SA proposes rules for fracking shale gas

Darn, didnt know nature.com and scientific amercan where mythological rags :(

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-production-causes-big-us-earthquakes-1.13372
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fracking-causes-earthquakes-studies-confirm-1.1209066
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells

Radium 226 is a naturally occurring radioactive material that forms from the decay of uranium-238. It emits alpha and gamma radiation, and it tends to accumulate in bone if inhaled or ingested, according to EPA:

“Long-term exposure to radium increases the risk of developing several diseases. Inhaled or ingested radium increases the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. These effects usually take years to develop. External exposure to radium’s gamma radiation increases the risk of cancer to varying degrees in all tissues and organs.”

Radium is a well known contaminant in fracking operations, particularly in the Marcellus Shale formation.

“The material in question was radium 226, which is what we expect from shale drill cuttings,” said John Poister, spokesman for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. “Every landfill in the state has radiation monitors, and this showed the system did work.”
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm...g-truck-sets-off-radiation-alarm-at-landfill/
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
If you dont mind contaminating ground water
Click to expand...

Yes, from the pipes. The studies cannot conclude the origin, however all other studies show that where methane exists, it is not because of fracking itself, but from the pipe corrosion, poor seals, poor maintenance etc. This is known. This is a good thing now because it can be rectified. It's not the fracking...

ghoti said:
and making the land more geographically unstable
Click to expand...

Cool. So you're against mining as well then, right?

ghoti said:
I mean, whats a little radiation in the long term scheme of things? :D
Click to expand...

Cool, so you're against mining then as well, which is so much more dangerous in terms of extracting radioactive material I really don't even think it requires further explanation...

ghoti said:
I mean what could be go wrong by poisoning so much of our water?
Click to expand...

You couldn't possibly have picked a more biased source. Fracking by numbers and Environment America. Hilarious.

But it concluded: "Even the limited data that are currently available, however, paint an increasingly clear picture of the damage that fracking has done to our environment and health."
Click to expand...

LOL. There is data extending back to 1927. I was wrong when I said 1947. There is no limit on data. Where there is a limit is on the data that supports their wild accusations that go contrary to actual geological studies.

But once again, I take it you're against mining as well then?
 
DJ... said:
Oh god, it's private industry taking the reigns. They're not incentivised to fsck up...
Click to expand...

No they're incentivized to get their product out of the ground as cheaply as possible. Everything else is negotiable.

Consider Deepwater Horizon...
 
icyrus said:
No they're incentivized to get their product out of the ground as cheaply as possible. Everything else is negotiable.

Consider Deepwater Horizon...
Click to expand...
so lets nationalise it then? Would that fix it?
 
icyrus said:
How in the name of Zeus do you make that jump?
Click to expand...

you said privatizing is bad, because there is no reason for them to care about the environment. So then surely it is an option to nationalise it?
 
Nicodeamus said:
you said privatizing is bad, because there is no reason for them to care about the environment. So then surely it is an option to nationalise it?
Click to expand...

I never mentioned privatization. I addressed DJ's point that it would be a private company running the operation so government incompetency wouldn't be a direct issue.
 
Look at how sad Fraking made Afriforum :(

[video=youtube;s9Qs2qxr70k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Qs2qxr70k#t=40[/video]
 
Fsck it up and they'll set precedent for it. They're incentivised to do it without drawing attention. I.e actually destroying the environment in any way...
 
DJ... said:
Fsck it up and they'll set precedent for it. They're incentivised to do it without drawing attention. I.e actually destroying the environment in any way...
Click to expand...

Also the current NEMA and Waste Management acts are bloody strict, the fines are really an inventive to not fsck up.
 
DJ... said:
Fsck it up and they'll set precedent for it. They're incentivised to do it without drawing attention. I.e actually destroying the environment in any way...
Click to expand...

Right, so how badly did Deepwater Horizon affect BP and Halliburton's ongoing business then?
 
DJ... said:
Cost BP around $47bn. That's not just a drop in the ocean, so to speak...
Click to expand...

Set aside by BP or actually paid out by BP? What was the total number attached to the environmental, health and economic damage caused?

Is it not true that BP is fighting every claim and fine that they can?
 
icyrus said:
Set aside by BP or actually paid out by BP? What was the total number attached to the environmental, health and economic damage caused?

Is it not true that BP is fighting every claim and fine that they can?
Click to expand...

You used the greed argument earlier on. I'm pointing out that yes, they are greedy, hence why a catastrophe of that nature is not in their best interests. And yes, the cash came off their balance sheet which is the important bit. That's what investors saw. Which also cost them dearly.

What they're now fighting is irrelevant to what's being discussed here...
 
DJ... said:
You used the greed argument earlier on. I'm pointing out that yes, they are greedy, hence why a catastrophe of that nature is not in their best interests. And yes, the cash came off their balance sheet which is the important bit. That's what investors saw. Which also cost them dearly.

What they're now fighting is irrelevant to what's being discussed here...
Click to expand...

Your point was that they're not incentivised to mess it up, my point was that it's not that clear. Despite the risk, BP, Transocean and Halliburton all acted negligently in the Deepwater Horizon incident, and yet you think the somehow this time will be different?

Do you have faith in our government to strictly and correctly regulate the private companies doing the fracking?
 
icyrus said:
Your point was that they're not incentivised to mess it up, my point was that it's not that clear. Despite the risk, BP, Transocean and Halliburton all acted negligently in the Deepwater Horizon incident, and yet you think the somehow this time will be different?

Do you have faith in our government to strictly and correctly regulate the private companies doing the fracking?
Click to expand...

By this time, you imply that its a common occurrence. Its the exception. And yes, they are absolutely incentivised to not cock it up, in absolutely all departments. Faith in the government is another issue. I believe that using existing regulatory models, which they are, is the right thing to do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X