Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #586167 > unrolled thread

Fracking

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 10:31 -0500
    Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:44 -0500
      Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:00 -0700
        Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:43 -0500
        Re: Fracking moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-22 17:55 +0000
      Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:07 -0700
        Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 12:21 -0500
          Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:39 -0700
            Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 12:47 -0500
              Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:52 -0700
                Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 13:38 -0500
          Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:53 -0500
          Re: Fracking HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:39 -0700
            Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 18:32 -0700
              Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:42 -0500
            Re: Fracking "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-22 19:35 -0700
            Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 01:06 -0500
        Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:44 -0500
      Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 12:12 -0500
        Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 17:38 +0000
          Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:00 -0500
            Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 11:13 -0700
              Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:04 -0500
            Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 18:29 +0000
              Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:57 -0500
                Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 21:10 +0000
                  Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 00:28 -0500
                    Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 05:55 +0000
                      Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 11:06 -0500
                        Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 18:00 +0000
                          Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 18:18 -0500
                            Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 23:56 +0000
                              Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-24 11:18 -0500
                                Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 17:09 +0000
                                  Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 10:47 -0500
                                    Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 16:41 +0000
                                      Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 12:46 -0500
                                        Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-25 19:58 +0000
                              Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 03:13 -0700
                Re: Fracking "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:45 -0700
                  Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:01 -0700
                    Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 01:01 -0500
                      Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:54 -0500
                        Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 11:10 -0500
                          Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 11:24 -0500
                            Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 12:07 -0500
                              Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 13:03 -0500
                  Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 00:21 -0500
                    Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 12:22 -0500
                      Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-23 16:46 -0500
                    Re: Fracking "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 16:39 -0700
                      Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-25 12:41 -0500
        Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:51 -0500
          Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:23 -0500
            Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:02 -0500
              Re: Fracking ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 14:24 -0500
                Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:38 -0700
                  Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 16:49 -0500
                    Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:55 -0700
                      Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 17:03 -0500
                        Re: Fracking john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:22 -0700
                          Re: Fracking "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:57 -0700
                          Re: Fracking Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 08:59 -0500
                    Re: Fracking jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 22:22 +0000
        Re: Fracking edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-06-22 18:41 -0700
    Re: Fracking Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 11:33 -0700
      Re: Fracking noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-25 16:55 -0700
        Re: Fracking noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-26 17:01 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#586193

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:38:43 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:44:36 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/22/2016 10:31 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>>> What's this "fracking" thing some do and some resent,
>>>> and what's bad about it?
>>>> --
>>>>     "Narrow experience makes for narrow
>>>>      views.
>>>>              - Firearm Owner
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>> 
>>> It provides additional sources of fossil fuels at the expense of 
>>> damaging watersheds. Competition between two valuable resources.
>>> 
>> 
>> If it works everywhere why don't they do it only in
>> areas that no people, plants, or animals live?
> 
> Because it does not work anywhere.
> 
> It only works where there are petroleum deposits.
> 

How did large land owners allow this if the activity
would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
and gas firms. 
--
  "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but 
   let your trust in Christ be stronger. We will 
   commit sins while we are here, for this life 
   is not a place where justice resides."

         - Martin Luther (hvac's "thinker")

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586194

Whoever is doing this has been given
permission to use water resources
that no one else has, so the rot is
obviously right at the top.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586206

On 6/22/2016 1:13 PM, john wrote:
> Whoever is doing this has been given
> permission to use water resources
> that no one else has, so the rot is
> obviously right at the top.
>

That's not really true, John. Fracking companies pay more for their 
water than do the locals, which is why they get it. Money. If you have 
someone who wants to buy bicycles and is willing to spend $2k/bike, then 
that someone is going to own all the bikes and there won't be any rot or 
corruption involved in that.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586197

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:38:43 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:44:36 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 6/22/2016 10:31 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>>>> What's this "fracking" thing some do and some resent,
>>>>> and what's bad about it?
>>>>> --
>>>>>     "Narrow experience makes for narrow
>>>>>      views.
>>>>>              - Firearm Owner
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> It provides additional sources of fossil fuels at the expense of 
>>>> damaging watersheds. Competition between two valuable resources.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If it works everywhere why don't they do it only in
>>> areas that no people, plants, or animals live?
>> 
>> Because it does not work anywhere.
>> 
>> It only works where there are petroleum deposits.
>> 
> 
> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
> and gas firms. 

It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586204

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:


>> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
>> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
>> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
>> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
>> and gas firms. 
> 
> It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.
> 

I have no assumptions whatsoever yet. I never looked
into fracking and I only heard of it last year to be
honest. 

Nunya said something about it the other day (which I
didn't understand). I saw another piece of news today
about Germany banning it and at last got curious just
what it is. 

Ok, so you're saying it does not affect resources
adversely and John is saying it does. Got it, now I
know enough. Do you drink tap water? :)
--
  "Jews' lineage and law must be accounted as 
   filth."
         - Martin Luther (hvac's "thinker")

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586221

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> 
>>> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
>>> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
>>> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
>>> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
>>> and gas firms. 
>> 
>> It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.
>> 
> 
> I have no assumptions whatsoever yet. I never looked
> into fracking and I only heard of it last year to be
> honest. 

So you are utterly clueless as to what it is, what it does, how it works,
and potential risks and benefits, yet you choose to pontificate about it?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586277

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:10:47 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0000,
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
>>>> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
>>>> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
>>>> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
>>>> and gas firms. 
>>> 
>>> It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.
>>> 
>> 
>> I have no assumptions whatsoever yet. I never looked
>> into fracking and I only heard of it last year to be
>> honest. 
> 
> So you are utterly clueless as to what it is, what it does, how it works,
> and potential risks and benefits, yet you choose to pontificate about it?
> 
> 

It is something strange in you, not in me, that my
questions bother you. (a known fact from before)

Would you like to answer my question? In case you
experienced a brain fart I repeat it here. Do you or
do you not drink your tap water?
--
     "az khar miporseh chAhArshanbe keye."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586312

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:10:47 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0000,
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
>>>>> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
>>>>> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
>>>>> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
>>>>> and gas firms. 
>>>> 
>>>> It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have no assumptions whatsoever yet. I never looked
>>> into fracking and I only heard of it last year to be
>>> honest. 
>> 
>> So you are utterly clueless as to what it is, what it does, how it works,
>> and potential risks and benefits, yet you choose to pontificate about it?
>> 
>> 
> 
> It is something strange in you, not in me, that my
> questions bother you. (a known fact from before)

It doesn't bother me that you are a kook.

> Would you like to answer my question? In case you
> experienced a brain fart I repeat it here. Do you or
> do you not drink your tap water?

Of course I do, why wouldn't I?

Do you tie your own shoes?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586327

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 05:55:07 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> 
>>> So you are utterly clueless as to what it is, what it does, how it works,
>>> and potential risks and benefits, yet you choose to pontificate about it?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> It is something strange in you, not in me, that my
>> questions bother you. (a known fact from before)
> 
> It doesn't bother me that you are a kook.
> 

Oh that wouldn't bother you, I know that. What bothers
you is that you are disgusting and I am not. Sounds
familiar?  

>> Would you like to answer my question? In case you
>> experienced a brain fart I repeat it here. Do you or
>> do you not drink your tap water?
> 
> Of course I do, why wouldn't I?
> 

Do you use filters before drinking them? Have you ever
attempted to check the quality of your tap water
precisely before and after filtering? And how would
one do that? 

> Do you tie your own shoes?
> 

Is that to mean drinking tap water is something
mundane? Right now my neighbors on all sides buy
bottled water. They could use their money for
something better than that (beer! I guess) but they
don't.  

And just in case, yes I do tie my own shoes. My back
is good enough and I intend to start doing pilates
very soon. Why don't you dream about that! Asshole. 

Do you read each and every post I make to usenet? Of
course you do. 

> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

What happened to your government email you were
pinning to your name? Just wondering exactly what
percentage of your paycheck is formed by my tax money. 
--
    "Only he who has learned early to spread 
     his soul out wide may later hold the entire 
     world within himself."

                            - Stefan Zweig

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586340

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

> Do you use filters before drinking them? Have you ever
> attempted to check the quality of your tap water
> precisely before and after filtering? And how would
> one do that? 

No and the water company sends an annual detailed report on water quality.

> Is that to mean drinking tap water is something
> mundane? Right now my neighbors on all sides buy
> bottled water. They could use their money for
> something better than that (beer! I guess) but they
> don't.  

In some locations the taste of bottled water is much better than the
taste of tap water. That does not mean tap water is "bad".

And some people are just stupid.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586359

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:00:11 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> 
>> Do you use filters before drinking them? Have you ever
>> attempted to check the quality of your tap water
>> precisely before and after filtering? And how would
>> one do that? 
> 
> No and the water company sends an annual detailed report 
> on water quality.
> 

Never saw such a report. I guess I'll google it. 

>> Is that to mean drinking tap water is something
>> mundane? Right now my neighbors on all sides buy
>> bottled water. They could use their money for
>> something better than that (beer! I guess) but they
>> don't.  
> 
> In some locations the taste of bottled water is much 
> better than the taste of tap water. That does not 
> mean tap water is "bad".
> 
> And some people are just stupid.
> 

When I fill half of my tub the water has a very light
shade of green to it. Bathroom walls are white. So
it's the water. For drinking I filter it twice, once
on faucet and once in fridge pouring it into one of
those water dispensers with two compartments, one
above the other, separated by a filter. That
double-filtered water is the only water I drink and it
tastes better than bottled water. Even my cats prefer
that one to tap water. But the stuff John and Bod are
talking about can pass through all that. So back to
square zero. 

Can the contaminants be neutralized in body by
anti-oxidants, etc? You're the nerd so if you know
something about it feel free please. 
--
   "If you always optimize, you'll never be 
    happy." 
                       - Donald Knuth

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586360

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:00:11 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Do you use filters before drinking them? Have you ever
>>> attempted to check the quality of your tap water
>>> precisely before and after filtering? And how would
>>> one do that? 
>> 
>> No and the water company sends an annual detailed report 
>> on water quality.
>> 
> 
> Never saw such a report. I guess I'll google it. 

Then you are either not in the United States or you are homeless.

Federal law requires an annual drinking water quality report from your
water supplier by July 1st and that has been in effect for many years.

<snip>

> Can the contaminants be neutralized in body by
> anti-oxidants, etc? You're the nerd so if you know
> something about it feel free please. 

If you are talking about contaminants from fracking, no.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586395

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:56:29 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:


> Then you are either not in the United States or you are homeless.
> 

The land doesn't belong to me. That's probably why.

> Federal law requires an annual drinking water quality report from your
> water supplier by July 1st and that has been in effect for many years.
> 

I hope they publish them online as well. 

> <snip>
> 
>> Can the contaminants be neutralized in body by
>> anti-oxidants, etc? You're the nerd so if you know
>> something about it feel free please. 
> 
> If you are talking about contaminants from fracking, no.
> 
> 

I just checked and found out I'm right in the middle
of the area that has had greatest numbers of fracking
in the world!.. Not funny at all. It is called the
Barnett Shale. There's been law suits and bans to the
extent that they've banned banning of fracking! The
frack people rule here. Boy what do you know.

--
     "bA dusti mesle to, Adam ehtiyAji be doshman
     nadAreh."


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586396

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:56:29 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> Then you are either not in the United States or you are homeless.
>> 
> 
> The land doesn't belong to me. That's probably why.

Nope.

>> Federal law requires an annual drinking water quality report from your
>> water supplier by July 1st and that has been in effect for many years.
>> 
> 
> I hope they publish them online as well. 

Maybe.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586590

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:09:24 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> I hope they publish them online as well. 
> 
> Maybe.
> 

This is the only city water report I found online:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1m3DFkgDWHnZE1Kd0MxTnRsWkE

It does not list contaminants caused by fracking (I
don't see benzene for instance). 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586605

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:09:24 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>> I hope they publish them online as well. 
>> 
>> Maybe.
>> 
> 
> This is the only city water report I found online:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1m3DFkgDWHnZE1Kd0MxTnRsWkE
> 
> It does not list contaminants caused by fracking (I
> don't see benzene for instance). 

