| Pages:
1
2
3
..
8 |
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
.... th'FRACKing nutzanony thread ........
...edit....ah,well,,,,too bad.......bye-bye ozone  
.after some previous discussion about the concerns of fracking in a relatively unregulated Mexico,,,it seems like there's a -real- issue -much- closer
to home for many.......or does the EPA not hold any creds with the good'ole boys here either!?
Frackers are dumping toxic waste into California’s groundwater
By Madeleine Thomas
10 Oct 2014 7:18 PM n
California can officially add one more disaster to its rapidly growing list of water woes: The EPA just found that at least nine fracking sites
throughout the state have been dumping billions of gallons of contaminated wastewater into its protected aquifers.
Not only do many of these aquifers supply drinking water to residents throughout the Central Valley, they’re also reaching dangerously low levels due
to overuse, as many farmers rely on aquifers for irrigation and have been overpumping groundwater supplies as the drought carries on.
According to a letter sent to the EPA by the California State Water Resources Board, roughly 3 billion gallons of wastewater were illegally injected
into aquifers throughout central California. The EPA ordered the report following contamination concerns after 11 fracking wastewater injection wells
were shut down in July by state officials, DeSmogBlog reports:
The letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity, reveals … that half of the water samples collected at the 8 water
supply wells tested near the injection sites have high levels of dangerous chemicals such as arsenic, a known carcinogen that can also weaken the
human immune system, and thallium, a toxin used in rat poison.
Timothy Krantz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Redlands, says these chemicals could pose a serious risk to public health:
“The fact that high concentrations are showing up in multiple water wells close to wastewater injection sites raises major concerns about the health
and safety of nearby residents.”
The full scope of the contamination still remains to be seen — as many as 19 other injection wells could be sources of contamination as well,
according to the report. Historic drought, top water officials who don’t follow their own water restrictions, and now widespread contamination of what
little water in the state is left? The Golden State just can’t catch a break.
[Edited on 10-20-2014 by micah202]
[Edited on 10-21-2014 by micah202]
|
|
|
bajabuddha
Banned
Posts: 4024
Registered: 4-12-2013
Location: Baja New Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Always cranky unless medicated
|
|
OMA, here comes the deluge.....
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
86 - 45*
|
|
|
Udo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6321
Registered: 4-26-2008
Location: Black Hills, SD/Ensenada/San Felipe
Member Is Offline
Mood: TEQUILA!
|
|
That will be the next big thing for Pemex.
Udo
Youth is wasted on the young!
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Some might consider this progress
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
The effects of Fracking have a direct impact on Mexico. Mexico might (or not) be able to learn from mistakes in other countries. This article ties
it to Mexico
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/06/11/fracking...
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Online
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Thank you!
Now, for some facts (or at least the other side of the story)... (the following is just part of an article found here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275 )
The first thing to understand is that water wells are shallow. The deepest private residential wells go perhaps a couple hundred meters, though most
are much shallower. Fracking takes place kilometers deeper underground; and in most places, the fracked shale beds are separated from the surface
watersheds by multiple rock formations of different types. There's little or no transference of anything — gas or liquid — between fracked layers and
surface layers; they're simply too far apart and separated by too much rock.
However, the burning water is an undisputed fact. So where is this methane coming from, if not from fracking? As it happens, it's natural, worldwide,
for anyone who has a well in a natural gas area. Natural gas is not found only in the deep shale beds, it's in shallower layers as well; so we always
expect some gas to make it into well water in particular regions. But the mining of natural gas also has a few consequences that can force methane
into aquifers. First, the underground changes in pressure can prompt methane to migrate from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Second,
poorly sealed natural gas wells can (and do) leak methane into adjacent strata. These poorly sealed wells are human errors that it's the
responsibility of the driller to repair. Third, old abandoned wells do the same thing, but often without anyone repairing them. None of these problems
are related to fracking, per se.
When the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission investigated the burning water of the well owner most prominently featured in Gasland, whose
tap water was gray and actually effervesced, they found that his methane was naturally occurring and had nothing to do with any natural gas drilling.
His water well had been drilled directly into a shallow natural gas deposit. Nevertheless, Gasland portrayed this as a consequence of fracking, which
is wrong at two levels.
|
|
|
bajabuddha
Banned
Posts: 4024
Registered: 4-12-2013
Location: Baja New Mexico
Member Is Offline
Mood: Always cranky unless medicated
|
|
 
how'd I know....    
I don't have a BUCKET LIST, but I do have a F***- IT LIST a mile long!
86 - 45*
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Udo
That will be the next big thing for Pemex. |
....next big 'thing' indeed......I am highly concerned about the idea of mexico 'opening up' to fracking in a big way--especially since backroom deals
and non-supervision ,non-enforcement of non-laws aren't likely to draw out best practices are they!?
...last time this discussion was on the table,,,'someone' was in denial about any problems in California,,,so I posted it when I saw it
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the burning water is an undisputed fact. So where is this methane coming from, if not from fracking? As it happens, it's natural,
worldwide, for anyone who has a well in a natural gas area. Natural gas is not found only in the deep shale beds, it's in shallower layers as well; so
we always expect some gas to make it into well water in particular regions. But the mining of natural gas also has a few consequences that can force
methane into aquifers. First, the underground changes in pressure can prompt methane to migrate from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.
Second, poorly sealed natural gas wells can (and do) leak methane into adjacent strata. These poorly sealed wells are human errors that it's the
responsibility of the driller to repair. Third, old abandoned wells do the same thing, but often without anyone repairing them. None of these problems
are related to fracking, per se............... |
...ohh,,nice edit/addition.......REALLY!?....there's -many- reports of people having ZERO problems with comtaminated drinking water before fracking
hit their area.....this bafflegab is somehow meant to appease my concerns!!?-- -your quote is actually describing how fracking DOES CAUSE
CONTAMINATION!!! 
...is it that you think printing a few hundred words of bafflegab is going to put my concerns to rest!?put
.
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Will you stay in love with Pemex no matter what it does, because it is a socialized industry... controlled by government bureaucrats ??? You have
better odds with publicly owned American energy companies who respond to the free market and shareholders demands. You can choose to not buy one brand
of gasoline to show your dislike for what they are doing. Not so when the government run company has no competition. Same is true in any industry the
governmemt takes over. |
....you seem to be confusing your unconditional love for the american energy complex with my great concern over fracking!....you're actually trying to
convince me that shareholders in these corporations have -any- concern beyond profit....in Mexico!?!?
....I have great respect for other things you do here on Nomads,,,but oil industry fanman ain't one of them.
....can you please tell me how it's a good idea to disrupt the deepsub-surface of earthquake prone areas in the ways fracking does??
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Septoid.com.....consider the source. Right up there with Blaze
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Thank you!
Now, for some facts (or at least the other side of the story)... (the following is just part of an article found here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275 )
|
Glad to see you following Brian Dunning's work via Skeptoid. I used to subscribe to his weekly podcast and listened frequently. Be careful though,
as it may turn you into a freethinking skeptical atheist! Just kidding.
Have you seen what he writes about Global Warming/Climate Change? He says it's real! I'd have to side with him and the scientists on that one. I'm
gonna read the post on fracking (well stimulation) right now. I think this Skeptoid episode is 3 years old and there have been some new things
learned of late.
Oh and Brian is heading to prison for 16 months. Just sentenced..............pled guilty to wire fraud that had allowed him to collect more than $5
million. Bummer because he seemed like such a nice guy when I met him at the Orange County Freethought Alliance convention a few years ago. Just
goes to show you that you never know what's up in people personal lives.
I'm rambling here. Don't feel you need to take any time here to respond.
[Edited on 10-14-2014 by Ateo]
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15937
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
why don't they go after the companies responsible for the "injected" waste water? why aren't they named? is this PC run amok?
|
|
|
vandenberg
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5118
Registered: 6-21-2005
Location: Nopolo
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ateo
Oh and Brian is heading to prison for 16 months. Just sentenced..............pled guilty to wire fraud that had allowed him to collect more than $5
million.
|
Not a bad take since he likely will be out within a year.
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vandenberg
| Quote: | Originally posted by Ateo
Oh and Brian is heading to prison for 16 months. Just sentenced..............pled guilty to wire fraud that had allowed him to collect more than $5
million.
|
Not a bad take since he likely will be out within a year.
|
Hope he enjoys his morning woody
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yeah, I think he was able to pay off his house with the money, but having said that there is probably a fine or he'll have to repay someone???!!!???
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5847
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
I found this podcast to be a fact based, current analysis of Fracking:
https://soundcloud.com/inquiringminds/47-anthony-ingraffea-t...
From the episode notes:
On the political right, it's pretty popular these days to claim that the left exaggerates scientific worries about hydraulic fracturing, or
"fracking." In a recent National Review article, for instance, a Hoover Institution researcher complains that 53 percent of Democrats in California
support a fracking ban "despite the existence of little if any credible scientific evidence of fracking's feared harms and overwhelming scientific
evidence of its environmental benefits, including substantial reductions in both local and global pollutants."
Three or four years ago, a statement like that may have seemed defensible. The chief environmental concern about fracking at that time involved the
contamination of drinking water through the fracking process—blasting water, sand, and chemicals underground in vast quantities and at extreme
pressures to force open shale layers deep beneath the Earth, and release natural gas. But the science was still pretty ambiguous, and a great deal
turned on how "fracking" was defined. The entire mega-process of "unconventional" gas drilling had clearly caused instances of groundwater
contamination, due to spills and leaks from improperly cased wells. But technically, "fracking" only refers to the water and chemical blast, not the
drilling, the disposal of waste, or the huge industrial operations that accompany it all.
How things have changed. On the show this week we talked to Cornell University engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea about the science behind
fracking—and had him explain why, nowadays, the scientific argument against fracking is more extensive. It involves not simply groundwater
contamination, but also earthquake generation and the accidental emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
|
|
|
dtbushpilot
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3288
Registered: 1-11-2007
Location: Buena Vista BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tranquilo
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by woody with a view
why don't they go after the companies responsible for the "injected" waste water? why aren't they named? is this PC run amok? |
No Woody, it's because it's a BS article written by someone nobody has heard of. If it had merit the players would have been identified, the fact that
they weren't makes it bologna. If they accused someone of it they would be sued and lose in court and they know it. Maybe I'll post something on the
internet about how climate change is BS and people will include a link to it to support their beliefs, after all, it's on the net, it must be true....
"Life is tough".....It's even tougher if you're stupid.....
|
|
|
dtbushpilot
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3288
Registered: 1-11-2007
Location: Buena Vista BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Tranquilo
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Thank you!
Now, for some facts (or at least the other side of the story)... (the following is just part of an article found here: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275 )
The first thing to understand is that water wells are shallow. The deepest private residential wells go perhaps a couple hundred meters, though most
are much shallower. Fracking takes place kilometers deeper underground; and in most places, the fracked shale beds are separated from the surface
watersheds by multiple rock formations of different types. There's little or no transference of anything — gas or liquid — between fracked layers and
surface layers; they're simply too far apart and separated by too much rock.
However, the burning water is an undisputed fact. So where is this methane coming from, if not from fracking? As it happens, it's natural, worldwide,
for anyone who has a well in a natural gas area. Natural gas is not found only in the deep shale beds, it's in shallower layers as well; so we always
expect some gas to make it into well water in particular regions. But the mining of natural gas also has a few consequences that can force methane
into aquifers. First, the underground changes in pressure can prompt methane to migrate from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Second,
poorly sealed natural gas wells can (and do) leak methane into adjacent strata. These poorly sealed wells are human errors that it's the
responsibility of the driller to repair. Third, old abandoned wells do the same thing, but often without anyone repairing them. None of these problems
are related to fracking, per se.
When the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission investigated the burning water of the well owner most prominently featured in Gasland, whose
tap water was gray and actually effervesced, they found that his methane was naturally occurring and had nothing to do with any natural gas drilling.
His water well had been drilled directly into a shallow natural gas deposit. Nevertheless, Gasland portrayed this as a consequence of fracking, which
is wrong at two levels. |
Walk away David, it's not worth it....
"Life is tough".....It's even tougher if you're stupid.....
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by dtbushpilot
| Quote: | Originally posted by woody with a view
why don't they go after the companies responsible for the "injected" waste water? why aren't they named? is this PC run amok? |
No Woody, it's because it's a BS article written by someone nobody has heard of. If it had merit the players would have been identified, the fact that
they weren't makes it bologna. If they accused someone of it they would be sued and lose in court and they know it. Maybe I'll post something on the
internet about how climate change is BS and people will include a link to it to support their beliefs, after all, it's on the net, it must be true....
|
...Bollocks DT...it's actually breaking news ,,,with 9 of these waste injection sites shut down just in JULY ....good way to lose credibility
to your whitewash if you can't even read the article you're writing off......can you not read???
.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
8 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
