<p>I don’t really have any particular stance on this. Microseismic monitoring is regularly used in industry – triggering of small earthquakes (and monitoring of their patterns) is an indication that fracturing was successful. However 4.0 magnitude earthquakes don’t hit the Appalachians every day.</p>
<p>What about algae ethanol? Right now the cost per gallon is extremely high. I like the prospects but can’t tell if or when the technology will advance enough to bring algae ethanol into a competitive price range.</p>
I can’t tell you a lot about the project. I only knew about the project because I wanted to borrow some algae from the floor below me (for intercellular transport via plasodesmata experiment with xanthan gum) with favourable cell wall characteristics but they wouldn’t tell me the species names because it was classified. </p>
<p>Tbh, algae is something that is tough to work out in lab but would work beautifully in scale. That’s because algae bloom amazingly.</p>
<p>That is only because it is dramatically more profitable than solar and wind. If a company could own the sun and the wind, they’d be producing the hell out of them.</p>
<p>If the pipeline was a problem, you can rest assured that Bloomberg would be screaming about it. Given that he is not adverse to the pipeline, it is probably a good idea or at least not a bad idea.</p>
<p>VillageMom, good luck to your parents. I like your beverly hillbillies reference.</p>
<p>I read the Nyc articles and I am not what the problem is. There isn’t going to be fracking in Nyc. Nyc has energy needs. And there is going to be a pipeline built.</p>
<p>Well, good luck with that. From what I hear, some landowners make out quite well, but for others it’s a short-term infusion of cash. Fracking isn’t like sitting on a large underground reservoir of oil or gas. It involves oil or gas trapped in tiny seams of underground shale. Sometimes a fracking well may produce for years. Other times it’s a matter of weeks or months.</p>
<p>"Though groundwater contamination is often cited as a top concern, surface contamination from spills and improper disposal of waste fluids likely carries the greatest risk for harmful water-quality impacts, due to proximity to potable water resources, according to the geology/hydrogeology report written by Brian Ellis, assistant professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.</p>
<p>When a well is fracked, the fluid is injected into rock formations to create cracks and to prop them open. Of the total volume of hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into a well, amounts varying from 10 percent to 70 percent may return to the surface as “flowback water” after the pressure is reduced and gas or oil begin to flow toward the wellhead."</p>
<p>Interesting that the UofM article only addresses negative effects on public health and economics. My parents own 200 acres of the Marcellus Shale gas deposits in upstate NY. Their deposits have been tested but no production has commenced. The drilling company is pulling out of their town due to the delays imposed by NYS. It’s just easier to go elsewhere. My parents know plenty of people whose gas has been extracted in NY (before the halt) and northern PA, and their small towns have benefited tremendously. The economies exploded, jobs exploded (both skilled and less-skilled, such as hospitality, restaurants, grocery/retail, etc.) and sales tax revenue went way, way up. Extra wear and tear on their two-lane roads is not a problem.</p>
<p>The DOE is compiling a new study, specifically about whether there has been any contamination in the Marcellus Shale areas of NY and PA. The results are due out in a few months, but so far they have not found anything problematic. </p>