Fracking Is Draining Water From Areas In US Suffering Major Shortages

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "RT reports that some of the most drought-ravaged areas of the US are also heavily targeted for oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing — a practice that exacerbates water shortages with half of the oil and gas wells fracked across America since 2011 located in places suffering through drought. Taken together, all the wells surveyed from January 2011 to May 2013 consumed 97 billion gallons of water, pumped under high pressure to crack rocks containing oil or natural gas. Up to 10 million gallons can go into a single well. 'Hydraulic fracturing is increasing competitive pressures for water in some of the country's most water-stressed and drought-ridden regions,' says Mindy Lubber. 'Barring stiffer water-use regulations and improved on-the-ground practices, the industry's water needs in many regions are on a collision course with other water users, especially agriculture and municipal water use.' Nearly half (47%) of oil and gas wells recently hydraulically fractured in the U.S. and Canada are in regions with high or extremely high water stress. Amanda Brock, head of a water-treatment firm in Houston, says oil companies in California are already exploring ways to frack using the briny, undrinkable water found in the state's oil fields. While fracking consumes far less water than agriculture or residential uses, the impact can be huge on particular communities and is 'exacerbating already existing water problems,' says Monika Freyman. Hydraulic fracking is the 'latest party to come to the table,' says Freyman. The demands for the water are 'taking regions by surprise,' she says. More work needs to be done to better manage water use, given competing demand."

Comments

Fracking *not* the water shortage cause

[grommit]

Is it a coincidence that the water shortages started with the whiteboarding of Slashdot Beta? I think not.

This is missing critical information

[Eric Coleman]

Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community.

If one does some Fermi math on this, then it is a little less than 2 gallons per person per day per person in Texas. That's less water than a toilet uses. Are any of these drought ridden areas telling people to not flush their toilets?

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point. These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more. And I have a sneaky suspicion that the industry underestimated the amount of water they need in order to get the permits - kind of like how Slashdot underestimated the hatred for beta.

Are any of these drought ridden areas telling people to not flush their toilets?

Some are. It depends on where but for example, in some parts of CA you're guided to flush after a couple of times o furinating and flush after a single shit. So pee twice - flush; shit once - flush.

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I live in north-central PA (just south of Corning, NY), there has been a lot of fracking here recently. The process does use a lot of water, for a while there were water tanker trucks driving around all over the place. But then all of a sudden the trucks disappeared. Why? Because the wells were all drilled and fracked and producing. They will produce for quite a few years before they need re-fracking. So the "gigantic water usage" only happens now and then.

Re:This is missing critical information

[CreatureComfort]

We don't flush our toilets in Texas.

We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.

Re:This is missing critical information

[AGMW]

Also, are the non-drought-ravaged areas of the US being similarly "heavily targeted" for oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing too, in which case if EVERYWHERE is being heavily targeted then, really, the drought areas aren't really being targeted at all now, are they. It's not like the Frackers are like "Hey, they're really dry over there, let's go todally frack them up dude"!

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

However, this is article is missing critical information

The heading is also wrong. Fracking is not "Draining" water it is "Using" water.

No doubt there is an issue if water resources are being used, but to imply that fracking is draining water is incorrect

Re:This is missing critical information

[ebno-10db]

These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more.

And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?

Re:This is missing critical information

[tp1024]

It's 0.14% of what is used for irrigation in agriculture. In other words: almost nothing.

To be sure, fracking must be regulated. Very well and tightly regulated, especially concerning the chemicals used and the way fracking fluid is disposed. But I've grown up right next to some of the largest landstrip mines in the world and trust me: everything is better than that!

Re:This is missing critical information

[Dachannien]

The USGS says that daily overall water use in the US is 410 billion gallons.

Basically, if this report wanted to have meaningful statistics, they would have focused on small watersheds and communities currently stricken by drought, to look at the water usage of the community as a whole and of the fracking taking place in that area.

Also, beta sucks.

Re:This is missing critical information

[CrimsonAvenger]

Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community.

A quick check shows that the nation uses something more than 300 billion gallons of water PER DAY.

SO 97 billion gallons per year is less than 0.1% of that total.

In other words, stopping fracking right now, and diverting that water to drought-plagued areas, would have negligible effect, if any.

Re:This is missing critical information

[SteveG3942]

Good eye. The whole point of RT/RT.com is to be selective about the information they present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:This is missing critical information

[bobbied]

And here I thought that was only done in Illinois...

Re:This is missing critical information

[camperdave]

We don't flush our toilets in Texas. We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.

And the ones that don't get elected write beta interfaces for Slashdot?

Re:This is missing critical information

[bobbied]

Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community. If one does some Fermi math on this, then it is a little less than 2 gallons per person per day per person in Texas. That's less water than a toilet uses. Are any of these drought ridden areas telling people to not flush their toilets?

I'm betting that we waste more water per day by leaving the water running when brushing our teeth than we could ever hope to consume in fracking. Talk about grasping at straws...

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the water used for fracking doesn't have to be drinkable water. You can use sea water just as well. Also, most of that water is recovered on the first few days of production, as you "suck" it to get the oil/gas on the well. Over the lifetime of the well, it will produce an order of magnitude more water than what was used to stimulate it.

The article isn't just missing critical information, it's also misrepresenting the info it has. There's a political agenda here, and it clearly shows.

Re:This is missing critical information

[shadowrat]

Normally, when people use water, it goes out into the environment, evaporates, turns into rain, runs back into lakes and rivers, and is generally reclaimed. I'm no fracking expert, but my limited understanding is that water is pumped way underground. Well, if it's way down there, it seems to be pretty effectively taken out of circulation.

Re:This is missing critical information

[blueg3]

It's then pumped back out. It generates quite a lot of wastewater.

Re:This is missing critical information

[ShanghaiBill]

And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?

And more importantly, which provides a greater economic benefit. If more people in the local community are employed by the frackers than by farming, per gallon used, then it makes sense that they should have priority for the water.

Here is the solution:
1. End the subsidies
2. Set a market price for water
3. There is no third step. The first two are enough.
The water will now flow to whoever derives the greater benefit (and is thus willing to pay more). The price will naturally rise during droughts. People will have an incentive to conserve. Markets are not the solution to every problem, but the appear to be a good solution to this problem.

Re:This is missing critical information

[geekoid]

Keep in mind they are talking about how this impacts water in the future, and it should be dealt with now.
Which makes sense to have the company start looking at solutions. Or are you one of those loons that like to wait until there is a problem and then run around pointing fingers and spend a lot more to fix it?
They are talking about droughts. Just in case you don't know, a drought is when you have more people using water then you get. So it can rain every day,. and you would still be i a drought if it didn't rain enough.

Re:This is missing critical information

[tompaulco]

Not to mention that if you drink what is used for fracking, you would die. If you used it to water your lawn, your lawn would die. If you used it to dump in the river, the fish would die.
Highly entertaining that we get both people complaining about how fracking causes groundwater poisoning because the fluid used for fracking is so toxic and ALSO complaining that fracking takes water out of the system by pouring pure crystal clear water into wells.

Re:This is missing critical information

[SleazyRidr]

Relying on underground water is a risky strategy to begin with, but if you're taking it out at a slower rate than it naturally replenishes itself then you're fine. If you're pushing it and taking it out at a rate that's not much slower, then it doesn't take much to get you in trouble.

Re:This is missing critical information

[XcepticZP]

Or pretty much any news site or network. Make no mistake about it, they will try hide as much as they can in order to drum up outrage/page views.

Re: This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

Frack has replaced Nuke as the new environmental fright word.

Some of us still remember the nuts who would march around chanting "No Nukes!"

Re:This is missing critical information

[Burz]

This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.

Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.

Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.

Re:This is missing critical information

[minstrelmike]

Here in Colorado, water is sold on a fairly pure market.
And that _is_ a problem because economics is how we value scarce resources.
We're not used to valuing water that highly. We're going to have to change which means higher food and energy prices which isn't better for anyone over the longterm.
Last March at the excess water shares auction they hold every year where farmers buy additional allotments, agriculture lost to the frackers.
California is out of water and they grow most of the food for America.
And there is no easy solution. We need food AND oil AND money to pay for them (as well as clean water to drink and clean air to breathe).
Economics isn't a solution; it just frames the problem properly.

Re:This is missing critical information

[bobbied]

Texas and Illinois share many competitive similarities .... (snip)

You lost me right there. I've lived in both states, and apart from some minor similarities in road striping colors and signs, these two states simply do NOT compare.

Personally, I much prefer Texas for political, financial and social reasons. It's a little cooler in Illinois, but Texas is worth the handful of hot days. Them people up north in Illinois are generally crazy and angry. But I'd be angry too, if I was taxed like they are... Give me Texas!

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lived in both as well, and they are both backwater shit holes.

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.

Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.

Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.

So what? Let's stipulate that if everything doesn't go right, we might render a state uninhabitable. Our investors are still protected because the agents doing the actual work are asset-less shells that will declare bankruptcy if necessary and take liability in any criminal prosecution. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not like our investors can't afford to move after we trash the place. As a non-bleeding heart industrialist, what's the downside for me, personally?

Re:This is missing critical information

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that if you drink what is used for fracking, you would die. If you used it to water your lawn, your lawn would die. If you used it to dump in the river, the fish would die.

Highly entertaining that we get both people complaining about how fracking causes groundwater poisoning because the fluid used for fracking is so toxic and ALSO complaining that fracking takes water out of the system by pouring pure crystal clear water into wells.

If you realize that the complaints are because the "permanent" storage of the toxic chemical brew leaks and contaminates existing ground water - taking THAT water out of use - then it makes more sense.

Fracking is terrible. It might be better than coal mining since that's nasty too, but at least you can see the damage coal mining does right away. At least you can sue the coal miner when your well gets polluted with video of sludge flowing from the coal mine to your property. You can't prove it in the fracker's case because they hide the fingerprint of their brew to prevent you from tying "toxin 48" to them directly.

Re:This is missing critical information

[oDDmON oUT]

Unlike municipal and agricultural use water, water used in fracking has been deemed "unrecoverable" and is routinely re-injected into "disposal wells"; which may themselves be responsible for a plethora of magnitude 2+ earthquakes around our area (Texas).

Re:This is missing critical information

[shadowrat]

Well, then the water doesn't seem lost to me. Unless they take it out of the watershed to treat it or something.

Re:This is missing critical information

[Burz]

This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.

Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.

Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.

So what? Let's stipulate that if everything doesn't go right, we might render a state uninhabitable. Our investors are still protected because the agents doing the actual work are asset-less shells that will declare bankruptcy if necessary and take liability in any criminal prosecution. Even if that wasn't the case, it's not like our investors can't afford to move after we trash the place. As a non-bleeding heart industrialist, what's the downside for me, personally?

Like the Koches, you can 'blind' the courts to that sort of malevolence. But concerned citizens who are sceptical of unrestrained capitalism won't be fooled for long.

So I suppose the answer to your question is: Geolocation.

Re:This is missing critical information

[sjames]

That doesn't really follow. 97 billion gallons out of the whole U.S. is nothing, but they don't draw it from the whole U.S., they draw it locally. Imagine, for example, someone drawing a few billion out of a hydrant in your neighborhood.

Re:This is missing critical information

[sjames]

No. First they draw a huge amount of drinking water from the ground, then they mix in toxic chemicals and then pump it into their wells.

Re:This is missing critical information

[CrimsonAvenger]

That doesn't really follow. 97 billion gallons out of the whole U.S. is nothing, but they don't draw it from the whole U.S., they draw it locally. Imagine, for example, someone drawing a few billion out of a hydrant in your neighborhood.

So, let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that all the water for fracking is used in CA.

Average water use per person is about 1000 gallons per day (yes, that average covers industrial and agricultural use too, but CA has plenty of both, so bear with me). CA has around 38 milllion people, so CA uses about 38 billion gallons per day. Or 14 trillion per year. So the 97 billion per year would amount to 0.7% of CA's water usage, if it all happened in CA.

Since fracking isn't unique to CA (does it even happen in CA?), and if it were, it would amount to less than 1% of water usage there, I fail to see the problem, and fail to see how that additional 0.7% (MAX) water added to the supply would make a dent in their drought. Which is more due to lack of snowfall than to anything else.

Re:This is missing critical information

[blueg3]

It's not lost. The water is generally returned to the system.

The whole situation is a bit more complicated, naturally. Generating a lot of wastewater is its own problem, since it needs to be treated. Many water treatment places are unhappy with that, both by volume and because of the use of undisclosed chemicals. Sometimes the water is trucked to another location where it will be treated. Sometimes it is actually pumped into holes in the ground. I don't know if those are sealed or not; if not, the water will eventually filter back into the system. But in general, the wastewater can and often is treated and returned to the water cycle.

Re: This is missing critical information

[blueg3]

It is actually radioactive, because it's in contact with underground rocks (which dissolve some radioactive materials into the water). Fortunately, it's not much, and dissolved minerals don't evaporate along with the water.

Re:This is missing critical information

[sjames]

They don't do the fracking in downtown LA or SF though. They do it mostly in podunk. They create LOCAL stress on the LOCAL water supply. Imagine a community of 500 people. They use about 5 gallons each LOCALLY (the rest of the 1000/day happens in other places). That places LOCAL water use at 912,500 gallons per year. Since TFA speaks of drought areas we may assume that in spite of that small amount, the water table is going down steadily.

If you lived there, how might you feel if someone came in and drew a million gallons in 3 months?

Propaganda bullshit

[Nickodeimus]

Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.

That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.

This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.

Re:Propaganda bullshit

[rabun_bike]

That is true. Hydraulic fracking has been in use for many years. The main difference here is the magnitude and scale of frack drilling in the past 10 years. And as most people on slashdot know, not everything scales without consequences.

Re:Propaganda bullshit

[CanHasDIY]

Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.

That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.

This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.

So... source?

Not that I do or don't believe you, but we wouldn't want someone to accuse you of perpetrating any 'propaganda bullshit.'

Re:Propaganda bullshit

[geekoid]

"Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most?"
OPEC*, and internal oil. Of course, it doesn't really hurt them much, and you assume the people doing the fracking are independent from the companies we get our oil from. We are talking about Schlumberger, Halliburton , Baker Hughes, etc... so not exactly amateurs.

If anyone was manipulating the article, it would be GasFrac Energy Services. They have a non-water fracking technique.

*I suspect what you really wanted to say was OPEC. At least I hope so, otherwise you are pretty ignorant of the subject.

Re:Propaganda bullshit

[ColdWetDog]

You contaminate groundwater by lousy (cheap) cement jobs on the bore. It shouldn't happen and, with the right regulatory framework (like in Texas, where they actually check the pressure tests and fine the hell out of you if you screw up) it won't.

The problem has been that a number of states have let the drillers in without comprehensive regulations and oversight. Despite places like Texas saying 'hey, we have 50 years of experience with this, you want some help drafting regulations?'.

Those states got bought out clean and simple.

So,you're right. It's always about money.

Re:Propaganda bullshit

[ColdWetDog]

> Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.

Yeah, I thought that I'd read that elsewhere. This article only mentions water use in one well, and implies that it isn't reused.

Then why have they been dumping it into the wastewater treatment plants? No, the fracing chemicals aren't particularly expensive. Cheaper than pumping it out and moving it around. When you inject the fluid into the bore, it's done under very, very high pressure (those big red trucks). What you pump out isn't necessarily what you pumped in.

Consider the source

[DaveV1.0]

This most of this article is based on information from the Ceres Investor Group. So, who are they?

Ceres mobilizes a powerful network of investors, companies and public interest groups to accelerate and expand the adoption of sustainable business practices and solutions to build a healthy global economy.

Our mission is to mobilize investor and business leadership to build a thriving, sustainable global economy.

They are a self-professed environmental activist organization. That puts the results of their self-done study in question.

The major tip-off that something wasn't right was the title of this submission. It implies that fracking is causing water shortages by destroying watershead via draining. The report doesn't say that. What it says is that fracking uses lots of water and most fracking operations are taking in areas that are experiencing water shortages and/or drought.

The rest of the article is based on information from another journalistic source that is known to be biased.

Re:Consider the source

[Noryungi]

OK, "Ceres Investor Group" may be biased but that does not mean their data is wrong.

As a matter of fact, most of the the time, the studies financed by Big Business are much more biased than the ones financed by environmental groups.

Re:Consider the source

[gstoddart]

They are a self-professed environmental activist organization. That puts the results of their self-done study in question.

And, of course, anything the companies doing the fracking tell us is also in question, because it's in their interests to say "but it's safe". So if you're going to dismiss what the environmentalists tell you, you also need to dismiss what the oil companies are telling you.

It implies that fracking is causing water shortages by destroying watershead via draining.

And where do you think that water comes from? Either wells or the municipal supply -- which will lead to draining the wastershed faster.

Unless these companies are bringing in their own water to do the fracking, it could only be coming from the local supply. And if you're draining that much water, you will have an impact.

Re:Consider the source

[geekoid]

You should look a little deeper. Ceres is about helping business make decisions, and they are recognized as a good source of information from the business community, and their GRI report is considered one of the best. Nothing i this report looks incorrect, or manipulated.

http://www.ceres.org/resources...

Yes, we all should be concerned about bias, and yes you raise a red flag, but looking deeper they have been pretty good with numbers.

Unlike, say, Greenpeace,

"The report doesn't say that. What it says is that fracking uses lots of water and most fracking operations are taking in areas that are experiencing water shortages and/or drought. "
So? what does their report say. The fact the Hugh Pickens is trying to manipulate it, or doesn't understand it is not Ceres fault.

Re:Consider the source

[gstoddart]

Or from the wells they're drilling. Much of the water used in fracking is very saline (and thus useless for anything else) and comes from the wells themselves.

Which pulls from the exact same water table and watershed as the locals.

In other words, they are using the local supplies of water.

That it may not be the surface water is irrelevant. If you dry up your water table, it's still gone.

Or do you think underground water is somehow magical and not connected to the rest of it?

Re:Consider the source

[gstoddart]

No he's saying the water from the oil and gas wells. Do you think that's the same table as what the locals are drinking? They're drinking oil?

Perhaps you should alleviate some of your own ignorance before you accuse me of it.

