EPA: Gas Fracking Chemicals Detected in Wyoming Aquifer.

Water tests don't cost millions and billions.

 

An investigation to prove something based solely on an agenda sure can cost millions/billions... Look at global warming...

 

I guess all of those chemicals pumped into the earth just... I dunno, disappears!

Seriously, you guys just keep piling on the crazy train each and every day.

 

Water tests are easy and cheap....

 

You know if we could get all these delusional yahoos into a room and have them writting science fiction novels, eventually we might come up with a winner. Their illogical imaginations are boundless.

 

I've been trying to explain this but explaining anything to republicans is like teaching a dog how to do calculus.

 

I don't see how posting unproven tripe from the EPA is relevant either. That's why the original author was smart enough to post both sides.

 

Obviously, based on their conclusion being 'uncertain'... Where do you think that leads Margot? More tests, more money, is that really difficult to understand?

 

Indeed, and if we could just get you eco-nut lemmings a little closer to the cliff's edge...

 

Samples taken from two deep water-monitoring wells near a gas field in Pavillion, Wyoming, showed synthetic chemicals such as glycols and alcohols “consistent with gas production and hydraulic-fracturing fluids,”

Do you think these are naturally occurring chemicals?

 

An investigation is not a conclusion.

You have to know where the chemicals are coming from before you make a conclusion. That's the only way to know what the cheapest solution would be.

 

Like I said earlier, better purification methods solves the problem, that would be money better spent. More tests certainly won't improve water quality.

 

Seems you are trying to tell us exactly where the chemicals are coming from, almost like you have your own conclusion. Why should I believe the EPA under this administration is any different?

 

How exactly do you design a better purification system if you don't perform the tests to know what your trying to purify out?

 

I don't really understand why they are injecting chemicals under pressure... why not water?

The Beverly Hills High School has 19 oil wells on campus pumping several hundred barrels of oil per day

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/column-fracking-risks-idUSL6E7NC2RL20111212

 

I already stated that an investigation needs to be done to find out where the chemicals are coming from. I don't know where they are coming from. I know that kind of reasoned position doesn't fit your meme but you'll just have to deal with it.

 

Interesting question Margot.

I would like to have a copy of the detailed report, to read for myself specifically which compounds were analyzed. Glycol is/can be any of a class of organic compounds in the alcohol family, which itself (alcohol), can be naturally occurring.

*I don't mean to imply the report is purposely misleading, but that the portion mentioned is inadequate.*

 

So the misleading thread title was what? Your open mindedness gone awry?

 

Makes sense to me.. but then I have chemical engineers and petroleum engineers in my famiy.. and chemistry was NOT my strength.

What you propose is the logical next step.

 

Where did they really come from? Was there an illegal dump in the area?

You are aware of the Pavillion, WY waste treatment plant polluted Ocean Lake just a few miles from Pavillion WY aren't you? You are aware Glycols are a by product of sewage treatment aren't you? So in order to be believable the EPA needs to differentiate between the Glycols and Alcohols coming from the fracking fluid and the ones produced by the waste water treatment process.

 

I have never had any interest in WY so no I never heard of that sewage treatment plant.. but maybe that is the source.. which seems to support more investigation, don't you think?

 

Why would climate scientists falsify reports?

There are some ruthless bastards out there who are willing to go guerrilla warfare to promote their agenda.

 

Slow down, take deep breaths and watch another episode of Terranova, my friend.

On serious note, our ecosystem survived ice ages, heat waves, an asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs, a volcanic eruption that nearly wiped out humanity and you think we fleas on it's back are do lasting damage to it?

 

I think the key here is that proving a water test is wrong is much easier than proving a climate analysis wrong.

When people criticize climate science, they at least have the ability to suggest that obfuscating contradicting evidence is easier -- given the sheer volume of info being worked with and the abstract nature of global warming.

A water test is a lot more straightforward. If you think it's been falsified, all you have to do is take another test.

It would be kind of silly to falsify something like that because of just how easy it is to figure out.

 

Why won't the EPA support adding an identifiable inert ingredient to to fracking fluid so we can know for sure? I agree that more investigation is necessary, just as necessary as getting to the Natural Gas that will free us from middle east oil till we can find a better way. However, in this horrible economy $4.00 a gallon gasoline is just dragging us down further. Natural Gas production should continue till the EPA proves that it is unsafe to drinking water.