Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Where is THAT Mos Def?????
Hed rather make metaphors about the demons of the street and poverty. Trying to hard to be complex lyrical.
BIG BUSINESS: WATER is the New OIL
- Thread starter Fredrick Thuglas
- Start date
Hed rather make metaphors about the demons of the street and poverty. Trying to hard to be complex lyrical.
Fredrick Thuglas
Banned
I was thinking about this yesterday after I made the thread...exactly what I was thinking.
So much shyt they do to fukk with the Black community. It's demonic. Watch, they're going to have filtered and properly treated water for all the Whites and the Blacks and other colored people are going to have to go fukk themselves.
newworldafro
DeeperThanRapBiggerThanHH
Page 1 of 3.... that title yall .... then when you read the contents.... just...no words... we know the risk................but "For the Love of Money" just overshadows scientific information................... 
Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater: Carry on Drilling Regardless - Forbes
Fracking Does Contaminate Groundwater: Carry on Drilling Regardless..
The EPA’s report on groundwater contamination by fracking (or frakking to taste) for natural gas says that the process does indeed contaminate ground water. So now we’ve got to decide should be the reaction to that: my contribution to the debate is that we should carry on drilling regardless.
ProPublica’s report on the EPA’s paper is here, the EPA’s paper itself is here and a very good indeed technical precis is here at Ars Technica.
Stripped right to its roots the report states that deep groundwater has been contaminated as a result of frakking. Both from the frakking chemicals themselves and also with methane that has, as a result of the frakking, seeped into the water.
Similarly, well water (taken from much shallower depths) has been contaminated, not directly (as far as anyone knows) as a result of frakking but as a result of the waste pits from previous oil and gas drilling activities in the area.
Finally the report notes that the shale being drilled is in a much shallower formation than exists in other areas and that there isn’t, again as there is in most/many other areas, an impermeable barrier between the shale beds and higher rock formations.
That’s a reasonable and non-biased summary there. Now for a little bit of bias: how you interpret these results.
I interpret then as saying that there are specifics about this particular shale, the shallowness and the lack of a barrier layer, which make this contamination happen. I agree that it’s possible to assume that the same contamination will happen everywhere: I don’t agree, but I do agree that it’s a possibly logical position to hold.
Now of course we’ve got to decide what to actually do.
As I’ve said above, my contribution to the debate is that we should carry on drilling: although perhaps not regardless. With a proper attention to the costs and benefits. What I would not say is that this provides a sufficient argument to ban frakking at all, even though that’s what Josh Fox (of Gasland fame) says should happen:
Beyond the US, Europe, South Africa, China and Australia are right now contemplating embarking on the “shale gas revolution”; they should take note of the EPA’s findings. As the story unfolds, the real answer bubbles inexorably to the surface: fracking is deeply flawed; it is inherently contaminating in its present form and must be halted immediately. The empty excuses of the gas industry and the pro-fracking politicians who defend them just don’t hold water.
For the following logic does not work: something bad happens when frakking is done therefore we must halt frakking. The reason this logic does not work is that whenever anything is done something bad happens: and there’s not much point in our all being around if we’re therefore to ban absolutely everything.
In the specific case of frakking, OK, so there’s groundwater contamination as a result of it (assume that it’s not something limited to Wyoming if you wish). There are also good things that happen as a result of frakking. People get cheap energy as the most obvious result. This stops people freezing in winter, boiling in summer, allows them to cook their food and, something that is generally not appreciated, natural gas is the major input into fertilizer production (along with air) and that’s what allows us to grow all the food that we then want to cook. No, you cannot then state that we should all be doing the organic farming thing and we won’t need the gas: there aren’t enough animals providing enough ordure to produce the organic fertiliser that would be needed.
So, if we don’t frakk then energy becomes more expensive: this will make life worse for many and will, in a statistical sense at least, kill some number of people. Which would be bad.
It’s also true that if we don’t frakk, if we limit the drilling for natural gas, then more coal will be used to provide us with those same energy requirements. That’s worse for the climate as well as being more expensive: so that would also be bad.
Fredrick Thuglas
Banned
posterchild336
Superstar
the nigerian has the colii turning into a water forum i just logged in and see 4 water threads on the first half of the first page...
Fredrick Thuglas
Banned
Fredrick Thuglas
Banned
Put us on?
a lot of banks and investment funds are buying up garbage companies....
This is because you make money off garbage all through the value chain,
for example when a company collects your garbage, it makes money off the recyclables such as plastics , paper, metals
It makes money off the municipal government because it is paid per ton how much garbage it collects and finally it makes money off energy companies because garbage is increasingly being used as a source of energy
resurrection
By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War
If I cared about everything you guys tell me to care about, there'd be no time/energy left to live life
I'll check it out tho
I'll check it out tho