It's all connected, and even if it's not pure in that particular place, it's not independent of the rest.

Your lack of understanding how ground water works is your shortcoming, not mine.

Context people

[Firethorn]

10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons. So 10M gallons for a single well is 'merely' 1 years worth of water for a 100 families. With 115M households, that's ~12.6T gallons of water used by people at home every year. Meaning Fracking is .8% of domestic water usage.

Then figure that 'domestic' is only 8.5% of our water usage, with irrigation taking up 37% and thermoelectric power 42%.

I don't object to making fracking companies pay a premium, import their water, use treated & filtered sewage, or other options to leave the 'good water' to people who need it, but let's face it - your average water company could save more water patching leaks they've let sit for a while(17% of domestic usage is wasted on leaks) than what fraking companies use.

Re:Context people

[rabun_bike]

Of course all of the water usage you are citing in comparison is sent back into the water supply system. A lot of fracking fluid is injected into deep disposal wells and does not re-enter the water system. The industry is trying to move to more recycling but is complicated and costly due to the chemicals and minerals in the fracking water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03...

Re:Context people

[CanHasDIY]

10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons.

Any idea where the EPA came up with that figure? I don't see any source citation on their page...

Far be it from me to question the honesty of a government agency, but it's not like they haven't lied to us "for our own good" in the past.

Re:Context people

[Gothmolly]

I have a well, and septic. I recycle all of my water.

Re:Context people

[geekoid]

And if all the water came from on magical source, you would have a point.

The report is talking about water usage in drought and water stressed areas. You know, areas that are also doing other things to restrict water usage.

"your average water company could save more water patching leaks they've let sit for a while(17% of domestic usage is wasted on leaks)"
patching? what you mean is dig up and replace pipes. It's very expensive. Consumers dislike the cost of a good system. Prior to Katrina, New Orleans lost 40% of there water to 'leaks'. Because the system was not maintained properly, it was pretty much destroyed. Mostly they did nothing about trees next to mains, and the never checked their valve system.

But hey, the residents saved 25 bucks a year...

Re:Context people

[rabun_bike]

For obvious reasons. They didn't want to reveal the carcinogens they are using in fracking fluid which includes a long list of zene named chemicals such as Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene, Xylene, Naphthalene, as well as Formaldehyde, Methanol, Ethylene glycol, Glycol ethers, Hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel, and Sodium hydroxide. These discharges would most likely never be allowed if the clear water act could be used to sue the government to compel compliance of the gas industry. Since they are exempt they don't have to comply and can classify the composition of fracking fluid ingredients as "trade secrets."

Re:Context people

[Firethorn]

You know, areas that are also doing other things to restrict water usage.

And you ignore that I then delve a bit deeper - suggesting alternative sources, extra fees, etc... Water companies don't have to sell to frackers if they need the water otherwise. But in reality their usage is small enough to not really matter.

Yes, digging up and replacing pipes is expensive, but it's not always the only solution, I've read about some neat sleeving techniques, various sealants, etc...

Use the frackers as an opportunity. Charge them enough for their water that you can afford to fix enough leaks and such that you'll save more than the water they bought in reduced leakage over the next couple years.

Re:Context people

[Firethorn]

The Ocean is part of the 'water supply system'; there's a lot of evaporation in the uses I mentioned. When you look at those systems it's an even tinier drop in the bucket.

Re:Context people

[Firethorn]

It's there with the graphic - American Water Works Association Research Foundation, "Residential End Uses of Water". 1999.

A bit old - I'd prefer within the last decade, but I generally prefer government sources for this sort of thing.

Re:Context people

[Firethorn]

I do too. However it'd be disingenuous to think that we're the rule, not the exception. Most people get their water from piped systems.

Re:Context people

[rabun_bike]

Now you are comparing fresh water and salt water in an attempt to save your argument. Unfortunate for humans on planet earth we require fresh water to live. Salt water makes up 97.5% of all water on the planet. That leaves humans and other animals only 2.5% to live on including agricultural and industrial usages.

http://www.grida.no/graphicsli...

Re:Context people

[CanHasDIY]

It's there with the graphic - American Water Works Association Research Foundation, "Residential End Uses of Water". 1999.

Personally, I don't really consider a source very valid unless they give you access to the research they based their conclusions on; been burned too many times for trusting a reporting agency to not include bias.

A bit old - I'd prefer within the last decade, but I generally prefer government sources for this sort of thing.

I generally do too, except when they won't let me see the exact figures themselves. Again, been burned too often to fall for that one anymore.

Re:Context people

[Firethorn]

Unfortunate for humans on planet earth we require fresh water to live.

How fortunate we are that there are natural distillation processes that returns water to the fresh state we require to live. The condensation stage is generally known as 'rain'. That 2.5% is constantly refreshing itself via various processes. The ocean may not be immediately useful, but it's still part of the system.

Though I found reading about the deep disposal wells interesting.

US irrigation uses 128bn gallons EACH DAY

[tp1024]

In other words, fracking is using up 0.14% of the amount of water used for agricultural irrigation. Most of that in dry parts of the United States (who would have guessed that?!).

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/w...

Shut the fuck up if all you have are not arguments but LIES!

fracking is bad..

[SlashDread]

And SO IS THE BETA!

First come first serve

[rjstanford]

American history is fairly unique in that a lot of the laws were written at a time when there were massive quantities of natural resources just lying around for anyone who "wasn't lazy" to grab. The idea that the nation's supplies of oil, gas, and water don't belong to the nation to be used by America for Americans, but instead belong to anyone who can fund the means to extract them (even out from under their neighbors) is relatively unusual. It also leads to an accelerated tragedy of the commons.

Re:What the frack?

[AmiMoJo]

I think he was talking about Slashdot beta.

Oil thicker than water

[Dunbal]

Surely the ability to keep America powered with "cheap" domestic oil is far more important than drinking water, right? I mean it's not like Americans drink tapwater, bathe, or eat vegetables anyway. Also, Beta sucks.

Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water?

[hey!]

We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.

Now it's water?

It's water with a rather long list of additives including benzene, formaldehyde, ferric chloride, napthalene and toluene. But, yes, it's *primarily* water.

