• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Town Votes To Bar Fracking in City Limits

A frac job only lasts about 24 hours (+/-). It isn't a permanent operation. A road construction job makes more noise than a frac job.

it is still noise and disturbance generated plus damage is possible to the local water supply
 
it is still noise and disturbance generated plus damage is possible to the local water supply

If drilling/fracing is so dangerous to the water supply, why, after over a hundred years of drilling and 60-odd years of fracing, most of that time with little or no regulation, nor protections is America still inhabitable?

Places like California, SE Texas and Pennsylvania, where the earliest oil wells were drillied, should be dead zones where no creature can survive, by your logic. Why aren't they?
 
The city doesn't have jurisdiction over drilling permits, nor can they void mineral and property rights.

the city cant void mineral rights,but permits do not grant access to override city law.city law banning fracking cannot be overturned unless the state makes it into law prohibiting cities from banning fracking.


the office issuing permits has zero say so in the law,the state and local governments decide that.the permit office granting a permit does not in any way shape or form override a city ban,only the state legislature and governor can do that.
 
the city cant void mineral rights,but permits do not grant access to override city law.city law banning fracking cannot be overturned unless the state makes it into law prohibiting cities from banning fracking.


the office issuing permits has zero say so in the law,the state and local governments decide that.the permit office granting a permit does not in any way shape or form override a city ban,only the state legislature and governor can do that.


The city has no jurisdiction over drilling regulations. The presence of 270 producing wells creates a precedence that proves the city can't ban fracing. Since the city is allowing those wells to continue production, it makes an Equal Protection Clause thing. Those other wells haven't destroyed the city, so the city has no evidence to support such a ban.

This will go to court and when the evidence used to trick people into voting for the ban is presented and rightly debunked, the referendum will be overturned. When it comes to light how the anti-fracers lied, some folks may even go to jail for fraud. Who knows?
 
If drilling/fracing is so dangerous to the water supply, why, after over a hundred years of drilling and 60-odd years of fracing, most of that time with little or no regulation, nor protections is America still inhabitable?

Places like California, SE Texas and Pennsylvania, where the earliest oil wells were drillied, should be dead zones where no creature can survive, by your logic. Why aren't they?


well ill give you a hint,a large amount of the water in texas isnt even drinkable,it wasnt from fracking,it was from waste from chemicals use to transformers in powerlines,companies then swore was safe.so far almost the entire world has been that and similiar chemicals.
'

now look at what fracking can do,your hydraulically fracturing to produce gas,those chemicals arent safe to the water.further using fracking in the pasat as an example is not very valid,as fracking only reached the scales its at now withing the last few years,while fracking from 1949 to a few years ago was not as common.
 
The city has no jurisdiction over drilling regulations. The presence of 270 producing wells creates a precedence that proves the city can't ban fracing. Since the city is allowing those wells to continue production, it makes an Equal Protection Clause thing. Those other wells haven't destroyed the city, so the city has no evidence to support such a ban.

This will go to court and when the evidence used to trick people into voting for the ban is presented and rightly debunked, the referendum will be overturned. When it comes to light how the anti-fracers lied, some folks may even go to jail for fraud. Who knows?

actually the city does,the city can ban anything it wants unless the state govt prohibits them from doing so,and the people issuing permits have zero control over the laws.


the court wont overturn it since no civil rights were affected,and the city operated well within its legal limits,you can hand someone a permit for anything,but if the city bans it,its banned.the state overwrites city law but the state has no law im aware of that prohibits cities from banning fracking.
 


You have to drill through the water table to drill an untracked well too, so your complaint has nothing to do with the "Fracking" portion of the oil or gas well.

I suppose you're against conventional drilling too, then?

As for water with methane in it....this is a normal occurrence for ppl who live in hydrocarbon rich areas. Happens all the time, even if there is no drilling anywhere nearby. It's simply nature.

You could be correct on the technical aspects of drilling. I'm no expert.

But I find your claims that flammable water is a common occurrence to be somewhat specious. I know there are quite a few people on record who did have non-flammable water and clean creeks for years, until fracking was started nearby. That includes one very persuasive hydrologist living in Montana somewhere.

Since you seem to be the expert, do you happen to know the concentration of methane in drinking water allowed by the Clean Water Act? Is there a general number of methane present in drinking water?
 
If drilling/fracing is so dangerous to the water supply, why, after over a hundred years of drilling and 60-odd years of fracing, most of that time with little or no regulation, nor protections is America still inhabitable?

Places like California, SE Texas and Pennsylvania, where the earliest oil wells were drillied, should be dead zones where no creature can survive, by your logic. Why aren't they?

Do you really not recognize any possibilities between "no damage" and "kills all life?"

Were you one of those people adamantly against removing lead from gasoline?
 
Do you really not recognize any possibilities between "no damage" and "kills all life?"

Were you one of those people adamantly against removing lead from gasoline?

Small planes still use leaded gasoline so I guess pilots are against removing the lead.
 
Do you really not recognize any possibilities between "no damage" and "kills all life?"

Were you one of those people adamantly against removing lead from gasoline?

Earlier in the thread, it was stated that fracing destroys the land. Do you understand what destroyed means?
 
Last edited:
I'm with you. I wouldn't want a 250 ft tower within 2 football fields of my house. Not to mention the amount of traffic. Glad you got a win.

Thank you for joining the NIMBY Society of Hypocrites.
 
More like: liberty has prevailed, once again. Who are these anti-fracers to put property rights up to a vote, based on lies?

There are 270 wells inside the Denton city linits. Life hasn't ceased to exist, as predicted.

I don't know why people do or say transparently evil things.
 
LOL. Debunked.

Yeah, people with an agenda to (hopefully) get back to having potable water in their house.

Debunked....:lamo


Ever try to drink water straight out of the ground just about anywhere in the US? Why would you do THAT to yourself?
 
So, while I've been contemplating the hard losses for the Democratic Party in this years election, I came upon the winning of an issue that I'm personally involved in.


I spoke out at a city council meeting a year and a half ago when Atmos Gas Corp wanted to erect a 285 foot tower that they claimed was only for radio communications. Coincidentally, that is the same height as a fracking drill tower. They even said that it would not have guide wires. That led me to believe that it was going to be planted quite deep into the ground. My house would have been within 500 feet of the tower.



You lose some and you win some.

Good news. I, too, think that was a horrid idea from the start. Glad it got struck down.
 
Anyone who thinks leaded gasoline is a horrible thing would not use it if they practiced what they preached.

Your claim was that pilots are against removing lead. You seem to have moved goalposts. I am no longer interested in this derail.
 
Small planes still use leaded gasoline so I guess pilots are against removing the lead.

There's way more to it than that. Mostly a matter of who is going to make it and things like that. They do have 2 major candidates as I understand it, and some engines are flying with it OK.
 
Ever try to drink water straight out of the ground just about anywhere in the US? Why would you do THAT to yourself?

Good drinking water is rare in Florida, but it does exist.

Back in the 50s we drank water right out of the ground, 'hard' water, no softener.

Soft water was much better.

But that's beside the point.

One poster has not yet responded to what normal limits on methane in water is. As soon as he gets back, we can proceed.

In the meantime, flammable water is not good thing.
 
Yawn.

Nothing here but conjecture and opinion. No proof of anything. No conclusive studies. All I see is liberal agendas being pushed by liberal agencies and liberal media outlets. Nothing credible.

Please take a step back and look at this objectively. Thousands of wells have been fracked throughout the United States. You've brought to my attention the case of one farmer in Texas, and one farmer in Wyoming (whose case was subsequently dropped, by the way).

You know what, a solar panel could fall on your head and kill you too, you know.

This is ridiculous.

Part of me hopes you anti-frackers actually win. Then we can go back to using the only other energy source we have in abundance: COAL. And as the black smoke billows out of the smokestacks of corporations nationwide, I will laugh at the irony, just like I laugh every time I read about migrating birds that are being wiped out by windmills.

Just FYI, coal does not burn black.
 
Must the drill head pass through the "few hundred feet" on its way to the "about a mile underground"?

Or are some sort of miracles involved?

Have you seen any pictures or videos of tap water in flames? If not, you must be living under a rock.

They don't frack where I live, but hundreds or thousands of homes have experienced this and documented it. Try "Gasland" if you're unaware.

And I assume that you know that the chemicals injected in the process, through and near ground water deposits, are proprietary and neither approved by or known by the EPA and the Clean Water Act.

Educate yourself on the drilling process. You are wrong.
 
Well I'm educated enough about the drilling process to know that they prefer to drill vertically and are capable of drilling horizontally.

Defending fracking is a pretty depressing situation in my book. I'm luck I'm not really impacted by it where I live, but I've seen pictures of the houses and water near sites out west. My son lives in Rifle CO and the water sux, if you know what I mean. He was used to good water here in Florida.

Alternative energy sources need to be developed and refined. Fossil fuel is fading in some respects.
 
Your claim was that pilots are against removing lead. You seem to have moved goalposts. I am no longer interested in this derail.

They are against removing lead until or unless they can get the same results from unleaded fuel so yes they are against removing lead
 
Back
Top Bottom