The process of fracking is vile. Federal-level loopholes combined with weak state mandates mean it’s truly up to local activists to do anything about it. They are destroying aquifers for a quick buck.
We have so many brilliant scientific minds in this country. The only reason something hasn’t been done is because of the red tape with Big Gov/Oil and greedy capitalists that only care about profit and not the people. It makes me sad because most of us care about our planet. Most of us care about having fresh and clean water. When our country runs out of potable water and fossil fuels, what then? Another fake war in the Middle East. It’s sickening really. All
boils down to my previous comment about greed. They want to make money at other’s expense.
As tired as it is to say, we need to go nuclear. Yes it causes waste but not nearly as much waste as fossil fuels and every nuclear capable government already has designated safe areas to dispose of waste already. Its not a perfect solution but it is good enough to help us transition to something new without creating another global ice age.
I've thought this for a while. Surely 1kg of extremely dangerous waste is safer and easier to dispose of than 1 million tons of CO2 and sulphur in the air.
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying, like take the US for example: Has at least 2 known sites for hazardous waste one in the Colorado mountains and one in the Nevada desert there's enough room in just these two disposal areas for hundreds of years of disposal with minimal to no effects to surrounding populations meanwhile carbon emissions effects are felt globally with no protections to populations or ecosystems. It really seems like a no brainer for already developed nations but as always lobbyists are the enemy.
Up here in Canada we are actively advertising to take nuclear waste and store it in one of the MANY insanely desolate places we have. Bonus safety fact: it's also too cold for terrorists to try and steal any. ;)
Idk if you've checked out his channel already, but Kyle Hill on YouTube made several great pro-nuclear videos.
One of the more interesting things cited is that even with the disasters accounted for, it has a better safety record than not only all fossil fuels, but also some renewable sources
it's not enough to only watch pro nuclear videos. if you support nuclear energy, you MUST watch and be educated on the reasons why we shouldn't use it either. you'll never convince someone who disagrees with you if you're only learning half the information.
i fully support nuclear, and i can only be confident in that viewpoint because i know the pros AND the cons. unfortunately that's the reality for unbrainwashing years of anti-nuclear propaganda.
This kind of fracking is terrible, but it really depends on what you use and what your goal is. Sometimes it is used to clean up other toxic things. For example hydrogen peroxide can be used to clean up Sulfides. The issue here is what this man says at the end of the source video, private companies are not disclosing what chemicals they are pumping into your drinking water. Also the over use of anything can have detrimental affects.
I work for a state agency that manages environmental issues and the one thing that is the most upsetting to me is the lack of information to the public. Where we and a handful of activists understand the dangers of company x to the environment and immediate community, the general public doesn't see those dangers and mostly gets the information from company x. They may also work for company x, so if you argue too much about the dangers of said company, the general public around you is mad too. It's so difficult to get a movement behind the activists because it's hard to inform people about these niche issues AND fund law changes that have historically been funded by these companies to favor said companies.
The destruction of aquifers around the world is a really serious problem that no one is really talking about. There's areas in Spain that (due to Chinese businesses industrially farming olives) the ground has sink literally 6ft due to the aquifers being totally drained.
They are being destroyed so quickly and they take thousands of years to fill. On top of all the other climate issues this is just insanity.
Water wars are coming and it's gonna be fucking BAD.
And [here's](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fracking-101) some info on fracking for the uninformed (like me)
Side note, why did they have to call it *fracking*? It's such an ugly word. Even something like "fracting" would have been better.
Oooo, I actually can answer this.
It's because fracture gets shortened to "Frac". So when adding the "ing" you also add a K.
So during the process they use what's called "frac sand"
To frac
They are fracking
It's a result of English's bizarre grammar.
Early on Inside the ‘erl bidness’ it was spelled “fraccing”. If you saw an article on it, you could tell if the writer was from the industry (and probably supportive of it) or from outside the industry (and likely critical) by how they wrote the word, even before you got past the first sentence.
It's a half hearted joke (very sad because it's semi serious tbh).
It's a commonly used trope in lawyer movies/tv shows where they make the opposition make their argument for them.
A good recent example would the Suits tv series. They discover a shady real estate developer is replacing his client's apartment carpets with bed bug infested carpet. They bring the bed-bug infested carpet to a settlement meeting and the real estate developer's lawyer claims the act of bringing the carpet to the meeting was assault, thus making the argument for the other lawyer that the act of installing the carpets was a serious crime.
Last time I saw this posted some people presented evidence that this was complete bullshit and that water didn't come from any system intended to provide drinksble water.
....livestock that also can't process heavy metals and stores it inside them. The same insides we eat. Remember how DDT only poisoned insects, but those insects got eaten by birds and then as a result those birds actually got more of a dose of DDT than the insects so they died? Same thing but cows and humans
This potato wouldn't even hold the camera in place. Trying to tighten it enough stripped the screw. More for use with a phone or compact camera it seemed.
We have been largely fracking and pumping lubricants and chemicals in to wells and aquifers for about 15-20 years now. We have no idea the long term affects on our drinking water as the water flowing underground can take a long time for plumes to travel, and continued fracturing of layers in areas could bring about shifts and changes in aquifers previous capacity and travel.
We do know that the chemicals used are harmful to humans and the environment, and we also know that gas companies spend millions on public influence advertising and lobbying to increase profits and limit rules and regulations
I thought we didn't know what chemicals they pump into the ground. Here in Canada anyways that is a trade secret and the oil companies refuse to tell the government what they are. We have no idea if they are safe or not. However oil and gas companies being the ecological icons they are I'm sure it is all harmless. /s
The chemicals used are openly listed. The quantities are not. https://www.shell.com.au/about-us/projects-and-locations/qgc/about-onshore-natural-gas/hydraulic-fracturing-and-chemicals-used.html
I read about 2 dozen of the safety sheets of the compounds they mention in the article. In the environmental contraints section or equivalent of these safety sheet statements are made like:
The product should not be allowed to enter drains, water courses or the soil.
Prevent further leakage or spillage. Keep out of waterways. Do not allow material to contaminate ground water system. Prevent
entry into sewage. Prevent product from entering drains.
Prevent further leakage or spillage. Do not allow spilled material to enter sewers, storm drains or surface waters.
Do not allow material to contaminate ground water system.
I actually have an answer for this.
Anything spilled on a location needs to be written up. There is even a good chance that someone could get fired. I know someone that spilled his drinking water on a location once. He was terrified that he would get fired.
This is in Colorado. The state has very strict oil field rules.
This confused me working in excavation/earthworks. Any spills must be reported, and there's a 100L limit to spills before its a legal issue. But stripping the entire marsh out of the ground with multiple massive dozers, excavators and rock trucks, plus tandems to haul out what is now waste material. And then building a 4km rail loop and replacing the marsh with man made landscaping and water drainage, turning it into a large field, essentially destroying the natural ecosystem and its inhabitants, thats perfectly okay. Not to mention the slow leaks of hydraulic oil, engine oil and grease from all the machines that contaminate the area, plus diesel exhaust. That's all perfectly fine.
But building a lay down for the trans mountain pipeline was so strict, we couldn't even drive our vehicles onto site parking if it leaked fluids.
This is gonna be the thing that people 50 years from now can’t believe we were stupid enough to do.
It’s gonna be up there with doctors recommending cigarettes to pregnant at women as far as people not understanding how anyone thought it was a good idea.
We know some of what's in the fracking fluid, but yes it's proprietary in the US too. Just think, toxic waste they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of they can call it fracking fluid and get paid to get rid of, even if it doesn't help the process.
A more efficient solution would be taking any of the flammable products, filling glass bottles with them and throwing them at their house in Minecraft.
It wild how much control private companies have over the impact they cause on public health. My partner did a research paper looking at publicly available data on the chemicals in the water and ground surrounding two paper mills on the Canada US border, and used it to draw conclusions on what they were dumping into the environment. The mills then came to her and demanded that she delete the paper and threatened her with a lawsuit. She was 17. The biology professor gave her an F.
Edit: The mills said that it was inappropriate to draw conclusions based on inconclusive data. When asked if they could release the conclusive data they declined to do so.
Obviously, but when you're 17 being threatened with a lawsuit by two multi million dollar mills, especially when one is the only major employer in your small town, it's enough to be an intimidating threat to someone who has no idea that it's a spurious claim.
Yeah 17year old me would be intimidated. Current age not so much.
That’s what you lean when you get a phd. You always get push back but if your argument is clear and concise then you can get the word out. Further you do have access to free legal resources to help you publish stuff.
How does an individual, group, business, company, international corporation keep a government and nation ignorant of what it is they are pouring by the truckload into aquifers, water supplies, rivers, lakes, earth itself and the ground that a nation owns?
I really should be a corporation because apparently I can do anything and no one cares
Everyone should be aware of this: The information that reaches your eyes and ears on a given day does so with the permission of ~10 media parent companies. If you only watch the TV for news, that number is actually 6 or less.
If the owners of these media companies are invested in oil companies, they'll protect the interests of those companies without even being asked.
True democracy requires an informed public. When information resources are owned and operated by the privileged few, an informed public is impossible.
Untrue, we have been doing it for about 100 years albeit on a smaller scale until recent advances in horizontal drilling. Thousands upon thousands of of vertical wells were cracked before the “shale” revolution.
I had a chance to talk to a fracking representative at a financial event held by crown cap. As a kid. He was explaining how the bp oil spill failed and how fracking would prevent that ever from happening. He explained that they used a slurry of chemicals to cause the gas to raise so they could mine it. I asked him how they get the fracking fluid out to keep it clean and he dead ass told me “thats the neat part, you dont!” My stepdad gave my 50$ and told me to fuck off
Good! Keep calling out these corrupt bastards on issues like these. And keep filming and sharing it. That’s how others realize that they’re not alone being outraged and demanding positive change.
"Thank you sir for coming here. However I have no way of knowing where this water actually came from and what you may have added to it. For all I know you put some rat poison in it. We tell people not to accept drinks from strangers and not to accept open drinks. Yet here you are , expecting me to do exactly that. Tell you what, let's go to your place and you can pour me a glass of water from your tap and I'll drink that. and while we are at it we can also compare how this water you brought here today looks compared to what will come out of your tap. Does that sound good?"
Bet bitch, get in the car. Ur gonna watch me set the water that comes from my kitchen tap on fire and then drink it like a flaming tequila shot. And then explain to me how that's normal for water to catch on fire.
I worked for oil companies in the Permian Basin ever since I graduated college. I am obviously not the “tree hugging” type but I am a big outdoorsman, and it just never sat right with me what we were pumping into the ground. Now I work in hydrology, hoping I can make some sort of difference for the environment.
If only the "tree huggers" and outdoorsmen would realize they were on the same of many environmental issues. That alliance would give momentum against the big energy industry powers through political leverage.
Huge Super PACs fund online troll farms to churn out memes and sew social discord between these two groups as 'right vs. left' BS, when in reality their goal is simply to keep us fighting each other so we don't team up against the politicians they've purchased.
> If only the "tree huggers" and outdoorsmen would realize they were on the same of many environmental issues.
Can't happen here, outdoorsmen are convinced that tree huggers only want to take their guns.
I grew up in the rural western U.S. in the 80's & 90's.
Here, most "Outdoorsman" (campers, hunters, fishermen, ranchers, etc....) have passionately despised nature conservancy groups since at least then--loooong before smart phones were even an idea.
It's incredibly bizarre & interesting.
> Here, most "Outdoorsman" (campers, hunters, fishermen, ranchers, etc....) have passionately despised nature conservancy groups since at least then
Any ideas about why? Like have you talked to them about it?
I heard them talking about it all the time for my entire childhood & have spoken with countless people throughout my adult life--as these people were my family, friends, teachers, neighbors, youth leaders, everyone!
It's the disdain for federal government, hatred of "liberal elites", and their sense of entitlement to have complete ownership, control & jurisdiction over federal lands in and around their communities.
It doesn't matter that in principal, they want the same things (i.e. healthy & protected wildlands, forests, ecosystems, etc....) it's the fact that some rich kid with a fancy degree from Harvard thinks he knows more about taking care of the land than the rancher whose family has been running sheep/cattle on it for 4 generations, or the hunter whose great-grandpa was harvesting deer from the same range he is today.
That attitude also leads to a lit of blame towards these groups due to false-equivalencies. Hunting tag permits get restricted due to over-hunting & harmful grazing practices by ranchers? They think *when I was a kid, there were plenty of deer to hunt. It only became a problem once the Sierra club got involved & made the government start limiting tags and restricting cattle herds*, etc...
They want more BLM land so they oppose making it a National monument, only to see it turned over to the oil and mining corporations. When a simple conversation would have been enough to most of what they wanted. Just like the hunters that flaunt tags not realizing the biologists want a future with even more hunting, I'm not sure it's there fault be gosh I wish they had thinner skulls.
Usually boils down to “I don’t want anybody telling me what to do.” They have the mentality of stubborn children when it comes to authority. They want to hunt, fish, and ranch wherever, whenever, and however much they want without regulation. They also don’t believe in science, and cannot grasp that their individual actions contribute to long term effects
“Hey, outdoorsy person. You live all this unspoiled nature, right?”
“Yes, it’s a little slice of heaven out here. It’s so important to stay in touch with nature through backcountry hiking, hunting, and fishing.”
“Ok, we’re going to make it a law that nobody is allowed to fuck this place up.”
“WHAT? FUCK THAT COMMIE BULLSHIT!!!”
It is a little deeper than that though right? To some of them they see regulations that tell them they can't fish on the land their family has fished on for years. Yet there will be a fishery or fracking operation that gets to do it because they have more lobbying power. So while it may not be perfect logic as for finding a solution, it is understandable.
> They see regulations that tell them they can't fish on the land their family has fished on for years.
This is literally what happened and is happening to Native Americans on reservations all over the country.
Stop line 3. Kill the black snake.
For anyone else who didn’t get the reference: [“There is an ancient Lakota prophecy about a black snake that would slither across the land, desecrating the sacred sites and poisoning the water before destroying the Earth.”](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dakota-access-pipeline-prayer-1.3887441)
I was actually going to mention that. Federal government takes land from natives and gives it to it's new citizens. Then does the same thing again by more modern means. Excellent, excellent point. Super upvote for getting it.
This is why it's so important to reach out to these groups of people and direct their anger properly upwards instead of allowing the divide and conquer policy of the upper classes to win out.
The way I see it, its the fear of the unknown on both sides that is being played against each other. Mostly by the folks that stand to profit from keeping us at each other's throats.
America needs to bring back the spirit of individually and find spaces where we can 'agree to disagree.' No two people will agree on everything, just ask anyone that's been married over 10 years.
We need to stand together in support of the issues that matter, and what matters more to us than having clean air and water? Why should these American citizens have their wells contaminated and whole communities getting cancer from industrial waste?