Holy crap

[hyfe]

Holy crap. Up until now I thought all the 'beta sucks' comments where just 'I hate new stuff'-type comments...

.. but I just got served my first beta-page and well, it sucks. It sucks on so many levels I actually think this design isn't salvagable. It's so hard to read, navigate and use that it is, well, useless. I am honestly curious how anyone would think it's a good idea to push anything like this out to users.

Seriously, this is even worse than Windows 8 (the first windows version, including Vista, I hated enough to not even keep as a dual-boot alternative). What's wrong with people?

Re:Holy crap

[umghhh]

I call it a success. It is incredibly difficult to unite more than 1 person and if you look on any /. thread you will see that besides tons of frist pr0st and side discussions there is not one where there was an absolute majority agreeing on a topic and in short time. This is rare, almost none-existing occurrence, where so many agree on one thing. It may be a failure for the new looks but it is a success in this sense that so many people agree. Now if we could move this rare moments of unification into something useful like tearing off heads of hydra that industrial-financial-military-spying complex has become. Ohhh sweet dreams....

Re:Holy crap

[SleazyRidr]

I'm in the same boat. I kept seeing these "beta sucks" comments, and I thought it was just the old codjers whining whenever anything changes. I thought, I'll go check it out, how bad can it be. Holy fuck! Very: very fucking bad is how bad it can be. For the record, I'm a long time user of both Windows ME, and Windows Vista (and MS-DOS 5, if anyone remembers that); something in my psyche just likes getting abused I guess, but I'm not sure if I can stand the new /.

Re:Holy crap

[demonlapin]

What was wrong with DOS 5? Fuck beta.

Re:Holy crap

[ColdWetDog]

"This is a triumph.
I'm making a note here, huge success.
It's hard to over state my satisfaction."

(Looks around)

Just wondering.....

Re:Holy crap

[mtpaley]

MS-DOS 5, luxury! I worked with some clunky and unreliable WORM optical disks that only worked with DOS 4. That OS was so buggy that if you tried to access a missing floppy you had to reboot the machine.

Re:Holy crap

[SleazyRidr]

Was it DOS4 or DOS5 that sucked? I'm getting a little rusty. I remember reading about a year after the fact that everyone had moved to a different version within a couple of months, but I wasn't as with-it back then so I stayed on it for multiple years.

Re:Holy crap

[demonlapin]

4 was the one nobody used. DOS 5 actually had a lot of neat features that 3.3 and 4 didn't.

Also, fuck beta.

Re:Holy crap

[Reziac]

DOS4. Mainly because it had file corruption issues.

The Slashdot beta is like DOS4. It corrupts discussions, and no one uses it.

Hello good sir

[schlouse]

Beta = female genital mutilation

You're damned if you do...

[American Patent Guy]

... and damned if you don't. One more round for the environmental version of the peanut gallery.

The great thing about the watershed is that it renews itself every year. If we take a small portion of what comes in rainfall every year and inject it into a fracking well, the next year we'll pretty much be back to where we started.

If the glaciers on the planet melt, then we have too much water. If we put it down fracking wells, then we'll have too little!

It's like watching the wardrobe of the latest movie actress. She puts in on, then she takes it off. She puts something else on, then she takes it off. Ad nauseum.

Re:You're damned if you do...

[American Patent Guy]

Anonymous:

You're comments would make sense, except that (1) the cistern is already filled with a highly-toxic substance (crude oil, natural gas, hydrogen sulfide, etc.) and (2) that the water will not (should not) end up in the drinking water supply. If the cistern were leaky, it would have already leaked out the stuff the drillers are trying to extract. That and drinking water tends to be closer to precipitation in its flowing travels to the sea.

My point is that no matter what is happening to the environment, there will be someone to blame it on their disfavored entities. In this case, I suspect it's environmentalists in California who want to exploit the fact that there is a drought there this year.

Like it or not, petroleum products are here to stay. There are too many car owners around that would be peeved if their gasoline was made expensive, and too many users of natural gas that would have to change their furnaces and water heaters to something else (also more expensive).

Re:About beta.

[TheNastyInThePasty]

My advice to the peons working on Slashdot: find another job. The veracity with which this "upgrade" is being pushed displays a stubbornness that can only be attributed to MBAs with no idea of what Slashdot is about. The fact that the commenting system is such an afterthought in the Beta is as much evidence as I need that the people pushing this redesign never use this site.

I know you don't get to decide whether or not the Beta moves forward or which design gets used, but believe this: You WILL be blamed when it fails. You work for a corporation now and the higher ups with undoubtedly throw you under the bus when they have to explain to their bosses or shareholders why the website redesign failed. This failure is going to be associated with you and your teammates and it will set back any hopes you have of being promoted within the company. Take the advice of me and my fellow Slashdotters: Get out now.

Check your sources

[SteveG3942]

RT.com is the Kremlin's mouthpiece in the West. The Kremlin's power derives from oil money, and they desperately need oil prices to remain above $100/barrel. Oil prices are undermined by fracking. Russia has been engaged in an anti-fracking campaign in Europe, and apparently, they're bringing this campaign to the US. In the meantime, you can expect more articles attempting to undermine the Western hemisphere's domestic oil operations, such as this one: http://rt.com/usa/native-ameri.... I'm not pro- or anti- some oil production or transport method or another. I'm simply saying that there's insight to be gleaned from examining from where certain information originates.

Re:Check your sources

[Reziac]

I wonder about that "alliance of Native American groups".... considering how the protest industry works (most protesters nowadays are pros who will protest anything for a paycheck).

And it goes directly against observed reality, which is that the tribes are more than happy to have the income: Witness the coal coming out of the reservations in eastern Montana. And it's stripmined at that.

Dumb uses of water.

[Anonymous Coward]

These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more.

And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?

That sucks up water too. And so does the idiotic lawns that are a must in sub-urban America (lawns are one of the MOST useless dumbest fucking things ever!), the need to wash cars, GOLF courses, showers with multiple heads, livestock (all those burgers and steaks suck up a LOT of water - much more than that vineyard or corn farm, .....

Fracking is late to the party so of course they're gonna get most of the blame. But good luck in fighting the deeply entrenched farm lobby or getting people to give up their lawns and steam showers.

Re: "MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[schlouse]

/rioting in the streets/

Dare I say that such a thing might be properly termed a "pussy riot"

Re:No Problem

[Fishchip]

What, do you get it on sale or something?

Slashdot Beta is surprise prison sex for the eyes

[nctritech]

There's nothing like getting fucked.
Without advance warning.
With a rake.
In the eyes.
In the corner of an Internet prison cafeteria.
Slashdot BETA is a war against the Internet proletariat.
Oh well, back to 4chan.

Re:Need to regulate fracking

[Fishchip]

Can we have some hard data on how many restaurant-goers in fracking areas died because they drank frackwater the restaurant served?

Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water?

[ebno-10db]

We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.

Now it's water?

The anti-fracking crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?

We've been told this whole time that car batteries uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.

Now you add water?

The anti-battery crowd will just make anything up to fit their agenda and whip up public outrage, won't they?

Fracking is good for business

[some old guy]

Fracking is good for business, so the environmental and health arguments are falling on deaf ears. The Republocrat duopoly sees only dollar signs

And /. beta still sucks.

Problem Solved

[Cycloid Torus]

All I can say is: http://www.originoil.com/produ... . These folks are just bringing their good solution to commercial markets around the world. Recycled frac water will overcome the issue.

Give priority to human consumption

[grahamm]

If the area has a drought then priority for water should be given to human consumption and hygene usages. Anyone using 'industrial' quantities of water should be charged in such a way as to discourage its use. Either that or the oil companies should have to pay for pipelines and pumps to bring sea water to their sites rather than competing for the local water supply. Even better make them not only pipe in sea water but also provide desalination plants to augment the local drinking water supplies. After all, the oil companies are no strangers to long distance pipelines.

Re:Give priority to human consumption

[DRJlaw]

Taken together, all the wells surveyed from January 2011 to May 2013 consumed 97 billion gallons of water, pumped under high pressure to crack rocks containing oil or natural gas.

Anyone using 'industrial' quantities of water should be charged in such a way as to discourage its use.

Hell yeah!

But not the farmers... they only use about 100-150 billion gallons per day. Says the USGS. But Willie Nelson says they're good people...

Re:Give priority to human consumption

[TheSync]

If the area has a drought then priority for water should be given to human consumption and hygene usages.

If the area has a drought, water should be priced at market prices.

Industrial users will be more sensitive to price increases and will decrease use faster than people who just need a few gallons to take a bath.

And if the price goes up high enough, expensive water reclamation and desalination plants will become economically effective. Or people may start driving in trucks full of water. Free market FTW!

Re:Give priority to human consumption

[Reziac]

You're aware that water isn't free to farmers either? They either pay for irrigation rights, or pay to pump it. Neither is exactly cheap. Since the cost of diesel got so high, I've seen figures as high as $200,000/acre to irrigate row crops. Do you think they might seek to minimize that expense??

My well guy told me of a golf course water system (deep wells with electric pumps) he repaired that the manager wanted to test RIGHT NOW, despite still being during Edison's prime time rates. My well guy warned him, don't do it, wait til your normal graveyard schedule, but noooo, it had to be tested NOW. So it got tested, for 15 minutes. When the bill came, it was $15,000 higher than normal. To run a relatively small-scale (compared to farms) irrigation system for FIFTEEN MINUTES.

Re:Give priority to human consumption

[DRJlaw]

So, you're arguing that water is cheaper for the fracking companies than for farmers? Or that farmers should be charged less than fracking companies? Or that both should be charged more or less than residential users?

I'm confused, since you've injected yourself into the middle of a conversation where my reply was rather self-evidently sarcastic, and the GP wanted to prioritize human consumption (see your reply's title). Nevermind that agircultrual users pay substantially less than residential users for each acre-foot of water used, even after you add in capital expense (see this CBO report.

Re:Give priority to human consumption

[Reziac]

No, I was just pointing out that contrary to popular belief, ag water is not free either -- in fact it's a serious expense. As to costs relative to other uses, well -- which do we need most -- food, oil, or urban lawns?

No good

[whizbang77045]

Everyone said they were no frackin' good!

Re:No good

[SleazyRidr]

Are you talking about the fracking, or the beta?

Water this

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'd rather see it used for this than watering yet another person's house who wants to live in the desert.

Most water is farming and industry anyway -- limit discs in California are asinine when home use is only 11% while most of it is used watering a desert so we in the north can have winter vegetables (oh, thank you, Californians).

Fracking Contaminates Water - Very Hard to Reclaim

[rabun_bike]

One of the big differences in water use with fracking wells is that the water is contaminated with many dangerous chemicals including benzine as well as natural elements like salt. That water is so nasty it is hard to reclaim back into water that can be used again. Therefore most fracking fluid water it is taken out of the water supply system forever in many cases by injecting contaminated water into deep wells for permanent storage. In other words the fresh water is contaminated for a one-time-use and then stored in deep wells forever (hopefully). Contrast this with other uses of water such as agriculture where the water does re-enter the water supply system - abet not free of agriculture contaminants but certainly not locked away in deep wells. So in this very arid regions water is being consumed and never returned back into the water system. Not good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03...

There is some movement in the industry to reuse fracking fluid but of course that drives up costs and this is an industry no known for spending money when not required to do so.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Join the Slashcott! February 10th-17th

Done. Though I think I will start n

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[Anne_Nonymous]

I just set my monitor on fire. Take that slash-beta!

we need a new community if beta goes forward

[snooo53]

The biggest thing I'm going to miss is the community here. Where else is there to go? Reddit?

Re:we need a new community if beta goes forward

[unitron]

Check this out:

http://www.altslashdot.org/wik...

and remember s/he's only been at it for a few hours.

Re:we need a new community if beta goes forward

[Atzanteol]

Reddit's not bad. I've been going there more often than slashdot these days. Easy to follow threads (which collapse nicely), similar mod system, etc. Some subreddits are better than others so YMMV.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[Anonymous Coward]

you already got one off-topic down mod, they're winning

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[mjr167]

I think you have your dates wrong... Today is the 6th.

industry talks about recycling the water

[peter303]

Most of it is pumped back out anyways to get the petroelum/gas out. I dont know how widespread recyling is.

SI Standard of Measure

[flyingfsck]

So how much is 10 million American Gallons in Olympic size swimming pools? We got use some standard units of measure dammit.

Re:SI Standard of Measure

[the eric conspiracy]

15.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[geekoid]

Some changes where made and these people feel like they can pollute the site for all the other people. In what way are these people not like the typical internet user?

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[geekoid]

revolution? Revolution?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahhaha.

Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water?

[rjstanford]

Yup, because heavy industry never uses two things in any given process.

I'll say this about Linkedln....

[Anonymous Coward]

...they have got moxxy. To go this far just to get me to sign up?

Re:About beta.

[nospam007]

"The fact that the commenting system is such an afterthought in the Beta is as much evidence as I need that the people pushing this redesign never use this site."

Indeed. It as as if they seriously expected that we actually RTFA!

Only a complete newbie would think that.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[nospam007]

Slashdot, it's the comments, stupid!

We don't read the article.
We also don't watch the video.

Maybe Not So Hard to Reclaim

[Cycloid Torus]

Take a look at http://www.originoil.com/appli...

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[nospam007]

"How can the managers NOT respond after so much criticism?
Anybody with even the smallest amount of competence in PR would have woken up by now..."

We don't read the fucking article.

They don't read the fucking comments.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[unitron]

I think you have your dates wrong... Today is the 6th.

Right. 4 days 'til Slashcottpocolypse begins.

Re:What the frack?

[SleazyRidr]

I can't tell if you're talking about fracking or the /. beta.

If you're talking about fracking, it's had a lot of bad press from some cowboys doing it in places where they shouldn't. Reforming the regulations around it (like not letting them dump undisclosed chemicals) could make it a far more palatable option. It's still an expensive operation, so it won't bring the oil price back down, but it can help fuel domestic industry in the USA by not having to buy fuel on the international market.

If you're talking about the beta, then it's an unmitigated clusterfuck and I hope they kill it before it infects everyone else. I like the idea of the altslashdot.org project, let's all get on board with that.

Recycling?

[rjstanford]

After the water is used one time in fracking, its buried into containment wells to be sealed up for the foreseeable future. Its taking a resource that depends on massive reusability and turning it, slowly, into a single-use resource.
That's kind of a problem.

No more mod point/Comment rating

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF!? Now I have to read all 100 comments without any sorting. This will kill all the commenting and readers will go away. I mean 90% come to /. for comments not the article.
Fuck Beta.

Waste

[rjstanford]

Wasteful irrigation practices temporarily pull water out of the ground and, in general, either let it evaporate to rain down again somewhere else or store it briefly in foodstocks that will be eaten and returned to the system.
Fracking takes water out of the ecosystem completely, since its used one time and the waste is typically then stored in containment wells "forever."

Fuck Beta, Fork Alpha.Time to resurrect slashcode?

[seandiggity]

http://www.slashcode.com/www.slashcode.com/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/

food for thought: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlashDot

Re:About beta.

[denzacar]

They should have been fucking beta instead of fracking for gas.

Re:About beta.

[cellocgw]

Well, since we're coming up w/ " tau/2 - in the sky" alternatives, how's about convincing that other site to add a "/s" subdomain alongside the existing "/r" subdomain. Move slashdot non-beta there lock, stock,& barrel.

Re:Fracking doesn't use drinking water.

[sexconker]

Get a fricken life.

And when you use assloads of [not drinking] water to frack, your [drinking water] has to also be used for the things the [not drinking] water would have otherwise been used for.

Beyond that, fracking makes a lot of [drinking water] unsafe. Plenty of people rely on water sourced from wells and streams and shit. When the frackers set up shop their pipes end up releasing those flammable gases into that water. You shouldn't be drinking from the tap if it looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And yes, fracking causes earthquakes too. The issue isn't the holes from drilling destabilizing the rock, the issue is the pressure changes they cause after they extract all that gas. If fracking were happening in San Francisco or New York, the "educated" position would be that it's terrible for the environment. But because it's happening in rural areas, the people complaining about it and the problems it causes are branded as "ignorant" and the "educated" position is that it's perfectly safe.

the soul is lost

[jovius]

The new commenting system is seriously flawed. It feels like the actual soul of the site - the comments and the users - is being pushed aside and fenced in. This doesn't feel nice, this is not an improvement. I don't see myself to comment much on the beta (the new slashdot) articles. The comment section is not inviting anymore. It doesn't inspire.

Slashdot Beta is Draining Users from a Great Site

[ShaunC]

Just saying. Fuck this beta. I'm not advocating that those responsible be sacked (I'd have been more clever there, but I'm sure unicode still doesn't work). Just revisit the idea.

Re:Sorry Jimmy, no dinner tonight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo.

So you didn't have the foresight to learn a marketable trade.

Whose fault is that?

There's plenty of work out there. There's a huge market in alternative energy. I know guys making good incomes designing and installing solar and other alternatives. They don't bitch and complain and blame anybody else. They trained and got jobs.

Get with the times, pull yourself up by those bootstraps, and enjoy the challenge.

Re:Can anyone help me? I can't read the content he

[Calydor]

just to read a few comments!

I can't even get the comments to load, there's some undefined error suggesting I try loading more - gave up after five attempts.

They're really going far to make us RTFA!

I hate sounding crude, but: Fuck Beta.

I agree

[nobuddy]

Your reply is propaganda bullshit.

You suck at logic

[nobuddy]

A discussion about the impact of concentrating the drilling in drought regions to you means extrapolate that data across the entire country's water usage to show how small the impact is?

Don't try any more. Just chill and let the adults talk.

You don't listen very well, do you?

[nobuddy]

The burning is because fracking exposes the methane to the water table. thus everyone in the area that uses a well has methane in their water. That means that water burns.
Quite a surprise to you when you turn on the tap to fill a pan for your spaghetti and your sink explodes- ignited off of the nearby stove that is on.

The toxicity issues are related- when fracking breaks into the water table, so does the fluid. yes, it is mostly water. So is arsenic, cyanide, and many other deadly solutions. When a fraction of a part-per-million is carcinogenic, saying it is "mostly water" is dishonest.

How much do they pay you for this?

[nobuddy]

Agriculture returns the water to the water cycle. Fracking does not.

Lies are present, but not coming from the source you think they are.

Re:How much do they pay you for this?

[tp1024]

You mean, after running off into the ocean, it evaporates again and comes back down as rain. Whereas fracking removes the water, resulting in a lowering of sea levels of roughly one micrometer per year. This reduces the average area of sea surface evaporating water by some 0.3 square kilometers or 100 acres worldwide.

Yes, you are completely right. This will reduce the amount of rainfall available in dry areas of the US.

Even though one might argue that pumping the water into the crust will depress the crust into the mantle and lift areas along the edge of the continental crust instead, once isostatic equilibrium has been achieved, thus offsetting a few nanometers per year in the long run and increase the sea surface available for evaporation by as much as a few acres!

nope

[nobuddy]

The ag argument fails because fracking removes that water from the water cycle. Ag does not.

Don't look now, your lie is showing

[nobuddy]

fracking reduces the number of wells drilled by making each well more productive.

Fracking outlawed means more wells per reservoir have to be drilled. johnny, looks like steak again, daddy's skills are in high demand.

Re:About beta.

[NeutronCowboy]

I love this part of her resume:
"Proven track record innovating and improving iconic websites (CNET.com, Dice.com, Slashdot.org, Sourceforge.net) while protecting their voice and brand integrity; extensive board level and governance experience especially with non-profit volunteer communities, open source developers, and local chapters and projects worldwide. "

ROFL. Fortunately for her, none of the people who would interview her are techies. Otherwise, that little blurb would get her laughed out of the room.

Re:About beta.

[GameMaster]

Never underestimate the impact of poor quality web developers with big egos. It doesn't have to be the MBAs pushing it when you have someone who is blindly convinced of the "superiority" of the new version they spent long hours creating...

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[jeffb (2.718)]

Of all the thing you want to post to Slashdot about, for some reason the slashdot beta ranks at the top?

Indeed.

Shew, fly!

I think you're looking for "shoo". We'll shoo if Dice makes it clear that they want us to. This whole demonstration is intended to make sure they understand that.

Re:About beta.

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The managers are the ones that ultimately make the decision about what moves forward and what doesn't. The individual developers don't get to make that choice.

Re:About beta.

[thoromyr]

Here's the beta feedback. "leave slashdot alone, or we're leaving"

Re:About beta.

[I kan Spl]

Wow. The beta is terrible.

Slashdot is already dead

[r0kk3rz]

Many people come here for the comments and intelligent discussion, but as of late the only comments are whining about the Slashdot Beta.

Re:About beta.

[Mashdar]

Fraking Betalons.

Using the word Frack correctly

[emaname]

Like "frack you," "go frack yourself," "you frackin' idiot" to show your displeasure with someone.

IOW, use "frack" in place of the all-purpose noun, verb and expletive that begins with the letter "f."

It certainly isn't much, but as a form of protest it makes a point.

Example: That frackin' beta sucks frack water.

Fraking Beta

[MrKaos]

The problem with fracking is it's still in the beta development. The frakers don't understand who the stakeholders are in their projects and what happens when you turn the ground beneath your feet into mash potato.

The ground that's always been there since the beginning feels the same, it looks the same but for some unexplainable reason it no longer has the same substance. Then suddenly something happens and everything collapses into a hole, panic ensues it goes on for some time and then it has changed forever.

The cries go out "We didn't know" - "We should have listened" but it's too late and the world is changed forever.

The parallels are found everywhere.

Re:About beta.

[Zxern]

RTFA? pff half the time I don't even RTFS, I just go straight to the comments.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't.

[Icebreaker]

I've never felt the urge to pile on with "off-topic" spam -- until now. We've tried lobbying, we've tried rational discussion, we've tried voting; none seem to have any effect. So, now, we're "movin' on up" to the equivalent of rioting in the streets.

And, yep, I'm signing my name.

I agree. I just checked out the beta real quick and it could not even load the comments.
I have been reading slashdot for 14+ years and I do not think that the site needs any sort of face lift
Get off my Lawn!
Please do not change Slashdot. I will not continue to visit this site if they default to this new interface.

Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water?

[Rakarra]

We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.

Now it's water?

It's water with additives, similar to how you are water with additives. The exact additives and the amounts are pretty important.

Stupid Me

[Cycloid Torus]

One moderator declared this 'Offtopic" - and he was right. I should have explained more... OriginOil is a tiny California company which has developed an inexpensive process for removing chemical and organic material from Frack water. The water can then be used directly for the same purpose. Current technology requires trucking and this process is much more effective, efficient and economical. The video clips at OriginOil are worth watching. OriginOil's business plan is to license manufacturing - and this results in the most rapid spread for the technology. I wish them well.

Re:About beta.

[DeputySpade]

They must be new here. :-p

Re:About beta.

[balbus000]

Just sent this message to her:

As your profile was linked in a comment on Slashdot, I'm sure you've received many angry messages, so I will keep mine civil and simple.

Slashdot Beta has no usability for the core user group. If Slashdot Beta is implemented, and Slashdot Classic goes away, you will see a significant decrease in visitors. Please don't kill this community.

Regards,

A concerned /.er

Water supply

[pebear]

Since the water in the Great lakes is slowly draining out the Niagara Escarpment why don't they slow up the amount of water draining out the escarpment and pipe up water from the Great Lakes and send it out to the Arid areas of the West to supply drinking water. Has to be better than the rely on the Colorado River, Arizona River, Platte River basins. Better than all that water just draining into the Atlantic. Then we can keep the fracking moving forward and become more and more energy independent. Just a thought and I know y'all will hate the idea... PB

Re:About beta.

[Reziac]

CNET??? so THAT's what happened to it. It used to have good content, easy to find. Not anymore. :(

Re:About beta.

[Reziac]

But the managers are the ones who spent the money, and by damn they need to justify that expense. If it's backed away from, that means it was a bad purchase, and we all know what happens to managers who make bad decisions like that.

.
.
.
.
. ...they go on to ruin some other company.