Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:40 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fracking doesn't pose health risks. Back to Topics
flyboyUT

Champion Author
Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 4:15:24 PM



Haven't seen one single case where fracking has caused a health risk. But the luddite libs are still against it.
.
>>>While New York Governor Andrew Cuomo vacillates on whether to allow fracking in New York State, a coterie of publicity savvy activists posing as public health experts are spearheading a disingenuous crusade to prevent the exploitation of the vast quantities of natural gas trapped in shale thousands of feet beneath New York’s Southern Tier. The leaders of this movement, millionaires with estates in natural gas-rich areas, have thus far successfully manipulated public opinion and the media by linking fracking to water and air pollution.

But fracking doesn’t pollute water or air. No documented instances of adverse health effects have been linked to fracking, nor have any occurrences of groundwater contamination been confirmed from the more than 1 million wells that have been hydraulically fractured over the past 50 years. Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said as much last year when she was queried on this subject, and her former boss, President Obama, supports hydraulic fracturing.<<<

Yet these people continue to lie and harm others - for purely political reasons. And few if any liberals will call them out on it.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 2:22:25 PM

fly, I was referring to comment about the "saving a minnow" concerning the water in Kern Valley.

Now, I apologize for the misspelling of your expertise.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,032
Points:3,581,925
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 2:14:15 PM

ac-302 and in compliance for their paymasters OPEC
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,074
Points:3,445,045
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 1:49:16 PM

Again, if there were REAL concerns about hydraulic fracturing of formations, then those should rightly have been raise 50 years ago or more. Since the envirokooks and other foolish liberals (as opposed to intelligent ones) are only protesting now, it is obvious that this is about putting fossil fuels off limits. It's not about protecting groundwater or health. It's about making oil more expensive, not less, so that people are FORCED into uneconomical "green" energy schemes (read as "Ponzi Schemes").
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,590
Points:60,715
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 10:02:54 PM

"You can't grow vegetables, keep farm animals alive, make soup, wash the baby, or sustain basic life with any number of barrels of oil, either."

Actually, you can. Ever heard of a desalinization plant? With oil providing the power, we can purify and transport all the water we need to do all those things. Fresh water is also a renewable resource. Billions of gallons fall from the sky every day.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 4:14:31 PM

"sylvanist" = tree hugger
???
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 4:13:23 PM

"But what in the world does managing a forest have to do with fracking."

I wonder that too, but I didn't touch that remark because of the pure insanity factor.

"But it is more likely that if a grundle of treehugging ecologists infest a forest they will likely trash it, scare off the very wildlife you seem to like and will more than likely burn it down through sheer stupidity."

Past performance usually a pretty good predictor of future results.

"more than likely burn it down"

Just wait until they decree that it is better for the forest to be burned to the ground than harvested for the benefit of the 1%.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 3:43:43 PM

btc said - "fly, as a forester and a "sylvanist" you have no problem cutting trees, right? Why? Because you can re-seed to replace them. Can you do that with the last of a species? "

First of all what the heck is a "sylvanist"? I have never heard of the term. A Forester has no trouble cutting down trees that is true. But btc that is only a small part of the job. The real job of a Forester is to manage land to meet the objectives of the owners. Most often the land is forested land hence using a "Forester" to manage "forested land".

It all depends on what the species is your talking about btc. If we are talking about the last individuals of the species of mosquito that are carriers of infectious diseases - I would personally spray the last pond of them.

But what in the world does managing a forest have to do with fracking. If there is oil or gas under the forest it is very possible to recover the fuel and not cause significant disruption to the forest or its inhabitants.

But it is more likely that if a grundle of treehugging ecologists infest a forest they will likely trash it, scare off the very wildlife you seem to like and will more than likely burn it down through sheer stupidity.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 2:40:27 PM

"Really you have a collection devise for that? And then are able to transfer that water to a static separation tank with proper filtration?"

Ever hear of a fuel cell?

My answer is as absurd as the original comment, since we know that in the U.S. we will never have unlimited oil and no water.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 2:31:30 PM

Oilpan, "With unlimited oil I would burn the oil in such a manor that would allow me to collect the water formed from combustion for all that." Really you have a collection devise for that? And then are able to transfer that water to a static separation tank with proper filtration? I set one up back in 1990. It cost me in excess of $25,000 then. That does not include the replacement of the filters when needed and disposal of any pollutants collected from that process. And the lab testing to know that the water is pure. But, go ahead. Good to know you are concerned enough to do that.



