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.
Ahh yes the water on fire bit, the most sensationalistic piece of video used by the anti fracking crowd. The only trouble there is in every instance where this has occured there is historical documentation it has always occurred. There is place in NY called Burning Springs, how is it you think it got that name? As far as the Gasland goes the director of that movie knew about the historical documentation yet fails to mention it. Do you enjoy being lied to and taking it hook line and sinker? Here he is admitting it:
These wells are drilled through the water table and thousands of feet below it. Granted that intial drilling can effect water and something like a cracked casing could pollute that water. Having said that if there was no environmental laws and hey were going to drill without regards to the environment the companies economic interest here dictates they don't want that to happen.
So, everyone is lying. The people in the video that I linked are liars. Fracking is totally safe and not hazardous to the environment or anyone's health?
So, everyone is lying. The people in the video that I linked are liars. Fracking is totally safe and not hazardous to the environment or anyone's health?
I'm just pointing out the overhyped green agenda, can you justify the Gasland director leaving out that bit information? Nothing like this could ever be 100% safe but if you want reasonably priced energy for electricity, cooking , heating amongst many things you have to accept that there will be risks. Regulations or no regualtions it's within the best interests of these companies to do drill wells that are not going to effect the ground water, that has nothing to do with trying to be environmentally friendly.
why do you think there would be no regulation without an EPA?
State and local guv can police their own environments much better than a central bureaucracy in far a way Washington.
Funny thing about the environment, it just refuses to stay within those state boundaries.
I'm just pointing out the overhyped green agenda, can you justify the Gasland director leaving out that bit information? Nothing like this could ever be 100% safe but if you want reasonably priced energy for electricity, cooking , heating amongst many things you have to accept that there will be risks. Regulations or no regualtions it's within the best interests of these companies to do drill wells that are not going to effect the ground water, that has nothing to do with trying to be environmentally friendly.
I think this is why we have, and should be glad that we do have the federal arm of the EPA looking out for people's interests, because as I pointed out earlier in the thread, regulators from state agencies have a way of looking the other way when it comes right down to it.
My problem is with the GOP trying to legislate the EPA and make them ineffective. Bad idea.
Funny thing about the environment, it just refuses to stay within those state boundaries.
The funny thing about state boundaries is all those resources whether it's wholesale electric, natural gas or coal flowing to those states whining the most because they don't have enough of their own. I've always found it comical how a state like NJ can complain about PA's pollution yet they are part of the problem.
I think this is why we have, and should be glad that we do have the federal arm of the EPA looking out for people's interests, because as I pointed out earlier in the thread, regulators from state agencies have a way of looking the other way when it comes right down to it.
My problem is with the GOP trying to legislate the EPA and make them ineffective. Bad idea.
They are out of control and I can give you an excellent example of state regulation vs the EPA from Texas.
To meet federal standards Texas was allowing refineries to use flexible measures to meet those emissions standards. Suppose we had two processes that produced 20 cubic feet of regulated emissions and federal law said you had to decrease that by 10 cubic feet. Under Texas regulations they could achieve that by concentrating on removing the entire ten pounds from one process reducing the expense involved. The EPA came in said that wasn't good enough and they had to remove 5 pounds from each process. The end result is the same no matter which way you do it but the EPA's way is more costly. Does that make sense?
They are out of control and I can give you an excellent example of state regulation vs the EPA from Texas.
To meet federal standards Texas was allowing refineries to use a flexible measures to meet those emissions standards. Suppose we had two processes that produced 20 cubic feet of regulated emissions and fedearl alw said you had to decrease that by 10 cubic feet. Under Texas regulations they could achieve that by concentrating on removing the entire ten pounds from one process reducing the expense involved. The EPA came in said that wasn't good enough and they had to remove 5 ponds from each process. The end result is the same no matter which way you do it but the EPA's way is more costly. Does that make sense?
Do you think the process is an issue, or the need to regulate?
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.
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.
