Clean water is overrated…Libtard, Commie nonsense.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 23, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Libtards don’t know what is and isn’t clean water. Most of them get upset when you tell them that their drinking water contains quite a bit of dihydrogen monoxide.

blink on May 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM

And don’t forget the insidious hydronium ions and heavy water deuterons!

Most frac companies now test surrounding water BEFORE they frac a well. Then, they show the locals all the contaminates already in the water.

blink on May 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Absolutely necessary in any and all exploration and extraction projects, today, to construct a baseline water quality model. Doesn’t matter whether it’s an oil, gas metallic or industrial mineral project.

People assume their wells are free of contaminates so any that show up have to be the fault of the evil ______ company.

I’ve had people refuse access to their wells for quality measurements, and actually had one fellow purposefully “degrade” his well to set himself up for a law suit. His problem was that he didn’t understand our work process and claimed we had polluted his well, before we had actually commenced any rock work. He simply ended up with an unusable well for a bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lJa7edRJw0

Ok, not really. But when you’re looking for people who are fracking experts, or people complaining about companies fracking their gashole… this may be worth watching.

Not quite a language warning, but funny like I recall SNL used to be.

And there should be an extraction fee, here, just as there is in nearly every other state where oil or gas is produced.

Siddhartha Vicious on May 24, 2011 at 5:33 AM

There is an extraction fee. The state of PA receives royalties on the extracted hydrocarbons. The current argument is whether or not the counties and townships should get a fee, also.

I live in a small town in north central PA, and know people who already cannot drink their well water because of contaminants from fraccing.

Sorry, but I have to pile on here. Even if frac fluid was infiltrating the drinking water (which seems very unlikely), the tiny amounts of chemicals used in the tiny amounts of frac fluid would be diluted down to safe levels.

Most frac companies now test surrounding water BEFORE they frac a well. Then, they show the locals all the contaminates already in the water.

I like to present the banning of dihydrogen monoxide to my freshmen as a dangerous chemical.
We read a little fact sheet concerning it & have a discussion. They get really passionate about it!
Some of the kids, usually a promising majority, are very skeptical & ask for more information like studies & such.
When I reveal to them it’s water, you should see their faces!

Badger40 on May 24, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Excellent! This seems like quite a fast and effective lesson! I really wish there were more science teachers out there like you.

http://pa.water.usgs.gov/projects/energy/oil_gas/

Ask your students if they’ve ever seen Erin Brockovich. Then ask them if they knew that epidemiologists have concluded that no excess amount of cancer was developed in the area of believed contamination. In other words, Erin Brockovich was wrong.

blink on May 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM

This gives me an idea. I should show the kids the movie & survey them afterwords & then instruct them on the facts of the situation & then survey them again.
I do a lot of things like this in my class.
I like to present the banning of dihydrogen monoxide to my freshmen as a dangerous chemical.
We read a little fact sheet concerning it & have a discussion. They get really passionate about it!
Some of the kids, usually a promising majority, are very skeptical & ask for more information like studies & such.
When I reveal to them it’s water, you should see their faces!

I live in a small town in north central PA, and know people who already cannot drink their well water because of contaminants from fraccing.

And there should be an extraction fee, here, just as there is in nearly every other state where oil or gas is produced.

The country needs the energy, certainly, and I am happy there is such a close-to-home alternative, but the aftermath cannot be poisoned wells and ruined groundwater.

Siddhartha Vicious on May 24, 2011 at 5:33 AM

How do you know? Did you scientifically study this issue?
What were the illnesses involved?
Were there similar illnesses before the fraccing?
What were the incidences afterword?
Word of mouth & people you know saying stuff is not evidence of cause & effect.
It may seem like it is to you, but understand that coincidences are usually just that: coincidences & nothing more.

I live in a small town in north central PA, and know people who already cannot drink their well water because of contaminants from fraccing.

Siddhartha Vicious on May 24, 2011 at 5:33 AM

Maybe they can’t drink their water, but it is unrelated to fracturing. There has never been a case where fracturing chemicals got into the water supply. There are wells where surface leaks of oil have descended to the water table, but that was due to poor surface facilities, not fracturing.

Volcanoes, geysers. Limiting flow to gravity is pretty naive and silly.

jdkchem on May 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Geysers don’t flow multiple thousands of feet, and as with volcanoes, are caused by an entirely different phenomenon, where the molten rock finds a weak spot in the crust and encroaches on the surface of the earth.

And there should be an extraction fee, here, just as there is in nearly every other state where oil or gas is produced.

The country needs the energy, certainly, and I am happy there is such a close-to-home alternative, but the aftermath cannot be poisoned wells and ruined groundwater.

Libtards don’t know what is and isn’t clean water. Most of them get upset when you tell them that their drinking water contains quite a bit of dihydrogen monoxide.

blink on May 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM

The problem begins when one adds a straight-chain alcohol such as Ethanol to that dihydrogen monoxide. It has been known to cause slurred speech, slowed reflexes, compromised decision making, and can even cause Liberal women to look attractive in the early hours of the morning. Insidious stuff!

unseen on May 23, 2011 at 5:36 PM

unseen, I’ve read almost all of the exchanges between you and Yoop. I need to inform you that fracking neither increase the permeability nor the porosity of the shale. Instead, fracking increases the number of structural pathways that exist within the shale formation. Trying to claim that fracking increases porosity or permeability of the shale is just as inaccurate as trying to claim that drilling the initial wellbore increases the porosity or permeability of the shale. Both drilling the wellbore and fracking out from the wellbore merely creates a pathway through the shale. There are many other types of technologies that do this as well. For example, this.

Question: Hundreds of wells have been fracked in PA. Do you know of any examples of those fractures causing aquifer or ground water table contamination?

I think a lot of these people are also looking to cash in on lawsuits.
“Look! My kids drank the water & is autistic now!”
I tell my students:
1/2 of science can be understood by using plain old common sense
The other 1/2 is more complicated than you think & common sense can’t help you, only expertise.

Badger40 on May 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM

This is actually a very important issue. One will never know if the water caused the autism. One can merely collect data to understand the probability of the water causing autism.

An epidemiological study is needed to see how much greater the incident rate of autism is in the area with questionable water than in areas without questionable water. Without thousands of subjects being studied over decades, it’s nearly impossible to get a p-value which suggests that the autism isn’t a coincidence.

Ask your students if they’ve ever seen Erin Brockovich. Then ask them if they knew that epidemiologists have concluded that no excess amount of cancer was developed in the area of believed contamination. In other words, Erin Brockovich was wrong.

“Natural gas is a fossil fuel?” – Nancy Pelosi

Doughboy on May 23, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Please tell me that quote is made up.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Actually, it was worse than that. She claimed that the US should use natural gas instead of fossil fuels. When the conservative media laughed about it, her office claimed that she meant that it was a cleaner fossil fuel or something.

Clean water is overrated…Libtard, Commie nonsense.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 23, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Libtards don’t know what is and isn’t clean water. Most of them get upset when you tell them that their drinking water contains quite a bit of dihydrogen monoxide.

I learned a while back, if you really don’t fully understand what you’re talking about, don’t propose to instruct others.
+10

Badger40 on May 23, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Well said. I learned that lesson early on and it was a humbling trip to the Director’s wood shed.

Thanks…

What you were/are partaking in is what we refer to as “peripheral expertise”. If you don’t care to be totally accurate, then don’t claim you are.

Yoop on May 23, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I learned a while back, if you really don’t fully understand what you’re talking about, don’t propose to instruct others.
+10

but when it goes wrong and ruins residential areas like it has in PA the responsible parties should be accountable.

lexhamfox on May 23, 2011 at 9:21 PM

It makes property worthless.

lexhamfox on May 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Ruins? Makes property worthless?

Please, your hyperbole is stupid.

you accused me of sowing misinformation. I showed it is not. In this thread you have attacked me personally several times and have never addressed the issues raised why is that? Your holier than thou act is getting old.

unseen on May 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM

I addressed the scientific issues that you glossed over, or misrepresented. Others noted the same issues with your descriptions as being incomplete or misinforming. They understood my points, so that would suggest you did not. Do I need to cut-and-paste their comments for you?

The additional link info that you provided from Wiki only indicates that the companies are using refinements and improvements to a long existing technology. And of course they would pursue “cost-effective multi-stage completion systems are quickly becoming sought after technology by oil and natural gas companies”. That was an open-ended comment that describes any technology, be it fracking, or other. That’s how they stay in business.

What you were/are partaking in is what we refer to as “peripheral expertise”. If you don’t care to be totally accurate, then don’t claim you are.

Let the hicks run their homes, businesses and cars on “clean” water then.

Let them walk a picket line or the unemployment lines instead….50,000 of them.

Hell…what water in this country is truly “clean” anyway?

Twana on May 23, 2011 at 8:31 PM

It makes property worthless. The damage impacts local businesses as well as residential homes. There are intelligent arguments for natural gas… yours isn’t one of them.

Industry experts say the environmental impact neither has been nor will be as severe as opponents like to claim.

I have no problem with fracking and its effective use in certain areas which suit the method… but when it goes wrong and ruins residential areas like it has in PA the responsible parties should be accountable. There are success stories in the natural gas industry as well as blunders. Clearly the process does pose long term risks in certain areas which need to be understood and avoided.