Gas Fracking Again...

[eric1978]

The idea that the federal government would do a better job that AR is bogus, IMHO. We've seen how good of a job MMS did with deep water drilling.

That's a bad example. That agency was corrupted by you-know-who.

[catman70]

That's a bad example. That agency was corrupted by you-know-who.

It's the perfect example. The same players are involved!

[eric1978]

It's the perfect example. The same players are involved!

You're right to point out that the government screwed up an agency in charge of oversight, and that contributed to the problems we have in the Gulf. But you have the wrong administration in mind, and it was corruption and cronyism, not negligence.

[Trout Commander]

The film provided empirical evidence that fracking contaminates groundwater...people's faucets are flammable. If natural gas is making its way into the drinking water, then so are the chemicals used for the drilling. Pretty tough to deny that, and even the companies doing the work don't. In fact they are paying for fresh water to be trucked in to some people's homes. If they aren't responsible, why would they do that?

These two points are irrefutably not connected.

End. Of. Story.

[eric1978]

These two points are irrefutably not connected.

End. Of. Story.

I'd like to know what you think was causing their tap water to be flammable then. It's obvious it was natural gas that seeped into their groundwater. I can't get a flame out of my faucet, can you? Irrefutable is a pretty strong word when you don't offer any evidence to back up your claim in the first place. I've yet to hear any alternative argument from you, let alone an "irrefutable" one, and until I hear another reasonable explanation for why people who live near the wells can turn their shower heads into blow torches, I'm going with the fracking. You're welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but I don't think you have any credible or logical hypotheses to do that. I can't wait to hear it, though...I could use a good laugh.

JDC, I don't want to start a whole new thing with you here. But just out of curiosity, what do you have to gain by denying that hydraulic fracturing is potentially dangerous to the environment? You're on this forum...I assume protecting our rivers and lakes is important to you. Do you or your family work for an energy company or something? If not, I just don't get it.

I used the word "potentially" just for you.

[catman70]

Eric, I'm not trying to defend the Bush administration. I disagree with much of their domestic agenda. However, the fact the Obama was the biggest benefactor of BP political donations can't simply be ignored.

As for the flaming tap water: Methane (which is natural gas) is produced through anaerobic degradation of organic carbon. It's burned at landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and may rise to the surface as bubbles if you disturb the bottom of a lake that's covered with a lot of organic matter. In fact, it's created all the time on the earth's surface and, in some cases, can be created rather quickly depending on environmental conditions such as ambient temperature. It's entirely possible that methane can enter a drinking water well through entirely natural processes. The Water Systems Council acknowledges this and states that there are no known adverse heath affects caused by consuming water with methane: http://www.watersystemscouncil.org/VAiWebDocs/WSCDocs/6973231Methane_Gas.pdf

If you're concerned about your water's quality I'd recommend a 3- or 4-stage reverse osmosis system. It can be placed under your sink. I think the initial cost is roughly $500 and you'll have to replace the filters and activated carbon every so often. However, it will almost certainly produce water that's of higher quality than 90% of the bottled water out there.

I can't stress enough that I'm all for making sure wells a built correctly, that hazardous materials are being properly disposed of, and that the process of obtaining various forms of energy has as little negative environmental impact as possible. After reading interviews of Mr. Fox it is blatantly obvious that he has no qualm with misrepresenting facts to create "art". I'm just trying to help explain that while there may be problems that need to be addressed, things aren't as bad as Mr. Fox portrays them to be.

Best regards,

Tim

[Trout Commander]

I'd like to know what you think was causing their tap water to be flammable then. It's obvious it was natural gas that seeped into their groundwater. I can't get a flame out of my faucet, can you? Irrefutable is a pretty strong word when you don't offer any evidence to back up your claim in the first place. I've yet to hear any alternative argument from you, let alone an "irrefutable" one, and until I hear another reasonable explanation for why people who live near the wells can turn their shower heads into blow torches, I'm going with the fracking. You're welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but I don't think you have any credible or logical hypotheses to do that. I can't wait to hear it, though...I could use a good laugh. JDC, I don't want to start a whole new thing with you here. But just out of curiosity, what do you have to gain by denying that hydraulic fracturing is potentially dangerous to the environment? You're on this forum...I assume protecting our rivers and lakes is important to you. Do you or your family work for an energy company or something? If not, I just don't get it.I used the word "potentially" just for you.

Eric I won't go down that road again either! But as I highlighted in the quote on my initial post in this thread, I am not saying that fracking isn't detrimental to the environment, I am only saying Josh Fox blew everything out of proportion potentially to the point of lying.

Also in my first post I posted multiple links to studies conducted that clearly state it was naturally occurring methane that causes the flaming faucets.

Nope, mine doesn't flame, but I would put odds on it that there are people that live in unfracked areas that theirs do. ...I'll actually look around and see what I can find on that if work stays slow today.

[bobber]

de-bunking the debunkers ~~~~~> http://www.damascuscitizens.org/Affirming-GASLAND.pdf

[Al Agnew]

Thanks, Bobber...I slogged through that very long and involved response to the debunkers, and was pretty much appalled at the level of deception that the response showed the gas company spokesman to be doing. The problem is that the gas industry "debunking" was given in little sound bytes and snippets that have a lot of impact, while the critique of those sound bytes by Fox and the others was long, involved, and well-documented...and we know how many people pay attention to "long and involved".

[two fish]

I was trying to get across that the process, even when done to standard operating procedures, is a disaster to the environment. Only half of the "produced" water comes back up. The other half, with the 596 chemicals stays in the ground.

This shouldn't be happening until they comply with the clean water act.

SIO3

I'm going to try my best to restrain my viewpoint about the toxic exploitation of the lands & the people that live within or down stream from these fracked coal shale "gas plays". Below is a link to a concentration of websites created by those on the front lines of these fracked regions. I'll let the various websites speak for me & many others.

http://www.mixplex.com/opinions.html

One possible way to document what is or what is not happening to the water aquifers in these regions. Legislate/mandate rural water well testing before a property can be sold. I have much,,,much more data about this.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/pwta/