AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Sat May 25, 2013 5:28 pm

GRA wrote:The 'negative impact from fracking' is still largely speculative. When and if it's proven, it may well be able to be mitigated; certainly it will be regulated more tightly than it is now.
No - the negative impact is not speculative at all!

As the Eagle Ford shale play is developed SW of San Antonio, for example, local roads are being destroyed (yet counties aren't paid enough to repair or replace them), massive amounts of water are being used, massive amounts of hazardous waste are being produced. Rent is increasing faster than locals can pay it, and some are forced to move or declare bankruptcy. Then we get to the longer-term problem:

In order to protect the aquifers through which the wells are drilled, the wells must be leak-free "forever". Yet the drilling industry confirms that 6% of wells will leak immediately, while 50% will fail in 15 years.

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/the ... 4final.pdf
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/eagle-ford-shale/
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/05/10/f ... ord-shale/

Seriously Guy - when people suggest problems are "...largely speculative..." it suggests they're not paying attention.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 12488
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Sun May 26, 2013 2:41 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:The 'negative impact from fracking' is still largely speculative. When and if it's proven, it may well be able to be mitigated; certainly it will be regulated more tightly than it is now.
No - the negative impact is not speculative at all!

As the Eagle Ford shale play is developed SW of San Antonio, for example, local roads are being destroyed (yet counties aren't paid enough to repair or replace them), massive amounts of water are being used, massive amounts of hazardous waste are being produced. Rent is increasing faster than locals can pay it, and some are forced to move or declare bankruptcy. Then we get to the longer-term problem:

In order to protect the aquifers through which the wells are drilled, the wells must be leak-free "forever". Yet the drilling industry confirms that 6% of wells will leak immediately, while 50% will fail in 15 years.

http://www1.rollingstone.com/extras/the ... 4final.pdf
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/eagle-ford-shale/
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/05/10/f ... ord-shale/

Seriously Guy - when people suggest problems are "...largely speculative..." it suggests they're not paying attention.
Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.

I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion. Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 4129
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Mon May 27, 2013 8:58 am

AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.
There's no need to 'pick one' when both apply and are accurate. Can you see how and why?
No. To both. Doesn't mean that wind and solar is "bad", just means not a full solution. Oh, and it is not just electric power that needs replacing, it is also other uses of energy, such as industrial.

AndyH wrote:running-the-numbers-and-the-country-on-renewables
Read carefully. And read the source http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 312014759/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , not the fuzzy blog. And from the source, read this:
O&M power costs for GIV (grid integrated vehicles) are considered to be zero because there is no additional maintenance due to GIV power. Maintenance is not increased due to power capability for GIV, it is calculated as proportional to energy in a separate column. The maintenance costs for controls that are particular to the GIV system, not otherwise required for the vehicle, are considered negligible"
Assuming almost free storage is available makes the problem almost easy. Without almost free storage, it's not.
AndyH wrote:2. we're capable of sucking all the heat out of the planet?
Out of the continental crust (not the whole planet), over very many years, perhaps yes. Geothermal heat flow (44 TW) comparable in size to current energy use (15 TW), especially considering the efficiency of generating power from heat at low temperatures is required by physics to be low (Carnot efficiency), and a large fraction of geothermal heat flow is probably out of reach (mid ocean ridges, ocean floor, etc). Long enough term, geothermal power needs to be a small fraction of current energy usage. Unlike solar, for example, which would be usable until the Earth is no longer habitable.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Tue May 28, 2013 12:53 pm

GRA wrote:Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.
Sorry to hear the dive trip fell through. A friend living north of the Bay suggested rain this time of year is somewhat unusual. I hope you get better dive weather along with a chance to take advantage of it soon.
GRA wrote:I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion.
There appears to be a 'reality gap' between reports of what 'environmentalists' say and what some groups are suggesting environmentalists are saying. There also appears to be gap between what some are saying and the 'conditions on the ground'. ;)

Some of the most damming reports of the negative effects of the shale boom are coming from former free-market supporters that invited drilling companies into their towns. Google the former mayor of Dish, TX for one example. The fact remains that people are being harmed, land is being harmed, and water is being harmed - yet the drillers don't have to disclose the chemicals they inject (the same ones that ARE contaminating aquifers, and that are running into rivers and over land when unlined ponds overflow, and in some areas are being dumped into the municipal water treatment system - a system that doesn't have a way to test or treat these wastes).

GRA wrote:Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.
This, I think, is one of the major disconnects, Guy. The only way the industry can conduct this activity at a price affordable to the oil companies is to have the 'Haliburton loophole' that completely exempts the industry from water pollution rules. They have to maintain secrecy of their chemical soup. Why? Because when people in the area get sick - from bleeding sinuses through bizarre cancers - the industry must have the plausible deniability. "No, Mr. Landowner, the known carcinogens in our hydraulic fracturing fluid - the stuff that's spreading across your land and and that your family's been drinking - could not be causing any of your health problems. Maybe you've been drinking raw milk? Now THAT stuff'll kill you!"

Fracking CAN be done safely, it CAN be done using industry best practices, it CAN be done in ways that protect land, water, and people. But it won't because each of those three options are more expensive. As long as none of the local residents are 'hyperventilating', and as long as regulations are squashed faster than they can be written, and as long as people believe the one-sided messages from the industry and their paid supporters, then your suggested conditions will not be met.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/0 ... ion-study/

Hit Google maps and/or Google Earth and look around W Texas, New Mexico, and S Colorado for three examples of how the gas boom looks. Start by scanning the area from Midland/Odessa/Monahans, TX, to Roswell and Carlsbad, NM. Look at the roads and pads. Here's a starting point for the S Texas Eagle Ford shale: https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=28.0 ... sz=18&z=18

There's a whole lot happening that won't be found on an industry filing with the IRS...

edit.... Like this, for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/1235009 and this: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013 ... water.html And this: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/o ... astewater/

And this:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... nnsylvania
http://www.amednews.com/article/2012082 ... 8279957/1/
When several unrelated patients visited McMurray, Pa.-based plastic surgeon Amy Paré, MD, she initially was unsure what to make of the bleeding, oozing legions covering their faces.

The wounds were not cancerous, but the inflammation was severe and becoming worse. Dr. Paré’s suspicions grew when she learned that the patients lived near the same natural gas drilling site. Tests later found that the patients had phenol and hippuric acid in their urine, two contact irritants rarely found in humans. The patients improved after they stopped drinking water from their underground wells.
Last edited by AndyH on Wed May 29, 2013 9:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Wed May 29, 2013 8:19 pm

WetEV wrote:I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.
Considering this is precisely what Guy and I have been discussing, and since this has been answered at least three times already in the past page or three, I'll leave it at that. ;)
WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:running-the-numbers-and-the-country-on-renewables
Read carefully. And read the source http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 312014759/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , not the fuzzy blog. And from the source, read this:
O&M power costs for GIV (grid integrated vehicles) are considered to be zero because there is no additional maintenance due to GIV power. Maintenance is not increased due to power capability for GIV, it is calculated as proportional to energy in a separate column. The maintenance costs for controls that are particular to the GIV system, not otherwise required for the vehicle, are considered negligible"
Assuming almost free storage is available makes the problem almost easy. Without almost free storage, it's not.
I ALWAYS read the source documents. Sometimes I even jump to unsupported conclusions - like your suggestion that not including V2G O&M numbers in the same column as power generation O&M somehow makes the storage "free". ;)
...we attribute GIV O&M cost to the electric system only proportionally to the additional energy moved through the batteries to serve as grid storage.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/SG%2 ... laware.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/docs/V2G-Cal-ExecSum.html
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/upl ... _12031.pdf
http://spinnovation.com/sn/Articles_on_ ... rogram.pdf

Nits aside, the assumed 'need' for large amounts of grid storage is a combination of fossil-fueled anti-renewables propaganda and someone's assumption that a renewable grid will look exactly like our current grid with the same limitations and monopolies. While we certainly can mess-up an overhaul project this badly, I'm hoping we chose not to...
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Thu May 30, 2013 3:40 pm

WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:I'm trying to see how we can supply energy requirements for an industrial society completely based use of renewable power.

Can wind and solar provide "baseload power"?

Or is baseload power a myth?

Pick one.
There's no need to 'pick one' when both apply and are accurate. Can you see how and why?
No. To both. Doesn't mean that wind and solar is "bad", just means not a full solution. Oh, and it is not just electric power that needs replacing, it is also other uses of energy, such as industrial.
Editorial comment:

I think, Wet, that your position perfectly illustrates the damage done by (how to say this nicely...) anti-renewable propaganda and/or disinformation. ;)
Such skeptics often point to a number of familiar criticisms: that high penetrations of renewables are not possible; that such a future requires major technological innovation; that it requires unreasonable amounts of energy storage to balance variable wind and solar; that it requires massive build-out of transmission infrastructure, biomass generation capacity, large-scale hydro, or all of the above; that it requires major investment that simply isn’t there; that it is uncompetitively costly (at least without large subsidies); that variable renewables will undermine the reliability of grid power.
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_05_22_2013_is_ ... e_part_one

Why would the currently deregulated energy monopolies propagate lies? Because they cannot control or profit from widespread adoption of renewables - and they're very afraid as they start to see their empires being eroded one roof-top solar panel at a time.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-p ... utilities/
http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Do ... lenges.pdf
Disruptive Challenges:
Financial Implications and Strategic
Responses to a Changing Retail
Electric Business
Disruptive, indeed!
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/28/sol ... ooks-like/

Who's supplying disinformation?

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/22/the ... ed-fringe/
I’ve pointed out in the past that efforts to slow down the adoption of Renewable Energy are coordinated and enabled by Koch and Fossil Funded groups like Americans for Prosperity. They rely on the same media manipulation that has given us everything from Weapons of Mass Destruction to the “Romney Landslide”, to Climate denial, to Kenyan birth certificates – and, they’ve even succeeded to some degree in poisoning the mainstream media dialogue.

In the mean time, it looks like V2G is moving out of the research stage - I expect researchers will be able to tweak the GIV/V2G O&M numbers a bit if necessary. ;)

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/26/get ... rst-steps/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/busin ... .html?_r=0
The market that Professor Kempton is tapping into, known as frequency regulation, has become increasingly important as the mix of generators on the grid has changed.
In the Delaware project, each car is equipped with some additional circuitry and a battery charger that operates in two directions. When the cars work with the grid, they earn about $5 a day, which comes to about $1,800 a year, according to Willett M. Kempton, a professor of electrical engineering and computing. He hopes that provides an incentive to make electric cars more attractive to consumers, and estimates that the added gadgetry would add about $400 to the cost of a car.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

WetEV
Posts: 4129
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Fri May 31, 2013 4:21 am

AndyH wrote:(how to say this nicely...) anti-renewable propaganda and/or disinformation.
So everyone that disagrees with AndyH is spouting lies, propaganda and/or disinformation.

Amusing.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Fri May 31, 2013 6:49 am

WetEV wrote:
AndyH wrote:(how to say this nicely...) anti-renewable propaganda and/or disinformation.
So everyone that disagrees with AndyH is spouting lies, propaganda and/or disinformation.

Amusing.
No. Only the people that are.

Not at all amusing.

I did provide links to source info (no, not the blog - the source info in the article) in written (not video) form. Please feel free to provide audio, video, or documents that prove my position incorrect - I do reserve the right to learn should the opportunity present itself...
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 12488
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Fri May 31, 2013 2:40 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Back again. Yesterday's dive reports indicated lousy conditions with more of the same forecast for today, so diving fell through as I don't like to drive down for just one day.
Sorry to hear the dive trip fell through. A friend living north of the Bay suggested rain this time of year is somewhat unusual. I hope you get better dive weather along with a chance to take advantage of it soon.
Thanks, but it's not a big deal. I live close enough and have enough dives there (ca. 300) that I cherry pick my Monterey weekends far more than I used to. It didn't rain except maybe on Monday, but rain per se isn't a problem; it's not like we're worried about getting wet :D Although heavy rain does cause a lot of runoff from the storm sewers, which roils things up and puts a lot of crap in the water (literally, as Monterey Bay sewage treatment facilities jut barely handle routine conditions), reducing visibility and turning the bay into a cesspool.

That wasn't the issue last weekend, it was the long-period swell combined with moderately high waves. The swell means there's strong surge down to quite deep depths, and aside from the back and forth movement from that (zooming 10-15 feet first one way and then the other in heavy surge), it also tends to kick up lots of sediment, reducing visibility. The Sunday forecast was marginal for the surveying we wanted to do, so we bailed. Turns out it was probably doable, depending on where you were. Deeper sites were okay, shallow ones weren't, and the site we wanted to work could have gone either way.
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:I said 'largely speculative' because so far there has been no sign of the widespread, inevitable environmental damage that the numerous environmental groups were proclaiming would happen in their usual hyperventilating fashion.
There appears to be a 'reality gap' between reports of what 'environmentalists' say and what some groups are suggesting environmentalists are saying. There also appears to be gap between what some are saying and the 'conditions on the ground'. ;)

Some of the most damming reports of the negative effects of the shale boom are coming from former free-market supporters that invited drilling companies into their towns. Google the former mayor of Dish, TX for one example. The fact remains that people are being harmed, land is being harmed, and water is being harmed - yet the drillers don't have to disclose the chemicals they inject (the same ones that ARE contaminating aquifers, and that are running into rivers and over land when unlined ponds overflow, and in some areas are being dumped into the municipal water treatment system - a system that doesn't have a way to test or treat these wastes).
There will always be a variety of accounts from a variety of places. The ones I was referring to were some of the early ones in the Bakken shale [Edit: actually the Marcellus shale; brain fart], which is where many of the early apocalyptic claims by environmental groups were unsupported by the science at the time and/or used wholly without context (and which is why I can no longer whole-heartedly support many of them). Not that this is restricted to green groups; most pressure groups rely on extreme, apocalyptic claims of the damage that may result from some particular action to generate donations and boost membership - that's certainly been the case with say gun or abortion groups, and is my experience of most green groups.
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Doesn't mean that fracking, just like any extractive activity, can't be done badly and/or may need to be restricted in some places, and that's why I mentioned mitigation and regulation. Unless and until it can be shown that fracking, when done using best practices, can't be done almost anywhere for an affordable price without large-scale, long-term damage, it will be used.
This, I think, is one of the major disconnects, Guy. The only way the industry can conduct this activity at a price affordable to the oil companies is to have the 'Haliburton loophole' that completely exempts the industry from water pollution rules. They have to maintain secrecy of their chemical soup. Why? Because when people in the area get sick - from bleeding sinuses through bizarre cancers - the industry must have the plausible deniability. "No, Mr. Landowner, the known carcinogens in our hydraulic fracturing fluid - the stuff that's spreading across your land and and that your family's been drinking - could not be causing any of your health problems. Maybe you've been drinking raw milk? Now THAT stuff'll kill you!"

Fracking CAN be done safely, it CAN be done using industry best practices, it CAN be done in ways that protect land, water, and people. But it won't because each of those three options are more expensive. As long as none of the local residents are 'hyperventilating', and as long as regulations are squashed faster than they can be written, and as long as people believe the one-sided messages from the industry and their paid supporters, then your suggested conditions will not be met.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/0 ... ion-study/

Hit Google maps and/or Google Earth and look around W Texas, New Mexico, and S Colorado for three examples of how the gas boom looks. Start by scanning the area from Midland/Odessa/Monahans, TX, to Roswell and Carlsbad, NM. Look at the roads and pads. Here's a starting point for the S Texas Eagle Ford shale: https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=28.0 ... sz=18&z=18

There's a whole lot happening that won't be found on an industry filing with the IRS...

edit.... Like this, for example: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/1235009 and this: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013 ... water.html And this: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/o ... astewater/

And this:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... nnsylvania
http://www.amednews.com/article/2012082 ... 8279957/1/
When several unrelated patients visited McMurray, Pa.-based plastic surgeon Amy Paré, MD, she initially was unsure what to make of the bleeding, oozing legions covering their faces.

The wounds were not cancerous, but the inflammation was severe and becoming worse. Dr. Paré’s suspicions grew when she learned that the patients lived near the same natural gas drilling site. Tests later found that the patients had phenol and hippuric acid in their urine, two contact irritants rarely found in humans. The patients improved after they stopped drinking water from their underground wells.
Andy, all the above just makes my point, that better regulation may well be needed. Anecdotal claims of health issues and damage are just that, and need epidemiological studies comparing them to the general population to determine causation instead of just correlation.

As to your claim that it can't be done affordably using best practices, that remains to be seen, but it is certainly beyond either of our competence to judge. To say that such regulation can never be achieved because of the power of oil and gas companies flies in the face of 50 years experience of environmental regulation, which has reduced air and water pollution, including reducing air pollution from cars by more than 99% (and made them much safer), made drilling and mining safer and less environmentally damaging etc., despite the resistance of the industries involved. The process is never quick, easy or inexpensive and will likely be fought every step of the way by the industries concerned, but despite that we do make progress. And I expect we'll continue to do so, despite my natural cynicism.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

AndyH
Posts: 6388
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: What if we never run out of oil?

Fri May 31, 2013 8:05 pm

Guy, As recently as 2011 I would have agreed with your comments 100%. Then I went back to school to work on an environmental science degree. The environmental regulations are Swiss cheese thanks to industry lobbying and money. Once the Swiss cheese is law, those same companies employ environmental scientists, engineers, and legal teams to take the best advantage of the holes and as many of the unintended consequences as possible. Frankly, coming from someone that really wants to believe that this country has at least something that works as intended, the more I learn the more ill I feel about the entire process.

Go back to acid rain - we had the same industry-funded denial industry that delayed action until entire industries in the US were damaged. When there was too much evidence for their disinformation to stand any longer, they made sure everything currently in operation was grandfathered - the sulfur requirements only applied to new plants. And to add insult to injury, one loophole was the height of the power plant smokestack - taller stacks didn't have to comply. New coal plants simply used taller stacks and didn't have to comply at all. That we've cut sulfur emissions as much as we have is surprising - and yet since the Clean Air Act of 1977 we've only cut sulfur emissions about 35%.

(See Environment, 7th edition, Raven, P32 and Merchants of Doubt, chapter 3)

As to causation and scientific support, I agree with you! Yet this is another area the industry will not allow study! As long as there are no studies to support the negative health effects of fracking, the industry is free to continue as they are. That's why industry focuses on breaking the chain.

I've already provided you one example affecting doctors today. To recap: The gas industry 'tunneled through' the EPA clean water rules by VP Cheney's 'Haliburton loophole'. This allows them to not disclose the chemicals used in fracking fluids - to ANYONE. That means when people go to their doctor with faces bleeding and their skin falling off, the doctor has ZERO information to work with - they have to start from scratch and try to figure out what's happening. Enough of this has happened that the industry must disclose the chemicals when asked by doctors in order to treat a patient - but the doc must sign a non-disclosure agreement to get the info. This means 1. the medical system cannot prepare or prevent illness - they can only respond after the fact, and can only get the info they need when they put 2 and 2 together and it spells 'fracking' in neon-green letters and 2. that also means the doctor cannot disclose the chemicals to the patient so they can sue the gas company for damage. Scientific study and causation? Forget about it! It won't happen because researchers cannot get access to the info they need! That's why environmental scientists are activating in a number of areas to get air, water, and soil samples before the frackers come to town - so they can start to get the data they need to prove causation!

Seriously - it's a mess! I realize that nobody likes anything they consider to be an 'extremist' - but it's taken years of 'gentle' treatment and 'gentlemanly' behavior to come to the realization that no progress is being made. That's why pressure's ramping up. The damage - air, water, ground, human, and animal - has been going on from the beginning. As with CO2 and global warming, there's no debate.

That's why books like "Merchants of Doubt" are so important - once we know there's a disinformation campaign, we can learn how to steer around it to get the info we need. Obstruction and disinformation is wedged firmly between 'facts' and 'scientific studies' - and that's a problem! Because folks that are not in affected areas have no personal experience of a problem, and they won't 'believe' there's a problem until they see a peer-reviewed paper - yet there will be no papers, in spite of the illnesses and deaths, because industry has 'broken the chain of evidence' that connects their pollution with injury and death.

That's important to understand, I think.

edit... Here's another broken link between drilling/fracking and water contamination:
http://desmogblog.com/2013/01/16/breaki ... tion-study
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-changed-cours ... 12084.html
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination.
http://checksandbalancesproject.org/201 ... treatment/
It was authored by Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist formerly on the faculty of the Colorado School of Mines and University of Wyoming before departing from the latter for a job in the private sector working for Interralogic Inc. in Ft Collins, CO.

This isn't the first time Thyne's scientific research has been shoved aside, either. Thyne wrote two landmark studies on groundwater contamination in Garfield County, CO, the first showing that it existed, the second confirming that the contamination was directly linked to fracking in the area.

It's the second study that got him in trouble.

"Thyne says he was told to cease his research by higher-ups. He didn’t," The Checks and Balances Project explained. "And when it came to renew his contract, Thyne was cut loose."
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

Return to “Environmental Issues”