Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(58,179 posts)
Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:26 AM Feb 2014

*ahem* [View all]

Fracking in the West has used 97 billion gallons of water since 2011.

97 billion gallons of water.


“Hydraulic fracturing is increasing competitive pressures for water in some of the country’s most water-stressed and drought-ridden regions,” said Mindy Lubber, president of the Ceres green investors’ network.

Without new tougher regulations on water use, she warned industry could be on a “collision course” with other water users.

“It’s a wake-up call,” said Prof James Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine. “We understand as a country that we need more energy but it is time to have a conversation about what impacts there are, and do our best to try to minimise any damage.”

It can take millions of gallons of fresh water to frack a single well, and much of the drilling is tightly concentrated in areas where water is in chronically short supply, or where there have been multi-year droughts.


It's data. Use it or abuse it, but there it is.

74 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
*ahem* [View all] WilliamPitt Feb 2014 OP
K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #1
But we buy water in bottles from corporations. Rex Feb 2014 #2
but but but... progressoid Feb 2014 #3
Gee, Will . . . Jack Rabbit Feb 2014 #4
The best, professional grade jsr Feb 2014 #16
Forget reality and facts, why do you hate Obama?!!1! n/t Skip Intro Feb 2014 #5
+1 L0oniX Feb 2014 #46
One of thousands of reasons why no tax on the 1% is high enough. merrily Feb 2014 #6
Bologna! you mean those saying theres no connection between the two 1awake Feb 2014 #7
Then you'd better STOP them yourself. DeSwiss Feb 2014 #8
FABUOUS!!!!! I wondered how Maine ultimately beat Nestle into leaving!!!!! magical thyme Feb 2014 #25
De nada. DeSwiss Feb 2014 #45
Don't. fleabiscuit Feb 2014 #9
The water is so important, I'm happy you addressed it. Cleita Feb 2014 #10
recommend frwrfpos Feb 2014 #11
Well, this is what it boils down to, IMHO: ReRe Feb 2014 #12
From today's TOON Roundup 4... Electric Monk Feb 2014 #13
I want to know. . . ReasonableToo Feb 2014 #14
I find it incredibly disappointing that Governor Brown Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #15
Link to reliable news source? xfundy Feb 2014 #17
Per your request: Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #22
I love one of the comments to your fracking article. SunSeeker Feb 2014 #23
See My Post #20. LA is on the way to banning fracking in Los Angeles. Hooray! JDPriestly Feb 2014 #21
Los Angeles comes through! Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #33
More! proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #48
Absolutely fantastic! I hope other counties follow LA's lead. Cheese4TheRat Mar 2014 #64
Do you think he should have vetoed so there would be no rules? antiquie Feb 2014 #28
I think he should impose a moratorium. Don't you? Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #35
No. antiquie Feb 2014 #36
The Governor is elected by the entire state. Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #37
Not in my universe. ~ nt antiquie Feb 2014 #38
Do you live in a state where the Governor is not elected by the people of the state? Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #42
Hell I'll kick this even though I may regret it later in another thread. Agschmid Feb 2014 #18
Who cares? We have more billionaires than any other nation! Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #19
But, Los Angeles is leading the way toward banning fracking. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #20
"leading the way toward banning fracking." ProSense Feb 2014 #27
This won't be solved overnight. Obama has ramped up solar. That can be seen JDPriestly Feb 2014 #32
Kick. Scuba Feb 2014 #24
Invest in water...thats what our investment counselor said. Historic NY Feb 2014 #26
hmmm In_The_Wind Feb 2014 #31
The One Percent already are.... woo me with science Mar 2014 #67
I guess it proves his point... Historic NY Mar 2014 #68
Absolutely. woo me with science Mar 2014 #70
***Gasp***. You want people to look at facts? Silly you. nt antigop Feb 2014 #29
This one I can k&r. uppityperson Feb 2014 #30
Yes but we've learned here that you are now persona non grata. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #34
By "banned list" you mean the "subject to criticism list" ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #49
Staggering...I didn't think anything could shock me anymore KauaiK Feb 2014 #39
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #40
Actually, that time was 40 years ago. redqueen Feb 2014 #41
Shhhh iamthebandfanman Feb 2014 #43
and meanwhile: Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #44
It gets worse. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #47
It's not like we need water for more important uses, like drinking, growing food, or putting out tclambert Feb 2014 #50
97 billion gallons of water that is forever removed from the cycle Champion Jack Feb 2014 #51
Oh, don't worry about it. Curmudgeoness Feb 2014 #52
coming back to when I am not tired. This is astounding rurallib Feb 2014 #53
97 billion gallons of water is 7/10ths of 1% of the annual water consumption in CA. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #54
Except that, in normal use it returns to the cycle Champion Jack Feb 2014 #56
With such a small amount, it doesn't matter. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #57
the "small amounts" impact--but keep trying niyad Mar 2014 #74
link please niyad Feb 2014 #58
97 billion gallons of water is 293,000 acre feet of water. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #60
Being poisoned. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #61
That's not a complete thought. I don't know what you're trying to say. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #62
so it's okay with you to permanently destroy our water, even in the supposedly small amounts niyad Feb 2014 #63
It's not a "supposedly" small amount. It is a small amount by any relevant measure. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #66
Stop trying. ProSense Mar 2014 #71
so you have no problem with the fact that the supposedly (since the figures come from industry, niyad Mar 2014 #73
several weeks ago in the sunday denver post, there was an "article" (which read more like an niyad Feb 2014 #55
Fracking, being an environmental disaster, makes no freakin' sense: neither does TPP or indepat Feb 2014 #59
In 2012, people said we aould get to see the REAL OBama in his 2nd term. bvar22 Mar 2014 #65
Trading Water For Fuel is Fracking Crazy handmade34 Mar 2014 #69
My understanding is that FRESH water is not Ilsa Mar 2014 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*ahem*