I'm impressed. Yourignorance is quite multi-dimensional in scope; not just limited to one or two areas of incompetence.
I am still unimpressed by your rank amateur trolling. Ramp up your game or find a less educated audience. If you had anything factual to contribute to a discussion, you would not need to start out by name calling and insult. Since you consistently do, you consistently don't. Perhaps an education would help you out in this respect. Please consider going back and finishing high school, for your own good as well as ours. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...and you have nothing at all beyond your own personal opinion. However, since you seem to believe in the innocence of the petrochemical industry as well as the tooth fairy, perhaps you would like to berate the current law suit against fracking: http://www.ashcraftandgerel.com/pra...gen-lawsuit/?gclid=CLXT14CJwKgCFcO8KgodZyDmwA Excerpt, as I recall you do not read very well or very far: Mebbe you should ring these lawyers up and give them some of your 'facts'. I am sure they, and the clients in the class action law suit, would love to hear from you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then there is that pesky uranium, though I am sure this does not concern you either: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025172926.htm Again, in deference to your reading difficulties: Then there is the matter of that silly US Congress and EPA that seem to share my concerns: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110411103724.htm Again, as I know you won't be reading that:
You know what else the US floats on? Iron!! There is a shitload of iron in the Earth core. Of course it is a little deep down and a little too hot, but boy, would that make good steel!!! I am having a wet dream... Before all the economic consideration, there is simply not enough WATER in the West to get the oilshale in big quantities. End of story... But for wet dreamers there is an energy consideration too. If it takes 100 barrels of oil (energywise) to extract 101 barrels, the deal suddenly doesn't seem to be so good, even if it is still economical...
Unfortunately you have made this an insurmountable challenge. The name calling and insult are reserved for those individuals and situations that merit it. You just seem to come at the top of the list with an awesome persistence. 1. The lawsuit has not been won, (or lost). 2. You have employed the logical fallacy represented by this example. Hitler was an evil monster. Hitler was a man. Therefore all men are evil monsters. That was why I noted your deep ignorance, since only an ignorant person would assume that all formation fracturing was always bad. The link your provided also has some inaccurate statements. for example they say "Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking” or hydrofracking, is a drilling process ......". Well, no it isn't. It is a completion process. The reference to the "large amount of water and toxic chemicals" omits to mention that there are, indeed, large amounts of water, but the chemicals constitute less than .5% of the total volume and those chemicals are either inert (e.g. hydroxyethyl cellulose) or everyday compounds (e.g. salt). http://www.energyindepth.org/frac-fluid.pdf Finally, when did you sell your car, refuse to use public transport, purchase no packaged goods from the supermarket, wear only natural textiles and write with a quill pen? Your deep concern over the effects of fracking must surely have led yu to abandon all and every product of the practice.
From Science: ================= Study: High-Tech Gas Drilling Is Fouling Drinking Water by Richard A. Kerr on 9 May 2011, 3:02 PM Drilling for natural gas locked deep in a shale formation has seriously contaminated shallow groundwater supplies beneath far northeastern Pennsylvania with flammable methane. That’s the conclusion of a new study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The analysis gives few clues, however, to how pervasive such contamination might be across the wide areas of the Northeast United States, Texas, and other states where drilling for shale gas has taken off in recent years. Problems with shale gas drilling have already gotten attention in less scientifically rigorous arenas. The documentary film Gasland, nominated for an Oscar this year, dramatized the issue by showing a homeowner set fire to well water gushing from a faucet. The implication was that nearby drilling into shale 1000 meters or more deep had somehow unleashed natural gas—mostly methane—that ended up in groundwater less than 100 meters deep. The obvious culprit, in the film at least, was “fracking.” That’s the essential process of pressurizing a wellbore until the shale shatters in innumerable fractures, releasing the tightly bound gas. So shale gas and fracking were getting plenty of public attention, but environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, found it “surprising how little peer-reviewed data there is” on well water contamination near shale gas drilling. So he and three Duke colleagues, including geologist Stephen Osborn, sampled well water across 175 kilometers of far northeast Pennsylvania centered on the town of Dimock, made infamous by Gasland. A few samples were also taken in an area 75 kilometers from Pennsylvania in adjacent New York. Analyses of 60 wells paint a picture of contamination near active gas wells. Almost all water wells more than a kilometer from an active gas well had only a few parts per million methane in their water. But most wells 1 kilometer or less from a gas well produced water with 19 to 64 parts per million methane. That’s at and above the “action level” of federal safety guidelines for methane, which can displace air’s oxygen to cause asphyxiation. The higher levels are also in the flammable range. “I watched one homeowner light his water on fire,” Jackson says. Crucially, additional chemical and isotopic analyses in effect “fingerprinted” the well water methane. Those results, the authors say, suggest that the gas from high-methane, close-in water wells was produced in the deep shale. The low-level, background methane from more distant water wells would have come from methane-generating bacteria living in shallow rock. “There’s a strong indication something’s going on,” says geologist Adam Schoonmaker of Utica College in New York. “I would be concerned.” He would also consider more sampling before and after shale gas drilling over a broader area, as the paper’s authors recommend in a white paper released today. One concern is that shale gas formations vary greatly one to the next. They extend continuously from upstate New York to Alabama and in patches across Texas and up the Rocky Mountain states to Montana. Each shale formation will have its own distinct geologic setting that could be crucial to the release of gas during drilling and fracking. In response to the many unknowns, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on 5 May the formation of a blue-ribbon panel to recommend ways to improve the safety and environmental performance of shale gas fracking. Any immediate recommendations are due in 90 days. ==================
Here is the link to the article, which is available in full at no charge. Note again: no conatamination by fracturing fluids.
