Fracking in the West -

nesf · 22-07-2011 11:20PM

frackingishell wrote: »

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

We're not going around in circles, you are. I'm asking various questions about safety and regulation and you just repeat the same statements over and over again without backing them up.

oscarBravo · 22-07-2011 11:23PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Now, if it worked(facking) without toxic chemicals, dont you think the companies that have done this in the US (and want to do it here) would simply eliminate them and therefore satisfy the environmental worries and regulations that are stopping them making money at the moment? Think about that one.

You mean, like they've stopped dumping mercury into rivers and lakes to satisfy environmental worries and regulations?

The EPA in the US is all but powerless. Companies use toxic chemicals if they feel it's the most cost-effective way to do business, and environmental damage is not a major factor.

That's not the case here. You can't just pump toxic chemicals into aquifers.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 12:44AM

nesf wrote: »

We're not going around in circles, you are. I'm asking various questions about safety and regulation and you just repeat the same statements over and over again without backing them up.

no Nesf, you're going round in circles. Youre getting answers to your questions, but ignoring the answers and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Short of coming into your house and pumping this stuff into your garden, i don't know how much more i can back it up- much of the information to back it up is on this thread- look up the what-the-frack page for links for real scientific studies. Watch gasland for real world back up.

You're just continually ignoring the answers to your questions for the sake of it. You want back up? Educate yourself on the situation and come back to us, cos you asking the same questions, and us answering them politely with patience again and again is quite tiresome. You're being a bit selfish too by constantly asking the same questions over and over again, and not listening to the answers, and thereby making this a 'help Nesf understand' thread, instead of a viable fracking thread. If you believe those answers are untrue- then do some research and don't be so lazy to just keep making the same inane hypotheses again and again ad nauseum...contribute something of value.

You keep saying you don't know about this stuff, yet you keep banging on that if it was regulated maybe it would be ok. Go find out if it what im saying is true- that fracking is fracking, and the formula stays the same, and if aquifers can't be mapped.

Noones saying you have to agree with me. But making suggestions over and over again while acknowledging you know nothing about this stuff is a waste of your time, the readers time, and most definitely my time.

nesf · 23-07-2011 12:47AM

frackingishell wrote: »

no Nesf, you're going round in circles. Youre getting answers to your questions, but ignoring the answers and playing devil's advocate for the sake of it. Short of coming into your house and pumping this stuff into your garden, i don't know how much more i can back it up- much of the information to back it up is on this thread- look up the what-the-frack page for links for real scientific studies. Watch gasland for real world back up.

You're just continually ignoring the answers to your questions for the sake of it. You want back up? Educate yourself on the situation and come back to us, cos you asking the same questions, and us answering them politely with patience again and again is quite tiresome. You're being a bit selfish too by constantly asking the same questions over and over again, and not lsitening to the answers. If you believe those answers are untrue- then do some research and don't be so lazy to just keep making the same inane hypotheses again and again ad nauseum..

Let me make this clear.

a) On this forum the onus is on you, not your questioner, to provide back up. Telling someone to educate themselves is not acceptable.

b) Each question I asked was different, that you soapboxed your position and repeated the same statements ad nauseum is your problem not mine. Soapboxing is also not allowed on this forum. Sure push on side of the argument but engage more with the opposition.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 12:52AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You mean, like they've stopped dumping mercury into rivers and lakes to satisfy environmental worries and regulations?

The EPA in the US is all but powerless. Companies use toxic chemicals if they feel it's the most cost-effective way to do business, and environmental damage is not a major factor.

That's not the case here. You can't just pump toxic chemicals into aquifers.

Oh my god. You've once again made my point, but you're arguing with me?? Can you read?

I said they don't care about the environment but if this could be done without the toxic chemicals then they would to save themselves hassle. IE THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE AWFUL CHEMICALS...jesus.......actually, you know what, im not arsed, You have to be taking the piss, you can't be serious. And if you are, i feel sorry for you.

I'm new to this boards.ie lark, but it seems to me there's a few people taking the serious piss on here. you have to be taking the piss. And you're a five star boards general at taking the piss it seems by your stars there. Good work.

nesf · 23-07-2011 01:02AM

frackingishell wrote: »

Oh my god. You've once again made my point, but you're arguing with me?? Can you read?

I said they don't care about the environment but if this could be done without the toxic chemicals then they would to save themselves hassle. IE THEY CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE AWFUL CHEMICALS...jesus.......actually, you know what, im not arsed, You have to be taking the piss, you can't be serious. And if you are, i feel sorry for you.

I'm new to this boards.ie lark, but it seems to me there's a few people taking the serious piss on here. you have to be taking the piss. And you're a five star boards general at taking the piss it seems by your stars there. Good work.

You are really close to a ban you know if you continue with this crap. Play the ball not the man, argue the point don't just soapbox and get pissed off if someone disagrees with you. Etc.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 01:04AM

nesf wrote: »

Let me make this clear.

a) On this forum the onus is on you, not your questioner, to provide back up. Telling someone to educate themselves is not acceptable.

b) Each question I asked was different, that you soapboxed your position and repeated the same statements ad nauseum is your problem not mine. Soapboxing is also not allowed on this forum. Sure push on side of the argument but engage more with the opposition.

(a) the onus is on me? I came on here and responded to that cavedave chap. Im saying educate yoruself because you keep saying you don't know abotu this after every statement you make on Fracking. You're like Frank Abignaile in the emergency room- you're bluffing your way around, and then putting everything on the other person when you're asked to make a contribution. Now im not gonna go quoting a million times and rub your face in it, im classier than that. but if you look back, youll see that. You should go read some of the reports instead of expecting me to educate you. I don't even know you. I've been givng you the benefits of my own research, and you havent accepted it. Thats fine, but at some point you must realise you speculating on something you admit you know nothing about is pretty pointless, most of all for you. I mean, are you waiting on the Irish government to come up and hold your hand through the process? Do you study yourself for the leaving cert, or did someone come around and read a book for you? get my drift? I think we've learned in the past few years that we have to do our own learning on matters of natural importance.

(b) I have engaged considerably with you, and you can't sayi havent. Why don't you engage with me? Why not look into some of the things i've said instead of just shooting stuff off your cuff repeatedly, stuff that i've ben courteous to keep addressing patiently? I don't even know you, you're one guy, cavedave is one guy, & i'm genuinely trying to let you know what i know. If you want to f**k that back in my face by saying im soapboxing and continually pushing the concept that this can be regulated to everyone while admiting you know nothing about it,and im telling you it cant be regulated, then that's your prerogative. But it's damn rude to tell me off for ENGAGING with you, a stranger, because i genuinely a passionate about something. You've some nerve. So stick it, and find someone else to take your ONUS, and pander to you the almighty 'opposition' (i wasnt aware we were opposition btw) and your inability to look **** up and make a cogent point on the subject.

Honestly, at some point surely you have to say to yourself 'eh, wait a minute, i dont know anything about this, i think i'll do my own research'. Or does everyone on boards feed info on demand to you like roman emporers used to be fed grapes?

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 01:08AM

nesf wrote: »

You are really close to a ban you know if you continue with this crap. Play the ball not the man, argue the point don't just soapbox and get pissed off if someone disagrees with you. Etc.

hang on. he's arguing with me and yet making the same point as me Nesf. At some point i've got to call foul. He has to be taking the piss.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 01:09AM

Well, that's what hitler did to his detractors. Banned them. Classy..

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 01:12AM

I'mn banned? well thats constructive. Ban me because im saying you should go and read some reports. Jesus, it's true what my friend said. When it comes down to it, you can't actually say what you want on here if it disagrees with what amod says.

nevermind this battle will be fought in government, and if needs be, on well sites. Not on boards.ie. And it will be won too.

nesf · 23-07-2011 02:14AM

Not banned, I reconsidered it and passed it onto to Scofflaw to deal with.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 02:25AM

well, i dont think i should be banned for telling it as i see it. But of course i would say that.

Banned or not, i still think you need to go and do some research Nesf. If you're participating in a discussion on something, you should at least know whats out there in the public domain.

You Telling us maybe it would be ok if it was regulated repeatedly, then me telling you why it can't be regulated if allowed due to the logistics over the whole thing (repeatedly, out of genuine patience- if you were a mate in the pub over a pint i'd have told you '**** off you're taking the p*ss!' a long time ago :-) )...and then you not even researching to back up your ideas even a little bit as you don't agree with me, is a sure fire recipe for nobody getting anywhere and a neverending circular argument and us all wasting our time.

Please go read the scientific reports linked on the what the frack page. Take some time to do it, watch the movie gasland, and educate yourself on a what is a huge issue for your country, and your kids, and future generations..

Good night

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 02:55AM

have a read of this for a bit of backup . ( sure he might have made it up, sure anyone can say things might be different here, but they wont. This is a messy process, and it's the same everywhere. You cant control millions of gallons being pumped into the ground of water and toxic chemicals. You just can't.)
so here goes;

He listed numerous problems: mares aborting foals, studs becoming sterile, goats having stillbirths, and his own health problems. He also spoke of how spills were covered up with dirt instead of reported, and a persistently leaking condensate tank. When Roles finally got a toxicology screen he discovered high levels of benzene, toluene, xylene and a long list of related chemicals in his blood.

“Sure, we earned a little money,” Roles said. “But our property was ruined.”

link here

Scofflaw · 23-07-2011 04:47AM

We're goin round in circles here. Alot of people are trying to explain his to you and you're asking the same questions...possibly in a wind up attempt, i'm not sure

Since we seem to have reached something of an impasse, and since nesf asked - the problem is that you're not responding to what's being asked. You've claimed that toxic chemicals are 'inseparable' from the process of hydraulic fracturing. You've been asked to prove that claim. You've responded by providing examples of the use of toxic chemicals in fracking.

Unfortunately, that toxic chemicals have been used doesn't prove that they're necessary. Your response to that has been to ask why companies would use toxic chemicals if they didn't have to - the answer to which is that they may be either cheaper or more effective than less toxic alternatives.

So, so far nothing you've put forward demonstrates the central point in that claim, which is that even under a regulatory regime which we might expect to insist on the use of less toxic alternatives, there is no such alternative.

There are almost always less toxic alternatives to the chemicals used in drilling, and they get used in regulatory regimes which insist on their use - in the British offshore sector, chemicals are regularly used and claimed as vital which are not allowed in the Norwegian offshore - yet the Norwegians manage to drill anyway.

Now, before you come back at me with a lot of response, I'll point out my background - I graduated as a geologist, and have worked both in the oil industry abroad and in groundwater here. I have a further degree in environmental science. So I know that a lot of what you're saying here is entirely above board - fracking is unpredictable, particularly in Irish bedrock, which is often highly fractured and highly variable. Most of our aquifer porosity is fracture porosity, but groundwater is not a high-profile resource here, and last time I looked, most of our aquifer fracturing was very poorly studied.

So I agree that the fissuring resulting from fracking will be relatively unpredictable, is highly likely to join up with existing and poorly understood fissure permeability, is highly likely to join up with conduit flow in local/regional karstified aquifers, that there will be aquifer contamination with any chemicals used in drilling/fracturing, and that by and large drilling chemicals, even of the reduced-toxicity variety, aren't something you want in your water.

None of which changes the fact that you've failed to answer a perfectly reasonable question. Repeatedly insisting that the chemicals involved in fracking are necessarily going to be toxic because toxic chemicals were used elsewhere doesn't answer the question - it only demonstrates that your beliefs on the issue are less than solidly founded. If you're espousing fracking as a cause, I'd suggest that you sort out the lack of evidence there.

Nor does it change the fact that you've responded extremely poorly to being asked to prove your contention that the chemicals used will be as toxic as those used elsewhere.

