Fracking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2013, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2013 03:18 PM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 01:14 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 01:01 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Right I just don't think the health concerns around gas drilling are arbitrary.


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/


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.


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.


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.

I dunno man. I think it's going to depend on where you get your info from. Big gas or little people. For me there are far too many personal accounts hitting on all the same details and I have a hard time believing that the gas industry can come anywhere near the levels of safety I would want to see based on whats been done in the past and the track record of the oil industry (many of the same companies) as well as the sheer scope of such projects...I can't believe that an inch of concrete will protect the water my daughter and her progeny will be drinking.

Watch Josh Fox on Bill: http://rackjite.com/bill-maher-fracking-...-josh-fox/

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 01:38 PM)earmuffs 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.

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.

I know, probably I'd do the same thing... when I say people are stupid I include myself in.

That doesn't mean that we should allow ourselves to fall into stupidity. That's what laws are for, to stop people fuck things up by themselves.

Here imposing a gag order into a kid would be illegal. I think that's good, and if the company or whoever lose money for that, I don't give a fuck, there're more important things in life than that, for example, letting a kid say "fracking" without risking loose all the family money.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Fracking
I'd say that gag order is on pretty slippery legal ground.

The children cannot legally consent to it as they are minors. When they are 18, they can probably say whatever they want, get gagged again, and sue for another $750,000.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 02:20 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(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.

Show me the bodies, Logica.

Secondly, Start generating your own electricity and find a perfectly clean, zero risk power source for your cars.

Until you can, don't complain. You're part of the problem.

"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, 05:50 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 05:11 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Secondly, Start generating your own electricity and find a perfectly clean, zero risk power source for your cars.

Until you can, don't complain. You're part of the problem.

'zactly. We're either fucked now if we don't use the only cheap fuel we've got left or later when it runs out anyway.

Damn I got a good feeling about the next few decades.

Weeping

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: Fracking
Although I'm not familiar enough with the science behind fracking to dispute the harm this can cause, I still don't understand why a multinational corporation would hand over any money to anyone with out damned good reason especially if there's no so-called harm to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes aurora's post
07-08-2013, 06:10 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 05:11 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Show me the bodies, Logica.

Secondly, Start generating your own electricity and find a perfectly clean, zero risk power source for your cars.

Until you can, don't complain. You're part of the problem.

What, so you are of the opinion that if there aren't any directly-related causes of death that there aren't health risks for individuals living around the area? Go ahead, look it up. You'll find plenty of information about it.

I expected such a better argument from you. You think I am a hypocrite for arguing against fracking, despite my reasonable tiered reduction of the process? Am I a hypocrite for purchasing clothing and then disagreeing with sweatshops?

[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
07-08-2013, 06:34 PM
RE: Fracking
(07-08-2013 06:10 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(07-08-2013 05:11 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Show me the bodies, Logica.

Secondly, Start generating your own electricity and find a perfectly clean, zero risk power source for your cars.

Until you can, don't complain. You're part of the problem.

What, so you are of the opinion that if there aren't any directly-related causes of death that there aren't health risks for individuals living around the area? Go ahead, look it up. You'll find plenty of information about it.

I expected such a better argument from you. You think I am a hypocrite for arguing against fracking, despite my reasonable tiered reduction of the process? Am I a hypocrite for purchasing clothing and then disagreeing with sweatshops?

That's like saying I should be of the opinion that vaccines can cause autism, even if there aren't clinical trial studies demonstrating the link.

It's known there are some risks associated with fracking, just as with any type of resource harvesting. But based on the evidence available, I see no reason to end fracking. The risks just don't outweigh the benefits.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
07-08-2013, 07:22 PM
RE: Fracking
Carlo, I would argue that there was a time to be legitimately concerned about the risk associated with MMR but that time has certainly passed. Questions were raised and some evidence was presented, albeit later proved fraudulent and the questions resolved in the negative. Fracking is at a stage where significant evidence of problems has emerged and study is warranted. It is reasonable to impose restrictions on the practice such as requiring specific kinds of monitoring relating to the fracking activities.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 10:36 PM
RE: Fracking
I agree with Carlo upthread. It may be worth studying, but the evidence that fracking in general is unsafe is just not yet there. And on another note, I would like to throw a little cold water on the sympathy train this thread has been for this family filing the suit. This part of the article stuck out for me:
"They also claimed operations contaminated their drinking water and rendered their property worthless. They had purchased it in 2005, unknowingly inheriting a lease with Range Resources. Soon after the Hallowiches built their house in 2007, gas wells, access roads, a gas-processing facility and compressor stations were constructed on bordering properties, bringing with them noise, lights and emissions, according to reports. "

They "unknowingly" inherited a lease? Really? I call bullshit. This is highly unlikely, and if it did happen, either the seller, title company, or broker is the entity who should be sued for either fraud or negligence. If there was a lease then the family was paid money by the company for this lease. Or it wasn't really a lease but an easement that shows that mineral rights have been sold to this company. When someone sells a property, they are obligated to disclose all liabilities on the property like leases, and if it was an easement, the title company and broker bear responsibility for doing due diligence to uncover all such easements. If we assume this family isn't just a bunch of gold diggers and they really did not know about this lease, then the real harm was done by whoever misled, withheld, or failed to disclose the existence of this lease.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: