You Mother Frackers

[system]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Looks like a pretty decent pdf at first glance. Thanks smh.[/quote]

It’s propaganda and nonsense. Go take Chem 101 and re-read.

While you’re at it, go read what substances are in the ground at 5000-15,000 feet. Far worse is already in the ground at that depth than the typical 90% water and 10% acid mix.

Then go figure out that fracturing cracks rocks temporarily and has to immediately be held open by what are called “propants” (typically sand or corn pellets or whatever). The propants (and thus cracks) go about 10 feet from the wellbore, best case scenario.

Your drinking water is somewhere between 0 and 150 or so feet, or about a mile to two miles away.

What is happening a mile or more under ground, under billions of tons of rock, DOWN gradient is not going to effect ground or surface water, in the least.

To put it into perspective, you can blow up an 1.7 kilo atomic bomb at 899 feet and not break the surface.

A couple of diesel pumps trucks fracing 6 to 10 times deeper is certainly not comparable.

But, hey, be a bitch to fake science created by muslim that want to kill you. It fits with the general idiocy of liberals.

[smh23]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Looks like a pretty decent pdf at first glance. Thanks smh.[/quote]

It’s propaganda and nonsense. Go take Chem 101 and re-read.
[/quote]

It’s propaganda, huh? So those chemicals have never been put in fracking fluid? Or have they? And do you know how harmful or harmless each of them is?

[Fletch1986]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Looks like a pretty decent pdf at first glance. Thanks smh.[/quote]

It’s propaganda and nonsense. Go take Chem 101 and re-read.

While you’re at it, go read what substances are in the ground at 5000-15,000 feet. Far worse is already in the ground at that depth than the typical 90% water and 10% acid mix.

Then go figure out that fracturing cracks rocks temporarily and has to immediately be held open by what are called “propants” (typically sand or corn pellets or whatever). The propants (and thus cracks) go about 10 feet from the wellbore, best case scenario.

Your drinking water is somewhere between 0 and 150 or so feet, or about a mile to two miles away.

What is happening a mile or more under ground, under billions of tons of rock, DOWN gradient is not going to effect ground or surface water, in the least.

To put it into perspective, you can blow up an 1.7 kilo atomic bomb at 899 feet and not break the surface.

A couple of diesel pumps trucks fracing 6 to 10 times deeper is certainly not comparable.

But, hey, be a bitch to fake science created by muslim that want to kill you. It fits with the general idiocy of liberals.[/quote]

As far as the what’s happening a mile or more underground and how those fracking fluids can still end up in drinking water, I’ll tell you what I told Orion. Check out my previous posts in this thread.

[system]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And do you know how harmful or harmless each of them is?[/quote]

At what concentration? In what context? Water is deadly at high dosage. Go read up on “risk specific dose.”

And again, what happens a mile or more down gradient under billions of tons of rock… . .

But I repeat. And I forget liberals don’t understand science.

[smh23]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And do you know how harmful or harmless each of them is?[/quote]

At what concentration? In what context? Water is deadly at high dosage. Go read up on “risk specific dose.”

And again, what happens a mile or more down gradient under billions of tons of rock… . .

But I repeat. And I forget liberals don’t understand science.[/quote]

I’ve already said, I don’t have an opinion one way or another because I don’t know enough about it.

My point is that your “it’s just water and a little anti-freeze” thing is not based in reality. Like I said, there are more than 700 additives listed.

By the way, the whole “water is toxic at high doses” thing is irrelevant every single time it comes up. It’s a snapple fact, not an argument.

Edit: at what doses are LGC-36 UC and MA-844W toxic to the human body? Any idea?

[smh23]

"Benzene has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia in industrial workers who breathed elevated levels of the chemical over long periods of time in workplace air. Exposure to high levels of xylene has damaged the unborn offspring of laboratory animals exposed during pregnancy. Naphthalene is associated with adverse effects on red blood cells when people consumed naphthalene mothballs or when infants wore cloth diapers stored in mothballs.

[…]

Some glycol ethers (e.g., monomethoxyethanol, monoethoxyethanol, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) can affect the male reproductive system and red blood cell formation in laboratory animals at high exposure levels.

[…]

High levels of acrylamide damage the nervous system and reproductive system in laboratory animals and also cause cancer in laboratory animals.

[…]

Chronic ingestion of mono-, di- or tri-ethanolamine adversely affects the liver and kidneys of laboratory animals. Some quaternary ammonium compounds, such as dimethyldiallyl ammonium chloride, can react with chemicals used in some systems for drinking water disinfection to form nitrosamines. Nitrosamines cause genetic damage and cancer when ingested by laboratory animals."

I’m not about to join a bunch of hippies protesting in a drum circle, but the whole “oh yeah it’s fine trust me it’s just water and some anti-freeze, no worse than pool chemicals” things seems a bit simplistic.

[SkyzykS]

A friend of mine got blasted by high pressure frac solution when a well head broke loose and he was in the vicinity. He was rushed to the hospital and thoroughly decontaminated then checked for damage. Swelling and irritation of the airways was the diagnosis. Treated with anti-inflammatory steroids.

Since then he has developed a severe case of rolling in mad cash. He also spends it like a retard.

[system]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
A friend of mine got blasted by high pressure frac solution when a well head broke loose and he was in the vicinity. He was rushed to the hospital and thoroughly decontaminated then checked for damage. Swelling and irritation of the airways was the diagnosis. Treated with anti-inflammatory steroids.

Since then he has developed a severe case of rolling in mad cash. He also spends it like a retard.
[/quote]

Sounds like a pretty good dose of HCL. Burns the eyes, nose, etc at the concentration used. Sucks, but not fatal.

Nor does it harm drinking water.

[system]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
"Benzene has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia in industrial workers who breathed elevated levels of the chemical over long periods of time in workplace air. Exposure to high levels of xylene has damaged the unborn offspring of laboratory animals exposed during pregnancy. Naphthalene is associated with adverse effects on red blood cells when people consumed naphthalene mothballs or when infants wore cloth diapers stored in mothballs.

[…]

Some glycol ethers (e.g., monomethoxyethanol, monoethoxyethanol, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) can affect the male reproductive system and red blood cell formation in laboratory animals at high exposure levels.

[…]

High levels of acrylamide damage the nervous system and reproductive system in laboratory animals and also cause cancer in laboratory animals.

[…]

Chronic ingestion of mono-, di- or tri-ethanolamine adversely affects the liver and kidneys of laboratory animals. Some quaternary ammonium compounds, such as dimethyldiallyl ammonium chloride, can react with chemicals used in some systems for drinking water disinfection to form nitrosamines. Nitrosamines cause genetic damage and cancer when ingested by laboratory animals."

I’m not about to join a bunch of hippies protesting in a drum circle, but the whole “oh yeah it’s fine trust me it’s just water and some anti-freeze, no worse than pool chemicals” things seems a bit simplistic.[/quote]

Get back to me when you find out what naturally occurs with crude oil and produced water.

Give you a hint: benzene is the number one byproduct.

[pittbulll]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
A friend of mine got blasted by high pressure frac solution when a well head broke loose and he was in the vicinity. He was rushed to the hospital and thoroughly decontaminated then checked for damage. Swelling and irritation of the airways was the diagnosis. Treated with anti-inflammatory steroids.

Since then he has developed a severe case of rolling in mad cash. He also spends it like a retard.
[/quote]

Cynically funny

[Fletch1986]

The produced water that sometimes has radioactive material and arsenic among other toxic heavy metals that sometimes has higher salinity by an order of magnitude than sea water from great depths? I agree, that’s an additional hazard.

And just so we’re all clear on this, we are all referring to high pressure, high volume hydrolytic fracturing, as opposed to the kind of fracking that’s been going on for 100 years? Just getting that out there before someone comes in and tells us about how fracking has been going on forever because there is a nugget of truth there but it’s a very small nugget.

[Karado]

Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[Testy1]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

[smh23]

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
"Benzene has been associated with an increased risk of leukemia in industrial workers who breathed elevated levels of the chemical over long periods of time in workplace air. Exposure to high levels of xylene has damaged the unborn offspring of laboratory animals exposed during pregnancy. Naphthalene is associated with adverse effects on red blood cells when people consumed naphthalene mothballs or when infants wore cloth diapers stored in mothballs.

[…]

Some glycol ethers (e.g., monomethoxyethanol, monoethoxyethanol, propylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) can affect the male reproductive system and red blood cell formation in laboratory animals at high exposure levels.

[…]

High levels of acrylamide damage the nervous system and reproductive system in laboratory animals and also cause cancer in laboratory animals.

[…]

Chronic ingestion of mono-, di- or tri-ethanolamine adversely affects the liver and kidneys of laboratory animals. Some quaternary ammonium compounds, such as dimethyldiallyl ammonium chloride, can react with chemicals used in some systems for drinking water disinfection to form nitrosamines. Nitrosamines cause genetic damage and cancer when ingested by laboratory animals."

I’m not about to join a bunch of hippies protesting in a drum circle, but the whole “oh yeah it’s fine trust me it’s just water and some anti-freeze, no worse than pool chemicals” things seems a bit simplistic.[/quote]

Get back to me when you find out what naturally occurs with crude oil and produced water.

Give you a hint: benzene is the number one byproduct.[/quote]

So because benzene is a component of crude oil, none of what I quoted is relevant in any way?

Look, this is my point: your post misstated the chemical composition of so-called fracking fluid. The list of chemicals that have been added to it is extremely long and some less-than-savory characters appear on it from time to time.

Pretending that the science is all in and it unanimously paints fracking as some kind of perfectly safe endeavor is just that: pretending.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

What’s your opinion on why small communities near fracking operations suffer higher rates of illness?

I’m not testing you or setting you up, I’m just curious.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

What’s your opinion on why small communities near fracking operations suffer higher rates of illness?

I’m not testing you or setting you up, I’m just curious. [/quote]

Hard to say, really. It could be anything from actual factors which create or exacerbate illness to attempted shakedowns of companies operating in the area. There are a lot of people who are very disappointed and feeling left out in the cold on royalties from gas extraction. Many of whom chant the mantra “I’m gonna get mine!”.

What ever it may be, this is the first I’ve heard of it and there are 2 fracking wells within a half mile of my house, and too many to count within 10 miles. All relatively densely populated areas.

[Fletch1986]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

What’s your opinion on why small communities near fracking operations suffer higher rates of illness?

I’m not testing you or setting you up, I’m just curious. [/quote]

Hard to say, really. It could be anything from actual factors which create or exacerbate illness to attempted shakedowns of companies operating in the area. There are a lot of people who are very disappointed and feeling left out in the cold on royalties from gas extraction. Many of whom chant the mantra “I’m gonna get mine!”.

What ever it may be, this is the first I’ve heard of it and there are 2 fracking wells within a half mile of my house, and too many to count within 10 miles. All relatively densely populated areas.

[/quote]

I wonder if it’s also a case of most operations do their thing the right way, but the others give it a bad rap. I’m going to have to look into the regulatory teeth to see if violations end up with just a slap on the wrist or legitimate concerns for industry.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Reading up on the Pros and Cons of Fracking can be confusing, but we shouldn’t lose sight on the
Middle Eastern funding of Damon’s flick PROMISED LAND.
So what are we saying here, Fracking opponents are on Abu Dhabi’s side on being
continually dependent on foreign oil for energy?
I GET that we need oil by-products for other things, we ‘wear’ oil from head to toe, from Shampoo products
to our Shoes, it’s not like we’re not gonna shut off the provervial spigots over there anyway, especially
when we’ve sacrificed so many Troops for it in the last decade, but at least Fracking is the main
reason why Natural Gas prices didn’t go through the roof like some predicted a few years ago.
[/quote]

I’m all for fracking, but under the caveat that there’s a responsible regulatory infrastructure and continued research and advancements in making fracking safer for all. [/quote]

It has become pretty well regulated. At work we were about to undertake a contract building tankers for the disposal of the fracing solution. Unfortunately the EPA and Coast Guard put a stop to it due to the radioactive halo emitted by the tankers when they are full.

Apparently it can be transported by truck over the road, but not by ship using inland waterways. Now the challenge is to come up with a solution that is in compliance with the regulations that are currently preventing it.

[/quote]

You have been invited to join a group on Google plus. Look for Ray Havermahl

[/quote]

Thanks! I just created an account and added you as a friend. I’m not too familiar with that format so far though.