Federal Study - Fracking

[winsor 187]

dmcoco84

Fracking is Safe...

...yeah, no shit Sherlock.

Landmark Federal Study

For some reason I am reminded of an edition of "Weekend Update," where Laraine Newman is explaining how deadly plutonium-laden nuclear waste is being permanently disposed by being shot into space - while a rocket is self-destructing in the background.

Then you have the theory that was popular those many moons ago, whereby building smokestacks high enough would somehow pump the pollution where would not pose a problem.

In any event, my fundamental concern with the natural gas boom is that it supports the delusion that we have "plenty of fuel," and can thus continue to breed and waste with abandon.

Junkies can rest assured that poppies can continue to grow and feed their habit. Our addiction to fossil fuels, however, is tying our very survival to a finite and dwindling resource. What could go wrong with that approach?


BSBD,

Winsor

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

In any event, my fundamental concern with the natural gas boom is that it supports the delusion that we have "plenty of fuel," and can thus continue to breed and waste with abandon.

That will always be a concern; within countless subjects, not just energy.

But like with offshore drilling... if it had to be done, would you rather the Chinese do it, or Americans? Who of the two do you think cares more about the environment (its people and government), whether in our waters or theirs (reference to Petrobras shortly after the BP spill)?

Which country do you honestly think, more than likely, has more of those douche bags that don't care, and make everyone else look bad?

I'll trust Americans every time.

Saying we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas is not a lie...

First and foremost, if there is a way to safely obtain an energy source, that we ABSOLUTELY need, where we are then not sending billions of dollars to countries that hate our guts and eventually want us dead (great satan - the enemy of my enemy is not my friend), we need to do it!

Then, with keeping all that money flowing within our own nation, and advances in technology (direct and indirect), more of it will stay with those who have the ability to get us to the point where we can ACTUALLY start using things in place of hydrocarbons (while also creating jobs; like for paramedics, Cough, Cough)... and doing so without unconstitutional Federal "investments."

States can do whatever the hell they want... not the Feds.

But the way some people (like zombie) speak about getting off oil, is ridiculous. Watch the Modern Marvels episode on oil... we will ALWAYS need petrochemicals; and aside from nuclear, we do not have the ability currently to replace coal... if you think we do, you are delusional, or a low information voter.

We will eventually be able to produce electricity and fuel our transportation needs without hydrocarbons, and at the same cost, or cheaper... but not right now.

Tough Shit...

Quote

dwindling resource

Disagree.

[Stumpy 256]

dmcoco84

Which country do you honestly think, more than likely, has more of those douche bags that don't care, and make everyone else look bad?

It's a close one.

Quote

***

dwindling resource

Disagree.

Oh really? Its being regenerated as fast as we are using it?
Talking of low information voters....

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[livendive 8]

winsor

In any event, my fundamental concern with the natural gas boom is that it supports the delusion that we have "plenty of fuel," and can thus continue to breed and waste with abandon.

Junkies can rest assured that poppies can continue to grow and feed their habit. Our addiction to fossil fuels, however, is tying our very survival to a finite and dwindling resource. What could go wrong with that approach?

I like how the same group of people who promote the exclusive use of carbon-based fuels also scoff at suggestions for conservation and oppose the development of alternative energy technologies, yet claim some sort of moral superiority. If we're burning through a finite resource at a rate dozens of orders of magnitude higher than we can replenish it and we're opposing the development of replacement technology, how exactly do we suggest that our great grandkids get along? Intentionally acting in a manner that prioritizes our convenience over the basic needs of future generations is an option available to all of us, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[masterblaster72 0]

livendive

I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

"Moral or ethical" are not considerations in the fossil fuels buisiness; they're obstacles to the status quo and profits.

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

[turtlespeed 212]

livendive

***In any event, my fundamental concern with the natural gas boom is that it supports the delusion that we have "plenty of fuel," and can thus continue to breed and waste with abandon.

Junkies can rest assured that poppies can continue to grow and feed their habit. Our addiction to fossil fuels, however, is tying our very survival to a finite and dwindling resource. What could go wrong with that approach?

I like how the same group of people who promote the exclusive use of carbon-based fuels also scoff at suggestions for conservation and oppose the development of alternative energy technologies, yet claim some sort of moral superiority. If we're burning through a finite resource at a rate dozens of orders of magnitude higher than we can replenish it and we're opposing the development of replacement technology, how exactly do we suggest that our great grandkids get along? Intentionally acting in a manner that prioritizes our convenience over the basic needs of future generations is an option available to all of us, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

Blues,
Dave


I agree with alternate energy research.
I agree with the FACT that the resources we have are finite.
I believe that there is more than what we are being led to believe by the conservationists groups.

I also believe that people who think fossil fuels won't ever run out are delusional.

I am just hoping that we have affordable, cleaner, more efficient energy production means before we do.

I also believe that everyone here will be long dead before the world even begins to get to less than 50% of what we have now. (Hopeful Wishing).

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dmcoco84 4]

livendive

I like how the same group of people who promote the exclusive use of carbon-based fuels also scoff at suggestions for conservation and oppose the development of alternative energy technologies, yet claim some sort of moral superiority. If we're burning through a finite resource at a rate dozens of orders of magnitude higher than we can replenish it and we're opposing the development of replacement technology, how exactly do we suggest that our great grandkids get along? Intentionally acting in a manner that prioritizes our convenience over the basic needs of future generations is an option available to all of us, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

Are you placing me in this (massive generalization of a) group?

[livendive 8]

dmcoco84

***I like how the same group of people who promote the exclusive use of carbon-based fuels also scoff at suggestions for conservation and oppose the development of alternative energy technologies, yet claim some sort of moral superiority. If we're burning through a finite resource at a rate dozens of orders of magnitude higher than we can replenish it and we're opposing the development of replacement technology, how exactly do we suggest that our great grandkids get along? Intentionally acting in a manner that prioritizes our convenience over the basic needs of future generations is an option available to all of us, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the moral or ethical choice.

Are you placing me in this (massive generalization of a) group?

The thought didn't even cross my mind. I have no idea whether you promote fossil fuel use and discourage development of alternate technologies.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[sfzombie13 307]

wow. just because you think it can't be done, you think we shouldn't even try? fucking pathetic approach to any sort of change. and do you really believe anyone in the us has any more concern for the environment than anyone else? i could show you lots of coal mines around here that prove otherwise. if they can get away with ignoring the rules, they can. it's too expensive. and every once in a while you hear about the results.

and if yu have been keeping up with any of the latest advances in 2d materials, you wouldn't be nearly so quick to say there is no alternative to fossil fuels. the technology is not here yet for some things, but to quit trying is just wrong.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[billeisele 122]

and if yu have been keeping up with any of the latest advances in 2d materials, you wouldn't be nearly so quick to say there is no alternative to fossil fuels. the technology is not here yet for some things, but to quit trying is just wrong.

and in the meantime how about energy from a non greenhouse gas emitting source, non-carbon based fuel source, price stable fuel, that has a > 95% capacity factor, has proven to be safe, and in many parts of the country can be economically built, owned and operated

go nuclear

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[turtlespeed 212]

billeisele

and if yu have been keeping up with any of the latest advances in 2d materials, you wouldn't be nearly so quick to say there is no alternative to fossil fuels. the technology is not here yet for some things, but to quit trying is just wrong.

and in the meantime how about energy from a non greenhouse gas emitting source, non-carbon based fuel source, price stable fuel, that has a > 95% capacity factor, has proven to be safe, and in many parts of the country can be economically built, owned and operated

go nuclear

That's pronounced noocular

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Dean358 0]

Quote

Such Arrogance... while you clearly didn't read what the study was even about.

Seems to me that posting such a simplistic, "this is right and everything else is wrong" rant about a very complicated subject is the very height of arrogance, don't you think? And by quoting The Blaze? Seriously? I went to the link you posted and didn't see a single actual quote from the study, much less a link to it, contained in the article. Glenn Beck and his ilk make a fortune stoking a vein of anger in America by writing nonsense like that article under the guise of "journalism." Propagating such an arrogant, destructive form of "discourse" actually gets in the way of intelligently discussing this issue.

To wit: all of our current energy sources have big downsides: Fracking requires pumping millions of gallons of very bad chemicals into the ground; nuclear has the possibility of a unrepairable global accident and generates tons of dangerous spent fuel we have no place to store; oil, as you point out, comes from countries that we might be better off not supporting; coal dumps massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, wind and solar are not yet efficient enough to really contribute and their output requires some type of storage; and this isn't the crowd to talk to about energy conservation as we -- myself included -- like using lots of Jet A and megawatts of electricity (in wind tunnels) for our own amusement.

I suggest we'll need to use all of the above energy sources in a balanced, safe manner until we can develop new technologies to replace them. A less arrogant and more meaningful discussion would be about the specifics of how to best use all of the resources we have available to get the best cost (meaning all types of costs, not just $) / benefit results.


P.S. -- For context, here's what the Associated Press said about this study: ...."But DOE researchers view the study as just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks...." This is one of many studies being conducted on this topic, with the final report bringing all the research together due to be released for public comment in 2014. Here's a link to the site about the ongoing research into Fracking: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

www.wci.nyc

[rushmc 18]

Quote

P.S. -- For context, here's what the Associated Press said about this study: ...."But DOE researchers view the study as just one part of ongoing efforts to examine the impacts of a recent boom in oil and gas exploration, not a final answer about the risks...." This is one of many studies being conducted on this topic, with the final report bringing all the research together due to be released for public comment in 2014. Here's a link to the site about the ongoing research into Fracking: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

Of course they said this
Because this study did not provide them with the results THEY WANTED!!!!

In the mean time, there will "adjustments" to the data and the conclusions.

Dont think so?
Just save a copy of the study you linked
Just for later comparisions

BTW
I hope I am wrong
But this topic is in the same lane as AGW.
And we all know that in order to get the conclusions wanted/needed , adjustments were required

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

[BIGUN 1,065]

>>>Here's a link to the site about the ongoing research into Fracking: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

Looks vaguely familiar to the study in post #16

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Opie 0]

Well shit Sherlock,
maybe the jury is still out.


http://news.yahoo.com/researchers-elevated-levels-heavy-metals-173704372.html

-

[billvon 2,413]

>But this topic is in the same lane as AGW.

So we can't be sure, the jury is still out, there's no evidence that fracking works, we have to wait and see?

[masterblaster72 0]

billvon

>But this topic is in the same lane as AGW.

So we can't be sure, the jury is still out, there's no evidence that fracking works, we have to wait and see?

LOL

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

[masterblaster72 0]

Opie

Well shit Sherlock,
maybe the jury is still out.


http://news.yahoo.com/researchers-elevated-levels-heavy-metals-173704372.html

Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington say there are elevated levels of arsenic and other heavy metals close to natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale area of North Texas, according to a news release from the school Friday.

Several scenarios — including disturbances from fracking, lower water tables from drought, removal of water used for fracking or industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings — could release the dangerous compounds into shallow groundwater.

"This study alone can't conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research," Brian Fontenot, the lead author on the new paper, said.

-

Well, there ya go -- these elevated levels of contaminants have absolutely nothing to do with fracking. Case closed.

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

[Opie 0]

masterblaster72

***Well shit Sherlock,
maybe the jury is still out.


http://news.yahoo.com/researchers-elevated-levels-heavy-metals-173704372.html

Researchers at the University of Texas at Arlington say there are elevated levels of arsenic and other heavy metals close to natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett Shale area of North Texas, according to a news release from the school Friday.

Several scenarios — including disturbances from fracking, lower water tables from drought, removal of water used for fracking or industrial accidents such as faulty gas well casings — could release the dangerous compounds into shallow groundwater.

"This study alone can't conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants in areas near natural gas drilling, but it does provide a powerful argument for continued research," Brian Fontenot, the lead author on the new paper, said.

-

Well, there ya go -- these elevated levels of contaminants have absolutely nothing to do with fracking. Case closed.

Big difference between "can't conclusively identify" which you highlighted from the story and your conclusion of "have absolutely nothing to do with fracking" that you jumped to.

As I said, jury is still out.

-

[masterblaster72 0]

Opie

Big difference between "can't conclusively identify" which you highlighted from the story and your conclusion of "have absolutely nothing to do with fracking" that you jumped to.

As I said, jury is still out.

-

I know, I was just aping the über pro-fracking crowd. The industry hides behind this reasoning to keep drilling and destroying water supplies with impunity.

I would like to see people like the OP tell these poor folks suffering from cancer that "fracking is perfectly safe -- full stop."

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

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>But this topic is in the same lane as AGW.

So we can't be sure, the jury is still out, there's no evidence that fracking works, we have to wait and see?

Gotta wait until the data is "adjusted" to really know for sure

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

[billvon 2,413]

>Gotta wait until the data is "adjusted" to really know for sure

OK. So we hold off on fracking until the science is settled.

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

I would like to see people like the OP tell these poor folks suffering from cancer that "fracking is perfectly safe -- full stop."

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

I would like to see people like the OP tell these poor folks suffering from cancer that "fracking is perfectly safe -- full stop."

Too Funny

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Gotta wait until the data is "adjusted" to really know for sure

OK. So we hold off on fracking until the science is settled.

But what about the 99% who already agree?

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