[Edited by: btc1 at 10/19/2014 2:34:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 2:01:06 PM

"You can't grow vegetables, keep farm animals alive, make soup, wash the baby, or sustain basic life with any number of barrels of oil, either."

With unlimited oil I would burn the oil in such a manor that would allow me to collect the water formed from combustion for all that.

Plus last time I checked gas is nearly $3 a gallon, water is more like 0.3 cents per gallon. So its pretty obvious which one we have a lot of and which one is going to run out.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 1:44:21 PM

fly, as a forester and a "sylvanist" you have no problem cutting trees, right? Why? Because you can re-seed to replace them. Can you do that with the last of a species?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 1:40:00 PM

"You cant power your car, pave a road, fly a plane, oil a machine, make petro chemicals, transport goods with any number of barrels of water."

You can't grow vegetables, keep farm animals alive, make soup, wash the baby, or sustain basic life with any number of barrels of oil, either.
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,593
Points:2,338,690
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 2:29:59 AM

Evidence That This Topic is Misnamed
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 13, 2014 12:14:11 AM

"Of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled since 2011"

There's your problem. That was 2011.
Our 200% annual rain fall was this past September as in the September that ended 13 days ago.
It was really dry here too in 2011, so dry to my north east up towards Amarillo it was so dry jack rabbits died of thirst.
The ones that didn't die of thirst a few years ago were endanger of drowning last month. That entire area was lit up with a flash flood warning at least once.

“At the height of California oil production in 1985, oil companies in Kern County pumped 1.1 billion barrels of water underground to extract 256 million barrels of oil—a ratio of roughly four and a half barrels of water for every barrel of oil,” according to Miller. “In 2008, Kern producers injected nearly 1.3 billion barrels of water to extract 162 million barrels of oil—a ratio of nearly eight barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.”
“At the height of California oil production in 1985, oil companies in Kern County pumped 1.1 billion barrels of water underground to extract 256 million barrels of oil—a ratio of roughly four and a half barrels of water for every barrel of oil,” according to Miller. “In 2008, Kern producers injected nearly 1.3 billion barrels of water to extract 162 million barrels of oil—a ratio of nearly eight barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced."

So you think that if that water wasn't used in 1985 or 2008 for oil extraction some one would have taken the water and saved it and still have it today?
In reality if that water wasn't used it would have flowed down the river and out to sea and any water sucked out of a well has been replaced.

8 or 10 barrels of water for one barrel of oil still sounds like a good deal to me. I am glad you shared that, I thought oil extraction might have required a higher oil to water ratio.
You cant power your car, pave a road, fly a plane, oil a machine, make petro chemicals, transport goods with any number of barrels of water.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 10/13/2014 12:14:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 11:25:07 PM

Rumble - I used to live in Kern County California. How much water is taht compared to what else is available? Does it matter? Is Kern adn other valley type counties getting the water they are supposed to be getting from the systems that are supposed to move water from the Delta to the central valley? Why not - because of a minnow? What is more important water for people or dumping water into the ocean for a minnow. Gotta have priorities I guess.

Rumble your trying to come up with simplistic answers to discuss very complex questions. It aint gonna work.

How are you doing at that Sudbury place by the way?

Say didnt someone once say that extracting the oil sand stuff you folks want to ship south in the Keystone pipeline uses a bit of water also?



[Edited by: flyboyUT at 10/12/2014 11:26:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 9:23:10 PM

“At the height of California oil production in 1985, oil companies in Kern County pumped 1.1 billion barrels of water underground to extract 256 million barrels of oil—a ratio of roughly four and a half barrels of water for every barrel of oil,” according to Miller. “In 2008, Kern producers injected nearly 1.3 billion barrels of water to extract 162 million barrels of oil—a ratio of nearly eight barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.”
How fracking is exacerbating drought across America
"Because it trades water for oil and methane, fracking is burning our future.
There’s no other way to put it."

