Tree growth rings disprove that the earth is warmer now than during Roman times and or even 1000 years ago.

Page 7 of 9  


Come on Mike. It is not legal to dump more than x gallons of waste containing y ppm of this in the public water ways. So, dilute it 10-fold and then dump it. Or read any of the vignettes here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html to get an idea.

I wish I could express myself better. This is what I did. I looked up the capacity of tanker trucks. Stated as up to 9,000 gallons, so for ease of calculations I rounded it up to 10,000 gallons. Yes I exagerated, so what. The question was about "millions of gallons of waste being trucked or not. By using the 10,000 gallon figure it was easy to see that a mere 100 or so trips with just 1 truck would reach 1 million gallons. The above links also talk about the danger of overworked truck drivers (being asked to drive more and longer than is really legal) and the accidents they cause or can cause.
Again, just to make sure you know where I stand. I am in favor of fracking to make available energy sources that are in principle fairly clean, economical and plentiful. It's just that it should be done safely and properly.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mentioned by Heybub in the post I was answering to.

I hope you also think that disposing of waste water that contains hazardous substances is wrong. And I know that almost anything is bad if the concentration or qunatity is high enough ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Han wrote:

You're sorta correct and I misspoke. There are STATE regulations on fracking but there are NO federal regulations on fracking. A lot of people in eastern Pennsylvania are getting rich from fracked natural gas while their neighbors, just across the state line in western New York are really pissed because New York doesn't allow the process.
I do believe that New York has put a plan/law in effect or being considered. Google 'New York fracking policy.'
In the early days of fracking, there was some waste; companies dumped the semi-polluted water anywhere they pleased. Now, however, all the water used is reclaimed. There is NO waste connected with fracking.
NO, Bub, you cannot say there is NO waste connected with fracking. Speaking from experience . . . though recycling used frack water is a growing business, there is still PLENTY of waste water aka, 'blowback' and there are serious efforts [in Karnes County, Texas and, I assume other Eagle Ford Shale play counties] to establish multiple waste disposal injection wells, almost assuredly in close proximity to homes and crops. http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20120411005372/en , as just one example. There is plenty of opposition from long-time local framers/ranchers including those that are pocketing some serious bank from their royalties. I know because I know a few of those farmers/ranchers, and land owners. I believe, in the end, the Texas Railroad Commission which "regulates" the oil and gas industry will cow-tow to the industry. The API almost always gets its way; TRRC commissioners need campaign money, too. Those farmers/ranchers, and land owners I refer to, are also afraid that is exactly what will happen. These are died-in-the-wool, anti-Obama conservatives. They've ranched the land their whole lives; lived through the uranium strip-mining of the early '70s. I've seen some evidence that the TRRC is doing it's best to curtail and otherwise short-circuit land owner's objections by restricting public input [filing dates and similar such tactics]. A legal fight is brewing, to be sure. But, you CANNOT say there is NO waste from fracking.
Dave in [Eagle Ford] Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Texas wrote:

Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no waste dumping from a fracking operation."
I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Dave in Texas wrote:

Right. I continue to misspeak. I should have said "there is virtually no waste dumping from a fracking operation."
I'm sure somewhere a valve gets left open for a few minutes...
I think you pretty well addressed everything I spoke to; covered it all you did.
Dave in Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

Let me see if I understand this?
They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Richard" wrote in message
On 7/23/2012 9:00 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:

Let me see if I understand this?
They use explosives to fracture rock to get at the natural gas that's down there SOMEWHERE - but it ONLY comes out at the valve?
Total drilled depth is usually 15,000-16,00 feet including a 4,000-5,000 lateral. There may be as many as 20 stages of fracking involving more than a million gallons of water, various types of sand and 'secret' chemicals. This animated video gives you the general idea: http://northernoil.com/drilling
Dave in Texas
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@AmericanTelephoneTelegraph.net says...

Yep. They even tried it with atom bombs on three separate occasions. Any gas leakage into groundwater or the like would have been easily detectable (like you point a geiger counter at if and if it goes tick tick you've got a leak). The AEC looked for such leakage and didn't find it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/24/2012 2:06 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

So we can be sure fracking would be safe from leaks - IF they used atomic bombs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/23/2012 10:23 PM, Richard wrote:

Call that the path of least resistance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Richard wrote:

I think you've wrapped your mind around the concept. Congrats.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Show one aquifer harmed by fracking.
Assuming that you can't, explain how an aquifer, 200-500 ft underground, can be contaminated or otherwise influenced by something happening five to 15,000 below it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now, don't be a denier here ... There are many ways. Some are:
The well bore wasn't sealed properly, especially where it passed through the aquifer. It has happened ... The fracking caused mini earthquakes that damaged the old natural seal below or above the aquifer. The fracking waste contaminated what was a good source of drinking water.
I am in favor of fracking if properly regulated with ALL potentially applicable environmental regulations adhered to. So far in many jurisdictions, the frackers (I'm leaving off an adjective) have played fast and loose with regulations and contractual obligations. That damages the industry. Don't the (left out) frackers realize that?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See "Gasland" movie for tons of 'em.

All the fracking frackers are interested in is a windfall profit -this- year. Nothing else seems to matter.
-- Win first, Fight later.
--martial principle of the Samurai
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/20/2012 7:49 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

there are many occurrences of this occurring before fracking was common. so?

there are about 20k fracked wells, and a handful of problems. all of the problems occurred because the regs weren't followed.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/20/2012 11:12 AM, chaniarts wrote:

Seems like that was the same problem we ran into with nuclear power...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He didn't say "unions".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:49:06 -0700, Larry Jaques

Where 'em == fiction or fraud.

Nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Oh, but increased CO2 IS helping. Plants.
Plants grow faster and bigger at increased CO2 levels.
And *IF* CO2 contributes to global warming, the benefits of increased CO2 may outweight the hazards. For example, the growing season(s) could extend - Canada may be able to get three wheat crops instead of two. Second, far more untimely deaths can be attributed to cold than heat. Next, places like Minnesota and upstate New York may become habitable.
Adapt, overcome, continue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More growing season *if* water levels remain available to sustain that growing season. Like many places in the US we Canadians are experiencing drought like conditions in many areas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.