Update: Former EPA employees, lawsuit allege Obama Administration interfered with fracking studies

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 8:23 PM GMT
    DOE study: Fracking chemicals didn't taint water

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/energy/article/DOE-study-Fracking-chemicals-didn-t-taint-water-4674134.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 8:30 PM GMT
    Yeah, people were just imagining that their water was flammable. If you think the water in areas affected by fracking is fine then you should drink it. It's full of gas and chemicals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2013 8:36 PM GMT
    Stan24 saidYeah, people were just imagining that their water was flammable. If you think the water in areas affected by fracking is fine then you should drink it. It's full of gas and chemicals.


    Too bad you don't actually have any I dunno, evidence for your claims that either these weren't conditions that were preexisting in some cases or that two, weren't corrected by faulting seals which have since been regulated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 8:29 AM GMT
    Fracking does use a hell of a lot of water though, so it could cause water shortages.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23373618
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2013 12:48 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidFracking does use a hell of a lot of water though, so it could cause water shortages.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23373618


    That is one of the legitimate issues with fracking but even this has fortunately been improving on two fronts:

    1. Fracking is using less water than it used to, and it's set to improve even further: http://gelookahead.economist.com/slideshow/fracking-with-less-water/

    2. Better filtration technologies mean that water can be reused:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-desalination-idUSBRE92C05720130313
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 2:04 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidFracking does use a hell of a lot of water though, so it could cause water shortages.


    No. Hydraulic fracturing (id est, fracking) "frees" H2O, and thus, H2O is a byproduct of fracking. Wherein lies the problem is that the "wastewater" is then injected back into the ground. This appears from all indications to produce an increase in earthquakes.

    As the USGS notes:

    Earth's crust is pervasively fractured at depth by faults. These faults can sustain high stresses without slipping because natural "tectonic" stress and the weight of the overlying rock pushes the opposing fault blocks together, increasing the frictional resistance to fault slip. The injected wastewater counteracts the frictional forces on faults and, in effect, "pries them apart", thereby facilitating earthquake slip.

    http://www.usgs.gov/faq/?q=categories/9833/3426
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-12/earthquake-outbreak-in-central-u-s-tied-to-drilling-wastewater.html

    addendum est: I await the USGS's long-term study on the effect of ground H2O contamination. Unlike the DOE, they have baseline readings that should provide a better understanding of the safety of fracking.
    http://water.usgs.gov/coop/products/energy/shale.cwp.summary.pdf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 2:43 PM GMT
    You mean you reject the preliminary findings from the DOE that state that there is no ground water contamination which were released a few days ago?

    That being said, the issue of the injection wells can be mitigated and there are alternatives particularly since less water is being used in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 2:53 PM GMT
    I reject nothing. I do, however, see the DOE study as preliminary.

    From the linked article:

    "Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are the first independent look at whether the potentially toxic chemicals pose a threat to people during normal drilling operations. 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."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 3:00 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidI reject nothing. I do, however, see the DOE study as preliminary.

    From the linked article:

    "Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are the first independent look at whether the potentially toxic chemicals pose a threat to people during normal drilling operations. 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."


    Given how radically natural gas has contributed to the fall in greenhouse emissions in the US you must at least see this is as very good news for the environment?

    The irony is that the US is far further ahead than other European/Japanese countries in meeting Kyoto targets despite not even being a signatory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 3:05 PM GMT
    What gives you the idea that I'm diversus towards hydraulic fracturing? Cautious, yes; optimistic, yes; opposed, no.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 3:13 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidWhat gives you the idea that I'm diversus towards hydraulic fracturing? Cautious, yes; optimistic, yes; opposed, no.


    It doesn't come across well but I wasn't being sarcastic that you should see this as a positive event. I would be a bit skeptical that you might be - but many so called environmentalists are fundamentally opposed to practically any form of electrical generation except for solar which I find curious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 3:30 PM GMT
    I do think that ALL energy producing realities and possibilities need be explored. There should be objective, and severe, cost-benefit analyses done that incorporate environmental impact(s), not simply profitability.

    Petroleum-based products are a finite resource. Therefore long-range planning requires that research includes all extant and realizable energy sources. I propose that some of these are in their nascent phase, or not yet imagined.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 22, 2013 3:34 PM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidI do think that ALL energy producing realities and possibilities need be explored. There should be objective, and severe, cost-benefit analyses done that incorporate environmental impact(s), not simply profitability.

    Petroleum-based products are a finite resource. Therefore long-range planning requires that research includes all extant and realizable energy sources. I propose that some of these are in their nascent phase, or not yet imagined.


    I agree - I see natural gas only as a bridge fuel to something truly sustainable. I think solar/battery tech will get there, alternatively some form of nuclear (which kinda is solar in a way)
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 23, 2013 12:37 AM GMT


    There ya Go ...............
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 23, 2013 12:11 PM GMT
    GQjock said

    There ya Go ...............


    Except it was shown that this wasn't the result of fracking but a bad implementation of fracking given the improper sealing of their drilling:
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593-2#slide-8

    In other cases like Gasland where they showed water on fire, it was not mentioned on their instances that this was occurring long before any fracking had even begun and it was a natural occurrence.

    There ya go:
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2013 3:21 PM GMT


    Now then, how about this lovely ongoing wonderful event.

    http://pipe-up.net/2013/07/25/alberta-tar-sands-have-been-leaking-for-nine-weeks-with-no-signs-of-stopping/

    Frack baby frack.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2013 4:38 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Now then, how about this lovely ongoing wonderful event.

    http://pipe-up.net/2013/07/25/alberta-tar-sands-have-been-leaking-for-nine-weeks-with-no-signs-of-stopping/

    Frack baby frack.


    The world can't fuel itself on your hot air. Apparently you're too uninformed to realize that fracking has nothing to do with the tar sands. Or are you saying you'd rather just do away with oil and gas because hey, we don't actually need fossil fuels anymore?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    Obama admin may have interfered with fracking studies

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/did-the-obama-admin-interfere-in-fracking-studies/