U.S. Fracking's Larger Implications

Your head's so far up your ass I'm surprised you can see to post that worthless shit.

Odd how you think being in touch with reality means ones heads up their ass.
Plz come back when you response is something other then "the truth head up ass me dumbass"
 
Your head's so far up your ass I'm surprised you can see to post that worthless shit.

Odd how you think being in touch with reality means ones heads up their ass.
Plz come back when you response is something other then "the truth head up ass me dumbass"

Well everyone of your examples have been proven false,using real science from real scientists.Being misinformed isn't a crime,do look into what really goes on.
 
REVIEW OF U.S. EPA’s December 2011 Draft Report:
“Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming”


The review, conducted by S.S. Papadopulos & Associates (SSP&A) found that the data and analysis does not support the EPA’s conclusions, including the agency’s primary claim of contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing activity.

The report pointed out six major flaws in EPA’s methodology: 1) Poor Study Design; 2) Lack of Baseline and Background Data; 3) Analytical Concerns Leading to Incorrect Conclusions; 4) Serious Errors in the Construction, Development, and Sampling of Monitoring Wells; 5) Lack of Suitable Samples; and 6) No Secure Identification.
 
Gosh, fracking must not use toluene and benzene, to pollute wells, from the get-go.

None of that gas gets into water tables, and you can't light tapwater on fire.

Of course, it helps to ignore the truth, if you are a Log Cabin Club queen of the night, out stepping, in your redstate finery, with your head way up your asshole.

Queers don't care, if chromosomes get broken or CO2 goes off the charts, since Cabin-boys don't breed, except for reactors, do you, assholes.
 
REVIEW OF U.S. EPA’s December 2011 Draft Report:
“Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming”


The review, conducted by S.S. Papadopulos & Associates (SSP&A) found that the data and analysis does not support the EPA’s conclusions, including the agency’s primary claim of contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing activity.

The report pointed out six major flaws in EPA’s methodology: 1) Poor Study Design; 2) Lack of Baseline and Background Data; 3) Analytical Concerns Leading to Incorrect Conclusions; 4) Serious Errors in the Construction, Development, and Sampling of Monitoring Wells; 5) Lack of Suitable Samples; and 6) No Secure Identification.

"2.1.1 Methane
During Phases I and II, EPA did demonstrate that methane was present in wells situated
over a broad area centered on the Wind River-Fort Union structural high (Mueller, 1989) and the
Pavillion gas field (Figure 2). In reality, several hypotheses for the presence of methane in the
water supply wells arise from these associations:
 The structural high is an area that has naturally occurring methane in Wind River
formation water-bearing sandstone lenses; and/or
 Methane is entrained in fluids leaked historically from pits or other structures at gas
drilling and production locations; and/or
 Methane in the Wind River aquifer reflects enhanced migration associated with gas well
drilling and construction activities (including hydraulic fracturing).
None of these scenarios is adequately addressed in the Draft Report, however."

---------------------

Natural gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, with up to 20 %[1] of other hydrocarbons as well as impurities in varying amounts such as carbon dioxide.

And what is methane doing in the water, if fracking doesn't put it there? The hypothesis of your anal-retards who made this Greek-named report is methane naturally occurs, which is why somebody wants to do the fracking, which is what puts the methane, from the NG, into the water table, you fucking anal bitch of a Cabin boy!
 
What Chemicals Are Used | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry

As previously noted, chemicals perform many functions in a hydraulic fracturing job. Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. The following is a list of the chemicals used most often. This chart is sorted alphabetically by the Product Function to make it easier for you to compare to the fracturing records.

(shitloads of chemicals to follow, see website, add toluene and benzene)
 
Fracking also brings small earthquakes and flammable water.

Still think it's a good idea?

Small earthquake...sure....no different than a train passing by really. And no,a frac doesn't make flammable water. Less propaganda....more actual thinking please...


you are truly not smart. If fracking is all good, then you should drink that water every day. keep us posted on you're cancer is. Alright? bye bye now. :)

PS (when you voice you're opinons, people read them and could start thinking like you do. this is a problem, because the things you say are not true.) stop telling lies
 
Only a complete dumbshit would think moving from one source of sequestered carbon to another source of sequestered carbon means "How to reduce carbon emissions."

HEY. You need CO2-neutral biomass, to engage in cyclic carbon media.

Why don't you run for boss of the Idiocracy? Duh, we dun voted, for si-yunce:



idiocracy-review-1.jpg
 
If fracking is all good, then you should drink that water every day. keep us posted on you're cancer is. Alright? bye bye now. :)

I certainly never said all fracking is good. And the water used to do it is...water.....last I looked, water was listed as a carcinogen. Now, the flowback water is a different matter, and fortunately, there are Class II injection wells to handle that.

Speaker said:
PS (when you voice you're opinons, people read them and could start thinking like you do. this is a problem, because the things you say are not true.) stop telling lies

Your ignorance of reality does not transform any factual statement I have make into a lie. Ever.
 
If fracking is all good, then you should drink that water every day. keep us posted on you're cancer is. Alright? bye bye now. :)

I certainly never said all fracking is good. And the water used to do it is...water.....last I looked, water was listed as a carcinogen. Now, the flowback water is a different matter, and fortunately, there are Class II injection wells to handle that.

Speaker said:
PS (when you voice you're opinons, people read them and could start thinking like you do. this is a problem, because the things you say are not true.) stop telling lies

Your ignorance of reality does not transform any factual statement I have make into a lie. Ever.

Is ANY fracking good? NO. Fracking involves injection of chemicals and water, into fractured rock, to release natural gas. But fracking involves the injection, of a number of poisons, into the wells, which don't go as planned, and there are a lot of them.

One recurrent problem is the sleeves used to line the well fracture, letting chemical-laced water get forced, at high pressure, by the escaping gas, into any old nearby area, including into water tables, hence poisonous, flammable tap-water.

The problem of fractured sleeves isn't easy to solve, while the use of benzene and toluene and methanol and more is insane. Why would anyone want chromosome-breaking chemicals, in their water table?

If the water catches fire, hey! The procedure didn't work! It's just an excuse, to fail to catch up, with Henry Ford, who made hemp-ethanol and indestructible plastic, but also, switchgrass and algae can be resourced and processed, with ultrasound.

When you are in a hurry, to poison everybody, just so you can delay technology, which Henry Ford knew and used, all the way back, to the Model-fuckiing-T, you are deflecting, in a way, which suggests you are a dangerous, psychotic sociopath.

"Fracking," yeah, right. FUCKING UP BIG-TIME is what that shitload is.
 
I could have buried this in one of the many existing threads on Fracking, but it deserves it's own look.

The article touches on the effects of increased U.S. natural gas production in far-flung parts of the world including the Middle East, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

U.S. Shale Boom Reduces Russian Influence Over European Gas Market

The U.S. shale gas boom has not only virtually eliminated the need for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports for at least two decades, but significantly reduced Russia’s influence over the European natural gas market and "diminished the petro-power" of major gas producers in the Middle East and Venezuela.

And here's the kicker- Obama's proposed tax policies are directed at bringing the American oil and natural gas industries to it's knees:

Changes to U.S. tax policy for upstream oil and gas, including proposed changes to expensing rules, investment credits, and/or royalty rates, could also make shale exploration and production unprofitable at current prices.

Well duhhh!
Supply and demand actually works with natural gas since it is not easially exportable.
Yep a natural gas boom and a warm winter has dropped natgas prices dramatically.
So yes it may not be profitable at CURRENT prices.
 
Lawmakers urge Obama admin to OK natural gas exports - Yahoo! News

The U.S. natural gas revolution, spurred by wide development of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, directional drilling and other technologies, has brought with it a push to build export terminals to send the fuel to markets in Asia and Europe where prices for gas are far higher.

Reduce the trade deficit, create jobs, increase the GDP. Win/Win/Win. :thup:
 
AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low - Yahoo! News

PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Hmmm... NOT from increased windmills and solar plants etc, but natural gas!
Whodathunkit.
 
Pa. got lotsa gas...
:clap2:
Pennsylvania gas boom under way
Aug. 22 (UPI) -- Natural gas production from the Marcellus shale play in Pennsylvania is up more than 80 percent from 2011, the state government said.
A Platts review of information from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said natural gas production in the Marcellus shale play for the first six months of 2012 increased 82 percent compared with the same time last year.

Production reached 4.36 billion cubic feet per day for the first half of 2012, while operators reported 2.5 billion cubic feet per day during the same time last year. Chesapeake Energy accounted for roughly one-quarter of the unconventional natural gas production in the state during the first six months.

The U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration reports that Texas led the country in natural gas gains because of developments in the Barnett and Haynesville-Bossier shale formation. Louisiana was close behind with its Haynesville play while Pennsylvania saw gains from the Marcellus shale formation. U.S. proven natural gas reserves totaled 317.6 trillion cubic feet in 2010. Platts reported that not all companies delivered information to the DEP.

Source
 
Last edited:
I spent 3 hours in a meeting today discussing a 54 page bill that recently came out of Springfield. I should say it was originally a 120 page bill- but lenghty negotiations brought it within a few light years of reality. Still, it presents itself as an answer looking for a problem.

The mere potential of Illinois becoming fertile ground for liquids production via high-volume hydraulic fracturing has brought the enviro-whores out of the woodwork. Well oiled and well funded they coaxed fellow liberal legislators in Springfield to throw everything but the kitchen sink at industry.

It's a fucking nightmare. Mike Madigan is insane.
 

Forum List

Back
Top