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/12/2014 9:25:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 9:10:25 PM

"Nowhere is the nexus of fracking and water starker than in the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas, which produces over 1.2 million barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The Eagle Ford suffers from the biggest water challenges out of any shale play in the United States. It has the highest water consumption out of any other shale formation in the country right now. Over 90% of the water used in the affected counties comes from groundwater, as opposed to surface water, contributing to the depletion of aquifers."
Fracking poses water threat in drought-stricken states

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/12/2014 9:11:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 9:04:47 PM

Rumble - from your linked article on the problems in Pennsylvania - "In another twist, Range Resources was also recently slapped with the largest-ever fine against a Marcellus Shale driller in history — $4.15 million — for violations at the Yeager site. Those violations, so bad that the site has been forced to close, were mostly of leaks from its wastewater impoundments, which is the same thing Kiskadden alleged caused his own water well to be contaminated. Indeed, the biggest concern about fracking and its possibility to contaminate water is not from the drilling or fracking process itself, but from the faulty disposal of the massive amount of contaminated wastewater it produces. "

What that is saying is that the problem at that site is not from fracking but from the well drilling and the impoundment of wastewater from the drilling operation. In other words its contamination from surface sources not from the fracking process where water is injected deep underground. Therefore dont blame fracking for this problems please as its not specific to the fracking of wells.
.
.
Yes Rumble we know that water is being used there. The question still is --- is it significant - does it matter? How much water compared to what? Canada uses many many metric tons of water for the cooling of buildings in the summer or for other industrial processes doesnt it. Is this significant? do the local people who live there regulate to some extent on what water is used for what. If you wished to dig up the info I bet you would find that more water is used for golf courses and lawns by far in those areas than water used to frack wells. What are our priorities?

Rumble as long as you still have this mess dont worry about someone elses minor problem.....
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 8:49:04 PM

"America's oil and gas rush is depleting water supplies in the driest and most drought-prone areas of the country, from Texas to California, new research has found.
Of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled since 2011, three-quarters were located in areas where water is scarce, and 55% were in areas experiencing drought, the report by the Ceres investor network found."
Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 8:43:59 PM

"A Pennsylvania official has admitted that he may have used faulty information to determine that fracking waste was not poisoning the drinking water supply at a man’s property in Washington County, according to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report."
Pa. Official Admits Errors In Investigation Of Whether Fracking Waste Spoiled Drinking Water
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 8:31:32 PM

btc I am saying what I did to try and put the risk into perspective.

Yes the risk really is pretty minimal. And if you would be honest and really compare the risks brought about by fracking as opposed to the "normal" risks that you and everyone else deals with every day you may see what I'm trying to say.

You yourself said you used to play with tobacco in the curing process didnt you. Do you mind thinking on the relative danger from that exposure to addictive toxins compared to the danger you might face from a fracked well in your county. How about the danger from toxic mine wastes from coal operations and the dangers from the burning of coal as opposed to fracking. Kentucky is noted for its coal operations and tobacco culture. Yet do yo worry about those dangers?Rumble I believe that wasting water at any time is foolish but I also dont think fracking as a tool is all that wasteful of water. One should say fracking uses water as compared to what. Do we 'waste' fresh water by using it for other industrial processes including transporting our wastes from home to disposal site.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 8:18:12 PM

" It is terminal stupidity to exacerbate drought by using water faster than aquifers naturally replenish, and that includes water used for fracking in areas of water shortage."

Say that fracking is banned in drought areas (which we know you would love) it wont stop fracking.
Then they just truck water in from further away. Making the process more expensive, less efficient and creating more evil CO2 in the process.

Drought stricken parts of eastern newmexico and west texas saw 200% of their anuual rain fall with in the month of September alone thanks to a more active west cost tropical storm season. By more active I mean closer to what we believe to be a normal level of activity.
So, what drought?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 7:37:39 PM

"You make it sound as if every fresh water river that reaches the sea is some kind of drinking water tragedy."

It is hard to have intelligent discourse with people so dismissive.
I said no such silly thing and you darn well know it. However, if one takes 2 gallons, say, of water out of an aquifer to contaminate with poison and flush into the rock formations, or use for industry, or any other use, in the time it refills by 1 gallon, it is not a renewable resource by any definition, and won't be until it can replenish at least as fast as we can use it. It is terminal stupidity to exacerbate drought by using water faster than aquifers naturally replenish, and that includes water used for fracking in areas of water shortage.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/12/2014 7:39:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 7:26:42 PM

fly has taken to the art of minimization. No matter what is pointed out as dangerous about fracking, it is nothing to take seriously.

Nothing to see here. Move along...Don't look over there!
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 6:57:15 PM

"Is anyone discussing the earthquake risk presented by fracking?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E3A-D8mAb4

Hopefully it does, an earth quake in the fracked shale bed will further shatter the shale releasing more gas, it would be like free fracking.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 10/12/2014 7:02:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 6:31:50 PM

Good question SGM. The information I have seen is that if there is any relationship it is tenuous at best and the only earthquakes that might be or may have been associated with fracking are so minor that they are almost imperceptible to us without instruments. As far as will fracking lead to a large quake - personally I dont think its anything to be worried about.

We have been fracking for 60 some odd years or so and nothing has been shown yet regarding quakes being a result or a problem tied to the process.

The other thing - the destructive quakes are all a result of earth movement much much deeper than the deepest well. Something like water wells range up to about 400 feet is considered really deep with most being 200 feet or less. The average fracked well is probably less than 10-12,000 feet deep
.
And earthquakes are usually measured in miles deep - aka orders of magnitude deeper than wells.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,057
Points:2,978,470
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 6:02:36 PM

Is anyone discussing the earthquake risk presented by fracking?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 12:09:56 PM

"Ninety-eight percent of the water on MY PLANET RARTH is in the oceans, unusable for drinking because it is salt water. About 2 percent of the planet's water is fresh, but 1.6 percent of the planet's water is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers.
Water can be considered a renewable material if carefully controlled usage, treatment, and release are followed. If not, it becomes a non-renewable resource at a partucular location.
For example, groundwater, if removed from an aquifer at a rate greater than its very slow natural recharge, is considered non-renewable.
Check out The USGS Water Sciences School".

You make it sound as if every fresh water river that reaches the sea is some kind of drinking water tragedy.

That's why I said "the earth is covered by 70% water and fresh water is a renewable resource, at least in most places in north America."

Is Canada one of those places where fresh water is non renewable?
Even then, why do you care what the southern U.S. does with their water?

I am sure more fresh water flows into the sea every second through rivers than what the frackers all over this country can use in a day.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 11:05:59 AM

Gly, whu do you not understand what I actualy said? Do you seriously believe we can keep injecting poisons into the earth forever without it coming back to haunt us? If so, I would likr to see the science. Isn't blind belief like the argument we used to hear that the people who smoked for decades were proof that smoking was safe? Or maybe you believe it is safe?
I have discussed fracking without the dangerous chemicals before. I have pointed out that off-shore fracking is done successfully with a far less toxic mix. We have alternatives available.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 12, 2014 10:49:12 AM

Rumble - you have made no attempt to discuss the issues I raised to you - why?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 11:44:22 PM

"Last time I checked the earth is covered by 70% water and fresh water is a renewable resource, at least in most places in north America."

"What planet are you on?"
Ninety-eight percent of the water on MY PLANET RARTH is in the oceans, unusable for drinking because it is salt water. About 2 percent of the planet's water is fresh, but 1.6 percent of the planet's water is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers.
Water can be considered a renewable material if carefully controlled usage, treatment, and release are followed. If not, it becomes a non-renewable resource at a partucular location.
For example, groundwater, if removed from an aquifer at a rate greater than its very slow natural recharge, is considered non-renewable.
Check out The USGS Water Sciences School.


[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/11/2014 11:48:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 11:25:04 PM

"how much water is used for other industrial processes"

All industrial scale food operations I have seen use between 500 to 1500 gallons per minute, every minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week some where around 350 days a year or more.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 10/11/2014 11:26:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 11:22:02 PM

" billions of gallons of good water that is spent and gone."

What planet are you on?
Last time I checked the earth is covered by 70% water and fresh water is a renewable resource, at least in most places in north America.

"chemicals, such as fornaldehyde, mercury, and ethylene glycol, per well, forever, that will NEVER migrate? Are we really expected to bekieve we can continue to waste billions of gallons of valuable freash eater without consequences to agriculture and our supply of drinking water?"

Why does some one in Canada care what people in texas do to oil and gas wells?
You must really be afraid of fracking.

I know what chemicals they use around new mexico and texas and I have a lot worse stuff under my sink.
Washing your car in your yard pollutes the environment more than fracking.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 10:11:39 PM

Rumble - yes all those chemicals are or could be dangerous. Yes water is used.

Now to have some fun - how many dangerous chemicals are we exposed to each adn every day compared to the exposure from fracking? Should we be worried about the other sources or fracking?

Yes it does use water - how much water is used for that vs how much is used for other industrial processes as in the metals area or electronics or even in just flushing human waste using drinking quality water.

Yes Mercury is toxic - how much is generated during the industrial processes in Canada? Put the danger in relation to common events. Are you more worried about your drinking water being contaminated with fracking fluids or fecal coliform. Which happens more often?
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,285
Points:3,830,265
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 7:48:37 PM

To believe there is no danger in fracking, one has to ignore the deadly chemical stew injected into the earth. Are we really expected to bekieve we can continue to inject housands of gallons of chemicals, such as fornaldehyde, mercury, and ethylene glycol, per well, forever, that will NEVER migrate? Are we really expected to bekieve we can continue to waste billions of gallons of valuable freash eater without consequences to agriculture and our supply of drinking water?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 7:16:13 PM

What the heck btc since you started it I thought it was fine. Dont you like it when you are hoist on your own petard?

But I still say that based on only a little cursory research your author is even flakier than mine......

Hundreds of thousands of wells fracked and no major problems have arisen yet. Seems to say to most folks that it just might be a safe tool to use.

Now have some operators done bad things - probably yes they have but so have many other folks done dumb things. Because a few farmers had an accidental spill of fertilizer do you demand that all farmers stop fertilizing their crops?

Why btc I bet you that there have even been incidents of hydrocarbons being spilled at gas stations too - horrors we need to shut down all gas stations that are not operated by the EPA or something.

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 6:20:36 PM

So, fly, it is okay for you to disqualify an author here in this topic that I present, but, that is not acceptable in the other topic?!!!

Okay I get it. Good for you bad for me...

At least my author is well versed on the subject, where yours only wrote ghost stories!

[Edited by: btc1 at 10/11/2014 6:22:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,288
Points:780,100
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 5:47:46 PM

The writer of the article on CO2 fracking is the son of the former governor of Massachusetts.

Francis W. Sargent, the moderate Republican, defender of the environment and solver of fiscal crises who served as Governor of Massachusetts from 1969 to 1975, died in October 1998 in Dover, Mass. He was 83.

Mr. Sargent moved up from lieutenant governor when Gov. John Volpe was made Transportation Secretary in the Nixon Administration and was elected in 1970 over the Mayor of Boston, Kevin White, to a full term.

Mr. Sargent was also known for his delicately middle-of-the-road approach to Boston's busing strife and helped gain passage of a no-fault car insurance law. He backed public housing, environmental protections and a statute challenging the Vietnam War on legal grounds.

Mr. Sargent was born in Massachusetts, attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (which led to a favorite motto of his: ''Don't ask me, I didn't go to Harvard.'') and went on to serve in a variety of state and Federal jobs involving fish, game, and other natural resources.

I think he would be proud of his son.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,288
Points:780,100
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 5:32:54 PM

A case for CO2 oil recovery

The big problem with water fracking is not aquifer contamination, but rather the billions of gallons of good water that is spent and gone.

The smart way to recover oil is by the use of CO2.
Read the story of a Massachusetts oil man in Texas. One oil well.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 10:31:10 AM

Just for fun btc I looked at some of the other stuff this guy has written ---
.
.
Extremist Climate Deniers Claim Historic Climate March Was An Attack On Their Way of Life

Lazy Republicans Need To Learn the Culture and Value of Work

Proof That Republicans Are Creating Poverty: America Is Number One In Low Wage Jobs

With Nothing To Run On Republicans Blow Religious Dog Whistles

The Koch Brothers, ALEC and the GOP Are Trying To Win The Election By Destroying Democracy

Republican Sequester Prevented Health Agencies From Stopping Ebola Spread

Right-Wing Justice Scalia is Crusading to Establish Religion by Constitutional Fiat

Always Evil Walmart Increases Profits While Cutting Employee Benefits

.
.
Do you see some kind of pattern there in the titles of the stuff he writes?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 10:20:54 AM

btc do you think it is just a bit possible that your author of the hit piece you linked is a tad biased.

Its funny - if there really was a problem I would expect the California state treehuggers would be going completely bonkers.

Until we get more information I will continue to say that fracking is not a major problem.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,777
Points:889,650
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Oct 11, 2014 10:10:42 AM

Report Confirms Fracking is Poisoning California’s Dwindling Aquifers

"In July, California state regulators, Department of Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), shut down eleven fracking wastewater injection wells over concerns that what precious water the severely drought-stricken state has left is being contaminated with toxins and carcinogens; particularly in highly productive agricultural areas. According to its due diligence, the agency the oil industry and Republicans hate above all others, the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), promptly ordered a report within 60 days to determine if the oil industry did indeed poison what little water California has left and what extent, if any, the damage might have on the agriculture industry and drinking water supply.

