Leaking injection wells.
If you think your water is safe, and you don't need multiple water filters in your home-
then you should read this
article.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
17
#TarSands #GasFracking.
Started by Hayden, Oct 20 2011 01:59 PM
553 replies to this topic
#202
Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:31 AM
Maybe now that David Letterman is calling attention to fracking, more people will pay attention.
As good as Josh Fox was in doing the documentary, Gasland, big oil and gas have diminished his message
with their bombardment of commercials about "clean, affordable gas."
Sure, it's a bit better than coal. Burning it releases less emissions but at what cost?
Safe drinking water.
Dave said "We're screwed" and he's right.
Article here.
And of course, before we can view the video from his show, there's an ad from chevron.
Figures.
As good as Josh Fox was in doing the documentary, Gasland, big oil and gas have diminished his message
with their bombardment of commercials about "clean, affordable gas."
Sure, it's a bit better than coal. Burning it releases less emissions but at what cost?
Safe drinking water.
Dave said "We're screwed" and he's right.
Article here.
And of course, before we can view the video from his show, there's an ad from chevron.
Figures.
#203
Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:20 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 21 July 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:
Maybe now that David Letterman is calling attention to fracking, more people will pay attention.
As good as Josh Fox was in doing the documentary, Gasland, big oil and gas have diminished his message
with their bombardment of commercials about "clean, affordable gas."
Sure, it's a bit better than coal. Burning it releases less emissions but at what cost?
Safe drinking water.
Dave said "We're screwed" and he's right.
Article here.
And of course, before we can view the video from his show, there's an ad from chevron.
Figures.
As good as Josh Fox was in doing the documentary, Gasland, big oil and gas have diminished his message
with their bombardment of commercials about "clean, affordable gas."
Sure, it's a bit better than coal. Burning it releases less emissions but at what cost?
Safe drinking water.
Dave said "We're screwed" and he's right.
Article here.
And of course, before we can view the video from his show, there's an ad from chevron.
Figures.
Yeah, because late night talk show hosts are fountains of wisdom...
As for Chevron, that shouldn't be a surprise. As mentioned elseswhere, they're the top sponsor for the Cleantech Open this year.
#204
Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:32 AM
SpiroFlo, on 23 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:
Yeah, because late night talk show hosts are fountains of wisdom...
It's not that so much as it is their following.
When Letterman gave mccain such a hard time for dissing him to interview with someone else when he
was suppose to be on his show, Dave talked about it for days. It hurt mccain.
And look at the popularity of Stewart, Colbert and Bill Maher.
Remember that old ad? When they talk, people listen.
#205
Posted 23 July 2012 - 11:21 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 23 July 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:
It's not that so much as it is their following.
When Letterman gave mccain such a hard time for dissing him to interview with someone else when he
was suppose to be on his show, Dave talked about it for days. It hurt mccain.
And look at the popularity of Stewart, Colbert and Bill Maher.
Remember that old ad? When they talk, people listen.
Sadly enough, with the edutainment style of today's media, I suppose guys like Letterman and Leno even get more credibility.
#207
Posted 23 July 2012 - 06:58 PM
My apologies, too. I went off on a rant there.
I have a feeling Chevron is planning to expand fracking and tar sands refining to California. There has been a deluge of PR commercials on TV about fracking and tar sands lately, though they don't necessarily use those terms. The commercials are all about how Chevron and "I" agree on many things. We want to save the environment, create jobs, expand alternative energy, and live happily together. Then, it works in something about safer ways to get oil out of the earth with the utmost care which means cheap gas for all.
It's very much like Coca Cola's old "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." commercials. It is a clever approach to try to change public opinion. At the end there is a website titled "where we agree". I am assuming they are trying to win over California's environmental spirit.
I have a feeling Chevron is planning to expand fracking and tar sands refining to California. There has been a deluge of PR commercials on TV about fracking and tar sands lately, though they don't necessarily use those terms. The commercials are all about how Chevron and "I" agree on many things. We want to save the environment, create jobs, expand alternative energy, and live happily together. Then, it works in something about safer ways to get oil out of the earth with the utmost care which means cheap gas for all.
It's very much like Coca Cola's old "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." commercials. It is a clever approach to try to change public opinion. At the end there is a website titled "where we agree". I am assuming they are trying to win over California's environmental spirit.
#209
Posted 24 July 2012 - 10:17 AM
The oil industry has hired the most expensive PR and marketing firms in the world and they are making sure that their message drowns out every other message. That's how they plan to win.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it....”
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it....”
#211
Posted 01 August 2012 - 05:40 PM
Good reporting (as always) from Rachel Maddow on fracking. (You'll have to scroll down to about mid page.)
She reports that the University of Texas did a study and found that "no evidence of groundwater contamination
from hydraulic fracturing."
Problem being?
The (so-called) scientist works for a fracking company and he also sits on the board for a fracking company,
where he holds stock in the company.
Conflict of interest? Quad-zillion percent yes.
She also speaks to Mr. Muller, (scientist, physicist and professor) that was funded, in part, by the koch brothers
(the grand masters of denierism) to dispute climate change.
And damn (they're saying) he goes the opposite way, and says-"yes, it's real."
Worth the read.
http://www.msnbc.msn...w/#.UBnWSfaPXRo
(Oh and Google spell check needs to get with the program-fracking isn't recognized yet. Hello?)
She reports that the University of Texas did a study and found that "no evidence of groundwater contamination
from hydraulic fracturing."
Problem being?
The (so-called) scientist works for a fracking company and he also sits on the board for a fracking company,
where he holds stock in the company.
Conflict of interest? Quad-zillion percent yes.
She also speaks to Mr. Muller, (scientist, physicist and professor) that was funded, in part, by the koch brothers
(the grand masters of denierism) to dispute climate change.
And damn (they're saying) he goes the opposite way, and says-"yes, it's real."
Worth the read.
http://www.msnbc.msn...w/#.UBnWSfaPXRo
(Oh and Google spell check needs to get with the program-fracking isn't recognized yet. Hello?)
#212
Posted 08 August 2012 - 04:16 AM
Earthquake activity near drill sites is on the rise. Not so much from the drilling itself, but from the slurry of
chemically laden water that is pumped back into the ground.
Excellent piece from Rachel Maddow.
http://www.msnbc.msn...559394#48561951
http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=green
chemically laden water that is pumped back into the ground.
Excellent piece from Rachel Maddow.
http://www.msnbc.msn...559394#48561951
http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=green
#213
Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:35 AM
Yoder, Chevron is hitting my part of California hard with PR advertising on fracking. They want to expand fracking in California. So, the commercials show average people and Chevron employees. They counter public concerns with Chevron's "commitment" to only doing what is safe. As if I believe an oil company would not pull oil out of the ground if they didn't think there methods are safe.
I had a chance to hear a petroleum geologist on the news today. Fracking is still a relatively new concept to me. One of things he pointed out is fracking takes a tremendous amount of water and this could be a problem if you live in dry areas or a drought stricken area. One of the areas they want to frack is the Bakerfield and Fairfield, CA area where oil drilling already exists. This is one of the driest, hottest parts of the state. Getting water to the people for drinking can be difficult. Where will they come up with the extra water for fracking when Northern and Southern Californians are already battling over water from the Delta for drinking and agriculture?
Shortpoet, that is what the petroleum geologist said about the Oklahoma earthquakes. They are occurring when the water is pumped into the ground not from the drilling. I think it's the same with the Texas earthquakes.
From his point of view the earthquakes are an acceptable risk because these earthquakes happen a mile down. The Loma Prieta earthquake which caused so much damage was considered unusually deep at 11 miles down. As I understand it, earthquakes that are closer to the surface are the most dangerous.
I had a chance to hear a petroleum geologist on the news today. Fracking is still a relatively new concept to me. One of things he pointed out is fracking takes a tremendous amount of water and this could be a problem if you live in dry areas or a drought stricken area. One of the areas they want to frack is the Bakerfield and Fairfield, CA area where oil drilling already exists. This is one of the driest, hottest parts of the state. Getting water to the people for drinking can be difficult. Where will they come up with the extra water for fracking when Northern and Southern Californians are already battling over water from the Delta for drinking and agriculture?
