What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is fracking dangerous? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?

 
I have some property that is part of a fracking plot for the past 5 years and have had zero issues. Tons of fracking going on all around the property as well and not one neighbor has reported any issues either. The biggest problem we had was when the land was first leased out and they were constantly bringing in trucks etc on to our property.

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.

And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?

 
Personally, I don't believe the earthquakes claim. Ground water could get contaminated if certain safety protocols aren't met, but it's not anything like the lighting a water faucet on fire as shown in "Gasland" which has been proven to be a false claim.

So I believe it can a good thing, but saftey regulation must be followed, including listing what they are pumping into the ground.

 
How can this even be a question? Of course it is dangerous and poses various serious threats to our environment. Saying otherwise is just dishonest and/or stupid.

The question is whether or not the risk can be satisfactorily mitigated such that the benefits are worth that risk. This where reasonable people can have differing opinions. And I have no real clue as the debate has me constantly flip flopping so I have to default to no. (You would likely default to the side of those turning a profit.)

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.

And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
From Wikipedia:

Seismicity[SIZE=small][[/SIZE]edit]Hydraulic fracturing routinely produces microseismic events much too small to be detected except by sensitive instruments. These microseismic events are often used to map the horizontal and vertical extent of the fracturing.[76] However, as of late 2012, there have been three instances of hydraulic fracturing, through induced seismicity, triggering quakes large enough to be felt by people: one each in the United States, Canada, and England.[9][129][130] The injection of waste water from oil and gas operations, including from hydraulic fracturing, into saltwater disposal wells may cause bigger low-magnitude tremors, being registered up to 3.3 (Mw).[131] Several earthquakes in 2011, including a 4.0 magnitudequake on New Year's Eve that hit Youngstown, Ohio, are likely linked to a disposal of hydraulic fracturing wastewater,[9] according to seismologists at Columbia University.[132]Although the magnitudes of these quakes has been small, the United States Geological Survey has said that there is no guarantee that larger quakes will not occur.[133] In addition, the frequency of the quakes has been increasing. In 2009, there were 50 earthquakes greater than magnitude 3.0 in the area spanning Alabama and Montana, and there were 87 quakes in 2010. In 2011 there were 134 earthquakes in the same area, a sixfold increase over 20th century levels.[134] There are also concerns that quakes may damage underground gas, oil, and water lines and wells that were not designed to withstand earthquakes.[133][135]

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples. And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
You're correct about the first part. Most studies reject contamination. But your second part, you abandon science and go for hyperbole. Fracking is fracturing the earth so it makes sense that it could cause earthquakes and science seems to back this up.

Not necessarily against fracking but against doing it willy nilly and before the science is settled.

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
You're correct about the first part. Most studies reject contamination.But your second part, you abandon science and go for hyperbole. Fracking is fracturing the earth so it makes sense that it could cause earthquakes and science seems to back this up.

Not necessarily against fracking but against doing it willy nilly and before the science is settled.
They can't wait for the science to be settled. Our entire way of life is dependent on oil and natural gas. If it wasn't for fracking, the cost of NG and oil would be much higher than it is now.

Oil used to flow from the earth very freely. Now it doesn't. Fracking and deep-water drilling are needed to continue to maintain the energy needs of the world.

 
Much of the anti-fracking and anti-shale movements are funded by oil companies. Make sure you verify your sources all the way to the top. Just because some scientist gets some study published in a journal doesn't mean it wasn't funded by OPEC.

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
You're correct about the first part. Most studies reject contamination.But your second part, you abandon science and go for hyperbole. Fracking is fracturing the earth so it makes sense that it could cause earthquakes and science seems to back this up.

Not necessarily against fracking but against doing it willy nilly and before the science is settled.
Exact same reasoning the anti-vaccine crowd uses.

 
If we did everything the environmentalists wanted, pretty soon the earth would have the same number of inhabitants as it did in Neolithic times, and we'd be hunter gatherers again. That would be fine by them, and perhaps fine by some of the posters here.

 
All forms of energy have some risks associated with them. Fracking is no exception. In general, it is safe, and compares favorably when weighed against other energy sources. There will be accidents and mistakes.

Fracking is revolutionizing our energy landscape. My part of the world (southwest Louisiana) is in an incredible economic boom right now. We don't have actual Fracking occurring here, but have the pipeline infrastructure in place to export natural gas and we have companies developing enormous industries to use LNG as a basis for a series of other products, including diesel fuel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course it's dangerous. How dangerous? I don't think that's been determined yet. But it's certainly potentially dangerous enough that we should have studied it a whole hell of a lot more before moving forward with it.

 
Of course it's dangerous. How dangerous? I don't think that's been determined yet. But it's certainly potentially dangerous enough that we should have studied it a whole hell of a lot more before moving forward with it.
How can this even be a question? Of course it is dangerous and poses various serious threats to our environment. Saying otherwise is just dishonest and/or stupid.

The question is whether or not the risk can be satisfactorily mitigated such that the benefits are worth that risk. This where reasonable people can have differing opinions. And I have no real clue as the debate has me constantly flip flopping so I have to default to no. (You would likely default to the side of those turning a profit.)
:goodposting: (s)

 
Minus the stale jokes, interesting discussion so far. I don't think the analogy to vaccines is a good one, because the doctors in favor of vaccines are far more confident and it seems as if in that case the science is settled. Here it's much more of an open question.

But Shader is also right that we don't have much time here. It's either move forward with this in a big way and hope its safe, or shut it down and devote ALL of our resources to finding something better. I honestly don't know which is the better answer, but we need to decide soon.

 
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
You're correct about the first part. Most studies reject contamination.But your second part, you abandon science and go for hyperbole. Fracking is fracturing the earth so it makes sense that it could cause earthquakes and science seems to back this up.

Not necessarily against fracking but against doing it willy nilly and before the science is settled.
Exact same reasoning the anti-vaccine crowd uses.
No. I'm pretty sure most used false reports ascribed to one doctor to go against vaccines. Beyond that, it has been studied fairly extensively.

Look at the regulations behind vaccinations compared with the regulations behind fracking. Vaccinations are heavily tested by the FDA and other bodies. I hope you know the vaccine you give your child doesn't just go from lab to doctor's office much like fracking did. Fracking came to be in an environment with pretty much no restrictions as it was exempt under the SDWA.

Fracking was/is a great innovation that has the potential to turn our economy or at least our energy world into a positive. But it also has the potential for great harm b/c like most innovation, the safety and regulation are being reactive instead of proactive.

I agree with most here that like any other energy source, at least for the time being, there are going to be trade-offs. I'm not the naive environmentalist who wants to send us back 200 years in terms of energy policy. I just want to know what my trade offs are going to be before I sign up for something.

 
The other thing that nobody has mentioned yet is the drain it takes on the water supply. In the US, water has largely be seen as an endless good. However, many are starting to find out that is not the case.

So how do we respond to fracking in light of it creating or amplifying these droughts?

 
If we did everything the environmentalists wanted, pretty soon the earth would have the same number of inhabitants as it did in Neolithic times, and we'd be hunter gatherers again. That would be fine by them, and perhaps fine by some of the posters here.
:hey: A lot less people would be nice.

 
If we did everything the environmentalists wanted, pretty soon the earth would have the same number of inhabitants as it did in Neolithic times, and we'd be hunter gatherers again. That would be fine by them, and perhaps fine by some of the posters here.
Not to mention that Natgas prices would be much much higher than the 4.30 ballpark they are in now. Thats based on the commodity price not taking into account locational basis. Areas like the NE part of the country that since the beginning of time have been natgas importers are soon to be exporters benefit from this a ton.

 
A friend's daughter has land in Pennsylvania that they just started fracking on. I asked them about the water quality concerns and they said it was pointless not to lease when all the surrounding land owners were leasing. :shrug:

They get paid pretty well. Something like $6K/month if I remember correctly.

 
The Yellowstone super volcano can blow any time and California can fall into the Pacific after the next big quake. I have warned the frackers a long time ago but monkey no see and monkey no hear.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fracking for natural gas has created tons of new jobs- so much so that it seems to have revolutionized the industry. One of the most popular reactions to the Ukraine crisis is for us to massively increase our NG exports so as to compete with Russia.

But I've been reading warnings about fracking from environmental sources- it poisons the water supply, creates earthquakes, destabizes the land. All of this is hotly denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. The information available is contradictory and I don't know what to believe. What's the opinion here?
That stuff isn't just denied by pro-fracking spokesmen. Every study that has shown groundwater contamination has subsequently been destroyed by non-biased followups. In moat cases, the water was already contaminated or was actually contaminated in the process of the researchers obtaining samples.And do you seriously thing this can cause earthquakes? Do you think they're moving the plates of the earth?
You're correct about the first part. Most studies reject contamination.But your second part, you abandon science and go for hyperbole. Fracking is fracturing the earth so it makes sense that it could cause earthquakes and science seems to back this up.

Not necessarily against fracking but against doing it willy nilly and before the science is settled.
Exact same reasoning the anti-vaccine crowd uses.
:lmao: What.the.####

 
Personally, I don't believe the earthquakes claim. Ground water could get contaminated if certain safety protocols aren't met, but it's not anything like the lighting a water faucet on fire as shown in "Gasland" which has been proven to be a false claim.

