Fracking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 12:03 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Let me just start off with 2 things. 1, no, that was not sarcasm and 2, I am not a fan of fracking the majority of the time

I'm confused man, you seem to be defending the practice.

(07-08-2013 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Radon gas is a natrual hazard. It is more problematic in some areas over others. An earthquake could release it too.

And an earthquake generated tsunami could have destroyed Hiroshima did that make it okay to nuke it?

(07-08-2013 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Methane is an issue I am aware of, but it isn't a carcinogen but can make water undrinkable.

Aside from that methane is a greenhouse gas 20x more potent than CO2. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemission.../ch4.html)

(07-08-2013 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't know what to say about "other impurities" because drilling a well for water could do the same thing (water wells are also often fracked in areas so as to increase pore space)

'Other Impurities' meaning shit fuck tons of toxic gases:

Natural gas production there has been linked to emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, ethane, toluene, and xylene. Short-term exposure to these compounds may produce nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems, while long-term exposure is linked to brain tumors, leukemia, breast cancer, and other serious illnesses.

This stuff is heavier than air and does not disperse easily. People have watched sheep and cattle die en mass due to dense toxic gas clouds hanging over their land. Women are miscarrying. It's not a joke.

(07-08-2013 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Conamination of wells is an issue, but this is an issue because of surface run-off too.

It's a huge issue when you live in a rural location and suddenly you are without potable water in you home.

The fracking fluid—also called slickwater—typically contains compounds such as diesel fuel, formaldehyde, acids, and other potentially toxic chemicals. Once the fluid is returned to the surface, it may also carry salts, chlorides, heavy minerals, and radioactive materials released from the rock during the fracturing process.5
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

Whatever toxic shit doesn't come out of the gas well is capped off with a layer of concrete and never examined or maintained again. Surveys show that a large number of older wells are already leaking unchecked.

We don't even know exactly what kinds of toxic shit they are using:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...wastewater

BTW it's not like these people get anything. The vast majority of landowners do not own the rights to the gas/oil under their lands. Fraking makes it possible to extract oil/gas from nearby property causing the land owner tremendous risk and inconvenience and offering no reward.

"I'm confused man, you seem to be defending the practice."

I'm defending the fact that are legitmate concerns without the need to invent arbitrary ones.

"And an earthquake generated tsunami could have destroyed Hiroshima did that make it okay to nuke it?"


The point is that radon gas is an issue regardless of fracking or not. But it is a non sequitor to try and link it solely to fracking.


"Aside from that methane is a greenhouse gas 20x more potent than CO2."
(http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemission.../ch4.html)


I'm aware of methanes greenhouse potency and it is a legitmate concern for those living in areas with fracking.


"
Natural gas production there has been linked to emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, ethane, toluene, and xylene. Short-term exposure to these compounds may produce nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems, while long-term exposure is linked to brain tumors, leukemia, breast cancer, and other serious illnesses.
"


Any chance you could tell me where you got this from?

"This stuff is heavier than air and does not disperse easily. People have watched sheep and cattle die en mass due to dense toxic gas clouds hanging over their land. Women are miscarrying. It's not a joke."


I haven't seen any study that actually links this mate. What I am saying is there are claims like these that are unsubstantiated. Do you have a resource for this one?

"It's a huge issue when you live in a rural location and suddenly you are without potable water in you home."

Right. That is a legitimate concern.

"The fracking fluid—also called slickwater—typically contains compounds such as diesel fuel, formaldehyde, acids, and other potentially toxic chemicals. Once the fluid is returned to the surface, it may also carry salts, chlorides, heavy minerals, and radioactive materials released from the rock during the fracturing process.5
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

Whatever toxic shit doesn't come out of the gas well is capped off with a layer of concrete and never examined or maintained again. Surveys show that a large number of older wells are already leaking unchecked.

We don't even know exactly what kinds of toxic shit they are using:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...wastewater"


I am also aware that there are chemicals in the water used. Which is a problem if there is spillage and the fluids are not recovered. This is why they talk about the fluid returning to the surface, they recover what they send down. And the salts, chlorides, heavy minerals (I don't know that means actually, maybe heavy metals?), and radioactive materials that are recovered along with it are already in the rocks. If fracking is mobilizing them, then yes, it is an issue.

The key seems to be depth. Depth of the shale compared to depth of the water table. Sufficietnly deep source-rock poses no real threat because of the overlying pressure (which is why New York is a huge battleground because the Marcellus is really shallow).

"BTW it's not like these people get anything. The vast majority of landowners do not own the rights to the gas/oil under their lands. Fraking makes it possible to extract oil/gas from nearby property causing the land owner tremendous risk and inconvenience and offering no reward."

They own the rights to them unless they sold them away or bought the property without them. It is a legal issue that has arisen for things other than gas extraction when someone sells the mineral rights to their property and then someone comes along to take the minerals. That's been an issue far longer than fracking has been popular.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 11:48 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 11:25 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Expensive candy worth $750,000!!!

I'd shut the fuck up about some fracking too if someone gave me $750,000!

exactly my point. People is stupid and give away fundamental rights for some cash, a lot of cash yes, but those fundamental rights are there to serve as the foundation for society. Give that away and everything starts to unravel... And people are too stupid to know better than to accept the immediate reward, that's why there must be some restrictions to the waiverability of rights.

You have to put yourself in their shoes....

Heck my mother did battle with Chrysler over a lemon and a month or two in it was abundantly clear that it would take something on the order of up to 10 years to see any compensation (and she works for a lawyer) and that was a $20,000 van not a house. It was impossible to live with only one car in suburbia and the family wound up living with the lemon rather than perusing the legal battle....Now imagine you are going through the same thing against the same kind of power but this time over property damage and poisoning in a case worth hundreds of thousands. They had the option to take that 750,000 and run or walk the righteous path of homelessness, legal fees, endless court appearances...for 2, 3, 4, 10 years?... I couldn't do that to my daughter(s).

...It's shitty that people have to take settlements like this, but I don't blame them I blame the system.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Fracking
I'll defend fracking. There's nothing new about it; its been in use since the early 20th century to extract natural gas, but has recently come to prominence with rising prices of oil.

There are risks associated with it and it does require oversight and accountability on its use, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks of it.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "I'm confused man, you seem to be defending the practice."

I'm defending the fact that are legitmate concerns without the need to invent arbitrary ones.

"And an earthquake generated tsunami could have destroyed Hiroshima did that make it okay to nuke it?"


The point is that radon gas is an issue regardless of fracking or not. But it is a non sequitor to try and link it solely to fracking.

Right I just don't think the health concerns around gas drilling are arbitrary.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
Natural gas production there has been linked to emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, ethane, toluene, and xylene. Short-term exposure to these compounds may produce nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems, while long-term exposure is linked to brain tumors, leukemia, breast cancer, and other serious illnesses.
"[/b]

Any chance you could tell me where you got this from?

That came from American Association for Justice (Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) website. http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

You're not going to find industry sanctioned papers (for the same reason they want to shut these poor people up) but if you search there are tons of documentaries and news articles from some pretty solid sources...

Films: Gasland, Gasland 2, Weebo's War

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/fracking...lth_risks/
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/29/140872251/...s-fracking
http://www.propublica.org/article/scienc...gas-fields
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-rauc...60539.html
http://ecowatch.com/2013/report-fracking...-children/

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
"This stuff is heavier than air and does not disperse easily. People have watched sheep and cattle die en mass due to dense toxic gas clouds hanging over their land. Women are miscarrying. It's not a joke."


I haven't seen any study that actually links this mate. What I am saying is there are claims like these that are unsubstantiated. Do you have a resource for this one?

