Texas is fracked: More than 30 towns could soon be out of water

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 19, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    Texas is fracked: More than 30 towns could soon be out of water

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/texas-is-fracked-more-than-30-towns-will-soon-be-out-of-water/


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

    Aug 20, 2013 1:27 AM GMT
    You reap what you sow
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2013 1:34 AM GMT
    Seems like a low-to-negative credibility source...

    But last I heard, "water rights" in Texas is pretty much a wild free-for-all. Pump it up before your neighbor does!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2013 1:43 AM GMT
    mindgarden saidSeems like a low-to-negative credibility source...

    But last I heard, "water rights" in Texas is pretty much a wild free-for-all. Pump it up before your neighbor does!


    I agree. From the "article"

    Before you start acting horrified, though, consider: this is exactly what Texas’ mental-midget teabillies voted for.

    This sounds nothing like journalism and very much like some of the shrieking and childish name-calling that goes on here at RJ all the time. Is the writer of the "article" a member of this site?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2013 2:30 AM GMT
    The writer is clearly anti Tea Party but I can't find a rebuttal to the facts of the story.

    The closest comes with a strong title. http://toryaardvark.com/2013/08/12/the-great-texas-fracking-drought-that-was-not-caused-by-fracking/
    But he doesn't dispute the facts with any evidence but his own opinion.

    Still the question remains, is it true that Texas water wells are drying because of fracking?

    Anyone else want to ask Mr.Google to see if you get an answer?
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Aug 20, 2013 3:07 AM GMT
    Texas is in the desert and relies mostly on groundwater that took thousands of years to accumulate there. I'm sure y'all can put 2 and 2 together.
  • neosyllogy

    Posts: 1714

    Aug 20, 2013 3:58 PM GMT
    GoNYMets2012 said
    mindgarden saidSeems like a low-to-negative credibility source...

    I agree. ...


    I'm inclined to at least agree that a less suspect article would have perhaps been more appropriate, no?

    I think lots of us appreciate the articles you post metta8, but it seems like (maybe just random sample bias on my part) that lately you've been sharing some relatively bankrupt pieces.


    Fracking definitely uses water. As it is nearly 50% of water in the US is used for energy generation purposes though. That's not in itself something new. Though that doesn't mean every community fully calculates the cost when a new endeavor is suggested. The above is obviously biased.

    Some (quick and dirtily pulled up alt sources):
    BoulderStand: Water Use for Fracking Not Necessarily a Net Losshttp://www.theboulderstand.org/2013/03/14/water-use-for-fracking-not-necessarily-a-net-loss/


    Source Watch: Fracking and water consumptionhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking_and_water_consumption#Fracking_and_water_shortages

    Pop Mechanics: top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling; #2http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593-2#slide-2
    "while there is some evidence that fracking has contributed to the depletion of water supplies in drought-stricken Texas, a study by Carnegie Mellon University indicates the Marcellus region has plenty of water and, in most cases, an adequate system to regulate its usage. The amount of water required to drill all 2916 of the Marcellus wells permitted in Pennsylvania in the first 11 months of 2010 would equal the amount of drinking water used by just one city, Pittsburgh, during the same period, says environmental engineering professor Jeanne VanBriesen, the study's lead author. Plus, she notes, water withdrawals of this new industry are taking the place of water once used by industries, like steel manufacturing, that the state has lost. Hydrogeologist David Yoxtheimer of Penn State's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research gives the withdrawals more context: Of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd"


    Fracking use: 1.6 mgd
    Other: 928 mgd


    I don't have strong opinions on this, but I'm cognizant of the fact that people aren't being straight on both sides...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2013 4:01 PM GMT
    MORE LIBERAL MONGERING. GIVE UP YOUR JETS AND LIMOS HOLLYWOODicon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2013 5:45 PM GMT
    neosyllogy said
    I'm inclined to at least agree that a less suspect article would have perhaps been more appropriate, no?

    I think lots of us appreciate the articles you post metta8, but it seems like (maybe just random sample bias on my part) that lately you've been sharing some relatively bankrupt pieces.


    I don't think he even reads them. He rarely comments on them. And he posts so many things during a typical day that if he did read them, how would he have time to devote to his "regular job?"

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

    Sep 20, 2013 12:21 AM GMT
    CDAVIS saidMORE LIBERAL MONGERING. GIVE UP YOUR JETS AND LIMOS HOLLYWOODicon_evil.gif


    Troll. BTW, thanks for the unsolicited nastygram in my private mail. You're a lightweight. jaja!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 20, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    neosyllogy said
    I don't have strong opinions on this, but I'm cognizant of the fact that people aren't being straight on both sides...


    I get both sides sending me samples to analyze, to prove their case.
    I don't make anybody happy. icon_rolleyes.gif