| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 01 2013 04:58 Djzapz wrote: So you take water, you add chemicals in it, call it benign so that you don't have to make an argument and call it a day. Nice. The chemicals shouldn't be touching the ground water at all. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The chemicals shouldn't be touching the ground water at all. So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to. Of course, trust Jonny. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 01 2013 04:53 xDaunt wrote: It would do you well to have a better understanding of fracking before posting stuff like this. What's pumped into the wells is benign compared to the hydrocarbons that are extracted, which is why oil CEOs chug the fracking fluid as a publicity stunt. Well besides the fact that TONS of cancerous and very unhealthy chemicals are pumped into the ground that haven't been there before (which already sounds pretty troublesome to the average sane person), what do you have to say about that little incident? http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf Your beloved fracking was so unbelievable benign that :[...] "13 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane (one blew up). Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were also found in unacceptable levels in the wells. As a result, Cabot Oil & Gas was required to financially compensate residents and provide alternative sources of water until mitigation systems were installed in affected wells.[...] Responsible, as Oil & Gas companies naturally are, they obviously replied: " On December 2, 2011, EPA sent an email to several Dimock residents indicating that their well water presented no immediate health threat." The EPA was quick to reverse their statement:"On January 19, 2012, the EPA reversed its position, and asked that the agency's hazardous site cleanup division take immediate action to protect public health and safety." We also have a Duke University study from 2011 claiming: "It determined that groundwater tended to contain much higher concentrations of methane near fracking wells, with potential explosion hazard; the methane's isotopic signatures and other geochemical indicators were consistent with it originating in the fracked deep shale formations, rather than any other source"(http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf) On Wikipedia alone you'll find links to about a dozen other fracking related accidents, with animals dying, wells being contamined, people having health issues... and several studies confirming that fracking (directly or indirectly) caused all of this stuff. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 01 2013 04:57 WhiteDog wrote: You proved that you are biased and unimformed yourself, so... Please stop. Here's the prototypical hypocrisy of the TL liberal poster in this thread (not all such posters, just most). Guess what? We are all biased. Also, feel free to point out what about my post is factually inaccurate before you say that I am "uninformed." It's pretty bush league to throw something like that out there without any substantiation -- not that I expect better from you. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:16 Nyxisto wrote: Well besides the fact that TONS of cancerous and very unhealthy chemicals are pumped into the ground that haven't been there before (which already sounds pretty troublesome to the average sane person), what do you have to say about that little incident? http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf Your beloved fracking was so unbelievable benign that :[...] "13 water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania were contaminated with methane (one blew up). Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were also found in unacceptable levels in the wells. As a result, Cabot Oil & Gas was required to financially compensate residents and provide alternative sources of water until mitigation systems were installed in affected wells.[...] Responsible, as Oil & Gas companies naturally are, they obviously replied: " On December 2, 2011, EPA sent an email to several Dimock residents indicating that their well water presented no immediate health threat." The EPA was quick to reverse their statement:"On January 19, 2012, the EPA reversed its position, and asked that the agency's hazardous site cleanup division take immediate action to protect public health and safety." We also have a Duke University study from 2011 claiming: "It determined that groundwater tended to contain much higher concentrations of methane near fracking wells, with potential explosion hazard; the methane's isotopic signatures and other geochemical indicators were consistent with it originating in the fracked deep shale formations, rather than any other source"(http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.full.pdf) On Wikipedia alone you'll find links to about a dozen other fracking related accidents, with animals dying, wells being contamined, people having health issues... and several studies confirming that fracking (directly or indirectly) caused all these stuff. You may want to bring your research current. Do you know what the EPA concluded from the Dimock investigation this year? Here's a hint: + Show Spoiler + NO LINK TO DRILLING ACTIVITIES. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The chemicals shouldn't be touching the ground water at all. This is correct. The fracking occurs thousands and thousands of feet below where the grounder water is. So long as the wells are properly cased, there shouldn't be a problem. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote: So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to. Of course, trust Jonny. Did I say that? lol. The process shouldn't touch the ground water. That's obviously not a guarantee that that process will always work as intended! The point of my post was that the chemicals should touch the ground water, so bringing up the safety of the chemicals is a bit of a red herring. If you have a well leak, even chemicals comprised exclusively of hugs and kisses is still a problem since natural gas in your drinking water isn't good  Edit: Additionally, the type of soil and rock shouldn't be an issue. My understanding is that fracking occurs below the impermeable layer. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:16 xDaunt wrote: Here's the prototypical hypocrisy of the TL liberal poster in this thread (not all such posters, just most). Guess what? We are all biased. Also, feel free to point out what about my post is factually inaccurate before you say that I am "uninformed." It's pretty bush league to throw something like that out there without any substantiation -- not that I expect better from you. What about all the argument with "fracking has been going on since 50 years". You were right about that ? There is a difference between being gently biased, and being totally blind by the way. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
International anger over the National Security Agency’s Internet surveillance is hurting global sales by American technology companies and setting back U.S. efforts to promote Internet freedom. Disclosures of spying abroad may cost U.S. companies as much as $35 billion in lost revenue through 2016 because of doubts about the security of information on their systems, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a policy research group in Washington whose board includes representatives of companies such as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Intel Corp. (INTC) “The potential fallout is pretty huge given how much our economy depends on the information economy for its growth,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington policy group. “It’s increasingly where the U.S. advantage lies.” Any setback in the U.S. push to maintain an open Internet also could inflict indirect damage on companies such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Google Inc. (GOOG) that benefit from global networks with few national restrictions. Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:36 WhiteDog wrote: What about all the argument with "fracking has been going on since 50 years". You were right about that ? There is a difference between being gently biased, and being totally blind by the way. Because I was right? And actually, I said 70 years. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote: Because I was right? And actually, I said 70 years. Yes, except fracking back then and fracking now are two different practice like someone said. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:59 WhiteDog wrote: Yes, except fracking back then and fracking now are two different practice like someone said. Are they meaningfully different? I think now they also use horizontal drilling, but I don't see why that would increase the risk of groundwater contamination. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 01 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Are they meaningfully different? I think now they also use horizontal drilling, but I don't see why that would increase the risk of groundwater contamination. As far as I can glean, 1968 marked the year "massive" hydraulic fraccing was applied first. Increasing flow obviously increase the pressure and thereby what is claimed to cause "earthquakes" or other unpleasantries. 1976 was the year it was applied to shale for the first time it seems. Since shale has a lower permeability, the pressure will be higher at the same flow and therefore the geological effects will be more severe. I dont wanna speculate on how much of a difference it makes, but both of those changes should theoretically be meaningful for the geological effects. When that is said, 40 years is also a relatively good basis for evaluation, with several buts and ifs about delayed effects, accumulation time etc. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote: So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to. Of course, trust Jonny. All of my knowledge of this comes from past half hour of doing research out of curiosity so take it for what you will but if you do it right then there is no pollution issue. Now if the regulations are tight enough is probably a matter for debate since they usually aren't on these sorts of issues. The only other real negatives I could find (if someone else found more please tell me) are potential property rights violations that arise but those can be settled in court and apparently potential earthquakes which may or may not be preventing big ones. As long as its well built and if the regulations are tight enough to insure this it will be then there really is no reason to oppose fracking based on my very very short research time. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7921 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:16 WhiteDog wrote: So you're a geologist ? You can prove to us that, no matter the type of soil, rock or whatever, the chemicals will always go where you want to. Of course, trust Jonny. The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. See also: GMO opposition, antivaccination movements etc. People can be against things that merely sound scary, as opposed to actually dangerous. The problem is regulatory capture, or the threat of such by the very businesses that are supposed to be regulated. Edit: And also the problem that a large corporation is both powerful and a psychopathic entity by design. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. Because he is a young guy who read some economic textbook and came to the conclusion that the invisible hand was backing up society. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On December 01 2013 20:35 hummingbird23 wrote: See also: GMO opposition, antivaccination movements etc. People can be against things that merely sound scary, as opposed to actually dangerous. The problem is regulatory capture, or the threat of such by the very businesses that are supposed to be regulated. Edit: And also the problem that a large corporation is both powerful and a psychopathic entity by design. The examples you listed are not good examples. The whole anti-vaccination movement was not supported by science, and scientists were at the forefront of debunking it. There are legitimate concerns regarding genetically modified organisms (their escape into the wild/gene transfer to wild populations, potential effects on ecosystems, etc.), but a lot of it is fear-mongering and not rational (their immediate consequences on human health consumption which, for the most part, are probably non-existent). Again, there is science addressing that issue that is still being debated. I know you can find "specialists" to testify against anything, but for the most part science works pretty well and specialists who tend to testify against what the evidence presents tend to get found out in the long run. Scientists LOVE to find smoking guns, as it tends to make them pretty famous and respected in their fields. As an honest question, what do most academic researchers say about the effects of fracking? I honestly don't know. If there is not a well-studied body of literature on the topic, then I would say that the precautionary principle should come into play, and would tend to be against it given potential concerns. Seems like it'd be a well studied topic, though. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. You're pretty good at dancing. Big multinational companies evil, victims good, days after days of damages are entirely scientific fact. I'm going to split up the two sides: if you're with Jonny, you're taking the side of You intentionally ignore vested interests opposing anything good for oil and natural gas companies. If you dig, or cut down trees, or seek to earn money off land you own, you are intrinsically bad and should be thrown in jail. That's what all this reduces down too. Frame the debate in terms of evil business vs good scientists because that's frankly all you've got. When every study into alleged damages completes (particularly ones with a shot of shutting down the project), the conclusion is ignored if it rules in favor of the fracking companies. They're just grouped together with other allegations. This pot of "days after days of damages" ends up containing so many discredited claims to make an observer question the motives of the activist opposition. It is a great testament to the Republic that these companies have by and large been able to continue their mining operations. It's a great asset to the economy. It stands starkly against the fear-mongers. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 01 2013 19:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: The bottom line is that you can both throw arguments that only specialist would be able to assess. And since you can always find fake specialists to support the side you want, the argument is endless. The question is why in the first place would one naturally trust the interest of big multinational companies, or why would one trust the people that are victims of those methods and scientists that shows evidences days after days of the damages done by fracking. What I was saying puzzles me is that someone like Jonny will always take the side of private economic interest. Climate change, fracking, international policy: he will always believe what goes into the interest of big businesses. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. It seems absolutely obvious that a businesses will take the side that is the most profitable for them, whatever the consequences, while I don't see why the general public or scientists would oppose a technique like that just for the sake of it. Fracking is mainly small and midsize businesses. Some have grown into big companies, but 'big oil' companies (exxon, shell, etc) have lost money on it. It also represents lots of money for local communities that gets used to upgrade schools and hospitals and the people who own the land. Consumers of nat gas also benefit from lower prices. Nat gas is far cheaper in the US than in Europe and households, particularly low income households in the north, benefit substantially from the lower price. There have been over a million uses of fracking in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if some lead to water contamination, even though so far the science hasn't been able to conclusively prove it. But there exists the possibility of contamination from traditional drilling methods as well, so there's more than a dash of hypocrisy at play when one opposes fracking while supporting traditional drilling domestically and overseas. Additionally, the risks to groundwater need to be weighed against the air quality improvements that come with switching from oil heat to natural gas heat and coal power generation to natural gas. It's not a matter of big companies vs the environment, it's money for lots of people and the environment vs the environment and the fear of the unknown. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
LAN Event
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