So I believe it can a good thing, but saftey regulation must be followed, including listing what they are pumping into the ground.
Yeah no way injecting water at high pressure into faults could ever be a problem.

 
Personally, I don't believe the earthquakes claim. Ground water could get contaminated if certain safety protocols aren't met, but it's not anything like the lighting a water faucet on fire as shown in "Gasland" which has been proven to be a false claim.

So I believe it can a good thing, but saftey regulation must be followed, including listing what they are pumping into the ground.
Yeah no way injecting water at high pressure into faults could ever be a problem.
:hot:

 
And I am sure the reason they make people sign life long non-disclosures, which include their toddlers, when they pay them off is because there was nothing really wrong they are just being generous and don't want it to get it. Such givers.

 
Personally, I don't believe the earthquakes claim. Ground water could get contaminated if certain safety protocols aren't met, but it's not anything like the lighting a water faucet on fire as shown in "Gasland" which has been proven to be a false claim.

So I believe it can a good thing, but saftey regulation must be followed, including listing what they are pumping into the ground.
Yeah no way injecting water at high pressure into faults could ever be a problem.
:hot:
Great minds and all that

 
The earthquake registered a magnitude 5.7*—the largest ever recorded in Oklahoma—with its epicenter less than two miles from the Reneaus' house, which took six months to rebuild. It injured two people, destroyed 14 homes, toppled headstones, closed schools, and was felt in 17 states. It was preceded by a 4.7 foreshock the morning prior and followed by a 4.7 aftershock.

The quake baffled seismologists. The only possible culprit was the Wilzetta Fault, a 320-million-year-old rift lurking between Prague and nearby Meeker. "But the Wilzetta was a dead fault that nobody ever worried about," says Katie Keranen, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Oklahoma. We're driving in her red SUV, just south of the Reneaus' property, when she stops to point out where the quake tore open a footwide fissure across State Highway 62. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a database of seismically risky areas. Its assessment of the Wilzetta Fault, Keranen notes, was "zero probability of expected ground motion. This fault is like an extinct volcano. It should never have been active."

When the Wilzetta mysteriously and violently awakened, Keranen wanted to know why. So she partnered with scientists from the USGS and Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The morning after the initial foreshock, Keranen's team scrambled to install three seismometers around Prague. They did so in time to capture the quake system in unprecedented detail. She says, "We got this beautiful image of the fault plane." Within a week, her team and other scientists had placed a total of 25 devices around the fault zone. One is buried in the Reneaus' backyard. Now, having completed a yearlong study (just published in the journal Geology), Keranen's research indicates the Oklahoma earthquakes were likely attributable to underground injection of wastewater derived from "dewatering," separating crude oil from the soupy brine reaped through a drilling technique that allows previously inaccessible oil to be pumped up. "Pretty much everybody who looks at our data accepts that these events were likely caused by injection," Keranen concludes.

Such seismic activity isn't normal here. Between 1972 and 2008, the USGS recorded just a few earthquakes a year in Oklahoma. In 2008, there were more than a dozen; nearly 50 occurred in 2009. In 2010, the number exploded to more than 1,000. These so-called "earthquake swarms" are occurring in other places where the ground is not supposed to move. There have been abrupt upticks in both the size and frequency of quakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, and Texas. Scientists investigating these anomalies are coming to the same conclusion: The quakes are linked to injection wells. Into most of them goes wastewater from hydraulic fracking, while some, as those in Prague, are filled with leftover fluid from dewatering operations.
Mother Jones

Oh and I'll just bet all that waste water is just peachy to be in the aquifer. Sounds delish.

 
The real question is if it's safer than coal or nuclear, since those are the only other viable options for the bulk of our energy needs (at least for the next few decades).

 
jonessed said:
The real question is if it's safer than coal or nuclear, since those are the only other viable options for the bulk of our energy needs (at least for the next few decades).
OK. In your opinion, is it?
 
It may coincidental, but since they started fracking our number of earthquakes has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY. My bosses house was almost destroyed by a ~5.0 in 2011, and we've had weekly 3.0-3.5 when we had none previously. The insurance companies are no longer offering coverage, or offering outrageous rates (i.e. to add it doubles your premium).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It may coincidental, but since they started fracking our number of earthquakes has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY. My bosses house was almost destroyed by a ~5.0 18 months ago, and we've had weekly 3.0-3.5 when we had none previously. The insurance companies are no longer offering coverage, or offering outrageous rates (i.e. to add it doubles your premium).
Where do you live, Rascal? And how much fracking is going on there?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top