Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Natural Gas Drilling / Fracking in Ohio

[509 posts] [52 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 1 year ago by Antonio
Latest reply from News

Tags:

« Previous 1 234…26 Next »

rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

solpwr wrote >>
Hopefully people will read more about the issue and be prepared to vote in their interest. That is what this site is about, correct?

Kinda doubt the primary purpose of CU is issue advocacy. Think a number of us just like to argue.
After all, who cares what we think?
Gasland doesn't appear to be completely reliable, though.
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

I'm sure that the oil and gas producers who fund energyindepth wouldn't have their own agenda or anything.

But gasland was created without agenda?

yes, that's exactly what I typed.

Oh FFS. Will you eat a twinkie or something? Looks like your blood sugar is off again.

Posted 1 year ago #
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Why don't you do some research, watch the movie, and get back to us about that?

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Cookie wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Why don't you do some research, watch the movie, and get back to us about that?

Right... asking others their opinions and views is just wrong.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Cookie wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Why don't you do some research, watch the movie, and get back to us about that?

Right... asking others their opinions and views is just wrong.

but creating them out of nothing is your strong suit.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Seriously?

An agenda is a multi-point plan that something like a company, an interest group or politcal party has. In this case, defending their industry against any negative publicity or regulatory effort.

At best/worst, the film intends to eliminate a single practice. A single to-do item, by defintion, can't be an agenda.

Somewhat pedantic, but I get really tired of 'has an agenda' being use to discredit any and all criticism directed at a single thing.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Right... asking others their opinions and views is just wrong.

Either you're interested in the topic, or you just like to argue. Your response seems to hold a clue.

Posted 1 year ago #
Antonio

Login to Send PM

When one can ignite the water and flames shoot out of the spigot, something is wrong.

When the air quality in Wyoming is more toxic than it is in LA, something is wrong.

Watch the movie and then do your own research.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Cookie wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Why don't you do some research, watch the movie, and get back to us about that?

Right... asking others their opinions and views is just wrong.

but creating them out of nothing is your strong suit.

*sigh*

This is why I only talk to liberals online.

If I was creating them, why would I ask?

Yes, I'm suspicious of a documentary. Figure it's produced for profit, so there's motivation to manufacture outrage. Could also be they have a real point. I'm not a geologist, so evaluating that is difficult for me. Kinda hard to tell when I'm being lied to by either side.

So I asked.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Antonio wrote >>
When one can ignite the water and flames shoot out of the spigot, something is wrong.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6635

As an example of the types of things shown, it says:

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

But thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Ã¢â‚¬Å“Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.Ã¢â‚¬Â (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)

link to COGCC:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/ComplaintReport.asp?doc_num=200190138

Posted 1 year ago #
Antonio

Login to Send PM

Get the Video Player

Get the Video Player

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Cookie wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Andrew Hall wrote >>

rus wrote But gasland was created without agenda?

Having an agenda /= having a point to make.
A.

So, which is it with gasland?

Why don't you do some research, watch the movie, and get back to us about that?

Right... asking others their opinions and views is just wrong.

but creating them out of nothing is your strong suit.

*sigh*
This is why I only talk to liberals online.
If I was creating them, why would I ask?
Yes, I'm suspicious of a documentary. Figure it's produced for profit, so there's motivation to manufacture outrage. Could also be they have a real point. I'm not a geologist, so evaluating that is difficult for me. Kinda hard to tell when I'm being lied to by either side.
So I asked.

should have typed:
Which you ascribe to others based on nothing.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

should have typed:
Which you ascribe to others based on nothing.

If you mean the general abrasiveness I note in liberals towards non-liberals, read your own posts.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM

rus wrote If you mean the general abrasiveness I note in liberals towards non-liberals, read your own posts.

Here is a thought problem : If one is abrasive to errors of fact and logic, where does the problem really exist if that means ending up differentially more often abrasive to non-liberals?

You ascribe the labels like liberal/non-liberal out of your own bias and convenience rather than substance. It doesn't contribute the veracity of your statements.

A.

Posted 1 year ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
should have typed:
Which you ascribe to others based on nothing.

If you mean the general abrasiveness I note in liberals towards non-liberals, read your own posts.

no, I mean you take a straightforward statement (that website is likely biased) and craft intent (gasland is not) and ascribe context (writer of statement needs a snack) out of nothing other than your own imagination.

Posted 1 year ago #
GW_Justice
Grandview Hts.
Login to Send PM

Out of the 53 posts in this thread, 14 of them were done by rus.

I don't want to go into the "Kasich Governorship" thread, it's approaching 1200, but I'm guessing a similar percentage of those posts were done by rus.

Everyone should have a chance to give their opinion, but if you are using high volume instead of careful reasoning and authoritative links, the quality of the conversation is degraded.

(edit - 17 posts by rus)

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

berdawn wrote >>

rus wrote >>

berdawn wrote >>
should have typed:
Which you ascribe to others based on nothing.

If you mean the general abrasiveness I note in liberals towards non-liberals, read your own posts.

no, I mean you take a straightforward statement (that website is likely biased) and craft intent (gasland is not) and ascribe context (writer of statement needs a snack) out of nothing other than your own imagination.

What you read as crafting intent I meant as a serious question. I don't presume they're biased, but I also can't say they're not.

I am tempted to dismiss them entirely though. Just like some dismiss all conservatives because some conservatives are premillennial dispensationalists, I tend to dismiss all leftists because some of them are batshit crazy.

Knowing my own bias, I tend to seek other opinions especially in matters where I know I don't have the background to fully explore the issue(s) on my own.

As to you needing a snack, I was responding to your usual sunny disposition.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

GW_Justice wrote >>
Out of the 53 posts in this thread, 14 of them were done by rus.
I don't want to go into the "Kasich Governorship" thread, it's approaching 1200, but I'm guessing a similar percentage of those posts were done by rus.
Everyone should have a chance to give their opinion, but if you are using high volume instead of careful reasoning and authoritative links, the quality of the conversation is degraded.

Thing is, I'm not advocating anything.

I'm asking how much faith to put in this documentary. As to "watch it and decide for yourself", I'm not sure I've got the skills to evaluate that. So I asked.

Of course, to you that means I'm trying to drown out some point of view. Awesome.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Of course, to you that means I'm trying to drown out some point of view. Awesome.

that's not what he said.

Also why bring the same tired left/right politics into this? You have a habit of doing that and most of the time it makes me say "wait... wut?"

But whatever, people, can we get back to discussing the damned drilling please? geez.

Rus has a a point (around trying to tangentially argue about what appears to be some other subject entirely), if you're interested, watch the damned movie for yourself. You don't have to consider it authoritative to evaluate it's merits.

Arguing about whether or not it's an advocacy piece is pointless, as it pretty much obviously is. But, disregarding the ideas those who advocate something you might not agree with just because of that advocacy is a logical fallacy. Disregard ideas on their merits not who says them.

In this case, the previous poster who mentioned the depth of the formations in question is absolutely correct about the situation in Ohio (I went back and looked it up to refresh my memory). There is very very little possibility of fracturing those units somehow mingling methane or frac fluids with potable groundwater. Nobody drills water wells that deep (our deeper groundwater is largely brine anyway). Other states are not so lucky. :(

As that poster said: The drilling fluids and brine disposal are more important issues in Ohio and it's been a problem from the beginning. Preventing drilling fluid and brine contamination of the usable aquifers should be a priority and fairly easily doable thing in this state, but it needs to be monitored carefully and NOT by a state agency being hobbled by the governor's office, and IMHO, not one that is dependent on oil/gas leases for part of it's revenue, as ODNR is.

Posted 1 year ago #
Manatee
The eternal present
Login to Send PM

As usual, what RMM said.

Posted 1 year ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Manatee wrote >>
As usual, what RMM said.

Yeah, really. What I get from his post is natural gas drilling can be done safely in Ohio but there's some concerns that the State officials would do a good job of monitoring that.

Thanks, RMM.

Posted 1 year ago #