In the USA we have a political party that would never allow such a thing. They would scream about big government and unfair regulation and job creators needing to be protected.
Fracking is just another example of the actions of companies as irresponsible as those who do those other things. Sure it might be safe, but I don't trust those bastards to run a easter egg hunt and not poison the lawn.
Oh wow, OWS, folks I would never associate with good call. What a zinger there. You must really make your mom proud, call her down to the basement and show her that post.
Talk about projection. No one thinks that simply except for you.
Fracking is neither good nor bad, just poorly used and improperly regulated. Apply the cleanwater act and many peoples reservations about it would be greatly reduced. Force them to disclose what is in their fracking fluids and how they dispose of the hydrocarbon laced wastewater and even more folks would be put at ease. Force all hydrocarbon well operations to case the borehole the entire length and again objections would be reduced.
Giving them a free pass on normal regulation, require no disclosure and allow them to select which holes are cased and which are not while shifting any environment cost onto the tax payer is what causes so many objections.
Why is stating that natural gas is less bad than coal but worse than nuclear not true?
Nope. The reality is the reason it needs defending is because it follows the standard practices of mining. Extract resources and leave the mess for the taxpayer to pay for.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Sure they use the excuse that often these costs are individually quite low, filling in one headwater or poisoning one well, but in total we see the truth. Personal responsibility is not something the mining industry wants. Look at the BP spill for a good example. They tried to pawn off the problem and spread dispersal agents to make it look less bad.
If they had immediately said "our bad" and then done everything they could to fix the problem and to compensate everyone impacted it would have been different. That is not how mining companies operate.
Because this is the norm for these companies. It is the norm for mining as a whole. This is because some of these costs are going to be on going for generations (open pit mine, waste damn might be forever) while the benefits go on for only a short time.
So what did they do in those other 100 cases? It is my understanding they either pawn it off on the locals, dump it in an unused well were it will maybe stay or just put it in holding ponds which will eventually leak. Are there any fracking operations that clean all their waste water back to drinking quality?
I do not mean the stuff they pump down for fracking that is pretty clean, but the waste water that comes back out of the well.
Do you not know what happens in those situations or do you hate a clean environment?
Mountain topping means filling in valleys and headwaters of rivers. It means polluting the properties down stream. It means someone makes a fortune will depriving others of fish and game and wild areas and unpolluted property.
An unfilled pit mine, like say a copper mine fills will rain water, that becomes highly polluted and eventually then drains into the ground water.
What someone can say to us people is that they will pay for the cleanup of their own actions. YOU KNOW, FUCKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The water they pump down the well is fine. Then they pump that back up to get it out of the way at that point it is highly polluted. They tend to either shoot that down a used well, or keep it in ponds. Either way it eventually will leak as humans have never built anything that lasts forever.
They will always cut corners, so long as their is money to be made. We must assume that they will and insure against it.
Imagine you have a fault line 100 miles long, now with fracking 90 miles of it slip. The last 10miles are now bearing the loads that were on all 100 miles. Think that might cause a problem?
I am no more a geologist than you, but calling it irrelevant to beneficial when no one knows is highly irresponsible.
Are you fucking kidding? This is the USA, they paid the waste water company and got a contract absolving them of anything. The waste water folks claimed that this was not covered by the contract, and now lawyers get to fight.
The water is not heavily polluted, but it surely is not good for us. Sure maybe one or two or one twenty such cases will not lead to a provable problem, but at some point it will. No matter what, why the hell should they not pay to clean their own waste up?
You can't drink money, even a lawsuit would do nothing. Besides they would just declare bankruptcy on that little venture. Mining companies are setup like this just for that purpose.
Sure they do, but almost all of it is temporary. The real profit goes to places far away. The costs however will be at that location forever. If anything goes bad, the little mining company set up for that site will declare bankruptcy the parent organization will wash its hands of the place and the taxpayer will be stuck with the bill.
For somethings like nuclear power just because of the scale that is the only way it can be, for little natural gas wells this is not the case.
I want power to be cheap, I want to be able to use as much electricity as a city now uses.
I do not want to pollute the earth to the point were I cannot hunt or fish anymore. I do not want to pay to cleanup these sites after the companies leave.
How about we use sources of power that per unit energy have less environmental costs? Maybe we even require these folks to clean the water instead of just dumping it.
I understand it fine. Here is the externality that occurred in my area:
They fracked an old NatGas well, to do so they pumped water + some relatively safe stuff down the well. Then they pumped that stuff back up, it was now of course highly polluted with various hydrocarbons. Then they dumped the waste water off at a water treatment plant meant for human waste not industrial waste. The water was not properly treated and ended up in our reservoir that our drinking water comes from.
What would you call that? What would you call the end result of abandoned open pit mine that is full of poisoned water? What would you call the result of mountain topping with the loss of headwaters of streams to both filling and what streams are left being too polluted for fish to live in?
Modern mining practices are one exercise in externalizing costs after the other. They specialize in externalizing as much costs as possible.
The droid line has nothing to do with Google directly. It is a Verizon thing. So your claim fails right there.
Hardware vendors are not competing with it they produce it.
Microsoft is not going to be buying handsets and branding them, which is what google does with the nexus line and what verizon does with the droid line.
I bet cheap land and low cost of living has even more to do with it. Just wait until those areas get built up. Then the companies will move to the next backwater.
Texas is from what I can tell a terrible place to live. You can't even walk to the bars since everything is either 6 lane or a dry county. I don't mind go there to hunt or visit my family, but I could never live there.
The key difference is Google gets its nexus devices from an android OEM it does not make them. HTC, Samsung have both made one and Moto made a google experience device.
Long term having more device supported by ASOP is good for google. So now even a sony device is supported.
MIcrosoft has no such ambitions nor intentions to have such an ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
In the USA we have a political party that would never allow such a thing. They would scream about big government and unfair regulation and job creators needing to be protected.
BULLFUCKING SHIT.
MS will use IE to track you and DNT to deny google and others that ability.
It really is that simple. I wish they cared, hell I wish any company cared that much.
Which you will note they did instead of treating the water.
What a trustworthy industry.
Have you never heard of hyperbole?
Fracking is just another example of the actions of companies as irresponsible as those who do those other things. Sure it might be safe, but I don't trust those bastards to run a easter egg hunt and not poison the lawn.
Oh wow, OWS, folks I would never associate with good call. What a zinger there. You must really make your mom proud, call her down to the basement and show her that post.
I do not have your life. I am sorry you cannot afford to move out.
If you would like I can rent you the basement of my house, I had it tested the radon levels are below the EPA limits.
Or you could try arguing the points instead of being an idiot.
No one wants to ban them. They want those people to pay their own cleanup costs. You know personal responsibility.
If the amount of water to be treated is so small why don't they do so?
If it is so clean why did they need an exemption from the clean water act? Why can't it be reinstated against them?
Talk about projection. No one thinks that simply except for you.
Fracking is neither good nor bad, just poorly used and improperly regulated. Apply the cleanwater act and many peoples reservations about it would be greatly reduced. Force them to disclose what is in their fracking fluids and how they dispose of the hydrocarbon laced wastewater and even more folks would be put at ease. Force all hydrocarbon well operations to case the borehole the entire length and again objections would be reduced.
Giving them a free pass on normal regulation, require no disclosure and allow them to select which holes are cased and which are not while shifting any environment cost onto the tax payer is what causes so many objections.
Why is stating that natural gas is less bad than coal but worse than nuclear not true?
Nope.
The reality is the reason it needs defending is because it follows the standard practices of mining. Extract resources and leave the mess for the taxpayer to pay for.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Sure they use the excuse that often these costs are individually quite low, filling in one headwater or poisoning one well, but in total we see the truth. Personal responsibility is not something the mining industry wants. Look at the BP spill for a good example. They tried to pawn off the problem and spread dispersal agents to make it look less bad.
If they had immediately said "our bad" and then done everything they could to fix the problem and to compensate everyone impacted it would have been different. That is not how mining companies operate.
What a wonderful insight, glad we have you to post that kind of thing.
Unlike you I have my own bills.
How about if you don't have a good reply you just kindly STFU.
Because this is the norm for these companies. It is the norm for mining as a whole. This is because some of these costs are going to be on going for generations (open pit mine, waste damn might be forever) while the benefits go on for only a short time.
So what did they do in those other 100 cases?
It is my understanding they either pawn it off on the locals, dump it in an unused well were it will maybe stay or just put it in holding ponds which will eventually leak. Are there any fracking operations that clean all their waste water back to drinking quality?
I do not mean the stuff they pump down for fracking that is pretty clean, but the waste water that comes back out of the well.
Do you not know what happens in those situations or do you hate a clean environment?
Mountain topping means filling in valleys and headwaters of rivers. It means polluting the properties down stream. It means someone makes a fortune will depriving others of fish and game and wild areas and unpolluted property.
An unfilled pit mine, like say a copper mine fills will rain water, that becomes highly polluted and eventually then drains into the ground water.