Shortpoet, that is what the petroleum geologist said about the Oklahoma earthquakes. They are occurring when the water is pumped into the ground not from the drilling. I think it's the same with the Texas earthquakes.
From his point of view the earthquakes are an acceptable risk because these earthquakes happen a mile down. The Loma Prieta earthquake which caused so much damage was considered unusually deep at 11 miles down. As I understand it, earthquakes that are closer to the surface are the most dangerous.
#214
Posted 08 August 2012 - 01:43 PM
So the oil guys think that small earthquakes are acceptable. Figures.
And if they start fracking in California, a region that is riff with earthquakes; what happens then? A small one
could lead to a bigger one?
And even if that didn't happen, what about the underground infrastructure of pipes-water, gas, waste? Could they
shift and break?
Water line breaks are no biggie, some flooding.
But if a gas line breaks-an entire neighborhood could blow up.
Are the oil guys concerned about people dying or having their homes burn to the ground? Very doubtful.
And if they start fracking in California, a region that is riff with earthquakes; what happens then? A small one
could lead to a bigger one?
And even if that didn't happen, what about the underground infrastructure of pipes-water, gas, waste? Could they
shift and break?
Water line breaks are no biggie, some flooding.
But if a gas line breaks-an entire neighborhood could blow up.
Are the oil guys concerned about people dying or having their homes burn to the ground? Very doubtful.
#215
Posted 08 August 2012 - 11:02 PM
Shortpoet, it was a radio interview. They never said who this petroleum geologist worked for. However, he sounded like a replica of the Chevron commercials that have been running in my area, so I suspect he works for the industry.
You ask important questions. One thing we found out after the San Bruno explosion is that the gas and water pipes in California are in bad shape. So, let's say you have have these "minor" earthquakes on a daily basis. Naturally, there are many small earthquakes throughout the state every day. But, let's say those quakes are concentrated in one area over a prolonged period of time. Do the water pipes and gas pipes start to shift? Do cracks appear? We know now that PG&E has not be repairing their pipes for the last 20-25 years like they were supposed to be doing. What happens with all those aging pipes when they are jolted every day. Who is responsible for an accident, PG&E or the oil company?
We saw an entire neighborhood blow up in San Bruno. That was one of scariest things I've ever seen--and I don't even life near there.
I just feel like it's a sell job. I don't really trust them to have the public's best interest at heart. They'll brag about how many jobs they will create but what good does that do if you devastate a town?
You ask important questions. One thing we found out after the San Bruno explosion is that the gas and water pipes in California are in bad shape. So, let's say you have have these "minor" earthquakes on a daily basis. Naturally, there are many small earthquakes throughout the state every day. But, let's say those quakes are concentrated in one area over a prolonged period of time. Do the water pipes and gas pipes start to shift? Do cracks appear? We know now that PG&E has not be repairing their pipes for the last 20-25 years like they were supposed to be doing. What happens with all those aging pipes when they are jolted every day. Who is responsible for an accident, PG&E or the oil company?
We saw an entire neighborhood blow up in San Bruno. That was one of scariest things I've ever seen--and I don't even life near there.
I just feel like it's a sell job. I don't really trust them to have the public's best interest at heart. They'll brag about how many jobs they will create but what good does that do if you devastate a town?
#216
Posted 09 August 2012 - 03:25 AM
I know that's right.
They always talk about the "jobs" when it comes to dirty energy. Who cares? If the industry
is killing us and/or spoiling the environment in that area, or at the very least, making those workers sick; is it
worth it?
And you make a good point about our aging infrastructure. That's true in all states.
But even brand new cement, asphalt, piping - whatever, can crack under pressure.
They always talk about the "jobs" when it comes to dirty energy. Who cares? If the industry
is killing us and/or spoiling the environment in that area, or at the very least, making those workers sick; is it
worth it?
And you make a good point about our aging infrastructure. That's true in all states.
But even brand new cement, asphalt, piping - whatever, can crack under pressure.
#217
Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:08 AM
Shortages of guar beans from India may lead to chemical substitutes.
http://www.huffingto...m_hp_ref=energy
http://www.huffingto...m_hp_ref=energy
#218
Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:43 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 18 November 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:
Because too many in congress/senate are bought/sold by dirty oil/gas-coal.
"Current members of Congress took over $25 million in campaign contributions from the oil, coal and gas industries in 2009-2010.
This follows a decade-long trend of increasing contributions and influence. Since 1999, these Dirty Energy industries
have shelled out over $137 million in contributions to members of Congress. Figure 1(see link)
illustrates the increasing influence of the fossil fuel industry over the U.S. Congress.
Eleven elected officials have taken over $1 million in Dirty Energy Money
When it comes to Dirty Energy contributions in the period leading up to the 112th Congress,
House Speaker Boehner leads the way with nearly $400,000 in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten House recipients in this period are made up of seven Republicans and three Democrats.
Together they received nearly $2.5 million in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten Senators took over $4million in the lead up to the last election with former House Rep. Blunt (R-MO) leading the pack.
"Current members of Congress took over $25 million in campaign contributions from the oil, coal and gas industries in 2009-2010.
This follows a decade-long trend of increasing contributions and influence. Since 1999, these Dirty Energy industries
have shelled out over $137 million in contributions to members of Congress. Figure 1(see link)
illustrates the increasing influence of the fossil fuel industry over the U.S. Congress.
Eleven elected officials have taken over $1 million in Dirty Energy Money
When it comes to Dirty Energy contributions in the period leading up to the 112th Congress,
House Speaker Boehner leads the way with nearly $400,000 in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten House recipients in this period are made up of seven Republicans and three Democrats.
Together they received nearly $2.5 million in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten Senators took over $4million in the lead up to the last election with former House Rep. Blunt (R-MO) leading the pack.
All these campaign contributions are not going to save them if their house falls into a sinkhole, their drinking water catches fire or they get cancer from pollution. Do politicians just think environmentalists are making these things up, or do they think that being rich makes them immune from climate change and pollution? Or are they just actively evil? They must have internet access or watch the news. What do they think is going to happen if these dirty, dangerous energy sources keep being used?
#219
Posted 15 August 2012 - 01:46 PM
ACSAPA, on 14 August 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:
All these campaign contributions are not going to save them if their house falls into a sinkhole, their drinking water catches fire or they get cancer from pollution. Do politicians just think environmentalists are making these things up, or do they think that being rich makes them immune from climate change and pollution? Or are they just actively evil? They must have internet access or watch the news. What do they think is going to happen if these dirty, dangerous energy sources keep being used?
Even if it kills the workers.
#220
Posted 15 August 2012 - 05:49 PM
It really comes down to money. The people who run these companies get their people on regulatory committees so that the regulations can be circumvented. They do cost analysis and figure a couple injured or dead workers doesn't matter to the billions of dollars that can be made.
I don't really think that they think beyond the money that they can make. They make more than enough for themselves that if the business gets shut down or the site where the work is done is deemed toxic, they move on. At that point, they don't care about the workers or the jobs because they themselves are well taken care of. If it all ends in a bad situation, their bank accounts are more than padded enough to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
It reminds me of the owners of Lehman Brothers. When Lehman went under, all those people lost their jobs. But, the CEOs were just fine. In fact four to six month later, a few of them had started a new company that worked in a different part of the mortgage business. To them, the loss of a business means nothing.
I don't really think that they think beyond the money that they can make. They make more than enough for themselves that if the business gets shut down or the site where the work is done is deemed toxic, they move on. At that point, they don't care about the workers or the jobs because they themselves are well taken care of. If it all ends in a bad situation, their bank accounts are more than padded enough to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.
It reminds me of the owners of Lehman Brothers. When Lehman went under, all those people lost their jobs. But, the CEOs were just fine. In fact four to six month later, a few of them had started a new company that worked in a different part of the mortgage business. To them, the loss of a business means nothing.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
