U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 10-25-2012, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,757 posts, read 4,397,860 times
Reputation: 4850

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but I was listening to a report on the radio a couple of days ago, which stated that no American company has yet turned a profit on fracking.
I can tell you there are plenty of companies that have made plenty of profits in Fracking, that is why so many do it now. Hell just a few days ago I met a guy who buys wells that are near the end of their life span with production dropped to the point of no longer being worth the costs of the pumpers and trucks to drive to them, they then frack the wells, turn the recovery from 10-20 barrels a day back up to 300+ barrels a day, and then sale the oil right back to the companies they buy the wells from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2012, 07:44 AM
 
Location: OKLAHOMA
1,778 posts, read 3,478,323 times
Reputation: 927
There is a fracking well about a mile and half from my home and it doesn't seem to be a problem. What I like it means they don't have to come onto my property. Also, they are doing horizontal wells which I love because they are taking all the oil from under my 300 acres ranch and not touching me. I am not easy to get along with with oil guys mainly because I do not own my mineral rights but we all need that oil and with fracking and horizontal drilling that means less wells which is good!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,139 posts, read 5,483,318 times
Reputation: 945
Debbie please give us an update in a year or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 07:25 AM
 
Location: OKLAHOMA
1,778 posts, read 3,478,323 times
Reputation: 927
It's been several years now. Yes, it worried me but the plus side was they did not have to come onto my land. Thankfully, the land owners around me like that instant cash they got from the oil company. I preferred not having anyone with an easement near my place. Oklahoma was the first for fracking and have been for a very long time. Some people blame tremors on them but evidence showed a possible 2.0 earthquake. We had a 4.something a year ago but the earthquake center (wherever that is) said it was related to fracking. I personally would think most people would like it because it means a lot less wells out there. Now, if it was to get into my water I scream my head off but my water is checked all the time and is just fine. No flow difference either after the well went in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Bend, OR
3,296 posts, read 8,196,177 times
Reputation: 3316
Quote:
Originally Posted by debbie at bouontiful View Post
It's been several years now. Yes, it worried me but the plus side was they did not have to come onto my land. Thankfully, the land owners around me like that instant cash they got from the oil company. I preferred not having anyone with an easement near my place. Oklahoma was the first for fracking and have been for a very long time. Some people blame tremors on them but evidence showed a possible 2.0 earthquake. We had a 4.something a year ago but the earthquake center (wherever that is) said it was related to fracking. I personally would think most people would like it because it means a lot less wells out there. Now, if it was to get into my water I scream my head off but my water is checked all the time and is just fine. No flow difference either after the well went in.
This seems to be the biggest problem. Landowners accept the wells because of the instant cash they bring. However, years down the road, problems begin to arise with water, higher cancer rates, or something else, and then they begin to think about how that instant cash may end up costing them a lot more in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,757 posts, read 4,397,860 times
Reputation: 4850
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta07 View Post
This seems to be the biggest problem. Landowners accept the wells because of the instant cash they bring. However, years down the road, problems begin to arise with water, higher cancer rates, or something else, and then they begin to think about how that instant cash may end up costing them a lot more in the long run.

Do you have any studies done on peoples health in the areas they allow fracking, I have looked but have yet to find anything that shows a higher rate of cancer or other health problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,754 posts, read 16,447,829 times
Reputation: 9287
From a quick google search on the relationship between fracking and cancer, I found this article. Fracking Exposed: Shocking New Report Links Drilling With Breast Cancer and Women's Violence

There are many more on the return list, but you ( jwiley ) can do your own homework. Posted this link just to show you that there is information available if you care to find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,757 posts, read 4,397,860 times
Reputation: 4850
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
From a quick google search on the relationship between fracking and cancer, I found this article. Fracking Exposed: Shocking New Report Links Drilling With Breast Cancer and Women's Violence

There are many more on the return list, but you ( jwiley ) can do your own homework. Posted this link just to show you that there is information available if you care to find it.
That is a link showing a lot of assumptions and guesses on what some of the possible chemicals they are using and how they have been shown to cause cancer on their own. You are right I can find plenty of articles with plenty of assumptions and guesses, but I have yet to see a study of these chemicals actually affecting an area. Fracking has been in use of 60 years, surely they must have studies by now showing actual health problems in the areas where fracking has been used. I have family in the parachute area of Colorado fracking has been used there since the 70s, not to mention northern Colorado where it has been used since the 60s, all over Oklahoma & Texas since the 50s, all over Wyoming since the 60s. Surely there must be something showing millions of cases of cancer tied to fracking if everything they put into the ground and comes up causes cancer like they are saying. So once again has anybody actually done a study showing the actual affects of fracking in any of those areas as compared to say national averages or areas without fracking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 06:02 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 5,834,746 times
Reputation: 2615
Wink If pregnant

'Sandra Steingraber, an acclaimed ecologist and author of "Raising Elijah" -- a book on how to raise a child in an age of environmental hazards, takes the strong stand that fracking violates a woman's reproductive rights. "If you want to plan a pregnancy and someone else's chemicals sabotage that -- it's a violation of your rights as a woman to have agency over your own reproductive destiny," she said.' [1]


This from the aforementioned reference. In just this it seems that prudence would prevent anyone pregnant, or contemplating it, working closely with fracking operations—or even living anywhere in the neighborhood. The chemicals used are a whose who of all the nasty things no one wants to have anything to do with. No assumption in that; refer to a post of mine in the 'Fracking Your Future' thread, with mention of some specific chemicals Halliburton kindly enough provided.


1)' Fracking Exposed: Shocking New Report Links Drilling With Breast Cancer and Women's Violence,' policymic
http://www.policymic.com/articles/64...men-s-violence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2012, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,757 posts, read 4,397,860 times
Reputation: 4850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
'Sandra Steingraber, an acclaimed ecologist and author of "Raising Elijah" -- a book on how to raise a child in an age of environmental hazards, takes the strong stand that fracking violates a woman's reproductive rights. "If you want to plan a pregnancy and someone else's chemicals sabotage that -- it's a violation of your rights as a woman to have agency over your own reproductive destiny," she said.' [1]


This from the aforementioned reference. In just this it seems that prudence would prevent anyone pregnant, or contemplating it, working closely with fracking operations—or even living anywhere in the neighborhood. The chemicals used are a whose who of all the nasty things no one wants to have anything to do with. No assumption in that; refer to a post of mine in the 'Fracking Your Future' thread, with mention of some specific chemicals Halliburton kindly enough provided.
Great the chemicals are bad, I did not disagree, what I asked is there anything showing the actually affect the public in areas used? These chemicals are combined and shot 2+ miles under the earth, now I know the drillers argument those chemicals affects are changed when combined and never make it to the surface, what I would like to know if someone has actually studied the affects and what they are. Surely if they are so bad and they make there way to the surface there should be more then an analysis on medical problems in the areas of the country they are used. I have yet to see any, have googled it a few times, and never seen any actual studies done on these areas, so I was hoping to find one I missed. I am beginning to think it does not exist, that there is nothing to show that fracking has any affect on the population of the areas it is used.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top