That account is taken from Weebo's war. His wife claimed to suffer multiple miscarriages and he lost a most of his sheep heard (but there are similar accounts all over the web and I linked a few of them above). Weebo is a crazy right wing Christian family/cult/terrorist kinda guy which adds a another dimension to the whole thing...I wanted to hate him but I couldn't, dude has legitimate beef with big gas.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The fracking fluid—also called slickwater—typically contains compounds such as diesel fuel, formaldehyde, acids, and other potentially toxic chemicals. Once the fluid is returned to the surface, it may also carry salts, chlorides, heavy minerals, and radioactive materials released from the rock during the fracturing process.5
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

Whatever toxic shit doesn't come out of the gas well is capped off with a layer of concrete and never examined or maintained again. Surveys show that a large number of older wells are already leaking unchecked.

We don't even know exactly what kinds of toxic shit they are using:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...wastewater"


I am also aware that there are chemicals in the water used. Which is a problem if there is spillage and the fluids are not recovered. This is why they talk about the fluid returning to the surface, they recover what they send down. And the salts, chlorides, heavy minerals (I don't know that means actually, maybe heavy metals?), and radioactive materials that are recovered along with it are already in the rocks. If fracking is mobilizing them, then yes, it is an issue.

The key seems to be depth. Depth of the shale compared to depth of the water table. Sufficietnly deep source-rock poses no real threat because of the overlying pressure (which is why New York is a huge battleground because the Marcellus is really shallow).

I'm sure that depth is a big factor but the truth is that they don't recover all of what they send down, they seal up what they can't pump out but concrete doesn't block liquid forever and the methane flows up and is released if the well cap is damaged.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They own the rights to them unless they sold them away or bought the property without them. It is a legal issue that has arisen for things other than gas extraction when someone sells the mineral rights to their property and then someone comes along to take the minerals. That's been an issue far longer than fracking has been popular.

Right that is the law, this one is more for the other readers of this thread. In my experience most people think that it works like Beverly Hillbillies....You find gas, you sell the rights, you make a fortune, you move to LA...but the reality for most families is that they are forced to accept the presence of the gas co. and nothing in return.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 01:01 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "I'm confused man, you seem to be defending the practice."

I'm defending the fact that are legitmate concerns without the need to invent arbitrary ones.

"And an earthquake generated tsunami could have destroyed Hiroshima did that make it okay to nuke it?"


The point is that radon gas is an issue regardless of fracking or not. But it is a non sequitor to try and link it solely to fracking.

Right I just don't think the health concerns around gas drilling are arbitrary.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
Natural gas production there has been linked to emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, carbon disulfide, ethane, toluene, and xylene. Short-term exposure to these compounds may produce nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems, while long-term exposure is linked to brain tumors, leukemia, breast cancer, and other serious illnesses.
"[/b]

Any chance you could tell me where you got this from?

That came from American Association for Justice (Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) website. http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

You're not going to find industry sanctioned papers (for the same reason they want to shut these poor people up) but if you search there are tons of documentaries and news articles from some pretty solid sources...

Films: Gasland, Gasland 2, Weebo's War

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/fracking...lth_risks/
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/29/140872251/...s-fracking
http://www.propublica.org/article/scienc...gas-fields
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-rauc...60539.html
http://ecowatch.com/2013/report-fracking...-children/

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
"This stuff is heavier than air and does not disperse easily. People have watched sheep and cattle die en mass due to dense toxic gas clouds hanging over their land. Women are miscarrying. It's not a joke."


I haven't seen any study that actually links this mate. What I am saying is there are claims like these that are unsubstantiated. Do you have a resource for this one?

That account is taken from Weebo's war. His wife claimed to suffer multiple miscarriages and he lost a most of his sheep heard (but there are similar accounts all over the web and I linked a few of them above). Weebo is a crazy right wing Christian family/cult/terrorist kinda guy which adds a another dimension to the whole thing...I wanted to hate him but I couldn't, dude has legitimate beef with big gas.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The fracking fluid—also called slickwater—typically contains compounds such as diesel fuel, formaldehyde, acids, and other potentially toxic chemicals. Once the fluid is returned to the surface, it may also carry salts, chlorides, heavy minerals, and radioactive materials released from the rock during the fracturing process.5
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm

Whatever toxic shit doesn't come out of the gas well is capped off with a layer of concrete and never examined or maintained again. Surveys show that a large number of older wells are already leaking unchecked.

