Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

#TarSands #GasFracking.


 
553 replies to this topic

#1 Hayden

Hayden

    Admin

  • Global Moderator
  • 1,489 posts 72 rep

Posted 20 October 2011 - 01:59 PM

The US government unveiled plans Thursday to set national standards for wastewater discharges from natural gas drilling amid growing concern over water pollution from a technique known as "fracking."

Discuss your thoughts...

#2 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 21 October 2011 - 04:02 PM

It is good to hear that water pollution standards will be put in place, but  "fracking", has been going on for a long time. The people in the Pennsyslvania and New York areas, some of the places, where this is being done, have had their wells polluted and water coming out of their faucets on fire, from the chemicals mixing with their ground water for a long time. What, if anything will be done to compensate those whose water has already been polluted, as a result of this procedure? Farm animals are also affected. Also, why is it taking them so long to get this done?

#3 Hayden

Hayden

    Admin

  • Global Moderator
  • 1,489 posts 72 rep

Posted 05 November 2011 - 07:50 AM

Edmond Seifried's cure for the ailing economy lies one mile below the Earth's surface. Abundant supplies of natural gas, the economist said, could allow the U.S. to achieve energy independence.

View the full article


Mod note: Merged tar sands/gas fracking threads into one.

#4 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 05 November 2011 - 01:40 PM

Fracking has created a lot of problems, for those people who live in the areas where this  goes on. Their drinking water in their wells, has been polluted, the water that comes out of their spigots has caught on fire. If those problems can be resolved, then it sounds like a solution to the problem of job growth and that is a good thing.

#5 Hayden

Hayden

    Admin

  • Global Moderator
  • 1,489 posts 72 rep

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:14 AM

( Northwestern University ) A Northwestern University research team has developed a computational method that can save scientists and engineers valuable time in the discovery process. The new algorithm automatically generates and tests hypothetical metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), zeroing in on the most promising structures. These MOFs then can be synthesized and tested in the lab. The ...

View the full article

#6 Lee11

Lee11

    Curious

  • Shifter
  • 15 posts 3 rep

Posted 06 November 2011 - 01:32 PM

Yes, I am following this topic quite closely. There seem to be two VERY different views on fracking (hydraulic fracturing). It has come under the spotlight quite a bit in my city. Some see it as the answer to energy needs and others point to it being potentially poisonous because of possible pollution of the underground water.

Seems that more than meets the eye is going on underground - in more ways than one.

#7 Ecodisaster

Ecodisaster

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 106 posts 9 rep

Posted 06 November 2011 - 11:39 PM

This so called natural gas is methane gas (as we all know). They just adorn it with the beautiful "natural" prefix. Ask the Northern Cheyenne nation in Montana and they will tell you how bad this is. It pollutes the water and kills everything on its way. This is the opposite to green, for as long as they keep using the same methods. Maybe there are no other methods.

I don't think this is the solution to energy independence. It will only destroy ecosystems and human communities.

#8 yoder

yoder

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:25 AM

From Wired Science, some very eye-opening pictures of the devastation done so far by the tar sands extraction.  One of the most stirring things from the article: Water used in refinement -- a mix so toxic that waterfowl die after landing in it -- ends up in tailings ponds, which often leak.

Posted Image
Also from the article: Though oil companies and government officials say mined lands will be restored, that's easier said than done -- if anyone is even trying. Drained wetlands don't refill easily, and forest communities that evolved for thousands of years are very different than tree plantations.

Out of the 260 square miles mined so far, less than one square mile has been certified as reclaimed,

#9 gina

gina

    Regular

  • Moderator
  • 62 posts 2 rep

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:28 AM

Thanks for this. Going to add this image to the "Negative images" album in our gallery.

#10 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 07 November 2011 - 01:39 PM

Do solar farms and windmills cause this kind of devastation?
Nope.
Only oil. :hysteric:

#11 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 07 November 2011 - 02:10 PM

Has anyone here seen it?
Cancer clusters popping up all across America. Is it related to fracking?
Imo, yes.
http://forums.treehu...php?f=1&t=20760

Halliburton could easily be called an "enemy of the state."
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

#12 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 08 November 2011 - 09:49 AM

...From the sounds in the background, with the U. S. State Department now getting involved, this may not be a given to have this pipeline running through to Texas. According to one person, hoping that it does not happen, it could result in a very bad situation.

#13 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 10 November 2011 - 03:29 AM

"Sunday's stunning "hands around the White House" demonstration by 12,000 citizens in opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline was the culmination of what's been a brutal three months for the tar sands cartel -- the Koch brothers, Shell, Valero, and TransCanada -- which thought it could slip the pipeline through without serious scrutiny or opposition in the wake of the economic crisis.

