Jump to content

Recommended Posts

for a while I've posted here and there info about fracking methane math, but no one responded to confirm it or debunk it as prime trigger on the global warming ... So I would appreciate any comment about the notion How Soon Is Now around the tipping point in this respect ...


https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/stop-fracking-is-biden-aware.127418/
 

  • not that usA and the science community are not aware of this problem, but any scientific alarm is cleverly silenced, almost as sedated patient that dont need to stir the masses, at least on the amount of vented fracking risks all the usA response looks like that to me i.e. still we dont have all the data, we will see, satellites till now didnt covered this issue blah etc. alike excuses, but actually they dont care, now they are too big too fail as independent from the foreign fossil oil, for them fracking is dream come true as economic and energetic resilience, but for the world is ticking time bomb for free from glaciers world!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

for a while I've posted here and there info about fracking methane math, but no one responded to confirm it or debunk it as prime trigger on the global warming ...

Can you post it here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

for a while I've posted here and there info about fracking methane math, but no one responded to confirm it or debunk it as prime trigger on the global warming ... So I would appreciate any comment about the notion How Soon Is Now around the tipping point in this respect ...


https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/stop-fracking-is-biden-aware.127418/
 

  • not that usA and the science community are not aware of this problem, but any scientific alarm is cleverly silenced, almost as sedated patient that dont need to stir the masses, at least on the amount of vented fracking risks all the usA response looks like that to me i.e. still we dont have all the data, we will see, satellites till now didnt covered this issue blah etc. alike excuses, but actually they dont care, now they are too big too fail as independent from the foreign fossil oil, for them fracking is dream come true as economic and energetic resilience, but for the world is ticking time bomb for free from glaciers world!

 

 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you post it here?

 

If you do decide to post here please make it more coherent and cogent than the stuff in your link or your opening post here in this thread.

Remember Trump has gone and we don't know what Biden will do, but neither is a scientist so decide whether you wish to discuss the olitics or science of the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

first I'll would like to check the math, then to ask if this is true then we have huge instant problem so what would be the appropriate way for action!? in the second post in DTT thread the video sums it up that the peak methane emissions are due to fracking, so is it possible anything to be reverted in time!? so there should be quick as scientific so as political action!

 

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you post it here?

here is the math from eupedia

Quote

maybe this next math is not precise but gives perspective How Soon Is Now!

approximately one fracking usA region leaks 500k tones methane annually


x

20 smaller or larger regions

=

10 million tones methane leakage just from usA annually
but where are the others shalers!? [1][1]
so that would be 20 to 30 million tones leaked methane globally
which is double than the current Arctic release of 17m tones annually ...

 

Edited by Axion
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

first I'll would like to check the math, then to ask if this is true then we have huge instant problem so what would be the appropriate way for action!? in the second post in DTT thread the video sums it up that the peak methane emissions are due to fracking, so is it possible anything to be reverted in time!? so there should be quick as scientific so as political action!

 

here is the math from eupedia

500k tonnes is about 1/1000 of total methane, which is estimated at >500 million tonnes

https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020

That would mean it’s not a major contributor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2021 at 4:10 PM, swansont said:

That would mean it’s not a major contributor.

 

yes as official estimate of fracking leakage, but defacto the same is underreported extra, even the measurements are late ...

anyway Please explain this comparison of exponential rise between fracking boom and natural emissions ...

 

https://youtu.be/62VXwjT-csQ?t=309

 

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

I gather you don't want to discuss with me but have you compared the actual values of methane release due to the US fracking with the tundra release values ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

 

because the 5 posts per day limit I'll point to You through this edit ... yes I've compared them through the last link in the eupedia quoted post i.e. this link

 

Quote

 

Edited by Axion
unsufficient post so I can point that I considered the Studiot question
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gather you don't want to discuss with me but have you compared the actual values of methane release due to the US fracking with the tundra release values ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

34 minutes ago, Axion said:

because the 5 posts per day limit I'll point to You through this edit ... yes I've compared them through the last link in the eupedia quoted post i.e. this link

The 5 posts only applies to your first 24 hours.

This is done to prevent the inbox here filling up with multiple spam posts like you see on some sites and is a small inconvenience compared to deplorable state some forums are in.

🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axion said:

 

yes as official estimate of fracking leakage, but defacto the same is underreported extra, even the measurements are late ...

I can’t parse this. “the same is underreported extra”?

It sounded like you couldn’t find information. Now you’re arguing against the information?

 

1 hour ago, Axion said:

anyway Please explain this comparison of exponential rise between fracking boom and natural emissions ...

 

https://youtu.be/62VXwjT-csQ?t=309

 

Youtube isn’t really scientific literature, and just posting a video link is insufficient. Can you just post the info here? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swansont said:

I can’t parse this. “the same is underreported extra”?

It sounded like you couldn’t find information. Now you’re arguing against the information?

 

Youtube isn’t really scientific literature, and just posting a video link is insufficient. Can you just post the info here? 

I'm tempted to say "Fracking Hell"...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm tempted to say "Fracking Hell"...

You've been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.

🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 12:51 PM, Axion said:

for a while I've posted here and there info about fracking methane math, but no one responded to confirm it or debunk it as prime trigger on the global warming ...

It is easy to dismiss it as "prime trigger of global warming". 

Anthropogenic methane emissions worldwide in 2019 was 363 mln tons. 33% of it was coal, oil and gas production, distribution and usage. USA had 6.2% share of methane emissions in 2012. In 1970 it was over 11%. (in absolute numbers it also dropped). See table in below article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions

Coal, oil and gas industry by themselves should be the most interested in methods limiting leakage of methane because they simply can't sell leaked product to end customers and lose money.

If entire US would stop coal, oil and gas production and usage (regardless of whether it is using fracking or not), methane emissions worldwide would drop only by 2%.

Attempt to fight with anthropogenic global warming is job of entire worldwide population, not just one country, or group of countries. 

Personally I think attempt to fight with it by taxation is silly and instead of solving existing problems, it makes new ones, economical e.g. movement of investors to countries without this silly CO2 emission tax. Which ends up with people being fired (unhappy and rejecting AGW), production unprofitable, reduction of country export (higher costs of production) etc. etc.

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you quantify the leakage? You’ve given production. As Sensei notes, they would want to minimize this.

What’s the conversion of cubic feet, given in one post, to tonnes, given in another?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

 

look the table it says 65 mln tones are vented by fracking , with note  bellow "An additional 100 million tons (140 billion cubic meters) of gas is vented and flared each year from oil wells" as I know compared to my last post charts oil was extracted en'masse even in '70s but still the methane emissions were low, and obviously its all due to the fracking, also this would apply for coal extraction too even farming, they are just estimates not real monitoring ...

my point is simple fracking is big risk, correct measurements still not in place, or hidden from the public eye, still we are again focused on the co2 hype instead to be engaged immediately on the methane math ...

1335591527_Screenshot_2021-03-07Methaneemissions.png.e26dcdb8005a32cdbddf381e7a586a21.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Axion said:


look the table it says 65 mln tones are vented by fracking , with note  bellow "An additional 100 million tons (140 billion cubic meters) of gas is vented and flared each year from oil wells"

 

 I don’t see fracking listed, or 65 mln tonnes.

But 65 << 363

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, swansont said:

What’s the conversion of cubic feet, given in one post, to tonnes, given in another?

100 million tons (140 billion cubic meters)

 

Quote

You’ve given production. As Sensei notes, they would want to minimize this.

no, I was pointing to venting in the proposed math,  guessed just by the official info on the North Texas’ Barnett Shale region that leaked 544,000 tons of methane a year, and multiplied with the rest 20 shalegas regions in usA, what would be 10 mln tones leaked methane ... altho what I think is skewed statistic if we consider the correlation maps above ...

anyway this is global problem not just usA alone, and fracking should be forbidden instantly in whole world, landfills also could be managed with incineration, and animal releases through burning where indoor breeding is norm, then the biggest problem would stay in the agriculture manure but all that think is neglectful in comparison to the fracking leakage ...

 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see fracking listed, or 65 mln tonnes.

But 65 << 363

 

its hidden as oil well extraction, thats the irony, on top of that we are talking here just about estimations not proper measurement, thats why I say all official math is skewed again compare the correlation maps above ...

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see fracking listed, or 65 mln tonnes.

my mistake 39* mln tones dont know how 65 came inbetween ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you against shale gas and fracking technology only? Or against drilling tradidional way natural gas too?

In your posts you are mixing them. 39 mln tones worldwide is leakage from both technologies. Fracking is minority of worldwide production of gas. Contrary to US were it is dominant technology. (People in US are often forgetting that World is not only US..) Decide if you want to talk about US or World. Don't mix World data with US data.

Keywords for search engine "natural gas market share" "shale gas market share".

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=27512

 

main.png

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Are you against shale gas and fracking technology only? Or against drilling tradidional way natural gas too?

if we compare the methane emissions peak after 2008 its obvious that the fracking is the main culprit, everything else was present as threat earlier, btw in usA is fracked only half of the current world wide fracking, even Russia is in deal with us-companies for fracking [1] so all should find substitute immediately, but this is almost illusionary idea, even more if we know that there are no quick solutions at hand ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sensei said:

(People in US are often forgetting that World is not only US..) Decide if you want to talk about US or World. Don't mix World data with US data.

Good advice in all threads.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Axion said:

if we compare the methane emissions peak after 2008 its obvious that the fracking is the main culprit

That's not a scientific argument.

Also, you have asked two distinct questions: 

1. Is fracking a major contributor to methane emissions? Not by anything you've posted. Seems to be no.

2. Is fracking a major contributor to methane's contributions to global warming? Contribute? Yes. Major? Again, not by anything you've posted. Methane contributes about 10% to greenhouse warming, and in the US, methane emissions are going down. Any US contribution from fracking appears to be compensated by other reductions

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane

15 hours ago, Axion said:

 its hidden as oil well extraction, thats the irony, on top of that we are talking here just about estimations not proper measurement, thats why I say all official math is skewed again compare the correlation maps above ... 

No, it's not. If you click on that link, it does not mention fracking at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not a scientific argument.

yes, but also without proper data from proper measures we cant say that the current assumptions about the antropogenic methane emissions are correct, they are just estimation not factual measurements, even we dont know whether per'se methane is leaking just from the exploitation shafts or it is released through the ground too along the fracking lines ... yes my only evidence is the correlation maps presented above, and it could be seen as relative scientific argument, but if as such is true then we are doomed how the same is overlooked!

 

please deny it, but think Your points are based also on assumptions not facts, until we see true satellite measurements around every fracking field we cant be sure how big is the leakage, anyway if the correlation is true, are You believing that usA will be honest now when energy stability depends on fracking!?

I dont need to speculate further with what-if  scenarios, simply we have real big problem with global warming and the melting of glaciers, that for sure is not due to co2 but methane risks, tho we would need now to find solutions for both so we would stop any eventual permafrost or clathrate methane runaway!

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Axion said:

yes, but also without proper data from proper measures we cant say that the current assumptions about the antropogenic methane emissions are correct, they are just estimation not factual measurements, even we dont know whether per'se methane is leaking just from the exploitation shafts or it is released through the ground too along the fracking lines ... yes my only evidence is the correlation maps presented above, and it could be seen as relative scientific argument, but if as such is true then we are doomed how the same is overlooked!

Such correlation is not a scientific argument. Science requires these be quantified. The rise in methane has to have an actual causal connection to the amount released in fracking, and you have not provided that.

 

 

40 minutes ago, Axion said:

please deny it, but think Your points are based also on assumptions not facts, until we see true satellite measurements around every fracking field we cant be sure how big is the leakage, anyway if the correlation is true, are You believing that usA will be honest now when energy stability depends on fracking!?

Your position is not assumed to be true in the absence of evidence, and appealing to conspiracy does not support your case in any way.

40 minutes ago, Axion said:

I dont need to speculate further with what-if  scenarios, simply we have real big problem with global warming and the melting of glaciers, that for sure is not due to co2 but methane risks, tho we would need now to find solutions for both so we would stop any eventual permafrost or clathrate methane runaway!

No, the best science available tells us that CO2 is more important than methane, even as methane is more potent on a kg-for-kg basis. CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is far longer and, as your graph shows, the concentration is under 2 ppm, while CO2 is over 400 ppm. So there's 200x more CO2, and even with methane being more potent, CO2 has the larger effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.