1. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    82780
    06 Jun '15 00:04
    Is the EPA telling the truth when they say that Fracking causes no 'systemic' damage?
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    06 Jun '15 05:11
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Is the EPA telling the truth when they say that Fracking causes no 'systemic' damage?
    What does systemic damage mean?

    Fracking wouldn't be criticized in that degree if it didn't do any damage.

    Every barrel of oil brought up to the surface will be burned eventually. Meaning that the atmosphere will be injected with a certain amount of CO2 for each barrel.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    06 Jun '15 10:305 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas

    Every barrel of oil brought up to the surface will be burned eventually. Meaning that the atmosphere will be injected with a certain amount of CO2 for each barrel.
    Exactly! So, even if, hypothetically, all the usual environmental concerns raised about fracking are simply all wrong without exception, fracking damages the environment anyway; just like any fossil fuel power.
    I personally think we should stop fracking, not because of the usual environmental concerns raised about fracking are valid, they may or may not be valid, but rather because whether those particular environmental concerns are valid is irrelevant because why spend money on research and development of something that we really should soon stop using and when that money could be spent on other things? (like extra money for renewables )

    I actually strongly suspect that at least of the environmental concerns raised against fracking are simply wrong (I have spotted logical flaws in some of their augments ) which would mean the protesters against fracking are right for the wrong reasons!
  4. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13448
    06 Jun '15 11:30
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150409081321.htm
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    06 Jun '15 13:17
    Fracking has one big problem at least. That is releasing methane into local water supplies forcing families out of their homes because their homes are dangerous. Methane comes in their wells and literally can catch fire right out of the water spigot. The fracking companies say "oh no, that methane was already in your water, it had nothing to do with us"......
  6. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91896
    03 Jul '15 22:18
    "No fracking way!"

    Many farmers use underground water in Australia for irrigation. It is literally their lifeblood in drought stricken areas.
    So the frack miners tap into these underground basins on their land, however the underground basin is prolly the same one that the farmers ' next door' use.
    Who owns that underground water anyway?
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Jul '15 13:09
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Is the EPA telling the truth when they say that Fracking causes no 'systemic' damage?
    They are probably telling the truth (ie not lying), but that doesn't mean they are right. How much environmental harm would you classify as 'systemic damage'?
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Jul '15 13:10
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Every barrel of oil brought up to the surface will be burned eventually. Meaning that the atmosphere will be injected with a certain amount of CO2 for each barrel.
    Actually, fracking is done to get gas.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Jul '15 13:14
    Originally posted by humy
    I personally think we should stop fracking, not because of the usual environmental concerns raised about fracking are valid, they may or may not be valid, but rather because whether those particular environmental concerns are valid is irrelevant because why spend money on research and development of something that we really should soon stop using and when that money could be spent on other things? (like extra money for renewables )
    Actually gas is less harmful to the environment than coal or oil. There are also good reasons politically to use gas obtained locally rather than imported oil.
    The downside of fracking in environmental terms is that the resulting gas is quite cheap and that does slow down the move to renewables (which are also local and thus better than imported oil).
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Jul '15 13:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Fracking has one big problem at least. That is releasing methane into local water supplies forcing families out of their homes because their homes are dangerous.
    How often does this actually happen? Do they families take it to court? Do they win?

    I suspect there are a lot of false claims from both sides. I do think governments should be very strict about monitoring it and dealing with environmental damage and compensating those affected.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    04 Jul '15 13:20
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Who owns that underground water anyway?
    That is certainly a complex question. If a farmer wants to make money from fracking, do his neighbors have the right to stop him because they want to make money from farming instead?
  12. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    04 Jul '15 14:34
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Is the EPA telling the truth when they say that Fracking causes no 'systemic' damage?
    Widespread evidence says they're talking out of their backsides and both sides of their mouths simultaneously.

    In other words, no.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    04 Jul '15 17:19
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Widespread evidence says they're talking out of their backsides and both sides of their mouths simultaneously.

    In other words, no.
    Sounds like the EPA has been bought off, three guesses and the first two don't count....
  14. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    23 Jul '15 10:57
    The people who lives near the phracking sites will pay the price.
    No wonder that USA has the highest rate of cancer in the world.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Jul '15 12:02
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    The people who lives near the phracking sites will pay the price.
    No wonder that USA has the highest rate of cancer in the world.
    The people who live on the fracking sites often get paid. Certainly those that own the land should.
    As with all natural resource exploitation, companies should be made to cover the costs of environmental damage. The fact is however that there are many industries that result in environmental damage and you don't close down a whole industry purely on those grounds. The biggest problem with the anti fracking campaign is that they are trying to stop fracking altogether because they believe that fracking companies can not be held accountable for the environmental damage. It would be better to work on improving laws to do with accountability etc rather than trying to stop it altogether.
Back to Top