There are 2 similar terms pronounced the same way, and the first version is from the newer Battlestar Galactica series, where in their customs, the word "frak"is completely interchangeable with our "F" word. It is used in exactly the same ways. So, based on this definition of Frak, I'm sure everyone here is on board, and we can all agree that Frak-ing is a good thing!
But then there's the less trivial "Frack" word, called hydraulic fracturing, which is a method of mining/extracting fossil fuels like natural gas. They essentially inject a high pressure fluid to fracture rock formations in order to access fuels within.
But some are now saying that in some places, fracking is causing some polluted water. But apparently fracking is the current, best method for extracting natural gas, which isnt the best 'green' solution for the environment as a fuel, but its much better than coal, and we are no where near the point that we can just switch over to renewable energy in most areas.
So its a question of, are you willing to tolerate 'some' pollution in order to prevent much more pollution?
Please answer either: "Frak yes"! I am in favor of fracking. or "Frak No"! I am against fracking.
I don't like the idea of "fracking" and am greatly concerned for it's potential to pollute our ground water.
I also like it when my house is warm, my shower is hot, and my car, with it's 3.5L V6 launches like a bat out of hell when I step on it....and it would be nice if premium gas were under $3 per gallon too.
If we don't want fracking, then we should spend more money toward environmental action groups than we spend on creature comforts, energy and consumer items.
Sure, some of us may donate a few thousand dollars per year to these types of groups, but that pales in comparison with the money we spend on energy, etc.
SW Mtn backpacker Born to hike, forced to work ...
Group: Members
Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul. 2006
Posted on: Oct. 06 2012, 1:07 pm
... as long as its someone else's groundwater...The minute a royalty is taken, the property owner is on their own, though the issue of surface spills into public and private lands should be addressed (probably thru a bond payable to those whose property was damaged and were not getting any sort of royalty).
Think it's been in the news and verified here in the forums by those who are in the biz that flaming faucets are rarer than accidental or willfully negligent surface spills.
-------------- Usually Southwest and then some.
In wildness is the preservation of the world. - Henry Thoreau
You're going to have a very difficult time convincing me that pumping toxic chemicals into the ground is not going to have a very negative effect on the environment. Just seems like common sense to me. But to hear the oil companies around here, you'd think they are actually improving the environment.
-------------- "Too often I have met men who speak only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen." - Louis L'Amour
I have spent a life time on both sides on fracking; first as a driller working oil and gas exploration, later in in-situ mining of uranium, now as an organizer in wildlands and enviromental issues with people who have been affected directly as the result of hydraulic fracturing done badly.
My experiance is in Central Rockies basins and ranges.
What is going on in mid-altantic states, PA and NY, is a dollar rush. The enviromental laws and enforcement are outdated and the companies are flushing enough dollars to keep it that way. The gas shale work is hurry-up, shallow,and often poorly engineered. The areas are in some of poorest sections in the country in real job growth for all most a generation; and jobs can blind the people on costs.
In the west and southwest, the wells are often deeper, more complex, and often in previously developed fields. There is a simple hammer down approach on those who can claim some of the most dire results. They are being shouted out, dismissed or ignorned by their state governments, and when those who go after federal help or relief, they are casitgated as greedy and radical malcontents.
I would love to kick up a storm of links and stories, but this isn't place and don't really have the time. I am a member of the Powder River Basin Resource Council and have given them volunteer time over the last few years. You want the other side, visit API or tune into CCN or even NPR to catch their outburst.
-------------- "Speak out, though your voice may shake"
I put it here because it seemed like more of an environmental issue, and I wasnt getting into the political aspects of it, just whether you think its really damaging to the environment, or if its being exaggerated.
I personally dont live near any areas that are3 being fracked, and my water sucks anyway! I have heard people from both sides, including environmentalists from one side, but who have had a history of exaggerating some issues like lawm chemicals in the late 80's/early 90's, and from the other side I have heard from the industry insiders, who's opinions I take with a grain of salt unless they prove their points, but also from people who arent industry insiders who claim to be unbiased and objective who say that its not as big a deal as its being made out to be, but who knows how objective they are. so I dont currently have enough objective information to choose, and I havent personally seen the results. Fracking for natural gasses could turn out to be worse overall vs. continuing to mine and burn coal, but I really dont know, so I asked for people's opinions here, since they, like me, enjoy the outdoors.
It certainly can be said that burning natural gas is less harmful than coal, and coal has certainly done its fair share of environmental damage aside from just greenhouse emissions.
Ideally we could switch over to wind/solar power right now, and ideally we could run our cars on hydrogen extracted from water in a tank in our trunks using a gallium/aluminum alloy to break the bonds of H and O so that we dont need to carry big tanks of compressed H around, just waiting to explode when someone rear ends us!
As an eco-warrior that frequents the Political Arena, I am glad to see this issue raised in the Trailhead Register. Everyone needs a reality check about what is going on, even if they would prefer to avoid political clashes.
I'm having an extended visit to the part of the country that is being strip mined for the fraking sands that will be pumped with a witches brew of secret toxins into the wells of fossil fuel rich land where I live. I have worked in the oil fields of the Illinois Basin, and I have a grasp on the engineering and geology involved. I also have a handle on the carbon cycle and how humans are impacting climate. There is a big difference between what we are capable of doing and what we accomplish. We can produce the energy cleanly, but the producers goal is cheaply. That is why so much money is being spent by the oil companies to convince people that there is no risk. THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED!
-------------- "Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
The answer is not a simple "frak yes" or "frak no." That's why the topic, as expressed in the opening post, made little sense from the beginning. Whether I entirely agree or not with the presentation below, there are plenty of questions to answer:
It's too bad that the people that really need to learn about this won't because they don't want to experience any conflict.
I live in the Midwest where ozone is already an extreme problem. The electric consumers in the Northeast can suck fumes along with the pro-coal, pro-fraking proponents of Wyoming. The sooner the fossil fuels are gone, the better, because I don't believe humans can be trusted to do what is best for themselves.
-------------- "Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