We don't even know exactly what kinds of toxic shit they are using:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...wastewater"


I am also aware that there are chemicals in the water used. Which is a problem if there is spillage and the fluids are not recovered. This is why they talk about the fluid returning to the surface, they recover what they send down. And the salts, chlorides, heavy minerals (I don't know that means actually, maybe heavy metals?), and radioactive materials that are recovered along with it are already in the rocks. If fracking is mobilizing them, then yes, it is an issue.

The key seems to be depth. Depth of the shale compared to depth of the water table. Sufficietnly deep source-rock poses no real threat because of the overlying pressure (which is why New York is a huge battleground because the Marcellus is really shallow).

I'm sure that depth is a big factor but the truth is that they don't recover all of what they send down, they seal up what they can't pump out but concrete doesn't block liquid forever and the methane flows up and is released if the well cap is damaged.

(07-08-2013 12:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  They own the rights to them unless they sold them away or bought the property without them. It is a legal issue that has arisen for things other than gas extraction when someone sells the mineral rights to their property and then someone comes along to take the minerals. That's been an issue far longer than fracking has been popular.

Right that is the law, this one is more for the other readers of this thread. In my experience most people think that it works like Beverly Hillbillies....You find gas, you sell the rights, you make a fortune, you move to LA...but the reality for most families is that they are forced to accept the presence of the gas co. and nothing in return.

"That came from American Association for Justice (Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) website. http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/14567.htm"

They have a vested interest in their view. There is a reason one should seek out unbiased sources.

"You're not going to find industry sanctioned papers (for the same reason they want to shut these poor people up) but if you search there are tons of documentaries and news articles from some pretty solid sources...

Films: Gasland, Gasland 2, Weebo's War"


There are plenty of people researching the issue at the university level and most of them I know don't like fracking. But the documentaries are in the same boat and anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

"That account is taken from Weebo's war. His wife claimed to suffer multiple miscarriages and he lost a most of his sheep heard (but there are similar accounts all over the web and I linked a few of them above). Weebo is a crazy right wing Christian family/cult/terrorist kinda guy which adds a another dimension to the whole thing...I wanted to hate him but I couldn't, dude has legitimate beef with big gas."

But is there anything that actually links it? Once again, this is someone with a vested interest in their claims being true. Money works as a lubricant for greed on both sides of the fence.

"Whatever toxic shit doesn't come out of the gas well is capped off with a layer of concrete and never examined or maintained again. Surveys show that a large number of older wells are already leaking unchecked."

Right, and this is where concentration matters (as pointed out in the scientific american article you posted) and depth of source rock matters. If the source rock is deep enough, it is not a hazard to groundwater or escape via fissure.

"We don't even know exactly what kinds of toxic shit they are using:"


The idea that they are using some ridicoulously hazardous chemcial that no one is aware of is a stretch for me. I have no doubt they are using some nasty stuff but at what concentrations and at what locations (different companies in different areas would use different mixtures). I'm more concerned with what they do after recovery, that would be the largest volume of that crap.

"I'm sure that depth is a big factor but the truth is that they don't recover all of what they send down, they seal up what they can't pump out but concrete doesn't block liquid forever and the methane flows up and is released if the well cap is damaged."

Sealing the well isn't about maintaing pressure, it would be to keep stuff from falling in. The overburden is all that is needed to prevent escape. Once you remove the hyrdaulic pressure from the rock, the pore space closes up. Meaning that the stuff in it, gets trapped as the overburden pushes the pore space shut.

Once again, unless it is too shallow.

"Right that is the law, this one is more for the other readers of this thread. In my experience most people think that it works like Beverly Hillbillies....You find gas, you sell the rights, you make a fortune, you move to LA...but the reality for most families is that they are forced to accept the presence of the gas co. and nothing in return."

The issue is that most people sell the rights (or buy the property without the rights to save money) without knowing A] what they are doing and B] what resources are on the land they have.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 12:31 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 11:48 AM)nach_in Wrote:  exactly my point. People is stupid and give away fundamental rights for some cash, a lot of cash yes, but those fundamental rights are there to serve as the foundation for society. Give that away and everything starts to unravel... And people are too stupid to know better than to accept the immediate reward, that's why there must be some restrictions to the waiverability of rights.

You have to put yourself in their shoes....

Heck my mother did battle with Chrysler over a lemon and a month or two in it was abundantly clear that it would take something on the order of up to 10 years to see any compensation (and she works for a lawyer) and that was a $20,000 van not a house. It was impossible to live with only one car in suburbia and the family wound up living with the lemon rather than perusing the legal battle....Now imagine you are going through the same thing against the same kind of power but this time over property damage and poisoning in a case worth hundreds of thousands. They had the option to take that 750,000 and run or walk the righteous path of homelessness, legal fees, endless court appearances...for 2, 3, 4, 10 years?... I couldn't do that to my daughter(s).

...It's shitty that people have to take settlements like this, but I don't blame them I blame the system.

I blame the system too, doesn't sound much like it in the post though Tongue

My point is that if these people hadn't the ability to give up their rights there're three main possibilities:
1- the economic power force them to settle. But that settlement is void, so later they'll have to pay damages (on top of the money they already paid for being the guilty part). So that makes this kind of abuses far more punishing to the company and thus reducing the instances of this things happening.

2- They just go to court, making it more expensive for the company and risking public scorn. Bad for business.
As this is the only way for the family to face the issue some sort of help to face the trial would be available.

3- They could've sell the property, but they wouldn't have a gag order and they wouldn't be under the control of a company.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 11:48 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 11:25 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Expensive candy worth $750,000!!!

I'd shut the fuck up about some fracking too if someone gave me $750,000!

exactly my point. People is stupid and give away fundamental rights for some cash, a lot of cash yes, but those fundamental rights are there to serve as the foundation for society. Give that away and everything starts to unravel... And people are too stupid to know better than to accept the immediate reward, that's why there must be some restrictions to the waiverability of rights.

Stop talking out your ass, if you were in their situation you'd take the 750,000 dollars too.
Anyone would, well no strike that, some people would go to court because they think they could get more. But the point is that people would go for the cash...

Quote:3- They could've sell the property, but they wouldn't have a gag order and they wouldn't be under the control of a company.

Under control of the company?
Ahh excuse me Nach's asshole, could you please revert back to your original position and allow me to talk to his mouth as per usual please?

It's part of the settlement. The company agrees to settle, and pay some money (750K) and in return the family shuts the fuck up.
Considering 750K is 750K, it's a bloody deal IMO.

This is how the majority of cases happen. They settle out of court like this.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 01:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  3- They could've sell the property, but they wouldn't have a gag order and they wouldn't be under the control of a company.

Yeah... except nobody wants to spend 400K buying up a super fund site in the middle of nowhere... Just sayin.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 11:34 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't know of any connections to adverse health effects from exposure to fracking materials. Especially cancer.

It's FAR too early to draw that conclusion. 25 years from now, maybe. The deep underground aquifers are being polluted, and will take tens if not hundreds of thousands of years to filter out the (potential) carcinogens. This process has actually caused EARTHQUAKES. What will they do if it causes a major one ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-08-2013, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 03:14 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 12:45 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  I'll defend fracking. There's nothing new about it; its been in use since the early 20th century to extract natural gas, but has recently come to prominence with rising prices of oil.

There are risks associated with it and it does require oversight and accountability on its use, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks of it.

Except when it violates the right to safety that nearby civilians have. Drinking Beverage

Recent studies also suggest that it is responsible for minor and major continental seismic activity. I am of the opinion, however, that fracking needs to be slowly stopped, and am not for legislation suddenly and abruptly banning it.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: