• 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!

'Gasland’ Director Confronted on NPR Show

head of joaquin said:
Uh, yeah, the real facts are that the companies are pumping chemicals, often unidentified proprietary chemicals, into aquifers or near aquifers. So research is in order so that we can regulate, monitor and improve on any practices that might threaten water supplies.

Only a conservative would find that problematical. It's a consequence of knownothingism.
Click to expand...

What chemicals?

The water wells were tested, including the one couple in the film suing the oil company and waving a brown jug around. The EPA found no contamination. The water was perfectly fine and safe to drink. The people who were suing were not happy their water was safe to drink. They were pissed because that meant they had no case. All this hysteria about fracking is made up lies. This is technology that has been around since the 1940s. It's perfectly safe.

The green movement is dying out. It's a total joke. Green Energy stimulus scams. All these green companies going bankrupt. Global warming a laughable hoax. The scientists with egg on their faces after having been caught manipulating data. Fearmongering only goes so far. There are over 500 chemicals in a cup of coffee. Half of those are carcinogens. Let's outlaw coffee. Everyone run for your lives. The sky is falling. :roll:
 
Bronson said:
What chemicals?

The water wells were tested, including the one couple in the film suing the oil company and waving a brown jug around. The EPA found no contamination. The water was perfectly fine and safe to drink. The people who were suing were not happy their water was safe to drink. They were pissed because that meant they had no case. All this hysteria about fracking is made up lies. This is technology that has been around since the 1940s. It's perfectly safe.

The green movement is dying out. It's a total joke. Green Energy stimulus scams. All these green companies going bankrupt. Global warming a laughable hoax. The scientists with egg on their faces after having been caught manipulating data. Fearmongering only goes so far. There are over 500 chemicals in a cup of coffee. Half of those are carcinogens. Let's outlaw coffee. Everyone run for your lives. The sky is falling. :roll:
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much?
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry, but that is a flat out lie. If it was safe there would be ZERO issues with it. Now, don't get me wrong, there are risks with EVERYTHING dealing with oil and gas and I'm not on the "Let's not do it" bandwagon, but to call it safe is a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you fracking is not 100% safe. But for the most part it is safe. Are there issues yes. We have been fracking for over 50 years here in Kern county and utilizing steam recovery there have been issues most all quite minor resolved fairly quickly. Oil companies believe it or not DONT want problems, it screws with their bottom line. Getting sued costs a lot of money.
 
The biggest problem with fracking is that by using it we can become energy self reliant. Lots of groups don't want that to happen.

Leftists don't because it stands in the way of destroying America. Environmental wacko's don't because they think if people should live, they should live like cave man (minus themselves of course). Foreign oil companies don't because every gallon of oil we produce, places price pressure downward on theirs. Green energy groups don't want it for obvious reasons. Many elected democrats don't like it because they get big bucks from the listed groups.

The average man or woman in America or working stiff, benefits from fracking. But that makes no difference to those listed above. And all of them will tell any lie, spread any half truth rumor and spend money to try to stop fracking to advance their cause even though it puts the average American at disadvantage.
 
head of joaquin said:
Uh, yeah, the real facts are that the companies are pumping chemicals, often unidentified proprietary chemicals, into aquifers or near aquifers. So research is in order so that we can regulate, monitor and improve on any practices that might threaten water supplies.

Only a conservative would find that problematical. It's a consequence of knownothingism.
Click to expand...

There are no freshwater aquafers at 14,000 feet.

"Frac'ing" fractures rock formations. Aquafers are made up of clay formations.

Keep trying. One day, when you stop defying geological fact and the laws of physics, you might come up with something half way correct.
 
Lukas105 said:
That's why they often drill near them. Wells are often naturally polluted by rising methane bubbles. Methane can also be cleared from your water by installing a filter onto it when you draw it up. Perhaps the fracking companies can provide one?
Click to expand...

That's why they drill near what?
 
rocket88 said:
Like O'keefe's "films?"
Click to expand...

So . . . you ever actually going to admit that someone on the left doing what O'Keefe did is . . . bad? You're really great at deflecting away from lefty mischief with O'Keefe; not so much at unequivocally saying that it was indeed lefty mischief.
 
Water Wells = Places where gas from the Marcellus can come up easier. = Methane is easier to drill to. At least that's what I think with my self taught engineering thoughts. . .

apdst said:
That's why they drill near what?
Click to expand...
 
Maybe watch this also, for the other side of the issue: Phelim McAleer - YouTube

The entire documentary is playing on AXS.TV Frack Nation – Search Results – AXS TV

And the NY Times stated in its review, that the film is: “FrackNation” is no tossed-off, pro-business pamphlet. Methodically researched and assembled (and financed by thousands of small donations from an online campaign), the film picks at Mr. Fox’s assertions and omissions with dogged persistence. http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/movies/fracknation-a-documentary.html?_r=1&

Just in case anyone wants to see the whole story. If you're a fan of GasLand and think it's an honest, truthful, and sincere documentary with no political agenda, and are dead set against fracking, no way, no how, not here, not ever, then don't bother watching. You've drank the koolaid and are lost. But, if you want to know the truth from what the NY Times, that bastion of "conservative, anti-environmentalism" said was methodically researched (unlike GasLand), then watch FrackNation.

If nothing else, if you have an open mind, it will make you ask more questions, even it doesn't make you change your mind.
 
Last edited:
Lukas105 said:
Water Wells = Places where gas from the Marcellus can come up easier. = Methane is easier to drill to. At least that's what I think with my self taught engineering thoughts. . .
Click to expand...

So, you think oil companies intetionally drill in close proximity to water wells?

If I'm reading you right, then you couldn't be more wrong, for a couple reasons: 1) there minimum distances set in place, by law. 2) a 300 TD water well, with a 6" hole diameter isn't going to effect a 10,000+ foot gas well.

Aquafers exist in pourous strata--clay and sand. Oil and gas wells that are fraced are drilled into impermeable shale formations, hence the need for fracturing the formation to allow the product to escape the strata into the production string.

Head of Jauquin said earlier that fracing was taking place IN potable aquafers. That's incredibly wrong for many reasons, but primarily, aquafers are in pourous clay. There's absolutely no reason to frac a clay formation, that already allow free fluid flow. Not to mention, an aquafer that is 10-14,000 willpoison whomever is drinking the water. Therr are no 10,000 foot waterwells, for drinking water. The deepest water wells in west Texas are 3,000 feet and the water is so useless, that there strict government controls on how the water is used. The water from those wells is strictly used for frac water. When the well is no longer needed, it has to be plugged and abandoned per government regulations to insure that civilians don't ise the water.

This is drilling, not engineering.
 
Harshaw said:
So . . . you ever actually going to admit that someone on the left doing what O'Keefe did is . . . bad? You're really great at deflecting away from lefty mischief with O'Keefe; not so much at unequivocally saying that it was indeed lefty mischief.
Click to expand...

Well if you look at a what I was replying to, it was a Conservative saying that he doesn't like it when documentaries have lies. I was pointing out that it happens on both sides.

The film was not "lefty mischief" in the same way as a Michael Moore film is. It raised questions about the price of how we get our energy, and every source of energy has a price to pay. Including wind and solar. To say that fracking is 100% safe is just as misleading as saying it's horribly unsafe. It has a price to pay, and it's important to think about that price instead of just merrily fracking everything and everywhere. I'm not anti-fracking and I'm not anti-oil, but some thought should be given to the price you pay.
 
rocket88 said:
Well if you look at a what I was replying to, it was a Conservative saying that he doesn't like it when documentaries have lies. I was pointing out that it happens on both sides.
Click to expand...

No, you were deflecting with O'Keefe (as you often do) without admitting this lefty was up to shenanigans as well. If he had said conservatives don't misrepresent anything, you'd have a point. He didn't. Thus, it's just irrelevant deflecting.

And:

The film was not "lefty mischief" in the same way as a Michael Moore film is. It raised questions about the price of how we get our energy, and every source of energy has a price to pay. Including wind and solar. To say that fracking is 100% safe is just as misleading as saying it's horribly unsafe. It has a price to pay, and it's important to think about that price instead of just merrily fracking everything and everywhere. I'm not anti-fracking and I'm not anti-oil, but some thought should be given to the price you pay.
Click to expand...

You still can't bring yourself to admit it.
 
Harshaw said:
No, you were deflecting with O'Keefe (as you often do) without admitting this lefty was up to shenanigans as well. If he had said conservatives don't misrepresent anything, you'd have a point. He didn't. Thus, it's just irrelevant deflecting.
Click to expand...

Reading for context is your friend. You just can't do it because it would get in your way of "exposing" me for what you think I am. The thread isn't about me. Try to stay on topic instead of being an ass.
 
rocket88 said:
Reading for context is your friend.
Click to expand...

In what "context" did you not do exactly what I said?

You just can't do it because it would get in your way of "exposing" me for what you think I am. The thread isn't about me. Try to stay on topic instead of being an ass.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Your deflections are perfectly fair game. Just admit, unequivocally, without trying to deflect to someone else, that Fox fabricated part of his documentary, and that it's a bad thing he did. I don't know why you're trying so hard to avoid doing that.
 
Harshaw said:
In what "context" did you not do exactly what I said?



:shrug: Your deflections are perfectly fair game. Just admit, unequivocally, without trying to deflect to someone else, that Fox fabricated part of his documentary, and that it's a bad thing he did. I don't know why you're trying so hard to avoid doing that.
Click to expand...

No, you are trying to deflect, just in a more complex manner. Whenever a liar can be found among your political opponents, that liar's existence is useful for generally deflecting from your opponent's more honest arguments. When your opponent in turn deflects by saying "well, your side does it too", they are already admitting that their side has a liar. They are deflecting AND they are admitting of their own liar.

So get off it.
 
Dezaad said:
No, you are trying to deflect, just in a more complex manner. Whenever a liar can be found among your political opponents, that liar's existence is useful for generally deflecting from your opponent's more honest arguments. When your opponent in turn deflects by saying "well, your side does it too", they are already admitting that their side has a liar. They are deflecting AND they are admitting of their own liar.

So get off it.
Click to expand...

I . . . well, I'd respond, but I don't really understand it. What am I trying to "deflect" from? I don't think this post really makes any sense. Is it possible you've confused me with someone else in the thread?

And no, rocket88 hasn't admitted anything -- in fact, if anything, he defended Fox.
 
Harshaw said:
I . . . well, I'd respond, but I don't really understand it. What am I trying to "deflect" from? I don't think this post really makes any sense. Is it possible you've confused me with someone else in the thread?

And no, rocket88 hasn't admitted anything -- in fact, if anything, he defended Fox.
Click to expand...

Pointing out a liar among you opponents as it is being done in this thread is a form of deflection. It is a deflection from your opponents's more honest and effective arguments. It is not difficult to understand, and you already know this. Pounding away on a propagandist and then going from that to claiming all your opponents are wrong is an obvious dishonest tactic. When your opponent reacts by pointing out your side does it too, it is also a deflection, and it is legitimate one. It is legitimate, because it points up the fact that a liars exist on both sides of an issue, so wrongness of the issue can't possibly be decided by the existence of liars. It is legitimate because it is an attempt to move the debate back to talking about real issues, and back toward honesty.
 
Dezaad said:
Pointing out a liar among you opponents as it is being done in this thread is a form of deflection. It is a deflection from your opponents's more honest and effective arguments. It is not difficult to understand, and you already know this. Pounding away on a propagandist and then going from that to claiming all your opponents are wrong is an obvious dishonest tactic. When your opponent reacts by pointing out your side does it too, it is also a deflection, and it is legitimate one. It is legitimate, because it points up the fact that a liars exist on both sides of an issue, so wrongness of the issue can't possibly be decided by the existence of liars. It is legitimate because it is an attempt to move the debate back to talking about real issues, and back toward honesty.
Click to expand...

Umm . . . what am I, personally, "deflecting" from, Deeze? This really has nothing to do with anything I said to rocket88.
 
Harshaw said:
Umm . . . what am I, personally, "deflecting" from, Deeze? This really has nothing to do with anything I said to rocket88.
Click to expand...

You are personally involved in discussing the dishonesty of Fox in a thread where that dishonesty was used to then dishonestly lead into saying that there were zero problems with fracking. You don't get to take 'your' conversation out of the context of the thread in which it is occurring. He is not going to admit to you of Fox's dishonesty without also using deflection himself because he is having to account for not just your dialogue, but also the context in which it is occurring. And rightly so. There is no reason to give ground based on such dishonesty.
 
Dezaad said:
You are personally involved in discussing the dishonesty of Fox in a thread where that dishonesty was used to then dishonestly lead into saying that there were zero problems with fracking. You don't get to take 'your' conversation out of the context of the thread in which it is occurring. He is not going to admit to you of Fox's dishonesty without also using deflection himself because he is having to account for not just your dialogue, but also the context in which it is occurring. And rightly so. There is no reason to give ground based on such dishonesty.
Click to expand...

No, I think you missed the point entirely.
 
Dezaad said:
I disagree. I think I see the situation clearly.
Click to expand...

I think you're "seeing" way too much and not enough at the same time. But, I'll leave you to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom