Fracking - A Libertarian's Wet Dream

[mistermack]

ven with all the checks in place to prevent contamination it doesn't change the fact that the sheer volume of water needed puts a severe strain on aquifers. Often in areas where the aquifer just can't take it. It is not a good system

Yup -just when aquifers are being already strained by agriculture draw down.

So what's happening to that sheer volume of water? Does it disappear into thin air? Or is it going back into the aquifers? If it's back into the aquifer, I can't see the problem. It gets filtered and is still available downstream.

It doesn't get treated onsite. It gets transported and dealt with elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/nyreg ... cking.html

If that's the case, then the volumes seem to have been exaggerated here.
There's no way that it would be practical to transport the sort of volumes that would have an effect on the aquifers.

It doesn't seem that they have tied up the disposal process at all though.
It seems like there is a lot of money to be made by fiddling the process and selling off the responsibility to third parties, who can take the money and not do the job, and just go "broke", with the money in their back pockets.

A simple little law, that makes proper disposal the permanent responsibility of the original gas company, whatever contracts they enter into, would be a deterrent.

I would have thought that you could make a lot of money by developing a cleanup process that was mobile, and could be taken to the site, rather than trucking polluted water about.

[rainbow]

A limited amount of agreement.

The gas rush has caused sloppy work the most damaging leaking of the witches brew they use for fracking which is toxic as all hell.

Is it?

What does it contain, and at what concentrations?

[Seth]

Even with all the checks in place to prevent contamination it doesn't change the fact that the sheer volume of water needed puts a severe strain on aquifers. Often in areas where the aquifer just can't take it. It is not a good system

Hogwash. It can take five million gallons of water to frack a well (outside), which is equal to about 15 acre/feet of water. Typical reservoirs hold thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water. I my self own 43.5 acre feet of storage right EVERY YEAR in a high mountain reservoir, which is enough to frack 3 wells, and those wells are only fracked ONE TIME. That amount of water will cover one acre of land one foot deep, or in my case, irrigate 40 acres for a whole season.

Residential lawn-watering use in even a small city uses far more water than all of the wells fracked in a year, and they use that much every single year.

You don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid.

[Seth]

ven with all the checks in place to prevent contamination it doesn't change the fact that the sheer volume of water needed puts a severe strain on aquifers. Often in areas where the aquifer just can't take it. It is not a good system

Yup -just when aquifers are being already strained by agriculture draw down.

So what's happening to that sheer volume of water? Does it disappear into thin air? Or is it going back into the aquifers? If it's back into the aquifer, I can't see the problem. It gets filtered and is still available downstream.

It doesn't get treated onsite. It gets transported and dealt with elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/nyreg ... cking.html

If that's the case, then the volumes seem to have been exaggerated here.
There's no way that it would be practical to transport the sort of volumes that would have an effect on the aquifers.

Correct. This claim is utter bullshit.

It doesn't seem that they have tied up the disposal process at all though.

Wrong. The EPA has banned open-pit disposal of frack waste. So have most states.

It seems like there is a lot of money to be made by fiddling the process and selling off the responsibility to third parties, who can take the money and not do the job, and just go "broke", with the money in their back pockets.

Corruption and illegal activity are always a problem, but not a reason to ban oil and gas drilling.

A simple little law, that makes proper disposal the permanent responsibility of the original gas company, whatever contracts they enter into, would be a deterrent.

Already exists. Just needs to be (and is being) enforced.

I would have thought that you could make a lot of money by developing a cleanup process that was mobile, and could be taken to the site, rather than trucking polluted water about.

Usually, fracking fluid is taken to a facility where the water is evaporated and the volatiles as well (it would be nice to recover them, but it's not currently technologically feasible), then the resulting dried sludge, which has everything from heavy metals to toxic chemicals is either disposed of in a sealed, permitted hazardous waste disposal, or sometimes it's further reduced by running it through a specially designed oven to burn off what toxics can be burned off, and the rest is sent to a HW facility for final burial.

[maiforpeace]

Since I started this thread I have been doing a bit of study on the subject of fracking. I just watched Gasland and am reeling from what I have learned so far. I keep on telling myself, "Why should I care? I don't have kids. I live in an area where I guarantee no one would allow the industry to frack here".

Do you pro-frackers honestly believe that pumping 596 different chemicals (many of which that are KNOWN carcinogens, in addition to some surfectants and lubricants) mixed with 1 to 7 million gallons of water, under enough pressure to essentially create a small earthquake that pulverizes solid bedrock 5000 ft underground is not going to have any negative effects? We don't even know what all of those chemicals are yet, since the "cocktail" is considered "proprietary" and therefore is not required by law to be disclosed. Do you know how many wells there already are, and at what alarming rate they are being drilled at? Do you know that only half of the "cocktail" of chemicals and water pumped in is actually reclaimed for purification? And, for the purification that occurs, there are little, if any measures in place should there flooding in areas where the percolation ponds exist? But hey, the industry has copped to 6% leakage which was voluntary, and it sounds good and honest so here you go folks, here's a pig in a poke. We promise that the benefits realized will far outweigh the cons. What they failed to add at the end of that last sentence was FOR THE INDUSTRY.

So I wasn't the least bit surprised to learn the politics behind fracking in the US. As others have already mentioned, fracking has been around for a while. Until 2005 the policy has been simply to buy off the people who who have suffered any ill effect to keep silent, including the many employees who have come in contact and been injured by these dangerous and toxic chemicals. So the companies that engage in fracking already have a history of being exploitive and secretive, not to mention their extremely powerful lobby.Then with the energy policy acts of 2005, the gas industry was exempted from complying to any environmental regulations when it comes to fracking. This was, unsurprisingly pushed through by Cheney, with his newly formed task force of industry leaders that met ONCE over fracking. Oh, and the company that started fracking and sells this wonderful technology of fracking to the gas industry? Halliburton.

Essentially, at least here in the US, there are no real, solid and comprehensive studies on the short and long term effects of fracking outside of the industry. There weren't any before 2005, and there still aren't. Without any of the regulations in place THAT EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY MUST COMPLY TO, they can just frack away and it's up to us poor fools to figure out whether or not it's dangerous. They show up at your door, offer you a bunch of money to own a part of your property rights to something that doesn't have a obviously apparent value to you (the ground underneath your property thousands of feet down) and tell you whatever they want to because there's no studies to back up the cons of fracking. The industry has already voluntarily copped to 6% leakage of this "supposedly" properly disposed of toxic waste. Well, that must mean they are honest and ethical since it was voluntary.

THE PLAN - to sell the public the same bill of goods that the tobacco industry did years ago, and was hugely successful with. They are even using the same exact PR company that came up with the idea. That the science behind the long term effects of fracking is sound and that the negative effects are nominal, back by almost 100 years of fracking experience. The discrediting of the anti-frackers, as emotional and hysterical. If you connect to what's going really going on here and what I've learned so far, you should be at minimum concerned - admittedly I am hot under the collar about being raped again by Cheney. By feeding the public a few bones, like admitting to some leakage, describing detailed science and processes that have not been vetted that sound good and scientific, that the anti-frackers don't know what they are talking about (well yet anyway), the industry paints themselves as ethical, honest and patriotic even, since they are promoting energy independence. They are even countering terrorism! (some of the arguements made by pro fracking legislators.

So let me ask you pro-frackers, in the US. If you already haven't sold the fracking rights to a company for your property, would you if you were approached by them? Even given the admitted 6% leakage?

Better yet, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and and put some more money in your pocket for your retirement and your heirs, who will probably need a lot of money to pay their medical bills, and make an offer to sell the right to frack under your property ...I know at least one of you lives in a state that is on a fracking frenzy (Colorado), I'm sure they would be delighted.

[Drewish]

A libertarian's wet dream? Really?

I am against hydrofracking until eminent domain laws are changed. As it stands local governments can force people into allowing land near theirs to be fracked, even if this would otherwise not be allowed. If people want their land fracked (for the money obviously) then that's fine, but nobody should be forced into community deals because 51% of the town wants to take the money. I volunteered my time at a local anti-hydrofracking organization, and bought an, "I ♥ NY, No Hydrofracking" sign that I put in my front yard.

As to the movie Gasland, it is totally right about the corrupt way in which public wildlife preserves had their mineral rights made available to gas companies for hydrofracking. It is also dead on with the BS tactic of hiding the actual chemical components used for fracking behind a "proprietary blend." Only the president has executive privilege (and I'd argue he shouldn't but that's an aside) not companies or individuals. In order to patent something a patent must be filed and the secrets laid bare. This makes it impossible to gauge just how safe hydrofracking really is, and the attempts to label any and all spills as outliers is pretty disingenuous when the information regarding such incidents is not regularly reported. That said, the movie clearly had an agenda and I would have liked it if the director didn't refuse to appear to defend his work from those skeptical of it. It's an emotional appeal documentary, which should hardly be anyone's first stop on this subject.

Now when you're done labeling everything you disagree with as libertarian and get the stick out of your ass, I'll be here to accept your apology.

[maiforpeace]

For Drewish:

I made the mistake of not quoting your last post before I started this response, which apparently you deleted before I posted this.

But I did see it, and here's my response to it.

Read my post Drewish. Gasland was NOT my first stop in my learning about the subject. And, it won't be the last either. I am currently reading "Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale" and have "21st Century Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, Underground Injection, Fracking, Hydrofrac, Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Production Controversy, Environmental and Safety Risks, Water Pollution" the CD rom on order.

If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you recommend some good reading for me? Why don't you offer some substantive responses to my emotional claims?

As for apologies, one of which you demanded of me, I'm not the one telling someone "to take a stick out of their ass".

You are taking personal offense that I criticize libertarian and conservative views.You got so pissed off you didn't even read my post clearly. Is that all you are? Your political views? Why so offended? Did you think I was directing this to you personally? Do you you live in Colorado?

Anyway, here's something for you to watch, and it's fairly short only 16 minutes. It's the same guy that did Gasland, so if he's full of shit, you can start by discrediting all of this. Shoot, I'll even take a rationalization if it's interesting and inventive. The Sky Is Pink

To remind you: I'm here to learn.

[Drewish]

Huh? I didn't post anywhere in this thread before the last post. And who are you quoting there? I am very confused.

[macdoc]

So what's happening to that sheer volume of water? Does it disappear into thin air? Or is it going back into the aquifers? If it's back into the aquifer, I can't see the problem. It gets filtered and is still available downstream.

Filtered??? How??
More like evaporated

60% of it stays in the fractured shale so not much use.

40% comes up for air and that's where the problem lies. It's seriously toxic at that point

and people are against nukes -

[maiforpeace]

Huh? I didn't post anywhere in this thread before the last post. And who are you quoting there? I am very confused.

:
My mistake, I was seeing things. Apologies. I must have been looking at a previous screen then. Ignore my last post.

My response should have read:

A libertarian's wet dream? Really?

I am against hydrofracking until eminent domain laws are changed. As it stands local governments can force people into allowing land near theirs to be fracked, even if this would otherwise not be allowed. If people want their land fracked (for the money obviously) then that's fine, but nobody should be forced into community deals because 51% of the town wants to take the money. I volunteered my time at a local anti-hydrofracking organization, and bought an, "I ♥ NY, No Hydrofracking" sign that I put in my front yard.

As to the movie Gasland, it is totally right about the corrupt way in which public wildlife preserves had their mineral rights made available to gas companies for hydrofracking. It is also dead on with the BS tactic of hiding the actual chemical components used for fracking behind a "proprietary blend." Only the president has executive privilege (and I'd argue he shouldn't but that's an aside) not companies or individuals. In order to patent something a patent must be filed and the secrets laid bare. This makes it impossible to gauge just how safe hydrofracking really is, and the attempts to label any and all spills as outliers is pretty disingenuous when the information regarding such incidents is not regularly reported. That said, the movie clearly had an agenda and I would have liked it if the director didn't refuse to appear to defend his work from those skeptical of it. It's an emotional appeal documentary, which should hardly be anyone's first stop on this subject.

Now when you're done labeling everything you disagree with as libertarian and get the stick out of your ass, I'll be here to accept your apology.

Read my post Drewish. Gasland was NOT my first stop in my learning about the subject. And, it won't be the last either. I am currently reading "Under the Surface: Fracking, Fortunes, and the Fate of the Marcellus Shale" and have "21st Century Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, Underground Injection, Fracking, Hydrofrac, Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Production Controversy, Environmental and Safety Risks, Water Pollution" the CD rom on order.

If you're so knowledgeable, why don't you recommend some good reading for me? Why don't you offer some substantive responses to my emotional claims?

As for apologies, one of which you demanded of me, I'm not the one telling someone "to take a stick out of their ass".

You are taking personal offense that I criticize libertarian and conservative views.You got so pissed off you didn't even read my post clearly. Is that all you are? Your political views? Why so offended? Did you think I was directing this to you personally? Do you you live in Colorado?

Anyway, here's something for you to watch, and it's fairly short only 16 minutes. It's the same guy that did Gasland, so if he's full of shit, you can start by discrediting all of this. Shoot, I'll even take a rationalization if it's interesting and inventive. The Sky Is Pink

To remind you: I'm here to learn.

[Audley Strange]

Drew... did you check out his rebuttal PDF and the documentary evidence he provides?

http://1trickpony.cachefly.net/gas/pdf/ ... t_2010.pdf

There you go, now you can judge for yourself whether or not his complaints are legitimate.

I agree that the documentary is emotive, however documentaries regarding ill and dying people who claim they've been exploited more often than not tend to be.

For example, Rithy Panh's documentary S21 about the Khmer Rogue torture camp is pretty objective, but it's still fucking heartbreaking.

[Drewish]

Mai,

I am personally offended when people tell me my position for me. The Libertarian Party has no official stance on hydrofracking. You are not a libertarian. So not tell me what my position is. Do not tell people who's positions you have not bothered to ask about or understand, that you know what they are thinking. There was no reason to attach an associative attack on libertarians to this topic. If you're here to learn and aren't making assumptions about the pros and cons of hydrofracking, then why are you making assumptions about other people's views?

Audley,

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look when I have some time and I'm sober.

[maiforpeace]

Mai,

I am personally offended when people tell me my position for me. The Libertarian Party has no official stance on hydrofracking. You are not a libertarian. So not tell me what my position is. Do not tell people who's positions you have not bothered to ask about or understand, that you know what they are thinking. There was no reason to attach an associative attack on libertarians to this topic. If you're here to learn and aren't making assumptions about the pros and cons of hydrofracking, then why are you making assumptions about other people's views?

Audley,

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look when I have some time and I'm sober.

I'm sorry for "labeling" you. I stole the "Libertarian's Wet Dream" title from Mark Ruffalo. Is there anything else I wrote to personally offend you so we can clear that up.

I also understand if you are so offended by being labeled this way with this post of yours because you are drunk, so if that's the case, no worries. We'll talk later perhaps.

However, if you still are this offended sober, perhaps you might consider it's a bit over the top? I also recall you saying somewhere that you don't care if you offend others with your views. It wasn't my intention to offend you personally Drewish, but even if it was my intention, then your reaction is a bit hypocritical in light of what you have said about offending others.

So, instead of stomping about and roaring your offense, why don't you define yourself better as the unique libertarian you claim to be by responding with a substantive post on the subject of fracking. I'm all eyes and ears. How will I learn differently otherwise?

Here's some more interesting reading...reports shared by fracking companies at a conference. They fell off the truck.

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/the ... 4final.pdf

[Warren Dew]

and people are against nukes -

I'm against using nuclear explosions for fracking - something I remember reading about as a possibility back in the 1970s or so.

[Warren Dew]

If you're here to learn and aren't making assumptions about the pros and cons of hydrofracking, then why are you making assumptions about other people's views?

If she were here to learn, I'd think she wouldn't have already decided to be against fracking.