TED Conversations

Mathew Naismith

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Is hydraulic fracturing the answer especially when you take in consideration the environmental impact it is having?

Hydraulic fracturing is polluting the underground water which comes up through the cracks caused by the fracturing of the rock & ends up in our water ways. I think we have enough pollutants to deal with above & below the ground now!!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 18 2013: Everyone wants energy ever since the first caveman brought home a deer that didn't escape a forest fire. No one today is going to give up all those things that energy provides. Does that mean that energy producers shouldn't clean up their messes? Of course not. But all this weeping and wailing on iphones back and forth about the destruction of the earth as we know it is a little....
    About fracking, Most, let's say 99 %, of the stories about fracking causes some farmers well water to burn is not really.... true. How can I say this. OK.
    Most aquifers that provide drinking water to these farmers and very small towns where flaming faucets are the local legends are usually shallow draws seldom deeper the a few hundred feet below ground surface. The gases produce in the flaming faucets is usually methane. Fracking gas is not methane. Frackong gas comes from formations past 10,000 feet below ground level. Thousands of feet of impervious rock formations between the two. Now, is it possible for fracking gas to get into drinking water supplies? Sure, failed seals, cracked well liners. But, as soon as that gauge sends out a low pressure signal, the gas companies are right on it. Production costs and profit margins are paper thin.
    They don't want to lose a cubit foot.
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

      I’m in direct contact with farmers & country people who say what is actually happening. You say the flames coming from the bores & natural springs are from methane & have nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing, why haven’t these wells & natural springs burnt with this methane before the hydraulic fracturing wells where introduced? Please be honest here.

      Your either blind to the facts or you’re deliberately covering up what you know to be wrong with such illogical statements as it’s not just about burning & the decolourisation of the water but the obvious health problems people & animals are having as well.

      Go to one of these polluted areas & all of your five senses will pick up on one thing or another, how much more proof do you need than from our five senses, if your relying on falsified research & documentation, which I’m sure you are, your flying blind & like sheep you will follow without knowing or wanting to know the truth. This is big money we are talking about here & big money can cover-up whatever it likes for the sake of the economy over our health any day.

      What’s more important to you wealth or your health because if you haven’t got your health what have you got?

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: OK, We have an effect, what is the cause? So, the gases from the bores and springs have been tested to insure it was methane. You have contacted the fracking operator and determined the gases they are producing and the depths they are drilling. They are not leaking gases from the wells. The farmers you have contacted have never seen flames or smelled gases before. Now there have been cases here in the states where farmers had gas in their water wells. When the fracking companies came in. they saw it as a way to get expensive new wells courtesy of the fracking company. Not saying that that is happening there, but lets get all the information together and see what was the cause of the effect. It's not about my sensory abilities which have been compromised by old age, I rather gather hard facts and get real solutions. One more question. Find out if any fracking company was sued and lost for damages.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          Yes I would agree that some farmers would stoop to these levels as there are already natural toxins & gases in the ground of course but if a bore was fine since it was drilled why all of a sudden does the bore water go bad after a hydraulic fracturing plant has been introduced?

          Our artesian basin is quite large & deep in places; could you imagine the mess hydraulic fracturing would do to that?

          How exact is the science of hydraulic fracturing in regard to the fractures in the bed rocks because in some rock formations there are already fissures in this rock which do run up to the surface? Have tremors & earthquakes been calculated within the equation? Could you imagine what an earthquake would do to fractured bed rock!!!!

          The links below are quite interesting & will answer all your questions you could think up.
          http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm
          http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/description/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack
          http://scienceandtechnologylady.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/teaching-earth-science-and-hydraulic.html#comment-form

          Love
          Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          In relation with the people I know on the land they are having trouble with the quality of water which they never had before & no I don’t think they had it tested but we are talking about properties that has been in the family for a number of generation so they should know if the quality of water is of a much lower quality after hydraulic fracturing plants have been installed or not.

          I suppose you didn’t look at the links I supplied? If you did & if you’re not somehow connected with hydraulic fractioning you wouldn’t, in my mind, need to ask me any more questions or query this any further as all the answers you need are there in the links supplied.

          Look Mike I’m not a greeny but I am spiritually & scientifically minded & have a passion for life over & above the economy because without one’s health you have nothing, I wish the scientist thought that way but they are run by the almighty dollar & the power that be just like the churches where especially in the dark ages, there is a huge similarity the only problem is we have a lot more deadly ways to kill ourselves with these day on a mass scale because of the scientific research.


          Love
          Mathew
        • Jan 18 2013: Can you back those statements up? Are you sure there was gas in the wells before fracking? I am not saying it can't happen, but where is your proof that it did? Cause and effect, before drilling no flames, after drilling flames, I would say cause, Drilling!
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G'Day Mathew,
        I read your response, but we have not addressed those specific country folks you first spoke. You see, if we talk in broad generalities of things that could go wrong, question motives, base conclusions on unproven hypothesis, we have nothing more then talk over a Foster's. The gas that comes from fracking came be a big help in the economy of any country. It must be done with care as to not cause other problems. The alternative is to do nothing because something might happen. And if that happens, we can talk about how long it will be before mankind crawls back into the caves from where we used to live.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike prt.1

          In relation with the people I know on the land they are having trouble with the quality of water which they never had before & no I don’t think they had it tested but we are talking about properties that has been in the family for a number of generation so they should know if the quality of water is of a much lower quality after hydraulic fracturing plants have been installed or not.

          I suppose you didn’t look at the links I supplied? If you did & if you’re not somehow connected with hydraulic fractioning you wouldn’t, in my mind, need to ask me any more questions or query this any further as all the answers you need are there in the links supplied.

          Look Mike I’m not a greeny but I am spiritually & scientifically minded & have a passion for life over & above the economy because without one’s health you have nothing, I wish the scientist thought that way but they are run by the almighty dollar & the power that be just like the churches where especially in the dark ages, there is a huge similarity the only problem is we have a lot more deadly ways to kill ourselves with these day on a mass scale because of the scientific research.


          Love
          Mathew
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day mike prt.2

          The true alternative is for the multinationals to allow these freer cleaner energy sources to be allowed onto the market instead of squashing them like the hydro car that did actually work. I know this is going to hurt the economy & if it hurts the economy it will hurt the people but we don’t need all this stuff we are being coaxed in buying & owning, it certainly doesn’t bring happiness. Isn’t the US one of the unhappiest people in the world & aren’t the less materialistic nations in the world the happiest.
          Costa Ricans are the happiest, live the longest and produce only one-third the ecological footprint of their U.S. counterparts.
          Seven of the top 10 countries are in Central America or the Caribbean. The exceptions are Vietnam, which came in second, and Colombia and Venezuela, which ranked third and ninth respectively.
          http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/denmark-ousted-100-latest-worlds-happiest-country-561826

          That just shows consumerist materialistic countries like the US & Australia aren’t happy with their materialistic values over happiness & health.

          Love
          Mathew
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: G'day Mathew,
        OK, I did look at your sites. they all had a common theme. Fracking is bad or could be bad. They did not say "Lets examine the situation with an open mind and see were the the evidence leads us",
        Has fracking operations failed and cause local residents some problems,yes. Does fracking operations use a lot of water that is a waste byproduct and must be addressed in it's disposal, of course. These issues can be addressed. Does fracking cause earthquakes, warts and fallen arches, no evidence to address these problems. If you can show a direct,measurable link to a problem then a solution can be addressed. No one can effect a solution on a could be or maybe problem.

        Big Energy companies squashed some great idea to make a xxxx that was cleaner, more environmentally friendly, blah, blah. The didn't squash them, they ignored them. There was no profit to be made. What?, No profit? that's all those big greedy corporations wanted. Yes that's true. Because no big profits, no big companies. no big number of jobs, nothing big is made, everyone is living the good life on a beach in Costa Rica. You don't have a computer to sent this tome over the world wide internet.
        I can't speak for all energy companies, just mine. They are buying fracked gas because it is cheaper then the cost of operating coal fired plants, which they want to shut down, not because of your green, but the bankers green. OK they are not altruistic. They own one of the largest solar farms in the country, it's very profitable when it's sunny. They are part owners of a nuclear power plant and buy surplus power from a distant wind farm, because when it's windy there, power is cheap. What does all this mean to me? I live in a 200 sm home, I have a large TV, all the electronic toys, some duplicate. I don't know what my carbon footprint is, but my cost for electricity, the only energy source in my home averages $100 per month. Not Bad. OK, I do have a number of energy efficient things. (more)
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: Part two.
        Now, why is my power company giving me such a good deal, and have to make a profit to continue to do so, there is another energy company up the street, who wants me for their customer.
        Now, your living in Australia and I live in America. We live in materialistic, profit generating economies, and we have the choice to live as we feel. Many peoples do not. I am sure there are people in Costa Rica that would want to live in our materialistic societies. Many of them have entered our southern border on a daily basis. So, we should agree that people should be free to choose the life style they want to live. If someone in living their lifestyle effects your lifestyle, they should fix it. But if your statement is "my life style is better then your lifestyle"... well, that comes off as a tad pompous and childlike. I bear you no malice to live on a beach and live your lifestlye. Enjoy, go in peace and prosperity.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2013: G’day Mike

          In saying they didn’t examine the situation with an open mind is wrong Mike, the science teacher did just that, in actual fact she held a student debate on the matter but had the one’s apposing fracking arguing for & visa-versa which gives each student a chance to know of the opposing argument a lot better.

          I’m not sure how you made this statement saying it was one sided, obviously you didn’t look at the links properly.

          One of the links did go into the effects of fracking causing earthquakes but even if they don’t cause the actual earthquakes fracturing bed rock under our feet would have to enhance the effects of an earthquakes obviously because you couldn’t say it’s going to stop earthquakes could you?

          Reading your reply it sounds like you are well a truly putting the economy & your own financial situation before anyone else’s health which is sad but the thing is I don’t.

          Mike, if hydraulic fracturing was safe & wasn’t going to add to the already over polluted planet I would be right behind it but that is nowhere near the case as I have shown a number of times through various links.

          You mention that we have a choice to live as we please, I can’t go out at night & see the stars like I once use too or swim in places without fear of some kind of toxic poisoning or drink uncontaminated water from wells that have been polluted by hydraulic fracturing & on top of that we don’t live in a true democracy when we are dictated to so much these days. Mike, we obviously live in two different worlds!!

          Love
          Mathew
    • thumb
      Jan 18 2013: You make some good points about fracking and I agree with more wells coming online, the profit margin will be even thinner. However. We must not forget how blessed we are with the type of Aquifer we have in the USA and the fact we do have a population of people bickering with us about pollution, clean water, and saving our environment. Look at China, what they have done to their country in just the last 20 years to become a formidable financial empire. It's worst than any nightmares we went through back in the 60's and 70's.

      For too long, we have lived with the notion that Science will solve all the problems down the road if we have to operate in earnest now. The truth is, Science is too slow in that regard. We still need to use common sense to take up the slack. If it's dirty coming out, it will only accumulate the longer we burn it.

      Nothing evaporates into space. Gravity keeps everything we pull out of the earth and burn right here among us. It doesn't just seep into the earths core. Every ounce of fossil fuel we have used, minus the miniscule part exploded for energy, is still sitting on the surface of the earth in one form or another. It sits there, mingling with the very same air, dirt and water we and our children consume and play in.

      When we burn a gallon of gasoline, one-billionth of the mass of the gasoline is transformed into energy to push a 2000-pound automobile for 30 miles. The rest, a mass equal to the whole gallon of gas (we can't measure the difference with simple scales), is still here, in our air, our water and our dirt. It never left the surface of the earth.

      In the end, I think most people realize if we don't find new energy and exploit it, we will suffer for it as a nation and individually. Yet, we still need someone nagging at us telling us we better watch out because what good is energy if the environment we live in is sub-livable?
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2013: Over the years, I have seen a number of screamers who have railed about various "environmental problems" based on hyperbole and lost the interest of the general public with all the preposterous claims. As a result, when real problems were noted, they were ignored.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2013: Yes, I know what you mean. I've heard them also. You can couple them with those who have little to say at all becuase they lack the fundamental understandings of the process to comment so they use what they call common sense, which offers little to understanding complex systems. That's why I offer real math that implicates real situations and actions, that really occur in real life situations.

          It's nice to see someone on the same page with me Mike. Keep up the good work. A little more detail would be helpful, preferably with some math to quantify your statements. Simple stuff like how large is the 'number of screamers', 'what are the different methods they use to rail about the various environmental problems' and, hyperbole comes in many flavors, which flavor are you talking about?
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2013: Mike, here is a web site you may like. I'm concerned with true science progress. When I hear about raising the output of solar cells and a scientific breakthrough then find out it can only be accomplished with a highly toxic, radioactive metal that is so rare it has no commercial applications, I wonder who funded that research and what are their real goals? They discovered something that raised eyebrows but we really can't exploit it because it is severely costly. Maybe the Space industry or Military industry might be able to use it on short order.

          I took the course on genetics at Stanford University and (doing the math) determined that most of what we know about genetics is still hit and miss, as far as exploiting real genetic knowledge. But, when you read the reports in the press, it has wondrous applications for medicine, etc., just not in the near future.

          So I ask, why report such nonsense when it has no real application to real world realities and how much is this nonsensical research costing the tax payer? I say the tax payer because you can't find a lot of support in private industry for it. Do they know something we don't know, like the real extent of sciences ability to exploit the new discoveries and apply them to real world application?

          "..New York Governor Andrew Cuomo noted that when it comes to his state’s rules for fracking he will “Let the science dictate the conclusion.” ~New York Governor Andrew Cumo

          If science fully understand we let it have the final say in such domains, how does this physiologically impact human scientists to alter the rules according to their likes and dislikes about how research should proceed?

          When I was a young programmer in the early days of computers. I spent some of my time napping while my computer looked like I was working hard. Of course I wrote the program that gave that impression.
          I think you will like the web site.
          http://scienceprogress.org/2013/01/duck-rabbit-gas-well/

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.