Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Scary, Boulder County, city limits, county board, current limiting, county commission, Longmont, gas exploration, land uses  
•       •       •

17631 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2012 at 3:13 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 04:04:43 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


When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.
 
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 04:08:42 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?


Not if you ruin the water supply to acquire it. Fossil fuels are not, have never been, and will never be sustainable. PERIOD. If we don't start investing in solar and wind power, we're idiots. We would save billions a year in transmission loss by encouraging LOCAL power production via green sources. (beyond the environmental impact of procuring said fossil fuels)
 
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 04:09:43 AM  

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.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report