Federal Study - Fracking

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>I dont want to do any of those things either

Then we have to wait to frack until the science is settled!

If AWG people stop pushing their unsettled science.

Deal?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

quade

Oh and I completely understand. Sometimes it's difficult to admit that the industry a person belongs to profits on the ill heath of others and the destruction of the planet. The lie he tells himself daily is better than him facing the truth.

Still . . . hard to deny the actual science. He does his best though.

If these types were working for tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s, they'd be saying the "debate" is "far from settled" on lung cancer.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

If these types were working for tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s, they'd be saying the "debate" is "far from settled" on lung cancer.

That is equally as dumb as the epilepsy example...

[rushmc 18]

dmcoco84

Quote

If these types were working for tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s, they'd be saying the "debate" is "far from settled" on lung cancer.

That is equally as dumb as the epilepsy example...

With the burning water story debunked/discredited/destroyed all they have left is stupid stuff like that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

rushmc

With the burning water story debunked...

Please show the peer reviewed scientific paper that "debunks" this paper I referenced earlier.

In particular, I'm curious to see the "debunking" of the carbon isotope data.

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

***With the burning water story debunked...

Please show the peer reviewed scientific paper that "debunks" this paper I referenced earlier.

In particular, I'm curious to see the "debunking" of the carbon isotope data.

http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling

09 dude
If this shit were true where would we be today with this issue?

We were talking about the burning water
Story ka-put
now you have a change
go figure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

So...you got nothing to back up your statement. Brilliant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

I got nothing. Ya. Ah. You got it

BTW
Got a substantiating study? you know, one since 09?

And I do believe there is another thread recently that disagrees with this classy Duke study?

Ya
your right
I go nothin

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

dmcoco84

Quote

If these types were working for tobacco companies in the 60s and 70s, they'd be saying the "debate" is "far from settled" on lung cancer.

That is equally as dumb as the epilepsy example...

Oh it's a fine analogy. People defending an industry that has direct adverse consequences on peoples' health -- they did it decades ago, and they're doing it now because there is a lot of money at stake. The only rebuttals I have seen from you are a bunch of laughing icons and "dumb." I really think you can provide something more substantive than that if you're so convinced that fracking is safe.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[ibx 2]

OHCHUTE:

How yo you think an endeavor like fracking should be approached?

On the one hand there is a lot of potential for cheep energy, though it is relatively short term.

On the other hand millions of tons of unidentified chemicals are pumped in to the ground with unforeseeable consequences. The consequences are definitely unforeseeable since fracking has not been around long enough to rule out severe damage to the environment and the population in the long run.

So what do you personally think is the best approach in such a scenario?

What does your common sense tell you ?

[rushmc 18]

ibx

OHCHUTE:

How yo you think an endeavor like fracking should be approached?

On the one hand there is a lot of potential for cheep energy, though it is relatively short term.

On the other hand millions of tons of unidentified chemicals are pumped in to the ground with unforeseeable consequences. The consequences are definitely unforeseeable since fracking has not been around long enough to rule out severe damage to the environment and the population in the long run.

So what do you personally think is the best approach in such a scenario?

What does your common sense tell you ?

First off, the premise of only short term returns is false
Second, because of the depth, my commone sense tells me the the alarmism is based on the same idea that fossil fuels are evil and the use of them must be stopped, and there is no basis to believe that we have found another way to polute so as to hurt ourselves. So the chances of poluting the ground water is minimal at best

The OP showed a study, from the fed, which we all know is predisposed to saying the practice is bad and dangerous. But they couldn't. Because there was not enough data close enough to that goal to even tweek it to make it look bad.

Fracking has been going on for 40 years. Technology is making it more effective but, this is nothing new.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ibx 2]

Quote

First off, the premise of only short term returns is false

How do you figure that? Even if fracking alone sustains the entire US economy for 100 years it's still very short term and in 100 years another form of Energy will have to be found.

Quote

So the chances of poluting the ground water is minimal at best

But it can not be ruled out and polluting the ground water for hundreds or thousands of years is a risk worth taking in your opinion?

Quote

The OP showed a study, from the fed, which we all know is predisposed to saying the practice is bad and dangerous.

I think that is a blatant misconception because the fed has an enormous amount to gain from fracking.

Quote

Fracking has been going on for 40 years. Technology is making it more effective but, this is nothing new.

40 years is ridiculously short amount of time when thinking of geological processes.

There is great example in Germany, where a Nuclear Waste site was deemed totally safe in the 60s. This is a salt mine btw. So science told the geologists that no water had been there for thousands of years. Today water is leaking in to the mine and all the Nuclear waste has to be moved at a cost of Billions of Euros.

How reliable do you think are 40 years of experience in geological matters? And is it worth endangering future generations for short term economical gain ?

[rushmc 18]

You like to use what if senarios


You could get hit by a car today
or
you could have a skydiving acidient that will kill you someday

Better stay home and stop skydiving

This manufactered fracking disaster has nothing to do with fracking
It has everything to do with the wackos not wanting fosil fuels used

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Looking forward to the USA becoming the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas...

It's not short term... and saying it is short term, is as stupid as not starting new offshore drilling because it "will take 10 years" to make any difference.

Even though I completely disagree with that time frame, and, all the "peak oil" BS.

P.S. Fuck John McCain.

[ibx 2]

Quote

You could get hit by a car today
or
you could have a skydiving acidient that will kill you someday

It's still my decision to go onto a road and esp. to skydive. Why not ask people in 200 or 1000 years if they are ok with millions of Gallons of whatever in their groundwater?

Quote

This manufactered fracking disaster has nothing to do with fracking
It has everything to do with the wackos not wanting fosil fuels used

So you choose to ignore valid arguments because "wacko's"?
A textbook example of ad hominem if I've ever seen one.

