what the ***k is fracking? - fossil fuels Forum

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > what the ***k is fracking?

Displaying all 12 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

01-15-2012, 07:40 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

In case you're wondering what the heck fracking is, the article posted below will
answer all your questions. Although it's a bit (?) lengthy, it will give you some talking points when you write to your congressman about the Keystone XL pipeline project.

tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2012/01/freaking-fracking-fiasco.html

01-16-2012, 04:02 PM

Veronica
Not Selected
Posts: 205

A great informative article on fracking. (= fracturing the shale rock) to get oil out of it. In the process, it will totally pollute and ruin the drinking water, to the extent it will "ignite" when you turn on your faucet. People living near fracking sites will have their hair all fall out, & get various sicknesses, & many get cancer. But these things are considered "minor side effects" by the oil companies. Lately, it has been shown on the news, that the practice of "fracking" has caused several major "earthquakes." Probably just another "minor side effect" that we all should just ignore, so these oil companies can continue to destroy the ecosystem we need to survive. By now, it may be obvious that this oil search is done for more than just greed. The oil companies are an international cartel, & they are in a position to control oil prices, which they charge us at the pump. It makes little difference if we get our oil from Canada or from Saudi Arabia. By the way, KOCH brothers are in charge of this XL pipeline (from Canada)--the same guys who finance the Tea Party, who say Obama was not born in the USA, & other ludicrous lies to manipulate our elections. That is who will PROFIT THE MOST from importing all that toxic sludge (tar sands) into our US ecosystem. I WOULD BOYCOTT THAT pipeline for THAT reason alone. The scum who operate the XL Pipeline tried to "blackmail" US farmers & landowners, to force them to allow that pipeline thru their property. Crooked slimey practices of the GOP, tried to cheat our farmers out of their own land. Do you need any more proof that the GOP is actually un-American? Working for PROFIT, & NOT WE THE PEOPLE.

01-17-2012, 11:08 PM

66mustang
Not Selected
Posts: 2

Can anyone show me some documented "Cancer/Hair falling out/flames shooting out of their faucets"? I would be very interested in reading about this. Thanks

01-18-2012, 10:54 AM

tyler89
Not Selected
Posts: 5

66mustang Wrote: Can anyone show me some documented "Cancer/Hair falling out/flames shooting out of their faucets"? I would be very interested in reading about this. Thanks

For the flames shooting out of their faucets just check out youtube. It's not fake and really happens, there are plenty of videos out there showing it.

01-18-2012, 10:45 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

I discovered that there are actually a LOT of videos on YouTube about this phenomenon.
Listed below is ONE of them:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO1EK76Sy$A

strangely enough, this discussion reminds me of a video from some time in th e1950's"

www.youtibe.com?watch?v=lidFipyLG8k

01-18-2012, 10:48 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

www.youtibe.com/watch?>v=lidFipyLG8k

01-18-2012, 10:50 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lidfipyLG8k

01-19-2012, 09:18 AM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO1EK76Sy4A

The link listed above should work a little better.

This video gives a whole new meaning to the old term "firewater"

02-05-2012, 09:37 PM

John G.
Katy, TX
Posts: 1

There are some scientists out here who are weary of all the hype on both sides of the fracking and pipeline issues. The chance of getting hit by lightening is much greater than fracture stimulation causing water pollution. A new study indicates the recent Duke study to be totally in error. A link is: http://www.hgs.org/en/calendarevents/v/1359/. Additionally a completly non industry affilliated study of 10's of thousands of fracked wells in Texas found no pollution at all. Killing the keystone pipeline is the height of stupidity. It has been studied to infinity. There are already 25,000 miles of pipeline over the area with no damaging spills, if there was a leak it would damage no more than the size of a football field which can easily be cleaned up. If the oil does not come to the US it will go to China. Mad dog environmentalists were opposed to the Alaska pipeline in exactly the same way, which has much more risk. Result after several decades of operation, no pollution. It was only approved by one vote in our Congress. It is easy to see where the "let the bastards freeze in the dark" bumper stickers came from. That is not to say that the industry should not be on notice to at least publish all chemicals in the fracture stimulation fluids, which is now taking place, and be good citizens.

02-06-2012, 06:45 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

John:

I appreciate your comments.

I wasn't able to verify that the proposed pipeline route already has 25,000 miles, but I WAS able to verify, through a neutral source, that this country already has a total 409,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines, a number that is much higher than any of us would guess.

I also can't verify that those 25,000 miles of pipeline have not had a leak since 1978, but it's a fact that the Trans-Alaska pipeline itself has had a few leaks, the largest of which was 16,000 barrels, which would cover quite a few football fields:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System

The existing Keystone pipeline has had TWELVE leaks in the last 12 months, so I'd have to admit that I've not very excited about the prospect of a southern extension crossing the second largest fresh water aquifer in the world (the Ogallala Aquifer). A lot of folks aren't aware that the Keystone pipeline already exists in America, but Phase 3 and Phase 4 are the portions that have generated the most controversy.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ogallala-aquifer-6531527

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

Significantly, the worst oil spill arising out of the Trans-Alaska pipeline is an INDIRECT loss - a ship called the Exxon Valdez spilled 750,000 barrels in 1989. Until the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe of last year, the Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill in history.

House Speaker John Boehner is currently under investigation by the SEC for ethics violation.
Quite by coincidence, he has investments in 7 companies that are involved in Canadian tar sands operations, and would profit PERSONALLY if the damn thing got built:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/john-boehner-resign

it's always good to have friends in high places, so it probably didn't hurt the oil and gas industry to donate over $180,000 to John Boehner's 2012 re-election campaign ..

http://checksandbalancesproject.org/tag/john-boehner/

The House Speaker is perfectly willing to talk to any of us - as long as we live in the 6th Congressional District of Michigan. If we don't, the message from his website is that we can all just "take a hike".

As you might suspect, any group remotely connected to saving the environment is adamantly opposed to the Keystone pipeline, so it's instructive to rely on a source that historically takes a conservative viewpoint on topics, the Washington Post. As the link below indicates, even the Post takes a dim view of the Keystone pipeline:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-cl...

Mother Jones, as you might expect, also thinks the pipeline is a dumb idea, but it's also a publication that, to borrow a phrase, gives a shit about the environment. More telling, though, is the Reuters link in the same article that mentions that the cost of the Keystone extension will be $7 billion. I'm of the opinion that that $7 billion would be better spent on improvements in our crumbling infrastructure and/or green technology instead of technology that dates back to the day of Spindetop Hill, which first erupted 100 years ago.

Since our #1 export in 2011 was fuel, it's much more likely that the "tar sands oil" WILL go to China instead of to the United States, and that's perfectly fine. The BEST way to become free of imported oil is to rapidly increase our energy efficiency so that our reliance on imported oil drops from 65% (half of which comes from Canada) to a much more reasonable level.

02-06-2012, 07:13 PM

that guy in Arizona
Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 158

More news from Mother Jones:

http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/transcanada-keystone-pipeline-map

02-07-2012, 06:39 PM

Veronica
Not Selected
Posts: 205

Thanks so much for all your valuable research into this topic. I don't know how successful we can be, with so much money interested on the other side. But with all the facts you have brought to us, we should have a lot more ammunition to fight this pipeline.
Thanks for your dedication. Always enjoy your communications.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES