Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Hydraulic fracturing’

Vortex Tools shares how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) halted their probe linking fracking to groundwater contamination, and what this means in the grand scheme of politics and energy development.

*For the basic pro and against viewpoints of the practice (with some added insight to the pro-fracking stance) see hereFor commentary on how difficult it is to get a neutral view of fracking, see here.

At the end of 2011, the EPA released a report linking fracking to groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming. They stated that the chemicals found in the drinking water were, a) above safe and acceptable standards for drinking water; and b) consistent with fracking chemicals. Although many people already had opinions on the practice, this marked the first time the government had linked fracking to groundwater contamination.

The anti-fracking crowd viewed this report as conformation of the obvious—that you can’t “damage” formations without consequence. The pro-fracking crowd—including oil and gas companies like EnCana: the company accused of groundwater contamination in Pavilion, WY—viewed it as a premature statement with negative consequences to the energy industry. Both sides felt like there needed to be more investigation to confirm the results, because it may be nuts that you can set your tap water on fire, but just because an oil and gas company is drilling nearby, that doesn’t automatically mean that they’re to blame.

By Zarateman (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

I don’t speak the language, but this *might* just be an anti-fracking poster… Dotting the i with a skull is a bit of a giveaway

At the time, the EPA stated that it would continue their investigation to conclusively link fracking to groundwater contamination. As of October 2012, the EPA stated that another round of tests had turned up similar results. However, this week, the EPA announced that it’s dropping their investigation to have independent scientists confirm the link between the two.

So… what happened?

Well, I guess that depends on who you ask. Someone like EnCana would view the EPA dropping their case as a victory, noting that the EPA is essentially stopped their investigation to prove the tie between fracking and groundwater contamination because they can’t. As for the EPA’s prior findings? EnCana says, “the EPA’s results were based on faulty testing.”

Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for the American Petroleum Institute, said, the “EPA has to do a better job, because another fatally flawed water study could have a big impact on how the nation develops its massive energy resources.” Many would argue that the damage from the 2011 report has already been done.

The EPA, of course, says otherwise. According to EPA spokesman, Tom Reynolds, “We stand behind our work and the data, but EPA recognizes the state’s commitment to further investigation.” Others would argue that there are more important things to do with the federal budget at this time. The EPA has stated that they reserve the right to open back up their investigation at any time, even if, you know, they won’t (unless it’s politically advantageous at the time).

Part of the problem was that the EPA couldn’t find expert peer reviewers for their report. The Federal Register announced that reviewers, “needed to be free from the appearance of any conflict of interest and have the necessary expertise to review the findings.”

Free from conflict of interest… in regards to fracking… Right…

Not surprisingly, the public comments period got extended three times, and they still didn’t get what they needed.

So… what now?

The EPA is allowing Wyoming to continue their investigation and at least one side of the debate won’t believe the “independent” results—whatever they are.

In a joint statement, the state and the EPA announced that they do not “plan to rely upon the conclusions” of the EPA studies. With the EPA (formerly) heading up the investigation, no one would’ve been surprised if fracking and groundwater contamination came out linked. Now that a (largely) pro oil and gas state is heading up the investigation—with EnCana putting in a $1.5 million grant to help the process along—no one will be surprised when the new conclusions go the opposite way of what the EPA found.

Regardless of whether most people have already made their decision on the value of fracking, there are laws being made based on what government and independent testing have to say. A state like Vermont, who jumped to be the first state to ban fracking in 2012, doesn’t count. Many viewed it as a political move, as they hardly have any fracking applications to ban in the first place.

And really, that’s what most of this is: The movement of political weight. It isn’t one political party or the other. It’s all of the above. 

Don’t believe me? I’ll remind you that an EPA representative recently called to “crucify” the oil and gas industry right as a pro-oil and gas Congressman said that, “We need to cut the legs off the EPA.” Call me crazy, but I call the (metaphorical) threats of death and limb removal, even to entities, to mean that the debate isn’t going to be fair.

While I figured that it wouldn’t take the current political administration long to come against the oil and gas industry, it came quicker than I thought, as the Obama administration announced to reduce the amount of federal land designated for oil shale development by two-thirds.

Personally, I translate that as, “Okay, oil and gas industry, we’ve still got the perception war won for now. You’ve currently taken the data war in regards to fracking, but we’re going to limit your pursuit of that energy resource anyway.” More on that next time.

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the VP of Marketing for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools explains why, with fuel costs and slim profit margins, the airline industry is one of the likeliest to not go green.

By Flickr user Axwel [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsI’ve mouthed off a lot about airlines lately (see here and here). Maybe it’s just that I’m experiencing their joys and troubles more often from traveling. For instance, the fact that a plane can leave the gate, then stall on the runway while luggage gets loaded on late, while still allowing the airline to check the box for an “on time” departure is indicative of the level of meaningless standards.

But here’s my bent today: I realized a while ago that the airline industry has no motivation to go green.

Many environmentalists don’t like oil and gas, but there are motivations to keep the industry cleaner. In the event of an oil spill, there are fines, cleanup costs, public relations pains, etc. In the event of too many CO2 emissions from the wellhead, the producer gets fined until they’re in compliance with air laws. Additionally, regulations keep changing—usually in a way that’s stricter on oil and gas pollution. Flaring gas is continuing to get scaled back and I doubt fracking will make it, in its current form, through another 10 years.

Vortex vapor recovery tool

Vortex vapor recovery tool

In working in the oil and gas sector—using Vortex Tools to vastly reduce CO2 emissions and to recover 10 times more valuable natural gas liquids to make a profit while burning a cleaner flare—I can tell you that all of these aspects equate to motivation to make a dirty industry cleaner.

But airlines don’t really have this kind of motivation.

Like any other industry, they can spin their efforts as green, but it’s about intent and application. Everything the airlines do is to get planes in the air with less cost. The biggest obstacle to this is the price of fuel. While they can’t control the cost of the commodity, they can control the weight they’re putting on the plane. You may be familiar with examples of airlines using lighter seats, thinner and lighter magazines, and not serving food on shorter flights.

(The exception to all these rules is if you pay a premium—for larger seats, for extra luggage, for food on the short ride.)

Then there are some uglier examples of controlling weight. While we’re seeing people get dinged for their bag being overweight, we’re also seeing examples of people getting dinged for they themselves being overweight. I get it logistically—I’m a small man and the airline experience gets me way too familiar with the odors and feel of the people around me—but you can see how this can get cruel quick. I’ve got some larger friends who understand that they need to buy a first class ticket if they want to fly comfortably, but what happens when you put these kinds of requirements on say, an obese kid?

In addition, the cynical part of me is waiting to hear some secret audio from a worldwide airline executive complaining about how fat Americans are ruining profit margins. In the mean time, Samoa Air has already introduced a “pay what you weigh” model.

During the Cleantech Open, I met a company, Molon Labe, who made a sliding airline seat. The value of this is that you could load / unload the plane faster (slide over the middle seat on your side and go), get a faster turnaround (using energy in the air instead of wasting it on the ground), and, according to them, saving airlines $75,000 a day in fuel costs (not sure how many planes would need to install their seats to get that number, but it’s still significant).

As the Cleantech Open had a large sustainability component, Molon Labe’s argument was that this kind of efficiency could allow a plane to have more flights in a day, allowing airlines to remove planes from their fleet entirely. In theory, less planes = less energy use = less environmental impact, but from what I’ve seen of this industry, less energy use + greater flight turnaround = more flights in a day. More flights in a day = more environmental impact, and, if it makes sense and the profit margin is good enough, more planes in the fleet.

It’s a reality that rarely gets pushed back on companies touting green, but more efficiency does not always equal greater sustainability.

In the end, regardless of what I think of certain airline practices, I know it’s a tough industry. The profit margins are surprisingly slim and most airline companies go bankrupt at some point. As comedian Louis CK noted, it is amazing that we can sit in chairs and fly through the sky to the other side of the world (see 2:00 on — yes, the clip is in English):

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the VP of Marketing for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools looks at the implications of Vermont being the first state to ban the controversial hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process, even if they don’t have much fracking activity to ban in the first place.

By User:Denelson83 (Own work: from the xrmap flag collection 2.7) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsOn May 16th, 2012, Vermont became the first state to ban fracking (the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and 0.5% chemicals to fracture/crack shale rock to release valuable oil and gas production).

While other states worked to better regulate the controversial practice (Wyoming was one of the first states to disclose fracking chemical contents and Colorado ruled to make public all fracking chemical contents, even those considered trade secrets), Vermont has banned fracking outright, citing potential injuries and the need for safety. The law also bans the importation/storage of associated wastewater.

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin stated, “This bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy.” He continued, “The science on fracking is uncertain at best.”

Despite the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reporting that fracking might cause groundwater contamination (both before and after their official 2012 report came out), critics stated the report was flawed. Regardless of what vocal members of both sides of the debate say, evidence for the flaws of fracking is, thus far, inconclusive.

The debate on fracking is rarely neutral, and Governor Shumlin’s stance is pretty clear when he’s stated his hopes that other states will join Vermont in the ban. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry continues to dispute the allegations of the scientific flaws of fracking (see here for more on the pro-fracking stance). In addition, the American Petroleum Institute (API) already wrote to Governor Shumlin, stating that Vermont’s bill may be subject to constitutional challenge.

Here’s the main problem: Vermont doesn’t have much shale rock to frack in the first place, so they’ve banned a practice that doesn’t really affect them. It’d be like a land-locked state passing a law that affects how people treat the ocean. Even if it’s right, it still winds up feeling more political than anything else.

As the face of fracking continues to change in 2012, there are actually applicable states that could be swayed by Vermont’s decision. Upstate New York  has a lot of shale rock, and while there’s already a moratorium on fracking there, environmentalists are pushing for an outright ban, In the end, while Vermont may be the first state to ban fracking, we’re still waiting to see which state will be the first meaningful one to enforce the ban.

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools shares the general breakdown of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) fluid.

I hear this question a lot: What is fracking fluid made of?

EnergyFromShale.org answers here (PDF warning):

http://www.energyfromshale.org/sites/default/files/Typical-Shale-Fracturing-Mixture-Makeup.pdf

Although 99.5% of fracking fluid is water and sand, many fracking fluid companies did not want to divulge their trade secret formulas when the outcry over fracking got louder. While that remaining 0.5% is not broken down in percentages, there’s clearly an intent to tie these additives to everyday household items like guar gum in ice cream and isopropanol (rubbing alcohol) in deodorant. Just make sure you don’t get those the wrong way round — nobody likes arm pit ice cream.

Something tells me this info won’t sway the environmental crowd, because  regardless of the chemical makeup, the process itself has still come under a lot of fire. Environmentalists contend that fracking chemicals are responsible for groundwater contamination, and that given the way water naturally flows to the path of least resistance, the veins created by the force of fracking not only provide routes for contamination, but fundamentally damage the rock structure, causing even more problems (some argue earthquakes). Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry believes that the science behind fracking is sound, and when enacted properly, no groundwater contamination occurs, as the fracking veins don’t spread anywhere near water. They also contend that many of the pollutants blamed on fracking chemicals are actually naturally occurring.

*             *             *

Related articles:

Fracking in 2012

Wherefore Art Thou, Neutral Fracking Definition?

Delving Into the Pro Fracking Stance

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools follow-up article: After last week’s firestorm over a 2010 video where he called to “crucify” the oil and gas industry, EPA official Al Armendariz turned in his resignation on April 30th, 2012.

In my last post, I covered the heated comments between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the oil & gas industry in April 2012. These include Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher‘s 4/5 comments that “We must cut the EPA’s legs off”; the EPA’s 4/18 air pollution ruling for fracking wells; and, of course,  the release of Al Armendariz’ self-admitted “crude” 2010 example of how, like the Romans crucifying the first five people they saw in a new town, the EPA needed to flex its power to get the oil & gas industry to commit to better practices.

My closing comment was: “Well, April’s not over yet. Maybe we’ll have a few more heated comments between the EPA and the oil & gas industry before the month is out.”

Today, the last day of April, the news came in: EPA official Al Armendariz has resigned.

In his resignation letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Armendariz noted that his resignation stems from not wanting to be a distraction to the EPA’s goals: “I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work.”

From there, his comments and the reactions are standard:

  • Armendariz stated that his comments “do not in any way reflect (his) work as regional administrator.”
  • The EPA and the Obama administration continue to state that Armendariz’ opinions do not represent the views of the EPA or the White House.
  • Many Republicans and oil & gas sector supporters believe that Armendariz — appointed by President Obama in April 2009 — does reflect the views of the EPA and the White House (namely to unfairly target the oil & gas industry).
  • The EPA has declared that the Armendariz scandal will not deter them from their practices.
  • Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has declared that Armendariz’ resignation will not stop his investigation into the EPA’s policies.

So really, it’s the same old story: One side tries to pin the scandal on a lone fall guy while the other tries to take the comments of that one person as the standard for an entire organization. The truth is probably somewhere midway, but hey, this is politics. Who needs the truth when you can further your agenda?

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools comments on EPA administrator Al Armendariz’s analogy on the need to “crucify” the oil & gas industry, and the war of words from both sides in April 2012.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ADisused_Industrial_Building%2C_Off_Pasture_lane_-_geograph.org.uk_-_101328.jpg

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the oil & gas industry don’t get along. It’s one of those power-struggle relationships that shifts depending on whichever political party is in power — the EPA usually grows under a Democrat-controlled government, the oil & gas industry under a Republican-controlled government — but generally speaking, the two try to not say anything too overt against the other side.

Lately, however, that hasn’t been the case.

Ring the bell.

On April 5th, Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN) declared,  “We must cut the EPA’s legs off.”

While I think the EPA, like many regulatory government agencies, has unfortunate biases and agendas, there’s still a need for them; so in my grace, I will state that they should indeed still have legs (how nice of me).

Rep. Fincher, however, clarified his comment farther: “I hate to say that because it sounds rotten, but they are choking this country to death with legislating through the bureaucracy in Washington. I mean, we have fought dust legislation; we have fought water. You name it — it is something every day from the Environmental Protection Agency, and every group I talk to has the same message: ‘Please stop them.’ “

Then, on April 18th, the EPA issued air pollution rules for fracking wells. The rules state that oil & gas companies can flare (or burn off) the gas for now, but by 2015, that option will be gone. Instead, the oil & gas industry will be required to collect the gas. As a result, this will require pipelines and other equipment that, for many companies, is considered a hassle now.

Considering the environmental impact and energy value of the gas (plus the financial/energy value of the liquids in rich gas), this regulation against flaring is long overdue, but then again, Vortex Tools has been opposed to flaring gas rich with natural gas liquids (NGLs) for a long time, especially since these NGLs are valuable and Vortex makes them easy to recover.

Despite what many perceive to be a healthy step for energy efficiency, many in the oil & gas industry believe that the EPA will not stop regulating until fracking is banned. (This is, of course, exactly what environmentalists want.) This latest regulation isn’t the first step to that marker, and it’s unlikely to be the last.

And here we are today — April 26th, 2012 — where news broke on a video clip from 2010. In the video, top EPA official, Region Six Administrator Al Armendariz used the example of crucifixion to explain the EPA’s enforcement methods on the oil & gas industry:

The highlights:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere; they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are, in this case, not compliant with the law — find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there. And companies that are smart see that, they don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people. So you go out, you look at an industry, you find people violating the law, (and) you go aggressively after them.”

I’ll give Armendariz credit: He at least knew then that his analogy was “crude” and “not appropriate” (which laid the groundwork for his apology yesterday… two years after the fact). Past that, however, he should probably know that examples on ruthlessly torturing and murdering people to establish your power might not go over well.  Plus, apparently that Jesus fella changed how Christians, a large part of the population, will respond to casual crucifixion examples (even if they are historically accurate).

Since the fracking debate is especially heated this year, it’s no surprise that both sides are digging up questionable content from the past. Also in the obvious box, the Armenadiz video prompted the following obvious responses:

  1. The EPA defended its enforcement strategy;
  2. The White House issued a statement that Armendariz’ remarks do not reflect President Obama’s view; and
  3. Some Republicans are angry and again believe that the EPA needs to be shut down.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced he is launching an investigation into the EPA’s tactics. He believes the EPA intends to incite fear in the public with unfounded intimidation methods. He also believes the EPA forcefully and unfairly shuts down companies. “My point is, you can’t get the oil and gas without hydraulic fracturing, but the public doesn’t know that,” he said. “So if they can kill hydraulic fracturing they have successfully killed oil and gasoline production in America.”

