why should anybody care about what a zoo keeper thinks about geology?

We care about what Jack Hanna thinks about fracking..... why?

Must be the money.

In before the retroencabulator.

chuckufarlie: why should anybody care about what a zoo keeper thinks about geology?

It has become trendy to report and give weight to the opinions of well-known individuals on subjects outside their regular area of expertise. See also: Jenny McCarthy on the efficacy of vaccines, Ken Mercer on the theory of evolution and Sarah Palin on pretty much anything at all.

If coffee up my sinuses will help my sinusitis, I'll try it.

/however too much felgercarbs aggravates my diabeetus

Sounds like someone needs a refresher course. It's all ball bearings these days.

radiumsoup: they didn't spell it out, but my presumption is that his opinion goes a little along these lines:

Drill in one location for fracking as opposed to dozens of locations to cover the same area using traditional techniques. Smaller overall surface footprint for recovery operations = better for animal habitat.

Well, that and the EPA has yet to find any actual environmental damage aside from the immediate footprint. No issues with drinking water, etc. I know there's a very flawed study out there that's been consistently disproven.

Whatchamawha?

I like how he was the guy that they brought in to justify shooting all the animals that got turned loose in Ohio.

MegaUngawa: I like how he was the guy that they brought in to justify shooting all the animals that got turned loose in Ohio.

Well, let's discuss this point. His zoo is one of the better ones in the country, he's local to the incident, and he used to be a celebrity who'd show up on all sorts of shows. On top of this, he's probably a decent expert on the field of wild animal behavior. Who would you like them to quote? Are you that farking stupid?

Yes - you probably are.

RandomAxe: He's local and highly visible, and I'm not saying you can't print his opinion on this, but Jack Hanna is not and has never been a conservationist of any kind, and as yet there's no reason to believe he knows anything much about fracking.

He's in the business of running a zoo. That does not, by any measure, make him some kind of environmentalist. This is a guy who kept lions in an improper petting zoo at his farm until one of them ate a kid's arm. He's not some kind of genius guru.

As noted earlier in the thread, the opinion of celebrities seems to matter. In all honesty, he's probably just as informed (if not more so) than the politicians who'll end up making decisions on this matter. In fact, he's probably a better source solely because he's not getting bribed lobbied by different groups (both for and against).

I'd also say he's probably a damn sight better than Jenny McStupid.

Then let him go live on the lands that the site operators pollute to the point that TAP WATER IS FLAMMABLE!!!

Yep, a celebrity (even if he probably has a science background, it ain't in petroleum engineering) chimes in on something he have no expertise in.

But I know where this thread will be going. There's a widespread perception that's there's a link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination, largely fed by the media, but the science isn't there to support it, however.

The most recent study indicates that 20% of water wells in the Marcellus area are already contaminated by methane before a single gas well is drilled. 40% fail at least one safety standard before a single gas well is drilled. This is consistent with current knowledge of Pennsylvania groundwater quality. Further, researchers have found no evidence for a change in water quality after gas wells are drilled and fracked, except for bromides in some wells, which were more likely introduced during the drilling phase and not the fracking phase (while bromides are sometimes used in the fracking phase, they are used with other chemicals and none of these other chemicals were found in the groundwater). All this was done by scientists at Penn State and without gas-industry funding.

PDF File: Link (new window)

The above report, as far as I know, hasn't made the news in any big way. Good news about something doesn't help sell newspapers, apparently.

Further, the widely cited Duke study everybody uses to criticize hydraulic fracturing actually concludes that hydraulic fracturing is likely not the problem because they can't find any frac fluids in the groundwater. They concluded that any contamination was either poor well design or poor implementation of the design (i.e. the casing used to line the well was crappy and failed to isolate the groundwater zone from nearby gassy zones).

Link (new window)

Essentially, the Duke study is being misused by opponents of hydraulic fracturing. There have also been some recent replies published about the Duke study that disputed whether it truly demonstrated whether the gas in the water wells came from the gas wells.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Now, obviously, development of shale gas is not benign. Only an idiot would say that it is. There's traffic. Road noise. Compressor noise. There are spills. There is the potential for groundwater contamination if the gas-well casing sucks. There could be locally high water withdrawals (though, the overall water use is pretty tiny compared to activities like agriculture).

But these can be mitigated with good regulations and with a willingness to enforce those regulations. You can force companies to use closed-loop water systems, where everything is kept in tanks instead of open-air pits, reducing the risks of spills and increasing water recycling. You make gas-drilling companies test well water quality before drilling for a baseline. And, if they fark up, you fine them big, including potential bans on future activity.

But, instead, we're left with a no-risk culture fed by fear, which means nothing can get done, even if the science says the risks are very low and the economic benefits can be pretty high.

So, Hanna snorts coffee? Has he tried perking it? Doesn't he know how to make coffee?

ronaprhys: As noted earlier in the thread, the opinion of celebrities seems to matter. In all honesty, he's probably just as informed (if not more so) than the politicians who'll end up making decisions on this matter. In fact, he's probably a better source solely because he's not getting bribed lobbied by different groups (both for and against).

I doubt that. His zoo is right next to a fracking site, and he's expanding his visitor tours to cover the fracking site to help educate people about the technique, in an effort to attract funding from gas companies to his conservation projects. Seems like the money's flowing over to him just as much as to the politicians who are required to make decisions about regulation as part of their jobs. I think it's safe to assume that Jack Hanna is a spokesmodel in this case. Sadly, most Americans aren't well-equipped enough to critically analyze the information they're presented with through these sorts of lobbying and advertising channels.

Then again, James Lovelock, a symbolic father of modern environmentalism, came out in favor of nuclear energy a couple years ago... not sure whether he was lobbied to do so or making statements based on a reasoned opinion. I hope it's the latter, but won't exclude the possibility of the former.

radiumsoup: they didn't spell it out, but my presumption is that his opinion goes a little along these lines:

Drill in one location for fracking as opposed to dozens of locations to cover the same area using traditional techniques. Smaller overall surface footprint for recovery operations = better for animal habitat.

That's exactly what my position is.

Of course, if they did that they'd be bound by EPA standards, which actually costs more money even though actually building a bunch of small sites costs more money than building one large site, but small sites are free to pollute like people can just buy a new earth.

Thanks, Bush.

chuckufarlie: why should anybody care about what a zoo keeper thinks about geology?

About as insightful as an unemployed 22 year old with a mountain of debt on the greed of Wall Street perhaps?

thelordofcheese: site operators pollute to the point that TAP WATER IS FLAMMABLE!!!

Has it ever occurred to you that the tap water is flammable because there are natural deposits of flammable deposits under the ground? The oil companies are extracting this flammable material, thus they are CLEANING UP THE "POLLUTION", not causing it. Sheesh.

There are people with flammable tap water in areas where there are no mines. That's because where there are natural deposits of gas and oil, the stuff is ALREADY MIXED INTO THE GROUNDWATER.

/CAPSLOCK!

"I have no problem with Marcellus Shale," Hanna said. "We need the resource, and we can't be captives to our environment."

Marcellus Shale. Because the environment would take you captive if given the chance. Don't let the environment win. Frack now!

"We want to show people what fracking is all about in hopes that companies will fund our conservation efforts," Hanna said

It's rare that someone openly admits to being a whore.

misanthropologist: ronaprhys: As noted earlier in the thread, the opinion of celebrities seems to matter. In all honesty, he's probably just as informed (if not more so) than the politicians who'll end up making decisions on this matter. In fact, he's probably a better source solely because he's not getting bribed lobbied by different groups (both for and against).

I doubt that. His zoo is right next to a fracking site, and he's expanding his visitor tours to cover the fracking site to help educate people about the technique, in an effort to attract funding from gas companies to his conservation projects. Seems like the money's flowing over to him just as much as to the politicians who are required to make decisions about regulation as part of their jobs. I think it's safe to assume that Jack Hanna is a spokesmodel in this case. Sadly, most Americans aren't well-equipped enough to critically analyze the information they're presented with through these sorts of lobbying and advertising channels.

Then again, James Lovelock, a symbolic father of modern environmentalism, came out in favor of nuclear energy a couple years ago... not sure whether he was lobbied to do so or making statements based on a reasoned opinion. I hope it's the latter, but won't exclude the possibility of the former.

Interesting - I live next to the zoo (literally) and there's no fracking site that close that I know of. On the eastern side of the state, sure. Many wells over there.

You could have a fair point on Hanna and funding for his conservation efforts (link please, if it's true than it's true). However, I'd still argue that his efforts here would be closer to benefiting the country than those arguing against fracking. Note the actual studies done and the counterpoints provided earlier in the thread. At this point, no evidence exists to show that fracking is a poor environmental choice. Past that, it helps stave off economic collapse, reduces the dependence on foreign oil (we're up to producing 52% of our own oil needs now, from around 30% a few years ago), and helps promote conservation.

Not too shabby.

RandomAxe: The flammable-tap-water thing is not the case with all fracking, but it's just a loud symptom of the problems involved. If you focus too much on it, you make it easy for pro-fracking people to point at places where the tap water didn't become flammable.

Malaria doesn't kill all of its victims, but that doesn't make it a good idea, either.

So you'll gladly site a single verified instance of such an occurrence? An instance of flaming tap water isn't proof, that used to occur from time to time before we ever started using the technology.

You can't pump unknown chemicals into the ground without some kind of effect sooner or later, and anyway this is farking stupid because this is just more non-renewable fossil fuel mining... why not end reliance on it and save it for a rainy day, like rebuilding a city after a major disaster? Maybe in 200 years a giant earthquake is going to take out New York and the Mexicanadian Republic will be like, "That oil and natural gas would have been pretty farking useful right about now, but I guess those asshole past people couldn't figure out how to build a goddamn biodiesel refinery or wind turbine."

RanDomino: You can't pump unknown chemicals into the ground without some kind of effect sooner or later, and anyway this is farking stupid because this is just more non-renewable fossil fuel mining... why not end reliance on it and save it for a rainy day, like rebuilding a city after a major disaster? Maybe in 200 years a giant earthquake is going to take out New York and the Mexicanadian Republic will be like, "That oil and natural gas would have been pretty farking useful right about now, but I guess those asshole past people couldn't figure out how to build a goddamn biodiesel refinery or wind turbine."

To which I would respond, "go filter some seawater and build a fusion reactor, you bloody hypocrites".

Shadow Blasko: If Duke is involved, its bullshiat.. it smells like shiat, and it's gonna cost you more to eat it.

I would happily give my life to forcefeed their board of assholes three gallons of fly ash from the containment pond they are about to walk away from at Beckjord.

We're talking Duke (sucks!) University, not Duke Energy.

So WTF is wrong with hydraulic fracking? I mean.....uh....

Oh, Oil wells.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: chuckufarlie: why should anybody care about what a zoo keeper thinks about geology?

About as insightful as an unemployed 22 year old with a mountain of debt on the greed of Wall Street perhaps?

no, I think anybody can recognize and understand the greed of Wall Street. It is not all that difficult.

GoodHomer: Yep, a celebrity (even if he probably has a science background, it ain't in petroleum engineering) chimes in on something he have no expertise in.

But I know where this thread will be going. There's a widespread perception that's there's a link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination, largely fed by the media, but the science isn't there to support it, however.

The most recent study indicates that 20% of water wells in the Marcellus area are already contaminated by methane before a single gas well is drilled. 40% fail at least one safety standard before a single gas well is drilled. This is consistent with current knowledge of Pennsylvania groundwater quality. Further, researchers have found no evidence for a change in water quality after gas wells are drilled and fracked, except for bromides in some wells, which were more likely introduced during the drilling phase and not the fracking phase (while bromides are sometimes used in the fracking phase, they are used with other chemicals and none of these other chemicals were found in the groundwater). All this was done by scientists at Penn State and without gas-industry funding.

PDF File: Link (new window)

The above report, as far as I know, hasn't made the news in any big way. Good news about something doesn't help sell newspapers, apparently.

Further, the widely cited Duke study everybody uses to criticize hydraulic fracturing actually concludes that hydraulic fracturing is likely not the problem because they can't find any frac fluids in the groundwater. They concluded that any contamination was either poor well design or poor implementation of the design (i.e. the casing used to line the well was crappy and failed to isolate the groundwater zone from nearby gassy zones).

Link (new window)

Essentially, the Duke study is being misused by opponents of hydraulic fracturing. There have also been some recent replies published about the Duke study that disputed whether it truly demonstrated whether the gas in the water wells came from the gas wells.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Now, obviously, development of shale gas is not benign. Only an idiot would say that it is. There's traffic. Road noise. Compressor noise. There are spills. There is the potential for groundwater contamination if the gas-well casing sucks. There could be locally high water withdrawals (though, the overall water use is pretty tiny compared to activities like agriculture).

But these can be mitigated with good regulations and with a willingness to enforce those regulations. You can force companies to use closed-loop water systems, where everything is kept in tanks instead of open-air pits, reducing the risks of spills and increasing water recycling. You make gas-drilling companies test well water quality before drilling for a baseline. And, if they fark up, you fine them big, including potential bans on future activity.

But, instead, we're left with a no-risk culture fed by fear, which means nothing can get done, even if the science says the risks are very low and the economic benefits can be pretty high.

Prior to hydrofracking, tap water isn't able to be SET ON FIRE!
No evidence, right?

RanDomino: You can't pump unknown chemicals into the ground without some kind of effect sooner or later, and anyway this is farking stupid because this is just more non-renewable fossil fuel mining... why not end reliance on it and save it for a rainy day, like rebuilding a city after a major disaster? Maybe in 200 years a giant earthquake is going to take out New York and the Mexicanadian Republic will be like, "That oil and natural gas would have been pretty farking useful right about now, but I guess those asshole past people couldn't figure out how to build a goddamn biodiesel refinery or wind turbine."

actually, it would depend on HOW MUCH you dumped and WHERE you dumped it.

As for saving fossil fuels for a "rainy day", are you insane. Once we abandon it and convert all of the technology to something else, it would be very difficult to go back to it without a great deal of expense.

I support captive breeding of hydraulic rams.