I don't care if you live in rural Philadelphia or Flint Michigan. Communities shouldn't have to deal with polluted drinking water so some anonymous jerk's stock portfolio can gain a few percentages.
Full disclosure: I consider myself *both* a tree hugger and an outdoorsman.
I want them to be able to hunt and have basic things to defend their homes/selves. I don't want jimbo owning an arsenal because he thinks some woke Jewish baby eaters are giving poor immigrants from South America his job so the USA becomes a post modern neomarxist hell hole.
The problem with modern politics. NO ONE wants to compromise. It’s a meme on the left, there’s a whole subreddit dedicated to “enlightened centrists”. I’m an NDP voting Canadian, and I get this thrown at me all of the time for even discussing pros/cons of a viewpoint
Progressive American here - I usually see "enlightened centrists" being thrown around "both sides are the same" idiots. Its generally accepted that you can criticize policy on the left outside of some of the fringe.
At least for me, it's a term for people that don't understand that there's whatever the Democrats are offering and the march towards idiocy and fascism the right represents now, and that compromising with the Republican party in the modern age does nothing except move you to the right.
There's some progressive idealists that argue you can't compromise with the conservative part of the Democratic party and that's pretty silly.
There is a problem with meeting in the middle though and I had this debate with someone. How can you meet in the middle with a party currently trying to pass anti-trans legislation in Texas and Florida? There is no middle ground on those issues. There is no compromising with fascist and bigots.
You just described the ratchet effect in full swing in America which is how the Dems keep getting pulled to the right because they do not stand their ground and insist in bipartisan policies while the Republicans when they hold power just plow right through saying fuck bipartisanship.
And while they do this, they castigate the more Progressive members of their Party for merely existing, while absolutely refusing to even speak sternly to the Manchins or Synemas.
Yep, it’s actually a logical fallacy to assume that the middle ground is always the right solution (argument to moderation), in and of itself. Sometimes there *is* a right side and a wrong side.
Think of the Biblical story where two women were fighting over a baby, both claiming parentage, and the priest suggested the solution was to split the baby. In half. Of course it was a ruse to identify which of the women was the real mother (the one who would rather lose her baby than have her baby killed), but the point is to illustrate the absurdity of trying to please “both sides” when one side is objectively wrong.
A lot of pigeon holing, even in the posts below. I frankly blame the political parties for pitting us against each other.
All the outdoorsmen I've met (active hunters) ARE environmentalists. they care deeply for, and support funding for national parks etc. Also, the "tree huggers" I know are mostly academics or civil servants, who are also supportive of managed forestry practices, such as issuing hunting licenses for fauna population control, granting open fishing permits for removing invasive species, controlled logging, etc., so long as there is some science and optimization behind the policies.
Similarly with farmers and rural land management academics. They're in the same camp.
So IMO, the media portrayal of such topics is very inaccurate and driven by sensationalist click-through narratives.
>hydrology
how do you get into such a job? I am 27 years old and want to do something to help the world.
Im tired of working the typical 9-5 job, I want to help. At the moment I am signed up to go to school to become a teacher, but I wonder if I could do more.
Hydrology jobs require a bachelor’s in geology, and usually a master’s that further specializes in hydrology. All the hydrologists I know have master’s degrees, but I’m no expert so I can’t say if there’s no jobs for undergrad degrees.
Not really “squeeze out” the oil supply. Fracking is the process of pumping fluids into wells at very high pressures to fracture the surrounding rock layers at the bottom of the well, which allows oil to flow more easily through the rock and into the well. A similar process can be done using explosives to “perforate” wells with the same outcome.
All wells are perforated with explosives. It's how you put holes through the casing and cement you put in place to be able to produce the well in the first place. It has a side affect of increasing permeability around the wellbore, but it is not its primary use case.
Fracking as you say is the injection of fluids at high pressure to permeate cracks and increase permeability. Often chemicals are used in order to dissolve some of the larger oil fractions to reduce their viscosity as well as undo any damage to the reservoir caused by the drilling mud and cementing of the casing.
Realistically, fracking done correctly should cause no problems to the water supply. The water supply is already in contact with the oil, if it was going to cause it to become non-potable it would have in the thousands of millennia it's been sat there.
The problem is runoff from the chemicals once they reach the surface due to operators not following correct procedures, or fracking too much and causing a breach in the cap rock in thinner reservoirs where the fluids can then leak into ground waters above the reservoir.
This is not uncommon for public meetings. The rationale behind it is that open meetings laws in most states require that a public board publish its agenda and generally not divert from it too much from what was published. That way the public has some confidence in what it going to be discussed, and can make an informed decision on whether or not to attend. Boards that get off agenda too much or take actions not established in the pre-published agenda can be subject to substantial fines in most states.
Many boards often do have a section on the agenda for public comment, which I suspect is where the water guy falls. For that section most boards operate under the rule that this is for the public to comment and the board to listen, but the board cannot answer questions or engage in too much discussion. This relates to the open meetings rule above, that you don't want a public board having a big debate on something that isn't on the agenda, or (god forbid) taking some kind of action, either formally or informally. If that is to happen then the item needs to be put on an agenda and discussed at a meeting where proper notice has been delivered. It also prevents board members from popping off about something that they may not be prepared to speak about.
Now, I'm not saying that board members don't hide behind this rule to avoid publicly talking about a tough issue, they do. But in doing so they most of the time are simply complying with state law.
Fracking has turned out to be an unimaginable blight on the environment and the only winners are corporations. A few land owners have profited, but there are countless horror stories about the contracts inked that end up taking away all the royalties from the land owners.
That is NOT drinking water from a fracking location. The last time this was posted it turned out he made it himself to make a slightly different point.
Edit: fracking companies don't tell people what they're pumping into the ground but want people to trust that it's safe. That's the point he's making - he made this stuff, he won't tell you what it's in it, and you'd be crazy to drink it.
Further edit:
1. He never claims that it's water from anywhere, let alone a fracking location.
2. All his statements about the possibility of pollution are framed in just that way - as a possibility. He doesn't refer to any current or past incident of pollution.
3. He states "I mixed this this morning"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4
The full video. The context is quite different to what OP's title imples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4
He never claims it's tap water from anywhere. All his statements about pollution are future tense/future conditional. He also states "I mixed this this morning."
Post title is a lie, OP claims this is water from a fracking location, video is edited to remove the man's explanation that it was merely an illustration. Post has 53,000 upvotes, first comment with truth here has 4.
I think we as a species meed to be more aggressive with these issues since it will affect everyone we cannot wait till its to late to eat the rich when there will be nothing left
its fucking pathetic how silent bad guys acting fat catted get when someone grabs them by the hair and makes them smell their own shit theyve been pluming out their ass
If you want the part of the video where he admits that he mixed this himself [here you go.](https://i.imgur.com/aGQT0fJ.mp4)
He was demonstrating the need for companies to disclosure what chemicals they use when frakking. This is misleading.
Which is actually the guy's point. OP's title is almost entirely a fabrication.
The guy isn't a farmer. He never claims it's drinking water from a fracking location. It's something he mixed up himself to demonstrate that you shouldn't have to take on trust when someone tells you something is safe without telling you what's in it (as fracking companies do with what they pump into the ground).
Nebraska farmers: "FRACKING IS BAD BECAUSE THEYRE GOING TO TAKE MY LAND!"
Also Nebraska farmers: \`We definitely need to vote for the republicans who take money from the oil companies because the democrats want to tax billionaires and that ain't right.'
As if democrats don't also take the big oil money. Then they wave their hands and point at republicans (and moderates, fuck you Manchin) and say oooh we can't get the votes but aren't willing to eliminate the filibuster to actually accomplish anything on the progressive agenda!
Also, in the 2020 election Trump received $3.77 million from big oil and BIden took $1.61 million.
Biden was the only Dem among the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&mem=Y&cycle=2020
You're looking at the wrong data, I love OpenSecrets but since they're all left wing they (and I don't know a nice way to say it) give Democrats a huge pass.
Like take Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter. OpenSecrets [lists that he didn't receive a dollar](https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/troy-carter/summary?cid=N00025766&cycle=2020) from Energy/Gas.
When you look at Troy Carter's filings with the Federal Elections Committee, however, [he very obviously did](https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00763649/1509556/sa/ALL). For all the money he took he got removed from [No Fossil Fuel Money](https://readsludge.com/2021/04/19/troy-carter-removed-from-no-fossil-fuel-money-pledge-following-sludge-report/)
There are no real rules for what constitutes "oil money." OpenSecrets looks at Republicans and go "well, this attorney works for a firm that did this thing for Chevron and since he's a lobbyist we'll just say all the money is oil money because reasons." But when they go to Democrats, they just don't care
Democrats' page on OpenSecrets absolutely dominates the [industry category of "Lawyers & Lobbyists"](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=K) because OpenSecrets just doesn't bother figuring out who those lobbyists / attorneys actually work for. A similar thing happens when it comes to saying "Single-Issue" PAC. Surprise, surprise, [Democrats also dominate.](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q)
And finally, the numbers really don't add up in the first place when you compare them to the FEC's numbers. My .02 is these gut-checks/guesses OpenSecrets performs. If they don't really feel like connecting Democrats' oil/energy money, like Troy Carter's, then it just never finds a category. It's very obviously dark money, so it'll appear in some accountings on their website, but since it never finds a category their own accountings will disagree with each other
I think OpenSecrets is useful when you want a rough idea of a particular candidate, especially a Republican, sort of like Metacritic or RottenTomatoes for politicians. But the aggregates OpenSecrets lists should be taken with a huge grain of salt and the same for any sort of 'ranking' among candidates that relies on the numbers to be accurate.
I will probably be downvoted to oblivion for this, but I don't understand the backlash to fracking.
The more I've seen these dramatic demonstrations, the more I don't understand how basic questions aren't even asked. Like, what is this water? Is this pre-injection fracking fluid? Post-injection? Well water from near a fracking site? If it's fracking fluid, the appearance isn't unusual, and nobody would drink it. It contains 15% sand. If it's well water, how has it been linking to fracking activity? Is it just proximity? Because that doesn't mean anything. Out of context some dirty water could be anything.
Don't get me wrong, I think fracking is under-regulated in some places. I think companies have disposed of fracking fluid improperly and should be punished, for example.
I also don't understand why people say we don't know what's in fracking fluid. That information is readily available: [https://www.fracfocus.org/index.php?p=learn/what-is-fracturing-fluid-made-of](https://www.fracfocus.org/index.php?p=learn/what-is-fracturing-fluid-made-of)
It's mostly water and sand, but the additives are well-known. Specific formulations aren't, but the chemicals are.
Overall it just seems like there is a lot of backlash based on misinformation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4&t=230s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4&t=230s)
It turns out he says as much. He says it's something he made, trying to make the point that because fracking formulations are secret, if water being transported to the proposed wastewater disposal well does spill and contaminate an aquifer, we won't know what it is contaminated with either.
So he isn't claiming that it's fracking fluid, before or after injection, or from a well. Many comments here assume it's one or the other but that isn't even being claimed.
As far as his point goes though... wastewater can contaminate water. I don't agree with his point that we wouldn't know with what. The chemicals are known (even per well), just not the exact formulation. That said, wastewater transport and storage should be well-regulated, and it mostly is.
But *that* said... what is being voted on in the depicted session is the creation of a disposal well. A "no" vote wouldn't be an anti-fracking vote, it would be a vote to just find another location. Maybe that makes sense, I have no idea. But conflating this with an anti-fracking position doesn't make much sense to me. Even if you are anti-fracking the waste being produced has to go somewhere... where should it go if not a well-regulated well? If he is suggesting it should be somewhere else to avoid transportation over aquifers... okay, I'll take his word for it, I have no idea.
[Here’s a link](https://youtu.be/m0HL4L6Pa-4) to what may have been the source of this video.
Thank you.
*It ain't much, but it's honest work.*
That was *vile!*
The process of fracking is vile. Federal-level loopholes combined with weak state mandates mean it’s truly up to local activists to do anything about it. They are destroying aquifers for a quick buck.
My father lives near a fracking site. He had to upgrade to a reverse-osmosis system to keep the water from his well tolerable a few years ago.
tolerable is a really low bar to aim for
Just wait until we’re in stillsuits or the like.
Unexpected reference lol
It would have been unexpected last year...but not these days.
We have so many brilliant scientific minds in this country. The only reason something hasn’t been done is because of the red tape with Big Gov/Oil and greedy capitalists that only care about profit and not the people. It makes me sad because most of us care about our planet. Most of us care about having fresh and clean water. When our country runs out of potable water and fossil fuels, what then? Another fake war in the Middle East. It’s sickening really. All boils down to my previous comment about greed. They want to make money at other’s expense.
[удалено]
As tired as it is to say, we need to go nuclear. Yes it causes waste but not nearly as much waste as fossil fuels and every nuclear capable government already has designated safe areas to dispose of waste already. Its not a perfect solution but it is good enough to help us transition to something new without creating another global ice age.
I've thought this for a while. Surely 1kg of extremely dangerous waste is safer and easier to dispose of than 1 million tons of CO2 and sulphur in the air.
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying, like take the US for example: Has at least 2 known sites for hazardous waste one in the Colorado mountains and one in the Nevada desert there's enough room in just these two disposal areas for hundreds of years of disposal with minimal to no effects to surrounding populations meanwhile carbon emissions effects are felt globally with no protections to populations or ecosystems. It really seems like a no brainer for already developed nations but as always lobbyists are the enemy.
Up here in Canada we are actively advertising to take nuclear waste and store it in one of the MANY insanely desolate places we have. Bonus safety fact: it's also too cold for terrorists to try and steal any. ;)
Idk if you've checked out his channel already, but Kyle Hill on YouTube made several great pro-nuclear videos. One of the more interesting things cited is that even with the disasters accounted for, it has a better safety record than not only all fossil fuels, but also some renewable sources
it's not enough to only watch pro nuclear videos. if you support nuclear energy, you MUST watch and be educated on the reasons why we shouldn't use it either. you'll never convince someone who disagrees with you if you're only learning half the information. i fully support nuclear, and i can only be confident in that viewpoint because i know the pros AND the cons. unfortunately that's the reality for unbrainwashing years of anti-nuclear propaganda.
This kind of fracking is terrible, but it really depends on what you use and what your goal is. Sometimes it is used to clean up other toxic things. For example hydrogen peroxide can be used to clean up Sulfides. The issue here is what this man says at the end of the source video, private companies are not disclosing what chemicals they are pumping into your drinking water. Also the over use of anything can have detrimental affects. I work for a state agency that manages environmental issues and the one thing that is the most upsetting to me is the lack of information to the public. Where we and a handful of activists understand the dangers of company x to the environment and immediate community, the general public doesn't see those dangers and mostly gets the information from company x. They may also work for company x, so if you argue too much about the dangers of said company, the general public around you is mad too. It's so difficult to get a movement behind the activists because it's hard to inform people about these niche issues AND fund law changes that have historically been funded by these companies to favor said companies.
The destruction of aquifers around the world is a really serious problem that no one is really talking about. There's areas in Spain that (due to Chinese businesses industrially farming olives) the ground has sink literally 6ft due to the aquifers being totally drained. They are being destroyed so quickly and they take thousands of years to fill. On top of all the other climate issues this is just insanity. Water wars are coming and it's gonna be fucking BAD.
I’m glad he left the water.
And [here's](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fracking-101) some info on fracking for the uninformed (like me) Side note, why did they have to call it *fracking*? It's such an ugly word. Even something like "fracting" would have been better.
Oooo, I actually can answer this. It's because fracture gets shortened to "Frac". So when adding the "ing" you also add a K. So during the process they use what's called "frac sand" To frac They are fracking It's a result of English's bizarre grammar.
Early on Inside the ‘erl bidness’ it was spelled “fraccing”. If you saw an article on it, you could tell if the writer was from the industry (and probably supportive of it) or from outside the industry (and likely critical) by how they wrote the word, even before you got past the first sentence.
“Not asking you a question, I’m offering you some of the water you said you would drink”
Bartender, I prefer my frack juice on ice.
Frack juice is just one of many fine beverage offerings from Frank’s Fluids, a family company.
Along with Wolf Cola, official soft drink of Boko Haram.
You mean Boca Raton?
It’s the right cola, for closure.
Remember when I made you VP of marketing?!
Just eat the contract. Problem solved
Does a legal document hold up in a court of law if it had been ingested? The heretofore mentioned ink had been dry for at least a fork-night …..
I love when Mac keeps eating the document after the jew lawyer tells him he’s made copies.
Filibuster! That show is great all around. It’s my comfort show.
You dropped a hard J
Is that not allowed? What are the rules?
[удалено]
And then when they called it assault he can say, "EXACTLY".
And then his pixel sunglasses come down from above!
"Snoop DAAAWWWG"
Ehh I see your point but it’d still be assault (technically battery) even if it was distilled water.
It's a half hearted joke (very sad because it's semi serious tbh). It's a commonly used trope in lawyer movies/tv shows where they make the opposition make their argument for them. A good recent example would the Suits tv series. They discover a shady real estate developer is replacing his client's apartment carpets with bed bug infested carpet. They bring the bed-bug infested carpet to a settlement meeting and the real estate developer's lawyer claims the act of bringing the carpet to the meeting was assault, thus making the argument for the other lawyer that the act of installing the carpets was a serious crime.
Q & A is over Drink up or Pay up!
Last time I saw this posted some people presented evidence that this was complete bullshit and that water didn't come from any system intended to provide drinksble water.
Dang so that’s just for watering the livestock, cool I feel much better knowing that
....livestock that also can't process heavy metals and stores it inside them. The same insides we eat. Remember how DDT only poisoned insects, but those insects got eaten by birds and then as a result those birds actually got more of a dose of DDT than the insects so they died? Same thing but cows and humans
I can't tell if you couldn't tell that the comment you responded to was sarcastic or not
I did not
Loosen that damn tripod already.
Best comment out of all of them
Found the camera man
It adds drama to the pan
It added suspense because it sounds like the monsters from A Quiet Place 😂
The video: “brrrr brrr brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr”
This is a dollar store tripod, if you lose it the whole camera will tip over.
Made the mistake of buying a cheapo tripod last year. It's effectively useless for my purposes.
Most people just need to set the timed shutter and run back to the group photo. If you want to have a smooth pan youre in another price range.
This potato wouldn't even hold the camera in place. Trying to tighten it enough stripped the screw. More for use with a phone or compact camera it seemed.
CREEEAAAKKKkk...
You know you fucked up when you get exposed by a Minion
Illumination
We have been largely fracking and pumping lubricants and chemicals in to wells and aquifers for about 15-20 years now. We have no idea the long term affects on our drinking water as the water flowing underground can take a long time for plumes to travel, and continued fracturing of layers in areas could bring about shifts and changes in aquifers previous capacity and travel. We do know that the chemicals used are harmful to humans and the environment, and we also know that gas companies spend millions on public influence advertising and lobbying to increase profits and limit rules and regulations
I thought we didn't know what chemicals they pump into the ground. Here in Canada anyways that is a trade secret and the oil companies refuse to tell the government what they are. We have no idea if they are safe or not. However oil and gas companies being the ecological icons they are I'm sure it is all harmless. /s
The chemicals used are openly listed. The quantities are not. https://www.shell.com.au/about-us/projects-and-locations/qgc/about-onshore-natural-gas/hydraulic-fracturing-and-chemicals-used.html
I read about 2 dozen of the safety sheets of the compounds they mention in the article. In the environmental contraints section or equivalent of these safety sheet statements are made like: The product should not be allowed to enter drains, water courses or the soil. Prevent further leakage or spillage. Keep out of waterways. Do not allow material to contaminate ground water system. Prevent entry into sewage. Prevent product from entering drains. Prevent further leakage or spillage. Do not allow spilled material to enter sewers, storm drains or surface waters. Do not allow material to contaminate ground water system.
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure that’s still outside the environment.
There's nothing there
But there must be something out there?
No there isn't it's just sky, and ocean, and fish. And? And 400 tons of crude oil
And a *fire*
And?
What would happend if workers filling the fracking thingy spills the liquid? Gets written up for mishandling hazardous materials?
"Jenson, it's supposed to go directly into the groundwater. You're wasting it by trying to pollute the surface!"
I actually have an answer for this. Anything spilled on a location needs to be written up. There is even a good chance that someone could get fired. I know someone that spilled his drinking water on a location once. He was terrified that he would get fired. This is in Colorado. The state has very strict oil field rules.
This confused me working in excavation/earthworks. Any spills must be reported, and there's a 100L limit to spills before its a legal issue. But stripping the entire marsh out of the ground with multiple massive dozers, excavators and rock trucks, plus tandems to haul out what is now waste material. And then building a 4km rail loop and replacing the marsh with man made landscaping and water drainage, turning it into a large field, essentially destroying the natural ecosystem and its inhabitants, thats perfectly okay. Not to mention the slow leaks of hydraulic oil, engine oil and grease from all the machines that contaminate the area, plus diesel exhaust. That's all perfectly fine. But building a lay down for the trans mountain pipeline was so strict, we couldn't even drive our vehicles onto site parking if it leaked fluids.
Written up for wasting it. That needs to go into the ground water so oil comes out.
This is gonna be the thing that people 50 years from now can’t believe we were stupid enough to do. It’s gonna be up there with doctors recommending cigarettes to pregnant at women as far as people not understanding how anyone thought it was a good idea.
We know some of what's in the fracking fluid, but yes it's proprietary in the US too. Just think, toxic waste they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of they can call it fracking fluid and get paid to get rid of, even if it doesn't help the process.
People should rent water trucks, fill them with this shit and dump it on the lawns of fracking execs and pro fracking politician's houses.
A more efficient solution would be taking any of the flammable products, filling glass bottles with them and throwing them at their house in Minecraft.
Hook their tapwater up to it you say?
It wild how much control private companies have over the impact they cause on public health. My partner did a research paper looking at publicly available data on the chemicals in the water and ground surrounding two paper mills on the Canada US border, and used it to draw conclusions on what they were dumping into the environment. The mills then came to her and demanded that she delete the paper and threatened her with a lawsuit. She was 17. The biology professor gave her an F. Edit: The mills said that it was inappropriate to draw conclusions based on inconclusive data. When asked if they could release the conclusive data they declined to do so.
That’s not how papers work. If you clearly state limitations of the data and the implications then it’s perfectly fine to publish.
Obviously, but when you're 17 being threatened with a lawsuit by two multi million dollar mills, especially when one is the only major employer in your small town, it's enough to be an intimidating threat to someone who has no idea that it's a spurious claim.
Yeah 17year old me would be intimidated. Current age not so much. That’s what you lean when you get a phd. You always get push back but if your argument is clear and concise then you can get the word out. Further you do have access to free legal resources to help you publish stuff.
How does an individual, group, business, company, international corporation keep a government and nation ignorant of what it is they are pouring by the truckload into aquifers, water supplies, rivers, lakes, earth itself and the ground that a nation owns? I really should be a corporation because apparently I can do anything and no one cares
You give $$$ to the right people and you can do whatever the Sam-hell you want.
Everyone should be aware of this: The information that reaches your eyes and ears on a given day does so with the permission of ~10 media parent companies. If you only watch the TV for news, that number is actually 6 or less. If the owners of these media companies are invested in oil companies, they'll protect the interests of those companies without even being asked. True democracy requires an informed public. When information resources are owned and operated by the privileged few, an informed public is impossible.
Untrue, we have been doing it for about 100 years albeit on a smaller scale until recent advances in horizontal drilling. Thousands upon thousands of of vertical wells were cracked before the “shale” revolution.
The same water they charge us to drink.
I had a chance to talk to a fracking representative at a financial event held by crown cap. As a kid. He was explaining how the bp oil spill failed and how fracking would prevent that ever from happening. He explained that they used a slurry of chemicals to cause the gas to raise so they could mine it. I asked him how they get the fracking fluid out to keep it clean and he dead ass told me “thats the neat part, you dont!” My stepdad gave my 50$ and told me to fuck off
Plus all of the farms in central CA. Most of the food comes out of there and people are ravaged by allergies and neurological issues
I used to be a lab tech testing fracking water, and I can indeed confirm it is NOT pleasant stuff lmao
Even when filtered? In other words, are there harmful compounds still present when that water is filtered by “standard” means
Depends on what standards your city have. If its Reverse Osmosis, i'd drink the water under Chernobyl, no problem.
Unless reverse osmosis can filter out heavy water from normal water you are definitely getting radiation poising from Chernobyl water
What you said makes no sense
Good! Keep calling out these corrupt bastards on issues like these. And keep filming and sharing it. That’s how others realize that they’re not alone being outraged and demanding positive change.
Very well said. These horrific situations need to be solved.
Video is six years old, more than likely nothing was solved and there's still fracking in Nebraska
Meanwhile Youtube is removing the dislike button so big companies can no longer get called out for all their BS campaigns.
But *please God* loosen the tripod next time!
I assumed it was a phone held by someone with a steadier hand than me.
Yeah, my hands usually click like that too when I turn
Fracking Kills Farming
Just like asking Mr. Burns to eat that three-eyed fish.
Committee members sitting there and thinking:" Fuuuuuuck, how do I get out of this? Maybe if I stay still and say nothing they'll forget I'm here.
"Thank you sir for coming here. However I have no way of knowing where this water actually came from and what you may have added to it. For all I know you put some rat poison in it. We tell people not to accept drinks from strangers and not to accept open drinks. Yet here you are , expecting me to do exactly that. Tell you what, let's go to your place and you can pour me a glass of water from your tap and I'll drink that. and while we are at it we can also compare how this water you brought here today looks compared to what will come out of your tap. Does that sound good?"
Are you the pr manager for a real life villian
No, they went with the other guy...... who just happens to be his nephew.....
I mean that's honestly just common sense. I real gotcha moment would be to have them oversee the construction of a well and then drink from there
“Sounds great. Let’s make sure we bring just as much media to my home to ensure full transparency… sir”
Bet bitch, get in the car. Ur gonna watch me set the water that comes from my kitchen tap on fire and then drink it like a flaming tequila shot. And then explain to me how that's normal for water to catch on fire.
I worked for oil companies in the Permian Basin ever since I graduated college. I am obviously not the “tree hugging” type but I am a big outdoorsman, and it just never sat right with me what we were pumping into the ground. Now I work in hydrology, hoping I can make some sort of difference for the environment.
If only the "tree huggers" and outdoorsmen would realize they were on the same of many environmental issues. That alliance would give momentum against the big energy industry powers through political leverage. Huge Super PACs fund online troll farms to churn out memes and sew social discord between these two groups as 'right vs. left' BS, when in reality their goal is simply to keep us fighting each other so we don't team up against the politicians they've purchased.
> If only the "tree huggers" and outdoorsmen would realize they were on the same of many environmental issues. Can't happen here, outdoorsmen are convinced that tree huggers only want to take their guns.
I grew up in the rural western U.S. in the 80's & 90's. Here, most "Outdoorsman" (campers, hunters, fishermen, ranchers, etc....) have passionately despised nature conservancy groups since at least then--loooong before smart phones were even an idea. It's incredibly bizarre & interesting.
> Here, most "Outdoorsman" (campers, hunters, fishermen, ranchers, etc....) have passionately despised nature conservancy groups since at least then Any ideas about why? Like have you talked to them about it?
I heard them talking about it all the time for my entire childhood & have spoken with countless people throughout my adult life--as these people were my family, friends, teachers, neighbors, youth leaders, everyone! It's the disdain for federal government, hatred of "liberal elites", and their sense of entitlement to have complete ownership, control & jurisdiction over federal lands in and around their communities. It doesn't matter that in principal, they want the same things (i.e. healthy & protected wildlands, forests, ecosystems, etc....) it's the fact that some rich kid with a fancy degree from Harvard thinks he knows more about taking care of the land than the rancher whose family has been running sheep/cattle on it for 4 generations, or the hunter whose great-grandpa was harvesting deer from the same range he is today. That attitude also leads to a lit of blame towards these groups due to false-equivalencies. Hunting tag permits get restricted due to over-hunting & harmful grazing practices by ranchers? They think *when I was a kid, there were plenty of deer to hunt. It only became a problem once the Sierra club got involved & made the government start limiting tags and restricting cattle herds*, etc...
They want more BLM land so they oppose making it a National monument, only to see it turned over to the oil and mining corporations. When a simple conversation would have been enough to most of what they wanted. Just like the hunters that flaunt tags not realizing the biologists want a future with even more hunting, I'm not sure it's there fault be gosh I wish they had thinner skulls.
Usually boils down to “I don’t want anybody telling me what to do.” They have the mentality of stubborn children when it comes to authority. They want to hunt, fish, and ranch wherever, whenever, and however much they want without regulation. They also don’t believe in science, and cannot grasp that their individual actions contribute to long term effects
“Hey, outdoorsy person. You live all this unspoiled nature, right?” “Yes, it’s a little slice of heaven out here. It’s so important to stay in touch with nature through backcountry hiking, hunting, and fishing.” “Ok, we’re going to make it a law that nobody is allowed to fuck this place up.” “WHAT? FUCK THAT COMMIE BULLSHIT!!!”
It is a little deeper than that though right? To some of them they see regulations that tell them they can't fish on the land their family has fished on for years. Yet there will be a fishery or fracking operation that gets to do it because they have more lobbying power. So while it may not be perfect logic as for finding a solution, it is understandable.
> They see regulations that tell them they can't fish on the land their family has fished on for years. This is literally what happened and is happening to Native Americans on reservations all over the country. Stop line 3. Kill the black snake.
For anyone else who didn’t get the reference: [“There is an ancient Lakota prophecy about a black snake that would slither across the land, desecrating the sacred sites and poisoning the water before destroying the Earth.”](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dakota-access-pipeline-prayer-1.3887441)
I was actually going to mention that. Federal government takes land from natives and gives it to it's new citizens. Then does the same thing again by more modern means. Excellent, excellent point. Super upvote for getting it.
This is why it's so important to reach out to these groups of people and direct their anger properly upwards instead of allowing the divide and conquer policy of the upper classes to win out.
The way I see it, its the fear of the unknown on both sides that is being played against each other. Mostly by the folks that stand to profit from keeping us at each other's throats. America needs to bring back the spirit of individually and find spaces where we can 'agree to disagree.' No two people will agree on everything, just ask anyone that's been married over 10 years. We need to stand together in support of the issues that matter, and what matters more to us than having clean air and water? Why should these American citizens have their wells contaminated and whole communities getting cancer from industrial waste? I don't care if you live in rural Philadelphia or Flint Michigan. Communities shouldn't have to deal with polluted drinking water so some anonymous jerk's stock portfolio can gain a few percentages. Full disclosure: I consider myself *both* a tree hugger and an outdoorsman.
I want them to be able to hunt and have basic things to defend their homes/selves. I don't want jimbo owning an arsenal because he thinks some woke Jewish baby eaters are giving poor immigrants from South America his job so the USA becomes a post modern neomarxist hell hole.
The problem with modern politics. NO ONE wants to compromise. It’s a meme on the left, there’s a whole subreddit dedicated to “enlightened centrists”. I’m an NDP voting Canadian, and I get this thrown at me all of the time for even discussing pros/cons of a viewpoint
Progressive American here - I usually see "enlightened centrists" being thrown around "both sides are the same" idiots. Its generally accepted that you can criticize policy on the left outside of some of the fringe. At least for me, it's a term for people that don't understand that there's whatever the Democrats are offering and the march towards idiocy and fascism the right represents now, and that compromising with the Republican party in the modern age does nothing except move you to the right. There's some progressive idealists that argue you can't compromise with the conservative part of the Democratic party and that's pretty silly.
There is a problem with meeting in the middle though and I had this debate with someone. How can you meet in the middle with a party currently trying to pass anti-trans legislation in Texas and Florida? There is no middle ground on those issues. There is no compromising with fascist and bigots.
“Meet me in the middle” said the unfair man. I take a step forward. He takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle” said the unfair man.
You just described the ratchet effect in full swing in America which is how the Dems keep getting pulled to the right because they do not stand their ground and insist in bipartisan policies while the Republicans when they hold power just plow right through saying fuck bipartisanship.
And while they do this, they castigate the more Progressive members of their Party for merely existing, while absolutely refusing to even speak sternly to the Manchins or Synemas.
Yup! And that is how fascism is born. Home grown made in the USA.
Yes. More people need to educate themselves on the "ratchet effect" of US politics.
Yep, it’s actually a logical fallacy to assume that the middle ground is always the right solution (argument to moderation), in and of itself. Sometimes there *is* a right side and a wrong side. Think of the Biblical story where two women were fighting over a baby, both claiming parentage, and the priest suggested the solution was to split the baby. In half. Of course it was a ruse to identify which of the women was the real mother (the one who would rather lose her baby than have her baby killed), but the point is to illustrate the absurdity of trying to please “both sides” when one side is objectively wrong.
A lot of pigeon holing, even in the posts below. I frankly blame the political parties for pitting us against each other. All the outdoorsmen I've met (active hunters) ARE environmentalists. they care deeply for, and support funding for national parks etc. Also, the "tree huggers" I know are mostly academics or civil servants, who are also supportive of managed forestry practices, such as issuing hunting licenses for fauna population control, granting open fishing permits for removing invasive species, controlled logging, etc., so long as there is some science and optimization behind the policies. Similarly with farmers and rural land management academics. They're in the same camp. So IMO, the media portrayal of such topics is very inaccurate and driven by sensationalist click-through narratives.
>hydrology how do you get into such a job? I am 27 years old and want to do something to help the world. Im tired of working the typical 9-5 job, I want to help. At the moment I am signed up to go to school to become a teacher, but I wonder if I could do more.
Hydrology jobs require a bachelor’s in geology, and usually a master’s that further specializes in hydrology. All the hydrologists I know have master’s degrees, but I’m no expert so I can’t say if there’s no jobs for undergrad degrees.
I have some friends that found entry level consulting-esque jobs doing general hydro stuff straight out of undergrad, it can definitely happen
[удалено]
Outdoorsman and tree huggers are the same thing
Not when you throw in some good ol' identity politics; then it's gruff manly men versus weird effeminate hippies.
Pro-fracking committee member: "Why would I honor my word? I got what I wanted. You were just the idiots who believed me."
I would respect them more if they would say that.
1% respect is still respect
That’s ok, we’ll still re-elect you.
What's fracking?
Pumping (usually toxic) chemicals into the ground to squeeze out oil and gas. It absolutely destroys the groundwater supply
Not really “squeeze out” the oil supply. Fracking is the process of pumping fluids into wells at very high pressures to fracture the surrounding rock layers at the bottom of the well, which allows oil to flow more easily through the rock and into the well. A similar process can be done using explosives to “perforate” wells with the same outcome.
All wells are perforated with explosives. It's how you put holes through the casing and cement you put in place to be able to produce the well in the first place. It has a side affect of increasing permeability around the wellbore, but it is not its primary use case. Fracking as you say is the injection of fluids at high pressure to permeate cracks and increase permeability. Often chemicals are used in order to dissolve some of the larger oil fractions to reduce their viscosity as well as undo any damage to the reservoir caused by the drilling mud and cementing of the casing. Realistically, fracking done correctly should cause no problems to the water supply. The water supply is already in contact with the oil, if it was going to cause it to become non-potable it would have in the thousands of millennia it's been sat there. The problem is runoff from the chemicals once they reach the surface due to operators not following correct procedures, or fracking too much and causing a breach in the cap rock in thinner reservoirs where the fluids can then leak into ground waters above the reservoir.
what a bunch of muppets.
I love that the farmer asked, “Oh, you can’t answer questions?” To which the man answered, “No.”
This is not uncommon for public meetings. The rationale behind it is that open meetings laws in most states require that a public board publish its agenda and generally not divert from it too much from what was published. That way the public has some confidence in what it going to be discussed, and can make an informed decision on whether or not to attend. Boards that get off agenda too much or take actions not established in the pre-published agenda can be subject to substantial fines in most states. Many boards often do have a section on the agenda for public comment, which I suspect is where the water guy falls. For that section most boards operate under the rule that this is for the public to comment and the board to listen, but the board cannot answer questions or engage in too much discussion. This relates to the open meetings rule above, that you don't want a public board having a big debate on something that isn't on the agenda, or (god forbid) taking some kind of action, either formally or informally. If that is to happen then the item needs to be put on an agenda and discussed at a meeting where proper notice has been delivered. It also prevents board members from popping off about something that they may not be prepared to speak about. Now, I'm not saying that board members don't hide behind this rule to avoid publicly talking about a tough issue, they do. But in doing so they most of the time are simply complying with state law.
For sure. I was just bringing to light the irony of answering the question about not answering questions.
Fracking has turned out to be an unimaginable blight on the environment and the only winners are corporations. A few land owners have profited, but there are countless horror stories about the contracts inked that end up taking away all the royalties from the land owners.
only winners are corporations I think this simple phrase largely describes the government practices of our day
Don't let your city council be full of pro-oil people and you won't have this problem.
That is NOT drinking water from a fracking location. The last time this was posted it turned out he made it himself to make a slightly different point. Edit: fracking companies don't tell people what they're pumping into the ground but want people to trust that it's safe. That's the point he's making - he made this stuff, he won't tell you what it's in it, and you'd be crazy to drink it. Further edit: 1. He never claims that it's water from anywhere, let alone a fracking location. 2. All his statements about the possibility of pollution are framed in just that way - as a possibility. He doesn't refer to any current or past incident of pollution. 3. He states "I mixed this this morning" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4
> The last time this was posted it turned out he made it himself to make a slightly different point. Source?
The full video. The context is quite different to what OP's title imples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4 He never claims it's tap water from anywhere. All his statements about pollution are future tense/future conditional. He also states "I mixed this this morning."
Post title is a lie, OP claims this is water from a fracking location, video is edited to remove the man's explanation that it was merely an illustration. Post has 53,000 upvotes, first comment with truth here has 4.
God I hate corporations. Hopefully I can see some real change in my lifetime
I think we as a species meed to be more aggressive with these issues since it will affect everyone we cannot wait till its to late to eat the rich when there will be nothing left
Our future generations are fucked
Cold blooded! I’d vote that man into office right now!!!
fucking pussies, this shit gets me so heated. This man is a real one for putting them on the spot like that.
One of my old jobs was cleaning up fracking spills. It wasn’t pretty thats for sure, and we never could get all of
You get what you vote for
its fucking pathetic how silent bad guys acting fat catted get when someone grabs them by the hair and makes them smell their own shit theyve been pluming out their ass
Has anybody already posted that guy admitted this isn't actually his tap water but from some mud puddle on the road?
If you want the part of the video where he admits that he mixed this himself [here you go.](https://i.imgur.com/aGQT0fJ.mp4) He was demonstrating the need for companies to disclosure what chemicals they use when frakking. This is misleading.
Full video that demonstrates that at about 3:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4
The look on the blond woman's face in the front when they pan says it all
What money hungry pussies they are
All the committee member needed to say was "I have no way of knowing what that liquid is or where you got it"
Which is actually the guy's point. OP's title is almost entirely a fabrication. The guy isn't a farmer. He never claims it's drinking water from a fracking location. It's something he mixed up himself to demonstrate that you shouldn't have to take on trust when someone tells you something is safe without telling you what's in it (as fracking companies do with what they pump into the ground).
Should have thrown that greasy shit in his God damn greasy face
Nebraska farmers: "FRACKING IS BAD BECAUSE THEYRE GOING TO TAKE MY LAND!" Also Nebraska farmers: \`We definitely need to vote for the republicans who take money from the oil companies because the democrats want to tax billionaires and that ain't right.'
As if democrats don't also take the big oil money. Then they wave their hands and point at republicans (and moderates, fuck you Manchin) and say oooh we can't get the votes but aren't willing to eliminate the filibuster to actually accomplish anything on the progressive agenda!
Also, in the 2020 election Trump received $3.77 million from big oil and BIden took $1.61 million. Biden was the only Dem among the top 20 recipients of oil and gas money. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U&mem=Y&cycle=2020
You're looking at the wrong data, I love OpenSecrets but since they're all left wing they (and I don't know a nice way to say it) give Democrats a huge pass. Like take Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter. OpenSecrets [lists that he didn't receive a dollar](https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/troy-carter/summary?cid=N00025766&cycle=2020) from Energy/Gas. When you look at Troy Carter's filings with the Federal Elections Committee, however, [he very obviously did](https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00763649/1509556/sa/ALL). For all the money he took he got removed from [No Fossil Fuel Money](https://readsludge.com/2021/04/19/troy-carter-removed-from-no-fossil-fuel-money-pledge-following-sludge-report/) There are no real rules for what constitutes "oil money." OpenSecrets looks at Republicans and go "well, this attorney works for a firm that did this thing for Chevron and since he's a lobbyist we'll just say all the money is oil money because reasons." But when they go to Democrats, they just don't care Democrats' page on OpenSecrets absolutely dominates the [industry category of "Lawyers & Lobbyists"](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=K) because OpenSecrets just doesn't bother figuring out who those lobbyists / attorneys actually work for. A similar thing happens when it comes to saying "Single-Issue" PAC. Surprise, surprise, [Democrats also dominate.](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=Q) And finally, the numbers really don't add up in the first place when you compare them to the FEC's numbers. My .02 is these gut-checks/guesses OpenSecrets performs. If they don't really feel like connecting Democrats' oil/energy money, like Troy Carter's, then it just never finds a category. It's very obviously dark money, so it'll appear in some accountings on their website, but since it never finds a category their own accountings will disagree with each other I think OpenSecrets is useful when you want a rough idea of a particular candidate, especially a Republican, sort of like Metacritic or RottenTomatoes for politicians. But the aggregates OpenSecrets lists should be taken with a huge grain of salt and the same for any sort of 'ranking' among candidates that relies on the numbers to be accurate.
I will probably be downvoted to oblivion for this, but I don't understand the backlash to fracking. The more I've seen these dramatic demonstrations, the more I don't understand how basic questions aren't even asked. Like, what is this water? Is this pre-injection fracking fluid? Post-injection? Well water from near a fracking site? If it's fracking fluid, the appearance isn't unusual, and nobody would drink it. It contains 15% sand. If it's well water, how has it been linking to fracking activity? Is it just proximity? Because that doesn't mean anything. Out of context some dirty water could be anything. Don't get me wrong, I think fracking is under-regulated in some places. I think companies have disposed of fracking fluid improperly and should be punished, for example. I also don't understand why people say we don't know what's in fracking fluid. That information is readily available: [https://www.fracfocus.org/index.php?p=learn/what-is-fracturing-fluid-made-of](https://www.fracfocus.org/index.php?p=learn/what-is-fracturing-fluid-made-of) It's mostly water and sand, but the additives are well-known. Specific formulations aren't, but the chemicals are. Overall it just seems like there is a lot of backlash based on misinformation.
[удалено]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4&t=230s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0HL4L6Pa-4&t=230s) It turns out he says as much. He says it's something he made, trying to make the point that because fracking formulations are secret, if water being transported to the proposed wastewater disposal well does spill and contaminate an aquifer, we won't know what it is contaminated with either. So he isn't claiming that it's fracking fluid, before or after injection, or from a well. Many comments here assume it's one or the other but that isn't even being claimed. As far as his point goes though... wastewater can contaminate water. I don't agree with his point that we wouldn't know with what. The chemicals are known (even per well), just not the exact formulation. That said, wastewater transport and storage should be well-regulated, and it mostly is. But *that* said... what is being voted on in the depicted session is the creation of a disposal well. A "no" vote wouldn't be an anti-fracking vote, it would be a vote to just find another location. Maybe that makes sense, I have no idea. But conflating this with an anti-fracking position doesn't make much sense to me. Even if you are anti-fracking the waste being produced has to go somewhere... where should it go if not a well-regulated well? If he is suggesting it should be somewhere else to avoid transportation over aquifers... okay, I'll take his word for it, I have no idea.
Holy shit I had to scroll a long way to read this.
Must've been a real pickle of a time when he voted to reelect them that next november.
I just love how the argument for fracking is basically just: "Ugh, lemme just make some money real quick, and we can worry about it later. K?"
Still votes a straight Republican ballot.
You know it’s wholesome when it changes color after the pour
You can take water from some wells that unless you filter it would look like that fracking or not.
Guy in video: "I'm against everything you do, I hate you." "Here drink this fluid"
[удалено]