OT: Fracking banned in NY State

[Seramount]

timely thread...I watched the little documentary called 'Gasland' last nite.

as long as you're willing to tolerate the potential for some serious groundwater contamination, fracking is a fairly benign procedure.

drink up...just pinch your nose if the odor is too nasty.

[Schmed]

Originally Posted by Richard

And if fracking fluids contained the quantities of these chemicals as seen in food production, well, then that would be one argument, However, that is not the case I'm sure. Propylene glycol in large concentrations will deplete the oxygen levels of water dramatically when it breaks down. Just one of many effects that fracking brings with it.

Yet, bacteria can quickly consume propylene glycol and break it down to C and H and N.

My point, is that many people freak out over these chemistries, yet know nothing about them.

Calcium Phosphate can be bought in 50 lb bags from chemical suppliers. You have to use a dust respirator to handle it. It will etch the paint on your car. Yet.... it's in milk. Not as an additive, it comes out of the cow with calcium phosphate. Everything we touch, breathe, and drink is a chemical. Water is a chemical.

If you saw the chemical formula for the protein in chicken, people would freak out and march in front of the White House.

I'm not saying fracking doesn't come with a risk of environmental pollution, but there's so much junk science around, it can make simple things (like dihydrogen oxide) seem like a toxic chemical. (come to think of it, dihydrogen oxide is toxic. If you drown in it or drink 3 gallons at one sitting.)

[2LeftCleats]

There also appears to be an uptick in seismic activity in the vicinity of fracking operations, though I'm not sure how certain the connection is.

[rwsaunders]

Hydraulic fracturing "fracking" is the modern day equivalent of the strip mine IMHO. Limited regulations and the promise of cheap energy, well paid jobs and mineral rights fees for the fortunate landowners.

[binxnyrwarrsoul]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Or prices go back up in six years,..........................

Doubt it'll take six years.

[pbarry]

Curious: Does NY State have substantial oil and gas shale reserves?

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by Schmed

Yet, bacteria can quickly consume propylene glycol and break it down to C and H and N.

My point, is that many people freak out over these chemistries, yet know nothing about them.

Calcium Phosphate can be bought in 50 lb bags from chemical suppliers. You have to use a dust respirator to handle it. It will etch the paint on your car. Yet.... it's in milk. Not as an additive, it comes out of the cow with calcium phosphate. Everything we touch, breathe, and drink is a chemical. Water is a chemical.

If you saw the chemical formula for the protein in chicken, people would freak out and march in front of the White House.

I'm not saying fracking doesn't come with a risk of environmental pollution, but there's so much junk science around, it can make simple things (like dihydrogen oxide) seem like a toxic chemical. (come to think of it, dihydrogen oxide is toxic. If you drown in it or drink 3 gallons at one sitting.)

No problem, put a fracking facility in your backyard.

Your line of reasoning is faulty in that it is not the chemical, in their constituent forms, that is the concern. It is the levels and the presence of those chemical as contaminants and for those chemicals to be where they are not supposed to be, either as released in error or used in the industrial fracking process.

You call as argument against junk science. I call as rebuttal to that ambiguous, specious claim - junk thinking.

I am not a chemist. I don't have to be one to understand context, process and risk.

[Schmed]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

No problem, put a fracking facility in your backyard.

Your line of reasoning is faulty in that it is not the chemical, in their constituent forms, that is the concern. It is the levels and the presence of those chemical as contaminants and for those chemicals to be where they are not supposed to be, either as released in error or used in the industrial fracking process.

You call as argument against junk science. I call as rebuttal to that ambiguous, specious claim - junk thinking.

I am not a chemist. I don't have to be one to understand context, process and risk.

But you should know how chemicals affect the environment in which they may spill. I'm a chemical engineer, and work with water treatment, so I'm quite familiar with the impact of various chemicals at various dosages in the environment.

I would not want fracking in my backyard. No sane person would. It's noisy and ugly.

It's a fact of life, thought, that anything we do (from breathing, to making tofu, to fracking) impacts the environment.

To say "Fracking is bad" is so simple-minded it boggles the mind.

Fracking is not great for the environment. It poses a risk. Hauling crude oil from Alaska is not good for the environment. Pumping oil from Canada through a pipeline is not good for the environment. Shipping a supertanker of oil from Saudi Arabia is not good for the environment.

Which is worse? There's no way to quantify "worse".

By fracking, you can produce oil closer to the end-user, and that eliminates both the energy needed to transport oil, and the environmental risk of hauling / shipping / pumping crude oil.

Yes - fracking fluids can pollute water. So can that tanker truck driving down the road or the supertanker churning through the Gulf of Mexico. Everything has a risk.

[malcolm]

Not to be pedant but propylene glycol is not antifreeze it's used it plastic polymers and a common food additive.

Ethylene glycol is antifreeze and is toxic. I think most ethylene glycol marketed as antifreeze now has been altered to no longer be sweet, thus animals are much less likely to drink it.

[Schmed]

Originally Posted by malcolm

Not to be pedant but propylene glycol is not antifreeze it's used it plastic polymers and a common food additive.

Ethylene glycol is antifreeze and is toxic. I think most ethylene glycol marketed as antifreeze now has been altered to no longer be sweet, thus animals are much less likely to drink it.

Propylene glycol most certainly is antifreeze. So is ethylene glycol. EG is used in automotive antifreeze, PG is used for HVAC and other applications.

[malcolm]

Originally Posted by Schmed

Propylene glycol most certainly is antifreeze. So is ethylene glycol. EG is used in automotive antifreeze, PG is used for HVAC and other applications.

maybe so but it's also a non toxic food additive. I've not seen it kill anyone at least that I knew of in the ER, but can't say the same about ethylene glycol. Maybe that was the change to make it less toxic, both are sweet tasting in their natural state.

I stand corrected, except for the toxic part.

[Ralph]

A lot of this is like "not in my back yard" while one goes out and buys a huge SUV. The energy has to come from somewhere.

My brothers and I have some not so valuable land in Western N Carolina. None of us live around there. While I'm against fracking off Florida's coasts, near where I live, for a few million $ a year, we would sure allow you to drill for oil on our land any way you want.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by Schmed

But you should know how chemicals affect the environment in which they may spill. I'm a chemical engineer, and work with water treatment, so I'm quite familiar with the impact of various chemicals at various dosages in the environment.

I would not want fracking in my backyard. No sane person would. It's noisy and ugly.

It's a fact of life, thought, that anything we do (from breathing, to making tofu, to fracking) impacts the environment.

To say "Fracking is bad" is so simple-minded it boggles the mind.

Fracking is not great for the environment. It poses a risk. Hauling crude oil from Alaska is not good for the environment. Pumping oil from Canada through a pipeline is not good for the environment. Shipping a supertanker of oil from Saudi Arabia is not good for the environment.

Which is worse? There's no way to quantify "worse".

By fracking, you can produce oil closer to the end-user, and that eliminates both the energy needed to transport oil, and the environmental risk of hauling / shipping / pumping crude oil.

Yes - fracking fluids can pollute water. So can that tanker truck driving down the road or the supertanker churning through the Gulf of Mexico. Everything has a risk.

I would critique your line of reasoning here as correctly identifying a variable as "risk" and rolling all that are assigned this semantic as an approximate equivalent. All "risk" is not the same.

There is absolutely a way to qualify and quantify "worse". Do you think this is beyond the capacity for an actuarial to qualify and quantify this level of risk? Do you think this is beyond the ability for a financial engineer to construct derivatives to offlay this risk exposure? Do you think even on an intuitive level that a layman cannot understand risk associated at a level of industrial production and consequence for error inherent to this level of throughput?

What you are describing here is a gloss over of the details. And it is all about the details. Details which will not go unnoticed by anyone who wishes to go into any depth at all. But it is true that if you catch a landowner desperate enough and with nothing left to sell but energy rights, they might sell even if it puts themselves and their neighbors at risk. Somebody always pays.

I am not against fracking but I also agree with the ban Gov. Cuomo has enforced. IMO the relative risk factor is not worth it given the current abilities to contain, control and remediate industrial accidents and the current global availability of alternative carbon sources.

[cash05458]

"Do I want a tower w/i a few thousand feet of my grandchildren's house? No I don't but I do like cheap electricity. Being powered by wind and solar alone is a long way off."

let me say first, I think fracking is a terrible idea...I am no scientist...but from what I read about it, pretty dumb...that said, we do need energy...here in Vermont, home of so many liberals ( and I am among them) they are against wind power...I mean: wind power...why? because they think those big beautiful windmills gathering totally safe non harming power screw up the ridge line...oh dear...

I suppose it is wonderful to take that stance if you have 75 grand to put up solar stuff...but most, and certainly not me, Vermonters don't...so no water power, wind , fossil or (my god) nuclear for electricity? I suppose we could all go true luddite and go for candles in the evenings...well, the poor anyhow while those who can afford it can have solar and feel smug in the bargain...

[Schmed]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

...
There is absolutely a way to qualify and quantify "worse".

Without spending much time on it, my guess is that the risk associated with a supertanker of oil traveling the world's oceans in all weather conditions, poses more risk to the environment than fracking in upstate NY.

But, I do defer to those more accustomed to calculating risk.

It is a NIMBY situation, though.