What do we KNOW about the environmental effects of fracking?

[kristopher]

1) There has been one study that I'm aware of that looked at the GHG effects of gas leaks at the wellhead - it was a definite negative for the practice as it showed a GHG footprint equal to coal. On the flip side it was a problem that had the potential for being addressed by better business practices.

2) There was another preliminary study looking at contamination of water tables. It too was a definite negative for the practice as it did show some evidence of contamination. The weakness as I recall was that the baseline data was not as robust as could be hoped for. Additional work with better baseline data is now underway as I recall.

To my knowledge that is the sum of concrete information on the practice. The anecdotal image of the flaming faucet turned out to not be related to fracking IIRC, although study #2 tells us the potential for that problem is very real.

If you have on hand, or come across, any solid studies of the consequences of fracking would you mind posting them?

I'll tell you why I ask. Abundant natural gas poses a major economic threat to both the coal and nuclear industries. It is rather neutral for the development of renewables in the long term, but lower natgas prices does retard growth in some markets. In the long term, though it would be easier for renewables to make headway in a system dominated by natural gas than it is in a system dominated by coal/nuclear.

What this means is that there are strong financial motives to oversell the negatives related to natural gas; more specifically the natural window for attacking the resource itself is the process of fracking. The Bush administration structured the legal and regulatory framework in a way that immunizes the natgas industry from negative consequences of the process. They also acted prematurely from an environmental perspective by promoting widescale use of the process before it had been properly evaluated by independent research. Both of these actions are prime cause for a great deal of public skepticism. The skepticism may or may not be justified in the end, but until we have information the cloud of doubt unquestionably provides a window of opportunity for the spread of economically motivated Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

So, again, if you have solid independent data on the process of fracking, please post it. It would help a lot to have a somewhat centralized point of reference on the topic.

[jberryhill]

1. The guy in the Exxon commercial says it is really clean

And the guy in the Chevron commercial agrees with the Asian web designer woman who obviously is very worried about the environment.

So, it all checks out okay!

[kristopher]

2. That seems to be the level of information available...

Which is what prompts this request.

[jberryhill]

3. The guy in the Exxon commercial looks very responsible

I'm sure he won't screw it up.

[txlibdem]

16. I believe everything Exxon tells me. Why not?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Well, one thing we know for absolutely certain

Hydraulic Fracturing allows us to burn natural gas we wouldn’t have otherwise. (i.e. it is an “unconventional fossil fuel.”)

(Emphasis added)
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?

…

Phase-out of coal emissions by 2030 (Fig. 6) keeps maximum CO₂ close to 400 ppm, depending on oil and gas reserves and reserve growth. IPCC reserves assume that half of readily extractable oil has already been used (Figs. 6, S12). EIA <80> estimates (Fig. S12) have larger reserves and reserve growth. Even if EIA estimates are accurate, the IPCC case remains valid if the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground, via a rising price on carbon emissions that discourages remote exploration and environmental regulations that place some areas off-limit. If IPCC gas reserves (Fig. S12) are underestimated, the IPCC case in Fig. (6) remains valid if the additional gas reserves are used at facilities where CO₂ is captured.

…

We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO₂ to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Although a case already could be made that the eventual target probably needs to be lower, the 350 ppm target is sufficient to qualitatively change the discussion and drive fundamental changes in energy policy. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO₂ human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO₂ target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO₂ to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO₂ emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO₂ is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO₂ can be captured. A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO₂ overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.

Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO₂ capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

…

[kristopher]

8. That isn't correct.

That paper doesn't specifically address fracking nor would natural gas fit the profile of the fuels they are concerned about. Far from increasing CO2 emissions, if done with proper attention to the problem of accidental releases, substituting natural gas for coal would result in a huge nearly immediate reduction in CO2 emissions. For contrast look at the issue of emissions from tar sands, the expanded exploitation of which would result in a major increase in carbon emissions.

ETA: See this NYT piece for a view of what is typically considered alternative fossil fuels:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/the-costs-of-unconventional-fossil-fuels/

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. I guess we need to define "difficult to extract" and "unconventional fossil fuels"

The whole idea of "hydraulic fracturing" is the recovery of oil or gas which would not be recoverable using conventional extraction methods.

[kristopher]

11. The profile used in the paper is clear - it increases GHG emissions.

When they write of unconventional fuels they are clearly referring to the types of fuels in the NYT piece. Please don't turn this into one of your splitting-hairs-on-the-head-of-a-bald-man exercises.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/the-costs-of-unconventional-fossil-fuels/

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Right, producing Natural Gas, using Hydraulic Fracturing increases GHG emissions

over “http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=316383&mesg_id=316393">gas (which) is left in the ground.”

It’s not a matter of splitting hairs. It’s a matter of reading what was written in the paper.

What other unconventional sources of natural gas were they talking about? Clathrates perhaps (except those are generally found in the ocean as opposed to “in the ground.”)

[kristopher]

18. No, it doesn't

The header statement is a cockeyed attempt to be disagreeable, nothing more. Seriously do you lie awake at night trying to figure out ways to distort discussions in the most annoying manner possible?

Gas from fracking MIGHT increase GHG emissions or it MIGHT enable a far more rapid reduction in GHG emissions than the BAU scenario; it all depends on the policy tools that go along with its use.

As for "reading what was written in the paper", you should try doing that. If there is specific verbiage that supports your assertion then post it as part of the discussion, don't just allude to it or make vague implications.
" Even if EIA estimates are accurate, the IPCC case remains valid if the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground, via a rising price on carbon emissions that discourages remote exploration and environmental regulations that place some areas off-limit. "

How do you make the leap from that to fracking? By the time this paper was written in 2008 fracking was a well established process that had been cleared (after inadequate investigation - see OP) by Bush's EPA in 2004. It was a well established process that was a central element in "EIA estimates" of natural gas reserves.

If, as seems the case, you want to argue that fracking shouldn't be used because it makes more natural gas available than would otherwise be the case, and that this will harm our efforts to address climate change, you need to make that case yourself because it isn't the one that Hansen is making. There are certainly scenarios where that might be the case, but every academic I'm aware of who specializes in a transition to a renewable, noncabon energy infrastructure sees natural gas as a key component in the elimination of large scale coal use and to restructuring the current grid built around centralized thermal generation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Here’s another thing we know (although less important)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1021137

Ozone Impacts of Natural Gas Development in the Haynesville Shale

…

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 (24), pp 9357–9363
DOI: 10.1021/es1021137
Publication Date (Web): November 18, 2010
Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

Abstract

The Haynesville Shale is a subsurface rock formation located beneath the Northeast Texas/Northwest Louisiana border near Shreveport. This formation is estimated to contain very large recoverable reserves of natural gas, and during the two years since the drilling of the first highly productive wells in 2008, has been the focus of intensive leasing and exploration activity. The development of natural gas resources within the Haynesville Shale is likely to be economically important but may also generate significant emissions of ozone precursors. Using well production data from state regulatory agencies and a review of the available literature, projections of future year Haynesville Shale natural gas production were derived for 2009−2020 for three scenarios corresponding to limited, moderate, and aggressive development. These production estimates were then used to develop an emission inventory for each of the three scenarios. Photochemical modeling of the year 2012 showed increases in 2012 8-h ozone design values of up to 5 ppb within Northeast Texas and Northwest Louisiana resulting from development in the Haynesville Shale. Ozone increases due to Haynesville Shale emissions can affect regions outside Northeast Texas and Northwest Louisiana due to ozone transport. This study evaluates only near-term ozone impacts, but the emission inventory projections indicate that Haynesville emissions may be expected to increase through 2020.

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Methane Levels 17 Times Higher in Water Wells Near Hydrofracking Sites

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/methane-levels-17-times-higher-in-water-wells-near-hydrofracking-sites

Methane Levels 17 Times Higher in Water Wells Near Hydrofracking Sites

Contact: Tim Lucas | [phone] | [e-mail]

…

DURHAM, N.C. – A study by Duke University researchers has found high levels of leaked methane in well water collected near shale-gas drilling and hydrofracking sites. The scientists collected and analyzed water samples from 68 private groundwater wells across five counties in northeastern Pennsylvania and New York.

They found no evidence of contamination from chemical-laden fracking fluids, which are injected into gas wells to help break up shale deposits, or from “produced water,” wastewater that is extracted back out of the wells after the shale has been fractured.

The study appears this week in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is the first peer-reviewed study to measure well-water contamination from shale-gas drilling and hydrofracking.

“At least some of the homeowners who claim that their wells were contaminated by shale-gas extraction appear to be right,” says Robert B. Jackson, Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change and director of Duke’s Center on Global Change.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100682108
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing


http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109270108
Reply to Saba and Orzechowski and Schon: Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing


http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113768108
Reply to Davies: Hydraulic fracturing remains a possible mechanism for observed methane contamination of drinking water


http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/shalegas-comments-pnas-

Update: Point-Counterpoint on Shale Gas Methane in Water Wells

by Bill Chameides | Sep 09, 2011
posted by Erica Rowell (Editor)

Permalink | Comments (0)

Debate on water-well contamination from shale gas extraction.

Last May, Duke University post-doc Stephen Osborn et al published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing evidence of drinking-water contamination by methane in the vicinity of shale gas drilling activity. (See my original http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/dukefrackingstudy">post on the paper.)

Following on its heels came a media blitz and gobs of criticism, largely from industry sources, disputing the findings and dismissing the science. (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-09/gas-in-marcellus-water-wells-is-an-explosion-risk-study-says.html">here, http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/05/durham-bull/">here and http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/05/10/duke-study-misrepresented/">here.) The comments and queries were so numerous that the authors http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/responses-about-gas-shale">published answers online to the most common ones.

Discussions online and in the media are fine, but the real arena for scientific debate should be and is the peer-reviewed literature. The earnest start to that debate comes in the form of two peer-reviewed critiques on the paper along with a reply by the authors. They were published in last week's online edition of PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/25/1108435108.citation">here and http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/25/1107960108.citation">here ($ub req'ed). Below are some of the salient items, each prefaced with summaries of the original paper and/or the new comments, and followed by comments from the original paper's authors and yours truly.
Volley 1 From Saba and Orzechowski

By far, in my opinion, the more substantive http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:S_5cWp1UFzIJ:www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Saba-2011-Hydraulic-fracturing.pdf+%22Lack+of+data+to+support+a+relationship+between+methane+contamination+of+drinking+water+wells+and+hydraulic+fracturing%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUNrW25f3sYKWTh7L-ZZ0AnYVAWZjxSGbfqsDtDsLYU7TC-RV0M_MT0fYDgULPFQt0G5xxo5QoicwIL_U5aTvaY5wRNt4efQHXLPw1ih4jq8H9j3EHBjSXA-komx1eLAN-ER_F&sig=AHIEtbQHaCPeQvB4JdTufp7lhTmCi7YgNA">comments came from Tarek Saba of Exponent, Inc., and Mark Orzechowski of Civil and Environmental Consultants, who based their comments on Osborn et al's data, noting apparent inconsistencies.

…

[kristopher]

10. This is a great summary of the research I labeled 2).

I'd recommend this link in particular:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/shalegas-comments-pnas-/

And (this from the authors of the study) as a page to bookmark for research going forward.
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/responses-about-gas-shale


Thanks Ok,

[jberryhill]

12. The man in the Exxon commercial says it is nowhere near the water

And he has a drawing and everything.

[kristopher]

13. According to the Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke where the study is from

...the authers say it probably isn't from the fracking process, it is likely from poorly constructed wells that are allowing the methane to escape as it is being piped up.

3. Not Coming From Deep Fractures

Osborn et al use their data to argue that methane from shale formations is contaminating drinking water wells in the vicinity of fracking operations. They do not claim to know the mechanism and in fact suggest that it is unlikely to be from fractures opened up in the deep source rock of the Marcellus during fracking. The most likely explanation they propose is leakage from the shale gas wells themselves.

...Schon comment: Methane contamination is highly unlikely to have come from the shale gas entirely because seepage from the deep formation is unlikely: "The data presented simply do not support the interpretation put forth that shale-gas development is leading to methane migration from the Marcellus into shallow groundwater."

To me Schon's comment is a bit disingenuous. Osborn et al's conclusion does not depend on this one interpretation -- that the methane contamination is caused by shale gas movement from the Marcellus via fractures opened during hydraulic fracturing.

Osborn et al reply: Schon "offers no alternative to explain the differences in chemistry and gas concentrations we observed."

In fact, Schon does offer an alternate explanation and it is the same explanation Osborn et al favor. Schon states that "inadequate well construction could conceivably enable methane migration from shallower horizons."

The link to that page won't post properly on DU. The -/ is getting chopped of and if you don't add it you'll end up at "Sorry that page doesn't exist"

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/shalegas-comments-pnas-/

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. The New York Times did a helpful series

(Entitled Drilling Down)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html

Be sure to check out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-documents-1-intro.html

Documents: Natural Gas's Toxic Waste

Over the past nine months, The Times reviewed more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained through open records requests of state and federal agencies and by visiting various regional offices that oversee drilling in Pennsylvania. Some of the documents were leaked by state or federal officials. Here, the most significant documents are made available with annotations from The Times.

[NickB79]

14. Has the industry started any steps to address the wellhead gas leaks yet?

I understand what you say, that it wouldn't be all that hard to cut gas leaks and reduce GHG emissions, but the fossil fuel industry doesn't have a great track record of doing what seems reasonable. Have you read of any new practices being implemented or at least serious proposals to address the GHG problem that the Cornell study pointed out?

[kristopher]

22. No, I haven't seen anything, but I wouldn't expect to either.

This information will come from follow up studies by independent academics looking at the actual performance of existing wells. So we'll have to wait for follow ups to the Cornell study. Do you happen to have a link for that, BTW?

Another point that no one has raised yet that I think might be important is the way these wells are running out long before they were expected to. I know I've seen some accounts of that somewhere but I don't have a reference on hand.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. 'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research Finds

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/11885

'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research Finds

Release Date: October 25, 2010

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Scientific and political disputes over drilling Marcellus shale for natural gas have focused primarily on the environmental effects of pumping millions of gallons of water and chemicals deep underground to blast through rocks to release the natural gas.

But University at Buffalo researchers have now found that that process -- called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking"-- also causes uranium that is naturally trapped inside Marcellus shale to be released, raising additional environmental concerns.

…

When Bank and her colleagues reacted samples in the lab with surrogate drilling fluids, they found that the uranium was indeed, being solubilized.

In addition, she says, when the millions of gallons of water used in hydraulic fracturing come back to the surface, it could contain uranium contaminants, potentially polluting streams and other ecosystems and generating hazardous waste.

…

[kristopher]

19. Outstanding find.

"My question was, if they start drilling and pumping millions of gallons of water into these underground rocks, will that force the uranium into the soluble phase and mobilize it? Will uranium then show up in groundwater?"

"We found that they are not just physically -- but also chemically -- bound."

"...at these levels, uranium is not a radioactive risk, it is still a toxic, deadly metal," Bank concludes. "We need a fundamental understanding of how uranium exists in shale. The more we understand about how it exists, the more we can better predict how it will react to 'fracking.'"


Thanks, OK.

[Dover]

20. I don't have the answers, but it does seem to me that we ought to be putting

the bulk of our resources into creating sustainable, DEcentralized forms of energy. It's a hard sell because it creates more independence and therefore fewer profits.
These big oil/gas/coal/nuke companies are deeply invested in maintaining their wealth/influence by shifting to more centralized forms of power which also requires greater dependency on a handful of large corporations. I don't know what's realistic, timewise, for a transition, but I do know that it is DURING such transitions that the die is cast for the future, so it's critical to create the foundations one is willing to live with for a long time.

[kristopher]

21. That is a sound view.

Be sure you factor this into your thinking:
1) Increasing global demand for energy.
2) Even with fracking, limited supply of natural gas.
3) Existing *underutilized* natural gas generating infrastructure that is adequate to replace large percentage of coal plants immediately
4) Low cost of investment in natural gas plants
5) Ability of natural gas plants to be run on various renewable biofuels with little to no conversion costs.
6) Nature of a distributed grid.

The pattern of investment in the developed nations shows an almost total shift to renewables/natgas and away from coal. Natural gas has a long history of price volatility while renewables are characterized by long term energy price stability. Uncertainty about costs associated with probable carbon taxes are a part of the this shift, but the declining costs of renewables is the strongest factor. For the past several years natgas has been #1, but in 2010, for the first time, renewables led the way in new installations, pushing natgas to second.

Take a look at the progress to date:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Proposed_coal_plants_in_the_United_States

[Karenina]

23. For my old fart self...

Even having to ASK is just ANOTHER TIRESOME MANIFESTATION of



There IS NO QUESTION that the process threatens the water supply and geology, just as boiling water with uranium is an INCREDIBLY STUPID IDEA. However once the STUPID IDEAS are incorporated into the economic chain...

[kristopher]

24. If you could eliminate coal tomorrow and replace it with natural gas what would you do?

Existing infrastructure makes that a realistic question since we could do it within a couple of years. The conventional measure of CO2 emissions per kilowatthour from coal is 1100 grams. The conventional measure of CO2 emissions from natural gas is 440 grams.

Coal is responsible for about 27% of total US carbon emissions. So a switch to natural gas would result in an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of about 16%. It would also shift the structure of the grid itself to one that is far more compatible with wind and solar.

You say that "There IS NO QUESTION that the process threatens the water supply and geology". Well, for you that might well be a settled issue. But the science behind that conclusion isn't clear by any means. There is no question in my mind that the process of fracking was turned loose in typical Republican fashion with absolutely no consideration of the potential environmental consequences, but that means there is a lack of knowledge, not that the knowledge base proves damage in inevitable.

And remember - the coal industry is under great threat by natural gas. Look at this list of cancelled coal plants. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Proposed_coal_plants_in_the_United_States
(see also this list of all coal plants http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants )

Of those planned plants that didn't get built, I know of only one (Indian River) where the coal plant wasn't built as a direct result of renewables - I did some critical research that enabled it to happen, in fact. That case pitted coal, natural gas and a proposal for an offshore wind farm against each other in a unique bidding process where the Public Utility Commission was required by special legislation to consider the long term environmental impact of their choice as well as the economic consequences.

That type of legislation is NOT going to happen in most jurisdictions; hell, I doubt if we could make it happen here again. Lacking that type of strong guidance from the people who make the laws, what should we do? We (researchers on the subject of transitioning to a noncarbon energy system) have been assuming an important pivotal role for natural gas long before fracking became the primary source. Any increase in natural gas supply has the potential to accelerate that transition, so it is important, from my perspective, that the information we use to make our decisions is based on real problems as established by a valid process of science, not by potential economic losers (coal and nuclear) spreading FUD on the internet and via a compliant corporate media.

[Karenina]

29. If Tante K. were The Goddess...

But she isn't and having lived across the pond for decades, tends to avoid either/or framing. I did run across this. Perhaps you'll find it interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2274375

How did fracking even become the process du jour?

Does FUD mean fucked up drivel?

[kristopher]

30. So you didn't bother to even read the OP?

If you had, you'd know what FUD means. And now you refuse to even acknowledge the real world situations and choices that energy planners and those fighting AGW are facing. Appeals to the gods don't seem to work, so perhaps it would be more helpful to roll up your sleeves and do the work needed to learn the facts from reliable sources.

So let me ask you again.

If you could eliminate coal tomorrow and replace it with natural gas what would you do?

Existing infrastructure makes that a realistic question since we could do it within a couple of years. The conventional measure of CO2 emissions per kilowatthour from coal is 1100 grams. The conventional measure of CO2 emissions from natural gas is 440 grams.

Coal is responsible for about 27% of total US carbon emissions. So a switch to natural gas would result in an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of about 16%. It would also shift the structure of the grid itself to one that is far more compatible with wind and solar.

You say that "There IS NO QUESTION that the process threatens the water supply and geology". Well, for you that might well be a settled issue. But the science behind that conclusion isn't clear by any means. There is no question in my mind that the process of fracking was turned loose in typical Republican fashion with absolutely no consideration of the potential environmental consequences, but that means there is a lack of knowledge, not that the knowledge base proves damage in inevitable.

And remember - the coal industry is under great threat by natural gas. Look at this list of cancelled coal plants. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Proposed_coal_plants_in_the_United_States
(see also this list of all coal plants http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants )

Of those planned plants that didn't get built, I know of only one (Indian River) where the coal plant wasn't built as a direct result of renewables - I did some critical research that enabled it to happen, in fact. That case pitted coal, natural gas and a proposal for an offshore wind farm against each other in a unique bidding process where the Public Utility Commission was required by special legislation to consider the long term environmental impact of their choice as well as the economic consequences.

That type of legislation is NOT going to happen in most jurisdictions; hell, I doubt if we could make it happen here again. Lacking that type of strong guidance from the people who make the laws, what should we do? We (researchers on the subject of transitioning to a noncarbon energy system) have been assuming an important pivotal role for natural gas long before fracking became the primary source. Any increase in natural gas supply has the potential to accelerate that transition, so it is important, from my perspective, that the information we use to make our decisions is based on real problems as established by a valid process of science, not by potential economic losers (coal and nuclear) spreading FUD on the internet and via a compliant corporate media.

[Karenina]

31. "If you had, you'd know what FUD means."

It was a JOKE, mein Jung. Kicking this again as I feel the discussion is important. :hide:

[kristopher]

32. Why not kick it by answering the question?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

26. Wonderful, another kneejerk reactionary post made with zero thought

Explain how it is either profracking or pronatural gas.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

28. If we know "Absolutely shitloads" then post it.

That is what this thread is about, collecting peer reviewed vetted information that can be a sound basis for decisionmaking.
The only people who would dislike that approach are coal and nuclear supporters.

If you have valid information then share it. Incoherent rants aren't discussion.

[BadgerKid]

33. The Army halted naplam injections in 1961.

In 1961, the Army decided that the best way to dispose of toxic waste from napalm production (among other things) was to drill a 12,000-foot-deep well in the Rocky Mountains and inject the bad stuff down it into the crust of the Earth. From 1962 to 1966, the Army deposited 165 million gallons of toxic waste into this hole in the Earth. Unfortunately, the injections probably triggered earthquakes in the region, and the Army shut the operation down. As seismologist Dave Wolny explained, "If you are doing deep well injection, you are altering the stress on the underlying rocks and at some point, the stress will be relieved by generating an earthquake."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x153133

[kristopher]

34. Do you think that earthquakes that might be triggered by fracking are a significant threat?

How do you interpret the information you posted?