Liberal Forum

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:25 pm » wrote: Nope. There have been individual cases like where a well has blown out, but fracking cannot contaminate ground water.

bingster » 22 Feb 2016 3:39 pm » wrote: That's ****. The study says fracking HAS contaminated ground water. How is it possible that fracking "has" when you say it "can't"?

Misty » 22 Feb 2016 3:38 pm » wrote:Just posted on Twitter:

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:16 pm » wrote: Again, if you don't know the science behind fracking, you really should shut up.
You're just embarrassing yourself.

Even the EPA has said there is no danger to ground water from fracking.
Educate yourself. Stop being a liberal.

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 1:25 pm » wrote: Nope. There have been individual cases like where a well has blown out, but fracking cannot contaminate ground water.

onlyaladd » 22 Feb 2016 3:45 pm » wrote: If it cannot, why does it?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-scien ... -pressure/

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 3:48 pm » wrote:
But it doesn't. You know greenpeace lies, right?
Their own link says that the EPA didn't do their studies because of "industry pressure".
Do you believe that under Obama, that the EPA wouldn't go after oil companies, given the chance?

onlyaladd » 22 Feb 2016 4:02 pm » wrote: Does Forbes lie too?

The EPA’s report on groundwater contamination by fracking (or frakking to taste) for natural gas says that the process does indeed contaminate ground water.

Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency has admitted what the oil and natural gas industry has been saying for more than 60 years: “Hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water sources.”

EPA’s five-year-long study, requested by Congress, examined more than 950 pieces of information, including published papers and technical reports. While finding “potential vulnerabilities, some of which are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” the report basically pronounces fracking safe.

This conclusion should not be a surprise. In 2011, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a congressional panel there has been no evidence linking fracking operations to groundwater contamination.

Still, there is something for everyone in EPA’s politically sensitive report (this is Obama’s agency, after all), allowing detractors to seize on what could occur, rather than fracking’s strong safety record. In a statement yesterday, for instance, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) reiterated the tired argument that fracking has “the potential to severely impact drinking water and endanger public health and the environment.”

Yes, and cars can crash and swimming pools risk drowning. But we drive and swim using caution to prevent accidents. Even the construction and maintenance of the anti-frackers’ beloved wind turbines, is hardly risk free
.
Best practices and vigilance, as in all industrial activity, are required.
Yoko Ono, Matt Damon, as well as Josh Fox, the producer of two discredited Gasland movies, please call your office. Your campaigns against fracking have done little more than slander the technological achievement that has greatly increased American energy supplies and lowered prices for all.
EPA’s new study, in conclusion, confirms that fracking is a technology that belongs among the ranks of computers and iPhones. It is changing the nation for the better without causing widespread harm to underground aquifers and drinking water. It is producing energy to make America stronger and safer. And nearly single-handedly, it pulled the United States out of the depths of the Great Recession by creating jobs and boosting the economy.

Perhaps anti-fracking groups finally will be forced to admit that their scare tactics were a ruse, a cynical and dishonest talking point to just-say-no to oil and gas production. At the very least, elected officials should take note and reverse fracking moratoria in New York and Maryland. That would be a victory for common sense over nonsense.

bingster » 22 Feb 2016 3:44 pm » wrote:Despite reading your entire link, I found nothing to say that "fracking can't contaminate ground water". What science are you imagining?

Misty » 22 Feb 2016 8:20 pm » wrote: I wonder why he changed the title of the piece he linked to?
The actual title is: Even Obama’s EPA Now Admits Fracking Hasn’t Harmed Water Supplies
Nowhere in that piece does it say that there is NO danger to ground water from fracking.
It only says that the EPA did not find widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water.
His link is an opinion piece from the National Review.
I found another piece written on the exact same day from what claims to be an independent, non-profit, non-partisan source.

Fracking Has Contaminated Drinking Water, EPA Now Concludes

I also found a second source written three days later.

EPA says fracking could contaminate drinking water.

All three sources are based on the same EPA report, yet the second two seem to interpret it differently from the first.
And radically different than the way GB sees it.

As a result, the report stitches together a piecemeal picture of fracking-related incidents. It relies on several case studies involving a handful of major incidents, such as a well blowout in Killdeer, N.D., that state regulators investigated. It also uses state data for possible contamination events, such as spills of fracking fluid at well pads, which EPA acknowledges provides a limited scope of the problem.


"The spills occurred between January 2006 and April 2012 in 11 states and included 151 cases in which fracturing fluids or chemicals spilled on or near a well pad," the study said. "Due to the methods used for the EPA's characterization of spills, these cases were likely a subset of all fracturing fluid and chemical spills during the study's time period."

Misty » 22 Feb 2016 8:54 pm » wrote:More Trump parody Tweets.

Misty » 22 Feb 2016 9:09 pm » wrote:I think someone is trying to get my attention.



Good luck with that.

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 3:48 pm » wrote:
But it doesn't. You know greenpeace lies, right?
Their own link says that the EPA didn't do their studies because of "industry pressure".
Do you believe that under Obama, that the EPA wouldn't go after oil companies, given the chance?

bingster » 22 Feb 2016 3:39 pm » wrote: That's ****. The study says fracking HAS contaminated ground water. How is it possible that fracking "has" when you say it "can't"?

golfboy » 22 Feb 2016 5:54 pm » wrote: No wonder you didn't link to their article.

Technocrat » 22 Feb 2016 10:33 pm » wrote: The irony of Golfboy telling you to get educated when he claimed slaves voted is pretty palpable.

onlyaladd » 23 Feb 2016 3:17 am » wrote: That wasn't the same article you stupid piece of ****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... 9a0a8b79bd

Only an asshole would believe it never contaminates.

Similarly, well water (taken from much shallower depths) has been contaminated, not directly (as far as anyone knows) as a result of frakking but as a result of the waste pits from previous oil and gas drilling activities in the area.