PDA

View Full Version : Frack what people think. Oil, oil, oil. It's fracking good for you.



Awryly
12-31-2012, 08:12 PM
Fracking, the technology that opened up America's vast deposits of unconventional oil and gas, has moved beyond remote (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/31/fracking-in-towns-texas-oil#) locations and landed at the front door, with oil operations now planned or under way in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas.

This is just what New Zealanders are trying to avoid. Every time it comes up, we oppose it. Unlike you.


There are a number of human and environmental costs to consider, the most critical being our drinking water supply, as New York City has the largest unfiltered surface water supply in the world3 (http://nofracking.com/#fn3). Another is our air, which, despite natural gas being touted as having 50% less carbon emissions than coal or oil, is polluted with significant amounts of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds by the shale gas extraction process itself. So, one concern is the above-ground transport and handling of fracking chemicals, another is the potential migration of hazardous fracking mud left underground that couldn't be economically pumped out (typically about half), and yet another is pollution generated from the operation and maintenance of wellheads and related above-ground equipment over the life of the wells. Industry advocates like to minimize these risks, complaining that environmentalists exaggerate the dangers. Perhaps they really believe that, whether through ignorance or self-delusion, but there's also the possibility that they actually stand to gain even more if our water supply is contaminated.

Learn to drink the stuff. It's fracking good for you.

http://nofracking.com/

roadmaster
12-31-2012, 08:23 PM
I don't know enough about it to be honest. Am for drilling off the coast.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 08:28 PM
I don't know enough about it to be honest. Am for drilling off the coast.


In the national interest, every American should one of these things in their backyard.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYDoezgW7wNou3hDECR3QnBX5r72IKo jgiiv4Nd02wm6DL9iOx

It will screw your property values, but, hey, think of the national savings.:flag::flag:

Chris
12-31-2012, 09:09 PM
You troll, you lie and now you plagiarize, awryly. Three strikes...

http://i.snag.gy/4KSkm.jpg

Awryly
12-31-2012, 09:17 PM
You troll, you lie and now you plagiarize, awryly. Three strikes...

http://i.snag.gy/4KSkm.jpg

I was tempted you say you have little imagination.

I am constrained to say you have none.

BTW, "out of" what. Yeeeeeeeeeeer.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 09:20 PM
So those are the ideas, in all their paucity, of the Americans here.

What say the Brits?

Can I expect any sense from them?

Chris
12-31-2012, 09:24 PM
So those are the ideas, in all their paucity, of the Americans here.

What say the Brits?

Can I expect any sense from them?

Stop trolling and lying and plagiarizing, awryly. Americans have many ideas on the subject, I just did a search and found over 30 threads on the topic here on the forum. So "So those are the ideas, in all their paucity, of the Americans here" is just another lying troll.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 09:28 PM
Stop trolling and lying and plagiarizing, awryly. Americans have many ideas on the subject, I just did a search and found over 30 threads on the topic here on the forum. So "So those are the ideas, in all their paucity, of the Americans here" is just another lying troll.

How did it lie, troll or plagiarise?

Please be specific.

Chris
12-31-2012, 09:30 PM
How did it lie, troll or plagiarise?

Please be specific.

The OP has two quotes. Those are other people's words. You give them no credit. You stole from them.

The lying has been explained and demonstrated in several threads now.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 09:34 PM
The OP has two quotes. Those are other people's words. You give them no credit. You stole from them.

The lying has been explained and demonstrated in several threads now.

What people?

And do you not think that someone as educated as a New Zealander cannot invent ideas of their own?

Chris
12-31-2012, 09:52 PM
What people?

And do you not think that someone as educated as a New Zealander cannot invent ideas of their own?

Not exact matches, awryly:

First OP quote:


Fracking, the technology that opened up America's vast deposits of unconventional oil and gas, has moved beyond remote locations and landed at the front door, with oil operations now planned or under way in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas.

Exact match: When fracking came to suburban Texas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/31/fracking-in-towns-texas-oil)
Fracking, the technology that opened up America’s vast deposits of unconventional oil and gas, has moved beyond remote locations and landed at the front door, with oil operations now planned or under way in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas.

Second OP quote:


There are a number of human and environmental costs to consider, the most critical being our drinking water supply, as New York City has the largest unfiltered surface water supply in the world3. Another is our air, which, despite natural gas being touted as having 50% less carbon emissions than coal or oil, is polluted with significant amounts of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds by the shale gas extraction process itself. So, one concern is the above-ground transport and handling of fracking chemicals, another is the potential migration of hazardous fracking mud left underground that couldn't be economically pumped out (typically about half), and yet another is pollution generated from the operation and maintenance of wellheads and related above-ground equipment over the life of the wells. Industry advocates like to minimize these risks, complaining that environmentalists exaggerate the dangers. Perhaps they really believe that, whether through ignorance or self-delusion, but there's also the possibility that they actually stand to gain even more if our water supply is contaminated.

Exact match: STOP FRACKING AND SAVE OUR WATER, AIR, AND LAND! (http://nofracking.com/):
There are a number of human and environmental costs to consider, the most critical being our drinking water supply, as New York City has the largest unfiltered surface water supply in the world3. Another is our air, which, despite natural gas being touted as having 50% less carbon emissions than coal or oil, is polluted with significant amounts of hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds by the shale gas extraction process itself. So, one concern is the above-ground transport and handling of fracking chemicals, another is the potential migration of hazardous fracking mud left underground that couldn't be economically pumped out (typically about half), and yet another is pollution generated from the operation and maintenance of wellheads and related above-ground equipment over the life of the wells. Industry advocates like to minimize these risks, complaining that environmentalists exaggerate the dangers. Perhaps they really believe that, whether through ignorance or self-delusion, but there's also the possibility that they actually stand to gain even more if our water supply is contaminated.

That's plagiarism. It's theft.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 10:26 PM
Not exact matches, awryly:

First OP quote:



Exact match: When fracking came to suburban Texas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/31/fracking-in-towns-texas-oil)

Second OP quote:



Exact match: STOP FRACKING AND SAVE OUR WATER, AIR, AND LAND! (http://nofracking.com/):

That's plagiarism. It's theft.

It's quoting information in the public domain, moonbeam.

Chris
12-31-2012, 10:29 PM
It's quoting information in the public domain, moonbeam.

It's not public domain. Why lie about that now? Remember, earlier you pretended they were your words.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 10:32 PM
It's not public domain. Why lie about that now? Remember, earlier you pretended they were your words.

So now stuff on Google in not in the public domain?

I'd cut back on whatever it is you're taking.

Chris
12-31-2012, 10:34 PM
So now stuff on Google in not in the public domain?

I'd cut back on whatever it is you're taking.

It didn't come from google, google is a search engine. I provided sources, neither is public domain.


I'd cut back on whatever it is you're taking.

And there you go right back to lying again. How pathetic.

Chris
12-31-2012, 10:38 PM
And to add to your growing list of lies there's your pretending earlier they were your words which you now admit they weren't.

Awryly
12-31-2012, 10:41 PM
It didn't come from google, google is a search engine. I provided sources, neither is public domain.



And there you go right back to lying again. How pathetic.

I am sure Google only references stuff in the public domain.

And, if you are not taking anything, I suggest you start soon.

ptif219
12-31-2012, 11:10 PM
I am sure Google only references stuff in the public domain.

And, if you are not taking anything, I suggest you start soon.

Do you know about copy write laws?

Awryly
12-31-2012, 11:31 PM
Do you know about copy write laws?

Oh yes. We have a German refugee here who has attracted vast interest from Hollywood and its FBI.

What are you talking about?

ptif219
01-01-2013, 12:56 AM
Oh yes. We have a German refugee here who has attracted vast interest from Hollywood and its FBI.

What are you talking about?

The forum can get in trouble for copy write laws

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm

Carygrant
01-01-2013, 01:28 AM
You troll, you lie and now you plagiarize, awryly. Three strikes...

http://i.snag.gy/4KSkm.jpg


You couldn't sense light hearted humour if it was stuffed where the sun don't shine .
Utter paranoia as well .

Awryly
01-01-2013, 03:27 AM
The forum can get in trouble for copy write laws

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm

Copyright laws are OK then?

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 05:59 AM
You troll, you lie and now you plagiarize, awryly. Three strikes...

http://i.snag.gy/4KSkm.jpg

It is his thread. The only problem is no link.

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 06:01 AM
Everyone knows my choice. The US should lead the world in ending the need for oil.

http://www.energyvictory.net/

It would make the US a manufacturing leader- again. It would also cause more pain for our dear friends in the Middle East than anything short of a massive nuclear strike.

shaarona
01-01-2013, 08:32 AM
Everyone knows my choice. The US should lead the world in ending the need for oil.

http://www.energyvictory.net/

It would make the US a manufacturing leader- again. It would also cause more pain for our dear friends in the Middle East than anything short of a massive nuclear strike.

Chavez MAY want oil to go to $200 a barrel ( I doubt that's a true quote)... certainly OPEC does not.

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 08:51 AM
Chavez MAY want oil to go to $200 a barrel ( I doubt that's a true quote)... certainly OPEC does not.

Screw OPEC. Shit to an alcohol economy and destroy OPEC.

That should be shift...., oops

shaarona
01-01-2013, 08:57 AM
Screw OPEC. Shit to an alcohol economy and destroy OPEC.

I know that people like Trump want to "break OPEC"... but it would have terrible repercussions, Pete. OPEC's mission is to keep price and supply steady. Imagine the economic chaos if price and supply were all over the place.

As it is with the ppb hovering around $108 a barrel.. Cheaper than North Sea Crude.. If the ppb falls much below $80 it would put Canada and domestice production out of business.

GrumpyDog
01-01-2013, 09:06 AM
Is it interesting that USA puts tarriffs on cheap solar panels made in China.? Like that is the last thing we want,is affordable solar energy.

And is it interesting that Obama initiative for solar panel production in USA turned out to be a total scam. Solyndra? Wtf?

And is it interesting that under Obama admin. gas price maintained well above 3$/gallon, something Bush/Cheney friends of Oil could only have dreamed about.

And now Fracking.

I getting a little worried now. Maybe that Mayan double figure meant 2012 was an illusion of choice.

countryboy
01-01-2013, 09:39 AM
In the national interest, every American should one of these things in their backyard.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYDoezgW7wNou3hDECR3QnBX5r72IKo jgiiv4Nd02wm6DL9iOx

It will screw your property values, but, hey, think of the national savings.:flag::flag:

Actually, it makes your property value soar.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 10:09 AM
I know that people like Trump want to "break OPEC"... but it would have terrible repercussions, Pete. OPEC's mission is to keep price and supply steady. Imagine the economic chaos if price and supply were all over the place.

As it is with the ppb hovering around $108 a barrel.. Cheaper than North Sea Crude.. If the ppb falls much below $80 it would put Canada and domestice production out of business.


If alcohol was available as a transportation fuel, the price of oil would be meaningless. And it would go extinct since alcohol is cheaper (after considering the mpg).

Chris
01-01-2013, 10:14 AM
You couldn't sense light hearted humour if it was stuffed where the sun don't shine .
Utter paranoia as well .

I can see how you, cary, consider trolling, lying and plagiarizing lighthearted humor.

Chris
01-01-2013, 10:16 AM
It is his thread. The only problem is no link.

Ah, so thread starters are allowed to plagiarize? Not crediting sources, i.e., providing a link, is a problem.

Chris
01-01-2013, 10:20 AM
Copyright laws are OK then?

My concern is not so much copyright laws as the intellectual dishonesty you display in plagiarizing other people's work, then insisting it was yours, then admitting it's not but that it's public domain. Doesn't matter, you don't claim other people's work as your own, even if public domain. Thing is you lied even about public domain, it's not.

When fracking came to suburban Texas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/31/fracking-in-towns-texas-oil): "© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved."

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 10:42 AM
Ah, so thread starters are allowed to plagiarize? Not crediting sources, i.e., providing a link, is a problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs

Chris
01-01-2013, 10:49 AM
If you want to take the side of a plagiarizer, peter, be my guest.

Peter1469
01-01-2013, 11:01 AM
Grow up Chris.

zelmo1234
01-01-2013, 11:21 AM
This is just what New Zealanders are trying to avoid. Every time it comes up, we oppose it. Unlike you.



Learn to drink the stuff. It's fracking good for you.

Your coungtry once again made a decission to persue hydro electric production, which was smart. We once had small dams all over the country that powered small cities,

With your country it is easy to use this same system especially when you do not have the power needs in your entire country taht a city like NY would have.

Like it or not you are still small potatos, and that is not a bad position to be in!

Chris
01-01-2013, 11:27 AM
Grow up Chris.

Nice made up insult, peter. One, it's ironic that you criticize the one pointing out plagiarism instead of the one committing it. Two, it's further ironic that you defend awryly who plagiarizes when most people learn not to in elementary if not high school. Three, if awryly had simply said he forgot to add links it would have been an end to it, but he chose instead to lie about it being his words, then lie about public domain--it's these lies that kept bringing up plagiarism, yet you insult me.


Let's get back to plagiarism. I was going to go to awryly's thread asking what can others teach NZ and add copyright and moral aspects of not stealing other's words, alas, NZ already has copyright laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_New_Zealand. Interestingly, as a part of their law they include:


Moral rights

The copyright act also provides moral rights for the author. These attach to the author, and are not transferred by contract as economic rights can be. Moral rights give the author the right;

to be identified as the author (right of attribution)
to object to derogatory treatment of the work (right of integrity)
to not have work falsely attributed to them.

Seems awryly needs to learn NZ copyright law. He has violated the authors' right to attribution.

GrumpyDog
01-01-2013, 12:40 PM
Plagiarizing, lying, wild imagination, comical, New Zealanders. What we gonna do?

A hobbit will be a hobbit, so nothing can be done about it. They got their own history, and legal transfer of property, which requires, among other things, 7 witness signatures in red ink*.

They think just because one hobbit got lucky, after a dragon destroyed, and a few other hobbits, got a dark lord vanquished, that somehow they know what the correct history of the world is, outside of the Shire.

*see JRR Tolkien, Fellowship of the Ring, Bag End being sold to the Sackville-Bagginses

ptif219
01-01-2013, 05:20 PM
Copyright laws are OK then?

What does that mean?

Awryly
01-01-2013, 06:50 PM
My concern is not so much copyright laws as the intellectual dishonesty you display in plagiarizing other people's work, then insisting it was yours, then admitting it's not but that it's public domain. Doesn't matter, you don't claim other people's work as your own, even if public domain. Thing is you lied even about public domain, it's not.

When fracking came to suburban Texas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/31/fracking-in-towns-texas-oil): "© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved."


You were always a bore, Chris. Now you have become just a trolling nuisance and a waste of my space.

Join Grasshopper on ignore.

Awryly
01-01-2013, 06:52 PM
What does that mean?


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ptif219 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=209316#post209316)
The forum can get in trouble for copy write laws


What does this mean?

Chris
01-01-2013, 06:56 PM
You were always a bore, Chris. Now you have become just a trolling nuisance and a waste of my space.

Join Grasshopper on ignore.

I'm a bore for pointing out your plagiarism, your claiming it was your words, you claiming it was public domain--I'm a bore for pointing out your lies? I'm sure that bores you.

You're a boor.

Chris
01-01-2013, 06:57 PM
What does this mean?

It means the forum owner can be sued for copyright violation.

(No worries, it's been fixed.)

ptif219
01-01-2013, 08:31 PM
What does this mean?

If you are posting something and not giving credit to the source copy write laws are being broken

Awryly
01-01-2013, 08:43 PM
If you are posting something and not giving credit to the source copy write laws are being broken

I posted stuff from the internet. That is a public domain.

What on earth are you talking about?

Chris
01-01-2013, 09:28 PM
I posted stuff from the internet. That is a public domain.

What on earth are you talking about?

Stuff on the Internet is public domain? Think so, awryly? Go back to your OP. Why has admin corrected it?

Attribution is something most learn in elementary if not highschool. It's part of NZ copyright law.

The question is, what on earth are you talking about? What planet do you come from?

ptif219
01-01-2013, 09:45 PM
I posted stuff from the internet. That is a public domain.

What on earth are you talking about?

You still do not understand it is not yours it falls under copywrite laws and you must show the source it came from

Chris
01-01-2013, 09:49 PM
You still do not understand it is not yours it falls under copywrite laws and you must show the source it came from

That's the legal issue. It's been addressed by admin adding a link to avoid copyright violation.

Then there's the moral issue of stealing another's words and claiming them as your own. As I posted above, NZ copyright includes this:


Moral rights

The copyright act also provides moral rights for the author. These attach to the author, and are not transferred by contract as economic rights can be. Moral rights give the author the right;
to be identified as the author (right of attribution)
to object to derogatory treatment of the work (right of integrity)
to not have work falsely attributed to them.

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_New_Zealand

Chris
01-01-2013, 09:53 PM
Just keep bringing this up, awryly, and, even with you blocking what you don't want to see, I will keep setting the record right, I'm a patient man.

Awryly
01-01-2013, 10:04 PM
You still do not understand it is not yours it falls under copywrite laws and you must show the source it came from

Wow! What makes you think that?

It's on the internet. If sources do not want stuff to be freely on the internet, they block access unless you pay for it.

ptif219
01-02-2013, 12:03 AM
Wow! What makes you think that?

It's on the internet. If sources do not want stuff to be freely on the internet, they block access unless you pay for it.

You show you know nothing about law. i am a truck driver but having been doing forums for several years now I learned what can and can not be done. You need to be teachable so you do not get the forum in trouble. Rueters is one of the worse about it

Awryly
01-02-2013, 03:20 AM
You show you know nothing about law. i am a truck driver but having been doing forums for several years now I learned what can and can not be done. You need to be teachable so you do not get the forum in trouble. Rueters is one of the worse about it

Stick to driving trucks.

Peter1469
01-02-2013, 06:32 AM
Nice made up insult, peter. One, it's ironic that you criticize the one pointing out plagiarism instead of the one committing it. Two, it's further ironic that you defend awryly who plagiarizes when most people learn not to in elementary if not high school. Three, if awryly had simply said he forgot to add links it would have been an end to it, but he chose instead to lie about it being his words, then lie about public domain--it's these lies that kept bringing up plagiarism, yet you insult me.


Let's get back to plagiarism. I was going to go to awryly's thread asking what can others teach NZ and add copyright and moral aspects of not stealing other's words, alas, NZ already has copyright laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_New_Zealand. Interestingly, as a part of their law they include:



Seems awryly needs to learn NZ copyright law. He has violated the authors' right to attribution.

Have you been diagnosed with Aspergers? Serious question, not ad hom.

Chris
01-02-2013, 09:30 AM
Have you been diagnosed with Aspergers? Serious question, not ad hom.

Another great insult, peter, ad hom seems to be all you've got. But how could you in any other way argue against the legal and moral aspects of plagiarism violated here so blatantly by awryly.

Mainecoons
01-02-2013, 09:34 AM
Why is this being debated here? Failure to attribute is supposed to draw sanctions from the mods here. Quit yapping about it and do it.

Chris
01-02-2013, 10:10 AM
Why is this being debated here? Failure to attribute is supposed to draw sanctions from the mods here. Quit yapping about it and do it.

Admin handles copyright issues. He has fixed the OP by adding a link. The issue has been settled. Still, some want to yap about it, like awryly claiming that everything you can google on the Internet is public domain, lol.

countryboy
01-02-2013, 10:21 AM
How do we get sucked into arguing with this hateful little troll from Middle Earth? he is simply he is simply yanking our collective chains, right?

countryboy
01-02-2013, 10:24 AM
You do realize he is simply yanking our collective chains, right?

Chris
01-02-2013, 10:36 AM
You do realize he is simply yanking our collective chains, right?

Yes. Been doing my best to point that out.

countryboy
01-02-2013, 10:42 AM
Yes. Been doing my best to point that out.

Then why even argue with him/her/it?

I realize I fall into the trap too. But it really is an exercise in futility.

Chris
01-02-2013, 10:47 AM
Then why even argue with him/her/it?

I realize I fall into the trap too. But it really is an exercise in futility.

Good point. I don't have a good answer to that. Sometimes it's to show others how he trolls, lies, plagiarizes, etc. Sometimes he's just a useful idiot. But I do understand Shaw's dictum "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

countryboy
01-02-2013, 10:52 AM
Good point. I don't have a good answer to that. Sometimes it's to show others how he trolls, lies, plagiarizes, etc. Sometimes he's just a useful idiot. But I dounderstand Shaw's dictum "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."

I guess I'm asking myself the question too. And, like you I don't have a good answer.

Oh well, carry on. :)

ptif219
01-02-2013, 12:28 PM
Stick to driving trucks.

Why, I know more about the law than you.

ptif219
01-02-2013, 12:29 PM
Admin handles copyright issues. He has fixed the OP by adding a link. The issue has been settled. Still, some want to yap about it, like awryly claiming that everything you can google on the Internet is public domain, lol.

If awryly keeps doing it he should be punished

Chris
01-02-2013, 12:53 PM
If awryly keeps doing it he should be punished

Not my call. My aim is merely to expose.

And laugh, for the notion that anything you can google on the Internet is funny. Not as funny as...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I

Awryly
01-02-2013, 05:56 PM
If awryly keeps doing it he should be punished


Must say that is a fresh approach.

Awryly
01-02-2013, 05:57 PM
How do we get sucked into arguing with this hateful little troll from Middle Earth? he is simply he is simply yanking our collective chains, right?

I like to hear you rattle.

GrumpyDog
01-03-2013, 01:18 PM
I like to hear you rattle.


CB must like traps. As does your favorite former you know who.

Awryly
01-03-2013, 06:50 PM
CB must like traps. As does your favorite former you know who.

Every time a coconut. And I don't even have to try.

I get my doorman to write this stuff.

ptif219
01-04-2013, 04:21 PM
New York state has been hiding a report that Fracking is safe

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/leaked-ny-state-analysis-says-fracking-is-safe/


The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/hydrofracking-safe-says-ny-health-dept-analysis.html?_r=2&) Thursday that a leaked study from the state’s Health Department says the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can be safely done in the Empire State.
The eight-page analysis — leaked to the Times by an “experthttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/leaked-ny-state-analysis-says-fracking-is-safe/#) who did not believe it should be kept secret” — concluded that fracking could be done safely within the state of New York and details the potential impacts on a variety of environmental factors, including fracking’s impact on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, and on air quality. The analysis also looked at “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”
According to the Times, the analysis says that fracking can be done safely if the regulatory system that has been developed over several years is followed, and the analysis also rejects broad quantitative risk assessments that would attempt to project the probability of different kinds of hazards..

Awryly
01-04-2013, 05:56 PM
New York state has been hiding a report that Fracking is safe

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/leaked-ny-state-analysis-says-fracking-is-safe/

And, lo!. From the same article:


However, a spokesperson for the State Department of Environmental Conservation said the analysis, done early last year, was out of date, and has gone through substantial changes.
“The document you have is merely a summary, is nearly a year old, and there will be substantial changes to that version,” she told the Times, adding that the revised analysis on fracking runs about 1,500 pages, delves more into health issues, and turns to outside experts for review.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/leaked-ny-state-analysis-says-fracking-is-safe/#ixzz2H3QSwoyO

Chris
01-04-2013, 06:06 PM
And, lo!. From the same article:

Doesn't counter it, just says it's out of date.

ptif219
01-04-2013, 07:35 PM
And, lo!. From the same article:

That is because the state is not releasing the information because they don't like big oil

countryboy
01-04-2013, 08:06 PM
However, a spokesperson for the State Department of Environmental Conservation said the analysis, done early last year, was out of date, and has gone through substantial changes.
“The document you have is merely a summary, is nearly a year old, and there will be substantial changes to that version,” she told the Times, adding that the revised analysis on fracking runs about 1,500 pages, delves more into health issues, and turns to outside experts for review.



Code for, ".....outside experts that support our position". http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

Awryly
01-04-2013, 08:15 PM
Code for, ".....outside experts that support our position". http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-rolleyes010.gif

Maybe be "outside experts" experienced in arriving at the truth.

Chris
01-04-2013, 08:19 PM
Maybe's aren't much to stake an argument on. Just more arguing from ignorance.

countryboy
01-04-2013, 09:05 PM
Maybe be "outside experts" experienced in arriving at the truth.
That's what I said, YOUR truth. :wink:

Awryly
01-04-2013, 09:10 PM
That's what I said, YOUR truth. :wink:

No, whatever the truth is.

I don't have a truth.

I just have an awareness of risk.

Chris
01-04-2013, 10:27 PM
No, whatever the truth is.

I don't have a truth.

I just have an awareness of risk.

Based on what? Remember, you have no facts to go on, just maybe's, you're arguing from unknowns. You can't reach through logical fallacies to truth.

Awryly
01-04-2013, 10:44 PM
Based on what? Remember, you have no facts to go on, just maybe's, you're arguing from unknowns. You can't reach through logical fallacies to truth.

Jeez, you're thick. "Maybes" are risks.

Chris
01-05-2013, 09:24 AM
Jeez, you're thick. "Maybes" are risks.

Except this maybe is not a risk, this maybe is maybe the data and conclusion presented could be countered.

Let's review:

ptif posted data from which it is "concluded that fracking could be done safely".

You countered with the study was "done early last year, was out of date".

Maybe.

But you have produced no evidence to the contrary. Instead you argue from ignorance.

Nice ad hom, btw, but ad hom is just another logical fallacy, from which you cannot arrive at the truth you claim to be so interested in.

Sunbelt
01-05-2013, 10:13 AM
This is just what New Zealanders are trying to avoid. Every time it comes up, we oppose it. Unlike you.



Learn to drink the stuff. It's fracking good for you.

http://nofracking.com/ Does this mean they've green lighted the Alaskan pipeline, too? I sure hope so, as that'd be far less intrusive than fracking in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas.

ptif219
01-05-2013, 10:31 AM
Maybe be "outside experts" experienced in arriving at the truth.

More likely environmental whackoes

ptif219
01-05-2013, 10:32 AM
Jeez, you're thick. "Maybes" are risks.

According to NY report the risks are low

Awryly
01-05-2013, 10:26 PM
Does this mean they've green lighted the Alaskan pipeline, too? I sure hope so, as that'd be far less intrusive than fracking in suburbs, mid-sized towns and large metropolitan areas.

Unless it goes through your backyard.

Or close to your kids' school.

Awryly
01-05-2013, 10:27 PM
According to NY report the risks are low

Let's wait for the experts you dismiss to tell us, huh?

Chris
01-06-2013, 08:41 AM
Let's wait for the experts you dismiss to tell us, huh?

He hasn't rejected any experts. You haven't presented any. All you did was present "maybes". Maybe someday there will be experts and maybe they will provide a finding counter to the the experts ptif presented who found that the risks are low.

Maybe.

http://i.snag.gy/m239r.jpg

Maybe not.

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 10:13 AM
I prefer to make the US a manufacturing world leader again by changing to an alcohol economy. Not only will it make us rich, it will do more damage to OPEC nations than anything short of a full nuclear war. They deserve it.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm

countryboy
01-06-2013, 10:50 AM
I prefer to make the US a manufacturing world leader again by changing to an alcohol economy. Not only will it make us rich, it will do more damage to OPEC nations than anything short of a full nuclear war. They deserve it.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm
I didn't watch the vids you posted, could you give me a quick synopsis? I don't disagree that an alcohol economy could do wonders for this country, but not with corn as the chief biomass conversion crop.

I don't mean to sound like hippy dippy bullshit but, hemp really is a great biomass for alcohol conversion, and oil as well. Not necessarily fuel oil, but oil just the same. Not only that but hemp has zero value as a drug. There simply isn't enough THC in it to worry about that. There is absolutely no reason hemp shouldn't be immediately legalized as a cash crop.

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 10:58 AM
I didn't watch the vids you posted, could you give me a quick synopsis? I don't disagree that an alcohol economy could do wonders for this country, but not with corn as the chief biomass conversion crop.

I don't mean to sound like hippy dippy bullshit but, hemp really is a great biomass for alcohol conversion, and oil as well. Not necessarily fuel oil, but oil just the same. Not only that but hemp has zero value as a drug. There simply isn't enough THC in it to worry about that. There is absolutely no reason hemp shouldn't be immediately legalized as a cash crop.

Agreed. Corn is one of the lower performers for alcohol fuel. We need to deep 6 the corn lobby. Hemp would be good. Cat tails would be good. Lots of things would be good that would not compete with food crops as they could be grown in more arid land without much work.

The book discusses the science behind alcohol fuels and lists the effectiveness of many fuel stocks. It also shows that the technology for cars to run on it has existed since 1998 (meaning flex fuel- the original Model T ran off alcohol). It touches on global warming- the author believes humans only cause about a 1 degree increase per 100 years (C). Not a crisis. His plan to shift to alcohol is solely for national security matters. To crush OPEC and the Islamists. Allow them to live in the 7th century that they worship.

countryboy
01-06-2013, 11:21 AM
Agreed. Corn is one of the lower performers for alcohol fuel. We need to deep 6 the corn lobby. Hemp would be good. Cat tails would be good. Lots of things would be good that would not compete with food crops as they could be grown in more arid land without much work.

The book discusses the science behind alcohol fuels and lists the effectiveness of many fuel stocks. It also shows that the technology for cars to run on it has existed since 1998 (meaning flex fuel- the original Model T ran off alcohol). It touches on global warming- the author believes humans only cause about a 1 degree increase per 100 years (C). Not a crisis. His plan to shift to alcohol is solely for national security matters. To crush OPEC and the Islamists. Allow them to live in the 7th century that they worship.

Yes, I forgot to mention cat tails, I was high on hemp. :D

Brazil (or, Brasil if you prefer), has been running cars off of alcohol for decades. Of course, they have the advantage of using sugar cane as a biomass conversion crop.

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 02:04 PM
Yes, I forgot to mention cat tails, I was high on hemp. :D

Brazil (or, Brasil if you prefer), has been running cars off of alcohol for decades. Of course, they have the advantage of using sugar cane as a biomass conversion crop.

Brazil did it backwards. The ordered using alcohol before ensuring that there were cars and stations to provide the fuel. We could do it better.

Awryly
01-06-2013, 09:14 PM
I prefer to make the US a manufacturing world leader again by changing to an alcohol economy. Not only will it make us rich, it will do more damage to OPEC nations than anything short of a full nuclear war. They deserve it.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_tour.htm

I'll drink to that.

Awryly
01-06-2013, 09:18 PM
Have you been diagnosed with Aspergers? Serious question, not ad hom.

Good question.

ptif219
01-07-2013, 08:56 AM
Let's wait for the experts you dismiss to tell us, huh?

You mean to continue to hide the truth like they kept this report hidden for a year

Taxcutter
01-07-2013, 02:06 PM
Awryly is just jealous because New Zealand doesn't have a drop of oil.

Awryly
01-07-2013, 06:46 PM
Awryly is just jealous because New Zealand doesn't have a drop of oil.


As usual, we hear the ignorant echo of the unenlightened American.

NZ's 4th largest export is oil. And we have reserves that would make Norway blush.

Chris
01-07-2013, 07:25 PM
New York state has been hiding a report that Fracking is safe

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/leaked-ny-state-analysis-says-fracking-is-safe/


The New York Times reported Thursday that a leaked study from the state’s Health Department says the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can be safely done in the Empire State.
The eight-page analysis — leaked to the Times by an “expert who did not believe it should be kept secret” — concluded that fracking could be done safely within the state of New York and details the potential impacts on a variety of environmental factors, including fracking’s impact on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, and on air quality. The analysis also looked at “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”
According to the Times, the analysis says that fracking can be done safely if the regulatory system that has been developed over several years is followed, and the analysis also rejects broad quantitative risk assessments that would attempt to project the probability of different kinds of hazards..


Fracking Amazing: US Carbon Emissions in 2012 Will be Lower than in 2007 Due to Fracking (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/07/fracking-amazing-us-carbon-emissions-low) references that study:


Instapundit points to this bit of happy news culled from John Hanger, a Democrat who is running for governonr of Pennsylvania, where has been secretary of the state department of the environment and a commissioner of the public utility commission:


US energy related carbon emissions in 2012 will fall below 5,300 million tons or down about 12%, compared to the peak emissions of 6,023 million tons in 2007. Through this September, carbon emissions have been down every month in 2012, when compared to each of the first 9 months of 2011 and 2010. No other country matches that record. www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf/sec12_3.pdf/.

US GDP has grown every quarter since July 1, 2009, and today our economy is bigger than it was in 2007, the peak carbon emission year. Yet, even with an economy in 2012 that is bigger than in 2007, our carbon emissions will be 12% lower than they were in 2007....

Only the USA has had a shale gas boom and only the USA has cut substantially its carbon emissions since 2006....the shale gas boom substantially decreased US carbon emissions. Moreover, US electricity prices in 2012 have barely increased and natural gas prices have plummeted.

Hanger further notes that the U.S. is at around 1995 levels for energy-related carbon emissions. And note that lower emissions aren't simply an artifact of the rotten economy (which however bad it is is larger than in 2007).

The shale gas boom is a product of fracking, a technology which has not only been around for decades but has apparently been found to be safe in a controversial and not-officially-released analysis prepared for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo has been sitting on the report while deciding whether to allow expansive fracking in the Empire State.

From link:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NW_xJqPjE_I#!