Frick'n Fracking- An Environmental Disaster?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. Huntn, Oct 18, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    Hydraulic Fracturing:
    Just had a conversation with a conservative leaning fellow whose family has a farm in North Dakota. We got into a discussion regarding the lack of morality in the name of the once all-mighty dollar who tells me that "fracking" the process of forcing gas and oil out of the ground is an environmental disaster and that one of the things that Mr. Halliburten Cheney (called "Dick" by both friends and enemies) did when in office was push through rules that blocked the EPA from regulating this practice. I don't know if that is true or not. Ground water is polluted in many cases, where in some cases victims can light the water coming out of their faucets on fire. I was told that 100 tankers of volatile chemicals (not just water) are forced into the ground to harvest 40 tankers worth of oil/gas. Where do all those chemicals go?

    If you want to read more about this:

    EWG:What You Need To Know About Fracking

    Fracking- A Tale of Two States

    Fracking Causes Environmental, Human Disaster

    Or checkout the HBO Documentary if you get a chance:

    Gaslands
     
  2. wrinkster22 macrumors 68030

    wrinkster22

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Location:
    Toronto
  3. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #3
    Gasland is really a great film. It was an Oscar nominee and won an Emmy- definitely one to see. Makes me a little bit worried that America has such a large amount of natural gas if it's going to be carelessly harvested by fracking.
     
  4. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #4
    And what has the Obama administration done to over turn this egregious practice in the last 3 years?
     
  5. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #5
    He has created a panel whose main purpose is to increase regulations on fracking.
     
  6. Huntn, Oct 18, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011

    Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    Hopefully he can do more than that, but what would I expect a Republican President to do from the current batch of contenders? Shutdown the EPA. We just can't afford it's impact on profits. :rolleyes:
     
  7. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #7
    As one who has worked in oil fields and has done quite a few frack jobs, I think this is overblown immensely by the public
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    That may be. Certain aspects concern me -- particularly the idea that a company can pump potentially significant quantities of a chemical mixture into the ground and not be responsible to disclose the contents of the mixture so that people know what they're potentially getting into. I don't think that makes any kind of common sense. The chemicals may or may not be dangerous in large quantities in the ground -- I think that's something that merits study if we're going to go down this road.
     
  9. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
  10. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    Maybe it only takes one or two flaming faucets to alarm some people? The water table is everywhere. What measures are taken to insure it is protected?

    I've heard that the contract you get when agreeing to allow companies to frack on your land is completely generalized lacking in specifics. If true, I'm sure there is a very good reason from the companies perspective for this.
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    Great, just what we need....another panel or committee.
     
  12. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #12
    Yeah -- I think this is a place where government needs to be, in order to determine what the fair boundary is between corporate secrecy, which is validly necessary as an ingredient for economic growth, and public safety. I'm not sure everyone needs to know the data, but if not even the government knows what's in the stuff, or worse yet, even the fracker doesn't know, because their supplier won't tell them, this is a recipe for disaster.
     
  13. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #13
    Damn democracy!
     
  14. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    Sourcewatch:
    Hydrofracking and the EPA:
    I'll add that Obama has been in office for over 2 years and they are still doing it...
     
  15. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #16
    There is no value in fracking.

    It should be criminalized.
     
  16. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Ah, but "value" for who, or whom??

    Please, be more specific in your statement. ;)
     
  17. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #18
    I think fracking has a lot of value, but it's valuable to the companies that are using fracking because it isn't nearly as expensive as the alternatives.
     
  18. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #19
    Sure, it has value, but only to Wall Street companies trying to make a profit. Therefore, fracking has no actual value.
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #20
    I realize that we are not talking about the size of a grain of sand here, but when water and vibration get together, nasty things happen.

    Liquefaction.

    You try this in California, or anywhere else in the Ring of Fire, and who knows what will happen?
     
  20. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    Only a criminal would orchestrate the exemption of fracking from the Clean Water act and allow companies to keep secret the brew of poisons they are allowed to pump into the ground. If the process is harmless, why officiate its cover up?
     
  21. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #22
    I don't know about that -- if the people involved knew the chemicals were highly likely to be dangerous to human health or public safety, then yes, probably. That's a big if.

    At some level, this is analagous to other corporate secrecy issues, like the ongoing fight between RIM and numerous governments with respect to whether RIM should disclose its data security practices to the government and/or "give" the government a way to crack Blackberry accounts. The harm is clearly qualitatively different (terrorism vs. water security), but if anything, the Blackberry harm is probably less theoretical, since it is fairly widely accepted that RIM accounts are used by criminals, and it is not yet widely accepted that fracking chemicals are or will cause a harm to people.

    However, the idea of "we're not going to do anything about fracking chemicals until someone proves they're dangerous, and we're not going to let anyone know what's in them or access them to study if they're dangerous" is even more preposterous than the idea of, "we're not going to do anything about pollution until a rigorously causal model of global warming is completely undeniable." No one says, I'm not going to clean my kitchen counter until you prove to me that there are germs there.
     
  22. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020

    Liquorpuki

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    City of Angels
    #23
    Anyone who's both anti-fracking because of earthquake concerns and pro-geothermal energy is a hypocrite.

    How do you think they create geothermal wells? By fracking
     
  23. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    I have to fall back on my original statement, if it's harmless why exempt it from Clean Water Act regulations and why keep secret the mix of highly toxic chemicals? We don't need to know the exact mix if it is proprietary, but once toxic chemicals are acknowledged being distributed into the environment, there is an obligation to divulge what they are. It was not the act of an ideal national leader but the act of an industry insider.

    In the perfect situation, my guess is that fracking chemicals are introduced well below the water table and are not a threat to human beings, just like in a perfect situation a oil well never blows up. We know how that goes and there have been many reports of contaminated drinking water by the fracking process. The more scrutiny the better. How much contaminated ground water are we willing to accept in the name of energy and corporate profits? Bypassing environmental protections for the sake of expediency and profits is BS.
     
  24. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    For some, the very idea that there is oil there and we might just leave it in the ground is simply an outrage. I need to be able to drive my McLaren F1 on I-10 in west Texas and get tickets for doing 110 in an 80 but not have to pay so very much for my gas. Hence, the rape of the Athabasca river basin is entirely justifiable, and because tar sand conversion is so expensive, how can they make a profit if they also have to restore the wasteland to its natural condition?

    Sorry? WTFAYTA? You have a link for that?
     

Share This Page