This past week, with little to no mention in the conservative media, the California State water Resources Board issued a report to the EPA confirming that yes, at least nine of the eleven fracking sites were deliberately dumping poisoned waste water directly into central California aquifers."
Profile Pic
Passer
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:19,593
Points:2,338,690
Joined:Jan 2004
Message Posted: Oct 10, 2014 11:01:55 AM

"Only OPEC EMPLOYEES can logically be against fracking"

And those who don't as a matter of policy dis science.
Profile Pic
wbacon
Champion Author Philadelphia

Posts:16,032
Points:3,581,925
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2014 5:23:42 PM

Only OPEC EMPLOYEES can logically be against fracking
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,590
Points:60,715
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Oct 8, 2014 12:32:14 PM

"Fracking Pioneer Deserves To Win Nobel Peace Prize."

He probably wouldn't want it. It would put him in the company of Obama, Woodrow Wilson, UNICEF, the International Labour Organization, Le Duc Tho, Yasser Arafat, the IPCC, and Al Gore.

[Edited by: HotRod10 at 10/8/2014 12:32:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,128
Points:1,520,020
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 7, 2014 8:16:53 PM



Fracking Pioneer Deserves To Win Nobel Peace Prize
.
.
>>>The Nobel Peace Prize winner is about to be announced, setting off all the hype that goes with it.

The idea of the near-century-old award is to honor a person who has profoundly changed the world for the better by promoting peace and improving the state of humankind. The prize has gone to such giants as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross.

Even though the prize has come with some controversy, the committee asks the right question each year. What living man or woman has contributed the most to make the world a better place?

And this year, it would be hard to make a better choice than Harold Hamm.

No one in recent times has done more to spark a new revolution in world output, help lift poor people out of poverty and reduce the threat of world terrorism than this energy pioneer from Oklahoma City.

Hamm is the one who discovered a way to get at the massive and bountiful oil and gas fields in North Dakota that are helping make North America energy independent. He didn't invent fracking and horizontal drilling — the breakthrough technologies that have made shale oil and gas drilling possible — but he helped perfect it and was the first oil and gas entrepreneur to put it to use on a widespread commercial scale.

He made the big gamble that he could crack through the Bakken shale and extract the $100 billion treasure chest of energy resources buried two miles deep in the ground. That roll of the dice has already changed the course of history in the 21st century.

What does this massive increase in energy resources have to do with improving life on earth?

Everything.

Shale oil and gas is now making energy for our transportation and our electric power far cheaper than anyone ever thought imaginable. Overnight, thanks to Harold Hamm, we have solved the Malthusian world problem of scarcity and rising prices of natural resources. The world is not running out of cheap and abundant energy, we are running into it.

Some will counter that fossil fuels and fracking hurt the environment. Wrong. Shale gas has been by far the most important development over the last decade at reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

It is a green fuel par excellence that could alleviate climate change. More shale gas production means less global warming. This relationship has been confirmed by the Energy Information Administration.

And then there's the benefit to the poor from Hamm's energy boom.<<<

Sounds like this guy has done more to free people and to make our lives better than Obama ever even thought of in his wildest choom dreams. Seems like he should get the prize and Obama's should be recalled.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,626
Points:331,630
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Sep 27, 2014 8:22:51 PM

"So why does the left hate fracking if it's a major contributor to combating that bane to liberals, global warming?"

Why do they do anything they do?

None of its rational and when you ask them to rationalize their action or thought process all you get is ignored or slue of unbelievable incoherent insanity.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,590
Points:60,715
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 26, 2014 6:57:59 PM

From Wikipedia bio of Charles Krauthammer:

"In 1970, he graduated from McGill University with First Class Honors in political science and economics.[5] The following year, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford, before returning to the United States and entering Harvard Medical School... earning his M.D. in 1975. From 1975 to 1978, Krauthammer was a resident and then a chief resident in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital. In 1984, he became board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.[7]"

An MD from Harvard and a board-certified psychiatrist. Sounds like he's more than qualified to me.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:25,355
Points:722,365
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Sep 26, 2014 12:13:12 AM



Passer, "Krauthammer made a medical diagnosis even though he has no medical degree. He is not a psychologist or psychiatrist."

You may have set a record for being WRONG.

You made two claims in two sentences.

And you were TOTALLY WRONG two times.

ROTFL

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,074
Points:3,445,045
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Sep 25, 2014 11:42:40 PM

Yeah, I also thought Charles Krauthammer was a Medical Doctor of some kind. Psychiatrist? Interesting. I'd like to hear more about his diagnoses of Obama's mental illness.

I think you'll be eating a big slice of humble pie, passer..
Post a reply Back to Topics