Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[ZiprHead]

And SCOTUS cannot be wrong?

Yes, they can be wrong, and you can be wrong too.

 

[Derec]

And SCOTUS cannot be wrong?

Yes, they can be wrong, and you can be wrong too.

Of course. I don't think I am on this. Indian policy has been a disaster. Time to change it.

 

[Derec]

Contamination of wells and aquifers with the chemicals used in fracking (including formaldehyde, mercury, uranium, and hydrochloric acid), half of which are never reclaimed, and much of that which is reclaimed being improperly stored, or even illegally dumped, leading to ground water contamination (see Pennsylvania and California).

Do you have any links?
I very much doubt mercury or uranium are used for fracking. What would be the use? What would the purpose be? Hydrochloric acid is useful to help break apart rock, but it is stomach acid, essentially. It is also used to lower pH in swimming pools (pool industry likes the older name "muriatic acid" for some reason) so it is quite safe. And as it reacts it gets used up so it's hardly surprising not all of it can be reclaimed.
This site has a list of chemicals used in fracking. i do not see formaldehyde but there is formic acid, used as corrosion inhibitor. Yes, the list looks scary, but is not that uncommon for an industrial process.

Increased seismic activity from both the fracking itself, and more prominently, the disposal of fracking wastewater underground (see Oklahoma).

That those quakes occur in Oklahoma and not Bakken indicates that it also has to do with peculiarities of local geology.

Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts (see California and Texas).

Is that a

Release of methane from far underground, contributing to climate change (see everywhere fracking occurs).

That's a feature, not a bug. Without fracking, US would not be able to maintain gas production and you would have to pay more for electricity and to heat your house in winter. And those new clean natural gas buses would be far less economical.

And as far as fossil fuels and carbon emissions are concerned, methane (CH₄ is the best option as all the energy is in C-H bonds, and none in C-C bonds and thus it has the best energy/CO₂ emission ratio.

And while 2/3 of US gas is fracked, about half of US oil is.

But by all means, let's ignore all of that shit,

Let's ignore that we do need energy from fracking.

so that we can import more undocumented workers to work all of these jobs we are creating,

Who says that we need illegals to work these jobs? Plenty of people who need jobs in the US.

so they can make substandard contributions to the process, like improper welds (see Texas) that contribute to further contamination of the water supply. I thought you conservatives were against undocumented workers taking our jobs. But who cares, your gas is cheaper, right? If we weren't artificially keeping those prices low at the expense of our environment, maybe we would be investing much more in renewable energy, which also serves to create jobs.

Who says we do not invest in renewable energy? But there is nothing magic about it. It takes time. And in the meantime we will need oil and gas.
And I don't support illegal immigration or improper welds. But if ecomentalists and Indians would not cause millions in additional costs due to blockades and protests perhaps the savings could be applied to improving the quality and safety of the pipeline.

 

[KeepTalking]

Do you have any links?

Yes.

I very much doubt mercury or uranium are used for fracking.

Mercury: Marcellus and mercury: Assessing potential impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on aquatic ecosystems in northwestern Pennsylvania.

Uranium: Wrecking the Earth: Fracking has grave radiation risks few talk about

What would be the use? What would the purpose be? Hydrochloric acid is useful to help break apart rock, but it is stomach acid, essentially. It is also used to lower pH in swimming pools (pool industry likes the older name "muriatic acid" for some reason) so it is quite safe. And as it reacts it gets used up so it's hardly surprising not all of it can be reclaimed.
This site has a list of chemicals used in fracking.

From your link:

Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.

Your list is not complete by it's own admission, noting the possibility of hundreds of chemicals used, but only revealing about 60 of the most common.

i do not see formaldehyde but there is formic acid, used as corrosion inhibitor. Yes, the list looks scary, but is not that uncommon for an industrial process.

It is scary because the chemicals are not confined to the industrial setting, but are leaking into wells, aquifers, and groundwater.

Increased seismic activity from both the fracking itself, and more prominently, the disposal of fracking wastewater underground (see Oklahoma).

That those quakes occur in Oklahoma and not Bakken indicates that it also has to do with peculiarities of local geology.

And they can certainly occur in other locales as well, but the frackers don't give a shit. They aren't stopping in Oklahoma, at least without the government stepping in, so what makes you think they will stop doing this shit when they start causing earthquakes elsewhere?

Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts (see California and Texas).

Is that a

What? A fucking man-made disaster of epic proportions unfolding, why yes, it is.

Release of methane from far underground, contributing to climate change (see everywhere fracking occurs).

That's a feature, not a bug.

It is a bug when the methane is not captured because they are fracking for oil rather than natural gas, and methane is a significant player in the realm of greenhouse gasses.

Without fracking, US would not be able to maintain gas production and you would have to pay more for electricity and to heat your house in winter.

It's all good as long as it doesn't affect your bottom line, eh Derec?

And while 2/3 of US gas is fracked, about half of US oil is.

Which might be relevant if fracking for oil did not release methane as well.

But by all means, let's ignore all of that shit,

Let's ignore that we do need energy from fracking.

No, we don't need energy from fracking. We really don't.

so that we can import more undocumented workers to work all of these jobs we are creating,

Who says that we need illegals to work these jobs? Plenty of people who need jobs in the US.

The greedy frackers who are hiring them when there are locals available to do the job, that's who.

Texas Firm and Field Operations Supervisor Sentenced for Harboring and Transporting Illegal Aliens Used in North Central Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Survey Work

so they can make substandard contributions to the process, like improper welds (see Texas) that contribute to further contamination of the water supply. I thought you conservatives were against undocumented workers taking our jobs. But who cares, your gas is cheaper, right? If we weren't artificially keeping those prices low at the expense of our environment, maybe we would be investing much more in renewable energy, which also serves to create jobs.

Who says we do not invest in renewable energy?

I don't know, but it certainly wasn't me. Please note the usage and location of the word 'more' in the portion of my post that you quoted.

But there is nothing magic about it. It takes time. And in the meantime we will need oil and gas.
And I don't support illegal immigration or improper welds. But if ecomentalists and Indians would not cause millions in additional costs due to blockades and protests perhaps the savings could be applied to improving the quality and safety of the pipeline.

You can label me as an 'ecomentalist', or whatever else you like. The fact remains that fracking is causing real damage to people and the environment, just so some people can get filthy rich. Those people hope that everyone else will turn a blind eye because they save a few bucks at the gas pump. It worked on you, it isn't working on me.

 

[Derec]

Mercury: Marcellus and mercury: Assessing potential impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on aquatic ecosystems in northwestern Pennsylvania.
Uranium: Wrecking the Earth: Fracking has grave radiation risks few talk about

Just as I thought. Contrary to what you wrote, these are not used in fracking, i.e. they are not pumped down the well for some purpose, but are metals preexisting in the reservoir that are being brought up. But that is hardly unique to fracked reservoirs. Heavy metals are present in conventional crude oil as well. Mercury and uranium are also present in coal and are burned with the rest of the coal and thus contaminate the envirnonment. If anything, it is easier to contain these contaminants in liquid or gaseous product than in solid one.
Note also that the second link is to Russia Today, an organ of the Russian government, which has a vested interest in suppressing fracking, at least outside Russia.

Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.
Your list is not complete by it's own admission, noting the possibility of hundreds of chemicals used, but only revealing about 60 of the most common.

Most common is most common, i.e. more of these are used than of the less common kinds. Duh!

It is scary because the chemicals are not confined to the industrial setting, but are leaking into wells, aquifers, and groundwater.

Which is an argument for sensible regulation and enforcement, not for an outright ban.

And they can certainly occur in other locales as well, but the frackers don't give a shit. They aren't stopping in Oklahoma, at least without the government stepping in, so what makes you think they will stop doing this shit when they start causing earthquakes elsewhere?

Will they inevitably start causing earthquakes? How do you know? And how severe are these quakes anyway?

What? A fucking man-made disaster of epic proportions unfolding, why yes, it is.

I wanted to say: Is that a problem in Bakken?

It is a bug when the methane is not captured because they are fracking for oil rather than natural gas, and methane is a significant player in the realm of greenhouse gasses.

Again, a question for regulators rather than a reason for an outright ban. Again, we need these resources and should not ban them just because you hope renewables can take over in the blink of an eye or because Indians are afraid of mythological snakes.

It's all good as long as it doesn't affect your bottom line, eh Derec?

It's all about costs and benefits. If you only look at problems, downsides and cost and never at benefits no technology, no development could ever possibly pass muster.

Which might be relevant if fracking for oil did not release methane as well.

So push for a regulation that associated gas must be captured. The problem with the opposition by the environmental and Indian movements is that it is so absolutist. They want everything shut down, instead of talking how technology can be improved, made safer or greener.

No, we don't need energy from fracking. We really don't.

Yes we do. As my graphs clearly show.

The greedy frackers who are hiring them when there are locals available to do the job, that's who.

So you punish these businesses just like you would anybody else. But the fact that some operators are hiring illegals is no more an argument against fracking as is lettuce growers hiring illegals an argument against lettuce or hotel companies hiring illegals an argument in favor of shutting down the lodging industry.

I don't know, but it certainly wasn't me. Please note the usage and location of the word 'more' in the portion of my post that you quoted.

Even with renewables we will need oil and gas for decades to come. That's just a fact. You are simply not going to replace the US car and truck fleet with EVs in a decade for example.

You can label me as an 'ecomentalist', or whatever else you like. The fact remains that fracking is causing real damage to people and the environment, just so some people can get filthy rich. Those people hope that everyone else will turn a blind eye because they save a few bucks at the gas pump. It worked on you, it isn't working on me.

Again, there can be arguments made how to make fracking better, i.e. greener and safer. But as long as the environmentalists insist on shutting down the whole industry they will not work to improve it. And that is counterproductive.

 

[bleubird]

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-northdakota-bust/
Gee,no one saw this coming!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would not support their bid for independence, but I think they should have the right to seek it. I would think it would be a bad idea, as they would suddenly have to start paying for everything that has hitherto been provided to them by US and state governments.

We have treaties with them. You want to discard them and render them null and void just because you say so? Is this not a criminal act?

You complain about them getting all that free stuff provided to them, and yet you would also seek to deny them independence and the resources to enable to them to fend for themselves, and stop taking all that free stuff you speak of?

Indian policy has been a disaster. Time to change it.

Unilaterally and with force? And why do you insist on calling them "Indians"? Isn't it about time we fix that centuries old error. They are not from India. I sometimes wonder if actual Indians take offence to this.

 

[KeepTalking]

Just as I thought. Contrary to what you wrote, these are not used in fracking, i.e. they are not pumped down the well for some purpose, but are metals preexisting in the reservoir that are being brought up. But that is hardly unique to fracked reservoirs. Heavy metals are present in conventional crude oil as well. Mercury and uranium are also present in coal and are burned with the rest of the coal and thus contaminate the envirnonment. If anything, it is easier to contain these contaminants in liquid or gaseous product than in solid one.
Note also that the second link is to Russia Today, an organ of the Russian government, which has a vested interest in suppressing fracking, at least outside Russia.

Just as I thought, you either did not read the links, or failed to comprehend what you read.

On mercury: the study wasn't about finding mercury in the oil or gas being produced by fracking, but rather in the fracking wastewater. This would be the recovered fluid that was used to initially frack the shale. Since the frackers do not disclose all of the chemicals they use in their fracking fluid, there is a significant chance that the mercury is included in the fracking fluid. It could be inadvertent, and only there because of other additives that contain it, or it could be included on purpose. We don't know because they are not required to disclose all of the additives they use. Either way, this is mercury that should not be coming into contact with our aquifers, well water, or ground water, and fracking is the only reason that this mercury is coming into contact with our drinking water.

On uranium: it is extremely obvious that you did not read the article, or you would have noticed that the uranium being used is depleted uranium in the shaped charges they use when fracking shale formations to extract the dispersed oil and gas within them. If you don't trust RT, and I don't necessarily blame you there, just check with the USPTO for the Haliburton patent on doing exactly what they describe.

Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.
Your list is not complete by it's own admission, noting the possibility of hundreds of chemicals used, but only revealing about 60 of the most common.

Most common is most common, i.e. more of these are used than of the less common kinds. Duh!

Unfortunately for your argument, you attempted to use this list as evidence that the chemicals noted in my post are not used in fracking. Using a list that is incomplete by its own admission does not bolster your argument.

It is scary because the chemicals are not confined to the industrial setting, but are leaking into wells, aquifers, and groundwater.

Which is an argument for sensible regulation and enforcement, not for an outright ban.

It is not an argument used in isolation, it is an argument that combines with the other arguments being made that should tell us that fracking is dangerous to people and the environment, and should be stopped until and unless these issues are taken care of. I am of the mind that some of these issues cannot be completely resolved, so we should put an end to this grossly irresponsible method of extracting energy from deep within the earth.

And they can certainly occur in other locales as well, but the frackers don't give a shit. They aren't stopping in Oklahoma, at least without the government stepping in, so what makes you think they will stop doing this shit when they start causing earthquakes elsewhere?

Will they inevitably start causing earthquakes?

Yes.

How do you know?

Because Oklahoma is not a geographically abnormal area of the United Stated.

And how severe are these quakes anyway?

Up to a magnitude of 5.2 so far. More alarming than the severity, however, is the rate at which they are occurring. Last year, there were nearly 900 quakes of a magnitude 3.0 or higher. Prior to the practice of fracking and storing the wastewater underground in Oklahoma, the rate was 0-3 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher per year.

What? A fucking man-made disaster of epic proportions unfolding, why yes, it is.

I wanted to say: Is that a problem in Bakken?

Please note that you took me to task for being against all fracking , rather than in relation to Bakken alone. It may be something of a derail from your OP, but it is one in which you chose to indulge.

It is a bug when the methane is not captured because they are fracking for oil rather than natural gas, and methane is a significant player in the realm of greenhouse gasses.

Again, a question for regulators rather than a reason for an outright ban.

If this were a problem in isolation, I might agree with you. Given the host of other issues with fracking, the only sensible option right now is an outright ban on the process.

Again, we need these resources

Again, no, we don't need these resources. As Bluebird's link shows, all of this fracked oil has caused a glut in the market. The Bakken oil boom is over, not because they are running out of oil, but because they have produced too much of the fracked up shit. It serves to artificially depress oil and gas prices, and makes investment in renewables less attractive, which further exacerbates and draws out the damage done to us and our environment.

and should not ban them just because you hope renewables can take over in the blink of an eye

I realize they cannot take over in the blink of an eye, and I would never make such a ridiculous argument. Neither is developing renewables a major part of my argument, much less the only part of my argument. The destruction and illness caused by fracking is the main reason it should be banned. The fact that fracking is part of the reason we are investing less in renewables is only icing on the cake.

or because Indians are afraid of mythological snakes.

My arguments against fracking in no way touch upon Native American mythology.

It's all good as long as it doesn't affect your bottom line, eh Derec?

It's all about costs and benefits.

It sure seems to be all about benefits to you. You don't seem to want to add the human and environmental costs of fracking to the equation at all.

If you only look at problems, downsides and cost and never at benefits no technology, no development could ever possibly pass muster.

It is my position that the downsides far outweigh the benefits when it comes to fracking. There is only one benefit to fracking, temporarily lower oil prices. The downsides are many and various, starting with the general problems associated using oil as a major source of energy in the first place, and only getting worse from there.

Which might be relevant if fracking for oil did not release methane as well.

So push for a regulation that associated gas must be captured.

This is the third problem with fracking that you have said could be fixed with regulation. If only one of these problems existed, and regulations were in the works to eliminate that problem, I wouldn't be so concerned with fracking. The problems, however, are numerous, and for the most part they are not being addressed by regulation, primarily because of the control that the oil companies have over our political process. It needs to stop, but it won't because of the political situation. You will get the world for which you are arguing, whether or not you will recognize it (if you are able to survive it) is another matter entirely.

The problem with the opposition by the environmental and Indian movements is that it is so absolutist. They want everything shut down

Not everything. Just fracking in this context. Renewables and nuclear energy are preferable to me, which puts me at odds with many environmentalists.

instead of talking how technology can be improved, made safer or greener.

On the contrary, I am very much in favor of energy technology that is safer and greener than fracking for oil, which is one of the least safe and green energy technologies I can think of.

No, we don't need energy from fracking. We really don't.

Yes we do. As my graphs clearly show.

Your graphs do no such thing. They only show how much more oil and gas we can get hold of by fracking. The numbers in that graph should be going down as safer and greener technologies replace the need for oil and gas. The fact that they are increasing is cause for concern.

The greedy frackers who are hiring them when there are locals available to do the job, that's who.

So you punish these businesses just like you would anybody else. But the fact that some operators are hiring illegals is no more an argument against fracking as is lettuce growers hiring illegals an argument against lettuce or hotel companies hiring illegals an argument in favor of shutting down the lodging industry.

If it were the only argument, I would agree with you. But it is not the only argument, and is in fact the last and the least pressing of the arguments I used. Further it is only an issue for me because of how it impacts the safety of fracking, which is not actually a concern with picking lettuce and cleaning hotel rooms.

I don't know, but it certainly wasn't me. Please note the usage and location of the word 'more' in the portion of my post that you quoted.

Even with renewables we will need oil and gas for decades to come. That's just a fact. You are simply not going to replace the US car and truck fleet with EVs in a decade for example.

This is an argument that I do not dispute. Someone who cared to pay attention to the arguments I have been making would understand that my position is that we should be relying less and less upon dirty energy, as we rely more and more upon renewables. Part of this process should not include propping up traditional dirty energy resources by creating new and more harmful and destructive methods of extracting them from the earth.

You can label me as an 'ecomentalist', or whatever else you like. The fact remains that fracking is causing real damage to people and the environment, just so some people can get filthy rich. Those people hope that everyone else will turn a blind eye because they save a few bucks at the gas pump. It worked on you, it isn't working on me.

Again, there can be arguments made how to make fracking better, i.e. greener and safer. But as long as the environmentalists insist on shutting down the whole industry they will not work to improve it. And that is counterproductive.

We disagree. Fracking itself is a method of energy extraction/production that is counterproductive to securing a sustainable energy future for us all, and runs the wholly unnecessary risk of catastrophic damage to our environment.

 

[Derec]

We have treaties with them. You want to discard them and render them null and void just because you say so? Is this not a criminal act?

1. There is precedent in federal government paying monetary compensation for a portion of treaty lands. So there is precedent.
2. When the original treaties were signed US and these tribes were indeed separate entities. Today there are not. I think the whole idea of tribal sovereignty is both legally and factually highly suspect for that reason. It basically allows tribes to double dip.

You complain about them getting all that free stuff provided to them,

Yes. It's easy claiming "sovereignty" when somebody else pays the bill. It's like a young adult being proud of their independence but their parents pay their rent and car note.

and yet you would also seek to deny them independence and the resources to enable to them to fend for themselves, and stop taking all that free stuff you speak of?

I explicitly said that I would not deny them a bid for independence. I just don't think it is a good idea.
The best idea would be to have Indians be treated as everybody else. Pay them restitution for the land (or, if they choose, they can keep the land as private holdings but with no special legal status) and abolish all special legal rights. If peyote is dangerous enough to ban it should be illegal for Indians as well. If it is not dangerous enough to ban it should be legal for everybody.

Unilaterally and with force?

A lot of bad policy is not due to treaties, but federal legislation, which can be repealed unilaterally. Indian gaming act for example. Or special payments to Indians on reservations. Pine Ridge is very economically depressed but people stay there because of speial largess. In the end the police suits neither Indians nor the US in the log run.

And why do you insist on calling them "Indians"?

It's a traditional name. It is certainly better than the PC "Native American".

Isn't it about time we fix that centuries old error. They are not from India.

They are from Siberia. So "Siberian-American" perhaps?

I sometimes wonder if actual Indians take offence to this.

I doubt it.

 

[Derec]

Just as I thought, you either did not read the links, or failed to comprehend what you read.

Let's see.

On mercury: the study wasn't about finding mercury in the oil or gas being produced by fracking, but rather in the fracking wastewater. This would be the recovered fluid that was used to initially frack the shale.

As you say, recovered fluid.

Since the frackers do not disclose all of the chemicals they use in their fracking fluid, there is a significant chance that the mercury is included in the fracking fluid.

Is there? We know heavy metals like mercury occur in oil and gas reservoirs (and also in coal). So it is likely the contamination was picked up there. On the other hand, can you think of a possible use or mercury as a "fracking chemical"?

It could be inadvertent, and only there because of other additives that contain it, or it could be included on purpose.

Or, much more likely, it could be brought up form the reservoir. We know mercury is present in oil and gas reservoirs naturally.
Do you have any evidence, rather than speculation, that mercury is used as a fracking chemical?

We don't know because they are not required to disclose all of the additives they use. Either way, this is mercury that should not be coming into contact with our aquifers, well water, or ground water, and fracking is the only reason that this mercury is coming into contact with our drinking water.

Not only fracking but any oil and gas development has that potential.

On uranium: it is extremely obvious that you did not read the article, or you would have noticed that the uranium being used is depleted uranium in the shaped charges they use when fracking shale formations to extract the dispersed oil and gas within them.

You are right, I initially read just the beginning where he talks of the naturally occurring uranium and daughter nuclides like radium.

If you don't trust RT, and I don't necessarily blame you there,.

I don't. And Busby is a crank as well.

just check with the USPTO for the Haliburton patent on doing exactly what they describe

Several problems with this. For one, this patent is not specific to fracking. It is a method for drilling a wellbore using explosives and is therefore just as useful for non-fracking crude oil and gas.
Second, the patent merely lists all the possible materials that can be used for shaped charges. It hardly means that all those possible materials are actually used.
And besides, depleted uranium has very low radioactivity. I would not worry even if it is being used, for which I have seen no evidence.
And lastly, do you have any evidence DU is actually being used to drill fracking (or any other oil or gas) wells? Mere possibility from a patent is not enough to show it is actually being used.

Unfortunately for your argument, you attempted to use this list as evidence that the chemicals noted in my post are not used in fracking. Using a list that is incomplete by its own admission does not bolster your argument.

The burden is on you to show that the chemical such as formaldehyde or mercury is being used for fracking.

It is not an argument used in isolation, it is an argument that combines with the other arguments being made that should tell us that fracking is dangerous to people and the environment, and should be stopped until and unless these issues are taken care of. I am of the mind that some of these issues cannot be completely resolved, so we should put an end to this grossly irresponsible method of extracting energy from deep within the earth.

I have shown that several of your objections are not limited to fracking.

Yes.

Evidence?

Because Oklahoma is not a geographically abnormal area of the United Stated.

Why do we then not hear so much about earthquakes in other fracked areas?

Up to a magnitude of 5.2 so far. More alarming than the severity, however, is the rate at which they are occurring. Last year, there were nearly 900 quakes of a magnitude 3.0 or higher. Prior to the practice of fracking and storing the wastewater underground in Oklahoma, the rate was 0-3 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher per year.

Magnitude 3 is about the severity of vibrations caused by a passing truck. Do you have a link for 5.2, especially it being linked to fracking?

Please note that you took me to task for being against all fracking , rather than in relation to Bakken alone. It may be something of a derail from your OP, but it is one in which you chose to indulge.

If a problem occurs only at certain places but not others, then it is not a fundamental problem with fracking itself.

If this were a problem in isolation, I might agree with you. Given the host of other issues with fracking, the only sensible option right now is an outright ban on the process.

We can't afford that.

Again, no, we don't need these resources.

Yes, we do.

As Bluebird's link shows, all of this fracked oil has caused a glut in the market. The Bakken oil boom is over, not because they are running out of oil, but because they have produced too much of the fracked up shit. It serves to artificially depress oil and gas prices, and makes investment in renewables less attractive, which further exacerbates and draws out the damage done to us and our environment.

Since bluebird's link was published, oil prices have recovered somewhat. This boom-bust cycle is inevitable in absence of a strong entity to regulate prices. It used to be Texas Railroad Commission until Texas could not pump enough oil to meet demand. It is supposed to be OPEC today, but they have not been willing or able to play that role. So prices fluctuate and oil patches prosper and suffer in turn. But Bakken still produces a lot of oil, hence the need for a major pipeline.

I realize they cannot take over in the blink of an eye, and I would never make such a ridiculous argument. Neither is developing renewables a major part of my argument, much less the only part of my argument. The destruction and illness caused by fracking is the main reason it should be banned. The fact that fracking is part of the reason we are investing less in renewables is only icing on the cake.

Conventional oil cannot meet global demand without sources such as shale/tight oil (fracking), oil sands, deep water or Arctic. All of those have been opposed by environmentalists. Are you in favor of all of these except fracking? I doubt that.
And note that fracking has been used to improve recovery in conventional fields. It has been used to produce gas from the largest of all oil fields, Ghawar, for more than a decade.
Saudi Aramco - Frack to the future

If you want to ban the technology itself, you would have to sacrifice a lot.

My arguments against fracking in no way touch upon Native American mythology.

But the arguments of the Indians camping out at the pipeline site more than touch upon it.

It sure seems to be all about benefits to you. You don't seem to want to add the human and environmental costs of fracking to the equation at all.

Says who? But benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

It is my position that the downsides far outweigh the benefits when it comes to fracking. There is only one benefit to fracking, temporarily lower oil prices. The downsides are many and various, starting with the general problems associated using oil as a major source of energy in the first place, and only getting worse from there.

The major benefit is increasing amount of oil that can be produced. "Technological development" has always been the argument against "peak oil" pessimism and fracking has proven itself to be the major tool against "peak oil".

This is the third problem with fracking that you have said could be fixed with regulation.

It is not actually a fracking-specific problem at all. It occurs everywhere you produce oil with associated gas where you don't have infrastructure to capture that gas.
Ironically, you would need additional gas pipelines to be able to capture that additional gas. But of course, pipelines are an anathema to ecomentalists and Black Snake believers.
This is more than third problem with fracking that turned out to be not fracking-specific at all!

If only one of these problems existed, and regulations were in the works to eliminate that problem, I wouldn't be so concerned with fracking. The problems, however, are numerous, and for the most part they are not being addressed by regulation, primarily because of the control that the oil companies have over our political process. It needs to stop, but it won't because of the political situation. You will get the world for which you are arguing, whether or not you will recognize it (if you are able to survive it) is another matter entirely.

If one side of the political spectrum will compromise and insist that it should be banned altogether they lose opportunity to institute common sense regulation to improve the process.

Not everything. Just fracking in this context. Renewables and nuclear energy are preferable to me, which puts me at odds with many environmentalists.

Those make electricity which is fine if you have EVs. But very few people have those today. 30 years from now we might not need much oil. Today, we do. And as far as making electricity with gas, it is much better than with coal, which is plurality of where our electricity comes from today. We need to be realistic about these things.
Ooh, how about using heat from a nuclear plant to heat up steam for fracking and it-situ oil sands extraction? That would greatly decrease the carbon footprint of these technologies ...

On the contrary, I am very much in favor of energy technology that is safer and greener than fracking for oil, which is one of the least safe and green energy technologies I can think of.

I meant improve fracking.

Your graphs do no such thing. They only show how much more oil and gas we can get hold of by fracking. The numbers in that graph should be going down as safer and greener technologies replace the need for oil and gas. The fact that they are increasing is cause for concern.

On the contrary, they enable US to import less, which is a good thing.

If it were the only argument, I would agree with you.

This is not the first time you have said that.

But it is not the only argument, and is in fact the last and the least pressing of the arguments I used. Further it is only an issue for me because of how it impacts the safety of fracking, which is not actually a concern with picking lettuce and cleaning hotel rooms.

If there is an ecoli outbreak due to lettuce picked by illegal farmworkers defecating in the field that very much gas safety implications.

This is an argument that I do not dispute. Someone who cared to pay attention to the arguments I have been making would understand that my position is that we should be relying less and less upon dirty energy, as we rely more and more upon renewables. Part of this process should not include propping up traditional dirty energy resources by creating new and more harmful and destructive methods of extracting them from the earth.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. Fracked gas is still a lot greener than coal. Fracked oil is preferable to paying Saudis >$100/bbl to use theirs. And even Saudis have to use increasingly complicated technology (including chemicals) to coax as much life out of their ancient supergiants as they can.

We disagree. Fracking itself is a method of energy extraction/production that is counterproductive to securing a sustainable energy future for us all, and runs the wholly unnecessary risk of catastrophic damage to our environment.

I think there is much more propaganda than fact in this war on fracking.

 

[KeepTalking]

The burden is on you to show that the chemical such as formaldehyde or mercury is being used for fracking.

Not really, as the actual problem with fracking in this regard is that dozens to hundreds of chemicals typically used in an industrial setting are leaking into our wells, aquifers, and ground water, serving to contaminate our drinking water, and causing ecological damage to our lakes, streams and rivers that would not otherwise occur if not for fracking. This can be verified using only the source you provided in your initial rebuttal to my argument. This point is not in dispute. I will award points to you for successful use of a red herring derived from a parenthetical comment I made in my initial statement, but the dogs are back on track to the original point now.

It is not an argument used in isolation, it is an argument that combines with the other arguments being made that should tell us that fracking is dangerous to people and the environment, and should be stopped until and unless these issues are taken care of. I am of the mind that some of these issues cannot be completely resolved, so we should put an end to this grossly irresponsible method of extracting energy from deep within the earth.

I have shown that several of your objections are not limited to fracking.

I will note, however, that you are not disputing the fact that these are problems with fracking.

Because Oklahoma is not a geographically abnormal area of the United Stated.

Why do we then not hear so much about earthquakes in other fracked areas?

Probably because Oklahoma is the most egregious known case of seismic activity caused by fracking.

They are also occurring in Pennsylvania:
State studying link between fracking, Lawrence County earthquakes

They are also occurring in Texas:
What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says

They are also occurring just about everywhere we are fracking in the US:
Fracking fallout: 7.9 million at risk of man-made earthquakes

Up to a magnitude of 5.2 so far. More alarming than the severity, however, is the rate at which they are occurring. Last year, there were nearly 900 quakes of a magnitude 3.0 or higher. Prior to the practice of fracking and storing the wastewater underground in Oklahoma, the rate was 0-3 quakes of magnitude 3.0 or higher per year.

Magnitude 3 is about the severity of vibrations caused by a passing truck. Do you have a link for 5.2, especially it being linked to fracking?

I was incorrect, it was a 5.6, my apologies for having a faulty memory:
Largest Oklahoma Earthquake Linked to Oil Extraction Wastewater

Please note that you took me to task for being against all fracking , rather than in relation to Bakken alone. It may be something of a derail from your OP, but it is one in which you chose to indulge.

If a problem occurs only at certain places but not others, then it is not a fundamental problem with fracking itself.

Bakken may be one of the few fracking sites where they are not happening. It really does seem to be a fundamental problem with fracking, specifically with the injection of fracking wastewater deep underground.

If this were a problem in isolation, I might agree with you. Given the host of other issues with fracking, the only sensible option right now is an outright ban on the process.

We can't afford that.

On the contrary, we can't afford not to.

As Bluebird's link shows, all of this fracked oil has caused a glut in the market. The Bakken oil boom is over, not because they are running out of oil, but because they have produced too much of the fracked up shit. It serves to artificially depress oil and gas prices, and makes investment in renewables less attractive, which further exacerbates and draws out the damage done to us and our environment.

Since bluebird's link was published, oil prices have recovered somewhat.

Well, that is really unfortunate. I was hoping the dirty frackers were starting to feel some financial pain due to their rush to frack the shit out of everything.

I realize they cannot take over in the blink of an eye, and I would never make such a ridiculous argument. Neither is developing renewables a major part of my argument, much less the only part of my argument. The destruction and illness caused by fracking is the main reason it should be banned. The fact that fracking is part of the reason we are investing less in renewables is only icing on the cake.

Conventional oil cannot meet global demand without sources such as shale/tight oil (fracking), oil sands, deep water or Arctic. All of those have been opposed by environmentalists. Are you in favor of all of these except fracking? I doubt that.

Fracking is my main concern with regard to US oil production at the moment. I don't think any of the other oil production methods you mention are quite as problematic, but do not care to discuss those currently.

And note that fracking has been used to improve recovery in conventional fields. It has been used to produce gas from the largest of all oil fields, Ghawar, for more than a decade.
Saudi Aramco - Frack to the future

Good for them. Their country is already a shit hole I would not care to visit, and I would probably get myself executed if I did show up there.

If you want to ban the technology itself, you would have to sacrifice a lot.

It is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Saving a few dollars at the gas pump is not my primary concern here.

My arguments against fracking in no way touch upon Native American mythology.

But the arguments of the Indians camping out at the pipeline site more than touch upon it.

So? I don't give a shit about their mythology. I do care about harming people and the environment for profit and saving a few bucks at the pump.

It sure seems to be all about benefits to you. You don't seem to want to add the human and environmental costs of fracking to the equation at all.

Says who? But benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Says me, the person with whom you are arguing that everything is just fine and dandy with regard to fracking. The costs far outweigh the benefits. We can do this all day long.

It is my position that the downsides far outweigh the benefits when it comes to fracking. There is only one benefit to fracking, temporarily lower oil prices. The downsides are many and various, starting with the general problems associated using oil as a major source of energy in the first place, and only getting worse from there.

The major benefit is increasing amount of oil that can be produced. "Technological development" has always been the argument against "peak oil" pessimism and fracking has proven itself to be the major tool against "peak oil".

The more quickly we get to peak oil, and then the downward slope, leading to more use of safer and cleaner energy sources, the better.

This is the third problem with fracking that you have said could be fixed with regulation.

It is not actually a fracking-specific problem at all. It occurs everywhere you produce oil with associated gas where you don't have infrastructure to capture that gas.
Ironically, you would need additional gas pipelines to be able to capture that additional gas. But of course, pipelines are an anathema to ecomentalists and Black Snake believers.
This is more than third problem with fracking that turned out to be not fracking-specific at all!

Specific to fracking, or not, they are all verified and documented problems with fracking upon which it is sensible to base my position.

If only one of these problems existed, and regulations were in the works to eliminate that problem, I wouldn't be so concerned with fracking. The problems, however, are numerous, and for the most part they are not being addressed by regulation, primarily because of the control that the oil companies have over our political process. It needs to stop, but it won't because of the political situation. You will get the world for which you are arguing, whether or not you will recognize it (if you are able to survive it) is another matter entirely.

If one side of the political spectrum will compromise and insist that it should be banned altogether they lose opportunity to institute common sense regulation to improve the process.

I am not one side, I am one person. I know my opposition to fracking will not cause a single politician to change their stance. Most are bought and paid for by the oil companies anyway. I have already made the concession that because of the political landscape, you will get the fracked up world you want, to the detriment of us all.

Not everything. Just fracking in this context. Renewables and nuclear energy are preferable to me, which puts me at odds with many environmentalists.

Those make electricity which is fine if you have EVs. But very few people have those today. 30 years from now we might not need much oil.

The sooner the better, but 30 years may be too late.

Today, we do. And as far as making electricity with gas, it is much better than with coal, which is plurality of where our electricity comes from today. We need to be realistic about these things.
Ooh, how about using heat from a nuclear plant to heat up steam for fracking and it-situ oil sands extraction? That would greatly decrease the carbon footprint of these technologies ...

If we are going to use oil sands anyway, and it appears that we are, sure, let's do that. But guess what? The oil companies aren't going to do that either. They are not concerned about the environment, only their bottom line.

On the contrary, I am very much in favor of energy technology that is safer and greener than fracking for oil, which is one of the least safe and green energy technologies I can think of.

I meant improve fracking.

Do it then. Improving it is better than nothing. I'm not holding my breath, though. See my last statement.

Your graphs do no such thing. They only show how much more oil and gas we can get hold of by fracking. The numbers in that graph should be going down as safer and greener technologies replace the need for oil and gas. The fact that they are increasing is cause for concern.

On the contrary, they enable US to import less, which is a good thing.

They also cause more damage to the environment in the US, which is a bad thing. I think the bad things associated with fracking are much worse than the good things, that is why we are having this argument. I will note, however, that your good thing still only amounts to paying less at the pump.

If it were the only argument, I would agree with you.

This is not the first time you have said that.

You are correct. It's almost like I am consistent with it, or something. Is that a problem?

But it is not the only argument, and is in fact the last and the least pressing of the arguments I used. Further it is only an issue for me because of how it impacts the safety of fracking, which is not actually a concern with picking lettuce and cleaning hotel rooms.

If there is an ecoli outbreak due to lettuce picked by illegal farmworkers defecating in the field that very much gas safety implications.

Good point, I am all for mandating the use of port-o-potties in lettuce fields. I will submit, however, that an occasional e. coli outbreak is much less of a concern than contaminating our aquifers, and causing massive environmental damage.

This is an argument that I do not dispute. Someone who cared to pay attention to the arguments I have been making would understand that my position is that we should be relying less and less upon dirty energy, as we rely more and more upon renewables. Part of this process should not include propping up traditional dirty energy resources by creating new and more harmful and destructive methods of extracting them from the earth.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. Fracked gas is still a lot greener than coal.

I'm not 100% sure which is greener or safer, but I will concede this point, and I agree that we need to stop using coal as an energy source as well.

Fracked oil is preferable to paying Saudis >$100/bbl to use theirs.

I disagree. The more financial pain it causes us, the quicker we will stop using it.

And even Saudis have to use increasingly complicated technology (including chemicals) to coax as much life out of their ancient supergiants as they can.

As noted, they can frack their country up all they like. They are already doing a great job of it.

We disagree. Fracking itself is a method of energy extraction/production that is counterproductive to securing a sustainable energy future for us all, and runs the wholly unnecessary risk of catastrophic damage to our environment.

I think there is much more propaganda than fact in this war on fracking.

Another place where we disagree. There is probably some propaganda on both sides, but the side with the need and resources to really engage in fracking propaganda is Big Oil.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is just for you, Derec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiVU-W9VT7Q

 

[Derec]

This is just for you, Derec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiVU-W9VT7Q

Can you post lyrics instead? I can't stand most rap and his getup in the video is ridiculous. A big USDA sign as a counterpart to Flava Flav's clock?

 

[Derec]

Not really, as the actual problem with fracking in this regard is that dozens to hundreds of chemicals typically used in an industrial setting are leaking into our wells, aquifers, and ground water, serving to contaminate our drinking water, and causing ecological damage to our lakes, streams and rivers that would not otherwise occur if not for fracking.

Again, pollution occurs with other industrial processes as well. Hell, even making solar panels pollutes.

This can be verified using only the source you provided in your initial rebuttal to my argument. This point is not in dispute. I will award points to you for successful use of a red herring derived from a parenthetical comment I made in my initial statement, but the dogs are back on track to the original point now.

Our industrial society uses chemicals. Big whoop!

I will note, however, that you are not disputing the fact that these are problems with fracking.

Of course there are, just like with everything else.

Probably because Oklahoma is the most egregious known case of seismic activity caused by fracking.

Which means not all areas are equally vulnerable.

They are also occurring in Pennsylvania:
State studying link between fracking, Lawrence County earthquakes

Very minor quakes.

The U.S. Geological Survey says five minor earthquakes originated in an area just west of New Castle in a 22-hour period on Monday, all small tremors between magnitude 1.7 and 1.9, which is below what humans can feel.[..]
Earthquakes with a magnitude up to 3.0 in Mahoning County, Ohio, were linked to fracking at a Utica Shale well operated by Hilcorp in 2014. That earthquake series was about four miles west of this week’s quakes in Lawrence County.

Researchers also have identified earthquakes as large as magnitude 2.8, as well as swarms of tiny seismic disturbances, associated with fracking in the Utica Shale and Point Pleasant formation in Harrison County, Ohio, since 2013.

So the quakes in Pennsylvania were below human detection threshold and there were a few in Ohio which were bigger but still very minor.

They are also occurring in Texas:
What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says

Also rather minor. And I doubt a 3.6 would knock anybody off a sofa. Also note the use of "likely".

Fracking fallout: 7.9 million at risk of man-made earthquakes

Ah, finally the mention of larger quakes. Note that these all were 4-5 years ago. If they were really due to fracking, why don't such larger quakes occur repeatedly? Especially since fracking activity has increased since 2012, it is noteworthy that the quakes around magnitude 5 have not occurred since then. Just because an earthquake occurs close to a fracking site does not mean it was an induced quake.
Also, Bakken is notably absent from these earthquake reports. That suggests that local geography plays a role, not just fracking.

Largest Oklahoma Earthquake Linked to Oil Extraction Wastewater

Now, how do they explain that despite an increase in fracking since 2011 a significant quake like that has not occurred again?

Bakken may be one of the few fracking sites where they are not happening. It really does seem to be a fundamental problem with fracking, specifically with the injection of fracking wastewater deep underground.

Well what is the alternative? Store wastewater above ground? In any case, I support research into alleviating the problem of course, although it does appear not to be as severe as anti-fracking people claim. Vast majority of the quakes are minor.

On the contrary, we can't afford not to.

We disagree there.

Well, that is really unfortunate. I was hoping the dirty frackers were starting to feel some financial pain due to their rush to frack the shit out of everything.

Oh, there is financial pain. But not enough to scuttle operations.

Fracking is my main concern with regard to US oil production at the moment. I don't think any of the other oil production methods you mention are quite as problematic, but do not care to discuss those currently.

Keystone XL was shut down by Obama in big part because rich US environmentalists like Tim Steyer hate oil sands so much. Greenpeace activists disrupted Russian drilling activities in the Arctic and tried to prevent a US icebreaker from going there for the purposes of oil development. So ecomentalists oppose all advanced oil extraction, not just fracking. And without these methods, we might never have recovered from the 2008 economic crisis. And, yes I know that the crash itself was caused by the real estate bubble, but energy permeates every aspect of the economy nevertheless.

Good for them. Their country is already a shit hole I would not care to visit, and I would probably get myself executed if I did show up there.

So why do you want their ruling class to make all this extra money?

It is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Saving a few dollars at the gas pump is not my primary concern here.

It's not just the money you pay at the gas pump. Oil is intimately involved in all aspects of the economy. Trucks that deliver groceries and other goods to stores you shop at. Manufacture of the goods themselves. It all currently takes oil.

So? I don't give a shit about their mythology. I do care about harming people and the environment

Pipelines are much safer than the alternatives.

for profit and saving a few bucks at the pump.

What's wrong with profit? What's wrong with saving money?

The more quickly we get to peak oil, and then the downward slope, leading to more use of safer and cleaner energy sources, the better.

Downward slope also means economic recession if not depression.

Specific to fracking, or not, they are all verified and documented problems with fracking upon which it is sensible to base my position.

No, it is not sensible, as I have rather patiently explained.

I am not one side, I am one person.

You have rather similar views to many others.

I know my opposition to fracking will not cause a single politician to change their stance.

But a million of you (and a couple of billionaires) might. Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline because of opposition by the left-wing Democratic base and donations by billionaires like Steyer. He (or Hillary after him) might kill Dakota Access for similar reasons.

Most are bought and paid for by the oil companies anyway.

But others are bought and paid for by the rich ecomentalists like Steyer.

I have already made the concession that because of the political landscape, you will get the fracked up world you want, to the detriment of us all.

Not detriment.

The sooner the better, but 30 years may be too late.

It's going to take at least that long. A modern car can easily last 15-20 years depending on mileage driven. Even if most new cars sold by 2030 are electric (questionable), it will take much longer until most cars on the road are electric.

If we are going to use oil sands anyway, and it appears that we are, sure, let's do that. But guess what? The oil companies aren't going to do that either. They are not concerned about the environment, only their bottom line.

I think they are more concerned with not inviting even more protesters/disruptors. You are underestimating the irrational hatred by ecomentalists for all things nuclear.

Do it then. Improving it is better than nothing. I'm not holding my breath, though. See my last statement.

We shall see. But it's not going to happen if ecomentalists oppose everything, including improvements. A new pipeline is better than an old pipeline. A new pipeline is better than using trains or trucks. So why protest a new pipeline?

They also cause more damage to the environment in the US, which is a bad thing. I think the bad things associated with fracking are much worse than the good things, that is why we are having this argument. I will note, however, that your good thing still only amounts to paying less at the pump.

It also amounts to increased energy security. It amounts to more jobs. It amounts to more government revenues.

You are correct. It's almost like I am consistent with it, or something. Is that a problem?

It is when it shows that I have debunked more than one of your arguments.

Good point, I am all for mandating the use of port-o-potties in lettuce fields. I will submit, however, that an occasional e. coli outbreak is much less of a concern than contaminating our aquifers, and causing massive environmental damage.

Tell that to people who are infected! But my point is, the go-to response is to make things better, not to ban the industry outright.

I'm not 100% sure which is greener or safer, but I will concede this point, and I agree that we need to stop using coal as an energy source as well.

Coal is definitely on the bottom.

I disagree. The more financial pain it causes us, the quicker we will stop using it.

I would support a carbon tax. That would allow US producers to stay in business (although it would depress demand somewhat), but the extra money would go to the federal government rather than to the Saudi royal family or Vladimir Putin like your strategy would.

As noted, they can frack their country up all they like. They are already doing a great job of it.

The point is that these technologies are becoming more and more necessary.

Another place where we disagree. There is probably some propaganda on both sides, but the side with the need and resources to really engage in fracking propaganda is Big Oil.

You are assuming that there isn't big money on the other side. Tom Steyer bringing down Keystone XL by giving Democrats $100 million in campaign contributions proves the opposite.

 

[Deepak]

Again, pollution occurs with other industrial processes as well. Hell, even making solar panels pollutes.

So I'm left wondering whether you're really this stupid, or whether you simply think everyone else so stupid as to fall for this line of argument. First off, read the first sentence of paragraph two in your linked article. Second, do an analysis of the comparitive level of pollution between fracking and solar panel generation. In one case the ability to minimize the pollutant impact relates to better controls around the process, while in the other it's an intrinsic component of the process. I haven't heard of any ability to prevent fracking fluids from permeating the ground (primarily because that's what it's designed to do).

You might as well ask people to pour dioxins into their corn flakes since cereal manufacturing also causes pollution...

 

[KeepTalking]

Again, pollution occurs with other industrial processes as well. Hell, even making solar panels pollutes.

This can be verified using only the source you provided in your initial rebuttal to my argument. This point is not in dispute. I will award points to you for successful use of a red herring derived from a parenthetical comment I made in my initial statement, but the dogs are back on track to the original point now.

Our industrial society uses chemicals. Big whoop!

The "Big whoop!" is in the way that the chemicals in fracking wastewater are handled, which threatens our aquifers, wells, and ground water. Half of it isn't even recovered, it is just used to frack shit up deep underground, and then just left there to seep into wells or aquifers. What is recovered is not properly stored and treated, and sometimes it is illegally dumped, contaminating our ground water. You may be perfectly comfortable with industrial chemicals in your drinking water, but I am not.

I will note, however, that you are not disputing the fact that these are problems with fracking.

Of course there are, just like with everything else.

How many other things that threaten our water supply you are simply willing to shrug off?

Probably because Oklahoma is the most egregious known case of seismic activity caused by fracking.

Which means not all areas are equally vulnerable.

The problem is that there is no concern from the dirty frackers as to whether an area is vulnerable, or not. They just frack away, and ignore any resulting seismic activity in their insatiable quest for more profit.

They are also occurring in Pennsylvania:
State studying link between fracking, Lawrence County earthquakes

Very minor quakes.

Quakes nonetheless, contrary to your previous assertion that fracking quakes only happen in Oklahoma.

The U.S. Geological Survey says five minor earthquakes originated in an area just west of New Castle in a 22-hour period on Monday, all small tremors between magnitude 1.7 and 1.9, which is below what humans can feel.[..]
Earthquakes with a magnitude up to 3.0 in Mahoning County, Ohio, were linked to fracking at a Utica Shale well operated by Hilcorp in 2014. That earthquake series was about four miles west of this week’s quakes in Lawrence County.

Researchers also have identified earthquakes as large as magnitude 2.8, as well as swarms of tiny seismic disturbances, associated with fracking in the Utica Shale and Point Pleasant formation in Harrison County, Ohio, since 2013.

So the quakes in Pennsylvania were below human detection threshold and there were a few in Ohio which were bigger but still very minor.

Quakes nonetheless, contrary to your previous assertion that fracking quakes only happen in Oklahoma.

They are also occurring in Texas:
What's causing Texas earthquakes? Fracking 'most likely,' report says

Also rather minor. And I doubt a 3.6 would knock anybody off a sofa. Also note the use of "likely".

Quakes nonetheless, contrary to your previous assertion that fracking quakes only happen in Oklahoma.

Fracking fallout: 7.9 million at risk of man-made earthquakes

Ah, finally the mention of larger quakes. Note that these all were 4-5 years ago. If they were really due to fracking, why don't such larger quakes occur repeatedly?

Why don't you study seismology, and then get back to me with the answer? I will give you a hint though, it has to do with building up and releasing pressure along faults.

Especially since fracking activity has increased since 2012, it is noteworthy that the quakes around magnitude 5 have not occurred since then.

You are incorrect:

Oklahoma rattled by state's third-largest earthquake; 5.1 recorded near Fairview

A 5.1 fracking earthquake this year in Oklahoma.

Largest Oklahoma Earthquake Linked to Oil Extraction Wastewater

Now, how do they explain that despite an increase in fracking since 2011 a significant quake like that has not occurred again?

They don't, because your statement is not true. In addition to the 5.1 mentioned above, there was a 4.9 in January of this year, two of magnitude 4.7, and one 4.5 in 2015, as well as another 4.5 in 2014.

Bakken may be one of the few fracking sites where they are not happening. It really does seem to be a fundamental problem with fracking, specifically with the injection of fracking wastewater deep underground.

Well what is the alternative? Store wastewater above ground?

No, it is to stop fracking.

In any case, I support research into alleviating the problem of course, although it does appear not to be as severe as anti-fracking people claim. Vast majority of the quakes are minor.

I researched it, the way to alleviate the problem is to stop doing that which is causing the problem: fracking.

Well, that is really unfortunate. I was hoping the dirty frackers were starting to feel some financial pain due to their rush to frack the shit out of everything.

Oh, there is financial pain. But not enough to scuttle operations.

Well, that's too bad.

Good for them. Their country is already a shit hole I would not care to visit, and I would probably get myself executed if I did show up there.

So why do you want their ruling class to make all this extra money?

The more quickly we get off of fossil fuels entirely, the more quickly their ruling class will stop making that extra money.

It is a sacrifice I am willing to make. Saving a few dollars at the gas pump is not my primary concern here.

It's not just the money you pay at the gas pump. Oil is intimately involved in all aspects of the economy. Trucks that deliver groceries and other goods to stores you shop at. Manufacture of the goods themselves. It all currently takes oil.

And we are not going to change any of that by perpetuating the status quo through fracking. What we will change is our environment, for the worse.

So? I don't give a shit about their mythology. I do care about harming people and the environment

Pipelines are much safer than the alternatives.

Not fracking is much safer than fracking.

for profit and saving a few bucks at the pump.

What's wrong with profit? What's wrong with saving money?

I don't know, why don't we add the first half of the sentence back into it for context, and see?

"I do care about harming people and the environment for profit and saving a few bucks at the pump."

It seems my problem is not with profit, but rather with making that profit off of something that harms people and the environment. That thing, in this context, is fracking.

The more quickly we get to peak oil, and then the downward slope, leading to more use of safer and cleaner energy sources, the better.

Downward slope also means economic recession if not depression.

Not necessarily. It can simply mean a shift away from fossil fuel based energy economics to those based on renewable energy.

Specific to fracking, or not, they are all verified and documented problems with fracking upon which it is sensible to base my position.

No, it is not sensible, as I have rather patiently explained.

You have done no such thing. You have only explained that the problems with fracking are problems that are of no concern to you. You have not even denied that the problems exist, you just want to hand wave them away so that you can save some money, and so that the dirty frackers can continue to profit.

I am not one side, I am one person.

You have rather similar views to many others.

Not enough to make a difference, it seems.

I know my opposition to fracking will not cause a single politician to change their stance.

But a million of you (and a couple of billionaires) might.

That would be great, but I am not optimistic.

Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline because of opposition by the left-wing Democratic base and donations by billionaires like Steyer. He (or Hillary after him) might kill Dakota Access for similar reasons.

I care less about Dakota Access, and more about the problem it represents: fracking.

Most are bought and paid for by the oil companies anyway.

But others are bought and paid for by the rich ecomentalists like Steyer.

I would rather see politicians bought and paid for to protect people and the environment, rather than to protect the profits of big oil.

I have already made the concession that because of the political landscape, you will get the fracked up world you want, to the detriment of us all.

Not detriment.

