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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2014, 12:51 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,332,237 times
Reputation: 2632

Advertisements

"This sets in place a way to keep the pressure on legislators," he [Polis] said, "and it leaves the door open for 2016, when there's a more favorable electorate."

Some at the protest said the dropping of Polis' measures only served to reaffirm for them a profound distrust of politicians.'
[1]




Colorado Representative Jared Polis is apparently a stand up guy. At least on Tuesday when he arrived for a town hall meeting in Boulder and, unlike many politicians, braved the angry crowd gathered outside, withstanding taunts and insults for about 40 minutes, and getting an ear full. He might be applauded for his courage, if not resolve to protect Coloradoans from undue fracking.

At issue are four ballot initiatives that were to be decided by voters in November—all peremptorily withdrawn, with Rep. Polis' connivance. Two were pro-industry, one of which would have withheld all oil and gas revenues from communities outlawing fracking. The two anti-fracking initiatives, which it seems Polis himself originally sponsored (so the ability to later withdraw them), had garnered some 300,000 signatures.

Rep. Polis claims he still has an interest in defending homeowners and communities from fracking close to homes. Yet somehow a change of heart in, now, feeling it was not the right time to do so. One could suspect the intercedence and pressure from such as Governor Hickenlooper and other moneyed interests. Or perhaps these initiates a ploy never meant to see a general election, but useful in forestalling other measures possibly taken.

In any event it should be quite clear at this juncture that those controlling the state of Colorado are keen on all the more fracking, and if worrying about the environmental consequences at all will happily kick that can down the road. That if fracking is to be done in a proper, regulated fashion—or if specific conditions warrant, not at all in instances—and Colorado communities free to decide if they welcome it or not, then the citizens of Colorado will have to see to it. As their current elected representatives will not.

"The power is not with our representatives. The power is with us," said Mary Smith, founder of Boulder County Community Rights Network. "The government is of the people, but the problem is that we've all forgotten that. We keep pointing our fingers at politicians saying, 'It's up to you to fix.' Well, it's up to us."

"Polis," she added, "needs to defend the constitution of the state as a citizen. He needs to stop playing games with the people. He works for us. He is not the authority. I'm tired of these politicians acting like they are the power."


1) 'Jared Polis' Boulder town hall meeting picketed by anti-fracking protesters,' The Denver Post
Jared Polis' Boulder town hall meeting picketed by anti-fracking protesters - The Denver Post
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2014, 04:32 PM
 
1,728 posts, read 1,449,180 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Ignore it and it'll go away of its own accord!
I didn't mean ignore the issue of fracking in general. I meant that if I should just move there and not let fracking keep me from living in Colorado.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 07:43 AM
 
6 posts, read 13,322 times
Reputation: 20
Default Article: Duke University research

Recent article on Duke University's research (08.10.14, News and Observer):

DURHAM: As NC ponders fracking rules, will Duke duo's research have impact? | Health & Science | NewsObserver.com


Jane
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2014, 08:07 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 26,956,566 times
Reputation: 9213
I am not one to dismiss the potential issues with frac'ing, but here is the HARD TRUTH about the oil and gas situation in the United States: Contrary to what most Americans believe, nearly all of US domestic reserves of oil and natural gas are contained in old, depleted or nearly depleted fields. Even the Bakken Field in North Dakota is an "old field"--the Williston Basin has been producing oil for many decades. One thing has changed the oil and natural gas picture in the US in the last few years--oil and natural gas have reached sustained prices high enough to encourage expensive non-conventional techniques to recover those reserves. Hydraulic fracturing of rock to release oil and natural gas reserves that otherwise would not be recoverable (frac'ing) is the most common and most effective of the those non-conventional recovery techniques. No one should be surprised that it is being heavily used.

Now, here is the eat s*** and die reality for Idunn and the rest of the anti-frac'ing crowd, no matter how valid their concerns are about the dangers of frac'ing--there are only three possible outcomes for the current oil and natural gas situation in the United States. Either the US:

1. Goes on a complete energy "diet" that would cut US oil and natural gas consumption by over half--almost immediately; and that would require changing almost completely how and where Americans live, along with a very substantial decline in the material standard of living for some substantial period while that adjustment takes place.
OR
2. We resign ourselves to importing 80%-100% of our oil and a substantial percentage of natural gas from overseas--much of it from countries that hate us and/or use frac'ing and all kinds of environmentally damaging techniques where THEY recover their oil and gas.
OR
3. We continue to use frac'ing to recover depleting US reserves, with all of the negative consequences that may entail.

Now. the best avenue for this country's long-term economic and national security AND environmental quality would be for this country adopt Option No. 1 as quickly as practical, but the reality is that it will be ignored in favor of the latter two options for as long as possible. Too bad that it will be that way, but Americans are now too lazy, stupid, ill-informed, and poorly led to have even the faintest understanding of what the energy situation is in the is country. Sooooo, like it or not, frac'ing is here to stay, any bad consequences notwithstanding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 04:35 AM
 
7 posts, read 8,203 times
Reputation: 19
http://weber.ninecomputer.com/1.jpg Ignore it Completely ignore it
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 08:22 AM
 
1,549 posts, read 1,097,114 times
Reputation: 1866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
I am not one to dismiss the potential issues with frac'ing, but here is the HARD TRUTH about the oil and gas situation in the United States: Contrary to what most Americans believe, nearly all of US domestic reserves of oil and natural gas are contained in old, depleted or nearly depleted fields. Even the Bakken Field in North Dakota is an "old field"--the Williston Basin has been producing oil for many decades. One thing has changed the oil and natural gas picture in the US in the last few years--oil and natural gas have reached sustained prices high enough to encourage expensive non-conventional techniques to recover those reserves. Hydraulic fracturing of rock to release oil and natural gas reserves that otherwise would not be recoverable (frac'ing) is the most common and most effective of the those non-conventional recovery techniques. No one should be surprised that it is being heavily used.

Now, here is the eat s*** and die reality for Idunn and the rest of the anti-frac'ing crowd, no matter how valid their concerns are about the dangers of frac'ing--there are only three possible outcomes for the current oil and natural gas situation in the United States. Either the US:

1. Goes on a complete energy "diet" that would cut US oil and natural gas consumption by over half--almost immediately; and that would require changing almost completely how and where Americans live, along with a very substantial decline in the material standard of living for some substantial period while that adjustment takes place.
OR
2. We resign ourselves to importing 80%-100% of our oil and a substantial percentage of natural gas from overseas--much of it from countries that hate us and/or use frac'ing and all kinds of environmentally damaging techniques where THEY recover their oil and gas.
OR
3. We continue to use frac'ing to recover depleting US reserves, with all of the negative consequences that may entail.

Now. the best avenue for this country's long-term economic and national security AND environmental quality would be for this country adopt Option No. 1 as quickly as practical, but the reality is that it will be ignored in favor of the latter two options for as long as possible. Too bad that it will be that way, but Americans are now too lazy, stupid, ill-informed, and poorly led to have even the faintest understanding of what the energy situation is in the is country. Sooooo, like it or not, frac'ing is here to stay, any bad consequences notwithstanding.
One of the most honest and realistic posts I've seen on this board.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 04:00 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,332,237 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink In the stars — and our hands

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_rollins View Post
Recent article on Duke University's research (08.10.14, News and Observer):

DURHAM: As NC ponders fracking rules, will Duke duo's research have impact? | Health & Science | NewsObserver.com


Jane


'The threats to water resources extend beyond methane contamination. The substantial volume of contaminated wastewater is one of the biggest safety hazards of natural gas extraction.' [1]



Many in Colorado might consider this state more progressive than North Carolina, but at least insofar as fracking is concerned, it is not.

North Carolina has thus far maintained a moratorium on fracking, while studying the issue, and formulating standards in advance of soon allowing it. Colorado, on the other hand, has taken a Wild West approach little different than the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. One proposed North Carolina safety rule would prohibit fracking closer than 650 feet from water wells. As I recall, the same setback in Colorado is but 350 feet (and, if memory serves, but 150 feet in rural locations).

Robert Jackson and Avner Vengosh would have that setback 1,000 feet. Both are professors at Duke University in North Carolina; Robert Jackson a professor of earth and ocean sciences, Avner Vengosh a professor of geochemistry and water quality. They are both with Duke's Nicholas School, being preeminent in research on environmental issues. Both on the public map in 2011, when citing a link they determined between fracking and contamination of Pennsylvania drinking water.

It might be noted that the underlying geology of Pennsylvania is dissimilar to that of North Carolina. Just as either to Colorado. Being one reason this pair wish to collect data on 51 private water wells in North Carolina, as to date providing a relatively undisturbed baseline. Whereas in other regions, including Colorado, methane migration into water wells has been blamed by oil and gas companies on existing natural geologic features. Whereas in North Carolina any rise in methane could be directly attributed to fracking.

The concern of these scientists is that the presence of methane gas in water wells would be but the warning sign of worse to follow. That methane as a gas would migrate first and most easily. That it could be years before the host of toxic chemicals used in fracking could work their way through thousands of feet of rock to finally seep into drinking water wells near the surface.

These scientists are developing a means to chemically fingerprint the origin of methane, and whether natural to the location or foreign and introduced due fracking.

On a broader front, it would not only be pessimism but near certainty to suggest that fracking operations in the United States and globally will not only continue but accelerate. That Americans will choose—if only be default in doing nothing to prevent it—the easy route in the short term of exploiting all energy resources that they can, including hydraulic fracturing, all the while refusing most energy conservation measures. Being the facts on the ground at the moment, particularly in Colorado.

If that in no way suggests that this necessarily must be the future of Colorado. It is the most likely outcome as things stand. But nothing is written in the stars, even as their influence is inescapable. The citizens Colorado, verily as North Carolina to date, and such as Germany, have the ability to reconsider and choose a possibly better way forward. One not structured on easy gain and greed, but wise stewardship of this magnificent land towards the betterment of all, in this generation and those to follow. And in insuring that no steps taken today will negatively impair Colorado's water resources—ever.

If the future appears dark, that has yet to be decided.



1) 'As NC ponders fracking rules, will Duke duo's research have impact?' News Observer
DURHAM: As NC ponders fracking rules, will Duke duo's research have impact? | Health & Science | NewsObserver.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 07:43 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 26,956,566 times
Reputation: 9213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
On a broader front, it would not only be pessimism but near certainty to suggest that fracking operations in the United States and globally will not only continue but accelerate. That Americans will choose—if only be default in doing nothing to prevent it—the easy route in the short term of exploiting all energy resources that they can, including hydraulic fracturing, all the while refusing most energy conservation measures. Being the facts on the ground at the moment, particularly in Colorado.
And . . . just wait until there is major disruption in the foreign supplies of oil that the US now depends upon for 40%-60% of our oil needs, depending on whose statistics you trust. Watch how fast ANY pretense of environmental protection goes out the window when the fuel pumps are dry. Given the current disintegration in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, that little episode could begin playing out just about any day.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2014, 07:16 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,332,237 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink But not in my backyard

"We moved into a house thinking we had nice quiet back there," Geri Nelson said. "If houses went in eventually, houses went in eventually. But we never imagined that there would be noise and drilling and lights 24 hours a day. That's a surprise to us." [1]



Residents of the town of Erie will be holding a public meeting tonight, Tuesday, concerning the sudden advent of fracking in their neighborhood.

If in the works for years, apparently new and unwelcome news to homeowners who will be adversely affected, being but 300 feet from the Encana Oil & Gas property line, where they intend to install 13 fracking wells on two pads.

Perhaps an example of Coloradoans who could care less about fracking—until it ends up in their backyard.


1) 'Erie neighbors say they've been kept in dark about 13 planned fracking sites,' Daily Camera
Erie neighbors say they've been kept in dark about 13 planned fracking sites - Boulder Daily Camera
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 04:39 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,332,237 times
Reputation: 2632
Wink The 5% dilemma

'For those who say we can regulate our way around this, just give us time and we'll fix the problems—I'm sorry. We've had 100 years of commercial oil and gas development at very large quantities, around the world. Time is over. We've damaged the atmosphere too much, and it would take too long, it would take decades and billions of dollars, to begin to fix the problems that we know have existed for decades. And by then, it will be too late.' [1]



Anthony Ingraffea would not be your usual environmental apologist. If an engineering professor at Cornell University, he has by his own admission spent the last 25 years or so assisting the oil and gas industry in "helping them to figure out how best to get oil and gas out of the rock." His research to this end has been financed by such as Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Schlumberger. Since then he has apparently had a change of heart, having likely incurred the disfavor of former sponsors in appearing in the 2013 HBO film 'Gasland II.' Either way, someone who might know something on the subject.

There is the issue of such things as fracking-induced earthquakes. But what may have put Ingraffea on the map was a 2011 scientific study in the journal of Climate Change, wherein he and two other Cornell researchers postulated that between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane in fracking operations is released into the atmosphere. "Every single measurement has concluded that the percentage of methane leaking into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations is far greater than two and a half percent," says Ingraffea. "I think the best estimate right now is somewhere around 5 percent."

Such seemingly small percentages matter because methane is a potent greenhouse gas about 80 to 90 times more influential to our atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2). Or at such a rate of methane release that over several decades the net effect would be natural gas as a fossil fuel (as derived from fracking), which while otherwise 'cleaner' than oil or coal, would due this alone NOT be.

Something one is not likely to hear in one of the many industry-sponsored television ads in Colorado, promoting hydraulic fracturing as, among other presumably beneficial things, being a 'cleaner' alternative.


1) 'Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger,' Mother Jones
Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger | Mother Jones
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. The time now is 10:49 AM.

© 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