Interesting article. There is no denying that fracking is good for local economies. It may already be having a large beneficial impact on the national economy. Despite the claims of environmental alarmists, I’m not aware of any significant adverse environmental impact from fracking.
That said, they do have water issues in California. According to the article, it takes as much water to frack a well as to meet the needs of a family of four. Is that a lot? How much oil and gas would they get from that well?
Last I heard, desalinization plants take a lot of energy which could be supplied by nuclear energy. Of course, nuclear energy is anathema to many so-called environmentalists. Are CA’s water problems partially self-inflicted? Maybe they have been ignoring a valid solution for years.
Last I heard, desalinization plants take a lot of energy which could be supplied by nuclear energy.
The US Navy probably has an economical solution to that problem. Unfortunately they aren’t using power that is considered politically correct.
True...but is *clean* water required or can they use sewer runoff,etc? Or,for that matter,can they use sea water?
-— According to the article, it takes as much water to frack a well as to meet the needs of a family of four. Is that a lot? How much oil and gas would they get from that well? -—
It’s hard to know what they mean. Most of the water is reclaimed, but a percentage remains deep underground in the formation, thousands of feet below the water table, where it will stay virtually forever. I don’t know how big that percentage is. It’s the only practical downside to fracking.