First, the Keystone proposal became the focus of the most significant climate civil disobedience in the U.S. to date, with over 1,000 demonstrators going to jail to alert the president to the risk. Then it became clear that a scandalously shoddy see-no-hear-no-speak-no-evil environmental impact statement from the State Department had only served to focus public and political attention on the blatant insider dealing and conflicts of interest that have plagued the handling of the pipeline at Foggy Bottom.

TransCanada's response to this unwelcome scrutiny has been a combination of whining and bullying. Pipeline backers offered the Nebraska state government a $100 million bribe if it would agree to rubberstamp the pipeline route.
TransCanada, Koch, Shell, and Valero had no reason to assume that approval of Keystone XL would be a slam dunk.

They actually routed the pipeline through the most sensitive regions of one of our biggest and most important aquifers, the Ogallala, because that was the shortest, cheapest route for them -- although also the most environmentally risky."
http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000008

#14 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 10 November 2011 - 01:27 PM

"Here are just a few problems with the Keystone XL:


This pipeline will carry oil cooked from tar sands strip-mined from virgin forest that would turn a wildlife-rich habitat into a barren moonscape.


Producing oil from tar sands is a double disaster for global warming. First it destroys the ability of forests to safely store excess carbon pollution out of the atmosphere. Then it burns extra energy - natural gas - to melt the oil out of the tar. All of this means that oil from tar sands emits twice as much carbon pollution as conventional oil.


The pipeline will cross 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Platte, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. It crosses aquifers on which millions of Americans rely for drinking water and agricultural irrigation. The likelihood of pipeline leaks and spills is near-certain."


http://wilderness.org/


#15 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:43 AM

"As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained that drilling fouled their water has
turned up alarming levels of underground pollution.
A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there.
The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling -- and hydraulic fracturing in particular -- has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.
Butoxyethanol (2-BE) -- benzene at 50 times the level -phenols -- another dangerous human carcinogen -- acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel. saturated with methane gas."
http://www.msnbc.msn...ws-environment/

And don't forget, all of the gop candidates that are running, want to eliminate the EPA.

#16 SpiroFlo

SpiroFlo

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 181 posts 12 rep

Posted 11 November 2011 - 09:39 AM

I saw asga.us give a rebuttal to this (not really surprising given it's their industry).

#17 SpiroFlo

SpiroFlo

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 181 posts 12 rep

Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:22 AM

Given that I work on the green side of oil & gas (yeah, we do exist  -- we figure we might as well get the most energy out of what's there and make it safer while we're at it), I'd say natural gas is key. Problem is, a lot of oil and gas companies don't value it. Where the price of oil has gone up, gas has remained stagnant. Also, there are several states (like North Dakota) where it's legal to flare off the gas for two years. That's right -- setting it on fire, because even though it's profitable (and can fuel many homes), with the pipeline infrastructure to take the gas to market, it isn't profitable enough to them.

One of the ways the company I work for, Vortex Tools, tries to help is by knocking out 10 times more natural gas liquids (that can be sold for three times the value of the natural gas). Everyone likes being green when it puts green in their wallet...

#18 Ecodisaster

Ecodisaster

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 106 posts 9 rep

Posted 11 November 2011 - 03:14 PM

View Postyoder, on 07 November 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

From Wired Science, some very eye-opening pictures of the devastation done so far by the tar sands extraction.  One of the most stirring things from the article: Water used in refinement -- a mix so toxic that waterfowl die after landing in it -- ends up in tailings ponds, which often leak.

Posted Image
Also from the article: Though oil companies and government officials say mined lands will be restored, that's easier said than done -- if anyone is even trying. Drained wetlands don't refill easily, and forest communities that evolved for thousands of years are very different than tree plantations.

Out of the 260 square miles mined so far, less than one square mile has been certified as reclaimed,

Yep, that's what happened to the Cheyenne nation. They have been fighting that through a legal battle for decades. Deformed kids, illnesses, etc. It is sad. It all goes into the water. A similar problem is happening with the water at the Penobscot nation in Maine, only with a paper factory instead, not with methane gas. They can't fish or swim. Fish is their main food source, plus the medicinal plants they use from it. Now it is all gone. I am not against these energy sources, I just think they are not doing it the right way.

#19 SpiroFlo

SpiroFlo

    Regular

  • Pro Shifter
  • 181 posts 12 rep

Posted 11 November 2011 - 04:19 PM

There's actually a big match up (EPA v Chesapeake) going on right now that I think will change -- at least on some level -- how fracking is done.

#20 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 62 rep

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:12 AM

The protests against the pipeline worked well enough, that the administration, has suspended the operation until after the election. There is also an ongoing investigation with the State Department, regarding the clearance for the project. Maybe the decision will be permanent.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users