Well, April’s not over yet. Maybe we’ll have a few more heated comments between the EPA and the oil & gas industry before the month is out.

EDIT: 4/30: Armendariz out: https://spirofloblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/epa-official-who-called-to-crucify-the-oil-and-gas-industry-resigns/

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) and safe movement of materials (including potash and soda ash).

Read Full Post »

Vortex Tools explores why the oil and gas industry believes fracking does not contaminate groundwater, and why, even when they are to blame (in this case of contamination or otherwise), they won’t take responsibility until they’re forced to do so.

With the potential changes coming to hydraulic fracturing in 2012, we’ve spent a number of blogs recently focusing on the controversial practice.

To recap here are the two opposing stances:

1) The oil and gas industry believes that the science behind fracking is sound, and when enacted properly, no groundwater contamination occurs, as the fracking veins don’t spread anywhere near water. They also contend that many of the pollutants blamed on fracking chemicals are actually naturally occurring.

2) Environmentalists contend that fracking chemicals are responsible for groundwater contamination, and that given the way water naturally flows to the path of least resistance, the veins created by the force of fracking not only provide routes for contamination, but fundamentally damage the rock structure, causing even more problems (some say earthquakes).

While the environmentalist stance is (mostly) easy to understand, it seems as though the pro-fracking stance needs more of an explanation to not just seem like some cover story to avert blame (especially as oil and gas companies are already branded as eco-villains).

When I checked in with an operator on the fracking controversy, he wrote the following:

Everywhere I know of where true science has been applied, it has been found to be of no effect. We had a water well on the ranch in Southeastern Colorado that made enough methane to run an industrial engine, and no well had been drilled for 15 miles in any direction.  You don’t have to be in the O & G business very long until a farmer or rancher will tell you, “You need to lease my land.  I know there is oil and gas here because I get it from my water well.”  But you drill a well and they say, “you contaminated my water well, pay up.”

Oil and gas migrate thru a thousand feet of “impermeable sediments” over hundreds of thousands of years, not decades. It can happen thru faulty cementing of the casing or casing failures, but, if it occurs during fracking, you know instantly.  You can run a temperature survey after a frac or put a small radioactive tag in the proppant and see exactly where it went.  

Fracture generation generally is out and down, with some up, due to the forces of gravity.  The “up’ stops when a clay or shale bed of relatively small thickness is reached.  To have 100′ of total fracture height takes a tremendous amount of horsepower and an extremely brittle, homogeneous formation.

Oil and gas entities are in the business of trying to generate profits for their shareholders, not paying out huge sums for contaminated water wells, whether the damage is insured or not.  Therefore, fracture height, surrounding sediment beds and cement and casing integrity are always taken into account in the frac design. 

This operator would admit, along with most oil and gas workers, that when mistakes are made, they are costly (environmentally, financially, time wise). So even though the oil and gas industry can argue the validity of the science and the natural occurrence of deemed pollutants, mistakes aren’t about good science or what’s naturally occurring. Mistakes are when things went wrong and the companies at fault should be held responsible.

That said, with the debate about what would have happened naturally (without oil and gas companies’ intervention) and the accepted large cost of faulty business practice, no company is going to take the burden when the proof of fault is — despite what either side would say — undetermined. By the end of 2012, however, that debate may be over.

*     *     *

Colin McKay Miller is the Marketing Manager for the SpiroFlo Holdings group of companies:

SpiroFlo for residential hot water savings (delivered 35% faster with up to a 5% volume savings on every hot water outlet in the home) and industrial water purification (biofilm removal).

Vortex Tools for extending the life of oil and gas wells (recovering up to 10 times more NGLs, reducing flowback startup times, replacing VRUs, eliminating paraffin and freezing in winter, etc.).

Ecotech for cost-effective non-thermal drying (for biosolids, sugar beets, etc.) 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »