If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   Anti-fracking claims may not be entirely scientific, may have an agenda behind them, and may in fact be complete nonsense. But they mean well, so there's that   (science.slashdot.org) divider line 68
    More: Obvious, political agenda, mythical beasts, manufacturing industry, social support, nuclear powers, history books, numeracy, superstitions  
•       •       •

2590 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jul 2012 at 8:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 08:30:09 AM  
Totally not evidence:

i.i.com.com
 
2012-07-23 08:35:10 AM  
Fracking is not even trusted by petroleum industry websites. Even they are saying there needs to be more transparency and disclosure. If you are fracking for gas in an area with a lot of water tables, it probably will cause problems. If you are using actual hydrofracking, with actual water, to refresh wells and find other ground water deposits, that's fine.

I am fine with reasonable and responsible exploration methods. I don't think this has been vetted enough, and some of the reported side-effects are severely disturbing.
 
2012-07-23 08:38:28 AM  
Well if all claims are bogus then why are you so opposed to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality regulating you instead of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. If all the claims are bogus then why do you need a waiver from the Clean Water Act?
 
2012-07-23 08:39:16 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]


And we're done here.
 
2012-07-23 08:39:21 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]


Except that methane in well water happens in area that fracking has never occurred. One of the causes is drilling water wells near coal seams. Once the water is drawn down a certain amount, the methane starts infiltrating from the coal.

It may not explain all the cases, but that is one confirmed cause.
 
2012-07-23 08:43:35 AM  
Just like pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect, Pumping tons of frackling liquid underground is going to cause problems too.

Cement casing liners fail. Old utility pipes still exist. Old OIL wells still exit, unmarked and uncapped.

The cleanup scenarios for any situation where they cant get all the fluid back out of the ground again are mostly along the lines of "drill more holes and suck on em like a straw"

They say they test them for pressure before doing it, but whats a slight leak anyways VS a hard deadline?

I think they have the fracking and gas recovery part down fine. I think they don't have a shiats fark of an idea what to do when things go wrong. As evidence by the Iraq oil fires and deepwater horizon.

We start these wells, and never think about turning them off when shiat goes wrong.
 
2012-07-23 08:44:37 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]


So in that case, would you pay your bill to the water company or the gas company?
 
2012-07-23 08:45:21 AM  
Anything that kills hillbillies is fine by me.
 
2012-07-23 08:48:41 AM  
Pro fracking claims completely on the up and up, no agenda at all.
 
2012-07-23 08:49:05 AM  

Aarontology: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]

So in that case, would you pay your bill to the water company or the gas company?


Probably his own well. So no water company to pay. I could see the gas company suing him for stealing 'their' methane though.
 
2012-07-23 08:50:16 AM  
I understand the lovely illustrations that show the gas pockets are way below the water table. But. The lovely illustrations rarely show close details of the casing/water table interface. And that's where the big problem is with contaminating the water. Those casings are shiat, and they leak. That, and the unconscionable practice of open evaporation pools on the surface, for "produced water", full of all the toxic additives used.
 
2012-07-23 08:51:10 AM  
Is it just me, or has the word "fracking" ascended to the coveted position of power word of the year?
 
2012-07-23 08:52:09 AM  

Any Pie Left: I understand the lovely illustrations that show the gas pockets are way below the water table. But. The lovely illustrations rarely show close details of the casing/water table interface. And that's where the big problem is with contaminating the water. Those casings are shiat, and they leak. That, and the unconscionable practice of open evaporation pools on the surface, for "produced water", full of all the toxic additives used.


You can drink fracking fluid. In fact, A a fracking company lacky did just that at a press conference. The CEO wouldn't do it of course.

Of course, politicians drank DDT too, to prove its safety.
 
2012-07-23 08:53:11 AM  
duke sucks
 
2012-07-23 08:53:38 AM  
FTA: But in western Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority did extensive tests and didn't find a problem in area rivers.

That's not quite true.
 
2012-07-23 08:55:28 AM  

fluffy2097: Probably his own well. So no water company to pay. I could see the gas company suing him for stealing 'their' methane though.


Ah yes. The Monsanto Method of lawsuits. "Something of ours happened to be on your property through no fault of your own? MONEY"
 
2012-07-23 08:58:48 AM  

cman: Is it just me, or has the word "fracking" ascended to the coveted position of power word of the year?


If Battlestar Galactica can't make it word of the year, nothing will.
 
2012-07-23 09:00:52 AM  
Wow, what a bullshiat headline. I wonder how much it cost?

Are we going to hear anything about the riots in Anaheim, or is someone paying to cover that up too?

fark you, fark.
 
2012-07-23 09:01:03 AM  
For $5 a month gas companies can get Total-Fracking which is the same as fracking yet somehow better
 
2012-07-23 09:02:57 AM  
Anti-fracking and anti-wind farm activists can all FOAD for all I care. I'm sick and tired of hearing some busybody housewife piss and moan about the potential 'health hazards' associated with wind farms, then saying something like "We need a moratorium on wind farm construction until the science is setteled. As a mother I have a right to be heard." The science is settled, just not in the way you think it should be so STFU.

The fracking activists at least have valid environmental concerns even if you only consider the end use of the fuel produced. My issue with them is that they tout out the insane shiat like "it causes earthquakes" and "flammable tap-water".
 
2012-07-23 09:10:27 AM  
You mean the same people who call for a nuclear plant 30 miles up the Hudson to be shut down because TSUNAMI aren't averse to bending facts?

clutchingmypearls.jpeg
 
2012-07-23 09:12:41 AM  
My father, a geologist who used to work for one of the big oil companies, says that the science is anything but complete on fracking, and a great of research and study remains to be done before we can know and say more about it. Which only means that we just don't know, but we should all keep an open mind on it for now. There are many ways that the same effects can result without fracking -- yes, even in areas where it may not have been reported before (or at least recorded -- lack of records does not in itself mean lack of incidents). There's good reason for concern. But at this point, there's not yet reason for panic.

It's important to bear in mind, at least, that correlation is not causation. I've read many times over the years that John Wayne's fatal lung cancer likely resulted from his shooting a movie at (or near) a former A-bomb test site. Apparently, his pack-a-day habit is less likely a reason. So everyone just needs to chill out until more science is in. That means that fracking operators also need to actively participate in ongoing studies, and people in the community need to be aware that geology is a lot more comlicated than, 'stuff goes in, stuff comes out.'
 
2012-07-23 09:16:19 AM  
The article skirts the main issue with fracking, vibrations from the drilling could awaken the reptilians.
 
2012-07-23 09:17:58 AM  
I just want to make a note that the article only points to certain specific anti-fracking claims aren't backed up by the evidence or science. It does not say that all anti-fracking claims aren't backed up by evidence or science.
 
2012-07-23 09:23:59 AM  

Egoy3k: I'm sick and tired of hearing some busybody housewife piss and moan about the potential 'health hazards' associated with wind farms


There are real environmental concerns with windfarms, specifically the impact they have on bird migrations. But that's not a reason to not build wind farms, but it's a real issue that needs to be managed.
 
2012-07-23 09:25:33 AM  

t3knomanser: Egoy3k: I'm sick and tired of hearing some busybody housewife piss and moan about the potential 'health hazards' associated with wind farms

There are real environmental concerns with windfarms, specifically the impact they have on bird migrations. But that's not a reason to not build wind farms, but it's a real issue that needs to be managed.


Also, doesn't it really affect local weather patterns? I mean, you're literally taking energy out of the air movement in the local area.
 
2012-07-23 09:29:26 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: but we should all keep an open mind on it for now.


The thing about geologists is, they never meet another geologist they completely agree with.

It's how we roll.
 
2012-07-23 09:30:03 AM  

RexTalionis: Also, doesn't it really affect local weather patterns? I mean, you're literally taking energy out of the air movement in the local area.


Trees do the same thing by having branches that sway in the wind. What's your point?
 
2012-07-23 09:30:34 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:


SilentStrider: And we're done here


Um...yeah. About that.
 
2012-07-23 09:31:14 AM  

RexTalionis: Also, doesn't it really affect local weather patterns? I mean, you're literally taking energy out of the air movement in the local area.


Significantly less so than putting up a few high-rises.
 
2012-07-23 09:33:41 AM  
Anti-fracking claims certainly do have an agenda. CLEAN WATER.

You can't drink money.
 
2012-07-23 09:34:39 AM  
I think this quote from TFA sums up all these 'debates' over just about everything from JFK conspiracy theorists and Moon Landing Hoaxers of yesteryear to the Birthers and chemtrail nutjobs of today:

'You can literally put facts in front of people, and they will just ignore them,' said Mark Lubell, the director of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior at the University of California, Davis

This is how society dies, with ever-increasing apathy and willful ignorance.
 
2012-07-23 09:35:07 AM  

RexTalionis: I mean, you're literally taking energy out of the air movement in the local area.


So little energy, relative to the amount in the wind itself.
 
2012-07-23 09:39:19 AM  
Oh, scientists quoted by Rupert's Wall Street Journal.

I thought subby had some real facts there for a second.
 
2012-07-23 09:39:37 AM  

fluffy2097: Just like pumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere is going to have a bad effect, Pumping tons of frackling liquid underground is going to cause problems too.

Cement casing liners fail. Old utility pipes still exist. Old OIL wells still exit, unmarked and uncapped.

The cleanup scenarios for any situation where they cant get all the fluid back out of the ground again are mostly along the lines of "drill more holes and suck on em like a straw"

They say they test them for pressure before doing it, but whats a slight leak anyways VS a hard deadline?

I think they have the fracking and gas recovery part down fine. I think they don't have a shiats fark of an idea what to do when things go wrong. As evidence by the Iraq oil fires and deepwater horizon.

We start these wells, and never think about turning them off when shiat goes wrong.


So, basically, you don't know shiat and are wildly hypothesizing out of your ass and making up conspiracy theories.
 
2012-07-23 09:41:28 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

You mean the whole climate thing is utter bullshiat? Who would have guessed that after 50 years of evidence.
 
2012-07-23 09:49:04 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

SilentStrider: And we're done here

Um...yeah. About that.


riiiiight.

A guy parroting "a report from 1976 says there was methane in the water" while ignoring the speaker's response and EVERY OTHER FACT EVER
 
2012-07-23 09:49:19 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]


Right. Since that happened that means all claims no matter how dubious about fracking are true.

That's a problem with the anti-fracking movements; there's too many people willing to make wild/random/unsubstantiated claims about it.
 
2012-07-23 09:51:06 AM  

lordaction: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 509x340]

You mean the whole climate thing is utter bullshiat? Who would have guessed that after 50 years of evidence.


Ah, yes, the reputable scientific journal Time Magazine.
 
2012-07-23 09:51:24 AM  

lordaction: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 509x340]

You mean the whole climate thing is utter bullshiat? Who would have guessed that after 50 years of evidence.


That left one is a proven shop. No such cover ever existed.
 
2012-07-23 09:52:37 AM  

t3knomanser: Egoy3k: I'm sick and tired of hearing some busybody housewife piss and moan about the potential 'health hazards' associated with wind farms

There are real environmental concerns with windfarms, specifically the impact they have on bird migrations. But that's not a reason to not build wind farms, but it's a real issue that needs to be managed.


Oh for sure but it's hard to mange siting for windfarms to avoid major migration and roosting sites when there are huge mandatory setbacks from residences, which the birds also avoid. These setbacks are due to people who think wind farms will affect their health which is what I was posting about.
 
2012-07-23 09:55:04 AM  

SilentStrider: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]

And we're done here.


Not really. Flammable water can occur without fracking, and concentrating on something like that helps obscure the issue and allows the industry to cast doubt on all of the concerns related to fracking.

The biggest environmental issue is the handling of waste water brought back to the surface.

The second biggest is fracking fluids leaking through broken well casings.

Natural gas itself coming out of faucets may be more spectacular than the other dangers, but it's pretty far down the list of threats.
 
2012-07-23 09:56:53 AM  

Wendy's Chili: SilentStrider: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]

And we're done here.

Not really. Flammable water can occur without fracking, and concentrating on something like that helps obscure the issue and allows the industry to cast doubt on all of the concerns related to fracking.

The biggest environmental issue is the handling of waste water brought back to the surface.

The second biggest is fracking fluids leaking through broken well casings.

Natural gas itself coming out of faucets may be more spectacular than the other dangers, but it's pretty far down the list of threats.


It's an illustration of the fact that there is a threat. It is not a confirmation that every imagined threat exists.
 
2012-07-23 09:59:49 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: It's an illustration of the fact that there is a threat. It is not a confirmation that every imagined threat exists.


I think the point there was that, because gas company shills can turn around and cast doubt on flammable tap water, it may pay to open with an argument that's less ambiguous in its cause.
 
2012-07-23 10:00:12 AM  

lordaction: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 509x340]

You mean the whole climate thing is utter bullshiat? Who would have guessed that after 50 years of evidence.


Yes, the whole "climate thing" is utter bullshiat. No, not just climate change, or global warming; the climate itself is one giant conspiracy whose political slant is the opposite of whatever yours is. Please keep telling yourself this.
 
2012-07-23 10:07:02 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: riiiiight.

A guy parroting "a report from 1976 says there was methane in the water" while ignoring the speaker's response and EVERY OTHER FACT EVER


Like the FACT that people were lighting their water "long before fracking"?
 
2012-07-23 10:08:19 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Flammable water can occur without fracking, and concentrating on something like that helps obscure the issue and allows the industry to cast doubt on all of the concerns related to fracking.

The biggest environmental issue is the handling of waste water brought back to the surface.

The second biggest is fracking fluids leaking through broken well casings.

Natural gas itself coming out of faucets may be more spectacular than the other dangers, but it's pretty far down the list of threats.


Yeah, pretty much this.

States can, and some have, regulated a good chunk of water disposal, which is the biggest issue. I have two water disposal wells I've had to propose to regulators recently. Neither of which will be involved with water produced from fracking. But normal oil field produced salt water is just about as toxic as any fracking water, due to the high salt concentration --and you have to demonstrate to the regulators that there are no old wells nearby that could conduct that water to shallower, fresh water zones. Water disposal regulation is important and needed.
 
2012-07-23 10:11:23 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Totally not evidence:

[i.i.com.com image 480x360]


you know, I can think of places where I can drill a well for water and get that to happen. Not saying it isn't fracking, but frack, it's not always fracking
 
2012-07-23 10:14:39 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: For $5 a month gas companies can get Total-Fracking which is the same as fracking yet somehow better


it allows you to frack more frequently and sooner, before other frackers can get in there. Cause you know those frackers will get in there and they shale make a mess of things.
 
2012-07-23 10:15:35 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: The All-Powerful Atheismo: riiiiight.

A guy parroting "a report from 1976 says there was methane in the water" while ignoring the speaker's response and EVERY OTHER FACT EVER

Like the FACT that people were lighting their water "long before fracking"?


The biggest case like that to date in Texas grew some real legs when the guy showed video of setting his water well on fire. Within the week, all manner of regulators swooped down and investigated the living bejeesus out of the situation. Gas analysis showed the gas came from a shallower reservoir completely unrelated to the deeper fracked zone. But still, the possibility that the vibrations from the fracking caused gas to leak into the fresh water his well was tapping...

Until it was later shown with an nice old photo that the water well was once lit on fire about six years before the fracturing ever took place.
One would think that they owner who claimed the fracking caused gas to spew from his water well would remember such a thing, but I guess the promise of free money kind of blinded him from remembering that.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report