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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
17. You suspect people's faucets were already on fire and they just didn't say anything before?
Mon May 20, 2013, 07:35 PM
May 2013

And then when a gas drill moved in down the street they got upset so they decided to report the fires and pin the blame on the drill?

Seems kind of far fetched to me. I think it's much more plausible that the gas is migrating into the water.

Since I don't trust the industry, and you don't trust thousands of people who claim to have seen effects from groundwater contamination, let's have a moratorium on fracking at this time, so we can take time to study and make sure people are not being poisoned.

Everyone admits there is methane trapped underground especially along old coal seams, and everyone knows it can escape if there is a pathway out. If you fracture the earth with great force you will cause some underground formations to break apart and escape paths will be created for the trapped gas. That seems like common sense to me. There is enough reasonable suspicion for a moratorium at this time.


"Methane concentrations in drinking water were much higher if the homeowner was near an active gas well," explains environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who led the study published online May 9 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "We wanted to try and separate fact from emotion."
...
In fact, concentrations were 17 times higher in those drinking water wells within one kilometer of an active natural gas well than those farther away.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells

17 times higher concentrations near drill sites. That's a coincidence?


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Stable isotope signatures provide that information. Buzz Clik May 2013 #1
Yup sikofit3 May 2013 #4
The drilling could be causing a physical disruption of higher-level seams wtmusic May 2013 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author sikofit3 May 2013 #11
"occasionally bubbles up through cracks in the earth" Warren Stupidity May 2013 #2
Yes sikofit3 May 2013 #3
well if you water is not on fire, and then they put in a frack pad next door, and then your faucets limpyhobbler May 2013 #5
Exactly Champion Jack May 2013 #6
Thank you wtmusic May 2013 #8
I might has more sad if I hadn't seen the kid on the ATV... hunter May 2013 #9
LOL I was surprised too to see a 5-year old with his own ATV limpyhobbler May 2013 #10
And that the dad previously confronted them with a shotgun. FBaggins May 2013 #12
maybe but I'm not sure that changes the environmental impact question. limpyhobbler May 2013 #13
It caused me to question his honesty. FBaggins May 2013 #14
Beats me. Industry makes billion?s of money on this so those are the last people I would believe. nt limpyhobbler May 2013 #15
People make lots of money on wind farms too FBaggins May 2013 #16
You suspect people's faucets were already on fire and they just didn't say anything before? limpyhobbler May 2013 #17
I don't just "suspect". I know it for a fact. FBaggins May 2013 #18
So why were methane concentrations 17 times higher in water near frack pads? limpyhobbler May 2013 #19
Hard to say FBaggins May 2013 #20
Why are they exempt from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA? limpyhobbler May 2013 #21
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»What the frack do we know...»Reply #17