And, yes, it's part of the rules of the forum - if you can't demonstrate something to be true, don't claim it. I don't see that as unreasonable, since otherwise we have to treat seriously the claim that the world is run by shape-shifting lizard people, but that it's OK because we'll be taken up in the Rapture before their climate change scam panics the world's sheeple into accepting biochipping. So don't get your nose out of joint over being asked to provide some solid evidence for your claims (and no, campaign websites aren't solid evidence, although they may reference some) - you want to convince people of the dangers of fracking (otherwise why are you here?), so it's up to you to show that what you're claiming is true.

Finally, don't argue with moderation decisions on thread, because such arguments are off-topic. Do it by PM, or take it to Feedback/Dispute Resolution if you feel you're being unfairly treated. And, no, this post doesn't count as moderation from that perspective - but if you continue to react to people asking for evidence by telling them what idiots they are, then yes, you'll get banned, because you'll be wasting everyone's time, including your own.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf · 23-07-2011 05:02AM

frackingishell wrote: »

well, i dont think i should be banned for telling it as i see it. But of course i would say that.

Banned or not, i still think you need to go and do some research Nesf. If you're participating in a discussion on something, you should at least know whats out there in the public domain.

You Telling us maybe it would be ok if it was regulated repeatedly, then me telling you why it can't be regulated if allowed due to the logistics over the whole thing (repeatedly, out of genuine patience- if you were a mate in the pub over a pint i'd have told you '**** off you're taking the p*ss!' a long time ago :-) )...and then you not even researching to back up your ideas even a little bit as you don't agree with me, is a sure fire recipe for nobody getting anywhere and a neverending circular argument and us all wasting our time.

Please go read the scientific reports linked on the what the frack page. Take some time to do it, watch the movie gasland, and educate yourself on a what is a huge issue for your country, and your kids, and future generations..

Good night

People are not expected to "educate themselves" to participate in discussions on here. People are entitled to ask speculative questions and get answers to them. Never tell someone to go off and read scientific reports ever on this forum, it's extremely rude and if they backed up what you say you should be linking to them in the first place!

This is what is expected of you on here and is not open to discussion or debate. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

frackingishell · 23-07-2011 12:45PM

scofflaw- i never called anyone an idiot. I asked were they taking the piss, as they were making the same point a i was in their points, and yet seems to be trying to say i said something different.

Nesf- you kept saying the same thing- the repeated answers weren't good enough for you, so i suggested you go educate yoruself on the subject. This wasn't intended to offend, i jsut thoguht you might be getting as sick of saying the same thing over and over like i was.

Scofflaw- Fracking can't be done with less toxic chemicals- or else they'd do it NOW without toxic chemicals, and open their concoction up to scrutiny, and start making money from the gas for themselves. The fact they haven't done this, means fracking can't be done without the chemicals. It's that simple, no matter what way you want to wrangle it.

Have a lovely day everyone.

cavedave · 23-07-2011 12:56PM

frackingishell scofflaw- i never called anyone an idiot

Two days ago you said you needed profesional help to decide if you were calling someone an idiot. And then never got back with your promised opinion on what you were saying.

cavedave

Are you saying that i am stupid here?

frackingishell

Dave, i'll have to consult my legal team before i answer those to be honest. I'll get back to you soon....i promise.

frackingishell · 25-07-2011 12:35PM

Christ cavedave- you love your quotes don't you? I'd say your missus loves this kind of irrelevant nitpicking.

Anyway, i'm broke, and i'm paying for that professional assessment on layaway. As promised, i'll let you know when i know.

But, to nitpick, i never gave a time limit on it.

Smashing contribution there cavedave, keep up the good work.

Scofflaw · 26-07-2011 01:24PM

frackingishell wrote: »

Christ cavedave- you love your quotes don't you? I'd say your missus loves this kind of irrelevant nitpicking.

Anyway, i'm broke, and i'm paying for that professional assessment on layaway. As promised, i'll let you know when i know.

But, to nitpick, i never gave a time limit on it.

Smashing contribution there cavedave, keep up the good work.

OK - we've tried to explain that this kind of thing is not acceptable, and it appears you don't listen. 3 day ban for muppetry, and the usual warning that repeat offences will attract progressively longer bans.

moderately,
Scofflaw

nacho libre · 27-07-2011 02:32PM

possibly a stupid question, but if this process can be done with less toxic chemicals? Why haven't the companies involved in fracking in the USA started using less toxic chemicals to have the ban on fracking rescinded in numerous US states? Is it because the alternatives involve greater costs? Are they simply trying to hold out for as long as possible before switching to less toxic chemicals?

ei.sdraob · 27-07-2011 03:44PM

nacho libre wrote: »

possibly a stupid question, but if this process can be done with less toxic chemicals? Why haven't the companies involved in fracking in the USA started using less toxic chemicals to have the ban on fracking rescinded in numerous US states? Is it because the alternatives involve greater costs? Are they simply trying to hold out for as long as possible before switching to less toxic chemicals?

What dangerous and toxic chemicals?

94.62% water,
5.24% sand,
0.05% friction reducer,
0.05% antimicrobial,
0.03% hydrochloric acid and
0.01% scale inhibitor

The actual chemicals are used in many industrial and even domestic applications: polyacrylamide as a friction reducer, bromine, methanol and naphthalene as antimicrobials, hydrochloric acid and ethylene glycol as scale inhibitors, and butanol and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as
surfactants. At high dilution these are unlikely to pose a risk to human health in the event they reach groundwater.

But can they even infiltrate groundwater? The aquifers used for well water in states like Pennsylvania lie just a few hundred feet below the surface, whereas the shale gas is several thousand feet below. Seismic studies show that there is approximately one mile of solid rock between the fracking fissures and the aquifer

The well pipe running down through the aquifer is encased in alternating layers of concrete and steel and is generally triple-encased down to the depth of aquifers (less than 500 feet). For the well to produce gas it is vital that there are no leaks of either gas or fracking fluids into the aquifer or any other strata, so it is not in the company‘s interest to allow this.

nacho libre · 27-07-2011 04:03PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What dangerous and toxic chemicals?

Between 2005 and 2009, 14 leading oil and gas companies used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic, including lead and benzene, a new Congressional report shows.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305746#ixzz1TJnEpB4Y

ei.sdraob · 27-07-2011 04:27PM

nacho libre wrote: »

Between 2005 and 2009, 14 leading oil and gas companies used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic, including lead and benzene, a new Congressional report shows.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305746#ixzz1TJnEpB4Y

It is not in their interest to have any leaks, especially into the groundwater

Intel which more than likely has a microchip powering your computer also uses a **** load of chemicals and Dublin water, once again it is not in their interest to feck up.

On the other hand Moneypoint down Shannon and the like are quite literary dumping **** into the air including lead and mercury. All while all our "green" windmills are having a nap today with 30-50MW only > http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/

The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

Scofflaw · 27-07-2011 04:38PM

The question you should be asking is short of reverting to stone age existence and while ruling out nuclear power and while our windmills are scratching their rears what is the lesser of all evils, gas, oil, coal or turf to power our lives

Sure - why worry about safety, or pollution, or any of those annoying little stumbling blocks in the path of progress? Progress is necessary, and therefore should not be inhibited, and companies invariably do what's best because it's not in their interests not to.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 27-07-2011 04:43PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - why worry about safety, or pollution, or any of those annoying little stumbling blocks in the path of progress? Progress is necessary, and therefore should not be inhibited, and companies invariably do what's best because it's not in their interests not to.

amused,
Scofflaw

Sure why worry about pollution when you can just outsource it in order to produce your not so green tech > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6946038.ece

Greenies are opposed to everything but have no realistic solutions to provide energy to the modern world

Macha · 27-07-2011 07:30PM

Amazing how you manage to lump anyone with a slight concern for pollution under the heading of "greenies". It shows the lack of complexity in your thoughts on environmental issues. As well as a childish penchant for name calling.

And ignoring what people write. I wrote earlier in this thread:

"Of course all of this must be balanced against the fuel that the gas extracted through fracking would be displacing."

ei.sdraob · 27-07-2011 07:52PM

Ah yes it was me who called the Greens, Greens :rolleyes:

What are you going to do? ban me from this forum for having an opinion different from you as was already done in the Sustainability forum where I dare to point out that current crop of "green" thinking is far from green and sweeps the issues under the carpet by exporting pollution to other countries.

I am of the opinion that the Green movement on the balance are dangerous to the environment and people, an ideology that favours one type of engineering and science (anything to do with windmills,batteries and efficiency) oh and "modifying behaviour via taxation", while ignoring and being opposed to any other technologies such as gas extraction in case of this thread, nuclear energy, and genetic modification.

As far as I am concerned if climate change is a great treat to humanity as is being portrayed we should use all tools at our disposal, not prance around with a holier than thou attitude at anything that doesnt spin in the wind.

cavedave · 27-07-2011 08:09PM

ei.sdraob

I am of the opinion that the Green movement on the balance are dangerous to the environment and people, an ideology that favours one type of engineering and science (anything to do with windmills,batteries and efficiency) oh and "modifying behaviour via taxation", while ignoring and being opposed to any other technologies such as gas extraction in case of this thread, nuclear energy, and genetic modification.

I happen to agree with you that the green movement is wrong about many things. GM crops, nuclear, population numbers, urbanisation are areas I think they are wrong on.

But the question here is not about the green movement in general. It is about whether the pollution and risks of fracking are worth it. Scofflaw has presented evidence about how dirty mining in one country can be much cleaner in another. You and I have presented evidence that coal is really nasty.

But the nub of the issue seems to be how dirty or how clean would fracking be in Ireland. Rather than if Green advocates are occasionally utopian and unrealistic.

ei.sdraob · 27-07-2011 08:17PM

cavedave wrote: »

But the nub of the issue seems to be how dirty or how clean would fracking be in Ireland. Rather than if Green advocates are occasionally utopian and unrealistic.

If there are concerns over pollution then this can be dealt with by attaching stringent testing/reporting requirements to any licenses given out, you know it might give a purpose to a few people working over at the EPA.

Objecting to each and any technology on the grounds that something might go wrong is silly, If we took the same attitude/stance to any technology with so much potential to help us we would still be living in a feudal system of the dark ages (mind you some members of the Green movement could be described as Luddites and would love nothing better than for the world to revert to some agrarian utopia).

I could also go about few pages pointing out the the current favourite spinning tech of the Green movement is far from green or effective
and also produces many externalities, but these are quickly waved away,
or god forbid land you with a ban from the forum for daring to have an opinion different to the moderator.

Scofflaw · 27-07-2011 08:21PM

ei.sdraob wrote:

Sure why worry about pollution when you can just outsource it in order to produce your not so green tech > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6946038.ece

Greenies are opposed to everything but have no realistic solutions to provide energy to the modern world

And you appear to be in favour of anything they're opposed to simply because they're opposed to it. Unfortunately, the article you cite makes an good case for environmental legislation in China, rather than a case against green technology or environmental legislation here.

cavedave wrote:

I happen to agree with you that the green movement is wrong about many things. GM crops, nuclear, population numbers, urbanisation are areas I think they are wrong on.

Heck, even I agree with him about some of those things, but they're being used here as an ad hominem argument that attempts to lump all "greenies" together as cranks in order to dismiss any argument against fracking as cranky, rather than addressing the issues in question.

I'm not opposed to fracking on ideological grounds, but I find neither the "nothing to see here, totally safe" message from the corporate PR nor the gung-ho idiocy of free-market worshippers convincing. There are real problems in fracking, particularly in poorly known lithologies close to poorly known karst aquifers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fracking in the West -

Comments