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.

(Longmont Times-Call)   Boulder County: "If you don't like fracking then vote to ban it." Citizens: "That sounds reasonable. Ok." Ban passes. Boulder County: "lulz. One does not simply ban fracking"   (timescall.com) divider line 182
    More: Scary, Boulder County, city limits, county board, current limiting, county commission, Longmont, gas exploration, land uses  
•       •       •

17608 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2012 at 3:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 08:14:26 PM  
F*ck you people, trying to practice direct democracy on a local level. Don't you have any shame?! There are old money white guys trying to profit at your expenses here, so get ready to bend over and take it in the water table.
 
2012-11-15 08:17:33 PM  
FTFA: But Toor said Longmont's ban is unlikely to be upheld in court. He said that under current state law, and based on prior court decisions, a Boulder County ban on fracking outside the county's cities and towns probably also would not be upheld.

Despite many residents' demands that Boulder County impose such a prohibition on the process of injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to free up underground oil and gas deposits, Toor said he believes that "we simply do not have that legal option.


So why hold a vote?
 
2012-11-15 08:28:45 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Ban "fracking?"
 
2012-11-15 08:39:47 PM  

real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"


I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.
 
2012-11-15 08:58:07 PM  
Next you dumb bastards will start thinking you have "rights"

/when the fossil fuel industry buys someone or something, it STAYS bought
 
2012-11-15 09:15:28 PM  

Bontesla: FTFA: But Toor said Longmont's ban is unlikely to be upheld in court. He said that under current state law, and based on prior court decisions, a Boulder County ban on fracking outside the county's cities and towns probably also would not be upheld.

Despite many residents' demands that Boulder County impose such a prohibition on the process of injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to free up underground oil and gas deposits, Toor said he believes that "we simply do not have that legal option.

So why hold a vote?


Because it was a referendum. If it got enough petition signatures it was probably required by the town charter.
 
2012-11-15 09:21:41 PM  
was this headline submitted by a meme generator?
 
2012-11-15 09:30:38 PM  
Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.
 
2012-11-15 09:47:22 PM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


Money buys judges.
 
2012-11-15 09:57:33 PM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.
 
2012-11-15 10:13:13 PM  

Lsherm: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.


Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.
 
2012-11-15 10:55:31 PM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


bribe money, or splitting political hairs over how the voter initiative was written.
 
2012-11-15 10:57:57 PM  
Secede already you damn county-rightsers.
 
2012-11-15 11:43:59 PM  

Sid_6.7: F*ck you people, trying to practice direct democracy on a local level. Don't you have any shame?! There are old money white guys trying to profit at your expenses here, so get ready to bend over and take it in the water table.


Derp, derp, derp, screw the state law also passed in a democratic process, amirite bub?
 
2012-11-16 01:14:23 AM  

GAT_00: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

Money buys judges.


I forgot that you have a GED in law as well.
 
2012-11-16 03:18:03 AM  
Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10
 
2012-11-16 03:21:24 AM  
Step 1: Legalize marijuana
Step 2: Make bong water flammable
 
2012-11-16 03:22:17 AM  
Bah. My perpetual motion machine will make oil obsolete! I look down my nose at you, Ludwig Boltzmann!
 
2012-11-16 03:23:59 AM  
as a resident of boulder county who is OK with hydraulic fracturing, i just want to say this:

it's about god damn time boulderites learned that they don't control the whole world.

/they should also learn that bicyclists need to practice defensive riding
//and that even though pot is legal here it's still too expensive
///and that nobody thinks you're cool because you're vegan
///slashies
 
2012-11-16 03:26:35 AM  

GAT_00: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

Money buys judges.


Don't even have to buy the judges. Much of our extraction-industry law was written in the 1800s, when we valued minerals over the environment by a much larger margin.

Attempts to bring even lease rates into the 20th century are, of course, labelled as communism... 

Enjoy the new taste of your drinking water.
 
2012-11-16 03:28:13 AM  

GAT_00: Money buys judges.


money buys whatever they want
 
2012-11-16 03:29:29 AM  
Lol "democracy". Welcome to the world, folks. Choose party A or party B, it makes no real difference, we own them both.
 
2012-11-16 03:29:37 AM  
Maybe we could just, y'know, remoke the fracking exemptions to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, etc?
 
2012-11-16 03:31:28 AM  
That would totally suck. I feel for a liberal community like Boulder who would totally understand why fracking is a bunch of bullshiat that shouldn't be happening.
 
2012-11-16 03:31:29 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: remoke


This should be an actual word.
 
2012-11-16 03:32:00 AM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.


I approve as well but I'm going to do it in a way that doesn't make me look old and pig-headed.

/Yes, I grew up with the original, but if you don't like Romo Lampkin then I don't like you
 
2012-11-16 03:33:23 AM  
This type of governance, where those in charge can make deals that are clearly at odds with the will of the people and those deals become binding, even after a public referendum, is a travesty and should be against the law.

For example, many municipalities make deals with traffic camera companies from out of state. However, due to the way the contracts are written, the towns and cities must pay the company a minimum figure and then some percentage of revenues collected above that. If the town doesn't take in that minimum figure from the cameras, the town must still pay the company that minimum amount.

When the people get fed up with the scam, they vote the cameras down, only to find that the contract is for a set number of years and breaking the contract would end up costing the taxpayers an obscene amount of money.

It's a travesty.
 
2012-11-16 03:35:34 AM  

Suede head: Lol "democracy". Welcome to the world, folks. Choose party A or party B, it makes no real difference, we own them both.


watch this men who made america thing on the history channel. 150 years ago you will see who are the real money makers in the world we live in, in america. this series is awesome.
 
2012-11-16 03:36:21 AM  
WHAT?!?!?! NOOOOO!

Oh wait, never mind, I read that wrong. I thought it said "fapping."
 
2012-11-16 03:39:00 AM  
you don't want to live where this happens, move away.
 
2012-11-16 03:40:07 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.
 
2012-11-16 03:40:43 AM  
I do believe that this should prove to the community that their vote doesn't mean shiat. As such, it should be a nice turnout for the next elections.... and numerous council members wondering why they weren't elected for new terms...
 
2012-11-16 03:42:35 AM  
First you need to send folks to Congress who will reverse the severing of mineral rights from deeds. Then these same folks need to overturn the legislation that says that the highest and best use of land is generally mineral extraction. Then you need them to pass more legislation that turns mineral extraction regulation over to the states.

At which point, it becomes far easier for the companies to buy votes, since state legislatures are under far less scrutiny than Congress.

Face it, we have the best laws money can buy, and the only thing that can change is which level those bought laws originate.
 
2012-11-16 03:43:04 AM  

LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.


I'd rather it not be.

/around here, the word "moke" means about the equivalent of "local yokel", usually combined with "arrogant meathead".
 
2012-11-16 03:44:22 AM  

Okoboji: I do believe that this should prove to the community that their vote doesn't mean shiat. As such, it should be a nice turnout for the next elections.... and numerous council members wondering why they weren't elected for new terms...


I can't imagine there not being some sort of advocacy going on out there. I mean it's freaking Boulder. Activism City.
 
2012-11-16 03:44:30 AM  

whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.


move out of the region.
 
2012-11-16 03:45:11 AM  
Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?
 
2012-11-16 03:45:56 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.


they wont be fracking near me any time soon.
 
2012-11-16 03:49:26 AM  

LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.


Yeah, a cross between "revoke" and "remove," which is apparently what happened to the smartness in my head.
 
2012-11-16 03:49:49 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.


Into another region where they're fracking. Good plan there, Hendrix.
 
2012-11-16 03:50:26 AM  
Personally, I think the hate for fraking is unwarranted. With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment it can make us 100% energy self sufficient. But what's wrong with banning it within the city limits? This seems to be a reasonable limitation that should be perfectly legal (unless someone tried to pull a fast one by declaring the city limits to cover the entire country).
 
2012-11-16 03:50:52 AM  
I can understand if it comes down to a matter of civil rights (though the votes to ban gay marriage never seemed to have a problem). You don't want a tyranny of the majority. However, choosing to ban something that does not have protected status seems well within a citizenry's rights. It's basically a HOA on a larger scale, the same as banning Wal*Mart from coming into town. The solution is to vote out the bastards that permitted it and who now refuse to break the contract in violation of their constituents. But that sort of follow-through is rare. Aside from that, they can go the civil disobedience route and physically block the fracking, but that takes even more dedication, and isn't something you're likely to find amongst the NIMBY set, no matter how well-intentioned.
 
2012-11-16 03:50:58 AM  

fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.
 
2012-11-16 03:56:43 AM  
If voting changed anything it would be illegal.
 
2012-11-16 03:59:16 AM  

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


I'm on the fence too. I think it probably can be done safely, but it shouldn't be done just anywhere. Blindly opposing it or blindly supporting it are probably equally stupid.
 
2012-11-16 03:59:18 AM  

Sid_6.7: F*ck you people, trying to practice direct democracy on a local level. Don't you have any shame?! There are old money white guys trying to profit at your expenses here, so get ready to bend over and take it in the water table.


It's Boulder, bro. I heard there were dozens of college kids voting that, like, none of the clerks even recognized.
 
2012-11-16 04:00:47 AM  

nmrsnr: Lsherm: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.

Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.


What little it explains is here: county's currently limited legal authority to adopt any rules that would substantially conflict with federal and state laws and regulations about oil and gas development, according to Commissioner Will Toor.

This was a county referendum. The laws and regulations on fracking were made at the state and national level. So for a county to vote "ban fracking" has about as much impact on a Federal law as if a city decided to take marijuana off of the DEA Schedule I. A city or state can say it won't enforce a drug law that's on it's own books; but it has no authority to change the federal laws or to remove a drug off the federal schedules.

Also, there are contracts to consider. A county may say "No fracking in our borders" and it could be legal...IF they're willing to pay ABC Gas and Oil the mineral rights they legally bought or contracted for for all the land within the county that they were going to be doing the gas drilling on. Part of contract law and property rights cover the value of the land, and if a county passes a regulation that makes the formerly valuable land worthless, then they can end up owing the contract holder the value of that property. So the County could suddenly find itself on the hook for tens of millions of dollars worth of natural gas if they go ahead and let the citizens have their way--money the citizens may not have realized they were going to have to pony up. It's a lot easier to blame it on the Feds, however, than to explain to the righteously angry citizens that they just cost themselves a lot of tax money by opposing fracking.
 
2012-11-16 04:01:58 AM  
nmrsnr       
 
Smartest
Funniest
  2012-11-15 09:30:38 PM  
Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


The article does a horrible job. It doesn't even describe how the law is worded.

I am too lazy to find the legislation and read through it so, I'll take a wild stab at it. Since few other people here, despite their opposition to "evil" oil companies, seem to have bothered with educating themselves about the applicable laws.

It has to do with extraction rights and the associated environmental law. The citizens of Boulder likely do not have ownership of the mineral rights to their property. If the gas companies do own the mineral rights, it gives them the right to extract the gas (or whatever other mineral wealth lies under the property). There are environmental regulations that dictate how that gas can be extracted and what precautions must be taken to prevent environmental contamination. The regulations tend to be Federal, and then state level.

Usually, as long as the company owns the extraction rights and complies with state and federal environmental regulations, there is little that local governments can do about it.
It is possible that the county commission could influence some things, but Federal and state regulation take precedent over county.
 
2012-11-16 04:03:28 AM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Mormonstar Galactica.


/FTFY
 
2012-11-16 04:04:11 AM  
I just noticed that Gyrfalcon has written a much better explanation than mine.
Please read his in lieu of mine.
 
2012-11-16 04:04:24 AM  

violentsalvation: fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

I'm on the fence too. I think it probably can be done safely, but it shouldn't be done just anywhere. Blindly opposing it or blindly supporting it are probably equally stupid.


Wanna buy a Richter Scale?
 
2012-11-16 04:08:33 AM  

SomeGeologist: Usually, as long as the company owns the extraction rights and complies with state and federal environmental regulations, there is little that local governments can do about it.
It is possible that the county commission could influence some things, but Federal and state regulation take precedent over county.


But I was told that "Money buys judges", and now you waltz up in here saying the issue is more nuanced and complex than that??

the NERVE!
 
2012-11-16 04:09:30 AM  

SquiggsIN: you fracking moron.


www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com

FRACKING IS OVERRATED. IT IS NOT NEARLY AS DANGEROUS AS THOSE STUPID ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY IT IS.
 
2012-11-16 04:09:31 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: violentsalvation: fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

I'm on the fence too. I think it probably can be done safely, but it shouldn't be done just anywhere. Blindly opposing it or blindly supporting it are probably equally stupid.

Wanna buy a Richter Scale?


Well, like I said, I don't think fracking should be done just anywhere. But you might have a decent business idea there.
 
2012-11-16 04:10:01 AM  
Not sure about the Western Slope, but the natural gas industry has been flooding the airwaves with pro-fracking bits out here. Perhaps it's because El Paso/Kinder Morgan have their stained hands firmly around the Springs' neck?
 
2012-11-16 04:15:42 AM  

SquiggsIN: When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.


Fracking does not work that way...
 
2012-11-16 04:17:20 AM  

SquiggsIN: Ask Exxon and BP how well their safeguards work.


true.

SquiggsIN: Ask the people around Fukushima.


wut?
 
2012-11-16 04:21:41 AM  

OgreMagi: it can make us 100% energy self sufficient


Seldom has a bigger lie ever been told.

It's not your fault, you are just repeating what you've learned from liars.

Unless you can find some statement from fuel companies explaining that once we reach a certain level of DRILLBABYDRILL they will stop selling their products on the global markets, we will never be energy self sufficient.

You would need a government takeover of every fuel company operating in our borders to achieve national energy independence.
 
2012-11-16 04:24:06 AM  

nmrsnr: Lsherm: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.

Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.


I would like to ask something and does anyone know if it would help the county. In Alabama, of all places, during elections on the back of the ballot we vote on any amendments on a per county basis. Just means that anything a county wants to do, the entire state has to vote on it, and then it can become law for that county. Could Boulder do it that way and ban fracking? Not much of a law guy, but I think I remember that we are unique in letting counties handle things this way. If we aren't it sure seems the people of Colorado would say "Hell yeah Boulder you can ban that shiat if you want to" and there shouldn't be much of anything anyone could do about it.. Well I guess the lawsuits would start, but still the law would be there and the law would have to be challenged as unconstitutional right? We may be backwards as fark, but it seems like it's something we have that's right for things that arise that pertains to one county only or affects one community in a county. It has it's downside though. A lot of time the strip joints get closed down. Even sex shops.

/Half asleep and got no business up right now so this may make little to no sense.
 
2012-11-16 04:27:57 AM  
Once again I am confused. From what I read it seems that a city voted for a ban on fracking and the county doesn't think it will be upheld in court and won't effect properties outside city limits either way.

"Longmont's new voter-approved ban on fracking within its city limits represents a substantial public sentiment for banning fracking throughout Boulder County, Toor said during the commissioners' Thursday morning review of the latest draft of a proposed update of the county Land Use Code's 20-year-old provisions about oil and gas drilling in unincorporated portions of the county. "

Whereas the county has to deal with "limited legal authority to adopt any rules that would substantially conflict with federal and state laws and regulations about oil and gas development, according to Commissioner Will Toor." 

I understand that in reality these things are very closely related (I frack your milkshake!) but in terms of jurisdiction and voting there isn't really a conflict here.
 
2012-11-16 04:44:40 AM  

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


This is why fark needs a "stupidest" button.
 
2012-11-16 04:46:44 AM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


My guess is becuase mineral rights laws are old, set in stone, and have been upheld so many times the precedents are now overwhelming.
 
2012-11-16 04:52:26 AM  
SEXY AMERICA 2025: How One Giant Slag Heap Full of Idiot's Poisoned a Country In A Decade of Greed and Stupidity By Fracking It To Death.

right on America!

Keep those sacrifice zones a 'comin!
 
2012-11-16 04:58:49 AM  
I hate to break it to a few of you folks, but this wasn't Boulder, it was Longmont that passed the fracking ban.

/figure it will lose in the courts
//voted for it anyhows
 
2012-11-16 05:09:53 AM  

whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.


Natural gas released 43% less CO2 per unit energy released while burning compared to coal, produces no soot or ash, and does not contain any mercury, lead, uranium or cadmium which coal tend to. Natural gas plants also tend to be a lot newer and therefore more efficient, so that increases the benefit even more.

So maybe more of a stab to the thigh, where it'll still leave a lifetime scar and a limp but it's not *quite* as crippling as a stab to the knee.
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-16 05:09:54 AM  
Not knowing a damn thing about mineral rights, it's entirely possible the following is complete horsehockey, so read on at your own risk...

Would it be possible to turn the whole "deeding of mineral rights" issue on it's head by setting up a cheap and easy way for people to register their land as "do NOT allow exploitation?"

In other words, rather than having a registry of what permissive mineral rights people have deeded over to companies, have a means to reserve mineral rights and say "no, you are not allowed to exploit what's under my patch, and if you try to drink my milkshake I can sue the pants off of you."

I'd imagine if enough landowners did this it would make fracking well-nigh impossible.
 
2012-11-16 05:11:01 AM  

whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.

Into another region where they're fracking. Good plan there, Hendrix.


They should only frack beyond the environment.
 
2012-11-16 05:22:56 AM  

maxheck: Not knowing a damn thing about mineral rights, it's entirely possible the following is complete horsehockey, so read on at your own risk...

Would it be possible to turn the whole "deeding of mineral rights" issue on it's head by setting up a cheap and easy way for people to register their land as "do NOT allow exploitation?"

In other words, rather than having a registry of what permissive mineral rights people have deeded over to companies, have a means to reserve mineral rights and say "no, you are not allowed to exploit what's under my patch, and if you try to drink my milkshake I can sue the pants off of you."

I'd imagine if enough landowners did this it would make fracking well-nigh impossible.


This would work only in the cases where owners already own the mineral rights to their property.

In most of Colorado, most of the western US actually, this is not the case. When the Federal government granted the land to homesteaders the government retained all mineral rights (except in certain cases).

Your suggestion, while interesting, fails because the people who own the surface rights do not own the mineral rights and never have.
 
2012-11-16 05:25:15 AM  
Same thing already went down early this year in Pennsylvania.
When townships and municipalities started banning fracking...

Industry went to the state and made it illegal for townships and municipalities to keep fracking out.
Representatives of seven municipalities say the law, known as Act 13, takes away their ability to control gas drilling operations through local zoning, leaving them defenseless to protect homeowners, parks and schools from being surrounded by drilling sites or waste pits.


July 26
A Pennsylvania court on Thursday struck down a provision of a state law that forbade municipalities to limit where natural gas drilling can take place within their boundaries.

Oct 17th it went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court...
The justices have hundreds of pages of legal briefs to consider, and gave no indication of when they may issue a ruling. 

DRILLING/FRACKING IS ALLOWED ON A-1 AGRICULTURAL LAND.
I have witnessed it occurring in Pennsylvania myself.

Sick.
WTF.
 
2012-11-16 05:32:34 AM  
SomeGeologist:

This would work only in the cases where owners already own the mineral rights to their property.

In most of Colorado, most of the western US actually, this is not the case. When the Federal government granted the land to homesteaders the government retained all mineral rights (except in certain cases).

Your suggestion, while interesting, fails because the people who own the surface rights do not own the mineral rights and never have.


That's the part my understanding was missing, and thanks.

And after pondering things like a common water table, it still doesn't work. Although then I shudder to think what will happen if gas companies ever get a technology that allows piping gas over unlimited distances through horizontal bores. Basically they could buy one patch of land anywhere and suck gas from every part of the planet with that legal model.
 
2012-11-16 05:49:48 AM  

maxheck: Although then I shudder to think what will happen if gas companies ever get a technology that allows piping gas over unlimited distances through horizontal bores. Basically they could buy one patch of land anywhere and suck gas from every part of the planet with that legal model.


Well, technically they have that technology. Although they are severely limited by the expense. If you keep the hole within one, impermeable, rock type then you can drill most anywhere. Once you move to far and changes rocks though, then you would have to put casing in. Not a cheap operation.

Legally, they are limited from doing that by the nature of extraction permits that limit the 'field' from which they can draw gas. I wish I could comment further on the ins and outs of gas extraction rights, but I am afraid that it is a complicated matter that I do not know enough about.
 
2012-11-16 05:58:52 AM  
Legally, they are limited from doing that by the nature of extraction permits that limit the 'field' from which they can draw gas.

In Pennsylvania industry killed the 'limit' and it now stands that they can drill as much as they want as long as they only have X number of active drilling sites at one time.

Here's what popped up in the four years since they moved into a single area of Penn... 

farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-16 06:12:21 AM  
Do you know what else could help to make us energy independent? Encouraging the members of our culture to consume at reasonable levels. Yeah, I know. Manifest Destiny!!
 
2012-11-16 06:15:35 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Part of contract law and property rights cover the value of the land, and if a county passes a regulation that makes the formerly valuable land worthless, then they can end up owing the contract holder the value of that property.


This is the argument that the county (and the article) should have mentioned in the first place. Counties have some ability to regulate property rights, but not to simply revoke them. The typical example is not state drug laws, but state highways. Counties are free to complain about the speed limits, but not to change them. (There are exceptions, but it is just an analogy.)

If a county can demonstrate a public health issue, however, they can regulate as needed. So if a highway contains a dangerous curve, the county can simply pass an ordinance lowering the speed limit in that area. Similarly, a county can specify the maximum amount of benzene that can be released into groundwater. They have to be able to defend the number, though. ("Zero" can't be proven by science, nor instituted by a popular vote.)

In either case, the county has to enforce the law themselves. Although the state could theoretically sue on behalf of speeders and polluters, the county will win in any case where there was a real public health or safety issue. Considering that the EPA (technically) regulates the level of benzene in drinking water, the state would have a hard time winning that case.

The only problem for the county is that most of the benzene in their water comes from far-away refineries, and not from local fracking. Still, there are ways to determine where the chemicals in your water come from. Since those ways involve "science", they won't work in Texas or Utah, but should still work in Colorado.
 
2012-11-16 06:18:26 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


Yeah. Stupid citizens don't realize energy companies have more rights than they do.
 
2012-11-16 06:18:52 AM  
SomeGeologist:

maxheck: Although then I shudder to think what will happen if gas companies ever get a technology that allows piping gas over unlimited distances through horizontal bores. Basically they could buy one patch of land anywhere and suck gas from every part of the planet with that legal model.

Well, technically they have that technology. Although they are severely limited by the expense. If you keep the hole within one, impermeable, rock type then you can drill most anywhere. Once you move to far and changes rocks though, then you would have to put casing in. Not a cheap operation.

Legally, they are limited from doing that by the nature of extraction permits that limit the 'field' from which they can draw gas. I wish I could comment further on the ins and outs of gas extraction rights, but I am afraid that it is a complicated matter that I do not know enough about.


I'm gonna assume the whole concept of "field" is deliberately vague. :) And yeah, expense was what I was talking about when I said "unlimited." Anything short of the physically impossible *will* be done if you can make more money by doing it than by not.

I'm from the East Coast where they're a little more picky about land rights (usually...) Federal land here was either bought or seized, but not much of it was granted.
 
2012-11-16 06:36:54 AM  

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


There was a study that was recently published on the subject. Basically, it looked at a variety of fracking sites across the country and concluded that fracking will likely contaminate water aquifers because it's basically self-regulated.

The companies are not required to disclose the chemical cocktail used to frack but a few scientists have ambitiously taken on that task. The federal government doesn't even monitor fracking sites. They're purposely excluded from the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

These scientists have discovered known incredibly powerful chemicals that are explosive, carcinogenic, and are otherwise banned for use by other industries.

However, there are a few alarming trends.

The majority of fracking wells have contaminated local water sources to the degree that the fracking companies are forced to supply entire towns with water. The contamination, however, isn't discovered until people start either igniting their water, their house explodes, or they sustain permanent brain damage.

PA was considering (and possibly passed? )a bill in which physicians could obtain a list of the fracking chemicals used because there were people showing up with unusual symptoms. The physician could treat the toxicity but the patient would be forbidden to know the source of the illness.
 
2012-11-16 06:39:38 AM  

SomeGeologist: SquiggsIN: When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.

Fracking does not work that way...


Actually it does in thousands of documented cases.
 
2012-11-16 06:42:37 AM  
I'll consider fracking to be a reasonable and environmentally safe thing to around the same time these companies decide to tell me what it is they're dumping in the ground.

I bet if I dug a hole across the street from one of there executives houses and started pouring random unknown chemicals into it they'd want more information too.
 
2012-11-16 06:43:58 AM  

Smidge204: whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.

Natural gas released 43% less CO2 per unit energy released while burning compared to coal, produces no soot or ash, and does not contain any mercury, lead, uranium or cadmium which coal tend to. Natural gas plants also tend to be a lot newer and therefore more efficient, so that increases the benefit even more.

So maybe more of a stab to the thigh, where it'll still leave a lifetime scar and a limp but it's not *quite* as crippling as a stab to the knee.
=Smidge=


When you examine the amount of Co2 released during the fracking process - you lose your argument. The problem is that the industry is self-regulating. The federal government doesn't have any authority to ask questions, monitor sites, and obtain the chemical lists.

Besides, you also have to consider the other problems we're encountering. Water contamination is huge and has already been documented in the majority of fracking well sites.
 
2012-11-16 06:57:26 AM  
So fracking would be OK if we enforced the existing regulations?
 
2012-11-16 07:07:16 AM  

Bontesla: SomeGeologist: SquiggsIN: When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.

Fracking does not work that way...

Actually it does in thousands of documented cases.


My understanding is that 99% of these "documented cases" were either from the very early days of fracking when they were still learning how to do it, or they involved issues that had no link to the fracking going on in the area, the latter being far more common.
 
2012-11-16 07:09:54 AM  
If voting really changed anything they'd make it illegal.
 
2012-11-16 07:10:36 AM  
Judge's appropriate response: Are you high?
 
2012-11-16 07:13:07 AM  

OgreMagi: Personally, I think the hate for fraking is unwarranted. With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment it can make us 100% energy self sufficient. But what's wrong with banning it within the city limits? This seems to be a reasonable limitation that should be perfectly legal (unless someone tried to pull a fast one by declaring the city limits to cover the entire country).


Too bad that will never happen.

SomeGeologist: Well, technically they have that technology. Although they are severely limited by the expense. If you keep the hole within one, impermeable, rock type then you can drill most anywhere. Once you move to far and changes rocks though, then you would have to put casing in. Not a cheap operation.


They always put in casing, otherwise you are always going to have to be on top of the mud weigth and amount of mud in the hole.
 
2012-11-16 07:14:53 AM  

Bontesla: Smidge204: whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.

Natural gas released 43% less CO2 per unit energy released while burning compared to coal, produces no soot or ash, and does not contain any mercury, lead, uranium or cadmium which coal tend to. Natural gas plants also tend to be a lot newer and therefore more efficient, so that increases the benefit even more.

So maybe more of a stab to the thigh, where it'll still leave a lifetime scar and a limp but it's not *quite* as crippling as a stab to the knee.
=Smidge=

When you examine the amount of Co2 released during the fracking process - you lose your argument. The problem is that the industry is self-regulating. The federal government doesn't have any authority to ask questions, monitor sites, and obtain the chemical lists.

Besides, you also have to consider the other problems we're encountering. Water contamination is huge and has already been documented in the majority of fracking well sites.


This type of crap is why you need independent monitoring.
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/money/story.aspx?id=800772
 
2012-11-16 07:15:44 AM  

maxheck: I'm gonna assume the whole concept of "field" is deliberately vague. :) And yeah, expense was what I was talking about when I said "unlimited." Anything short of the physically impossible *will* be done if you can make more money by doing it than by not.

I'm from the East Coast where they're a little more picky about land rights (usually...) Federal land here was either bought or seized, but not much of it was granted.


Actually, it is very well defined, geologically speaking. Gas companies do their best to acquire extraction rights to as much property as possible so that they don't run into arguments with each other about vague boundaries thousands of feet underground. Usually the companies will attempt to be as quite as possible when they are trying to acquire mineral rights. They don't want the competition snooping around. They also want to acquire those rights as cheaply as possible.
The problem, as far as a surface rights owner is concerned, is that once the companies have the rights, there is little you can do about it.
If the company wants to drill 50 wells on your 5-acre plot, they can. They have a right no access their mineral wealth. They have to compensate you certain things, but you can't stop them from doing it.
\ (Sorry, I have experience with hard-rock mineral rights, copper, gold and what have you, so I can't really speak to specifics)


I apologize, I don't feel like researching all the mineral rights on the east coast right now. From what I know offhand they tend to be mostly in the hands of the private sector (either corporations or people).
I assume that most people in Pennsylvania sold their mineral rights back during the oil boom. As to who owns them now, that would take a long week of research.

I guess, what I hope people can take away from this is,
Under the current Federal law:

Owning the land (surface rights) does not guarantee you ownership of the mineral rights. Be aware of this. Look at the deed for your property. If you don't own mineral rights, be prepared that someday, someone might come knocking at your door to courteously tell you that "their rig will start drilling in an hour. Could you please move your car."

Educate yourself about what might be at your property. If the town down the road is suddenly full of gas wells, look on a geologic map. Are the rocks the same in your town as they are in the other town? You might find that the drillers are headed your way.
Then educate yourself about the applicable state and Federal laws.

If you think it sucks, then change it. Get your neighbors together, get you congressman on the horn. Get others together send a letter to the president.

/begin rant

Just don't biatch and moan that Fracking is destroying your water.

To be completely honest.
I like all this drilling. I wish they could Frack the entire east coast.
It's about time America learned the price of the world we live in.

If you want to drive a car to and from everywhere, listen to music on your idevice and surf FARK from you computer at work all at relatively low monetary cost. This is the price. Gas wells in your backyard.
Drilling and mining are coming back home. All the NIMBY idiots everywhere get to see what third-world countries have been seeing for decades. Big holes in the ground.

People in this country only start to complain seriously about 'environmental impact' when the rig rolls into their backyard. (Hell, they even complain when it's not a rig but a wind turbine).

Modern society, in its current form, comes with a price. If we are not willing to pay that price, then we need to re-think some things.
There was an argument up-thread that gas is a non-sustainable resource. Your damn right it is unsustainable. But locally sourced green energy isn't going to appear over-night. It may happen, but it is going to need a lot of elbow grease.

Until we get that pipe dream of local solar and wind plants (that work under cloud cover, and don't slaughter birds or create 'Turbine sickness') we will need some form of energy to power the world.
Your choices are, gas, oil, coal, nuclear (and in some places Hydro, although that destroys the eco-systems of rivers). If you want to maintain the standard of living we are now used to (and developing countries desire), pick one, or all four.

Or, you could start riding your bike to work, maybe stop watching all that TV. Dry your clothes outside instead of in a drier. Turn the lights off when you leave the room. Change your goals in life from money and physical goods to something less tangible. Go back to school and get an engineering degree so you can help with the design work on the next generation of new eco-friendly power plants.

Unless you live in a straw-bale house on your own eco-collective organic farm, you don't have much of a right to complain when the rig pulls up into your back yard. At least not in my humble opinion.
/end rant
 
2012-11-16 07:19:23 AM  

SomeGeologist: SquiggsIN: When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.

Fracking does not work that way...


Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.
 
2012-11-16 07:19:39 AM  

whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.


Endorsed and signed.
There are so many possibilities for creating fuel and electricity from renewable sources that it is unbelievable, and the quicker we can get them deployed in large scale the better. These sources will only decrease in price and increase in efficiency over time, instead of the exact opposite as with fossil fuels. They wouldn't even bother fracking if there weren't a dearth of easy-to-access deposits because fracking is more expensive and takes more energy to do. But the only thing left are the harder and more expensive-to-access fossil resources which will only decrease in productivity and increase in price over time. Untethering ourselves from fossil resources will be extremely profitable, not just by driving down the price of power and fuel but because we won't have to buy fossil resources off the market and burn them. It is time to jump off the bandwagon.
 
2012-11-16 07:19:57 AM  

adm_crunch: My understanding is that 99% of these "documented cases" were either from the very early days of fracking when they were still learning how to do it, or they involved issues that had no link to the fracking going on in the area, the latter being far more common


Last I checked what they are putting in fracking materials is still secret. Nobody has done a through water sample before any fracking and after to see what has changed. What happens is they frack, peopel get sick, they tests water and find "unusual" stuff. Since they don't know what is in the fracking stuff and there is a 1 in 100,000 that the chemical was there before they get away with it.

NPR just had a story in PA how they found all sorts of carcinogens in water they tested after fracking, but didn't report it because it wasn't on their list of chemicals to be concerned about, and nobody will answer if those chemicals had been used in fracking.

liam76: OgreMagi: Personally, I think the hate for fraking is unwarranted. With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment it can make us 100% energy self sufficient. But what's wrong with banning it within the city limits? This seems to be a reasonable limitation that should be perfectly legal (unless someone tried to pull a fast one by declaring the city limits to cover the entire country).

Too bad that will never happen.

SomeGeologist: Well, technically they have that technology. Although they are severely limited by the expense. If you keep the hole within one, impermeable, rock type then you can drill most anywhere. Once you move to far and changes rocks though, then you would have to put casing in. Not a cheap operation.

They always put in casing, otherwise you are always going to have to be on top of the mud weigth and amount of mud in the hole.


Sorry. Never is a bit too strong. It will never be enforced 100% and the punishment for not doing it will never be severe enough that companies see it is in their best interest.
 
2012-11-16 07:24:12 AM  

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


Voting down human rights because a majority thinks its wrong is not the same as voting to prohibit a corporate activity on public land.

Dumbass.
 
2012-11-16 07:24:22 AM  

PunGent: Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.


Fraking does not cause water to burn.

Leaking well casing causes water to burn. You don't need to Frack the well to have your casing leak.
 
2012-11-16 07:25:56 AM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


Because fouling groundwater to benefit a handful of corporations has no impact on the surrounding area or water table, none whatsoever.

Aquifers, how do they work?
 
2012-11-16 07:27:02 AM  

SomeGeologist: PunGent: Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.

Fraking does not cause water to burn.

Leaking well casing causes water to burn. You don't need to Frack the well to have your casing leak.


Undoubtedly literally true, but isn't it kind of disingenuous to claim this -- most wells arent pumped up full of chemicals at a higher than normal PSI.
 
2012-11-16 07:29:51 AM  
What comes after soap box and ballot box? I keep forgetting?
 
2012-11-16 07:35:16 AM  

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


Yes NG is better than coal...except when it burns coming out of your kitchen sink faucet
 
2012-11-16 07:36:15 AM  

SomeGeologist: maxheck: I'm gonna assume the whole concept of "field" is deliberately vague. :) And yeah, expense was what I was talking about when I said "unlimited." Anything short of the physically impossible *will* be done if you can make more money by doing it than by not.

I'm from the East Coast where they're a little more picky about land rights (usually...) Federal land here was either bought or seized, but not much of it was granted.

Actually, it is very well defined, geologically speaking. Gas companies do their best to acquire extraction rights to as much property as possible so that they don't run into arguments with each other about vague boundaries thousands of feet underground. Usually the companies will attempt to be as quite as possible when they are trying to acquire mineral rights. They don't want the competition snooping around. They also want to acquire those rights as cheaply as possible.
The problem, as far as a surface rights owner is concerned, is that once the companies have the rights, there is little you can do about it.
If the company wants to drill 50 wells on your 5-acre plot, they can. They have a right no access their mineral wealth. They have to compensate you certain things, but you can't stop them from doing it.
\ (Sorry, I have experience with hard-rock mineral rights, copper, gold and what have you, so I can't really speak to specifics)


I apologize, I don't feel like researching all the mineral rights on the east coast right now. From what I know offhand they tend to be mostly in the hands of the private sector (either corporations or people).
I assume that most people in Pennsylvania sold their mineral rights back during the oil boom. As to who owns them now, that would take a long week of research.

I guess, what I hope people can take away from this is,
Under the current Federal law:

Owning the land (surface rights) does not guarantee you ownership of the mineral rights. Be aware of this. Look at the deed for your property. I ...


Spare me the lecture, kid. I've been living downtown without a car since 1992, 20 years now. I've probably got a smaller carbon footprint than anyone on this damn thread. Was living this way long before you dumb punks even left your suburban homes and followed to wreck the area with your hipster sh*t and your development... and now rents are too high.

Translation: high horse, get off it. I highly doubt you are any better than the people you're screaming about here. You just, like a lot of latter-day people, think you are.
Ranting about TV while using a computer is comedically idiotic, the computer is using the same power draw as the TV now, it quite possibly IS the TV. This rant you are using looks 10-20 yrs outdated. And lecturing about bike riding to someone thats walked to work for 20 years dodging asswits on bikes who are sure they're morally superior ... I have two words: Blood Tires.

And I cant wait til you guys come up with laws to encourage electric cars, only to find out the carbon footprint of battery recycling.

Every damn one of you grew up slurping oil as a member of the largest per-capita oil consuming nation on earth, and every one of you is an idiot if you think its as easy as switching off a light to change. It took over 100 yrs to get here, it will probably take over 100 to go someplace else.

Unless you like catastrophic events that cause economic meltdowns, and are actively rooting for those to occur. Hope your prepping is better than the guy that knows you have things, in that case.
 
2012-11-16 07:36:56 AM  

toomuchwhargarbl: What comes after soap box and ballot box? I keep forgetting?


douche bag?
 
2012-11-16 07:38:26 AM  

Gyrfalcon: nmrsnr: Lsherm: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.

Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.

What little it explains is here: county's currently limited legal authority to adopt any rules that would substantially conflict with federal and state laws and regulations about oil and gas development, according to Commissioner Will Toor.

This was a county referendum. The laws and regulations on fracking were made at the state and national level. So for a county to vote "ban fracking" has about as much impact on a Federal law as if a city decided to take marijuana off of the DEA Schedule I. A city or state can say it won't enforce a drug law that's on it's own books; but it has no authority to change the federal laws or to remove a drug off the federal schedules.
.


The West has a long tradition of doing just this. We're about to find out how much pull Colorado and Washington State's vote has with the DEA. I suspect the DEA won't go quietly.
 
2012-11-16 07:40:42 AM  

kapaso: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

My guess is becuase mineral rights laws are old, set in stone, and have been upheld so many times the precedents are now overwhelming.


I see what you did there.
 
2012-11-16 07:42:09 AM  

SomeGeologist: maxheck: Not knowing a damn thing about mineral rights, it's entirely possible the following is complete horsehockey, so read on at your own risk...

Would it be possible to turn the whole "deeding of mineral rights" issue on it's head by setting up a cheap and easy way for people to register their land as "do NOT allow exploitation?"

In other words, rather than having a registry of what permissive mineral rights people have deeded over to companies, have a means to reserve mineral rights and say "no, you are not allowed to exploit what's under my patch, and if you try to drink my milkshake I can sue the pants off of you."

I'd imagine if enough landowners did this it would make fracking well-nigh impossible.

This would work only in the cases where owners already own the mineral rights to their property.

In most of Colorado, most of the western US actually, this is not the case. When the Federal government granted the land to homesteaders the government retained all mineral rights (except in certain cases).

Your suggestion, while interesting, fails because the people who own the surface rights do not own the mineral rights and never have.


Where's the Tribes stand on this, and do they have a say? I remember some water wars where the tribe wound up owning what the state claimed it owned, and 1872 was out the window. In that case...

Nah, just give them another casino they'll be happy.
 
2012-11-16 07:45:18 AM  

Generation_D: toomuchwhargarbl: What comes after soap box and ballot box? I keep forgetting?

douche bag?


Pine box.
 
2012-11-16 07:48:32 AM  
The only way to stop fracking in your area is to buy up the mineral rights yourself.


/$$$$$$$$$$$$$....
// more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$...
 
2012-11-16 07:52:16 AM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


It sounds like state, and possibly federal, law does not permit an individual county to ban gas and oil development.

An analogy would be a conservative county trying to ban alcohol sales Ina stte where alcohol sales are regulated on the state level. The county ban wouldn't be enforceable because the county doesn't hve the legal authority.
 
2012-11-16 07:52:34 AM  
www.samuelsdesign.com
"I suppose the environment can take one more for the team"
 
2012-11-16 07:53:51 AM  

Generation_D: Where's the Tribes stand on this, and do they have a say? I remember some water wars where the tribe wound up owning what the state claimed it owned, and 1872 was out the window. In that case...

Nah, just give them another casino they'll be happy.


Honestly?

If it's not within currently recognized tribal land, they get screwed.

As for the rest,
You're way ahead of me gramps. I bet your carbon footprint is orders of magnitude lower than mine.

Still, I'll continue to dig my holes so long as there are people willing to pay for what comes out of them. I'll be careful, I have to drink the water too, but in the end. A hole is still a hole. It doesn't matter how many trees I plant on top of it after I take all the copper (or whatever) away.

And the electric car laws? You should come to china and see the REE strip mines...
 
2012-11-16 07:55:53 AM  
I've been to the area Boulder and such beautiful area but I agree Destroy the fresh groundwater for gas that will not last half as long as the impact on the land or extinction of the local eco system.

What the hell strip mine the mountains to while they are there. Skiing is for hippies and lesbians anyway
 
2012-11-16 07:56:19 AM  

Bontesla: When you examine the amount of Co2 released during the fracking process - you lose your argument. The problem is that the industry is self-regulating. The federal government doesn't have any authority to ask questions, monitor sites, and obtain the chemical lists.


1) I never said I supported fracking as a means of getting the methane. Fact is I don't, and I agree completely that the industry needs oversight and accountability. In spades.

2) If we're going to account for emissions as a result of fracking and the other environmental impacts, we should also account for the environmental impact of literally turning entire mountains upside-down to extract the coal.
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-16 07:58:23 AM  

Generation_D: SomeGeologist: PunGent: Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.

Fraking does not cause water to burn.

Leaking well casing causes water to burn. You don't need to Frack the well to have your casing leak.

Undoubtedly literally true, but isn't it kind of disingenuous to claim this -- most wells arent pumped up full of chemicals at a higher than normal PSI.


It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.
 
2012-11-16 07:58:26 AM  
Time for a new energy source.
tinypic.com
According to respected sources, it will be avaliable Jan 1 2020.
And it's 100% safe microwave energy beamed from space.
Unless of course the beam goes a little off course and cuts a swath of destruction.
But if you place it in a low tech industrial zone, or a high crime, low income residential area, the damage is minimized.
 
2012-11-16 08:07:18 AM  

Bontesla: It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.


No, it's not.
If no previous gas contamination of the aquifer was present then any contamination caused by leaking natural gas (not fracking fluid) is because of a cracked casing. Which can happen anytime you drill, fracking or not. Natural gas comes out of the well under pressure in all circumstances. That's why it comes out.


If you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.

There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.
 
2012-11-16 08:07:23 AM  

SomeGeologist: Generation_D: Where's the Tribes stand on this, and do they have a say? I remember some water wars where the tribe wound up owning what the state claimed it owned, and 1872 was out the window. In that case...

Nah, just give them another casino they'll be happy.

Honestly?

If it's not within currently recognized tribal land, they get screwed.

As for the rest,
You're way ahead of me gramps. I bet your carbon footprint is orders of magnitude lower than mine.

Still, I'll continue to dig my holes so long as there are people willing to pay for what comes out of them. I'll be careful, I have to drink the water too, but in the end. A hole is still a hole. It doesn't matter how many trees I plant on top of it after I take all the copper (or whatever) away.

And the electric car laws? You should come to china and see the REE strip mines...


Nothing like a nice 2nd wave industrial boom with a population 10 times what ours was when we did it.

People whining about a few flaming wells here when the entire west coast (where I live) air is coming at us straight from china, loaded with carbon particles and starting to get noticed as "red sunsets" and increased pollution alerts and such.

We're all yelling at clouds at that point. Fluffy clouds full of particulate that didn't used to exist.

On the other hand, Mt. Redoubt's eruption probably put more particulate in the air than a year's worth of coal burning, so in a way all of this screaming about human activity destroying the planet forget a key point: The planet really don't care a whole lot what we do, its ability to "destroy" itself (and a lot of us with it) is far greater.

Which is why I don't get that worked up in reality about much of this. Though I do wish they'd quite rushing to market with new tech like fracking before understanding the long-term impacts on groundwater, ultimately it isn't gonna matter one iota if a few volcanoes cut loose out here.
 
2012-11-16 08:12:18 AM  
Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-16 08:12:28 AM  
relevant video on fraking: Link
 
2012-11-16 08:13:22 AM  

Bontesla: Generation_D: SomeGeologist: PunGent: Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.

Fraking does not cause water to burn.

Leaking well casing causes water to burn. You don't need to Frack the well to have your casing leak.

Undoubtedly literally true, but isn't it kind of disingenuous to claim this -- most wells arent pumped up full of chemicals at a higher than normal PSI.

It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.


Pro tip: Its been proven engineers tend to skew conservative, and make these kinds of rationalizations. Best thing you can do is just humor them in public, then politically end-run them. They'll never see it coming, other than they got blindsided by the "ignorant public" yet again.

But on this subject they do have over 100 years of mineral rights on their side. Which is a non trivial legal hurdle. Even if you evened up the greenwashing ads with crowdsourced vigilantism and mass demonstrations, chances are the pro-fracking side's sitting in court waiting with a paid-off scientist or two, a few ginned up or cherry picked studies, and a stack of cash.
 
2012-11-16 08:15:06 AM  

Generation_D: Which is why I don't get that worked up in reality about much of this. Though I do wish they'd quite rushing to market with new tech like fracking before understanding the long-term impacts on groundwater, ultimately it isn't gonna matter one iota if a few volcanoes cut loose out here.


I did forget to concede one thing.

While Fracking can be made safe and be contained completely by the surrounding geology...

All it takes is one greedy driller (or company, no reason to blame the drillers exclusively) trying to save money on a well casing or containment pit. If one well fails and given enough time one will, then all those delicious chemicals will go shooting into every crack they can find. One day, one of those breaks will be in the aquifer and then...
I guess we'll all find out what all they put into the fracking fluid.
 
2012-11-16 08:20:08 AM  

Generation_D: Pro tip: Its been proven engineers tend to skew conservative, and make these kinds of rationalizations. Best thing you can do is just humor them in public, then politically end-run them. They'll never see it coming, other than they got blindsided by the "ignorant public" yet again.


Hey, I've been civil. If you're trying to accuse me of being an Engineer, you should at least have the courtesy to do so to my face.
 
2012-11-16 08:24:47 AM  

SomeGeologist: maxheck: I'm gonna assume the whole concept of "field" is deliberately vague. :) And yeah, expense was what I was talking about when I said "unlimited." Anything short of the physically impossible *will* be done if you can make more money by doing it than by not.

I'm from the East Coast where they're a little more picky about land rights (usually...) Federal land here was either bought or seized, but not much of it was granted.

Actually, it is very well defined, geologically speaking. Gas companies do their best to acquire extraction rights to as much property as possible so that they don't run into arguments with each other about vague boundaries thousands of feet underground. Usually the companies will attempt to be as quite as possible when they are trying to acquire mineral rights. They don't want the competition snooping around. They also want to acquire those rights as cheaply as possible.
The problem, as far as a surface rights owner is concerned, is that once the companies have the rights, there is little you can do about it.
If the company wants to drill 50 wells on your 5-acre plot, they can. They have a right no access their mineral wealth. They have to compensate you certain things, but you can't stop them from doing it.
\ (Sorry, I have experience with hard-rock mineral rights, copper, gold and what have you, so I can't really speak to specifics)


I apologize, I don't feel like researching all the mineral rights on the east coast right now. From what I know offhand they tend to be mostly in the hands of the private sector (either corporations or people).
I assume that most people in Pennsylvania sold their mineral rights back during the oil boom. As to who owns them now, that would take a long week of research.

I guess, what I hope people can take away from this is,
Under the current Federal law:

Owning the land (surface rights) does not guarantee you ownership of the mineral rights. Be aware of this. Look at the deed for your property. I ...


Hydro damns not done in the way of the hoover damn have very little impact when compared to fracking
because they don't poison the water......
 
2012-11-16 08:25:28 AM  

log_jammin: SquiggsIN: Ask Exxon and BP how well their safeguards work.

true.

SquiggsIN: Ask the people around Fukushima.

wut?


Sounds like apples and oranges to me.
 
2012-11-16 08:28:20 AM  

SomeGeologist: Generation_D: Pro tip: Its been proven engineers tend to skew conservative, and make these kinds of rationalizations. Best thing you can do is just humor them in public, then politically end-run them. They'll never see it coming, other than they got blindsided by the "ignorant public" yet again.

Hey, I've been civil. If you're trying to accuse me of being an Engineer, you should at least have the courtesy to do so to my face.


Thats not how Fark works.

I get you, but I've been on these arguments before. The argument will move over to your areas of expertise, and we'll wind up mostly agreeing that everything's being done safely and the public has nothing to worry about.

But then, over in the next well or the next county will be unscrupulous or illegal drilling, or drilling that circumvents current law, and there will be an engineer happily explaining all the things they can do, an engineer who goes home at night and sleeps soundly while the groundwater his work helped foul quite possibly is poisoning many others who happen not to have the good fortune of living in the fracking impact zone.

I've seen 40 years of this kind of mental gymnastics, and rather than move the argument into technical slicing and dicing, I just decided to cut to the chase: Some engineers, many in fact, are political right wing (who self-identify as libertarians, but who tend to vote hard right) because they hate and abhor the idea that the public who isn't them might actually question the validity of the work or the politics behind the idea of rushing fracking into the marketplace without a thorough understanding, when the consequences (like fouled groundwater) can last decades and impact far more than just the profitability of the well in question.

So I cut to the chase and called out engineering: often right wing/libertarian, and often at odds with the general wellbeing of the public. With cherry picked studies you can prove anything in court, and the deck is stacked anyway, your employers (the ones you happily cited earlier) have a vested interest in keeping you pumping out data that supports their cause.

Cry moar.
 
2012-11-16 08:32:57 AM  

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


Tell me again how it is morally correct to vote away the rights of a minority you happen not to agree with.
 
2012-11-16 08:35:53 AM  

SomeGeologist: Bontesla: It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.

No, it's not.
If no previous gas contamination of the aquifer was present then any contamination caused by leaking natural gas (not fracking fluid) is because of a cracked casing. Which can happen anytime you drill, fracking or not. Natural gas comes out of the well under pressure in all circumstances. That's why it comes out.


If you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.

There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.


True...except my understanding is they've got an explicit exemption to the CWA.
Which, in my book, is prima facie evidence they KNOW it contaminates drinking water. Lobbyists don't work for free, after all.

Agree, kinda, with your point about how people should have to face the costs of the society we live in...we've certainly screwed over enough Third World environments.
 
2012-11-16 08:36:34 AM  

LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.


It sorta is already.
 
2012-11-16 08:39:54 AM  
We have a winnar -
macquirelatory.com
 
2012-11-16 08:42:02 AM  

uber humper: Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]


Scientific advice or books from right wing bible types about how the left is ignoring science is more sad than laughable
 
2012-11-16 08:45:40 AM  

uber humper: Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]


Hadn't heard of it before. I'll made you a deal: I'll read "Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left" if you'll read
www.waronscience.com
"The Republican War on Science"
 
2012-11-16 08:46:39 AM  

PunGent: True...except my understanding is they've got an explicit exemption to the CWA.
Which, in my book, is prima facie evidence they KNOW it contaminates drinking water. Lobbyists don't work for free, after all.


They do? I was not aware. That is a really stupid exemption to make.

I would say that they know it has a 'very serious potential' to contaminate the drinking water.
Which means that eventually, if things continue the way they are, it will contaminate the drinking water.
 
2012-11-16 08:48:17 AM  

SomeGeologist: f you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.
There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.

Fracking is exempt from key federal environmental regulations.
The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a provision that has come to be known as the "Halliburton Loophole," an exemption for gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Other exemptions are also present in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.


You might be a geologist, but even I knew that fracking is exempt from some major parts of the Clean Water Act. Not to mention that since the fracking ingredients are secret, even if you find a contaminated well or aquifer, you can't prove that fracking caused it, because you can't show that whatever is in the well is in the fracking water also.

Also, that fracking water doesn't stay under the ground, (where I suppose it would magically break down and become completely harmless or something.) It's brought back up to the surface, and kept in holding ponds, where it then has to be treated before it can be released anywhere. There is no argument that these chemicals are bad and carcinogenics. The fracking companies are in charge of treating their waste water too, and I know that an outfit that's exempt from the Clean Water Act can be trusted to maintain the highest standards of treatment before they release that water back into the nearest river or aquifer.
 
2012-11-16 08:48:59 AM  

spentshells: uber humper: Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]

Scientific advice or books from right wing bible types about how the left is ignoring science is more sad than laughable


I vote Republican and am not religious, atheist in fact. I'm pretty sure the author is, too.
 
2012-11-16 08:49:58 AM  

Gyrfalcon:
This was a county referendum. The laws and regulations on fracking were made at the state and national level. So for a county to vote "ban fracking" has about as much impact on a Federal law as if a city decided to take marijuana off of the DEA Schedule I. A city or state can say it won't enforce a drug law that's on it's own books; but it has no authority to change the federal laws or to remove a drug off the federal schedules.


Sure they do. Bug their congresspeople and senators, all of whom are directly elected under American law. That'll make the gas companies sit up and take notice.


Also, there are contracts to consider. A county may say "No fracking in our borders" and it could be legal...IF they're willing to pay ABC Gas and Oil the mineral rights they legally bought or contracted for for all the land within the county that they were going to be doing the gas drilling on. Part of contract law and property rights cover the value of the land, and if a county passes a regulation that makes the formerly valuable land worthless, then they can end up owing the contract holder the value of that property. So the County could suddenly find itself on the hook for tens of millions of dollars worth of natural gas if they go ahead and let the citizens have their way--money the citizens may not have realized they were going to have to pony up. It's a lot easier to blame it on the Feds, however, than to explain to the righteously angry citizens that they just cost themselves a lot of tax money--

"The intent to exploration and production of natural resources on targeted land has reduced the value of foreseeable and future residential and commercial properties by an exponential value, as much as tens of millions of dollars. ABC Gas and Oil is therefore ordered to cease and desist with its intended activities."

Easy enough to turn that into lawyer garble.
 
2012-11-16 08:52:55 AM  

ciberido: uber humper: Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]

Hadn't heard of it before. I'll made you a deal: I'll read "Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left" if you'll read
[www.waronscience.com image 325x502]
"The Republican War on Science"


Yea, that's a pretty common. But there are alot of religious people who are also scientific. There are alot of doctors who believe in god. Quite a few just use it as a metaphor.

The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.
 
2012-11-16 09:01:00 AM  

dolphinburger: as a resident of boulder county who is OK with hydraulic fracturing, i just want to say this:

it's about god damn time boulderites learned that they don't control the whole world.

/they should also learn that bicyclists need to practice defensive riding
//and that even though pot is legal here it's still too expensive
///and that nobody thinks you're cool because you're vegan
///slashies


////GET OFF MY LAWN!

...you missed one.
 
2012-11-16 09:10:59 AM  

toomuchwhargarbl: What comes after soap box and ballot box? I keep forgetting?


Ammo box.
 
2012-11-16 09:13:51 AM  

uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.


Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.
 
2012-11-16 09:21:01 AM  

RminusQ: uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.

Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.


And Obama believes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.

There are people with crazy ideas, everywhere.
 
2012-11-16 09:26:12 AM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


State laws trump local laws.
 
2012-11-16 09:28:06 AM  

SquiggsIN: OgreMagi: With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment

Ask Exxon and BP how well their safeguards work. Ask the people around Fukushima.


The people around Fukushima think BP's safeguards are just fine. Why do you ask?
 
2012-11-16 09:40:57 AM  

SomeGeologist: Bontesla: It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.

No, it's not.
If no previous gas contamination of the aquifer was present then any contamination caused by leaking natural gas (not fracking fluid) is because of a cracked casing. Which can happen anytime you drill, fracking or not. Natural gas comes out of the well under pressure in all circumstances. That's why it comes out.


If you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.

There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.


No.
 
2012-11-16 10:06:35 AM  
If voting changed anything it wouldn't be legal
 
2012-11-16 10:09:19 AM  
I'm surprised that SyFy hasn't done a fracking monster movie with their usual bad special effects, then again the side effects from real fracking are more frightening
 
2012-11-16 10:10:45 AM  

SomeGeologist: To be completely honest.
I like all this drilling. I wish they could Frack the entire east coast.
It's about time America learned the price of the world we live in.

If you want to drive a car to and from everywhere, listen to music on your idevice and surf FARK from you computer at work all at relatively low monetary cost. This is the price. Gas wells in your backyard.
Drilling and mining are coming back home. All the NIMBY idiots everywhere get to see what third-world countries have been seeing for decades. Big holes in the ground.


I'm sure there's some wiggle room between living a western lifestyle and being poisoned, and screwed over by megacorporations who make billions a month by doing it that way. Why don't people try and do that first. You know, stop the robber barons for the umpteenth time.
 
2012-11-16 10:34:32 AM  

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


Sounds an awful lot like the vote to bring the lottery to SC. I honestly remember a politician saying "The voters must have made a mistake." Can't remember who... I was 13.

Took 3 elections if I rememer correctly.

1 was passing the bill into law - "The voters made a mistake", vetoed because it violated the constitution.
2 was an amendment to the constitution - we had outlawed gambling and needed to change the wording to allow the lottery
3 was passing the bill into law again
 
2012-11-16 10:46:16 AM  
The solution is simple enough. Find a specific action necessary to fracking. Failing that, pass a law requiring a licence to dig into the ground. Ensure that any fracking operation violates the law.

Then send the polis down to arrest any company worker on a site in violation of the law. Not as satisfying or ideal as hauling the board of directors off to prison but its a start. People need to learn that CEOs can and should end up in prison for corporate crimes. Politicans too. And not the nice, resort like ones built for the rich, either.
 
2012-11-16 10:51:35 AM  

MythDragon: Time for a new energy source.
[tinypic.com image 370x278]
According to respected sources, it will be avaliable Jan 1 2020.
And it's 100% safe microwave energy beamed from space.
Unless of course the beam goes a little off course and cuts a swath of destruction.
But if you place it in a low tech industrial zone, or a high crime, low income residential area, the damage is minimized.


Nothing about that picture has anything to do with orbiting solar power satelites.
 
2012-11-16 11:00:33 AM  
Step one: take available fresh water and mix it with toxins (diminishing supplies of avail. fresh water)
Step two: pump that poisonous mix deep into the earth, ostensably 'under the water table'
Step three: act surprised that the groundwater becomes irrevocably contaminated
Step four: profit from sales of extremely scarce fresh water
Step five: buy Fuji water for your own family
 
2012-11-16 11:07:23 AM  

spentshells: SomeGeologist: maxheck: I'm gonna assume the whole concept of "field" is deliberately vague. :) And yeah, expense was what I was talking about when I said "unlimited." Anything short of the physically impossible *will* be done if you can make more money by doing it than by not.

I'm from the East Coast where they're a little more picky about land rights (usually...) Federal land here was either bought or seized, but not much of it was granted.

Actually, it is very well defined, geologically speaking. Gas companies do their best to acquire extraction rights to as much property as possible so that they don't run into arguments with each other about vague boundaries thousands of feet underground. Usually the companies will attempt to be as quite as possible when they are trying to acquire mineral rights. They don't want the competition snooping around. They also want to acquire those rights as cheaply as possible.
The problem, as far as a surface rights owner is concerned, is that once the companies have the rights, there is little you can do about it.
If the company wants to drill 50 wells on your 5-acre plot, they can. They have a right no access their mineral wealth. They have to compensate you certain things, but you can't stop them from doing it.
\ (Sorry, I have experience with hard-rock mineral rights, copper, gold and what have you, so I can't really speak to specifics)


I apologize, I don't feel like researching all the mineral rights on the east coast right now. From what I know offhand they tend to be mostly in the hands of the private sector (either corporations or people).
I assume that most people in Pennsylvania sold their mineral rights back during the oil boom. As to who owns them now, that would take a long week of research.

I guess, what I hope people can take away from this is,
Under the current Federal law:

Owning the land (surface rights) does not guarantee you ownership of the mineral rights. Be aware of this. Look at the deed for your property. I ...

Hydro damns not done in the way of the hoover damn have very little impact when compared to fracking
because they don't poison the water......


They do tend to wipe out wild fish stocks.....once great runs of salmon from California to British Columbia are nearly dead or kept on life support through hatcheries....clean water, clean air, and food sources should be priorities over cheap energy.
 
2012-11-16 11:10:15 AM  

give me doughnuts: Nothing about that picture has anything to do with orbiting solar power satelites.


It's a reference to the Microwave Powerplant available in SimCity 2000/3000, although that image does not appear to be official graphics AFAIK.

So yes, it does actually have something to do with orbiting solar sats. It's a real idea, by the way...
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-16 11:14:14 AM  

Generation_D: Some engineers, many in fact, are political right wing (who self-identify as libertarians, but who tend to vote hard right)


Have you been exit-polling engineers again?

/NTTAWWT
 
2012-11-16 11:22:55 AM  
If you can't tell people what's in the fracking mixture, you can't frack. End of discussion.

Fracking mixture shouldn't wind up in drinking water, as it's supposed to be sealed when it goes down, and it goes down WAY under the water table. But there are too many people worried that this isn't the case, and too many places where it seems like it may not be. Plenty of industries have to reveal what goes into their product.

Second, fracking uses a TON of water. Not all of that water is recovered. Colorado's water resources are very, very scarce. This is a legitimate issue as well.
 
2012-11-16 11:24:10 AM  

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


Talk to the voters in California.
 
2012-11-16 11:33:57 AM  

fusillade762: So fracking would be OK if we enforced the existing regulations?


No, because the watershed is completely interconnected. Inject any type of chemical into the ground, and it goes straight into the drinking water supply. Yes, you can filter it, but the companies use a toxic mix.

/Don't you have a local watershed advocacy group? I get annoyed by mine every so often with PSAs about how the watershed works...
 
2012-11-16 11:39:47 AM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.


When I got netflix I watched the new BSG start to finish and loved it. I also went back and tried watching the original BSG that I loved as a child. Man, did that not hold up well. I only made it through 6 episodes.
 
2012-11-16 11:43:57 AM  

spentshells: Hydro damns not done in the way of the hoover damn have very little impact when compared to fracking
because they don't poison the water....


Spoken like someon that know little about the environmental fights that Hydro Dams find themsleves. There is a huge movement by the enviros to eliminate about 3 GW of hydro capacity from Idaho/Washington/Oregon due to impacts on adronomous fish. Never mind that salmon and steelhead runs have been pretty healthy over the last 10 years.

Lawuit after lawsuit and millions of dollars spent on lawyers fighting over this issue. One step forward and two steps back - it's the courtroom dance of the conflicting American values.
 
2012-11-16 11:46:38 AM  

Dafatone: Colorado's water resources are very, very scarce.


Actually, Colorado's water resources are - in general - pretty plentiful. The problem is when you get into water rights and how that water is appropriated.
 
2012-11-16 11:48:54 AM  

OgreMagi: Personally, I think the hate for fraking is unwarranted. With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment it can make us 100% energy self sufficient. But what's wrong with banning it within the city limits? This seems to be a reasonable limitation that should be perfectly legal (unless someone tried to pull a fast one by declaring the city limits to cover the entire country).


No it can't. Where did you get that from?
 
2012-11-16 12:16:20 PM  
Why is this happening? My guess is that US seeks to suppress worldwide hydrocarbon prices to increase the effectiveness of the sanctions against Persia.
 
2012-11-16 12:19:24 PM  

signaljammer: Why is this happening? My guess is that US seeks to suppress worldwide hydrocarbon prices to increase the effectiveness of the sanctions against Persia.


Energy independence is not a novel concept.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:15 PM  

uber humper: RminusQ: uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.

Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.

And Obama believes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.


Citation needed.
 
2012-11-16 12:27:02 PM  

uber humper: ciberido: uber humper: Has anyone read this? I saw the author on book TV the other day, he gave a good talk.

[i.imgur.com image 300x300]

Hadn't heard of it before. I'll made you a deal: I'll read "Science Left Behind: Feel-Good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left" if you'll read
[www.waronscience.com image 325x502]
"The Republican War on Science"

Yea, that's a pretty common. But there are alot of religious people who are also scientific. There are alot of doctors who believe in god. Quite a few just use it as a metaphor.

The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.


I can't say I agree. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "the progressive Democrats," however, so perhaps you are talking about some specific group, maybe a very fringe or extreme group. Maybe you mean what I would call "the far left." I am talking about the left in general. And while I do agree that there are some issues on which the left tend to disregard science (GM food, fracking, and nuclear power being some examples), I simply can't agree that the left and the right do so equally, or close enough to equally that "are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as" is a valid comparison.
 
2012-11-16 12:28:47 PM  

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


Fracking is only supposed to be done to formations that are really far away (1000's of feet) from aquifers. As long as the earth between the gas/oil formation and the aquifer is not porous to gas (it isn't) then just breaking up the rock in the gas/oil formation shouldn't affect anything. The problem is that the wells drilled into the gas/oil formation can pass through porous sandy areas that do connect to aquifers, and sometimes can pass through the aquifers themselves. As long as the well is properly cased, that isn't an issue, but there is a risk of the casing being damaged and allowing drilling fluids and oil/gas/sulfur compounds/etc into the water table.

It's a case where there is a theoretical risk that is probably small, but it has not been extensively studied because there is a ton of money (more than you think) in fracking and drilling, and so there is absolutely no incentive to find any problems that aren't highly visible. Another way to say it is that if things go wrong, it could be really bad, but there is no strong evidence that things have gone wrong - and no one with the capability to find examples wants to find examples.

Natural gas is probably overall better for the environment. If you are concerned with traditional pollution (sulfur compounds, soot), natural gas is easier to scrub than coal, so it costs less to maintain air quality standards. Transportation costs can be lower if the pipeline infrastructure is already there, and extracting the natural gas is a lot less environmentally damaging than extracting coal is. In terms of CO2 produced per unit of energy, coal produces about three times as natural gas.
 
2012-11-16 12:31:33 PM  

HeadLever: Dafatone: Colorado's water resources are very, very scarce.

Actually, Colorado's water resources are - in general - pretty plentiful. The problem is when you get into water rights and how that water is appropriated.


Er... you sure about that?

I should have phrased it a little better. I think it's more accurate to say that Colorado's not out of water or anything, but that the water table there does not refill particularly well/quickly.
 
2012-11-16 12:33:24 PM  

PunGent: uber humper: RminusQ: uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.

Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.

And Obama believes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.


Citation needed.


"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

Washinton Post
 
2012-11-16 12:40:08 PM  

ciberido: I can't say I agree. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "the progressive Democrats," however, so perhaps you are talking about some specific group, maybe a very fringe or extreme group. Maybe you mean what I would call "the far left." I am talking about the left in general. And while I do agree that there are some issues on which the left tend to disregard science (GM food, fracking, and nuclear power being some examples), I simply can't agree that the left and the right do so equally, or close enough to equally that "are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as" is a valid comparison.


And I can't agree that those on the right, in general, are fundamentalist. That's also silly. The only fundamentalists, I personally know, are just kinda sprinkled around. They make the news because they're loud. Like the similarly wacko protestors on the left. Protesting such things as franked foods or the anti vax people. Their nuts, and it scary to think that they, like fundamentalist Christians, have some influence on policy.
 
2012-11-16 12:40:32 PM  

uber humper: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

Washinton Post

Your own link

says he was pointing to someone in the audience, you stupid shiatfarker.
 
2012-11-16 12:46:03 PM  

uber humper: ciberido: I can't say I agree. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "the progressive Democrats," however, so perhaps you are talking about some specific group, maybe a very fringe or extreme group. Maybe you mean what I would call "the far left." I am talking about the left in general. And while I do agree that there are some issues on which the left tend to disregard science (GM food, fracking, and nuclear power being some examples), I simply can't agree that the left and the right do so equally, or close enough to equally that "are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as" is a valid comparison.

And I can't agree that those on the right, in general, are fundamentalist. That's also silly. The only fundamentalists, I personally know, are just kinda sprinkled around. They make the news because they're loud. Like the similarly wacko protestors on the left. Protesting such things as franked franken foods or the anti vax people. Their They're nuts, and it scary to think that they, like fundamentalist Christians, have some influence on policy.


FTFM
 
2012-11-16 12:46:20 PM  

Dafatone: I should have phrased it a little better. I think it's more accurate to say that Colorado's not out of water or anything, but that the water table there does not refill particularly well/quickly.


Yeah, not sure about the water table characteristics. My point was more that you have Utah, NM, Arizona, Nevada and California all competing for that Colorado water.
 
2012-11-16 12:56:47 PM  

uber humper: PunGent: uber humper: RminusQ: uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.

Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.

And Obama believes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.


Citation needed.

"We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

Washinton Post


Had me worried there. Saying we need to research an issue that has a lot of folks riled up to the point where they're denying their kids vaccines is a FAR cry from being an antivaxxer.

As I'm sure you know.
 
2012-11-16 01:08:15 PM  

NephilimNexus: If voting really changed anything they'd make it illegal.


Me thinks we ought to change that quote to "If voting really changed anything we'd make it illegal."

I have not quite worked out why we do not all wish to work together to create a fun park of a world - it is ever so there for our taking.
 
2012-11-16 01:39:43 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


This is why the people who want fracking to happen, the CEO's, CFO's and board members should be forced to live near the environment that they might possibly destroy, or if they don't move but end up poisoning the water table then people who got poisoned should be allowed to come to their gated community and poison their water.
 
2012-11-16 01:47:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: MythDragon: Time for a new energy source.
[tinypic.com image 370x278]
According to respected sources, it will be avaliable Jan 1 2020.
And it's 100% safe microwave energy beamed from space.
Unless of course the beam goes a little off course and cuts a swath of destruction.
But if you place it in a low tech industrial zone, or a high crime, low income residential area, the damage is minimized.

Nothing about that picture has anything to do with orbiting solar power satelites.


You're right. It, however has everything to do with orbiting microwave power satelites. It is the microwave energy plant from Sim City 3000. Orbital satalites collect microwave energy from space and beam it to the collection dish to power the city. This one is safer than the one in Sim City 2000 as it doesn't sometimes have "beam misalignments" where instead of focusing the microwave beam into the collection dish, it sends it somewhere else. Like little Stacy's 8th year birthday pool party.
 
2012-11-16 03:20:37 PM  

Ishidan: LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.

I'd rather it not be.

/around here, the word "moke" means about the equivalent of "local yokel", usually combined with "arrogant meathead".


Why don't elves drive Mini Mokes?

///Because moking is an elf hazard
 
2012-11-16 03:21:15 PM  

Shadowtag: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.

I approve as well but I'm going to do it in a way that doesn't make me look old and pig-headed.

/Yes, I grew up with the original, but if you don't like Romo Lampkin then I don't like you


Alright you two! Each of you take that gun toy made to look like the Gallactica Flight Deck from the 1970's and mark off ten paces between you. The first one to launch one of the foam rubber Vipers into the others eye wins the argument.
 
2012-11-16 03:23:47 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: Suede head: Lol "democracy". Welcome to the world, folks. Choose party A or party B, it makes no real difference, we own them both.

watch this men who made america thing on the history channel. 150 years ago you will see who are the real money makers in the world we live in, in america. this series is awesome.


Nathan Frick was a prick.
 
2012-11-16 03:31:51 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.

they wont be fracking near me any time soon.


Prude.

j/k
 
2012-11-16 03:35:38 PM  

nmemkha: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Mormonstar Galactica.

/FTFY


So you're saying the Council of 12 was a harem?
 
2012-11-16 03:41:44 PM  

MurphyMurphy: OgreMagi: it can make us 100% energy self sufficient

Seldom has a bigger lie ever been told.

It's not your fault, you are just repeating what you've learned from liars.

Unless you can find some statement from fuel companies explaining that once we reach a certain level of DRILLBABYDRILL they will stop selling their products on the global markets, we will never be energy self sufficient.

You would need a government takeover of every fuel company operating in our borders to achieve national energy independence.


If only we could vote in someone that likes to take over private businesses for the government.
 
2012-11-16 05:03:28 PM  

FTDA: Shadowtag: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"

I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.

I approve as well but I'm going to do it in a way that doesn't make me look old and pig-headed.

/Yes, I grew up with the original, but if you don't like Romo Lampkin then I don't like you

Alright you two! Each of you take that gun toy made to look like the Gallactica Flight Deck from the 1970's and mark off ten paces between you. The first one to launch one of the foam rubber Vipers into the others eye wins the argument.


Foam rubber? Mine were hard plastic.
 
2012-11-16 07:45:44 PM  
I was trolling, unsuccessfuly.
 
2012-11-16 08:09:03 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


They're fracking oil in Boulder County?
 
2012-11-16 10:07:25 PM  

LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.


What remoking may look like
www.yanidel.com
(it's hard to find a retard smoking a cigarette on GIS. usually you can find anything!)
 
2012-11-16 10:47:35 PM  
nmrsnr: Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.

It's like how a state can say medical marijuana is ok, but the feds will turn around and raid your dispensary.
 
2012-11-16 11:09:37 PM  
Boulder: 25 square miles surrounded by reality.
 
Displayed 182 of 182 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report