- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Maybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.
Our green lobby is quite confused here in the UK; fracking has a bad name and there are protests against it by the green movement which presumably would prefer nuclear power or coal fired power at great expense to the public in comparison to fracking whose benefits that could lower our fuel bills.
Our green lobby is quite confused here in the UK; fracking has a bad name and there are protests against it by the green movement which presumably would prefer nuclear power or coal fired power at great expense to the public in comparison to fracking whose benefits that could lower our fuel bills.
How about none of the above. Fracking is just fine, as long as you don't want to live in the area afterwards. All those for fracking and those doing it and their families should be required live on the water from local wells. If that were so, fracking would end tomorrow.
I think people would be surprised how much the oil and gas industry has contributed to advancingMaybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.
]
There is no evidence of any fracking impact on water supplies. Many people already draw their water from areas with fracking and are not even aware of it. This is a false issue.
Oh yeah, talk to the multitude of folks who can no longer drink from their wells. Or better yet, we ought to bottle that well water and require that folks who support fracking drink it.
There is zero evidence that any fouled well has been caused by fracking.
More lies. There is plenty of evidence. We've discussed this before and the evidence has been presented. Acting like it doesn't exist is absurd. Again, take the challenge, I'm sure you can get access to water near a fracking operation. Good ahead, feed that to your family for a bit if you're so convinced.
I've already had the water. Relatives in both Pennsylvania and North Dakota. Not a problem.
How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Water Contamination
energyindepth.org/.../how-anti-fracking-activists-deny-science-water-con...
Aug 13, 2013 - “Fracking – when taken to mean the entire process of developing an oil or gas well – has conclusively been linked to water contamination by ...
An excerpt:
"But when these same critics are asked to prove the claim, the evidence is far more elusive than their statements would suggest. At a major Senate hearing earlier this year, representatives from both the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, when pressed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), could not name a single confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater.
Experts and regulators, meanwhile, have stated time and again that there is little to no evidence of “fracking” ever contaminating groundwater: . . . "eace
unless there is a major price/technology change.
Heh, try reading it for comprehension. Who said anything about groundwater? I'm talking about well water.
All well water is groundwater although not all groundwater is well water. The statements encompass well water.
Same problem with global warming. It is a political issue moreso than a scientific one. Politics doesn't need proof. It only needs belief.
No, they don't and that's a convenient dodge around the facts.
Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time - ProPublica
There's no way that fracking will hire enough people to turn around 60+ years of decline in manufacturing employment.
There's also a glut right now in NG production, prices are already falling. Things look good on the upswing of a bubble...
I do concur that fracking does bring some economic benefits. However, if production continues to increase, the current growth rates will not be sustainable.
In addition, the environmental effects are unclear. NG produces less CO2, which is good. The industry refuses to say exactly what chemicals it's pumping into the ground to get access to the natural gas, which is bad. I believe there is no way to clean up those wells; we'll have chemical waste products sitting in the Marcellus Shale for thousands of years.
Not everyone is thrilled by unaccountable and obscure mining operations polluting their water supplies. Nor can we develop a true comparison of renewable to NG without knowing what chemicals are used.
Go ahead and google cancer clusters around fracking sites. You'll see plenty of local reports of people who live near fracking sites. But of course they don't count to a government that wants to go head long into fracking.
High Levels of Arsenic Found in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites: Scientific American
At one time it seemed like a great answer to chemical waste to store it all in Love Canal. Only took 30 years for the government to admit that wasn't really a spiffy idea after all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?