found this
- Thread starter Gus
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Anti-fracking zealots are beginning to appear in the UK. No news yet as to who is really behind the 'concerned citizens' although the obvious candidates like the Green Party are not discouraging them.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
Huzza!! Fracking is good!! Bring it on!!
Ask the people who live in areas where fracking is actually occurring (and I have friends who moved out of an area of NY after realizing that the community's fight against fracking was a losing battle), and ask them how many oil barons are helping them in their fight. Ask them who has the money and the power in these fights. It's certainly not the local anti-fracking activists.
Sorry, but this in no way makes fracking better for the environment. Look at the actual science next time, not video propaganda from the clowns at Project "Veritas."
Ask the people who live in areas where fracking is actually occurring (and I have friends who moved out of an area of NY after realizing that the community's fight against fracking was a losing battle), and ask them how many oil barons are helping them in their fight. Ask them who has the money and the power in these fights. It's certainly not the local anti-fracking activists.
Sorry, but this in no way makes fracking better for the environment. Look at the actual science next time, not video propaganda from the clowns at Project "Veritas."
bruno2000
Well-known member
Some links to reliable sources would help your argument......
Best,
Bruno2000
Best,
Bruno2000
They would help Gus's argument as well. The PV thing is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
It's a fact that fracking chemicals have infiltrated drinking water supplies. (It's also a fact that oil companies have been hesitant to reveal the chemicals they use)
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-news/energy-dept-welcomes-firms-pledge-to-reveal-fracking-chemicals-but-halliburton-wont-commit/
Injection induced earthquakes, though so far not a terribly costly problem, are another issue.
And here's a quote from the evil liberal New York Times:
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.
That's a million gallons per well.
Do a google search on Fracking and contaminated water; you'll find tons of info. And it's not just a bunch of Hollywood left-wing tree huggers. It's regular folks who want to save their homes and their towns.
It's a fact that fracking chemicals have infiltrated drinking water supplies. (It's also a fact that oil companies have been hesitant to reveal the chemicals they use)
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-news/energy-dept-welcomes-firms-pledge-to-reveal-fracking-chemicals-but-halliburton-wont-commit/
Injection induced earthquakes, though so far not a terribly costly problem, are another issue.
And here's a quote from the evil liberal New York Times:
With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.
That's a million gallons per well.
Do a google search on Fracking and contaminated water; you'll find tons of info. And it's not just a bunch of Hollywood left-wing tree huggers. It's regular folks who want to save their homes and their towns.
I knew there was a reason I didn't watch. There are ideologues arguing both sides of this. Hollywierd opinion leaders may be well intentioned but not very smart or well informed.
Fraking has been around for a long time and is not inherently dangerous to ground water and aquifers as long as well casing integrity is good. The fraking activity is occurring at deeper levels under ground than where the drinking water is.
The thing that has caused fraking to take off is the combination of horizontal drilling & fraking. Waste is always an issue with all drilling and I believe there are recycling water efforts for large fracking operations. I suspect some smaller operations in regions where water is more available may try to dump it carelessly (illegally?).
As with anything regulators need to watch marginal players. The earthquake activity is real but as I have pondered before, does a fraking related earthquake relieve stress on a geological fault with a small generally harmless quake, perhaps preventing a larger later more serious temblor? Of course the minute someone gets injured by a shake that can be blamed on drilling activity the lawyers will have a field day. Note: In some old densely populated areas of Europe they have decided not to frack since the risk of even minor quakes to very old structures was considered not worth the risk.
Our energy policy here seems more like wishful thinking than doing what benefits the country or the world. Imagine how bad employment would be if they were successful at shutting down all fracking? IMO we should be trying to ramp up energy exports to europe to dilute Putin's energy influence there. Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger for Berkshire hathaway (smart investors) have a longer term view against exporting oil, because later when everybody else runs out of oil we will still have ours, and it will be worth a lot more in the future. That said as the price of energy increases we are more inventive and willing to invest in advanced extraction methods. I just saw a note today where the lowered the estimate for oil/gas under monterrey deposit because of limits of current technology, but expect future advances to be able to reach all that energy.
If/when we get to the point where we are capable of exporting energy do we still need a strategic oil reserve?
JR
Fraking has been around for a long time and is not inherently dangerous to ground water and aquifers as long as well casing integrity is good. The fraking activity is occurring at deeper levels under ground than where the drinking water is.
The thing that has caused fraking to take off is the combination of horizontal drilling & fraking. Waste is always an issue with all drilling and I believe there are recycling water efforts for large fracking operations. I suspect some smaller operations in regions where water is more available may try to dump it carelessly (illegally?).
As with anything regulators need to watch marginal players. The earthquake activity is real but as I have pondered before, does a fraking related earthquake relieve stress on a geological fault with a small generally harmless quake, perhaps preventing a larger later more serious temblor? Of course the minute someone gets injured by a shake that can be blamed on drilling activity the lawyers will have a field day. Note: In some old densely populated areas of Europe they have decided not to frack since the risk of even minor quakes to very old structures was considered not worth the risk.
Our energy policy here seems more like wishful thinking than doing what benefits the country or the world. Imagine how bad employment would be if they were successful at shutting down all fracking? IMO we should be trying to ramp up energy exports to europe to dilute Putin's energy influence there. Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger for Berkshire hathaway (smart investors) have a longer term view against exporting oil, because later when everybody else runs out of oil we will still have ours, and it will be worth a lot more in the future. That said as the price of energy increases we are more inventive and willing to invest in advanced extraction methods. I just saw a note today where the lowered the estimate for oil/gas under monterrey deposit because of limits of current technology, but expect future advances to be able to reach all that energy.
If/when we get to the point where we are capable of exporting energy do we still need a strategic oil reserve?
JR
Gus said:
If you post a link that appears to be supporting a position without comment people will assume you support the position espoused in the video.
In general I am inclined to ignore links with no explanation... to many cute cats attacking dogs or whatever on the WWW.
I was not attacking you just stating the science as I understand it. I do not care for the way opinion wranglers try to manipulate public opinion by character assassination rather than discussing facts or merit of an argument. A got'cha video making environmentalists look devious does not advance the scientific understanding. While it can be amusing.
====
There is a primary election where I live in about a week from now and despite me being on a do not call list, my phone has been ringing off the hook with no less than a half dozen attempts so far to "ask me a few questions..".
JR
