• 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!

Vermont first state to ban fracking

With all the fears of that stuff leaking and contaminating the land and ground water I really don't blame Vermont. Its not like you can send someone down there to clean it up if it does contaminate the area underground.

Policy should be based on fact not fear.
 
Yep, it's amazing how quickly that whole "states' rights" thing goes by the wayside when it's a state doing something conservatives don't like.

I am not advocating forcing states to extract their energy but if they refuse to do so as they enjoy the benefits from states that are willing to provide energy for all of America they should be willing to pay those other states for their efforts. Blue states sponging of red states needs to end, suck it up and pull your weight libs. Calif is a perfect example, they have more cars than any other state but refuse to drill their off shore oil reserves, they should pay a tax to states that provide for them what they won't provide for themselves.
 
Why don't you try this experiment, Pasteur: find a hole, drop a hose down into it, turn on the spigot, and see if water doesn't come up out of the hole. Please report your results.

If I were talking about water being displaced up the annulus of a wellbore, you would have a point. Since I'm not, well...you're way out in leftfield. No pun intended.
 
With all the fears of that stuff leaking and contaminating the land and ground water I really don't blame Vermont. Its not like you can send someone down there to clean it up if it does contaminate the area underground.

That's another misconception: the fluid are removed and the formations are flushed with fresh water after the frac job has been completed. The fresh water that is used to flush the formation are tested for purity, per the EPA. Not only does it remove anything that might be harmful to the environment, but it removes inhibiting polymers from the formation that could restrict the product flow.

I think opposition to frac'ing stems from the fact that most people don't have the first clue how it's done, nor what agents are used in the application.

Ignorance breeds fear.
 
I am not advocating forcing states to extract their energy but if they refuse to do so as they enjoy the benefits from states that are willing to provide energy for all of America they should be willing to pay those other states for their efforts. Blue states sponging of red states needs to end, suck it up and pull your weight libs. Calif is a perfect example, they have more cars than any other state but refuse to drill their off shore oil reserves, they should pay a tax to states that provide for them what they won't provide for themselves.

What you're talking about is penalizing the state for doing what it wants to do, which obviously intereferes with its sovereignty. Sort of like saying, "we're not going to tell southern states that they can't have right to work laws, but if they result in less unionization then we're going to fine them the equivalent of union dues." I assume you'd be jiggy with that?
 
I am not advocating forcing states to extract their energy but if they refuse to do so as they enjoy the benefits from states that are willing to provide energy for all of America they should be willing to pay those other states for their efforts. Blue states sponging of red states needs to end, suck it up and pull your weight libs. Calif is a perfect example, they have more cars than any other state but refuse to drill their off shore oil reserves, they should pay a tax to states that provide for them what they won't provide for themselves.

California does pay...it's called "the price at the pump".
 
There is no such thing as mole men.What do mole men have to do with fracking?

Valley of the Mole Men.jpg

There's no escape from the valley of the mole people


hehehehe "fracking".
 
That's another misconception: the fluid are removed and the formations are flushed with fresh water after the frac job has been completed. The fresh water that is used to flush the formation are tested for purity, per the EPA. Not only does it remove anything that might be harmful to the environment, but it removes inhibiting polymers from the formation that could restrict the product flow.

I think opposition to frac'ing stems from the fact that most people don't have the first clue how it's done, nor what agents are used in the application.

Ignorance breeds fear.

And how much of the flush water is actually recovered? Do you know? Do you know what chemicals are used?
 
I'll leave the pros and cons of fracking to others who may or may not know more about it than I do...but here is a bit of information about Vermont that is interesting...even if it is from 2009:








Vermont - Ap - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


So...in my opinion this is much to do about nothing.

Except that 59% of the state utilizes heating oil for home heating. All fine and dandy until that stuff goes up to $5-6 a gallon. But considering its Vermont, they likely have an expectation that the state or DC will take care of them.

Gas a cheaper and cleaner alternative. I'd be pretty pissed if I lived in Vermont over this.
 
Am I a drilling genius? Of course not. There's no such thing as a, "drilling genius". My father drilled oil wells for 50 years and he learned new **** until the day he died.

Do I have enough common sense and experience to know that water doesn't flow up hill? You bet your butt I do.

Through the process of osmosis fluids can move against gravity. Your argument is invalid. You now have to prove that the fluids used in fracking will not, through the process of osmosis, migrate in to water tables.

Good luck.
 

From time to time people will vandalize Wikipedia pages. In the interest of fairness, it would be good of you to note when that revision was made, and when an astute editor at Wikipedia noticed it and corrected it. I would be willing to bet it was within hours, if not minutes.

Denying wikipedia as a legitimate source of information is so oughts. It's 2012, get over it.
 
Through the process of osmosis fluids can move against gravity. Your argument is invalid. You now have to prove that the fluids used in fracking will not, through the process of osmosis, migrate in to water tables.

Good luck.

How about getting rid of cars, thousands of documented deaths a year. Let's shut down all coal fired plants, probably should outlaw McDonalds to keep us safe.

Heck, let's just all live in caves and eat berries, best solution for the environment!
 
How about getting rid of cars, thousands of documented deaths a year. Let's shut down all coal fired plants, probably should outlaw McDonalds to keep us safe.

Heck, let's just all live in caves and eat berries, best solution for the environment!

I'm sorry, what?
 
Just tossing this out there, Vermont sees a lot of tourist trade as an unspoiled wilderness type of state. Having the heavy industry of fracking around would decidedly mar that imagery associated with the state. I can definitely see this entering into the decision that they made.

:twocents:
 
Just tossing this out there, Vermont sees a lot of tourist trade as an unspoiled wilderness type of state. Having the heavy industry of fracking around would decidedly mar that imagery associated with the state. I can definitely see this entering into the decision that they made.

:twocents:

Except for one thing...they don't have any natural gas in the ground.
 
From time to time people will vandalize Wikipedia pages. In the interest of fairness, it would be good of you to note when that revision was made, and when an astute editor at Wikipedia noticed it and corrected it. I would be willing to bet it was within hours, if not minutes.

Denying wikipedia as a legitimate source of information is so oughts. It's 2012, get over it.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Maybe for highschool.
 
And how much of the flush water is actually recovered? Do you know?

100%, but it doesn't matter, because the fresh water is circulated into the formation until it comes back with the required purity per EPA standards. If there is any left, the product will displace it when the well is produce.

No, only 30-50% of the water is reclaimed. So much for your expertise.

Do you know what chemicals are used?


First, there is no disclosure requirement as to what chemicals are used. Second, independent tests of fracking water have uncovered mulitple carcinogenic chemicals, like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. In other words, 50-70% of the flush water stays in the ground, and it's laced with carcinogens.

In April 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council, in conjunction with the industry, began releasing well-by-well lists of hydraulic fracturing chemicals at [11].[101] Disclosure is still on a voluntary basis. Lists do not include all substances used; a complete listing of the specific chemical formulation of additives used in hydraulic fracturing operations is still not currently made available to landowners, neighbors, local officials, or health care providers, let alone the general public. This practice is under scrutiny.[102] Two studies released in 2009, one by the U.S. Department of Energy and the other released by the Ground Water Protection Council, address hydraulic fracturing safety concerns. Chemicals which can be used in the fracturing fluid include kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde.[103][103]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-101

I'm not saying that this is necessarily dangerous to human life, but it is certainly cause for concern and it merits additional study.
 
Last edited:
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Maybe for highschool.

Wiki is better than 90% of the non-wiki sources I see cited here. :roll:
 
CNN) -- Vermont's governor has signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to ban fracking, the controversial practice to extract natural gas from the ground.
Vermont first state to ban fracking - CNN.com


I wish there was a way to have these not in my back yard states pay more for affordable energy that is produced in other states that are willing to do what needs to be done. They are like leeches on America, perfectly willing to get reduced prices on fuel from other states like North Dakota but not willing to do their share for our country. Hey Vermont, Kiss My Ass!

The only Industry and class of worker with as low unemployment as Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction is Government Workers.

Source: Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
 
Somehow I have a feeling they won't be the last. It's a relatively new procedure and the long term effects aren't necessarily evident at the moment. On a side note, most of the more industrialized states who are active in drilling and refining already enjoy much lower energy costs than their urban counterparts contrary to what you implied in the second half of your post.

I live in the mountains (3000 ft elevation) in Southern California. I live in a 1100 sq ft 1962 built home heated with Natural Gas (hot water too). During the winter it costs me less than $50 a month to heat with added blown in insulation in the attic.
 
Through the process of osmosis fluids can move against gravity. Your argument is invalid. You now have to prove that the fluids used in fracking will not, through the process of osmosis, migrate in to water tables.

Good luck.

They can ascend, vertically, 14,000 feet, through rock? There's no way.
 
I'm sorry, what?

There have been many thousands of wells drilled using this technology. Very little if any proven damage. Now could something happen if there is a irresponsible driller out there, yes. But to stop any industry just someone might do something bad seems stupid to me.
 
No, only 30-50% of the water is reclaimed. So much for your expertise.





First, there is no disclosure requirement as to what chemicals are used. Second, independent tests of fracking water have uncovered mulitple carcinogenic chemicals, like benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. In other words, 50-70% of the flush water stays in the ground, and it's laced with carcinogens.



I'm not saying that this is necessarily dangerous to human life, but it is certainly cause for concern and it merits additional study.

Do you understand liquid displacement? I'm thinking you don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom