Fracking triggered 2014 earthquake in northeastern B.C.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Oil is bad, blame everything on oil, they are only out to destroy us (the little guys). The anti-oil crowd is clueless and somehow think they are so above everyone else, Meanwhile theyll still drive home a vehicle, and fill their lives with all the consumer products that are petroleum based.

The computer or smart phone you are typing on, the very item that allows youre voice to be heard is petroleum based. You are part of the very reason the there is a demand for oil, a demand that forces companies to think up of new ways to pull the product from the earth. Unless youre willing to do something about it (and remove all petroleum based products from youre life), then really its time to shut up. If you stand for something then follow through with it. Youre basically an vegan rights activist who goes home and eats a big steak every night.

Obviously we're all aware of the many types of petroleum products. However, you have to acknowledge that the biggest pest problem the world faces right now is the burning of unrenewable resources to generate power. As long as there are alternatives to this, we should seek them out. It's as simple as that.

The argument of 'well you drive a car too' is bunk. Since the alternative technologies are now here, it's up to political will and governments to force alternative means of powering our engines. This is going to happen fairly quickly imho. More and more political will to change is rising up, and the masses all concur. So you might as well get used to the idea.

[John Tortorella]

Kinda like how smoking companies just adjusted accordingly as new info came in... If it were only as simple and optimistic as that.

What??? They sell to children in india. Over 50% of people smoke in some east asian countries.

[Mr. Ambien]

What??? They sell to children in india. Over 50% of people smoke in some east asian countries.

I'm amazed that people still give serious responses to his posts.

[Heretic]

A gigantic drill you can drop from space?

Drill? To the earth's core!

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Again, I'd ask for evidence I've said anything remotely close to this. But you won't and can't. Just like that other guy, you'd rather live in your little black and white bubble of nonsense.

I'd like cleaner air, but I still breathe. I guess unless I stop breathing I'm a hypocrite for wanting cleaner air right? Stupid point is stupid.

If you're ready to have a big boy conversation, acknowledging all the grey in this debate. Let's do it. But sitting here calling me a hypocrite cause I think we should reduce our reliance on oil yet I still choose to live in society is asinine beyond belief.

You compared smoking (something that causes harms to health) to Oil (something that can cause harm to the environment), yes it’s easy to get your point, smoking it bad and companies still finds ways to operate, the same way you feel about oil. The only thing you don’t understand is as long as there is a demand (good or bad), companies will find ways to meet that demand, a demand that you help create.

And no your clean air argument does not work as it’s not something you pay for there for it’s not effective by supply and demand.

You demand oil, therefor companies need to find supply fast enough to meet that demand. No demand, no need to fill that supply.

Talking about wanting to reduce our reliance on oil doesn’t do jack all (like this post to help solve cancer), the only way to make a difference is by changing the way you currently live your life, (and your very reliance on oil). Like I said, it’s the equivalent about spending all day talking about how eating cows is bad but yet you go home and enjoy a stake. You aren’t helping solve the issue, you’re helping keeping the think you call a problem survive.

When you’re ready to admit that you’re clueless but like to talk in big boy voice and pretend like you have a understand, then maybe people could have a decent discussion with you. But I don’t see that happening, so continue posting arguments without actually adding any substance to a discussion, likely because you have no substance to provide. Hey at least you said you’re opinion, you did your activism for the day, that must make it easier to sleep at night.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I'm amazed that people still give serious responses to his posts.

Yeah I'm about done with him and his non-sense .

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Obviously we're all aware of the many types of petroleum products. However, you have to acknowledge that the biggest pest problem the world faces right now is the burning of unrenewable resources to generate power. As long as there are alternatives to this, we should seek them out. It's as simple as that.

The argument of 'well you drive a car too' is bunk. Since the alternative technologies are now here, it's up to political will and governments to force alternative means of powering our engines. This is going to happen fairly quickly imho. More and more political will to change is rising up, and the masses all concur. So you might as well get used to the idea.

Lead the way…. ha go watch the Simpsons episode of lord of the flies.

And it’s not so much on the Canadian government issue as it is a global one.

[inane]

What??? They sell to children in india. Over 50% of people smoke in some east asian countries.

Right, that's my point. They aren't just golly gee we didn't know this was causing harm but now that we'll know we'll stop.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Lead the way. ha go watch the Simpsons episode of lord of the flies.

And its not so much on the Canadian government issue as it is a global one.

What do you think I was just reffering to the Canadian gov't? Of course it's all of them.

And what does the Simpson's or Lord of the Flies have to do with it? Jeez, it's technological advancement, it's already happening, and you or I don't have to lead the way.

[TOMapleLaughs]

[science!]

Humans may be harmed by endocrine disrupting chemicals released during natural gas mining

More than 15 million Americans live within one mile of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) operations that combine directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking" to release natural gas from underground rock. Scientific studies still are inconclusive on the potential long-term effects on human development.

Now, Susan C. Nagel and Christopher D. Kassotis, researchers with the University of Missouri, and national colleagues have conducted a review of research on health effects associated with UOG operations and concluded these activities have potential for environmental release of a complex mixture of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that could potentially harm human development and reproduction.

The authors reviewed more than 100 scientific, peer-reviewed publications and examined the studies thoroughly for patterns and links that focused on UOG chemicals and human development. In their peer-reviewed commentary, the authors concluded that available research suggests potential adverse health outcomes and note a dearth of evidence-based research related to the UOG process.

"We recommend a process to examine the total endocrine disrupting activity from exposure to the mixtures of chemicals used in and resulting from these operations in addition to examining the effects of each chemical on its own," Nagel said. "Studying these complex mixtures of chemicals released during fracking is necessary since the chemical identities used in oil and natural gas operations are not always known. Additionally, there is strong evidence of endocrine disrupting chemical mixtures having additive effects, so this approach also may be more sensitive."

Nagel, an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and women's health in the School of Medicine, and an adjunct associate professor of biological sciences in the College of Arts and Science at MU, conducted the review with fellow MU researchers Chris Kassotis, a recent doctoral graduate in the Division of Biological Sciences in the College of Arts and Science, and Jane McElroy, an associate professor in family and community medicine in the School of Medicine. Don Tillitt, an adjunct professor of biological sciences and a research toxicologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, also contributed to the study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827154421.htm

Of course, these types of studies involving unbiased scientific research and how industries may harm the environment, and humans, isn't allowed in Canada anymore. At least not without government filtering.

And I thought tapwater that you could ignite was the worst thing about fracking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8

Light 'em up!

[inane]

You compared smoking (something that causes harms to health) to Oil (something that can cause harm to the environment), yes it’s easy to get your point, smoking it bad and companies still finds ways to operate, the same way you feel about oil. The only thing you don’t understand is as long as there is a demand (good or bad), companies will find ways to meet that demand, a demand that you help create.

And no your clean air argument does not work as it’s not something you pay for there for it’s not effective by supply and demand.

You demand oil, therefor companies need to find supply fast enough to meet that demand. No demand, no need to fill that supply.

Talking about wanting to reduce our reliance on oil doesn’t do jack all (like this post to help solve cancer), the only way to make a difference is by changing the way you currently live your life, (and your very reliance on oil). Like I said, it’s the equivalent about spending all day talking about how eating cows is bad but yet you go home and enjoy a stake. You aren’t helping solve the issue, you’re helping keeping the think you call a problem survive.

When you’re ready to admit that you’re clueless but like to talk in big boy voice and pretend like you have a understand, then maybe people could have a decent discussion with you. But I don’t see that happening, so continue posting arguments without actually adding any substance to a discussion, likely because you have no substance to provide. Hey at least you said you’re opinion, you did your activism for the day, that must make it easier to sleep at night.

I understand it, my point was simply laughing at the notion that these companies are just learning that there methods have negative consequences and are adjusting accordingly. As though they are totally ignorant of the damage they are doing and are just good corporate citizens and will do whatever to stop causing harm. It's in their business to cause harm so they will avoid dealing with it at all costs.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that we need oil for our current society, that's your whole strawman. But sure, let's go there. We need oil for our society. We'll need it tomorrow. I get that I use oil. As does everyone. Your argue that for my position to not be hypocritical I have to go live in a cave consuming no oil for anything is stupid. There are some things you can believe in and take immediate and total action on, like say going vegetarian or not buying fur coats. That's easy. But when the thing you believe we should be reducing is currently so important in your society, it's kinda hard to immediately just stop using it. Would I like to? Is that what I believe our objective should be? Yes--but I appreciate that's a long term, slow process to get there. Again, this isn't black or white. It's not easy. Why is it you constantly bash my position because I can't immediately solve this problem and it's as though because I can't solve it immediately my argument is therefore entirely invalid?

[Tortorella's Rant]

But Republicans told me it was safe.

[LaBamba]

[science!]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150827154421.htm

Of course, these types of studies involving unbiased scientific research and how industries may harm the environment, and humans, isn't allowed in Canada anymore. At least not without government filtering.

And I thought tapwater that you could ignite was the worst thing about fracking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8

Light 'em up!

I worked in Pennsylvania for over 3 years so I know a pretty good deal about this phenomena.

The actual act of fracking did not cause the methane to intrude the water table. It was caused by drilling however, and has since been engineered out.

In most of Pennsylvania they have a shallow aquifer above a shallow coal bed. Coal is full of methane gas so when we drilled through the water table and coal we would link the water and coal in the same wellbore. Once this was discovered we ran a shallow string of casing and cemented it prior to drilling into the coal to isolate it. We also used a high dollar polymer based cement that continues to expand rather then deteriorate through its lifespan. We also did bond logs, which basically X-rays the bond between the casing and the formation to confirm a good cement job. Unfortunately the damage is already done from the wells drilled in the earlier days and it's completely ruined large areas of the water table forever.

This practice is now regulatory law in Pennsylvania.