Did you concider the possiblity that if it isn't listed it isn't there?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586621

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:41:55 -0000,
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:09:24 -0000,
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>> I hope they publish them online as well. 
>>> 
>>> Maybe.
>>> 
>> 
>> This is the only city water report I found online:
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1m3DFkgDWHnZE1Kd0MxTnRsWkE
>> 
>> It does not list contaminants caused by fracking (I
>> don't see benzene for instance). 
> 
> Did you concider the possiblity that if it isn't listed 
> it isn't there?
> 
> 

Of course. And that's my hope. But politics in this
area is heavily affected by fracking business to the
degree that as I mentioned earlier the new governor
has made it illegal for cities to ban fracking. Under
such circumstances I wouldn't know how to interpret
this report. I wish I could test the water myself. Do
you know if this can be done at home with some
gadgets? 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586660

ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:41:55 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:09:24 -0000,
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I hope they publish them online as well. 
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This is the only city water report I found online:
>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1m3DFkgDWHnZE1Kd0MxTnRsWkE
>>> 
>>> It does not list contaminants caused by fracking (I
>>> don't see benzene for instance). 
>> 
>> Did you concider the possiblity that if it isn't listed 
>> it isn't there?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Of course. And that's my hope. But politics in this
> area is heavily affected by fracking business to the
> degree that as I mentioned earlier the new governor
> has made it illegal for cities to ban fracking. Under
> such circumstances I wouldn't know how to interpret
> this report. I wish I could test the water myself. Do
> you know if this can be done at home with some
> gadgets? 

Sure if you happen to have a couple of million dollars worth of "gadgets",
assuming you want testing to federal standards.

Or you can have a service do it for you; a complete test is only a few
hundred bucks.

Or you can contact you local water supplier and they have to give you
a report for free.

And before you babble on any more, you might read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act

And your state may have yet more laws.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586434

I think he may have been

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586240

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-7, ClutterFreak wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:29:09 -0000,
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> >> How did large land owners allow this if the activity
> >> would ruin land's resources? Wouldn't it have direct
> >> impact on their lands' value? I can imagine large land
> >> owners are rich and powerful enough to confront oil
> >> and gas firms. 

  Land ownership, in the U. S., does not automatically also give title to minerals or water in/under the land.

  Actually, most often when you buy land you may expect that somebody else already has the water and/or mineral rights.

> > It is your assumption that the activity would ruin land's resources.
> 
> I have no assumptions whatsoever yet. I never looked
> into fracking and I only heard of it last year to be
> honest. 
> 
> Nunya said something about it the other day (which I
> didn't understand). I saw another piece of news today
> about Germany banning it and at last got curious just
> what it is. 

  It's the process of drilling into the rock above an oil or natural gas deposit and forcing water into the rock under high pressure to fracture the rock so that the oil or gas can seep through to where it may be more easily extracted.

  It makes deposits that are expensive to access much cheaper to access, so much more so that it's cheaper than importing gas and oil.

  That's why OPEC was against it- when one of their customers starts fracking they buy less from OPEC. OPEC's strategy was to drop oil prices to where they thought fracking couldn't compete so that fracking would stop, and they could subsequently raise prices again, but it didn't work. It failed so badly that Venezuela, which didn't have the huge cash reserves of say Saudi Arabia, is in a severe national economic crisis. Even the Sauds are being very careful about how they spend money these days.

> Ok, so you're saying it does not affect resources
> adversely and John is saying it does. Got it, now I
> know enough. Do you drink tap water? :)

  Fracking *can* adversely impact water quality locally, but only if it's done wrong or if the affected aquifers were more extensive than originally thought. Fracking involves adding chemicals to the water that's used to crack the rock which improve the cracking, and those chemicals are definitely not fit for human consumption. If done right the chemicals never get into the drinking water.

  There are examples where it was done very wrongly and examples where it was done right (with no adverse environmental impact), but the extremist Environmentalist mindset (John's) focuses only on the wrong and assumes it's either flat impossible to do it right or that Evil Oil Companies intentionally cut corners that would ensure safe water.

  You can't convince such people that fracking *can* be done safely so they agitate against it, so Germany forbade it and it looks like England may also.

  They also seem to enjoy paying a lot for their fuels, so they'll be happy when OPEC raises prices again.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web