End of fracking.....economic impact to United States

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 03:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think that ending fracking would be a bad idea. I'm a pretty pro-fracking guy, but I think that it does need to be well regulated. A lot of the bad effects of fracking (like the increase of earthquakes) actually isn't from fracking, but it's from the wastewater when they're done fracking and putting it back into the ground. The EPA, and the UKs version of the EPA both cleared fracking of having widespread and systematic pollution of drinking water. There are examples of this happening, but it can be avoided by being well regulated.

Personally I think that the pros more than make up for the cons of fracking. Fracking provides us with MUCH cheaper energy / fuel, and it reduces our carbon footprint by half when natural gas replaces coal power plants. Plus close to every problem with it can be avoided if it's well regulated.

Regulation reduces the profit, so it will never happen.

So right now we are talking about massive uncontrollable earthquakes versus cheap gas.

Plus the EPA did NOT clear fracking of contaminating drinking water.  In fact they found that it did cause contamination of drinking water.

The agency found “specific instances” where the integrity of fracked wells or the handling of wastewater ended up affecting drinking water. 

The EPA said in a release that its analysis “shows that while hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, there are potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.”

[Brownshoe]

(04-12-2016, 12:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Regulation reduces the profit, so it will never happen.

So right now we are talking about massive uncontrollable earthquakes versus cheap gas.

Plus the EPA did NOT clear fracking of contaminating drinking water.  In fact they found that it did cause contamination of drinking water.

The agency found “specific instances” where the integrity of fracked wells or the handling of wastewater ended up affecting drinking water. 

The EPA said in a release that its analysis “shows that while hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, there are potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.”

Good thing the companies aren't the ones making laws. Otherwise regulations would never happen. So it's not earthquakes vs cheap gas + lower carbon footprint. It's about the inept government keep looking the other way while they let fracking go under regulated.

Here is the source showing the EPA clearing fracking.

https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e4685257dd4006b85e2/b542d827055a839585257e5a005a796b!OpenDocument

"Specific instances" doesn't mean that fracking causes impact to drinking water. Even in your quote it says "fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources". The analysis that they released even said that it's all preventable with regulations.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 12:29 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Good thing the companies aren't the ones making laws. Otherwise regulations would never happen. So it's not earthquakes vs cheap gas + lower carbon footprint. It's about the inept government keep looking the other way while they let fracking go under regulated.

Here is the source showing the EPA clearing fracking.

https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/21b8983ffa5d0e4685257dd4006b85e2/b542d827055a839585257e5a005a796b!OpenDocument

"Specific instances" doesn't mean that fracking causes impact to drinking water. Even in your quote it says "fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources". The analysis that they released even said that it's all preventable with regulations.

This report does not "clear" fracking at all.  In fact it blames fracking for contaminated drinking water when fracking is conducted into rock formations that contain drinking water resources.

If fracking was regulated the way you want it then it would not be as widely available or financially lucrative.

[Brownshoe]

(04-12-2016, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This report does not "clear" fracking at all.  In fact it blames fracking for contaminated drinking water when fracking is conducted into rock formations that contain drinking water resources.

If fracking was regulated the way you want it then it would not be as widely available or financially lucrative.

It does clear fracking. What it doesn't clear are the companies that ignore laws and still frack where there are drinking water sources. Which rarely happens ever. When companies frack in rock formations that contain drinking water resources that's illegal. When fracking is done legally then it contaminates no drinking water sources, and that's why the EPAs analysis clears them.

If fracking was regulated the way I want it then it wouldn't be as widely available, or as lucrative, but it still would be available and lucrative. If done right then it would be better for the economy and the environment.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 02:06 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When companies frack in rock formations that contain drinking water resources that's illegal. 

No it isn't.

At least i can't find any regulation that prohibits this.

And even if it is limited to certain areas what are we supposed to do about a massive increase in earthquakes in those areas?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-12-2016, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually there is.  There used to be a theory that businesses would regulate themselves becaue they would never sacrifice short term gain over long term viability, but that myth went up in smoke with the lending crisis.  Since CEOs just move on to another job when a company goes under they value short term gain over the long term survival of a company.  But more importantly so do stock holders.  They will take the short term gain and move their money to another investment when the first one starts to fail.

Some people may take short term gains, but most business owners plan long term.  There is nothing inherent about capitalism that equates it with short term profit taking.  

[Benton]

(04-12-2016, 02:06 PM)Brownshoe Wrote:   When companies frack in rock formations that contain drinking water resources that's illegal. When fracking is done legally then it contaminates no drinking water sources, and that's why the EPAs analysis clears them.

 

You'd think so, as it's punishable by the Clean Air and Water act of the 1970s.

Buuuuuut... then there's this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html

Quote:Among the many dubious provisions in the 2005 energy bill was one dubbed the Halliburton loophole, which was inserted at the behest of — you guessed it — then-Vice President Dick Cheney, a former chief executive of Halliburton.It stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing.

Basically, Bush and Cheney used the energy bill as a way to allow fracking to contaminate water supplied and keep it outside of any regulatory agency.

But... that's not a big deal, it's just water, right? No. Injecting diesel fuel — sometimes tens of millions of gallons — is pretty much guaranteed to taint a water supply for a very long time. How long? No idea, they won't let the EPA study that any more.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-12-2016, 11:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The claim that it will not pay off for decades is based on current technology with ZERO improvement.

That is the entire point of R&D.  It is possible that with improvement from new technology solar or some other form of alternative energy could pay off immediately.

Right now no pharmaceutical company knows how long it will take to develop a new wonder drug, but they keep investing in R&D anyway.

The problem with solar and electric vehicles is once you get the panels there shouldnt be much maintenance. So instead of filling up every week people could charge their cars at home and rarely if ever visit a gas station . That probably scares the bejesus out of big oil. That is probably one of the biggest conspiracy theories i believe in. There is big money at play holding back our advancement in to renewable energy. We have solar panels. We have electric vehicles. We can put excess energy back in to the grid. Why is it not more prevalent?

Hell im a supporter of nuclear power. Gas stations should be the next Blockbuster. Something better came along. Charging stations.

[Stewy]

Ok. I'm drunk so I can't help myself.  I'd like to set a few things straight.

#1 - Most fracturing (let's write it out completely please) is done so far below viable water tables that 90% of the time this topic is irrelevant.
#2 - Considering #1; in Oklahoma and certain portions of Appalachia or where reservoirs are above 2000' tvd, this might be an issue in regard to negligent operators, but in general practice it is more cost effective to follow regulations than risk fines and bad publicity.
#3 - While not criminal, fracturing into water tables IS prohibited and will garner heavy heavy fines.  Heavy fines to the point where it is practice prohibitive to not follow the regulations.  (This point is for Fred who said he couldn't find where it was against the law to fracture into water tables.  There's a difference between prohibitive/fineable vs. criminal).

There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.  Not all geology and fracturing and situations are remotely the same.  To say all fracturing is bad (some have insinuated or plainly stated this) and needs to be stopped is about as ignorant as most of the climate change discussion on these forums.  They completely show a supreme lack of geologic understanding.  Example:  My work has involved fracturing of reservoirs at 25,000-30,000 feet below sea level.  It is the only way to get these reservoirs to produce viable rates of oil production.  Environmental science shows that drinking water doesn't exist below 4,000 below the sea level.  Below that it's almost always salt water.  In the case of my work there are 4 steel casings and megatons of cement protecting the aquifers between the reservoirs and the aquifers.  This is the RULE with reservoirs throughout the world not the EXCEPTION.  These recent events are unsurprisingly press generated about where the reservoirs and aquifers are in closer proximity.  Surprise, surprise the press and sensationalism has exaggerated a problem and painted the oil industry as universally evil.  And even more of a surprise, certain individuals have ignorantly pounced on it to "prove" other agendas.  Well done.  However........................In general the industry is very cognizant of the environment, not because they really care (though the PR folks would say different), but because it is cost prohibitive to be otherwise in terms of fines and bad publicity (this is reality).

Fracturing is and has been done for decades safely and effectively.  It is not some recent evil creation by money hungry engineers.  As a matter of fact some of the oldest forms of fracturing date back to techniques started in Appalachia in West Virginia, where operators tried for years to get better production out of the Devonian Shales.  They tried dozens of different fracturing techniques, from propants to acid fractures to just dropping nitro down a hole and blowing up the rock (this is the oldest method).  And it turns out the oldest method worked the best.  To this day in Appalachia if you fracture a Devonian Well, you're just going to blow it up with Nitro.  My point?  The industry wants to make the most efficient buck it can, the quickest that it can within the rules supplied by the government.  As long as the industry can use nitro safely, it will until proven otherwise.  If a technique is deemed unsafe, the industry will adjust.  If operators have been contaminating water, they will be punished, as well they should be if they knowingly violated regulations.

As for this thread in general.....there will be no end of fracturing.  That's about as ignorant a statement as has ever been made on these forums (and boy is that saying a lot) and shows such a lack of understanding of the industry as to be laughable.  Fracturing mayb be modified in Oklahoma, but it will not be stopped.  As for the effect in other parts of the world that have decades of evidence with no issues with fracturing, well, there will be no effect as there is and have been no issues.  

This whole thread can basically be summarized as this "Fracturing MIGHT be bad in specific parts of the world representing less than 5% of where fracturing takes places, therefore it will all clearly come to an end."  That's about as dumb as it gets.  Oh,and BTW, the biggest risk to the aquifers in the Great Plains is "over use", not contamination via fracturing.  Ogalala Aquifer - google it.

Finally, let me state plainly that if operators are fracturing into aquifers. it needs to be stopped and they need to be fined, as they should have been already.  They would then be responsible for cleaning up the damage aquifer.  These regulations should already exist in every state with active Oil and Gas industries.  Negligence is not acceptable; nor is it an excuse.  It is no longer the 1920's with Rockefeller's Standard Oil running the world and being out of control.  As is the norm in the P&R forum, this thread stinks of sensationalism and exaggeration.  Surprise.   Surprise.

Now you know why I wanted to skip this topic.  What a waste of my time, when I am sure rebuttals will be coming from a point of delighted, convenient and unsupportable ignorance just for the sake of arguing.  Bleh I should just delete all this instead of hitting post, but I've spent too much time to waste it.  I've said my peace and am done.  Don't ask for replies.  They aren't coming.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 05:20 AM)Stewy Wrote: Ok. I'm drunk so I can't help myself.  I'd like to set a few things straight.

#1 - Most fracturing (let's write it out completely please) is done so far below viable water tables that 90% of the time this topic is irrelevant.
#2 - Considering #1; in Oklahoma and certain portions of Appalachia or where reservoirs are above 2000' tvd, this might be an issue in regard to negligent operators, but in general practice it is more cost effective to follow regulations than risk fines and bad publicity.
#3 - While not criminal, fracturing into water tables IS prohibited and will garner heavy heavy fines.  Heavy fines to the point where it is practice prohibitive to not follow the regulations.  (This point is for Fred who said he couldn't find where it was against the law to fracture into water tables.  There's a difference between prohibitive/fineable vs. criminal).

There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.  Not all geology and fracturing and situations are remotely the same.  To say all fracturing is bad (some have insinuated or plainly stated this) and needs to be stopped is about as ignorant as most of the climate change discussion on these forums.  They completely show a supreme lack of geologic understanding.  Example:  My work has involved fracturing of reservoirs at 25,000-30,000 feet below sea level.  It is the only way to get these reservoirs to produce viable rates of oil production.  Environmental science shows that drinking water doesn't exist below 4,000 below the sea level.  Below that it's almost always salt water.  In the case of my work there are 4 steel casings and megatons of cement protecting the aquifers between the reservoirs and the aquifers.  This is the RULE with reservoirs throughout the world not the EXCEPTION.  These recent events are unsurprisingly press generated about where the reservoirs and aquifers are in closer proximity.  Surprise, surprise the press and sensationalism has exaggerated a problem and painted the oil industry as universally evil.  And even more of a surprise, certain individuals have ignorantly pounced on it to "prove" other agendas.  Well done.  However........................In general the industry is very cognizant of the environment, not because they really care (though the PR folks would say different), but because it is cost prohibitive to be otherwise in terms of fines and bad publicity (this is reality).

Fracturing is and has been done for decades safely and effectively.  It is not some recent evil creation by money hungry engineers.  As a matter of fact some of the oldest forms of fracturing date back to techniques started in Appalachia in West Virginia, where operators tried for years to get better production out of the Devonian Shales.  They tried dozens of different fracturing techniques, from propants to acid fractures to just dropping nitro down a hole and blowing up the rock (this is the oldest method).  And it turns out the oldest method worked the best.  To this day in Appalachia if you fracture a Devonian Well, you're just going to blow it up with Nitro.  My point?  The industry wants to make the most efficient buck it can, the quickest that it can within the rules supplied by the government.  As long as the industry can use nitro safely, it will until proven otherwise.  If a technique is deemed unsafe, the industry will adjust.  If operators have been contaminating water, they will be punished, as well they should be if they knowingly violated regulations.

As for this thread in general.....there will be no end of fracturing.  That's about as ignorant a statement as has ever been made on these forums (and boy is that saying a lot) and shows such a lack of understanding of the industry as to be laughable.  Fracturing mayb be modified in Oklahoma, but it will not be stopped.  As for the effect in other parts of the world that have decades of evidence with no issues with fracturing, well, there will be no effect as there is and have been no issues.  

This whole thread can basically be summarized as this "Fracturing MIGHT be bad in specific parts of the world representing less than 5% of where fracturing takes places, therefore it will all clearly come to an end."  That's about as dumb as it gets.  Oh,and BTW, the biggest risk to the aquifers in the Great Plains is "over use", not contamination via fracturing.  Ogalala Aquifer - google it.

Finally, let me state plainly that if operators are fracturing into aquifers. it needs to be stopped and they need to be fined, as they should have been already.  They would then be responsible for cleaning up the damage aquifer.  These regulations should already exist in every state with active Oil and Gas industries.  Negligence is not acceptable; nor is it an excuse.  It is no longer the 1920's with Rockefeller's Standard Oil running the world and being out of control.  As is the norm in the P&R forum, this thread stinks of sensationalism and exaggeration.  Surprise.   Surprise.

Now you know why I wanted to skip this topic.  What a waste of my time, when I am sure rebuttals will be coming from a point of delighted, convenient and unsupportable ignorance just for the sake of arguing.  Bleh I should just delete all this instead of hitting post, but I've spent too much time to waste it.  I've said my peace and am done.  Don't ask for replies.  They aren't coming.

Either the oils companies knew they were going to cause an outbreak of earthquakes in Oklahoma and lied about it for year or else they had no idea what the effects of fracking would be.  

Doesn't matter which option you choose it still proves that we can not believe a thing the oild companies say.  Either the oil companies are flat out lying about the environmental effects of fracking or else they are ignorant of the impacts.

Which is it Stewy?  Lies or ignorance?

Why the hell should we believe anything the oil industry says about fracking when they have unleashed an outbreak of earthquakes in Oklahoma?  They either don't know what they are doing, or they do know but don't give a shit about environmental damage.

[Benton]

(04-17-2016, 05:20 AM)Stewy Wrote: Ok. I'm drunk so I can't help myself.  I'd like to set a few things straight.

#1 - Most fracturing (let's write it out completely please) is done so far below viable water tables that 90% of the time this topic is irrelevant.
#2 - Considering #1; in Oklahoma and certain portions of Appalachia or where reservoirs are above 2000' tvd, this might be an issue in regard to negligent operators, but in general practice it is more cost effective to follow regulations than risk fines and bad publicity.
#3 - While not criminal, fracturing into water tables IS prohibited and will garner heavy heavy fines.  Heavy fines to the point where it is practice prohibitive to not follow the regulations.  (This point is for Fred who said he couldn't find where it was against the law to fracture into water tables.  There's a difference between prohibitive/fineable vs. criminal).

There is a lot of ignorance in this thread.  Not all geology and fracturing and situations are remotely the same.  To say all fracturing is bad (some have insinuated or plainly stated this) and needs to be stopped is about as ignorant as most of the climate change discussion on these forums.  They completely show a supreme lack of geologic understanding.  Example:  My work has involved fracturing of reservoirs at 25,000-30,000 feet below sea level.  It is the only way to get these reservoirs to produce viable rates of oil production.  Environmental science shows that drinking water doesn't exist below 4,000 below the sea level.  Below that it's almost always salt water.  In the case of my work there are 4 steel casings and megatons of cement protecting the aquifers between the reservoirs and the aquifers.  This is the RULE with reservoirs throughout the world not the EXCEPTION.  These recent events are unsurprisingly press generated about where the reservoirs and aquifers are in closer proximity.  Surprise, surprise the press and sensationalism has exaggerated a problem and painted the oil industry as universally evil.  And even more of a surprise, certain individuals have ignorantly pounced on it to "prove" other agendas.  Well done.  However........................In general the industry is very cognizant of the environment, not because they really care (though the PR folks would say different), but because it is cost prohibitive to be otherwise in terms of fines and bad publicity (this is reality).

Fracturing is and has been done for decades safely and effectively.  It is not some recent evil creation by money hungry engineers.  As a matter of fact some of the oldest forms of fracturing date back to techniques started in Appalachia in West Virginia, where operators tried for years to get better production out of the Devonian Shales.  They tried dozens of different fracturing techniques, from propants to acid fractures to just dropping nitro down a hole and blowing up the rock (this is the oldest method).  And it turns out the oldest method worked the best.  To this day in Appalachia if you fracture a Devonian Well, you're just going to blow it up with Nitro.  My point?  The industry wants to make the most efficient buck it can, the quickest that it can within the rules supplied by the government.  As long as the industry can use nitro safely, it will until proven otherwise.  If a technique is deemed unsafe, the industry will adjust.  If operators have been contaminating water, they will be punished, as well they should be if they knowingly violated regulations.

As for this thread in general.....there will be no end of fracturing.  That's about as ignorant a statement as has ever been made on these forums (and boy is that saying a lot) and shows such a lack of understanding of the industry as to be laughable.  Fracturing mayb be modified in Oklahoma, but it will not be stopped.  As for the effect in other parts of the world that have decades of evidence with no issues with fracturing, well, there will be no effect as there is and have been no issues.  

This whole thread can basically be summarized as this "Fracturing MIGHT be bad in specific parts of the world representing less than 5% of where fracturing takes places, therefore it will all clearly come to an end."  That's about as dumb as it gets.  Oh,and BTW, the biggest risk to the aquifers in the Great Plains is "over use", not contamination via fracturing.  Ogalala Aquifer - google it.

Finally, let me state plainly that if operators are fracturing into aquifers. it needs to be stopped and they need to be fined, as they should have been already.  They would then be responsible for cleaning up the damage aquifer.  These regulations should already exist in every state with active Oil and Gas industries.  Negligence is not acceptable; nor is it an excuse.  It is no longer the 1920's with Rockefeller's Standard Oil running the world and being out of control.  As is the norm in the P&R forum, this thread stinks of sensationalism and exaggeration.  Surprise.   Surprise.

Now you know why I wanted to skip this topic.  What a waste of my time, when I am sure rebuttals will be coming from a point of delighted, convenient and unsupportable ignorance just for the sake of arguing.  Bleh I should just delete all this instead of hitting post, but I've spent too much time to waste it.  I've said my peace and am done.  Don't ask for replies.  They aren't coming.

#3- if you can't test the water, you can't fine anything.

[GMDino]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-06/awkward-day-after-epa-finds-fracking-does-not-pollute-water-top-oil-regulator-resign

Quote:Awkward: Day After EPA Finds Fracking Does Not Pollute Water, Top Oil Regulator Resigns Over Water Contamination


Put this one in the awkward file: just hours after the EPA released yet another massive study (literally, at just under 1000 pages) which found no evidence that fracking led to widespread pollution of drinking water (an outcome welcome by the oil industry and its backers and criticized by environmental groups), the director of the California Department of Conservation,  which oversees the agency that regulates the state's oil and gas industry, resigned as the culmination of a scandal over the contamination of California's water supply by fracking wastewater dumping.

An aerial view of pits containing production water from oil wells near California 33 and Lokern Road in Kern County

This is what the allegedly impartial EPA said on Thursday when it released its long awaited study: "we did not find evidence that [hydraulic fracking has] led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."

Tom Burke, science adviser and deputy assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Research and Development, told NPR that "we found the hydraulic fracturing activities in the United States are carried out in a way that has not led to widespread systemic impacts on drinking water resources. In fact, the number of documented impacts to drinking water resources is relatively low when compared to the number of fractured wells."
In retrospect the EPA surely wishes it had picked a slightly different time and date to release its "imparial" results because less than 24 hours later on Friday afternoon, Mark Nechodom, director of the California Department of Conservation who was appointed by governor Jerry Brown three years ago, abruptly resigned following an outcry over oil companies injecting their wastewater into Central Valley aquifers that were supposed to be protected by law.
As LA Times reports, Nechodom "was named this week in a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of Kern County farmers who allege that Brown, the oil and gas division and others conspired with oil companies to allow the illegal injections and to create a more lax regulatory environment for energy firms."
The lawsuit was filed under federal racketeering statutes and claims the conspiracy deprived Kern County farmers of access to clean water.
According to SF Gate, Nechodom announced his resignation in a brief letter to John Laird, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency. The Conservation Department is part of the resources agency. “I have appreciated being part of this team and helping to guide it through a difficult time,” Nechodom wrote
Ironically, California's oil regulator, the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, has been facing scrutiny from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after allowing oil producers to drill thousands of oilfield wastewater disposal wells into federally protected aquifers.
It was not immediately clear if the oil companies which commissioned the EPA study "clearing" fracking are also charged in the wastewater dumping case but the answer is "probably."
Attorney Rex Parris, whose firm filed the lawsuit, said in a written statement Friday that the case alleges a broad and complex conspiracy involving other officials.“We are not surprised that Nechodom resigned a day after the filing of this lawsuit,” Parris said. “We are confident he is just one of many resignations to come."

Quote:

In one tense hearing before lawmakers in March, Nechodom received a barrage of criticism from elected officials who recited one oversight failure after another. Nechodom sat stone-faced during the hearing, but eventually agreed, saying, “We all fell down.”

It gets better:

Quote:

Nechodom's resignation was unexpected, although he had increasingly been called upon by state officials to explain problems in the oil and gas division’s oversight of the oil industry and a parade of embarrassing blunders.
 
The Department of Conservation failed to meet an April 30 deadline for making public a broad range of information regarding the source, volume and disposal of water used in oil and gas production.

The punchline: "Nechodom blamed the reporting failure on “unforeseeable personnel and technical challenges." Well at least he did not blame an "internal procedural error", the passive voice excuse used by the ECB when it was revealed it had leaked critical details of its monetary policy to a select group of hedge funds.
So how does one reconcile the seeming contradiction between Nechodom's fall from grace and the fact that quite clearly, fracking has had a drastic impact on the quality of drinking water in California, with the EPA's finding which bombastically states the following:

Quote:

This state-of-the-science assessment contributes to the understanding of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources and the factors that may influence those impacts. The findings in this assessment can be used by federal, state, tribal, and local officials; industry; and the public to better understand and address any vulnerabilities of drinking water resources to hydraulic fracturing activities.

In other words, use the "state-of-the-science" findings" to demolish all allegations that the oil industry may not have the public interest in mind... just ignore the farce that took place one day later with the director California Department of Conservation.
But how is this possible? For the answer we go to a recent letter by the editor in chief of The Lancet, one of the world's best known medical journals, who without fear proclaims what many have known intuitively most of their adult lives, namely that half of all "scientific literature" is false. To wit:

Quote:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

In other words, half of what you read anywhere, especially in "scientific" literature, is a lie.
Which brings us to the last line of the EPA executive summary: "This assessment can also be used to help facilitate and inform dialogue among interested stakeholders, and support future efforts, including: providing context to site-specific exposure or risk assessments, local and regional public health assessments, and assessments of cumulative impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources over time or over defined geographic areas of interest. Finally, and most importantly, this assessment advances the scientific basis for decisions by federal, state, tribal, and local officials, industry, and the public, on how best to protect drinking water resources now and in the future."
Great job. The only thing left missing is the disclosure of how many billions in "donations" and "lobby spending" it took the oil industry for the EPA to goalseek the findings of this "impartial, scientific" organization.

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 05:20 AM)Stewy Wrote:   Surprise, surprise the press and sensationalism has exaggerated a problem and painted the oil industry as universally evil.


  In general the industry is very cognizant of the environment, not because they really care

So while admitting that the oil companies don't really care about the environment he is SHOCKED that anyone would suggest that the oil industry is evil.

How about the fact that they blatantly lied about water contamination and causing earthquakes until the evidence was overwhelming?  How about the fact that they used political connections to eliminate the ability to test to see if they are poisoning drinking water?

[McC]

(04-11-2016, 05:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know why "energy companies" are not investing more in alternative energy.

Seems like they won't do that until they have no choice.  What they're doing now is so profitable, they will fight tooth and nail to leave things just the way they are.

Who else could get away with jacking up their prices 20% for a holiday weekend? 

They play by their own rules.

[jfkbengals]

Looks like Oklahoma is done with the practice...

http://wtvr.com/2016/09/03/oklahoma-orders-shutdown-of-35-wells-after-5-6-magnitude-earthquake/

[Belsnickel]

(09-03-2016, 11:50 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Looks like Oklahoma is done with the practice...

http://wtvr.com/2016/09/03/oklahoma-orders-shutdown-of-35-wells-after-5-6-magnitude-earthquake/

How dare they regulate the free market like that!