What someone can say to us people is that they will pay for the cleanup of their own actions. YOU KNOW, FUCKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Let me be more clear.
The water they pump down the well is fine. Then they pump that back up to get it out of the way at that point it is highly polluted. They tend to either shoot that down a used well, or keep it in ponds. Either way it eventually will leak as humans have never built anything that lasts forever.
They will always cut corners, so long as their is money to be made. We must assume that they will and insure against it.
Way to ignore what I said.
Imagine you have a fault line 100 miles long, now with fracking 90 miles of it slip. The last 10miles are now bearing the loads that were on all 100 miles. Think that might cause a problem?
I am no more a geologist than you, but calling it irrelevant to beneficial when no one knows is highly irresponsible.
Are you fucking kidding?
This is the USA, they paid the waste water company and got a contract absolving them of anything. The waste water folks claimed that this was not covered by the contract, and now lawyers get to fight.
The water is not heavily polluted, but it surely is not good for us. Sure maybe one or two or one twenty such cases will not lead to a provable problem, but at some point it will. No matter what, why the hell should they not pay to clean their own waste up?
You can't drink money, even a lawsuit would do nothing. Besides they would just declare bankruptcy on that little venture. Mining companies are setup like this just for that purpose.
Sure they do, but almost all of it is temporary. The real profit goes to places far away. The costs however will be at that location forever. If anything goes bad, the little mining company set up for that site will declare bankruptcy the parent organization will wash its hands of the place and the taxpayer will be stuck with the bill.
For somethings like nuclear power just because of the scale that is the only way it can be, for little natural gas wells this is not the case.
I want power to be cheap, I want to be able to use as much electricity as a city now uses.
I do not want to pollute the earth to the point were I cannot hunt or fish anymore. I do not want to pay to cleanup these sites after the companies leave.
How about we use sources of power that per unit energy have less environmental costs? Maybe we even require these folks to clean the water instead of just dumping it.
I understand it fine. Here is the externality that occurred in my area:
They fracked an old NatGas well, to do so they pumped water + some relatively safe stuff down the well. Then they pumped that stuff back up, it was now of course highly polluted with various hydrocarbons. Then they dumped the waste water off at a water treatment plant meant for human waste not industrial waste. The water was not properly treated and ended up in our reservoir that our drinking water comes from.
What would you call that?
What would you call the end result of abandoned open pit mine that is full of poisoned water? What would you call the result of mountain topping with the loss of headwaters of streams to both filling and what streams are left being too polluted for fish to live in?
Modern mining practices are one exercise in externalizing costs after the other. They specialize in externalizing as much costs as possible.
I believe he was being sarcastic.
Better question, why are they not required to treat the wastewater to the same standards as when they received it?
Then they could dump it into rivers. The problem is they want to just dump this toxic water, which is polluted from the well.
Is asking someone to pay to cleanup their own mess anti-progress? To me it sounds like personal responsibility.
Or you added stress?
Or you induced a stress in just a small area that now failed and that means more stress is applied to what remains.
It would be nice if you are correct, but we have no such idea and to suggest that is the mechanism is very premature.
Why woud you assume the fracking is acting as lubrication instead of just adding some stress to the situation that is already there?
Honestly I don't think we know enough to say what the possible cause or even nature of the relationship would be.
I agree it is just as terrible as mountain topping, and open pit mining that is not filled after use.
I disagree that civilization must rely on these things. There are better ways, they just cost a little more since they tend to internalize costs.
As we can see from your signature you are a hypocrite. Externalizing costs to the rest of society is no different than any other form of socialism.
The droid line has nothing to do with Google directly. It is a Verizon thing. So your claim fails right there.
Hardware vendors are not competing with it they produce it.
Microsoft is not going to be buying handsets and branding them, which is what google does with the nexus line and what verizon does with the droid line.
I bet cheap land and low cost of living has even more to do with it. Just wait until those areas get built up. Then the companies will move to the next backwater.
Texas is from what I can tell a terrible place to live. You can't even walk to the bars since everything is either 6 lane or a dry county. I don't mind go there to hunt or visit my family, but I could never live there.
Is there a 9 pin rs232 serial port?
Would be way more useful to me than a 56k modem.
The key difference is Google gets its nexus devices from an android OEM it does not make them. HTC, Samsung have both made one and Moto made a google experience device.
Long term having more device supported by ASOP is good for google. So now even a sony device is supported.
MIcrosoft has no such ambitions nor intentions to have such an ecosystem.