What's up with TARGET: EPA! ??
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Friday, December 23, 2011 01:45
VIEWED: 10529
PAGE 7 of 7
"its not like Anthony is the head saint of fireflyfans.net."
Hello,
Thank you for defending me against such spurious accusations.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”
Jacob Hornberger
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”
Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can't help but smile. :) that would be rather no fun.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
My apologies for the delay. This account is linked to a long dead email so I don't get PMs, I just managed to dig out one from you sent on Aug 1st 2011 in response to my post above.
In answer to your question: From both. Under attack from both at home and abroad. The powers attacking this nation through environmental degradation, also known as attrition, also know, in an earlier definition used by our country, as terrorism.
The war of attrition targets civilian population. The nature of this attack is to turn the US into a resource mining colony, much like western powers have used Africa for much of the 20th c. Many of these attackers are international corporations, but some are foreign govts., China, in particular.
The nature of radical mining techniques such as fracking is that they do untold and unnecessary damage to the surface of the US, for the purpose of extraction of resources at minimum cost. This is standard colony rape. We witnessed it all over Africa. We're becoming someone else's resource bitch, and it's a serious problem.
But, if you will entertain a little conspiracy, there is also an element of chemical contamination that seems to me at least partially deliberate. The use of fracking fluid does not seem to have a significant impact on the yield of wells, yet represents more industrial pollution than all of US industry combined. The effect of this could easily be permanent contamination of vast swaths of rural America. Each individual well uses more chemical nerve agents than we claimed (and were right to claim,) that Saddam Hussein had (and he did have them) prior to the invasion of Iraq. This means every time a well gets "fracked" it amounts to a massive chemical weapons assault* on the united states.
* It's important here to distinguish between horizontal fracturing c. 2005, which is what we mean by "fracking"; and vertical fracturing which is a long standing natural gas extraction technique, c. 1950.
Also, it's worth adding that MTR, or mountaintop removal, is radically destructive to the Appalachian mountains including including the blue ridge, and that in this process, the offenders have detonated more explosives to deface America than were used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sorry for the necropost, but it seemed the most logical way to respond.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, you got it before I did. Nicely done.
Yes, releasing fluid under pressure deforms overlaying strata. Combined with earthquakes caused by fracking, which makes use of existing fault systems, and the horizontal arrangement of the layers, contamination can spread wide laterally and find upward cracks in the system, and also the pressure alone can force it all upwards through the strata.
The oil in the BP oil spill was not JUST coming from the partially exploded well... the explosion deformed strata and pressure forced oil to the surface, through thousands of feet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't see the fluids pumped into the ground as an issue with the ground water.
If you mean dumping fracking fluid on roads as brine, that's how leaching HAPPENS. Leaching to groundwater. You put enough on the soil, some will sorb on the soil particles but the stuff is heavier than air, gravity pulls the rest down through the pore space until it hits the saturated zone.
If the stuff is an LNAPL, lighter than water, it'll spread out on the surface. If it's a DNAPL, it'll sink in the system until it hits an impermeable layer and either pools or passes through, or you have flow in a strata that mobilizes, or it disperses into solution, or all of the above.
If you're pumping it in deep, you're pumping it in to the groundwater system. When you fracture a strata, you release fluid into overlying layers, and potentially to strata subject to the recharge/discharge flow pattern. And even when you're in impermeable layers, transmissivity is not zero. This stuff WILL eventually migrate as dictated by groundwater flow.
No matter what, dumping or pumping these fluids is an issue with groundwater. The question YOU'RE meaning to ask is if it is an issue with drinking water. But that's not the only issue here, many of the impacted areas have a shallow water table, and so vapour intrusion is a concern.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops, necropost. I wonder how I didn't see this before.
well, it's an important topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you mean dumping fracking fluid on roads as brine, that's how leaching HAPPENS. Leaching to groundwater. You put enough on the soil, some will sorb on the soil particles but the stuff is heavier than air, gravity pulls the rest down through the pore space until it hits the saturated zone.
If the stuff is an LNAPL, lighter than water, it'll spread out on the surface. If it's a DNAPL, it'll sink in the system until it hits an impermeable layer and either pools or passes through, or you have flow in a strata that mobilizes, or it disperses into solution, or all of the above.
If you're pumping it in deep, you're pumping it in to the groundwater system. When you fracture a strata, you release fluid into overlying layers, and potentially to strata subject to the recharge/discharge flow pattern. And even when you're in impermeable layers, transmissivity is not zero. This stuff WILL eventually migrate as dictated by groundwater flow.
No matter what, dumping or pumping these fluids is an issue with groundwater. The question YOU'RE meaning to ask is if it is an issue with drinking water. But that's not the only issue here, many of the impacted areas have a shallow water table, and so vapour intrusion is a concern.
I was talking about pumping it into the ground. The thing is that you can pump deep enough that you are not affecting the ground water. Useable ground water is only found so far down.
Now since this thread started the EPA has found evidence of fracking fluids contaminating ground water. The chemicals are either being forced up into the ground water table, or are leaking into it from the walls of the bore holes.
How ever it is with this evidence the fracking should be stopped.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT,
Saw this today. Thought you might find it of interest.
http://judicial-corruption.net/2011/12/the-fracking-industry-has-bough
t-off-congress-here-are-the-worst-offenders-thanks-to-our-morally-bankrupt-political-system-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-citizens-united-the-fracking-lobbys-po/
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I was talking about pumping it into the ground. The thing is that you can pump deep enough that you are not affecting the ground water. Useable ground water is only found so far down.
While it's true that pore space in strata at depth becomes so small that it no longer permits groundwater, that does NOT generally occur within 5,000 feet of the surface (it's more like a few miles down, not just one). While this does depend on the area, this is especially true in deposition basins with a lot of unconsolidated sediment from nearby mountains... Such as east of the Appalachians, or perhaps here in Salt Lake City, where in places we have more than 10,000 feet of unconsolidated sediment, and water all through it.
Companies are very much drilling into saturated strata.
You might be able to argue about usability of that deep groundwater, but the biggest problem it'll have is that it'll be mineralized, which is easily treated. In fact, my understanding is they were trying to TREAT some of the waste water for drinkability, though they were ending up still with a lot of radiological contamination.
And this also is not giving credence to the actual fracturing of the strata in question allowing pressurized fluid into overlaying strata, nor is it considering that the well construction and casing is often slipshod, nor that there's been a rash of blowouts from well misuse and undermaintenance. All of which could release contamination in strata closer to the surface than the layer being drilled.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also worth noting two things about deep injection well. "Up to 8,000 feet" is often much shorter than that. Ithaca shale can be seen its entirety, as can the Geneseo shale formation beneath it, at Taughannock Falls which is 200 feet high. Frackers are planning to drill not far from there. It is safe to say that it is both shale formations are above the base of the water table in this area because you can see the water literally run straight through the entirety of both formations.
If fracking were to create, as it intends to, long fissues horizontally through shale formations, all major shale formations break the surface at some point. This is a fold mountain range, rock formations are not lying flat under ground.
That said, the brine is also a major threat.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME