Natural Gas Frackers Continue to LIE

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
Exaggerating the Employment Impacts of Shale Drilling: How and Why | WV Center on Budget and Policy

This is not news, it's the way to do business: lie.

So should we trust natural gas companies who deny fracking is a cause of contaminated water, claiming it's natural or biogenic. A good reason to be skeptical is not hard to understand: gas companies make more money when you believe they are not causing harm. Why should we trust them when they are not interested much in our well-being unlike the bottom line which dictates to cut costs when possible.

The manifestation of silencing the harms caused by fracking are hundreds of non-disclosure agreements that pay upwards of a million dollars in some cases (they make several million a day so don't be alarmed) for the families to never mention their incident, often even to neighbors. A good reason to be skeptical indeed.

Fracking Across the United States | Earthjustice notes known cases of families who claim their water was mysteriously polluted making them ill. Hmm, I wonder...oh right, it must be a natural process known as hydraulic fracturing. There simply is no other explanation when there is an instance of polluted water there is a rig not far from there: extreme correlation borderline causality I'd say.
 
Last edited:

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
44,273
Reaction score
7,384
Points
1,830
The next thing you know doctors will be committing Medicare fraud.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
Exaggerating the Employment Impacts of Shale Drilling: How and Why | WV Center on Budget and Policy

This is not news, it's the way to do business: lie.

So should we trust natural gas companies who deny fracking is a cause of contaminated water, claiming it's natural or biogenic. A good reason to be skeptical is not hard to understand: gas companies make more money when you believe they are not causing harm. Why should we trust them when they are not interested much in our well-being unlike the bottom line which dictates to cut costs when possible.

The manifestation of silencing the harms caused by fracking are hundreds of non-disclosure agreements that pay upwards of a million dollars in some cases (they make several million a day so don't be alarmed) for the families to never mention their incident, often even to neighbors. A good reason to be skeptical indeed.

Fracking Across the United States | Earthjustice notes known cases of families who claim their water was mysteriously polluted making them ill. Hmm, I wonder...oh right, it must be a natural process known as hydraulic fracturing. There simply is no other explanation when there is an instance of polluted water there is a rig not far from there: extreme correlation borderline causality I'd say.
BULL SHIT!!!


Bet you have never seen a gas well or talked to a land owner that has one on their property.
 

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,217
Reaction score
7,367
Points
280
Location
On a hill
Fossil fuels are a contaminant. It isn't good.
SO...let's all shut our breakers off...go back to life as it was in the 1700's...go back to having outhouses...etc. etc.
Or we could get serious about "green" energy instead of wasting $100's millions on cronyism and gifting taxpayer dollars to large campaign donators and relatives of friends of the White House.
Because that is all this Administration has done...drone on and on about green energy and provide lip service to invest in it - but all they have REALLY done is paid back campaign donators and friends.
Who is the bad guy here?
 
Last edited:

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
Unless we embrace the power of the atom,we need resources like NG ,and will for a long time. We have hundreds of millions to feed,that food is processed by in large with NG,back up generation is by in large NG. There isn't enough mom and pop farms to even come close to supplying the food amounts needed.
 
OP
gnarlylove

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
Why is solar not an option? Because it doesn't fit into your narrow perspective of "proper energy sources" that must burn hydrocarbons? Is that what you mean to say, as long as there is huge profit to be made on extracting resources and wreaking havoc on nearby wildlife then it meets your criteria (if you deny this fact I can't help it you don't live near a site that smells odd, weird leaks, obvious pollutants being visibly shot into the air just like with coal).
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
Why is solar not an option? Because it doesn't fit into your narrow perspective of "proper energy sources" that must burn hydrocarbons? Is that what you mean to say, as long as there is huge profit to be made on extracting resources and wreaking havoc on nearby wildlife then it meets your criteria (if you deny this fact I can't help it you don't live near a site that smells odd, weird leaks, obvious pollutants being visibly shot into the air just like with coal).
Its not my criteria,bucko its what the nation needs. As a matter of fact I do live near many NG wells and land owners and businesses that have a very different story then some knee jerk histarical,bull shit artist has to say.

Once again the demand for energy vastly outpaces what wind and solar can provide for major industries,trains will not run on wind or solar,steel mills will not run on wind or solar,food processing will not run on wind or solar,reality is reality.
 
OP
gnarlylove

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
I am not saying switch tomorrow from gas to solar or wind only. For heavens sake can we not take the extremes and posit them against each other just for once?

I'm saying we need to develop solar to be more efficient. And start using it more heavily subsidized instead of subsidizing the already unbelievably wealthy oil companies making literal millions a day--profit!

And I'm not sure what you mean steel mills and things won't run on electricity. That makes no sense because they do in fact and that's what coal, oil, ng, solar, wind,hydro, geotheraml, algae even can produce and in fact does. Why because electricty is the currency and there are various methods of converting sunlight or coal into electricty. The difference is coal oil and ng is obviously being defended no matter what and the solar, hydo, wind, geo thermal has no right to be considered. AND FOR GOD SAKES DON'T TAKE THE FACT I USED THE WORD SOLAR TO BE THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY I PROPOSE. OF COURSE WE MUST USE OIL GAS ETC TO MAINTAIN OUR LIVES. But please stop paying them billions in subsidies and transfer it to the obvious future: alternative energy. Eventually there will be no oil for us to burn (its finite and that's a fact) and so stop defending this obviously limited capacity resources that when spilled causes harm to economies and when burned reduces the quality of the atmosphere.
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
I am not saying switch tomorrow from gas to solar or wind only. For heavens sake can we not take the extremes and posit them against each other just for once?

I'm saying we need to develop solar to be more efficient. And start using it more heavily subsidized instead of subsidizing the already unbelievably wealthy oil companies making literal millions a day--profit!

And I'm not sure what you mean steel mills and things won't run on electricity. That makes no sense because they do in fact and that's what coal, oil, ng, solar, wind,hydro, geotheraml, algae even can produce and in fact does. Why because electricty is the currency and there are various methods of converting sunlight or coal into electricty. The difference is coal oil and ng is obviously being defended no matter what and the solar, hydo, wind, geo thermal has no right to be considered. AND FOR GOD SAKES DON'T TAKE THE FACT I USED THE WORD SOLAR TO BE THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY I PROPOSE. OF COURSE WE MUST USE OIL GAS ETC TO MAINTAIN OUR LIVES. But please stop paying them billions in subsidies and transfer it to the obvious future: alternative energy. Eventually there will be no oil for us to burn (its finite and that's a fact) and so stop defending this obviously limited capacity resources that when spilled causes harm to economies and when burned reduces the quality of the atmosphere.
economies of scale,the oil companies spend million every day also. Exon/mobil's profit margin was 8 % two years ago,stays close to that number year in and year out.

You start this thread attacking NG and the fracking process then back peddle like hell,yes there is a place for solar and wind,an ever growing place. You assume way to much.
 
OP
gnarlylove

gnarlylove

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
59
Points
48
Location
Along the Ohio River
that's because i was merely noting the fact the way of business for ng is to fill people like you up with misinformation so you can accept that they are not harming the environment and they are not creating jobs like they want you to believe.

I'm glad you can do word gymnastics and call it back peddling to make A SEPARATE point about developing actually useful technologies that have room to grow. I guess alternative energies reducing strain on the planet through extraction of hydrocarbons is not worthwhile. So let's be done with it: you will never believe in the usefulness of alternative sources of energy. Is this true? Under what conditions would you ever recognize alternative energy as useful, a worthwhile endeavor?
 

chikenwing

Guest
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
7,387
Reaction score
834
Points
190
that's because i was merely noting the fact the way of business for ng is to fill people like you up with misinformation so you can accept that they are not harming the environment and they are not creating jobs like they want you to believe.

I'm glad you can do word gymnastics and call it back peddling to make A SEPARATE point about developing actually useful technologies that have room to grow. I guess alternative energies reducing strain on the planet through extraction of hydrocarbons is not worthwhile. So let's be done with it: you will never believe in the usefulness of alternative sources of energy. Is this true? Under what conditions would you ever recognize alternative energy as useful, a worthwhile endeavor?
oNce again you amuse way to much,and you are the one filled with misinformation,NG has provided many land owner with much need money,along with trucking firms,gravel suppliers,the little doughnut shop down the road. You run your mouth like you know something but all you have is the usual talking points,nothing attached to reality.

To respond your question yet again,yes alternative energies have many places,so does NG,which you attacked right out of the blocks,you fool no one.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
4,127
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Fossil fuels are a contaminant. It isn't good.
SO...let's all shut our breakers off...go back to life as it was in the 1700's...go back to having outhouses...etc. etc.
Or we could get serious about "green" energy instead of wasting $100's millions on cronyism and gifting taxpayer dollars to large campaign donators and relatives of friends of the White House.
Because that is all this Administration has done...drone on and on about green energy and provide lip service to invest in it - but all they have REALLY done is paid back campaign donators and friends.
Who is the bad guy here?

or not






Have another beer!!:lol:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,316
Reaction score
13,909
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Why is solar not an option? Because it doesn't fit into your narrow perspective of "proper energy sources" that must burn hydrocarbons? Is that what you mean to say, as long as there is huge profit to be made on extracting resources and wreaking havoc on nearby wildlife then it meets your criteria (if you deny this fact I can't help it you don't live near a site that smells odd, weird leaks, obvious pollutants being visibly shot into the air just like with coal).
Why is solar not an option?

1) AT BEST.... Used where it should be used -- it only supplies power 6hrs per day. Its a PEAKER tech., not an alternative.

2) It has a limited range of geographical application. Becomes even less economical when applied in areas of high precipt, snow, or low sun angles.

3) It needs a fulltime RELIABLE generator to back it up. Youre paying for 2 generators.

That should negate all your hysterically wrong political accusations in the rest of your post eh? So ........... back to your OP........

In another thread you listed GEOTHERMAL as one of your favorite """green alternatives. How do you square that with thread about fracking??? ? Since we learned a lot about how to frack from earlier geothermal mining. ARE YOU NOT AWARE THAT THEY ARE BOTH DIRTY MINING OPERATIONS?

Geothermal is by FAR the less safe operation.. Really waiting for your justifications..
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top