[rushmc 18]

ibx

Quote

This manufactered fracking disaster has nothing to do with fracking
It has everything to do with the wackos not wanting fosil fuels used

So you choose to ignore valid arguments because "wacko's"?
A textbook example of ad hominem if I've ever seen one.

It was not aimed at you
But I consider the leadership of this movement as wackos
the rest are following along

I gave valid reply's to your points
You dont agree
That is ok as I dont agree with you

To me this continues down the "oh it MIGHT be bad so dont do it" path. Well, we can never have that level of security and still live with any kind of freedoms

The issues with fosil fuels has less to do with the environment than it does with telling others how to live their lives

Live like THEY want us too

Sorry, I dont buy it

Also, I am sorry if I offended you with the wacho comment. It was not aimed at you and I could have made my point a better way Sorry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ibx 2]

Quote

It was not aimed at you
But I consider the leadership of this movement as wackos
the rest are following along

no offence taken.

Quote

I gave valid reply's to your points
You dont agree
That is ok as I dont agree with you

Just take the risk is not valid reply IMHO since it does address any of proposed problems.

Quote

To me this continues down the "oh it MIGHT be bad so dont do it" path. Well, we can never have that level of security and still live with any kind of freedoms

The issues with fosil fuels has less to do with the environment than it does with telling others how to live their lives

Nobody wants to dispute how you live, yet if your standard of living could massively reduce the quality of life for other Americans esp. future generations, is that worth your personal freedom?

[rushmc 18]

ibx

Quote

It was not aimed at you
But I consider the leadership of this movement as wackos
the rest are following along

no offence taken.

Quote

I gave valid reply's to your points
You dont agree
That is ok as I dont agree with you

Just take the risk is not valid reply IMHO since it does address any of proposed problems.

Quote

To me this continues down the "oh it MIGHT be bad so dont do it" path. Well, we can never have that level of security and still live with any kind of freedoms

The issues with fosil fuels has less to do with the environment than it does with telling others how to live their lives

Nobody wants to dispute how you live, yet if your standard of living could massively reduce the quality of life for other Americans esp. future generations, is that worth your personal freedom?

You asked me to use commone sense to answer you
I did

Common sense tells me the chances of the catostrophic damage you are afraid of has little to no chance of coming to be

You have a what if approach to this topic
That makes no sense to me and I do not see that as a valid answer

So here we are

We do have 4 solid years of research on this topic

The one used in the op does not support a dooms day senario that you seem to be worried about
The one Quade posted was a joke and shown to be as much but the supporter of banning fracking dont care

Again, I trully believe this has nothing to do with ground polution or ever the threat of it

The following are all realated

The keystone pipe line
large areas of fed ground being closed to drilling
off shore permits delayed cancelled or denied
large amounts of money going to companies like solyidra

All being done to push an agenda Period

And no, I am not against alt energy sources

I am agains the way it is trying to be shoved down our throats

And I do beleive wind energy is a damned joke
And I will not want to be paying the electric prices in MN once the law forcing utlities to have large percentage of their generation come from solar
No one will be able to afford to live there if that comes to pass

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

rushmc

The one Quade posted was a joke...

You have yet to post a single thing that can scientifically refute it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

***The one Quade posted was a joke...

You have yet to post a single thing that can scientifically refute it.

Nothing to prove or disprove
they lied to the people with the burning water and then used that misrepresentation to form a conclusion
Paul
The water burned long before fracking every started there

The method of just going around measuring levels as they did have no reasoning to it

They had a conclusion formed before they ever started
It cant be taken seriously by anyone who cares to take a look at it

But let say your right
There are also NO studies confirming or backing this "report"

Isnt duplication important in studies such as this?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

The science stands by itself. The methods have been peer reviewed as sound. What this means is anyone on either side can rerun the study to confirm or deny, but the original data speaks for itself. The methane from the area in question was due to fracking as shown by the various isotope levels. In other words, it wasn't simply the "natural" methane which would be normally present at those well levels, but methane that had migrated from the area being fracked.

If you believe in the concept of carbon dating, then the paper I pointed to is pretty undeniable.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

The science stands by itself. The methods have been peer reviewed as sound. What this means is anyone on either side can rerun the study to confirm or deny, but the original data speaks for itself. The methane from the area in question was due to fracking as shown by the various isotope levels. In other words, it wasn't simply the "natural" methane which would be normally present at those well levels, but methane that had migrated from the area being fracked.

Nope
the methane levels were there before the fracking started
Fracking had nothing to do with it
and the lastest scientific report attached in the OP of this thread supports this conclusion as well

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

It's not the "levels" the paper is talking about. It's specifically where the methane comes from in the rock formations.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

quade

It's not the "levels" the paper is talking about. It's specifically where the methane comes from in the rock formations.

Sure is does
The same rock formations the water well is dug in!

and then there is this from the op

Quote

Jackson and his colleagues at Duke have done numerous studies over the last few years that looked at whether gas drilling is contaminating nearby drinking water, with mixed results. None of them have found chemical contamination but they did find evidence that natural gas escaped from some wells near the surface and polluted drinking water in northeastern Pennsylvania.

And it is known that the methane was there BEFORE any fracking was done there. And since no mesurements were taken before, who is to say what is normal?

And, as I said, I can take you to an acrage south of Jefferson Iowa where I can make the water burn today. No drilling has ever been done there ever

Also from the report

Quote

“Very few people think that fracking at significant depths routinely leads to water contamination. But the jury is still out on what the odds are that this might happen in special situations,” Anderson said.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Paul
the Duke report has been followed up on

Quote

A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, frequently referred to as fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln