• 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

Let the people of Vermont figure out what is in their best interests, and how to save themselves from freezing. The federal leviathan is problem no. one facing this generation.

No. Ignorance is problem number one facing this generation. And it's not looking promising for the next.
 
No. Ignorance is problem number one facing this generation. And it's not looking promising for the next.

With respect to your post quoted above, what do you mean by the reference to "ignorance?" How is ignorance the problem? How does one eliminate ignorance?
 
With respect to your post quoted above, what do you mean by the reference to "ignorance?" How is ignorance the problem? How does one eliminate ignorance?

I think you are proving my point. No offense.

People asking "what do you mean by the reference to "ignorance", is a prime example of the type of ignorance we live with today. People, generally speaking, are ill informed, poorly educated, and mentally lazy. They don't take the time to research and think through problems. The desire for instant gratification has led to an abandonment of self-education and life-long learning.

The best way to eliminate ignorance? Beat your children.

Of course, I say that tongue-in-cheek, but only marginally. We, as a society, have abandoned the discipline and drive necessary to overcome ignorance. The only answer to overcoming such ignorance is some sort of economic, social, or natural disaster that forces people to pull their head out and start thinking about the consequences of their actions and in-action.
 
Too bad. :cool:









I'm just kidding. I live in Houston and do not like Dallas highways.

Houston makes me hope Global Warming is real and imminent... j/k
 
First, you're smarter than Wiki... So act like it.

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/prop-new-3-29-frac-disclosure-Aug29.PDF

States have created laws REQUIRING disclosure.

Wow, that's impressive. Page one of the memo about these proposed rules starts talking about what doesn't have to be disclosed and it runs through page two of the memo, relating to what doesn't have to be disclosed if it's claimed to be a "trade secret". Powerful stuff. Can you predict how these diclosures are going to work? Hint: inert chemicals are reported while really nasty chemicals are "trade secrets".
 
I think you are proving my point. No offense.

People asking "what do you mean by the reference to "ignorance", is a prime example of the type of ignorance we live with today. People, generally speaking, are ill informed, poorly educated, and mentally lazy. They don't take the time to research and think through problems. The desire for instant gratification has led to an abandonment of self-education and life-long learning.

The best way to eliminate ignorance? Beat your children.

Of course, I say that tongue-in-cheek, but only marginally. We, as a society, have abandoned the discipline and drive necessary to overcome ignorance. The only answer to overcoming such ignorance is some sort of economic, social, or natural disaster that forces people to pull their head out and start thinking about the consequences of their actions and in-action.

No offense taken. My ignorance doesn't bother me because most of the ego was beaten out of me long ago.

If you are referring to education and the ability to think critically, I agree with you.

I don't know you so I thought I would start a conversation with you based on the wording of your post.
 
Wow, that's impressive. Page one of the memo about these proposed rules starts talking about what doesn't have to be disclosed and it runs through page two of the memo, relating to what doesn't have to be disclosed if it's claimed to be a "trade secret". Powerful stuff. Can you predict how these diclosures are going to work? Hint: inert chemicals are reported while really nasty chemicals are "trade secrets".

They were actually passed, as is, but the full text of it hasn't been recorded in the public register as of yet. At least online.

You're making arguments against the oil industry you're not making against any other industry. Pesticides and herbicides pose a greater threat to our water supply and are being used in massive quantities over the largest freshwater source in the nation.

If you want to see a conspiracy, you will find one. If you want to see bad faith, you will find it. Not because it is there, but because that's what you're looking for.

The truth of the matter is that there is no conclusive evidence that fracking poses the sort of threats asserted by the environmental crowd. And really, at the end of the day, it's not going to matter. Even if you find that fracking is a big bad ugly. We do not have the will or technological ability to get off of oil and so fracking is going to happen. It's going to happen because people would rather be comfortable now.
 
They were actually passed, as is, but the full text of it hasn't been recorded in the public register as of yet. At least online.

You're making arguments against the oil industry you're not making against any other industry. Pesticides and herbicides pose a greater threat to our water supply and are being used in massive quantities over the largest freshwater source in the nation.

If you want to see a conspiracy, you will find one. If you want to see bad faith, you will find it. Not because it is there, but because that's what you're looking for.

The truth of the matter is that there is no conclusive evidence that fracking poses the sort of threats asserted by the environmental crowd. And really, at the end of the day, it's not going to matter. Even if you find that fracking is a big bad ugly. We do not have the will or technological ability to get off of oil and so fracking is going to happen. It's going to happen because people would rather be comfortable now.

We weren't talking about the pesticide industry so why would I be arguing about that? As I mentioned above, I'm not saying that fracking chemicals pose a health hazard. I'm simply saying that they use plenty of nasty chemicals, there isn't full disclosure, and it bears further inquiry.
 
We weren't talking about the pesticide industry so why would I be arguing about that? As I mentioned above, I'm not saying that fracking chemicals pose a health hazard. I'm simply saying that they use plenty of nasty chemicals, there isn't full disclosure, and it bears further inquiry.

And I'm saying that we don't hold other industries to the same standard though they are clearly as dangerous if not more so. So instead of singling out petroleum (as we love to do in this country), let's take this ground-water thing seriously or just say screw it.
 
And where oh where would that exactly be?

I saw a list of most often used chemicals but there was no mention of the quantity of what was used. And the list was incomplete.



Two pills may help my pain. Twentyfive may kill me.

What is the dosage here? Without that information, this is fairly meaningless data.

Well, then do your own research. It's not my job to prove your point for you.
 
No, what you provided was a list of chemicals that are sometimes used in fracking. There is no requirement that companies divulge the chemicals they are actually using.

Actually, per the Clean Water Act of 1977, companies are required to report what chemicals they use and designate reportable and non-reportable quanities and supply MSDS's for each agent that is being employed.

When companies introduce drilling additives to a wellbore, or mineral formation, they must apply for a permit with the EPA and will be subject inspection by someone from the EPA.

As I pointed out to Haymarket, it's up to you to prove me wrong. Since you're so convinced that I am wrong, it shouldn't be hard for you to accomplish that. So, it begs the question: what are you waiting for?
 
This is actually untrue. There are disclosure requirements (at least in states with any significant production). Most states use FracFocus.

Home | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry

Not only that, but the license requirements for individual water and oil well drillers require that the use of these agents, the amounts and the depths at which they are used be accurately logged and submitted to the state to be permanently filed.

Every logged well is subject to survey by the state to test the accuracy of the driller's log. Texas only allows a 5 foot margin of error in reporting aggregate changes downhole.
 
I support fracking on a limited and highly-monitored basis. But it should be a minimum distance from all reservoirs and aquifers.

I know a lot of NYers are against it.
 
I support fracking on a limited and highly-monitored basis. But it should be a minimum distance from all reservoirs and aquifers.

And the minimum distance is?
 
And I'm saying that we don't hold other industries to the same standard though they are clearly as dangerous if not more so. So instead of singling out petroleum (as we love to do in this country), let's take this ground-water thing seriously or just say screw it.

Maybe you're not familiar with the clean water act? All industries are regulated that potentially endanger the water supply.
 
ask the DEC. :)

I'm asking you. They don't know... no one knows...

The point of asking is really to point out that thousands of feet separate the drilling zones now.
 
The whole point of hydraulic fracturing is to increase the permeability of rocks to release the natural gas in them, often with high pressure fluids. Those fluids are making it easier for themselves to get out into the broader rock formations. Through the process of chemical osmosis, areas with a high concentration of a given substance will tend to migrate to an area of lesser concentration, and the osmotic process can create pressures of its own. I don't see why anyone would think that it wouldn't be at least possible that chemicals used in fracking could make their way in to local groundwater.

Because local ground water doesn't come from aquifers at 10,00+ feet down. The deepest primary water zone I've ever seen was at approximately 600 feet.

These agents 1) aren't going to defy gravity, 2) aren't going to penetrate solid rock, 3) aren't present in the formation after pressure is introduce from production pumps.

Let' expand on #3 for a sec: It's being suggested that when the cavern is pressureized, that the oil and gas are going to pumped out and the frac agents are going to stay down hole. Now, let's apply a little common sense and realize how that's impossible. If anyone still can't figure it out, let me know and I'll explain to you the fundamentals of how a pump works.
 
Maybe you're not familiar with the clean water act? All industries are regulated that potentially endanger the water supply.

Yet disclosure obviously isn't a requirement or fracking contents would be disclosed...
 
Yet disclosure obviously isn't a requirement or fracking contents would be disclosed...

There is a permit requirement under the CWA, which I'm sure requires disclosure. But the CWA generally applies to industries that discharge into "navigable waters", which probably rules out underground fissures.
 
Last edited:
There is a permit requirement under the CWA, which I'm sure requires disclosure.

So that kinda destroys your entire argument that it's not required to be disclosed. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom