U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-27-2014, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
32,053 posts, read 13,491,892 times
Reputation: 24030

Advertisements

Here's the problem. If studies determine that fracking IS causing earthquakes, the oil companies and their most avid supporters will still deny it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2014, 12:16 PM
 
22,795 posts, read 41,723,115 times
Reputation: 23070
Default NY Cities Win the Right to Ban Fracking

The NY State Court of Appeals ruled that NY towns "...engaged in a “reasonable exercise” of their zoning authority when they banned oil and gas extraction and production,..."
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 12:26 PM
 
22,795 posts, read 41,723,115 times
Reputation: 23070
A new political party is popping up, the Job Party, which is against fracking. We'll see.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2014, 06:10 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,329,397 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink But not in the lake (maybe)

'Saltwater spills in the state have increased as the North Dakota energy boom has evolved. The state produced 25.5 million barrels of brine in 2012. There were 141 pipeline leaks reported in the state that same year, 99 of which spilled around 8,000 barrels of saltwater, AP reports.' [1]


A pipeline carrying fracking residue 10 to 30 times saltier than sea water ruptured on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, resulting in a release of about 1,000,000 gallons of this fluid. Discovered only Tuesday, it is suspected the leak began over the 4th of July weekend.

Having already befouled the surrounding land, with dead bushes, grasses and trees in result, this fracking fluid may well find its way into Bear Den Bay, leading into Lake Sakakawea. This lake providing water for this western North Dakota reservation, home to the Hidatsa, Arikara and Mandan tribes.

Crestwood Midstream Services, Inc. claims this spill has not impacted the lake (pointing to an earthen berm and d*ke around the lake's bay as proof—for the leak of an underground pipeline. Aero Pipeline LLC, a subsidiary of Crestwood, owns the pipeline in question.


1) '1 mn gallons of oil-drilling byproducts leaked into N. Dakota drinking water,' RT
1 mn gallons of oil-drilling byproducts leaked into N. Dakota drinking water ? RT USA
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 09:45 PM
 
Location: north central Ohio
8,665 posts, read 4,840,929 times
Reputation: 5201
Answers on link between injection wells and quakes

Answers on link between injection wells and quakes
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 06:10 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,329,397 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink According to California

"Our drinking water sources must be protected and preserved for the precious resources they are, not sacrificed as a garbage dump for the oil and gas industry." [1]



Leave it to a drought to remind one of the importance of water.

According to California state oil and gas supervisor Steve Bohlen, there is no direct evidence of any drinking water being affected by oil operations. The publication ProPublica says otherwise, reporting in 2012 that the over 700,000 injection wells in the US are not only poorly regulated but often polluting underground water, that presumably protected by federal law.

California—a state which had exempted over 1,000 drinking water aquifers from protection against pollution—has apparently, in the severe and ongoing drought affecting all of the state, had a change of heart. They now have a new appreciation for water resources considered undesirable before. On July 7 they issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies, and that their fracking operations may be contaminating underground aquifers, which "poses danger to life, health, property, and natural resources." Eleven fracking wastewater injection sites will be shut down, with 100 more under review.


1) 'California curbs injection of toxic fracking waste into aquifers needed in severe drought,' RT
California curbs injection of toxic fracking waste into aquifers needed in severe drought ? RT USA
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 06:28 PM
 
5,866 posts, read 11,429,629 times
Reputation: 4541
Our carbon emissions have declined because of fracking. There may be problems associated with fracking that need to be addressed no doubt, however a switch from coal and oil to natural gas is the more realistic alternative right now to see a REAL decline in CO2 emissions as the energy output per CO2 emissions of natural gas is MUCH better than the other two fossil fuels.

And this is not some pro corporate right wing propoganda. Any search on my posts would reveal I am mostly liberal. But this is a well known fact.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 05:53 AM
 
251 posts, read 298,424 times
Reputation: 468
California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Aquifers | Mother Jones

California is curbing fracking because the risk of water pollution could worsen the drought, I find it strange considering we were always told that fracking was safe. I suppose it is safe as long as no one ever actually needs any water
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,778 posts, read 17,487,410 times
Reputation: 9381
@Skytop...who uses water anyway!

Last edited by CosmicWizard; 07-23-2014 at 10:17 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 02:30 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,329,397 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink Pollution guaranteed

'The law requires applicants for the exemptions to prove that aquifers can’t be used for drinking because the water is so deep underground that it’s too expensive or too impractical to ever be tapped.

But Colorado water experts say you can never say never.'
[1]




If the state of California is waking up to the value of its water resources, the allowed practice of polluting aquifers due fracking is widespread, no less in Colorado.

US Environmental Protection Agency rational for allowing this practice is that 'exempted' aquifers affected are of a lower water quality or too deep to be practically accessed, and therefore of no concern when polluted. If now in California it is seen that such practices are little regulated or understood, and with transmigration and so forth perfectly potable water in heretofore good aquifers being adversely affected.

This practice of knowingly polluting acquirers has been ongoing in Colorado* (* up to at least the year 2012, and presumably still). In the five counties The Coloradoan sought information on in 2012 (Weld, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, and Denver), there were 6 EPA aquifer exemptions in the area. Although no wells accessed these aquifers, the EPA still noted that three of them "are considered to be underground sources of drinking water.” [1]

The current plan the state of Colorado uses to project water needs until 2050, last updated in 2012* (* as of that writing; and, news has it, quite comprehensively changed in 2015) takes little account of underground water resources, or the decided effects of climate change.
“We’re sacrificing those aquifers … In 50 or 100 years, we may actually like to have that water, and it will not be available. That’s a water quantity issue,” he [Williams] said.[1]
Apparently the EPA has not cared to keep entirely accurate records of even how many aquifer exemptions it has granted, where they are, or who likely affected. And while these exemptions are presumably for only lower-quality water and in aquifers too deep to practically reach, not entirely the case. They have also issued exemptions for portions of reservoirs, assuming that pollutants placed there would not migrate elsewhere. [2]

As with Denver. The EPA's Rocky Mountain regional office has (as of 2012) issued over 1,100 exemptions in the Rocky Mountain region. Many of them shallow and in the same geologic formations as aquifers used by Denver residents for drinking water. This water being polluted by the oil and gas industry, otherwise often clean enough to drink unfiltered. And if the site of toxic oil and gas wastewater injection in some cases hundreds of miles removed, this in no way taking into account how water can and does migrate long distances underground. Or, that once such a resource polluted, effectively so permanently.
"It's short-sighted," said Tom Curtis, the deputy executive director of the American Water Works Association, an international non-governmental drinking water organization. "It's something that future generations may question." [2]
One thing gleaned from any of this that oil company and government representations that fracking and subsequent wastewater disposal underground is safe and clean is nothing but PR. The truth being that such practices do pollute underground water resources. If, they might have you believe, not the ones you should care anything about. Not today, if perhaps tomorrow.



1) 'EPA allowing oil companies to inject drilling and fracking waste into aquifers below Northern Colorado,' The Coloradoan
EPA allowing oil companies to inject drilling and fracking waste into aquifers below Northern Colorado | The Coloradoan | coloradoan.com

2) 'EPA Lets Energy Firms Pollute America's Underground Water Supply,' Inside Climate News
EPA Lets Energy Firms Pollute America's Underground Water Supply | InsideClimate News
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top