Election may bring hard look at oil-gas exemption

The process that is touted has generally been undertaken in far remote locales. The changes in the safe water therefore have been negligible. But the proposed "safe conditions of new technologies are upon sites which are closer to popuplations and water sources,such as aquifers. The process does not account an additional safety level for the conditions of proximity. And it is not generally a "closed end system" but replaces the excess into the ground. These should be accounted for.

Eliot Gould wrote:

The process that is touted has generally been undertaken in far remote locales. The changes in the safe water therefore have been negligible. But the proposed "safe conditions of new technologies are upon sites which are closer to popuplations and water sources,such as aquifers. The process does not account an additional safety level for the conditions of proximity. And it is not generally a "closed end system" but replaces the excess into the ground. These should be accounted for.

I don't understand a thing you just said, but I know the oil companies don't care about your aquifer. Drinking water travels underground from 40 miles away. We've sacrificed San Juan County on the altar of dirty coal, gas, & oil drilling. The name of the game is get it out of the ground as fast and cheap as possible,so I can get back to my mansion in Houston.

"Nearly 70 percent of the nation's natural gas comes from so-called unconventional fields — shale, nonporous rocks and sand — said Marc Smith, executive director of the Denver-based Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States."

Here's an EIA plot:
http://www.prosefights.org/pnmgas/pnmgas.htm#...

New Mexico tech is experimenting liberating natural gas with CO2 injection.

http://www.prosefights.org/coal/coal.htm#nmtc...

thanks bill that was an intersting ramble doen PNM way