Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Despite the silly personal attacks, you are wrong, they are targeting fracking.

http://gazette.com/epa-targets-fracking-wells-in-latest-round-of-climate-rules/article/feed/348500

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/12/us-seeks-to-cut-methane-from-oil-gas-by-40-percent.html

The rule by the Environmental Protection Agency would reduce methane emissions from oil and gas drilling by 40 to 45 percent by 2025, compared to 2012 levels. It would require energy producers to find and repair leaks at oil and gas wells and capture gas that escapes from wells that use the common drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Yes, small sample size. More up to date study of over 10,000 sites instead of under 70 says no link. As the article below states, rarely a single well may have cracks causing a local problem. Which can be fixed.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/methane-drinking-water-unrelated-fracking-study-suggests
From the article you posted:

But the lead authors of the two bodies of research are sparring over the validity of the new results.
Then one of the authors of your new study acknowledges:

Siegel doesn’t deny that there have been problems with a few wells with poorly engineered steel casings or cracked and degraded cement walls designed to keep the boreholes from leaking. Such defective borehole walls can provide a conduit for the methane to move from the shale formation, more than a kilometer underground, to water wells just a hundred meters or so below the surface.
Other scientists are questioning the methodology used in the new study:

Jackson, however, contests that characterization and argues that Siegel’s larger sample size doesn’t necessarily make for a better study. He says it is unclear whether the Chesapeake samples were measured at the water well itself, or inside houses, after the water may have had time to release its methane fumes, or after it has passed through purification systems. He also points out that the water samples were collected using the “inverted bottle†technique, a method avoided by many academic labs because it can lead to lower measured values of methane in samples with the highest levels of the gas, because it allows the methane to percolate out of solution.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
thank god the government is coming in to save us
 

·
انا باتمان
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
thank god the government is coming in to save us
Just like businesses aren't allowed to dump their waste in rivers, these fracking companies shouldn't be allowed to contaminate your or anyone else's water supply.

It is a proper use of government authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Just like businesses aren't allowed to dump their waste in rivers, these fracking companies shouldn't be allowed to contaminate your or anyone else's water supply.

It is a proper use of government authority.
If someone was contaminating my water, I'd prefer to deal with it myself than be forced to pay some bad actors to do what's in their best interest, including keeping me from mine.

In fact, the government already contaminates my water, purposefully.

Further, your assumed premise that government "authority" is legitimate is demonstrably false. You conceded yourself that you couldn't explain it, yet you persist with your rote malformed opinions.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,176 Posts
No fraking way.

Nemo
 

·
Token Liberal Hippie
Joined
·
13,680 Posts
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top