
A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark - tmoretti
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark
======
tokenadult
I seem to be one of the few persons commenting so far who actually lives in
the region and regularly reads local reporting on issues in North Dakota (a
state neighboring my state). Western North Dakota, where the Bakken Shale oil
boom is occurring, is very sparsely populated and historically had minimal
infrastructure. It takes TIME to build pipelines to move the natural gas
brought up by oil drilling operations to natural gas customers. Pipeline
proposals are currently in regulatory review. There isn't even pipeline
infrastructure in place yet for all of the petroleum production in North
Dakota--much of the oil produced there is brought to broader markets in tanker
trucks, and the truck traffic volumes are putting a lot of stress on highway
roadbeds until the highways can be upgraded.

Right now there is a boom economy in western North Dakota, with extremely high
wages, low unemployment, a shortage of single women,

[http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north-
dakota-...](http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north-dakota-oil-
boom-unsettles-gender-balance-some)

and established businesses in the region importing workers from as far away as
Illinois just to keep up normal operations as workers quit to join oil field
crews. There hasn't been time to build infrastructure yet to move away the
natural gas to markets that will pay for the gas--especially because the price
of natural gas all over the United States has crashed because of the huge
increase in production in the last few years. But given time, yes, there will
be infrastructure in place to transport Bakken Shale gas to other markets, and
I'm sure that we here in Minnesota will be as glad to have North Dakotan
natural gas to supplement our nuclear-powered energy grid as we already are to
have North Dakotan petroleum brought in by truck. Once more pipelines are
built, the entire United States energy economy will become more flexible.

Still to be figured out is the economics of converting natural gas
deliquefaction terminals (those cost BILLIONS of dollars and years to build or
convert) along the Gulf Coast into liquefaction terminals, so that the United
States can get into the business of exporting liquified natural gas. It could
happen. North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula used to flare off all of their
natural gas incidentally brought up during petroleum production--there was no
local market for it. It took a long time to develop natural gas liquefaction;
now there is international trade in natural gas that was undreamed of when I
was growing up.

~~~
uvdiv
I think the raw numbers speak for themselves.

The amount of gas being flared in North Dakota is about 150 million cubic feet
per day [0], worth (at $3.95/thousand cubic feet, at the wellhead [1]) $220
million per year.

The amount of oil being sold is 728,000 barrels per day [2], at $95/barrel,
worth $25.3 billion (B) per year.

For the oil producers, this flaring is a financial rounding error (<1%). I
think it's credible that $200M/year of gas, distributed over hundreds of oil
wells, can be unprofitable to recover.

In various metrics: the natural gas flared / oil produced is

* 0.9% of the value ($$$)

* 3.7% of the raw energy (Joules)

* 2.6% of the raw carbon (-> CO2)

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-
environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-
environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-
sky.html?pagewanted=all)

[1] <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm>

[2]
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732429660457817...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324296604578177432510742360.html)

~~~
notatoad
This is a perfect opportunity for government regulation. Tax the waste so that
it becomes something more than a rounding error. Government gets a source of
revenue, get the environmental benefits of increased natural gas use, and it's
not like the oil companies are going to pack up and leave because of a tax,
because the oil isn't going to leave with them.

~~~
uvdiv
_Tax the waste so that it becomes something more than a rounding error._

So what exactly, an arbitrary 1,000% tax just to make it expensive, because of
a subjective emotional reaction that says _this particular_ 3% ineffeciency is
pure evil, where 3% ineffeciencies elsewhere are natural and understandable
engineering compromises?

The incentives are absolutely correct in my view. The "waste" here is
apparently less expensive than the alternative (low-value gas pipelines).
Maybe some peoples' guts say gas flares are an "evil" type of waste, whereas
the human labor spent installing thousands of miles of unproductive pipelines
is a "good" waste. I hope those peoples' guts aren't put in decision-making
positions.