Yes, detriment. Being unable to drink water uncontaminated by industrial chemicals is a detriment. Having your home, or place of business, damaged or destroyed by fracking earthquakes is a detriment. Droughts being exacerbated by diverting our groundwater supply to fracking operations is a detriment. Additional methane being added to the atmosphere from oil fracking operations, accelerating climate change is a detriment. Continuing unabated with the fossil fuel based energy economy, which also accelerates climate change is also a detriment.

But, we are supposed to believe that saving a few bucks at the gas pump mitigates all of that? I'm not buying it.

The sooner the better, but 30 years may be too late.

It's going to take at least that long.

Well, then, we might as well just call the game now, then. It's over, civilization, it has been nice knowing you.

If we are going to use oil sands anyway, and it appears that we are, sure, let's do that. But guess what? The oil companies aren't going to do that either. They are not concerned about the environment, only their bottom line.

I think they are more concerned with not inviting even more protesters/disruptors.

:laughing-smiley-014
Their only concern is with profits, that much is abundantly clear.

Do it then. Improving it is better than nothing. I'm not holding my breath, though. See my last statement.

We shall see. But it's not going to happen if ecomentalists oppose everything, including improvements.

No, it's not going to happen unless governments force it to happen. Because, profits.

A new pipeline is better than an old pipeline. A new pipeline is better than using trains or trucks. So why protest a new pipeline?

Not fracking is better than fracking. So why support fracking?

They also cause more damage to the environment in the US, which is a bad thing. I think the bad things associated with fracking are much worse than the good things, that is why we are having this argument. I will note, however, that your good thing still only amounts to paying less at the pump.

It also amounts to increased energy security.

More reliance on nuclear, wind, and solar power would do that just as well.

It amounts to more jobs.

More reliance on nuclear, wind, and solar power would do that just as well.

It amounts to more government revenues.

More reliance on nuclear, wind, and solar power would do that just as well.

You are correct. It's almost like I am consistent with it, or something. Is that a problem?

It is when it shows that I have debunked more than one of your arguments.

At best you have shown that the presence of two substances potentially used in fracking are unsubstantiated, but that was taken from a single parenthetical comment, and the larger point in which they were placed is not only uncontested by you, but supported by a link you provided.

Good point, I am all for mandating the use of port-o-potties in lettuce fields. I will submit, however, that an occasional e. coli outbreak is much less of a concern than contaminating our aquifers, and causing massive environmental damage.

Tell that to people who are infected! But my point is, the go-to response is to make things better, not to ban the industry outright.

If we were able to fix the problems with fracking by placing port-o-potties next to the fracking wells, your point might be salient. The problems with fracking are numerous and some of them are likely endemic. On the other hand, if I thought lettuce growers were too concerned with profit to address the problem with laborers shitting in the field, then I would stop eating lettuce, therefor the problem of e. coli contaminated lettuce would not affect me. Since I think big oil is too concerned with profit to fix the problems with fracking, why don't you tell me what I can do to keep the problems with fracking from affecting me?

As noted, they can frack their country up all they like. They are already doing a great job of it.

The point is that these technologies are becoming more and more necessary.

Only if one is determined to prop up the use of fossil fuels when there are alternatives.

Another place where we disagree. There is probably some propaganda on both sides, but the side with the need and resources to really engage in fracking propaganda is Big Oil.

You are assuming that there isn't big money on the other side. Tom Steyer bringing down Keystone XL by giving Democrats $100 million in campaign contributions proves the opposite.

Did Tom Steyer profit monetarily from that? Please note, I have no idea who Tom Steyer even is, so this is not a leading question.

 

[Elixir]

You are assuming that there isn't big money on the other side. Tom Steyer bringing down Keystone XL by giving Democrats $100 million in campaign contributions proves the opposite.

We know how oil companies recoup their :contributions". How does Tom expect to get his money back, Derec? Your false equivocations are barely worthy of response.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think I'm just going to put this out there again: the Native Americans were given sovereign land with which they could do as they pleased. It wasnt very good land, but they were given the rights to determine how it was used. They object to having a big fat fucking pipe spewing disgusting crap on their land and making it hard to get around, and in addition pose it in reference to a religious conviction to not sound so NIMBY, even if they are perfectly justified; people seem to respect religion in this country more than they respect the environment that provides their biologocal necessities.

So what this amounts to is a states rights advocate advocating against a state's rights.

The irony is, the pipeline and the environmental damage it produces, in addition to fossil fuels in general freeing too much carbon, could indeed cause that apocalypse they fear.

 

[Derec]

We know how oil companies recoup their :contributions". How does Tom expect to get his money back, Derec? Your false equivocations are barely worthy of response.

I just said there is big money on the anti-pipeline, anti-oil side. I did not claim he and others like him seek to "recoup their contributions". Steyer might just seek to influence politics. On the other hand, he may be invested in companies that stand to gain by oil sands and/or KXL pipeline getting the axe. Whether or not he has a monetary interest does not change the fact that he is quite open in his opposition to projects like Keystone XL and that his campaign contributions were in pursuit of that goal.

 

[Derec]

I think I'm just going to put this out there again:

Repeating it does not make it better.

the Native Americans were given sovereign land with which they could do as they pleased.

Perhaps that was the case in the 19th century but is not really the case today. Indian reservations do not have standing of states for example. They get all services paid for by states they are located in (but do not pay taxes).

It wasnt very good land, but they were given the rights to determine how it was used. They object to having a big fat fucking pipe spewing disgusting crap on their land and making it hard to get around,

So many things wrong with this.
1. It is not their land. The route of Dakota Access Pipeline goes just north of the Standing Rock Reservation.

2. "big fat fucking pipe" may be a correct, but it is not (unless there is a leak) spewing anything.
3. The pipeline is not making it hard to get around. What do you think these pipelines look like? In reality they look something like this for most of their run:

What are the Indians worried about? bumping into the sign?

and in addition pose it in reference to a religious conviction to not sound so NIMBY, even if they are perfectly justified; people seem to respect religion in this country more than they respect the environment that provides their biologocal necessities.

Religion should not be able to prevent projects from getting completed. It has nothing to do with "respect", but with the fact that their religious ideas should not infringe on the freedom of others. You'd think people on an atheist forum should get that.
As far as "biological necessities", nobody is proposing that environment should be endangered. In fact, pipelines are safer than other forms of moving oil. New pipelines are better than old ones.
And what about non-biological necessities? This is a photo of the Standing Rock administrative building. Notice all the cars parked in the front? Do you think they run on spiritual energy?

This is the photo of the protest site.

Notice all the cars parked there? Or plastic tents? What hypocrites!
Some chick named Winona drove 2,100 miles to the protest side, all the way from Maine. That's almost twice the length of the pipeline (and she has to go back home at some point).

Winona, who did not give her last name, is Penobscot. She left Maine on Monday and drove 2,100 miles to put together a recycling program for the hundreds of new residents of the protest camp.

How many times did she stop to fill up and did she ever reflect on the irony/hypocrisy of it.
With echoes of Wounded Knee, tribes mount prairie occupation to block North Dakota pipeline
Also note, protesting is 1st amendment right. Trespassing for the purpose of "occupying" and "blocking" activity of others is not.

So what this amounts to is a states rights advocate advocating against a state's rights.

I am certainly not a "states right advocate", at least not as the term is commonly used (i.e. an advocate of weak federal government).
And this is not a states rights issue. North and South Dakota, which are states, support the project.
Standing Rock does not have state status. And even if it did, the pipeline would go just north of its territory. And note, if Standing Rock were a state, paying its own way, and a major pipeline were to go through its territory, I am sure they'd think twice before rejecting it (and forcing a reroute rather than them having veto power over the project as a whole, as they demand here).

The irony is, the pipeline and the environmental damage it produces, in addition to fossil fuels in general freeing too much carbon, could indeed cause that apocalypse they fear.

No, it really cannot. Pipelines are very routine technology.