lightenup
A fan of Boobery
http://news.yahoo.com/strong-earthquake-rattles-central-oklahoma-142109871.html#
Your water supply is safe(maybe), but.......
Your water supply is safe(maybe), but.......
Give us a try!
Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!
Fracking is completely safe....
- Thread starter lightenup
- Start date
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
"Many of the earthquakes are occurring in swarms in areas where injection wells pump salty wastewater — a byproduct of oil and gas production — deep into the earth."
Yes fracking related, not fracking induced
Yes fracking related, not fracking induced
Rusty Spinner
Active member
LU, think of it this way: there is no fracking in NJ, so no worries about spills, poisoned drinking water or earthquakes. Leave that for PA to deal with. Just enjoy that cheap and plentiful natural gas. That's what we're doing in the Spinner household these days. So long as an earthquake doesn't break a delivery line, no worries.
tomfly
The only thing left should be foot prints.
I am not saying the writer of the article is incorrect in his assumption. He fails to mention other factors that should be noted. The Wilzetta and Nemeha Fault lines run through the fracked areas. Another factor left out The Central Oklahoma Aquifer is at historic low levels surprising it is also in the Earthquake area. Low water levels on fault lines along with the fracking could make for a perfect storm or not. My point is if you are going to write an article don't put your subliminal anti fracking BS in there and tell the whole story.
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
but it isn't...if there is another, better way to deal with wastewater.
Pete
Trout Hunter
Doesn't California need water?
Sell the gas to us, sell the water it to Californians.
lightenup
A fan of Boobery
But is there? I hear we have some evaporation ponds in NJ, but then you are left with
dried up pollution in the bottom of the dried pond.....which is better? Fracking sucks, but its cheap energy....My bleeding heart is against it and my conservative conscience is for it.....if there were only a better way to make energy....hmmmm, if only there were no politics and greedy assholes...if only, if only.....semantics I say!
Rusty Spinner
Active member
At the risk of taking this post off track (yeah, like this will be the first time), if we truly believed all the hype that is man-made global warming, then why not the mass rush to convert all of our electrical energy needs from coal and natural gas to nuclear? So much electricity is produced with coal or gas that I don't understand why politicians like Obama aren't pushing that agenda. Sure, nuclear (or nucular if you were a G. Bush fan) comes with its own set of issues, but global warming isn't one of them. So I remain highly skeptical that politicians actually believe what they say when they try to tell us that man made global warming is our biggest threat.
FIN-ITE 34
Well-known member
The obvious answer is, siting issues.
I don't normally get into debates about global warming, mostly because it's like hitting your head against a wall (on BOTH sides of the debate). That said, I see arguments about politician's beliefs/statements and global warming a lot, and it makes no sense at all. When is the last time we went to a politician to get our cholesterol checked? Our car fixed? A computer repaired? We have specialists for a reason, and that's so they can help us understand what's wrong, and how to fix it. Politicians aren't specialists, and they definitely are specialists on climate change.
>=97% of Climate Scientists (Specialists) believe in climate change caused by humans (see: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/). This isn't even a debate. It's just accepted. Multiple polls have agreed on this. Would anyone doubt a cancer diagnosis if 97% of physicians suspected cancer? No. The only real debate is the extent to which the climate has/will change, what impact that will have, and what we can do about it.
As for the rest of your point, it's not that easy to change the causes of global warming (and here is where I'm hitting my head against the wall on the other side). 39% of US electricity comes from coal, while 27% is generated by natural gas. Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels, but it's pretty much impossible to find alternate means of filling 66% of the US's energy needs overnight. We obviously have to find a solution that will gradually, though relatively quickly, move away from fossil fuels. And do so in a way that minimizes the impact on people relying on these sectors for jobs. IMO this means fading out fossil fuel plants (and workers) as workers retire, while implementing new jobs (and job training) for more environmentally friendly alternatives as we do it. On the other hand, I'm definitely NOT a specialist here, so who knows if this is the correct approach. Really, this is what we should be looking to politicians to figure out, rather than wasting out time debating over whether climate change is real or not.
Rusty Spinner
Active member
We basically agree. My point is that we already have nuclear power and it does not add to global warming, so why not take even one tiny baby step towards using more of it? Seven years by the current administration and not a word of adding nuclear power to the arsenal, but lots of talk about solar and wind (and natural gas as a bridge to reduce coal and home heating oil usage).
FIN-ITE 34
Well-known member
As I said, siting issues.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/enviro...strictions-on-new-nuclear-power-facility.aspx
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
I have not researched in depth, but understand that there are treatment technologies out there that can handle the volumes and constituents. The driving component is most likely price. Environmental regulations often require the best available technology be used even when strict pollution limits or prohibitions are not incorporated; if doing that for waste disposal prices gas fracking out of competition, then so be it. And if you want fracking regulated based on greenhouse considerations, i'm fine with that too. But, as far as anybody can tell, fracking did not cause these earthquakes. That's not arguing semantics. The activities are separate and distinct enough to be regulated independently. I don't see too many people protesting oil drilling simply because of the plastic particles filling the oceans, for example.
tomfly
The only thing left should be foot prints.
Ed,
We have opposing views on environmental concerns pertaining to green house gasses , I am ok with that. Let suppose that the green movement get its way. The big four that they want eliminated are (Crude Oil, Natural gas, Coal and Nuclear). Poof no longer available. The G10 countries all agree. Yea ok we did it!! Let the party begin the world is saved. The Members of G10 with their wealth can weather the storm and are able to transition to more desirable forms of energy. They will have no problem doing this. It could be done today. The G10 nations will have wind and solar farms and possibly Fusion reactors to provide all necessary energy requirements for their population. The wild card is the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] world. The poorest of the poor in other words 75% of population of the world. What will they do without the cheep Coal, Gas and Oil that is no longer available? What will they fuel their power plants with? Heat their houses with? Tires, Wood, Animal excrement, Dead bodies, Plastic, Chemical waste… the list would go on and on. What other choices will the have? They do not have the means to afford the new technologies. It would come down to survival. It would be an environmental disaster of epic proportions if the environmentalists achieve their goals and win. Show me the green movements plan for the poor countries that depend on cheep energy. I can tell you that plan does not exist.
FIN-ITE 34
Well-known member
Fusion power is only 30 years away................and always will be.
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
WTF are you even talking about? I thought we were talking fracking and earthquakes? Scalable, economical "green" power technologies exist and efficiencies continue to increase. Climate change will be a bigger problem for most poor people than power production to begin with. Island nations are already losing land area. Deserts are expanding. Weather patterns are shifting. The poorest dont have power plants to fuel...they have a hard enough time keeping themselves fed and hydrated, and it's getting worse. And wtf does this have to do with G10 anyway?
golden beetle
Active member
You make a lot of sense.
Only point I would disagree with is your willingness to cleave waste disposal from the whole fracturing process, I.e., to say that the known hazards of the process are not actually part of the process...
I agree with LU, its semantics. And a bit Orwellian if you ask me.
Making the distinction confuses the issue. Frankly, I think the whole business is a corrupt mess, like the tobacco industry, spreading disinformation about climate change... As to cigarettes - I am not sure I'd distinguish the safe part - the filter - from the cigarette as a whole.
Let me try to tighten up the analogy...
Would you say that the problem with smoking isn't the tobacco, its the defective filters that fail to keep us safe?
Similarly, would you say the problem isn't fracking, per se, but the disposal wells that fail to keep us safe from the fracking process?
IF you ask me...
None of it is safe, not of it is good.
lightenup
A fan of Boobery
If they weren't fracking, there wouldn't be the wastewater. I understand your point, but until they use a different method, the wastewater is a direct result of the fracking process, therefore we have a moot argument...I LOVE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS!!!!! It is too bad that the processes of extracting them and burning them harm the environment, it is all very simple....we need these products to function. so we should all stop bitching or change the way we live(and that ain't happening)
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Ed since you have a penchant for being blunt (which I appreciate) I'll do the same. You are completely full of shit when you say there is scalable and economical green alternative power sources available. While we are still a ways away from fusion there are far more efficient reactor designs that could be built today but the same environmentalist wackos that don't want fossil fuels don't want nuclear either. I don't think the 3rd world countries will suffer too much if the UN policies are actually adopted. They will get plenty of cash from the west in the name of climate change. That's the real goal here anyway.
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
no. i wouldnt say any of that. you can regulate the waste stream because there are multiple methods of treatment and/or disposal, and there are multiple potential sources. fracking isnt the only source of dirty water. your tobacco analogy is not analogous. prohibiting the growing of corn because you dont think people should be drinking soda is more appropriate comparison. corn is used for things other than soda, and soda can be produced with other sources of sugar or non-sugar sweetener. if you don't want people to drink soda, regulate soda, not corn.
eddavidson9
how's that for a slice of fried gold
i do think thats an argument in semantics. let me put it this way; we can afford to do a lot better. but i agree that nuclear should play a role. as should natural gas.
golden beetle
Active member
Disagree. The oil and gas industry is just like the tobacco industry.
Fossil fuels are not like corn.
http://news.yahoo.com/europes-winter-warmth-puts-nature-tailspin-133609501.html
Trout Nazi
And...Boom goes the dynamite.
I'd say the problem with the tobacco industry is the assholes that haven't figured out that burning something and then breathing it in is bad for you. If your that dumb, you deserve to get your money took.
Future Fanatic
Nirvana
So, is it fossil fuels in general or fracking?
You're like the smack addict demanding the Afghan poppy farmers go organic...
tomfly
The only thing left should be foot prints.
Ed
You stated if fracking was halted because of green emissions you are on board
I don't know what you read or watch but The G10 the 10 wealthiest nations in the world hold all the gold.The golden rule; He who has the gold makes the rules.
I did not come up with this. I had the attitude that I could careless what the 3rd World does . Watching this documentary opened my eyes.
This exact scenario was discussed in detail on what would happen if carbon based fuels were no longer available. A panel of PHDs of different disciplines all with your views on carbon based fuels. They said the 3rd World would have no options. FYI ; The 3rd World countries in Africa , South America and Asia all have Coal burning power plants. They also said,The deforestation that would ensue due to the increased demand for wood as a fuel would accelerate the warming. A ton of Wood has 50% BTUs of Coal and 34% more CO2. So 68% more CO2 per BTU. They also stated that countries “China” would provide alternative fuel options to them Tires, plastic, chemical sludge an easy way to remove their environmental waste for a profit . The panel said that at this point in time and into the near future there is no viable solution to replace carbon based fuels without further destabilizing world governments.
I disagree with Mac that you are full of shit. In fact I think you are one of the smartest guys on the site. I believe that you are arrogant and it clouds you from the big picture. You suck in the negative aspects of fossil fuels and spit out the positive.
Here are some question I ask you.
If you are so against carbon based fuels and their long term consequences. Those massive combines in the mid west the trucks, trains, and ships that transport the food all run on Diesel. Tell me how the carbon taxes that the UN proposes would not have a negative impact on the 3rd world countries that depend on cheep mid west grains?
Are you ok with mass starvation?
Are you ok with further destabilization and more conflict in the world?
That poor bastard living in mud hut in Honduras is not going to see a dime of the carbon tax. His corrupt government will . He still has to feed his family. What are his options? Revolution?
golden beetle
Active member
This is your best point, whether true or not...
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Of course it's true otherwise you would have had a valid counterpoint you boob.
MACFLY
Too many streams too little time
Disagree with me. Have you lost your mind? Wait don't answer that
golden beetle
Active member
I think what you're suggesting is that the market system - deregulated - will not innovate alternative energy sources.
I think you are suggesting the failure of the market to remedy the problem of global warming, and, in fact , suggesting that the market created these problems...
Is it fair to infer that you favor government intervention?
To solve a problem created and perpetuated by the market?
Similar threads