~~~
dasil003
It's not entirely subjective. I think the underlying reasoning is that
regardless of current prices, gas and oil are non-renewable resources that
should not be wasted.

~~~
maxerickson
The energy content of methane is a lot more interesting than the methane
itself.

It is easy enough to harvest from biological processes and if you really need
it, it can easily be synthesized:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_process>

------
ck2
_every day drillers in North Dakota burn off enough gas to heat half a million
homes_

Oh that will end well. We should definitely let them drill in the arctic.

And note how it's not reducing the cost of gas, it's massively profitable
because gas prices are so high. [1]

So all those "drill baby drill" chants, well there you have it. Prices as high
as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus.

Let taxpayers pay to clean it up in a decade after they've burnt out the
state, simply dissolve the corporation so there is no responsibility, just
like the toxic ash piles the coal industry leaves behind.

1\. <http://i.imgur.com/FFof4.png>

~~~
joshuahedlund
Maybe I'm the ignorant one but are you conflating gas from oil with natural
gas, which actually has been driven to record low prices[1], so much so that
utilities have switched from coal to natural gas at such a fast pace that it
reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by a considerable amount in 2012[2]?
"Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus" may be doubly
wrong.

[1][http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas-
lea...](http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas-leads-to-
record.html)

[2][http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions-
idUSB...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions-
idUSBRE8710CB20120802)

~~~
whyme
You would be correct. Gasoline comes from Oil using a process called cracking
which separates out the heavier components from the lighter ones used to fuel
cars. Natural gas (not from oil) has prices that are still extremely low in
North America.

It's still a tragic waste showing gluttonous consumption. If North America
were to switch cars/homes over to natural gas then they would solve two
problems, 1. Reduce emissions from Oil use 2. Not be so damn wasteful.

------
ssharp
>>> Decades ago, energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below
those farms — so the companies can move in, create drilling pads where they
please, move in trucks and workers, without the farmers' consent...

Huh? Without the farmers consent? When you sell your mineral rights, you're
giving consent. What usually happens is that the gas companies _lease_ your
mineral rights and in that lease agreement are provisions that give the gas
company the right to drill on your property, which includes equipment, trucks,
etc. If the mineral rights were actually _sold_ and not leased, I'd suspect
the contract included writing in easements on the title for access and
equipment.

Since the story is painting sort of a doom and gloom scenario, my guess is
that whoever owned the property "decades ago" either bought the property
without the mineral rights, sold them off, or did a very long-term lease on
them. When this happened, the rights probably weren't very valuable because
fracking technology didn't exist. Now that the land is worth a fortune, it's a
missed opportunity of the farmer. Whatever the case, the owner either
initiated the action or the terms should have come up when the property was
sold.

I live in a part of Ohio that is currently in the early stages of a fracking
"boom". Whether or not it comes to full fruition is unknown but the industry
is certainly developing. I hear lots of stories about people who missed out on
fracking leases because they had leased their mineral rights previously. The
old scenario used to be next to no upfront lease money, a modest royalty, and
free gas if they put a well on your property. When the fracking technology
became available and the shale area was suspected to be ripe with gas, the
whole game changed. Leases were being written that gave in the range of
$800-$5000 per acre up-front, along with longer-term royalties. These were
significantly more valuable than previous leases. I've heard stories of people
missing out on upwards of $1,000,000 in upfront lease money because they
already had leased their property to someone else. Of course, if gas hits on
that land, the up-front money pales in comparison to the long-term royalites.

If I were a farmer, I wouldn't buy land knowing that I didn't own the mineral
rights to it. You're making a bet that nobody will ever come in and claim
those rights, which is unrealistic. If I'm a farmer and I sell of my rights
through sale or lease, I'm making a bet that the sale of the rights or the
lease and subsequent royalties are worth more than the production of my farm.

~~~
nmcfarl
I've been told that in northern New Mexico most of the mineral rights where
sold off long ago, in the 20's and 50's, and sold off pretty comprehensively.
Meaning there are parts of the state you just couldn't live in if you refused
to live on land that no longer had its mineral rights. Also meaning those
people there now where not directly compensated for them, thus have not
thought of the issue. (Presumably, this is priced into the market and land
values are lower, but with real estate pricing being so dynamic people
probably don't consider this either)

\---

It should be noted that my sources are people I vaguely knew about 10 years
ago, who where whinging about oil men. So not reliable. But if true, it makes
a more compelling story for people complaining about oil men. Also it must be
said - oil men are probably going to elicit complaints where ever they move in
as their personalities, and manners, are not, as a rule, refined...

~~~
jensonkko
Something else grandpa did to fuck us over! Fucking asshole.

~~~
jensonkko
I mean that as a legitimate comment! The guy who owns the farm now who is
getting fucked over by the oil companies having mineral rights, was actually
fucked over by his grandfather when he owned the land, selling off the rights.

~~~
eru
The grandfather was under no obligation to leave even the land sans mineral
right to his heirs.

------
scott_s
This is the third time in a week I've heard a story about Williston, ND.

First was Planet Money, "Turning a Boom Town into a Real Town":
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-428-turning-
a-boomtown-into-a-real-town)

Second was an NY Times story about how the overwhelming number of single men
in Williston makes, in the best case, dating difficult, and in the worst case,
has caused an increased in reported sexual assaults: "An Oil Town Where Men
Are Many, and Women are Hounded":
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/16women.html>

And when I searched Google to find the article I read yesterday, I discovered
several stories on Williston from last year:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dako...](http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dakota)

~~~
zecho
The pay at McDonald's in Williston is around $18/hour starting. Kids keep
leaving for the fields, though, because if they have a skill, they can make
twice as much.

It's not without problems, though. Public school teachers in Dickinson are
being bunked in community housing because the rent has skyrocketed. Most
people will building skills aren't building houses, either, so many of these
men working the fields are living in their trucks or in temporary housing or
in RVs at Walmarts.

------
gambiting
This is disgusting.

Next time someone publicly says that we should be careful with fossil fuels
show them this. This a big FUCK YOU EARTH coming from America.

~~~
jusben1369
Is this really disgusting? There's very little context given at any point
during the article. My understanding is there are around 85,000,000 barrels
produced per day globally. Is ND now responsible for 10% more gas being burned
globally? 0.5%? It's great that it shows up at night but there's a reason they
have to circle the thing. It still pales in comparison to the intensity of
Chicago nearby let alone the East Coast or Bay Area.

Fracking worries me and the wild west mentality that shows up whenever there
are quick riches - be it energy, internet stocks or real estate - always leads
to an ugly hangover. I just think it's better to take a step back and wonder
about context vs getting sucked straight to this point.

~~~
ricardobeat
You are comparing a drilling operation by ~150 businesses to cities dozens of
miles large and housing millions of people. It's HUGE.

What if burnt gas is evenly distributed so that no one drill site is burning
more than 0.5%? Who's responsibility is it?

------
ghc
How is it that possessing mineral rights underneath land allows companies to
violate land rights by putting their drilling pads on a farmer's land? And how
did they buy mineral rights underneath someone's land, anyway? The farmers had
to have had some say in such a sale, right?

~~~
arethuza
"energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below those farms"

Presumably someone (the farmers?) sold those rights in the past?

~~~
taejo
In most places mineral rights and land rights are separate. I may own land but
if diamonds are found under it by somebody else, I have no particular right to
extract them. It appears the US may be different though.

~~~
arethuza
But if I start of owning both the land and the mineral rights, surely I can
sell off the mineral rights and continue to "own" and farm the land? It would
seem a surpising legal requirement that the land and the mineral rights always
remain part of the same item.

[NB I come from somewhere with quite remarkable land ownership issues, so
perhaps I'm introducing complexities where they don't exist].

~~~
sageikosa
Usually. It depends on the deed titles you possess, which may preclude such
actions. Also, sometimes they may not be severable based on jurisdiction.

------
davidw
> The few ranchers who lived here produced wheat, alfalfa, oats and corn.

I think "farm" is technically more accurate. Ranchers are the ones with cows
or other animals.

~~~
zecho
It depends on where you are in western ND. Ranching is a big industry there.
Much of the alfalfa and oats are grown to sustain the ranching. The "farms" as
you'd more traditionally think of them are more to the central and eastern
portion of the state, where wheat, soy, canola and some corn is grown. As you
get toward the Red River, you'll find a lot of sugar beets, too.

------
detritus
From the article—

every day drillers in North Dakota "burn off enough gas to heat half a million
homes."

I feel sick.

~~~
tjic
Why?

A trillion times more solar energy lands on the planet every day and is
wasted.

~~~
detritus
I presume you're simply being contrary, but in case it needs pointing out,
that represents huge and highly-avoidable human-caused carbon emissions.

The sun's beat down upon Earth for 4.5Bn years and will hopefully do so for
about the same again.

Short-termism's just sad and puts a knot in my belly.

~~~
pc86
As was said elsewhere in the thread, they are safety fires and the whole
operation would be incredibly dangerous without them.

~~~
detritus
Sure, i get that—but thems're free fuels they be wasting.

That's the only point I think I've tried to get across, from when I was the
first person to comment on this thread...

------
JimmaDaRustla
Fracking scares me. Watched the movie Gasland, makes me depressed.

~~~
deelowe
Is that the same one that shows someone burning gas coming of their faucet,
which was debunked a long time ago as a result of poor well construction (or
was it ground contamination).

~~~
jbooth
I didn't see the movie, and I'm sure it sensationalized things as movies have
to do (matt damon!).

But. You're saying "oh that won't happen unless people screw up". Guess what,
in the real world, people screw up _all the time_. Screwups should be a major
part of the math when people make decisions about fracking.

~~~
rapind
The gas coming out of his faucet apparently had nothing to do with the natural
gas exploration in the area, screw-up or otherwise.

From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland>

"Regarding Mike Markham - In a scene from the film, Weld County landowner Mike
Markham is shown with director Josh Fox igniting gas from a well water faucet
in his home with a cigarette lighter, which the film attributes to natural gas
exploration in the area. In 2008, The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) investigated a complaint made by Markham alleging that
nearby natural gas operations impacted his domestic water well. A Colorado Oil
and Gas Information System (COGIS) report stated that Markham’s water "appears
to be biogenic in origin." The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
uses the origin of the methane, either biogenic or thermogenic, to determine
whether or not the groundwater contamination can be attributed to natural gas
drilling. According to the agency, natural gas drilling does not lead to the
presence of biogenic methane. The 2008 COGIS report concluded that "there
[were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well."
Markham’s water well was drilled through four different coal beds containing
biogenic methane gas."

------
clarky07
I for one am not sick about this at all as others here are. Cutting our energy
dependence by 20% and unemployment under 1% when the nation is at 8%. There
are trade offs in life, and this is a good one. I'm sure they are working on
the infrastructure needed to capture the gas, but its not like that can be
done in a day. Give it time.

~~~
ricardobeat
In a decade the jobs will be gone, the energy will be gone, and you're left
with large areas of f* up land, pollution and health issues. It's not worth it
in the long term.

------
pinaceae
i wonder how this relates to the numbers behind the peak oil predictions?

but, i agree completely that simply burning off excess is amazingly
shortsighted and stupid. they could use the natural gas to power their own
operations, right there. or just the AC for the workers. have their fleet of
vehicles run on it.

it's the same with refineries, driving by you always see the large torches
blazing. why not use this energy for something?

~~~
saryant
Those flares are safety releases. Refineries would be _extraordinarily_
dangerous without them.

~~~
Retric
Not really, you can pipe the same gass to holding tanks. It's just not cost
effective to do so.

~~~
saryant
I'm talking about the flares you see at oil refineries, not drilling sites.
Those are pressure relief valves and are essential safety equipment.

The flares you see on a day-to-day basis are just pilot flames which are
always kept lit in the event a flare is required during an emergency such as
an over-pressurization.

~~~
Retric
The pressure relief values are essential, what happens after that point is a
separate issue. The advantage of Flares is there simple, cheap, can quickly
deal with a lot of gas, and render the gas inert. Holding tanks on the other
hand need a lot of piping, pumping equipment, and then some system to deal
with whatever miscellaneous gas ends up in there. However, if C02 start being
taxed expect to see far fewer flares.

------
zecho
> This time it's corn folks versus oil folks.

Ugh. I'm from North Dakota. That's cattle country out there, primarily, with
soy, wheat and canola as the main crops. City folk don't know their head from
their ass on a farm.

Anyway.

If we're flaring off 29% of our gas, a fairly good reason is that we've got
nowhere to put it and nobody wants to invest in more infrastructure at the
moment because 1) Natural gas (which we've also got in abundance) is meeting
needs at already low prices and 2) The oil development isn't anywhere near
completely built out.

------
pbrumm
Sounds like a nice place for a data center. cold with plenty of cheap natural
gas to power it.

~~~
sageikosa
The burn-offs are probably not reliably schedulable or consistently locatable.
Not all the bright spots in the infrared visualization are "ablaze" with burn-
off flares.

~~~
notatoad
Not consistently locatable? Do you think this is just oil fields catching
fire? The burn offs are a conscious decision to burn off excess, made by the
well operator. All you need to do to locate a burn off is to ask the well
operator to tell you when they are burning.

And as far as scheduling: gas power isn't like wind or solar power. You don't
need to schedule it. All you need to store gas is a big tank.

~~~
sageikosa
No, I have no reason to assume the need to burn off at any particular location
at any particular time is consistently reliable (it may or may not be; I was a
geographer, not a geologist). The decision to make the action may be
conscious, but the timing of the implementation may be reactive to conditions
either with a stochastic build-up, a pocket of gas being hit, or when the
equipment is down for maintenance (the latter of which probably would be
schedulable)

Even if it were schedulable and constitent in quantity, the catchment area is
fairly wide and would require considerable infrastructure to gather, which the
oil companies were not geared to do to begin with (they were going for
petroleum, not methane). From what another local poster mentioned, there are
plans in the works to capture some of that methane, but they require studies,
licenses, etc. etc.

------
JumpCrisscross
If one could get the gas from the flare towers to a combined cycle natural gas
reactor for under 0.9 cents per cubic foot, or, about $170 per well per annum,
there could be room for a small profit ($900k/year less operating costs). Note
that I assumed you're paying the well owner market price for the natural gas
they're presently flaring off, a conservative assumption.

Gas flared per annum (MM cubic feet) = 150 [1]; 100 cubic ft gas in MWh =
0.0302 [2]; »Natural gas flared (MWh) = 45,300

Plant efficiency = 61% [3]; »Available energy (MWh) per annum = 27,633

North Dakota electricity price (kWh) = $0.0681 [4]; Value of available energy
($ million) = $1.882 [5]; »Value per cubic foot gas = $0.0125

Market price of gas ($/MMBTU) = 3.48 [6]; BTU/cubic foot natural gas = 1020
[7]; »Market cost of gas ($ million) = $0.532

Excess value of gas in fields = $1.349; »Excess value per cubic foot gas =
$0.0090

Number of wells = 8,000 [8]; Mean gas per annum per well (cubic ft.) = 18,750;
»Expected excess value per well per annum = $168.67

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073583>

[2]
[http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natur...](http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natural+gas/to/megawatt+hour)

[3] [http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power-
plants...](http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power-plants-like-
jet-engines/)

[4] [http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state-
regs/pdf/Nor...](http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state-
regs/pdf/North%20Dakota.pdf)

[5] Expected revenues per annum if you burnt all the gas flaredin Bakken &
Three Forks in a combined cycle reactor

[6] <http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/>

[7] <http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1038451235.htm>

[8]
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370750457701...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577010463934234498.html)

------
jere
I keep hearing about ND all the time. I bet there are some business
opportunities there, but I have no idea what they are.

~~~
LargeWu
Most business opportunities there are currently severely constrained by an
insufficient supply of labor and housing. Fast food jobs pay $15/hr. I've
heard Menard's (a Home Depot-like chain in the midwest) flys people in from
Texas for a week at a time to work at their retail stores because they can't
find any local help.

~~~
berberich
It's actually Wisconsin (where the Mendard's headquarters is[1]), not Texas,
but I don't think that affects your point.

Walmart is paying $17/hour, too. With unemployment below 1%, it's going to
take awhile before labor supply and demand fall into equilibrium.

[1]: [http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of-
liv...](http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of-living-in-an-
oil-boom-town)

------
mmphosis
Pan north into Canada. I believe that northern-most bright dot is the tarsands
in Fort McMurray.

[http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60...](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60f3c09fb_o.jpg)

~~~
bct
It is. The two joined dots just east of the mountains are Edmonton and
Calgary.

------
mncolinlee
If the gas is simply being flared, wouldn't it be more profitable to bring in
some large gas turbines (converted 747 engines would work) and generate power
to sell to the grid and neighboring states until pipelines are ready?

If transport is likely to be a recurring problem, it seems obvious that an
entrepreneur could step in and arbitrage the price gap between energy and the
glut of natural gas in the region by generating power and upgrading power
lines.

Even when more natural gas production goes to pipelines, those power lines
could later be used to transport North Dakota's wind power.

------
missing_cipher
Not very mysterious.

------
jakozaur
Shouldn't it be forced to store gas for future use instead if burning it?
Underground storage wouldn't be that expensive and we will probably need that
gas at profitable prices in the next 20 years.

~~~
sageikosa
Between releasing CO2 (a by-product of the burn) and releasing methane, CO2 is
consindered the lesser of the two waste gases. Underground storage would be
expensive, volatile gas stored anywhere is a potential liability waiting to
happen, especially in areas where there is fuel being moved about. Since the
companies have extraction rights, they may also lack the legal capacity to
build storage facilities.

------
Schwolop
A closely related thing is happening in the Western Australian desert:
[http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the-
Weste...](http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the-Western-
Australian-desert-to-have-all-these-lights-so-visible)

Mining companies operate 24hrs a day with huge lighting rigs illuminating the
pits. One of the motivating reasons for the automation work I did for Rio
Tinto was that autonomous trucks can drive perfectly happily in the dark,
saving a fortune in energy bills.

------
tocomment
Speaking of mineral rights, if say a barn is right over where the company
needs to drill, will the pay the farmer for the barn?

~~~
vacri
Oil wells don't have to be plumb:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drilling>

~~~
feintruled
"I drink your milkshake!"

------
malbs
The video shows Australia. Particularly curious to me was the abundance of
light in Western Australia, given a lot of it is unpopulated (sure a bit is
mining operations).

Turns out it's bush fires.

------
tjic
From the article:

> to a disturbing degree

I dislike it when government-run media tries to tell me what to think about
something.

~~~
alex-g
NPR is not run by the government, though it is partially supported by
government grants. It's not Voice of America.

------
tnvaught
The Eagle Ford formation is similarly lit up in an arc south of San Antonio,
TX. Cool stuff.

------
genuine
Good for ND. At least they are providing jobs.

------
madaxe
Fracking is a topic fraught with controversy, and the issues are indeed
complicated.

If by fracking you're talking about that wonderful process that extracts that
bountiful nectar of progress deep from within our mother earth, creating jobs,
building commerce and bringing warmth into our family homes, I'm all in favour
of it.

If by fracking you mean the systematic destruction of our ecosystem, and the
wanton waste of our precious resources, while causing earthquakes and the
toxification of the water table, then I oppose it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be strong, and hold our opinions close to our
hearts, for the future is in _our_ hands.

~~~
biot
Recycling old stories, turning them into memes, and posting in other stories
for the lulz... I thought this was HN, not Reddit.

~~~
madaxe
Not "doing a meme", making a point. There _are_ arguments for fracking from
both sides - unfortunately the pro side takes a very short term view, and the
con side takes a long term view.

The length of politicians' terms fundamentally shape the direction policy
takes, along with the fact that, whether it's conscious or not, there's the
"well, I'll be dead by then" phenomenon.

It turned into if-by-whiskey as I wrote it. There's a difference between
lolcats and discourse.

~~~
biot
For this reader, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. There are
arguments on both sides about everything, but there's no value in posting an
if-by-prosecution on every Aaron Swartz story. To me, your original post reads
as:

    
    
      [generic topic statement]
      [endorsement via obvious positive traits]
      [condemnation via obvious negative traits]
      [trite conclusion]
    

I fail to see how this format furthers discourse since there was nothing
clever in its use; it's essentially a search and replace of whiskey terms with
fracking terms. What you've said above about long and short term views and how
this shapes policies introduced by politicians is what you should have written
in the first place. _That_ is interesting and encourages discussion.

------
martinced
No need to go on the space station or in suborbital flights: you can see them
from regular commercial planes and the first time you experience it it's a bit
frightening, because supposedly most people do not know what's going on.

You can see the same while flying over Russia for example.

If there are clouds you see lights at night illuminating the clouds from below
and it is really impressive.

------
wissler
This will make your grandchildren happy with you:

"When oil comes to the surface, it often brings natural gas with it, and
according to North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources, 29 percent of the
natural gas now extracted in North Dakota isn't captured. Gas isn't as
profitable as oil, and the energy companies don't always build the pipes or
systems to carry it off. For a year (with extensions), North Dakota allows
drillers to burn gas, just let it flare. There are now so many gas wells
burning fires in the North Dakota night, the fracking fields can be seen from
deep space."

------
speculate1
Is it a UFO?

~~~
Tloewald
If F stands for "fracking" and U for "unregulated" then yes.

~~~
runarb
Unregulated Fracking Operations :)

