the study.

 

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Recession, Not Fracking, Behind Drop in U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Scientists Conclude

Recession, Not Fracking, Behind Drop in U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Scientists Conclude

It’s been a talking point for boosters of the shale gas rush for years: as fracking spread across the country and the supply glut drove prices down, utilities have been shuttering dirty coal plants and burning natural gas instead – meaning that America’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions dropped sharply. Fracking, the argument went, is actually good for the environment because it’s good for the climate.

The boom in American natural-gas production is doing what international negotiations and legislation couldn’t: reducing U.S. carbon-dioxide pollution,” Bloomberg reported in 2012.

While other factors, including a sluggish U.S. economy and increasing energy efficiency, have contributed to the decline in carbon emissions from factories, automobiles and power plants, many experts believe the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has been the biggest factor,” said the Wall Street Journal in April 2013.

“In these last years, the natural gas revolution, shall we say, has been a major contributor to reducing carbon emissions,” the Obama administration’s Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said at Columbia University on Aug. 26, 2013, as he described the President’s goals for reducing carbon emissions. “We are about halfway there, and about half of that is because of the substitution of natural gas for coal in the power sector, essentially driven by market forces.”

But, it turns out, correlation is not the same thing as causation. And while the drop in emissions happened at roughly the same time as the fracking rush spread, shale gas had relatively little to do with the drop in carbon emissions, according to a scientific paper published today in the journal Nature Communications.

Before 2007, rising emissions were primarily driven by economic growth,” ecological economist Dr. Klaus Hubacek and his fellow researchers wrote. “After 2007, decreasing emissions were largely a result of economic recession with changes in fuel mix (for example, substitution of natural gas for coal) playing a comparatively minor role.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Will the Oil Patch Bust Trigger Recession?

Will the Oil Patch Bust Trigger Recession?

This seemingly inexhaustible credit line is now drying up, with severely negative consequences for oil producers with debt that’s coming due.

Could the oil patch bust triggered by oil plummeting from $100/barrel to $50/barrel kick the U.S. into recession? Longtime correspondent B.C. recently observed: The question is whether the incipient recession in the energy and energy-related transport sectors is sufficient this time around to be the proximate cause of a US/global recession and real estate bust.

To help answer the question, B.C. sent this FRED chart of key measures of economic activity in Texas, America’s GDP and industrial production and the price of oil. The chart may look busy but the key indicators are oil (the blue line that fell off a cliff and has formed a fish hook), the red line (GDP adjusted for inflation, i.e. real GDP), the dotted line (industrial production) and the remaining two lines that reflect the leading indicators and economic activity in Texas.

Six months into the energy bust, the leading index for Texas has hit the zero line, U.S. industrial production has rolled over but real GDP hasn’t budged. So far, the impact of dramatically lower oil revenues has been limited to the oil patch, but the potential for contagion is still present.

As B.C. noted:

The last time the energy sector experienced a similar bust as is emerging today and clearly evident in Texas was in 1985-86, which occurred coincident with the crash in the price of oil and the onset of the S&L Crisis.

However, the US economy overall did not experience recession, but Industrial Production (manufacturing) decelerated to around 0% even as real GDP did not get close to “stall speed”, owing primarily to the effects of Baby Boomers entered the phase of life for peak spending and household formation.

Also, it did not hurt that the constant-US$ price of oil fell from $37 to $16 (similar scale as the recent drop from $100+ to $50/barrel) and the price of gasoline to below $2/gallon.

 

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

It’s Happening: Debt Is Tearing up the Fracking Revolution

It’s Happening: Debt Is Tearing up the Fracking Revolution

The shares of Chesapeake Energy, second largest natural-gas driller in the US, crashed nearly 10% today, to $9.29, the lowest price since August 2003, down nearly 70% since oil began to plunge a year ago. The company’s $1.1 billion of 5.75% notes fell to an all-time low of 84.88 cents on the dollar. And its 4.875% notes dropped to 81.25 cents on the dollar, from 86 last week, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD.

All this in the wake of its announcement that it would suspend its dividend for the first time in 14 years. It’s trying to conserve cash, and that dividend costs $240 million a year. It’s dumping assets as fast as it can, including some Oklahoma fields that will save it another $75 million a year in preferred dividends. It’s cutting operating costs and capital expenditures. It’s trying to stay alive.

It has been cash-flow negative in 22 of the past 24 years, according to Bloomberg.

The only thing surprising is that it took so long, that Wall Street kept funding its cash-flow negative operations and dividends for all these years.

Chesapeake used to be mostly a natural gas producer. But the price of natural gas plunged over five years ago and has remained below the cost of production for most wells for much of that time. The only saving grace was that these wells also produced natural-gas liquids and oil, which sold for much higher prices. As its natural-gas business model collapsed, Chesapeake began chasing after oil-rich plays. But a year ago, the price of oil collapsed.

Among natural gas drillers, Chesapeake isn’t in the worst shape. Much smaller Quicksilver Resources filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March. It listed $2.35 billion in debts and $1.21 billion in assets. The difference has been forever drilled into the ground. Stockholders got wiped out. Creditors are fighting over the scraps.

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Fracking Industry Has Changed Earthquake Patterns in Northeast BC

Fracking Industry Has Changed Earthquake Patterns in Northeast BC

Impact on groundwater and migrating gases mostly unknown, critics say. A special report.

New research and presentations by both provincial and federal scientists show that the shale gas industry, which the B.C. government hopes will eventually supply proposed liquefied natural gas terminals with fracked gas, has caused more than a thousand earthquakes in northeast B.C. since 2006 and changed the region’s seismicity.


The earthquakes, ranging in magnitude from 1.0 to 4.3, include six events higher than 4.0 and more than 20 events that shook buildings and moved furniture in places like Fort St. John. Several events caused casing damage to horizontal wells. Moreover, industry-caused tremors remain an ongoing geological revolution for the region.

Earthquakes with a magnitude of about 2.0 or less are called microquakes and can’t be felt at the surface. Events above 3.0 can be felt on the ground, and tremors just larger than 4.0 can cause minor damage. A great earthquake, capable of extensive damage, typically measures a magnitude of 8.0.

Scientists originally thought that hydraulic fracturing wouldn’t trigger anything more than microquakes. But now that the technology has set off magnitude 4.4 quakes in Alberta, scientists are grappling to determine what kind of hazard industrial tremors might pose to pipelines, dams and other infrastructure.

At Upper Halfway, a community northeast of Fort St. John, residents have described the tremors as a series of crashes and bangs comparable to someone driving “a truck into the side of the house.”

The shale gas industry involves the injection of highly pressurized fluids into wells to crack open difficult oil and gas deposits. The injections create a network of cracks that can also connect to fault zones. The reactivation of these faults can then trigger an earthquake, scientists say.

 


Due to limited monitoring, industry and government lack a full understanding of how the wave of quakes is changing the flow of groundwater in the region or the migration of gases such as methane, radon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere throughout northeast B.C.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Dirty Energy vs. Clean Power

Dirty Energy vs. Clean Power 

The Past Battles the Future at Seneca Lake

Let’s amend the famous line from Joni Mitchell’s “Yellow Taxi” to fit this moment in the Finger Lakes region of New York State. There, Big Energy seems determined to turn paradise, if not into a parking lot, then into a massive storage area for fracked natural gas. But there’s one way in which that song doesn’t quite match reality. Mitchell famously wrote, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” As part of a growing global struggle between Big Energy and a movement focused on creating a fossil-fuel-free future, however, the residents of the Finger Lakes seem to know just what they’ve got and they’re determined not to let it go. As a result, a local struggle against a corporation determined to bring in those fracked fuels catches a changing mood not just in the United States but across the world when it comes to protecting the planet, one place at a time, if necessary.

It’s difficult to imagine a more picturesque landscape, a more tranquil locale, a more bucolic garden spot than the Finger Lakes region. Each year, it draws tens of thousands of tourists to gaze at the waterfalls in Watkins Glen, to kayak and canoe in its deep waters, to dine in its farm-to-table restaurants and enjoy the homespun hospitality of its bed and breakfasts. Lush vineyards rustle on tree-studded hillsides. Wine Enthusiast magazine gave it top honors last year, calling it “one of the most vibrant and promising wine regions of the world.” There are fruit and vegetable farms and sugar maples, too. In 2013, the state’s maple syrup production ranked second only to Vermont’s.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

BCers to Province: Stop the Senseless Water Giveaway

BCers to Province: Stop the Senseless Water Giveaway

Surrey residents pay $1,630 per million litres; why not Nestle or frackers?

“The province is not seeking to make a profit from water.” — BC Environment Minister Mary Polak

No kidding — not at $2.25 per million litres of cold, clean B.C. water!

But seriously minister, do you think that waiting till 2016 just to start charging multinational giant Nestle, other water bottlers, oil and gas frackers, amusement parks, garbage dumps and everyone else who wants millions of litres of water is appropriate?

Because tens of thousands of British Columbians are outraged their province will be giving away water for pennies. And until then it’s free.

Forget about making a profit — when Nestle can buy their 265 million litres for $596.25 — you aren’t even covering the cost of government writing up and mailing the invoice!

And Polak is actually proud of it.

“We don’t sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource,” she toldthe Legislature in February without any hint of irony.

But Surrey residents pay $1.63 per 1,000 litres at home; at those rates Nestle would instead be paying $1,630 per million litres and over $431,950 for what it bottled last year.

And Vancouver’s flat water rate for non-metered houses is $568 this year.

Drought, outrage set in

So the Nestle giveaway is why last week’s column went viral.

And it’s also why a petition from consumer activists SumOfUs.org has over 200,000 signatures demanding B.C. charge higher water rates.

But there’s a faint hope clause — the B.C. Legislature just returned for an emergency sitting to pass laws allowing Petronas to develop its liquefied natural gas project.

If the BC Liberal government cared as much about B.C. water as they obviously do about LNG we could get the water rates increased in less than a week with opposition party cooperation.

Water is in exceedingly short supply as the heat wave and drought continue to force more H2O restrictions.

 

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Greenwash: Shell May Remove “Oil” From Name as it Moves to Tap Arctic, Gulf of Mexico

Shell Oil has announced it may take a page out of the BP “Beyond Petroleum” greenwashing book, rebranding itself as something other than an oil company for its United States-based unit.

Marvin Odum, director of Shell Oil’s upstream subsidiary companies in the Americas, told Bloomberg the name Shell Oil “is a little old-fashioned, I’d say, and at one point we’ll probably do something about that” during a luncheon interview with Bloomberg News co-founder Matt Winkler (beginning at 8:22) at the recently-completed Shell-sponsored Toronto Global Forum.

“Oil,” said Odum, could at some point in the near future be removed from the name.

Odum’s comments come as Shell has moved aggressively to drill for offshore oil in the Arctic and deep offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, while also maintaining a heavy footprint in Alberta’s tar sands oil patch.

Shell Oil Greenwashing
Image Credit: Bloomberg News Screenshot

Shell also recently acquired BG (British Gas) Group, a company that owns numerous assets in the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, transforming the company into what Forbes hailed as a “world LNG giant.”

Winkler quipped in Toronto that due to this major asset purchase, it might be more accurate to call Shell Oil, “Shell Gas.”

In October 2011, BG Group signed a major contract with the U.S.-based LNG giant Cheniere to ship its gas product obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to the global market. That LNG will begin to flow by the end of the year.

Just a week before Odum told Winkler that Shell may take “oil” out its company name, he appeared on Bloomberg News on the sidelines of the Aspen Ideas Festival to boast about his company’s big plans — plans to drill for oil in the deep offshore Gulf of Mexico Appomattox field. At Aspen, Odum called Appomattox a “world class oil and gas project.”

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Energy Files: Defra report reveals extent of impacts on people living near fracking wells

Energy Files: Defra report reveals extent of impacts on people living near fracking wells

Hydraulic Fracking Protest in England

People that live near fracking sites could be affected by health problems and financial hardships – and fracking might not even help climate change –  a government report has revealed.

The report – which was initially heavily redacted but has now been fully published after the Information Commissioner ordered the government to do so  – includes striking passages that were previously blacked out on the risks of living near a fracking well, most dramatically that:

“Properties located within a 1 – 5 mile radius of the fracking operation may also incur an additional cost of insurance to cover losses in case of explosion on the site.”

“Such an event would clearly have social impacts,” some genius notes.

There are also several other health impacts and financial impacts on local rural communities that have been detailed — and are now revealed.

On climate change, the report says that fracking in the UK could cause a gross increase in global CO2 emissions if the LNG or other fossil fuels that would otherwise be burnt in the UK are burnt elsewhere — and we are still emitting from burning fracking gas.

Energydesk put in the Freedom of Information request for the report last summer, and repeatedly asked Defra to fill in the blacked-out blanks in the back-end last year.

We’ve finally been able to properly scour the report — and here’s what’s come to light:

Health: Water, noise, light and air pollution

People could experience the consequences of surface water contamination from fracking — not from drinking water but “it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products”.

Noise and light pollution from rigs could also lead to problems, the internal Defra report acknowledges. It says: “Some residents may experience deafening noise; light pollution that affects sleeping patterns.”

“Noxious odours from venting gases can also impact on air quality for local residents,” it adds.

 

 

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Supreme Court Rejects Argument to Dismiss Landmark Fracking Case

Supreme Court Rejects Argument to Dismiss Landmark Fracking Case

Jessica Ernst’s charter claim hearing slated for 2016.

The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected a motion by the country’s most powerful energy regulator that Jessica Ernst’s case involving fracking and groundwater contamination raises no significant constitutional claim and should be dismissed.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin ruled that the case raised a significant constitutional question on whether or not an “immunity clause” in the regulator’s legislation placed it above the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Is the regulator’s immunity clause, asked McLachlin in her June 25th ruling “constitutionally inapplicable or inoperable to the extent that it bars a claim against the regulator for a breach of” the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

But Glenn Solomon, counsel for the Alberta Energy Regulator, argued in submissions to the court that “no constitutional question should be stated in the present matter.”

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the charter case last April, it required lawyers representing Jessica Ernst to clearly state the question and Solomon to agree on the wording.

But Solomon told Ernst’s lawyers that “We will not be able to agree on a constitutional question.”

 

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s obstruction cost Ernst more time and money, but she is satisfied with McLachlin’s ruling and definition of the final constitutional question.

“If energy regulators can violate our charter rights, there will be no protection for citizens living in areas where industry is fracking for hydrocarbons,” Ernst told The Tyee.

Fracking damage alleged

Hydraulic fracturing, a technology described by industry as a combination of “brute force and ignorance,” injects highly pressurized fluids into shallow and deep formations with the goal of splitting open rock as dense as concrete to release small amounts of oil and gas over vast distances.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress