David
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,835
So they are shutting down 6 coal plants in PA?
pcray1231
Well-known member
Yes. I know a couple are already offline, but not sure which ones.
Most of our air/water pollution, though, comes from further west. Upwind. And there are more plants shutting down there. The acid rain situation has already improved somewhat over the last 30 years. Combined with this is a decrease in ozone, nox, etc. This is mainly due to the Clean Air Act, and the installation of scrubbers on many coal power plants, as well as increased emissions requirements on automobiles. These improvements are likely to be doubled over the next 10 years or so, on account of shale gas development displacing coal. And specifically, the coal plants shutting down are those remaining ones that did not install scrubbers.
Many of our coal mines are also being idled. Worldwide, coal continues to grow. But locally, we're witnessing the death of coal at the hands of gas.
My viewpoint on gas has always been that, yes, there are issues. And yes, it's worthwhile to make sure things are done as well as they can be, and I encourage holding deficient company's feet to the fire when they take dangerous shortcuts. But in the grand scheme, there are problems with EVERY source of electric generation. Ultimately, if I were king, I'd likely pick nuclear. But gas>coal. Stopping gas drilling at all costs just out of principle is counterproductive, environmentally speaking.
It's always astounded me that the environmental movement sunk nuclear, and is trying to sink gas. All it does is lock in the status quo. Coal.
Most of our air/water pollution, though, comes from further west. Upwind. And there are more plants shutting down there. The acid rain situation has already improved somewhat over the last 30 years. Combined with this is a decrease in ozone, nox, etc. This is mainly due to the Clean Air Act, and the installation of scrubbers on many coal power plants, as well as increased emissions requirements on automobiles. These improvements are likely to be doubled over the next 10 years or so, on account of shale gas development displacing coal. And specifically, the coal plants shutting down are those remaining ones that did not install scrubbers.
Many of our coal mines are also being idled. Worldwide, coal continues to grow. But locally, we're witnessing the death of coal at the hands of gas.
My viewpoint on gas has always been that, yes, there are issues. And yes, it's worthwhile to make sure things are done as well as they can be, and I encourage holding deficient company's feet to the fire when they take dangerous shortcuts. But in the grand scheme, there are problems with EVERY source of electric generation. Ultimately, if I were king, I'd likely pick nuclear. But gas>coal. Stopping gas drilling at all costs just out of principle is counterproductive, environmentally speaking.
It's always astounded me that the environmental movement sunk nuclear, and is trying to sink gas. All it does is lock in the status quo. Coal.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Because ultimately, the environmental movement is against ALL forms of fossil fuels (which makes it even more ironic that they keep pushing the public back to the status quo of coal). It's a mental block in their mind. Something gives them the dilussion that we don't NEED fossil fuels right now. Wind, solar, vegetable oil, these are all ready to go for mass use. "Big Oil" is simply blocking them for profit. Everyone would have solar powered houses and we'd never need another drop of oil or gas if it wasn't for those money hungry, greedy oil companies. They truly, genuinely believe this.
Or...they have a fear that no matter how much cleaner and safer gas is, if we frack, we only continue our "dependency" on fossil fuels, and we'll never take the steps needed to get off that dead horse.
greenghost
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,510
There is an increased danger. This article highlights that potential.
" The rush for shale gas, which started in 2005 in the Marcellus shale formation, underlying large portions of Pennsylvania, was having unintended consequences. Even though the Marcellus is quite deep, between 5,000 and 8,000 feet, the extraction of shale gas through horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking, a process that involves injecting huge amounts of chemically-laced water under high pressure to blast the rock underground, was displacing gas in shallower geologic layers, where old drilling holes acted as natural pathways all the way to the surface."
pcray1231
Well-known member
Again, read and try to understand what I said. I've tried to get a handle on this, and what I'm about to say is my current understanding of the issue.
I claimed little or no danger from the horizontal component of the well. I did not claim that legacy wells are no danger at all. They clearly are. Hard to dispute a 30 foot geyser from a legacy well.
All wells begin at the surface, and must pass through surface layers. A well is vertical for 5000-9000 ft, and then turns horizontal. That horizontal portion is well below the depth of any legacy wells, and that pressure will not escape upwards.
The well casing, provided it's done correctly, only goes down to below the surface water table, i.e. the depth where gas and fluid can escape to the surface "under normal circumstances". This is typically only a couple of hundred feet deep. Between the bottom of the casing and the horizontal bend are thousands of feet of unprotected, pressurized bore hole.
When pressurized, this VERTICAL unprotected section does indeed pressurize the gaps between rock layers radiating outwards from the well itself. And since this is below where the gas and fluid can escape upward, no problem. Normally. But legacy wells can provide that conduit, effectively making the surface water table deeper than anticipated.
So the author is right as far as legacy wells do create an issue, and that identifying all legacy wells is helpful. Here's the sentence that, while not technically wrong, is misleading:
Nothing he said was "wrong", as the "process" does displace gas in shallower geologic layers, and old drilling holes are acting as natural pathways to the surface. But the fact that the wells are horizontal has nothing to do with it, and the displaced gas isn't coming from 5000-8000 ft deep.
I claimed little or no danger from the horizontal component of the well. I did not claim that legacy wells are no danger at all. They clearly are. Hard to dispute a 30 foot geyser from a legacy well.
All wells begin at the surface, and must pass through surface layers. A well is vertical for 5000-9000 ft, and then turns horizontal. That horizontal portion is well below the depth of any legacy wells, and that pressure will not escape upwards.
The well casing, provided it's done correctly, only goes down to below the surface water table, i.e. the depth where gas and fluid can escape to the surface "under normal circumstances". This is typically only a couple of hundred feet deep. Between the bottom of the casing and the horizontal bend are thousands of feet of unprotected, pressurized bore hole.
When pressurized, this VERTICAL unprotected section does indeed pressurize the gaps between rock layers radiating outwards from the well itself. And since this is below where the gas and fluid can escape upward, no problem. Normally. But legacy wells can provide that conduit, effectively making the surface water table deeper than anticipated.
So the author is right as far as legacy wells do create an issue, and that identifying all legacy wells is helpful. Here's the sentence that, while not technically wrong, is misleading:
Nothing he said was "wrong", as the "process" does displace gas in shallower geologic layers, and old drilling holes are acting as natural pathways to the surface. But the fact that the wells are horizontal has nothing to do with it, and the displaced gas isn't coming from 5000-8000 ft deep.
pcray1231
Well-known member
P.S. Unmapped legacy wells are an issue for traditional, vertical, shallow gas drilling as well. The same process applies. It's just that the shallow wells use far less pressure when fracking, hence the "danger zone" around the wellhead is significantly smaller.
pro4mance
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,251
Saw on the news this morning that the permit was Denied
