| Author |
Message |
    
86129squids
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 02:34 pm: | 
|
I LOVE corn as a fuel source- especially fresh off the grill, with a little butter and salt...
 |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 02:43 pm: |
|
speaking of which i need some more fuel for my grill so i can do just that |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 03:58 pm: |
|
"or perhaps the poisoning of underground water resources(fracking). those seem like a pretty bad idea to me. "
Can you point to ONE example of that happening by modern fracking methods? Not allegations of it happening. Actually happening. You've been lied to. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 04:17 pm: |
|
so they've changed the testing methods. that doesn't make the original results wrong. just makes what they are doing legal. keep drinking the coolaide. i can't begin to imagine that fracking is something that can honestly be considered safe for the aquifers around the fracking sites.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/dimock-pa -fracking-epa-water_n_1368148.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023034 04704577313741463447670.html
two different sources with two different agendas with two different conclusions but with similar undercurrents being that the EPA 'retested' and found that 'nothing was wrong'
i don't see how that makes fracking safe |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Well, that's just it. The aquifers aren't around the fracking sites, they're MILES above it.
Oil and gas deposits form under specific geologic conditions. Fracking takes place below cap rock. The water is above it. The cap rock is not fractured. This is true in all cases. Where there is no cap, there is no oil or gas deposit, because the geology isn't right for the formation of the field.
The people who have methane coming out of their water have wells that are near coal fields, which are constantly producing methane. It has nothing to do with fracking. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 06:00 pm: |
|
So what you're. Saying is that there's no way that pumping millions of gallons of toxic chems into the ground can in no way impact the drinking water around it? I think it's interesting that you excluded the results of higher than normal levels of toxic metals and other chems that are used. In the fracking process. I also find interesting that if there's nothing wrong that the affected areas are now having water trucked in from elsewhere. You know because that's absolute proof that the water from the wells is safe to drink..... |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 06:12 pm: |
|
So what you're. Saying is that there's no way that pumping millions of gallons of toxic chems into the ground can in no way impact the drinking water around it?
Perhaps I should let Hootowl speak for himself, but it seemed clear to me that wasn't what he was saying. It seemed clear that he was saying that the fracking materials were NOT being pumped anywhere near the drinking water. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Those toxic metals are NOWHERE to be found in drilling mud and fracking fluid. Fracking fluid is mostly water and sand.
The water was being trucked in because the nuts that sued the gas producer convinced a judge to order them to do it. When it was found that they were full of crap, the order was rescinded. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 06:40 pm: |
|
Interesting in that what you're claiming doesn't seem to be the truth. The water samples did and do have higher than normal levels of toxic heavy metals and chems not naturally present. The anti corrosion materials are laden with the metals and chems found in the water. I do wonder if you have a vested intrest in the oil and gas industry which gives you the particlar talking points you're using. |
99savage
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 07:38 pm: |
|
Methane is coming out of the ground, I am just so shocked, methane you say.
Where our plant is located cannot drill a water well without hitting natural gas - Sadly it is sour gas and of no value but have hit it @< 100'
If a single soul of good will remained on the Left the legislative solution is so simple I must conclude that only ill will remains on the Left.
- Come up with a testing protocol & require testing before sinking a well & annually thereafter.
- Require that some kind of taggant be placed in the fracturing fluid.
- If the taggant appears in water wells require the owner of the well to install water purifying equipment on any wells affected.
Back to the topic at hand, to whit corn based alcohol
Not sure I agree with the conclusions but still interesting
http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-t o-protect-ethanol-obama-seeks-to-inflate-meat-pric es/article/2504906#.UCwlDqmPXKf |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 - 07:55 pm: |
|
I think that article or one touching on it was already linked today. Food for fuel is bad I think we all agree on that. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 12:21 am: |
|
I'm not going to do a point by point rebuttal.... Quite a bit of what you say is correct. Some, however, is not. I'll try and get specific, later.
Fraking? Big business, and needs rational environmental controls. As does Nuclear. Or Coal. Or Solar.
And what about all those birds killed by windmills? Or the local climate change windmills create? Or the non-local climate change large wind power arrays might create?
It's encouraging we all seem to agree that food to fuel is insane. People are dead because of it. It is likely that thousands more will die, maybe more. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Switchgrass. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 12:53 pm: |
|
fast yes switch grass is one source for cellulosic alcohol as has been pointed out though the cellulosic alcohol isn't quite ready for full rate production with a profit yet. they scientific and engineering community is working on it but it's not ready yet. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 01:01 pm: |
|
Of course switch grass will wind up grown by farmers who would otherwise grow something like... Food?
It's still trading food for fuel. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 01:27 pm: |
|
actually not necessarily sifo.
looking into the switch grass idea it can be planted when a field would normally lay bare. additionally there are many benefits to the farms in terms of soil retention an additional cash crop to be rotated in and a few others. it can also be planted along the highways and biways(little most cost due to the logistics of getting the grass back to the plant).
however i'm still really digging the idea of using the biomass from the waste stream we already have once they get the chemistry etc worked out for full rate production. that truly appears to be the best solution. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 02:39 pm: |
|
"I do wonder if you have a vested intrest in the oil and gas industry which gives you the particlar talking points you're using."
I have no talking points. I read the news. And the news articles that cover the findings (not the allegations) always report the same thing: Pollutants found in the ground water could not have come from fracking fluid, nor could the pollutants found be the result of fracking operations. Like I said, find me ONE example where modern fracking methods have led to contaminated ground water. I don't think one exists. Facts, not accusations please. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 02:42 pm: |
|
Switchgrass is a native plant as well, and requires very little water and no fertilizers. Or so I've read. |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 02:44 pm: |
|
as for the actual data sheets none of that has been published that i can find as it's still under investigation.
being that the findings were in the news articles i posted i don't know what more you are looking for. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 03:13 pm: |
|
I read both of those articles. They found low levels of naturally occurring contamination. The methane in the water occurs naturally in that part of the country. There's coal EVERYWHERE up there, and you routinely hit pockets of methane while drilling for water.
Fracking operations aren't drilling for water. They're drilling miles below the water. The fracking takes place BELOW the cap rock, miles underneath the water. There is impermeable rock between the gas field being frack'd and the ground water.
I spelled frack'd that way because the profanity filter kicks in if you spell it correctly. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 03:14 pm: |
|
So those articles do not say that fracking operations caused contamination of ground water. In fact, they are retractions of those allegations. |
No_rice
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 03:28 pm: |
|
What's the average humidity level there?
well, being as we usually have alot more drastic seasons here in iowa, that depends on the time of year, but it is common to have 90-100% humidity for weeks at a time or longer during the summer, and obviously less at other times of year.
and 4 months and almost 7000 miles of ethanol in florida did just fine by my bikes. never complained once.
still not believing that ethanol in its current form is destroying everything i have/had. far to many miles on ethanol based fuel with no attributed problems to feel otherwise.
and im not even pro ethanol. but then again corn really isnt a good food source anyway. the human body really doesnt digest it well if youve never noticed... same for most animals... |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 04:05 pm: |
|
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/forum_just_how_safe__ is_fracking_of_natural_gas/2417/
interesting the the industry guys are all saying it's safe it's safe where others are saying well not necessarily.
and the real kicker to me is that by in large they don't even have to comply with large portions of the laws designed to protect drinking water at it's source.
the whole thing smacks of another big corp interest buying 'compliance' |
Boogiman1981
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 04:20 pm: |
|
no they are not retractions not really if you actually did read them when the lab results were being discussed. it was clearly stated the levels of dangerous(unnamed) chemicals were above the levels of concern. that's not a retraction. that's a hey we made a mistake wink wink nudge nudge |
Sifo
| | Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Boogiman, that link to the environmental formum isn't exactly what I would call unbiased. Rather than simply dismiss what they say based on the source, I dug just a little bit. I followed the link provided from the first "expert" they interviewed... http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf That report included this...
quote:We found no evidence for contamination
of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing
fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and—
possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future
of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.
Still sounds just a bit biased, but at least they are honest enough to admit that they aren't finding actual evidence of contamination from the fracking, while they still want more regulation of the industry. Seems quite different from the expert's summary where he describes the findings of this study as "alarming". I haven't had time to read the rest of that article at this time, so I'll just stop with that right now.
Bottom line is that in areas where you find methane underground, it's not at all uncommon to find certain amounts of methane naturally occurring in drinking water wells. Same with any other chemicals. Given that drilling will also be done in these areas, simply establishing a correlation between drilling and elevated levels of certain chemicals doesn't necessarily demonstrate any sort of cause and effect. That's the missing part of the story on the fracking industry. They just don't have data available to show cause and effect. http://tinyurl.com/cmntqkt |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, August 17, 2012 - 08:32 pm: |
|
We NEED rational, science based, regulation on drilling for oil, gas, fracking, whatever.
"Left on it's own, "unbridled capitalism" would sell human flesh in the marketplace."
I don't know who said that, but it's true. They DO sell human flesh in the marketplace, in China. Need a kidney? I'm sure there's a political prisoner who's a perfect match. His post operative care won't be as good as yours, but if you're buying body parts in China, I'm pretty sure you couldn't give a rat's.......
The closest we have to "unbridled" capitalism here, in the US, is the Mob, illegal Immigrant Coyotes, and Congress. ( All will happily take your money. Law? what law? Oh, don't worry about the law... )
So... based on bitter experience with chemical plants and pollution, we need rational science based rules.
If someone else's well destroys your well's function, you should be compensated. Seems simple.
Bad environmental practices should get CEO's jail time. They get the big bucks, they should take responsibility. Come to think of it..... did the idiots who screwed up the concrete job on that well in the Gulf of Mexico ever get in trouble? I know the Gulf oil CEO didn't, after appropriate "campaign donations", although he did have to listen to the Prez call him names... just like several others who made out great after "donating"...
OTOH, when ( not if, this is common ) an "environmentalist" lies about stuff to make money, or gain power, HE should be wide open to lawsuits and jail time. For mail fraud, if nothing else, if he solicits money for a bogus cause.
We had a shameful case locally where some bimbo spread the word she was dying of cancer. Took in a lot of donations, parties were held to raise funds, etc. Now awaiting trial. She also is charged with endangering the welfare of a child for allegedly telling her 10-year-old son that she had cancer and would die soon.
Just as with the various "bubbles" in the markets, it's not that "we" want no laws, its that we want good ones. We don't want bad laws, and most of the problems the U.S. economy has had this century are directly due to bad laws. ( about mortgage lending, banking rules, CDO creation, etc. )
We need good laws to keep greedy jerks from ripping us off, and smart laws to let us get energy at affordable prices... "Under my plan, of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" is BAD LAW.
Never mind that it's People in Chicago that will profit from taking your money by force. People who's names you have heard associated with the current admin.
I'm not sure about fracking's effect across the board on a community. There's the trucks, I Got stuck behind a rig while on vacation hauling a fracking unit. There's the increase in housing costs as people come from all over to work. The local bars and diners will be more crowded. The economy will improve. It's a mixed bag. There's a lot of worry about out of state trucks in PA that are unsafe, as contractors cheap out to save money...
OTOH as I've pointed out before, when the cost of the energy to run the farms is more than the crop makes, agribusiness will just stop. A family owned farm will struggle to get by. ADM's farms will just stop. |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Friday, August 17, 2012 - 09:33 pm: |
|
Since we're already off subject.
"...it's not that "we" want no laws, its that we want good ones..."
My philosophy, for more years than I care to remember, has been:
"Every new law passed should include the requirement that two previous laws be taken off the books."
If you can't find at least two laws in our system that should be repealed then you have no business making up new ones.
G |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Friday, August 17, 2012 - 09:37 pm: |
|
By the way, I have no problem with getting off subject.
Most good conversations start on one subject and end on something entirely different.
G |
|
