Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday August 30 2016, @01:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the drill-baby-drill dept.

Water contaminated with some of the chemicals found in drinking water and fracking wastewater has been shown to affect hormone levels in mice:

More than 15 million Americans live within a one-mile radius of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) operations. UOGs combine directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to release natural gas from underground rock. Scientific studies, while ongoing, are still inconclusive on the potential long-term effects fracturing has on human development. Today, researchers at the University of Missouri released a study that is the first of its kind to link exposure to chemicals released during hydraulic fracturing to adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes in mice. Scientists believe that exposure to these chemicals also could pose a threat to human development.

"Researchers have previously found that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) mimic or block hormones — the chemical messengers that regulate respiration, reproduction, metabolism, growth and other biological functions," said Susan C. Nagel, Nagel, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and women's health in the School of Medicine. "Evidence from this study indicates that developmental exposure to fracking and drilling chemicals may pose a threat to fertility in animals and potentially people. Negative outcomes were observed even in mice exposed to the lowest dose of chemicals, which was lower than the concentrations found in groundwater at some locations with past oil and gas wastewater spills."

Researchers mixed 23 oil and gas chemicals in four different concentrations to reflect concentrations ranging from those found in drinking water and groundwater to concentrations found in industry wastewater. The mixtures were added to drinking water given to pregnant mice in the laboratory until they gave birth. The female offspring of the mice that drank the chemical mixtures were compared to female offspring of mice in a control group that were not exposed. Mice exposed to drilling chemicals had lower levels of key hormones related to reproductive health compared to the control group.

Adverse Reproductive and Developmental Health Outcomes Following Prenatal Exposure to a Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Mixture in Female C57Bl/6 Mice (open, DOI: 10.1210/en.2016-1242) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 30 2016, @07:17PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 30 2016, @07:17PM (#395399) Journal
    Wow, for something you're knowledgeable about, that was a lot of bullshit. If you want to bring in facts, then please, do so. Let's review:

    1) It's for oil AND natural gas.

    So it does get used for oil and oil is useful, yes? I'll continue to discuss the oil aspect of fracking.

    2) When done correctly, it's in a vertical well many thousands of feet below the water table.

    Because that is where the oil is.

    3) It IS a very clever piece of engineering indeed. So clever it allows one to hide behind the auspices of responsible and intelligent engineering that has been well reviewed for danger with special attention to the precautionary principle. Believe it or not, these operations happen to be quite dangerous.

    The precautionary principle is hypocritical bullshit. For starters, if it were applied to itself, meta-style, it would never be applied to anything else just due to all the uncertainty of the considerable consequences of using the principle. The user of the principle decides what uncertainties they'll pay attention to and what uncertainties they will ignore.

    And of course, you completely blew off the engineering aspect. The technology to frack has been around for as long as people could pump pressurized water into the ground. It is only within the last thirty years that it has developed to the point where it actually works via horizontal drilling and use of surfactants and related chemicals. In the past, breaking up the oil bearing deposit meant reduced oil flow (since the water pressure from wells pumping water into the ground was now moving water between cracks rather than pushing oil along). They turned what was previously a disadvantage into a very effective way to extract oil.

    4) It DOES NOT REQUIRE large amounts of water continuously in a well managed and responsible frac.

    Which is relevant to whose discussion?

    5) National security prohibits FOIA requests for well data. We get to keep that trade secret, but moreover, get to keep it secret from the rest of you. So how the fuck do you know anything? I know, not an opinion, that you don't know fucking shit. You're not allowed.

    No, it's a clause protecting trade secrets not national security. And really, what business is it of yours? You still have to show a public interest.

    What ecosystem is being destroyed by fracking?

    The answer is any ecosystem that has irresponsible fracs guided by pure avarice. They tend to have something in common apparently:

    Circular reasoning which doesn't actually mention an ecosystem.

    1) Shallow. The distance between fraccing operations and the water table is risky putting it gently.

    You said thousands of feet. And there's impermeable rock in the way else the oil would be in the water table.

    2) Continuous. A normal frac that I was on did not have continuous needs for water to keep fraccing. It was a one time event in which you may perform upwards of a dozen fracs in different production zones.... but then the trucks left, everyone went back to the cities, and the water was slowly reclaimed and reprocessed.

    Again with this water thing. What does this have to do with ecosystems?

    3) Horizontal drilling. Yes, let's be nice and close to the water table and perform continuous fraccing.

    It's no closer to the water table than vertical drilling would be. This also is another engineering marvel that you just brush off.

    4) Cumulative effects. Dangerous fraccing on a continuous basis not only dramatically increases permeability, but basically mixes the whole thing like a fucking milkshake.

    Why would they continue fracking after the oil is gone? Cumulative effects only happen so long.

    5) Avarice (That profit you worship). The production rate curves *sharply* downward within a year. Most wells are produced over a large number of years to allow for recovery, but avarice dictates a fuck-the-world approach to get at the profits faster.

    Yes please. I don't have enough phony morality in my life.

    I've physically laid eyes on fraccing documents that I wasn't supposed to and I'm convinced beyond all doubt that their fracs are highly irresponsible. They only continue to exist because of the lack of oversight, lack of civilian transparency, and political and regulatory capture sufficient to continue operations unabated.

    Your firm conviction and $5 gets coffee at Starbucks. I'll note here that my observations haven't been rebutted. It's just been a stream of non sequiturs and "if you only could have seen what I have seen" bullshit. So we still have:
    1) It's a clever bit of engineering and it is used to extract useful oil.

    2) Profit is still not immoral.

    3) We still have a notable lack of environmental damage for a thing that is supposedly done without regard for the environmental consequences.

    4) There is regulation of fracking and it works.

    5) No one can point to an ecosystem that is being destroyed by fracking.

  • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 30 2016, @10:29PM

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @10:29PM (#395478)

    2) When done correctly, it's in a vertical well many thousands of feet below the water table.

    Because that is where the oil is.

    No, you stupid fuck. It's so that we don't destroy the water table. We use a CLOSED system that has nothing to do with the water tables, whatsoever. In fact, if it seemed like we might... that's a reason for FULL FUCKING STOP.

    The precautionary principle is hypocritical bullshit. For starters, if it were applied to itself, meta-style, it would never be applied to anything else just due to all the uncertainty of the considerable consequences of using the principle. The user of the principle decides what uncertainties they'll pay attention to and what uncertainties they will ignore.

    And of course, you completely blew off the engineering aspect. The technology to frack has been around for as long as people could pump pressurized water into the ground. It is only within the last thirty years that it has developed to the point where it actually works via horizontal drilling and use of surfactants and related chemicals. In the past, breaking up the oil bearing deposit meant reduced oil flow (since the water pressure from wells pumping water into the ground was now moving water between cracks rather than pushing oil along). They turned what was previously a disadvantage into a very effective way to extract oil.

    You, stupid, stupid, fucker. Stop trying to act intelligent as if you know anything about fraccing. Against the precautionary principle? Do you jerk off fantasizing about Keyhoe and him abusing the workers?

    It ALWAYS worked in horizontal wells you stupid fuck. If you knew what fraccing was, and had been on a frac, you would know that highlighted above in bold is a hilariously child like understanding of it.

    You 1st have a protected well casing that matters not if it is horizontal, or vertical. 2nd, You destroy parts of the casing with perforating explosions that use shaped charges to allow access to the production zone. 3rd, you slam the fraccing fluid as hard as you can (the dangerous part) to create the cracks and fissures. 4th, and this is what you are missing you dumb fuck, you allow the proppant to flow in between the cracks. 5th, you let the pressure off and slowly recover the fraccing fluids leaving the proppant* behind. 6th, relax with a Mimosa, you just greatly increased the permeability of your production zone!

    * Proppant - Give you a clue. It has nothing to do with water. Proppant can range from coarse sand to ceramic beads capable of 18,000 ft crush depths and high temperatures. I know you need a minute to process with your tiny apologist pea brain, but THIS is what increases permeability. NOT the cracks, NOT the water, but the PROPPANT left behind in the cracks. Sand is generally not preferred because it collapses under pressure and loses the permeability gains, while higher priced ceramic proppant can ensure permeability for much longer periods, and at much greater depths.

    Since it is a closed system, and you're not depending on the "water" for anything other than proppant transport, it is reclaimed. Note, that means you don't need to continually request the state government for water rights. You can literally reuse the fraccing fluids with a little processing and move on to the next well. Although, usually a truck is used to empty out containers above ground, and then ship that fluid back to facilities capable of handling it.

    Man, you are a dumb fuck.

    It's no closer to the water table than vertical drilling would be. This also is another engineering marvel that you just brush off.

    Again, you stupid fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T FUCKING DO IT!!!!!! CERTAINLY YOU DON'T FUCKING DO IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT ANY FUCKING REGARDS TO THAT WATER TABLE!!!!!!!!!!!

    The precautionary principle mother fucker. Use it.

    Why would they continue fracking after the oil is gone? Cumulative effects only happen so long.

    Well, a little reading comprehension would help, but then you're too busy sucking Corporate America's dick and worshiping profit above people.

    The oil isn't gone. You need to increase permeability so that your production rate could remain as high as it was initially was. When it falls away really fast, that doesn't mean the oil is gone. It could produce at a much smaller rate, for over 20 years.

    Is that good enough for Corporate America?? FUCK NO

    So the oil that is still there producing, and some of the oil still locked up requiring additional fraccing, necessitates the continuing of the fraccing process with complete disregard to the surrounding geology and ecology. Fuck everything. Mix it all up. Keep permeability high and share holder returns coming in.

    Yes please. I don't have enough phony morality in my life.

    You don't have any.

    Your firm conviction and $5 gets coffee at Starbucks. I'll note here that my observations haven't been rebutted. It's just been a stream of non sequiturs and "if you only could have seen what I have seen" bullshit. So we still have:
    1) It's a clever bit of engineering and it is used to extract useful oil.

    You're rebuttals are the nonsensical ramblings of a fucking armchair fraccing enthusiast with his head so far up his fucking ass he can't evaluate new data. You don't know shit, you don't know how the railroad commission works (did you know the railroad regulated it in Texas?), you don't know how regulations work in California, and you don't jack fucking shit about where to go to even begin to evaluate the public well data too (quite limited though).

    I was the loudest apologist for fraccing up to a few years ago when somebody on the old site dared me to expose myself to new information and attempt to disprove the detractors. Well guess what? The detractors were right. Needing huge amounts of water all the time is a big fucking red flag. It's a CLOSED system again. CLOSED. Finite amount of "water" going in, and a strong expectation of what needs to come back out. Before I saw the "continuous water injection" (direct quote) documents that illustrated the fraccing process (which looked like a Google indexing fuckup on a corporate web server corrected later) I believed fraccing was a responsible activity just poorly understood by the public.

    Those documents I saw were black and fucking white proof of a highly irresponsible frac performed on a shallow horizontal well head less than a thousand feet from a water table, with continuous fracturing of the production zone. That's easy to understand, as it would be my choice too on how to recover the most hydrocarbons.... completely ignoring the environment and anyone needing to live there again of course.

    2) Profit is still not immoral.

    That's debatable, but what isn't is the pursuit of profit with complete disregard for the safety of others, the safety of the environment, and the negative impacts on society.

    Profit at all cost is exceedingly immoral.

    3) We still have a notable lack of environmental damage for a thing that is supposedly done without regard for the environmental consequences.

    You're right. The people living on the lands leased ALWAYS could set the water coming out of their taps on fire. They ALWAYS could test the water and find hydrocarbons. They ALWAYS had greatly increased rates of earthquakes.

    It's impressive you can stick your head so firmly in the sand, when it so firmly up your ass at the same time. That's a real skill.

    4) There is regulation of fracking and it works.

    Stop trying to talk about regulations you know nothing about, especially its effectiveness. Are those regulations as effective as the ones Deep Water Horizon ignored? BP never respected regulations, and those fraccing regulations you don't know about don't regulate this apparently. Again, how could anyone know with FOIA being prevented from seeing?

    5) No one can point to an ecosystem that is being destroyed by fracking.

    There are plenty, but keep lying to yourself to make yourself feel better about the pursuit of profit at all cost. Remember, when everything is polluted, we are at civil war, and your life becomes running for next resource, you brought it all upon yourself by supporting the unsupportable .

    Stupid Fucker.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 30 2016, @11:19PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday August 30 2016, @11:19PM (#395490) Journal

      khallow's precautionary precautionary principle: It's not safe to assume it 's not safe until it is proven to be safe. Therefore, it is safe. Yeah, that's logic! Except we haven't accounted for precautionary logic.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31 2016, @09:07AM (#395628)

        But you mustn't get in the way of his god-given right to make as much money as possible at everyone else's expense.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:23AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:23AM (#395538) Journal
      Look, we're apparently speaking about something you have experience with and yet you're still all dumbshit. The remarkable thing about your argument is that you still have no backing for the claim that fracking is so dangerous it must be stopped.

      You're right. The people living on the lands leased ALWAYS could set the water coming out of their taps on fire. They ALWAYS could test the water and find hydrocarbons. They ALWAYS had greatly increased rates of earthquakes.

      The first two are not "ALWAYS" and when they are caused by fracking would be considerably reduced or eliminated. The last hasn't been shown to be a problem. We don't care able small earthquakes, we care about big ones that actually cause damage.

      I was the loudest apologist for fraccing up to a few years ago when somebody on the old site dared me to expose myself to new information and attempt to disprove the detractors. Well guess what? The detractors were right. Needing huge amounts of water all the time is a big fucking red flag. It's a CLOSED system again. CLOSED. Finite amount of "water" going in, and a strong expectation of what needs to come back out. Before I saw the "continuous water injection" (direct quote) documents that illustrated the fraccing process (which looked like a Google indexing fuckup on a corporate web server corrected later) I believed fraccing was a responsible activity just poorly understood by the public.

      I think this shows the retarded nature of your whole argument. I was for it, then someone showed me this single case where someone was doing something particularly dangerous, irresponsible, and suboptimal, and I got religion. The obvious answer is improve regulation and shut down particularly incompetently or negligently run wells, right? Anecdote is not data, right?

      Stop trying to talk about regulations you know nothing about, especially its effectiveness. Are those regulations as effective as the ones Deep Water Horizon ignored? BP never respected regulations, and those fraccing regulations you don't know about don't regulate this apparently. Again, how could anyone know with FOIA being prevented from seeing?

      For starters by looking at what's going on. There's a huge amount of fracking going on in the US and there isn't a huge amount of problems to go with that fracking. You don't need a FOIA request to figure that out.

      There are plenty, but keep lying to yourself to make yourself feel better about the pursuit of profit at all cost. Remember, when everything is polluted, we are at civil war, and your life becomes running for next resource, you brought it all upon yourself by supporting the unsupportable .

      Once again, not even one ecosystem named. And there is a reason for this, because there isn't an ecosystem destroyed by fracking. It's just another bit of puffery.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:51AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 31 2016, @01:51AM (#395549) Journal
      As an aside, I can window the transition in your beliefs to between February 2012 [slashdot.org] and May 2012 [slashdot.org]. That EdIII of 2012 made sense. What happened? Why can't you reason or talk like that here?

      I think the whole argument is pointless. You're basically saying that human societies are incapable of regulating harmful industries any more (in particular, because all you've done is describe either bad practices, a single bad example somewhere, or the consequences of those practices). So let's get rid of the industries. That's suicidal. We're already speaking of oil and natural gas, which satisfy enormous needs in modern societies. But that logic can apply to other key human activities like manufacture, agriculture, construction, etc. There's no sane end game to it.
      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday August 31 2016, @04:29AM

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @04:29AM (#395578)

        As an aside, I can window the transition in your beliefs to between February 2012 and May 2012. That EdIII of 2012 made sense. What happened? Why can't you reason or talk like that here?

        I still make plenty of sense. What has happened is that were are most likely months away from a terrible civil war, and talking has never got us anywhere. How could it? It never influenced anything at the top, and that included our votes.

        I'm tired of corporate apologists who make it a near religious moral crusade to protect profits at all cost. It's like it's discussing God to be able to point out the extremely unhealthy culture of avarice in an empathy-less sea of idiots repeating the talking points of those above.

        You ignore the consequences of avarice, dismiss the plight of the working man as the screaming of the entitled, and no amount of suffering around you will get you to extract your head from your ass. You would argue about whether or not we should fix the boat, while the boat is sinking and the rest of us are trying to save us. Get the fuck out of the way and let us bring prosperity back the working class. If, and that's a big if, it really inconveniences the mega rich in some immoral way, we can live with it. Literally. We can live with some disappointed rich fuckers nursing their egos in the 3rd home after flying there on their $100,000,000 private jet. The other way is trying to figure out how to live with 30,000,000 homeless people not going crazy and killing the rest of us for food. Of which may become harder to come by after we pollute water supplies. Did you know in California there is a fight to prevent farms from using wastewater from fracc'ing? I'm a farmer too now, and I can tell your stupid ass that you don't want to eat stuff grown in it. It's not good for you, honest truth. Swearsies.

        I think the whole argument is pointless. You're basically saying that human societies are incapable of regulating harmful industries any more (in particular, because all you've done is describe either bad practices, a single bad example somewhere, or the consequences of those practices). So let's get rid of the industries. That's suicidal.

        I never said that. Fracc'it up all you fucking want. Just do it right. Do it safely. Do it under civilian review after getting rid of the national security protections. OSHA exists, and rig workers can be protected and not exploited. Actually follow the regulations that would have prevented the disaster in the Gulf, instead of engaging in pathetically avaricious andm as immoral as they are extremem efforts to profit by not following them.

        We can absolutely tell an industry to never even ask us again about possibly fucking up water tables to get at some profit they feel entitled to seek no-matter-what. In fact, I find that reasonable and probable cause to investigate them for recklessness.

        Don't conflate following of some fucking common sense rules and ethics with asking an industry to die and commit suicide. A little melodramatic you think?

        We're already speaking of oil and natural gas, which satisfy enormous needs in modern societies.

        You ARE NOT PACKING OUR SURVIVAL KIT. Seriously, leave that up to other people. You'll live longer.

        WATER SATISFIES THE PRIMARY DEPENDENCY FOR ALL LIFE THAT MATTERS TO US AND MANIFEST DESTINY INCLUDED ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES IT

        Perhaps, just maybe, you should reconsider the priorities. I have it on good authority, not pulling it out of my ass like your 'frac facts', that vegetables just LOVE THE SHIT. It's like they live for it. Especially the clean stuff.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:34PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 31 2016, @02:34PM (#395698) Journal

          I never said that. Fracc'it up all you fucking want. Just do it right. Do it safely. Do it under civilian review after getting rid of the national security protections. OSHA exists, and rig workers can be protected and not exploited. Actually follow the regulations that would have prevented the disaster in the Gulf, instead of engaging in pathetically avaricious andm as immoral as they are extremem efforts to profit by not following them.

          If that's what you believe, then why are you arguing at all? I didn't say otherwise. And once again, fracking fluid composition is a trade secret issue not a national security issue. There's an exemption for trade secrets in the US FOIA law.

          We can absolutely tell an industry to never even ask us again about possibly fucking up water tables to get at some profit they feel entitled to seek no-matter-what. In fact, I find that reasonable and probable cause to investigate them for recklessness.

          Making generalizations don't help your case. You aren't being safe, if operators who comply fully with regulation are treated the same as operators who don't. You keep using general indiscriminate terms rather than specific ones. The industry isn't fracking at 1000 feet. It is particular operators whom we can regulate, fine, jail, etc who are doing that.

          We're already speaking of oil and natural gas, which satisfy enormous needs in modern societies.

          You ARE NOT PACKING OUR SURVIVAL KIT. Seriously, leave that up to other people. You'll live longer.

          Please stop with the ridiculous posturing. Water is not the only resource we need and ground water is only a small part of the water that is used by us and our ecosystems. And despite your hyperventilating, it's just not endangered by proper fracking.

          Further, there is a ridiculous amount of water in the environment. We have better things to do than worry about resources which aren't actually scarce.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:58PM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday August 31 2016, @06:58PM (#395800)

            If that's what you believe, then why are you arguing at all? I didn't say otherwise. And once again, fracking fluid composition is a trade secret issue not a national security issue. There's an exemption for trade secrets in the US FOIA law.

            It's not a trade secret, and it's not related to the fluids. In any case, I already know what is in it, as explained by the engineers present. I'm not worried about fracking fluid composition anymore than I'm worried about being exposed to dangerous radiation from medical materials. As I stated, it's a CLOSED system. That fluid is as dangerous as anything else being transported, so all things being equal, I don't give a fuck about it. There are well established ways to deal with the fluid, and under normal conditions, it is isolated and controllable.

            We get to keep our well data secret, especially 3D seismic and our understandings of the geological formations. Basically, anything related to information regarding hydrocarbons underground is protected by national security. You have no way around that, and no, there are no exceptions to it. Of course, please feel free to prove me wrong. I would truly love that, and would instantly be filing thousands of requests to gain access to all of their 3D seismic.

            If we both agree on the search for the truth, then the truth is readily available. Just shoot the fucking executives in the head to remove the deliberate obstructions (or with a miracle get corrupt legislators to allow it), perform the data collection, analyze the data, and the determine the "health" of the water tables.

            With technology at our disposal, it's as simple as looking. It's not a climate change debate (although none of it is debatable anyways) where there are variables and math to argue about.

            Blow some shit up, listen to the sound waves, and see like mother fucking Batman. Simplistic, but not wholly inaccurate.

            Making generalizations don't help your case. You aren't being safe, if operators who comply fully with regulation are treated the same as operators who don't. You keep using general indiscriminate terms rather than specific ones. The industry isn't fracking at 1000 feet. It is particular operators whom we can regulate, fine, jail, etc who are doing that.

            I've made no generalizations at all. The industry has a well established track record of skirting regulations for profit. How would you know if the industry is fraccing at 1000 ft? Just curious, but where are you getting your information about the various formations, the chosen production zones, location of perforations, etc.?

            Again, you seem under the mistaken impression that I'm asking for a moratorium on fraccing, or the complete banning of it. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we still need access to natural gas at a minimum for the foreseeable future. I don't object to deliberately leaving oil underground anymore, as long as renewables start taking off to meet our needs.

            What I'm tired of, and what we will all rise up to kill the rest of you for, is the skirting of regulations and the utter destruction of the environment for profit. To that end, shut the fuck up about fraccing. Stop talking about as if you know jack shit, because you do the rest of us (your actual brothers and sisters) an extreme disservice by propping these evil people up.

            There is no way on God's green Earth that a movement to stop fraccing could have ever occurred if the fracs were done right. It would have remained an obscure technology that almost nobody would have heard of.

            When there is smoke, there *may* be fire. When there is huge volumes of smoke everywhere, then you're just a fucking moron for saying there can't be fire. Occam's Razor alone dictates that they are lying through their teeth about being safe.

            Please stop with the ridiculous posturing. Water is not the only resource we need and ground water is only a small part of the water that is used by us and our ecosystems. And despite your hyperventilating, it's just not endangered by proper fracking.

            Further, there is a ridiculous amount of water in the environment. We have better things to do than worry about resources which aren't actually scarce.

            You are a true moron aren't you? Ridiculous posturing? Hardly. Water is the primary and overriding requirement to life as we know it, and life that can support us. Would you like to speak to other scientists about this?

            We don't scan the cosmos for hydrocarbons to look for life, we scan for water.

            Fresh water is becoming scarce. Don't go full retard on us here today and try to claim that the majority of our water is fresh and accessible, when the reality is that it's becoming increasingly difficult. Look to the recent article about the water underground in India and how we are increasing salinity and arsenic concentrations.

            And despite your hyperventilating, it's just not endangered by proper fracking.

            LOL!!!!!!

            That's the FIRST fucking thing you said that made any sense at all, and was accurate.

            Except.... there is very very little proper fracking going on, corrupt regulators are everywhere, and all of the data is obscured from public review by national security laws. If there were proper fracks everywhere, nobody could be complaining about damage to water tables. Go ahead and try. Call all of those people liars, and all of the tests of their water fraudulent.

            As I stated before, and I will state again, I've believed that all fracs were proper fracs. Why would these engineers destroy nature and harm society? I couldn't wrap my head around it either considering the massive consequences. The truth is different, and no proper frac requires that much water continuously.

            Stupid fucker. That's why you need to die and get the fuck out of our way. You're just as bad as the rest of them, and we can't move forward while your full-retard apologist ass keeps allowing them the exact same environment to conduct their illicit activities.

            Burn in hell.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 01 2016, @04:04PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 01 2016, @04:04PM (#396229) Journal

              We get to keep our well data secret, especially 3D seismic and our understandings of the geological formations. Basically, anything related to information regarding hydrocarbons underground is protected by national security. You have no way around that, and no, there are no exceptions to it. Of course, please feel free to prove me wrong. I would truly love that, and would instantly be filing thousands of requests to gain access to all of their 3D seismic.

              Who is "we" here? If it is "the industry", then FOIA doesn't apply to private entities. If it's the government, then the information is probably already public domain.

              There is no way on God's green Earth that a movement to stop fraccing could have ever occurred if the fracs were done right. It would have remained an obscure technology that almost nobody would have heard of.

              That's nonsense. There are plenty of environmental groups strongly opposed to any fossil fuel production and use for reasons that have nothing to do with safety. My view is that fracking really is opposed because it extends our period of oil and natural gas production by a significant amount of time and quantity which is considered in itself an evil. I believe here the legal principle of "deny everything" applies. That is resist fracking 100% even when you have no scientific or legal basis for doing so.

              I've made no generalizations at all. The industry has a well established track record of skirting regulations for profit. How would you know if the industry is fraccing at 1000 ft?

              Claim no generalizing is going on and then turn around and in the very next two sentences generalize about "the industry". A good portion of the industry doesn't frack at all, much less frack at 1000 feet. If fracking at an unsafe depth is happening, then there is someone that can be fined and punished. It's not some generic, nebulous "the industry" doing that.

              Further, since when did it become my job to stop unsafe fracking? Where's my budget for this? If you want to give me an appropriate budget and appropriate legal authority, then sure, I can "know" this stuff and address it.

              Water is the primary and overriding requirement to life as we know it, and life that can support us.

              No, that would be gaseous O2. You can go without water for days. You can go without oxygen for maybe ten minutes. But we don't hear about running out of air, eh? Just because we need something doesn't make it scarce.

              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:30PM

                by edIII (791) on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:30PM (#396427)

                No, that would be gaseous O2. You can go without water for days. You can go without oxygen for maybe ten minutes. But we don't hear about running out of air, eh? Just because we need something doesn't make it scarce.

                This is why you've gone full retard. You're actually arguing with me over the extreme biological need for water, not just in our bodies, but in nature around us. That's not something that can be argued.

                God you are a stupid, stupid, fucker.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:59PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:59PM (#396464) Journal

                  You're actually arguing with me over the extreme biological need for water, not just in our bodies, but in nature around us.

                  I'm not. That should tell any other reader who the "stupid fucker" really is here. I've never disputed the need. What I have done is point out something that should be obvious. The scarcity matters as well.

                  Sure, ecosystems need water. But there's plenty of water in the world and rain, an enormous natural distribution system to deliver that water. Which means we can do a hell of a lot more harm to the environment than a little ground water contamination and still have that water distribution.

                  Your only concern to date has been somebody fracking at 1000 feet. Which probably isn't good for ground water contamination, but is a far cry from destroying ecosystems which a) aren't very dependent on ground water, b) aren't that harmed by ground water contamination, and c) are contaminated only near the source of the ground water contamination. Sure, sounds like something to regulate, but you are a long ways from showing the threat you've claimed.