This has nothing to do what party you belong to. Even Republican voters are against fracking and all that. They are also worried about earthquakes, contaminated drinking water and so forth. What some Republican leaders are doing is that they are bought and paid by the oil companies to remove all regulations. That includes Ted Cruz. I am sorry. The welfare of the citizen's health is more important than the greed from these oil companies.

(12-31-2017 05:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  This has nothing to do what party you belong to. Even Republican voters are against fracking and all that. They are also worried about earthquakes, contaminated drinking water and so forth. What some Republican leaders are doing is that they are bought and paid by the oil companies to remove all regulations. That includes Ted Cruz. I am sorry. The welfare of the citizen's health is more important than the greed from these oil companies.

These people need large doses of lithium.

(12-31-2017 12:13 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-31-2017 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How could anyone who didn’t eat lead paint as a kid cheer this? How freaking stupid do you have to be to want to bypass regulations that check or monitor safe drinking water? Honest to goodness. Who would support that? Yeah..... we’re winning! We want to undermine the safe drinking water act!

Mach...This is direct result of the failure of government to use "common sense" in the application of regulations. Instead of weighing the issues and designing policies that result in protecting public safety while not destroying industry and throwing up barriers to progress...it puts out "one size fits all" regulations. What we end up is the constant hyperbolic extremes in policy from one gang to the other depending on who is currently in power. Surely some level of compromise could be reached in issues like this. For starters?...Very limited fracking in populated areas and REAL studies done on the impact of such technologies.

You are wasting your time. Regulations have been made to be punitive for those that don't agree ideologically with the far left. What once started out to protect people became a tool to punish business by marxist liberal arts majors and left over biology grads that were too dumb to go to med school. Regulations have become ridiculous and those enforcing them are nerd bullies.

One must live in the real world to understand this. You are wasting your time on mach

(12-31-2017 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How could anyone who didn’t eat lead paint as a kid cheer this? How freaking stupid do you have to be to want to bypass regulations that check or monitor safe drinking water? Honest to goodness. Who would support that? Yeah..... we’re winning! We want to undermine the safe drinking water act!

Lay off the soy, bro

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I wonder how his buddies in the coal industry feel about this?

Frack Yeah!!!!

(12-31-2017 05:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  This has nothing to do what party you belong to. Even Republican voters are against fracking and all that. They are also worried about earthquakes, contaminated drinking water and so forth. What some Republican leaders are doing is that they are bought and paid by the oil companies to remove all regulations. That includes Ted Cruz. I am sorry. The welfare of the citizen's health is more important than the greed from these oil companies.

I hear fracking causes Climate Change or Global Warming too.

It causes chapped asses

(12-31-2017 07:26 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  These people need large doses of lithium.

No kidding. Betting they don't really know how it's done, etc. just another boogeyman cause...

One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.

What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.

What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

(12-31-2017 08:44 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I wonder how his buddies in the coal industry feel about this?

Retrain and new job opportunity?

Frack yea!

Good paying jobs too, from the welder to the trucker to the local Subway owner.

Just so much #winning. Near exhaustion...

(01-01-2018 11:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.
What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

So we know the good, we don’t know the bad, and therefore the logical conclusion on the part of many is to assume the worst possible bad and outlaw the bad.

(01-01-2018 11:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.

What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

Where have the ever present overlords from the EPA come down on this?

After a decade of widespread use, and many decades since its introduction, like a hundred years or something, has there been any conclusive evidence of harm being done?

Perhaps Mach can provide us a link or two to a white paper/scientific study (?).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-01-2018 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 11:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.
What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

So we know the good, we don’t know the bad, and therefore the logical conclusion on the part of many is to assume the worst possible bad and outlaw the bad.

Project much?
Never said a word about outlawing but did say the industry needs substantial oversight because the potential negatives are tremendous.

(01-01-2018 01:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 11:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.
What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

So we know the good, we don’t know the bad, and therefore the logical conclusion on the part of many is to assume the worst possible bad and outlaw the bad.

Project much?
Never said a word about outlawing but did say the industry needs substantial oversight because the potential negatives are tremendous.

No projection at all. Many do want to outlaw it, which is what I said.

I do agree that there need to be resonable rules, but based on sound science and not on politics or hype.

(01-01-2018 12:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 11:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing fracking has caused is most of our economic growth over the past decade.

What remains unknown is whether or not it actually causes any of the side effects that have been attributed to it. Right now there are studies that say it does, and studies that say it doesn't, probably both funded by those with a dog in the hunt. My best guess would be generally no, but in some specific cases there may be danger. We should research diligently to find out enough factual data to form a basis for any action taken to curb it.

We know the good and don’t have a representative sample of the bad, so I’d like see significant oversight until we do have a better idea of the repercussions. It’d we wonderful if natural gas could ultimately replace coal.

Where have the ever present overlords from the EPA come down on this?

After a decade of widespread use, and many decades since its introduction, like a hundred years or something, has there been any conclusive evidence of harm being done?

Perhaps Mach can provide us a link or two to a white paper/scientific study (?).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.energyindepth.org/national/n...ing-water/

Quote:That’s especially important in Pennsylvania because numerous studies using baseline data have found water contamination in wells long before any development.

I believe the main concern from the leftists are spillage/liner failure/man-made releasing of methane due to close proximity in neighboring population centers....

I can tell you this (dated a chem engineer that is heavily involved in the industry), the if/then is a real fear if any mistakes are made in containment....

it ranks up there with nuclear power if something goes wrong in process or disposal of waste....

however, the benefit vs. the collateral damage is what will continue to be such as we continue to expand demand on a land mass that remains constant as the number of humans continue to increase....

this is why I'm in favor of cleaner energy subsidization where it makes sense....what I'm easily not in favor of are silly knee-jerk macro gov't mandates that over burden those where they are not an option....

water is a kind of a big deal....it's the only reason we're still here on this sphere.....and any clean-up becomes a much bigger deal if rogue engineering and profiteering becomes plausible....

I trust the science and engineers.....however, I don't trust reducing strict redundant policies and oversight when it relates to those in the board room....those ******* don't have a clue....that would be the politicians in this case....

there's a lot of skin in this game.....

right now it's so far, so good....and the avg. lay person really doesn't have a clue what is fact or fiction relative to what is being published.....myself included....

Good point, Stink. Almost all of the problems so far have either not been caused by fracking or have resulted from shoddy practices. Make sure that it is done right, and be sure to implement best practices.

(01-01-2018 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Good point, Stink. Almost all of the problems so far have either not been caused by fracking or have resulted from shoddy practices. Make sure that it is done right, and be sure to implement best practices.

how else do you overcome the demand.....

if the wealth gap relative to energy consumption continues to grow, what other options are there....

7/gal destroys the USD....it becomes unrecoverable....we already saw what 4/gal did.....

cause/effect can quickly become the mother of the ******....