61–70 of 110 posts
For anyone interested, I'd recommend Gasland. http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/ This "new" evidence of contamination will not end it. People will be paid in quiet settlements, sell their houses at a fraction of what they paid for them, and move somewhere else. This will probably continue until the oil/bitumen/gas is gone.
But methane isn't harmful. Also the article doesn't mention the quantities, but another does. [1] It seems that the most that's been found is about 70mg/L, which is not a lot. [1] http://realclearscience.com/blog/2013/06/theres-methane-in-y...
http://www.businessinsider.com/there-are-many-scary-chemical...
Nothing will stop the fraking. It's simply too profitable for Congress to do something about it (one of the few bright areas in a dismal economy), and the courts have gutted the environmental laws too much for the courts to do anything about it. It's an intrinsically attractive business: the product is something (energy) that's extremely valuable and has exploding demand, and many of the inherent costs of creating th…
> It's simply too profitable... For something so profitable there's a lot of people losing a lot of money. eg. http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/analysis-how-fracking...
Nothing will stop the fraking. It's simply too profitable for Congress to do something about it (one of the few bright areas in a dismal economy), and the courts have gutted the environmental laws too much for the courts to do anything about it. It's an intrinsically attractive business: the product is something (energy) that's extremely valuable and has exploding demand, and many of the inherent costs of creating th…
It's inaccurate to group together hydraulic fracturing and traditional oil drilling in terms of environmental damage. The regulations and safety procedures for oil are leaps and bounds beyond those of hydraulic fracturing.
My girlfriend is in charge for assessing the environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, and she recently spent two weeks rerouting KXL because she and her team discovered beetles in the proposed pipeline corridor.
But methane isn't harmful. Also the article doesn't mention the quantities, but another does. [1] It seems that the most that's been found is about 70mg/L, which is not a lot. [1] http://realclearscience.com/blog/2013/06/theres-methane-in-y...
But methane isn't harmful. Also the article doesn't mention the quantities, but another does. [1] It seems that the most that's been found is about 70mg/L, which is not a lot. [1] http://realclearscience.com/blog/2013/06/theres-methane-in-y...
Obviously, this study needs to be repeated many more times and more regulations need to be put on fracking, but the technology is getting better already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this is the worst kind of nerd bait. "You guys already know that the oil companies are evil and will poison people given the chance. Here's a tiny piece of evidence that you could misinterpret in multiple ways" To the author's credit, at least he pulled back and didn't do the entire ranting, hand-waving ritual. I believe that job is being left for online commenters to complete :) The funny thing is, without the…
>Medical research, for instance, is full of correlative research that never amounted to a hill of beans. Yes like smoking being linked with cancer. I'm glad we listened to the corporate funded libertarians on that one and didn't fall prey to the wishy washy lefty propaganda and emotive narratives about evil tobacco companies wanting to make money from killing people. What a ridiculous, politically motivated caricatur…
Honestly, that's because the science is a joke.
It's arguably sufficient to cite the obnoxious nature of secondhand smoke to outlaw it in public places. If it's constitutional for governments to pass laws that keep people from blaring their car stereos at 3 AM, then it's constitutional to pass laws that keep people from polluting the air that other people have to breathe.
Nothing will stop the fraking. It's simply too profitable for Congress to do something about it (one of the few bright areas in a dismal economy), and the courts have gutted the environmental laws too much for the courts to do anything about it. It's an intrinsically attractive business: the product is something (energy) that's extremely valuable and has exploding demand, and many of the inherent costs of creating th…
Fracking will end when the oil/gas is gone. It's inaccurate to group together hydraulic fracturing and traditional oil drilling in terms of environmental damage. The regulations and safety procedures for oil are leaps and bounds beyond those of hydraulic fracturing. My girlfriend is in charge for assessing the environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, and she recently spent two weeks rerouting KXL because sh…
No it isn't, fracking is a technique that is used to increase the output of a 'traditional oil well' and actually, oil/gas drilling has been ruining surface water for a long time, too. In the past it tended to happen to people who owned the surface as well as the minerals, and who were often happy to take an additional check for their trouble (or not), to go along with their mineral check, and have some bottled water delivered, or hook up to a community water district (yay, they can afford it now). It is easier to get over the loss of a water well when you're making five or six figures a month in O&G royalties. Fracking isn't new either. The only thing new is fracking for shale gas, which is usually deeper/higher pressure, and I guess probably needs better well casings and cement. The problem being that many of these wells are only barely economical or a gamble, to start with (thanks Aubrey McClendon).
>discovered beetles in the proposed pipeline corridor.
Yeah, every now and then an EPA guy scores a win for team EPA. I'd bet that it is the exception, not the rule.
Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are negative outcomes to the environment for doing this (let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. Its unlikely to be a neutral impact.) Its like what cigarette companies used to do- just constantly deny what's completely obvious.
No. It's completely positive. Methane has almost no pollution, and far less CO2 than any other large scale energy source.
The "contamination" is methane in water, which is harmless even if you drank it, and trivial to remove.