[Opinion] Gunning for Eskom? Fracking could solve your problem

ghoti said:
snip
Click to expand...

I've read it, you'd know this since I admit parts of it confuse me, which in a normal conversation leads to an explanation from the person claiming to understand it. But I guess more sarcasm and implying I'm some sort of wimp is easier. :rolleyes: Shame
 
You are being trolled and your ‘buttons’ are being pushed. Fission nuclear power? Fracking? These issues are bound to cause foaming-at-the-mouth. And you fell for it.
 
I am enjoying this thread. Please post further articles here so that we are all on the same page in regards to this discussion. Or be a ****knuckle and don't.
 
Archer said:
I've read it, you'd know this since I admit parts of it confuse me, which in a normal conversation leads to an explanation from the person claiming to understand it.
Click to expand...

Actually, Im going with the scientists conclusion on this. I dont have the technical skills to follow it in detail, so I listen to the conclusion of the team that worked on it. You are the one trying to undermine the results. The scientists have come up with their conclusions, you are the one undermining their research. Onus is on you buddy.

But I guess more sarcasm and implying I'm some sort of wimp is easier. :rolleyes: Shame
Click to expand...

You really need to develop a thicker skin. Like when you roll your "eyes" use the word, "shame" in your attempted pseudo-pity. Doesnt bother me one bit.
 
Last edited:
Archer said:
Not banned in Canada who have done it for 40 years, and still do afaik
Temp ban in Germany until the environmental impact can be determined, they've also fracked for 40 odd years
Dont know about NY
Sweden it was declared economically not viable
Click to expand...

At current oil prices, its no longer viable in many areas. There are already fracking operations which started losing money when oil hit $60. I believe below $40 there isn't a single profitable fracking operation in the US.

Fracking is more expensive than conventional oil wells.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/falling-oil-price-slows-us-fracking.php


Faced with lack of demand and falling prices, any business has three options: carry on regardless; reduce, or suspend production; or lower costs. Saudi Arabia chose option one. This strategy relies on others either going out of business, or suspending operations to reduce supply. The Arabian producers can afford to pick that option because they have the lowest production costs among all oil producers. According to Morgan Stanley Commodity Research, some Middle-Eastern onshore production can break even at $10 per barrel. Others in that region need around $37 per barrel, with the average breakeven point for onshore wells in the Gulf states at around $27 per barrel. US shale oil doesn't start to pay back until it achieves a price of at least $50 per barrel. Current production costs vary between that breakeven point and a price of $80 per barrel.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
zippy said:
At current oil prices, its no longer viable in many areas. There are already fracking operations which started losing money when oil hit $60. I believe below $40 there isn't a single profitable fracking operation in the US.
Click to expand...

The oil price will go up again, but it will take a few years. Nobody likes cheap oil except the consumer, and they don't matter. They definitely found gas in Nieu Bethesda in the 60's, but decided to drill off-shore instead for practicality. Never found oil, but my high school science teacher said that there should be oil inland somewhere. He wouldn't tell us where he thought there should be, probably wanted us to become geologists if we cared about it. Maybe really deep under coal mines?
 
ghoti said:
Actually, Im going with the scientists conclusion on this..
Click to expand...

Problem with this is that there is no single conclusion amongst the scientific community. Not on any subject. The choice becomes an ideological one and not a scientific or an economic one. It then becomes a political choice. Which isnt usually the best one, but we usually get away with it nonetheless.

At the end of the day it will come down to the economics. Oil has been overpriced. Just because there is shale oil, doesnt mean its economically viable. In most places it isn't. Especially now with oil prices lower. Its cheaper for SA to buy oil than invest at this late stage in fracking.

Anyway, the problems at Eskom are management related. If they cant manage the current tech, they will fail with fracking.
 
Last edited:
zippy said:
Problem with this is that there is no single conclusion amongst the scientific community. Not on any subject. The choice becomes an ideological one and not a scientific or an economic one.
Click to expand...
Not really. If there is a male rabbit and 10 scientists say the rabbit is male and one says the rabbit is female. Its not an "ideological conclusion".

It then becomes a political choice. Which isnt usually the best one, but we usually get away with it nonetheless.
Click to expand...

You cant disagree with the theory of gravity just because you belong to the EFF.
 
Last edited:
zippy said:
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=8919
Click to expand...
Lol, thats funny. But the rabbit is male, not a hermaphrodite.

And there is still some debate about the theory of gravity, even outside of the EFF

http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity
Click to expand...
Well if you disagree with gravity feel free to test it by jumping off something high. Hopefully your political affiliation will prevent you from hitting the ground :D
 
ghoti said:
Lol, thats funny. But the rabbit is male, not a hermaphrodite.


Well if you disagree with gravity feel free to test it by jumping off something high. Hopefully your political affiliation will prevent you from hitting the ground :D
Click to expand...

I never said I disagree. I said some scientists disagree :)
 
zippy said:
I never said I disagree. I said some scientists disagree :)
Click to expand...

Yup, which is why we have peer review. The nice thing about science is they should be able to test and repeat the experiments and methods that gave them their results. This is when the guy that said the rabbit was female would be debunked and refuted.

The politicising you are talking about is when you get some politicians who have a strong stance against male rabbits... will only quote from the 1 paper that agrees with them. Even if it has being debunked. And when questioned about why they support the "female rabbit hypothesis" will say, All the politicizing in the world does not change the sex of the rabbit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X