keiksweat, you aren't upsetting me, I am just asking you to clarify what you are saying. I'm not looking for an argument I disagree with what you posted and I'm asking you to explain your position. That's it, no hard feelings. I think there are better places to find information that youtube videos and 'the internet'. I agree people will form their own opinions, but I don't think current tv is the place to get your learn on. To each his own.
Of course. Hopefully the thread doesn't get clogged with BS.
I would like to add that I do not want this to turn into a D/R debate. I don't think this is the right thread for that, and I find it troubling that issues like these are so politically motivated.
I don't have a dog in that specific fight (fracking), I generally support weaning our country off of fossil fuels, but I'm not 'drill baby drill'. I do not think renewable energy will ever provide enough power to make it a feasible option as a replacement. Wind farms are inefficient at storing and transferring energy, solar energy is dependent on sunlight, etc. The cost right now prevents wide implementation, and the problems of those sources of energy haven't been addressed that I have seen. Personally, I'm torn because communities that depend on other types of oil, shale etc can only operate when the price of energy is higher, and then we see job loss when the price of a barrel of oil goes down.
I do not believe we have enough information about fracking to know all of the benefits and costs, but I do recognize that solar and wind energy would lower or prevent disasters like exxon or deep water horizon and the like. However, the danger of polluting our environment is also present if fracking wasn't happening. I don't have an opinion either way about whether fracking causes earthquakes or natural disasters as this shit has happened before. I don't think anyone has enough info to know either way. We'll get there but we aren't there yet. I am not saying there is no harm, I'm saying we don't know, and I hesitate to join the bandwagon. I think humans have an effect on our environment, but I am not convinced that global warming is man made. Again, I don't think we have enough information to know either way. People have likely put their eggs in one basket and I don't think that there is middle ground to be had. I think there are solid arguments for and against renewable energy and fracking. I would agree that fracking, right now, has a higher chance of pollution than renewable sources, but I absolutely do not believe we can switch completely. Coal is too cheap, china and india don't give a fudge about it. I am also selfish and I don't want to pay five bucks for a gallon of gas. I generally support not giving our money to OPEC.
I think the science is flawed from all sides. I believe that the studies reflect who is paying for them more than the substance they contain. We simply don't know, but blind criticism rings hollow, for me. Of course people will form their own thoughts, and I don't expect anyone to think the way I do or to get their head that far up their ass if they disagree and think I am a fool. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do enjoy when people can back up their opinions with verifiable information and not putting your fingers in your ears screaming la la la. I see blind criticism or a ridiculous claim and I'll question it, regardless of how I feel on the issue. Just to clarify, I believe you are referring to flowback, when the gas/fluid mix is pumped back to the surface. I would agree that there is a higher potential for the release of dangerous chemicals at this stage of the process, but I do not see how it is any different than mine waste, which I believe is a much bigger concern and it already affects many bodies of water. Our technology requires gold and silver ore, and mining is not going away anytime soon, and neither are the issues that come along with it. We can't have our cake and eat it too. You can have Halliburton but you have to concede Solyndra. There is plenty of blame to go around, lots of greased pockets and looks the other way. I'm curious, where do you propose they put this wastewater? Where do they 'dispose' of it? Right now they inject it back into the ground which is where the earthquake argument and the potential for groundwater contamination comes around. Do they store it in barrels underground, shoot it into space :)? I don't believe I've seen anything credible solution-wise either way. What happens to California's economy if they weren't able to use oil wastewater for half of their needs?
-"In 2014, oil companies such as Chevron provided
half the water that went to the 45,000 acres of farmland in Kern County's Cawelo Water District" Where would this water come from otherwise? What happens if those 45,000 acres get zero water? Is there a solution to this problem if fracking stops? Are you okay with paying double for your gas or grocery if there was no more fracking and half the food? I'm not saying I know how much energy will cost, but I don't think you can claim that costs would go down for fossil fuels if fracking wasn't in the production picture. You do know there are different limits for toxins for irrigation water versus drinking water, right?
When you posted
"So with that said, are you also ok with the use of fracking water after it's on its way to be disposed of and rather than throwing it away, it is used it to irrigate the crops we all purchase and eat from Calif? Keep in mind before you answer, no studies or any type have been performed to assure that this is a safe practice." The fluid pumped out of the well, what you are calling 'fracking water' is flowback, and that contains many contaminants including radioactive ones. I am not aware that this fluid is used to irrigate crops before it is treated, and I don't believe that's the case. Flowback can be treated and then used. Are you saying that the fluid you are describing is still radioactive? Are you saying that the fluid can't be treated? What are you saying hasn't been proven safe? I do not believe that flowback is used as irrigation prior to it being treated. I find it ridiculous to even consider the possibility of a company in the US knowingly using radioactive waste as irrigation for food crops. That's kind of a big accusation isn't it?
[[-Marcia Bjornerud, a structural geologist at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin, told Live Science. "Flowback water can be treated, but there are large volumes of it and so dealing with it is expensive, and beyond what many small-town water treatment plants can handle." ]]
As far as Cheney and Halliburton, there is a lot there that doesn't pass the smell test. I believe there are always issues with no-bid contracts, and depending on what you believe, Halliburton got those jobs because of Cheney or Halliburton was awarded the no bid contract because they won the overall contract. This is contract law and I don't know enough to take a position either way. I find faults and good points with
both sides. I find it pertinent to note that I don't think Halliburton is a bad company, but we are discussing the political aspects of that cluster. They do deserve credit for fighting all of the oil well fires that were set during the first gulf war and subsequently.
-In November 2002, KBR was tasked to plan oil well firefighting in Iraq, and in February 2003 was issued a contract to conduct the work. Critics contend that it was a
no-bid contract, awarded due to Dick Cheney's position as vice president. Concern was also expressed that the contract could allow KBR to pump and distribute Iraqi oil.
[27] Others contend, however, that this was not strictly a
no-bid contract, and was invoked under a contract that KBR won "in a competitive bid process."
[28] The contract, referred to as LOGCAP, is a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is essentially a retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was).[wiki]
Without getting specific, I think there is plenty of 'flawed science' but more that we simply don't know. I think man-made global warming is full of flawed science as well, but I also still think we just don't know. I'm all for finding answers to those questions, but I don't think there should be knee-jerk reactions. I am not trying to change anyone's mind either.
Your info on Dick is out of date, he left Halliburton in 2000, but you absolutely have valid criticism of the payout of stock options he received. I would also note that this was the time of the huge salaries for CEO's of large corporations, and it's unfair to put the label only on Halliburton. There are many instances of CEO's taking huge payouts when they leave. The first one to come to my mind is Quest's Joe Nacchio. Another would be the old CEO of United Healthcare.
Finally, addressing your link.
"toxic oil wastewater to that list, because that’s what is being used to irrigate California crops.
Big Oil has taken advantage of California farmers’ desperate need for water and is selling them oil wastewater—the water that’s been used in fracking and other oil operations—at a cheap rate for irrigation.
Hundreds of chemicals are used in oil operations, and some of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, kidney failure, and liver damage2—and they [[[could be in the oil wastewater]]] that is being used on our fruits and vegetables.
How is that possible? No comprehensive and independent testing has been undertaken to ensure that our food and health is protected from the chemicals used in oil operations. And no action has been taken to protect the farmworkers who are potentially exposed to these toxins daily.
Now, as California braces for another hot, dry summer, plans are underway to expand the use of toxic oil wastewater for crop irrigation in the state."
First, what happens in California doesn't always happen elsewhere, I'm sure you know how strict they are with emissions, warnings on cigs, etc. Your own link says 'could be'. My aunt 'could be' my uncle, but she doesn't have a penis, so it will never happen. I know this is a ridiculous example and I'm using it for that reason.
I take issue with the statement that 'no comprehensive and independent testing has been undertaken'. The water is treated at a wastewater plant, and then moved on down the line. The article seems to infer that the water is not treated at all, which isn't accurate. If you are saying that water treatment plants can't get out all of the nasties, that's another subject, which is what are safe levels of toxins in our water. In my view this has nothing to do with fracking or the waste it produces. The article you link fails to even address or mention the fact that wastewater is treated before being used, which I find troubling.
What action exactly do you think needs to be taken to 'protect the farm workers'? I think the presence of oil toxins in our irrigation water is veering a bit off subject. For the record, with most of my family working agriculture all over Nebraska, I have never heard of what your link states. Although it does say there are still contaminants in the water, they are at safe levels. What you consider safe and what others consider safe is open to interpretation, and I would counter that there is just as much danger with flushing our prescription drugs down the toilet or using grey water to irrigate. I just don't think there is any connection between treated oil wastewater and farmers getting sick. If you think the levels deemed 'safe' are still to high, what is your solution? What is a safe level for you?
The motherjones article is cited as a source in the linked story you posted.
-"Under a 20-year-old
water recycling program, wastewater that is generated as a byproduct from oil extraction is treated and sold to some 90 Southern California landowners—including one with certified organic operations—which use it to grow crops such as citrus, almonds, apples, peaches, grapes, and blueberries sold in major grocery chains around the country.
As California's epic drought wears on, Southern California farms are using an increasing amount of oil wastewater. In 2014, oil companies such as Chevron provided half the water that went to the 45,000 acres of farmland in Kern County's Cawelo Water District, up from about 35 percent before the start of the drought in 2011. And California Resources Corp., the state's largest oil company,
recently announced plans to quadruple the amount of water it sells to farmers."
20 years in, and I have not seen or heard of any farmer getting sick from using treated fracking fluid, and if that was a thing, I believe California would be the first state to make that announcement and subsequent fallout. I am not aware of any farmer complaining about contaminated wastewater like your article implies. Getting an organic certification is no small deal, and I don't believe that would happen if the irrigation water was contaminated.
Aren't you glad you asked?
http://www.energy.gov/
http://www.livescience.com/34464-what-is-fracking.html
-LGG
