Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > Texas > San Antonio > The Sandbox - San Antonio
test
The Sandbox - San Antonio The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163198
Yssup Rider60844
gman4453287
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48638
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42522
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36942
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2011, 06:55 PM   #16
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mokoa View Post
Really? Please elaborate. I have never know any link to be, as you say, too big.
Sure I can post what I have from the NYT. I'm on an iPhone and I was trying to respond to a comment and when I posted the link it would only populate half of the screen but I will be at my MacBook soon and I'll post it.
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 06:59 PM   #17
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Aah shit half of the article I meant.
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 07:10 PM   #18
oshins
Valued Poster
 
oshins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 837
Encounters: 23
Default

From the academic journal Energy Policy:
Quote:
On December 7, 2010 EPA issued an endangerment order against a Barnett Shale gas company in Fort Worth, Texas. EPA ordered the company to take immediate action to protect homeowners who have complained repeatedly about flammable and bubbling drinking tap water. EPA testing confirmed that high levels of methane gas in the water posed an immediate risk of explosion or fire. In August of 2010, EPA received the initial citizens' complaints. When an EPA inspector followed up on the complaints, EPA learned that the homeowners had previously complained to the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), the state regulatory authority for the gas and oil industry, but that the RRC had taken inadequate action. EPA confirmed that the water contained both methane and benzene, a known carcinogen (Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a).
There are plenty of cases like this. To say that
Quote:
there has never been a hazardous leak or any environmental problem of any kind.
as stated by JohnRock, is to ignore the facts or purposefully mislead.

As I said before, this is my field.
oshins is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 07:15 PM   #19
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Hey wasn't there a resident here in the surrounding area whose water from his faucet could catch fire? I think it might've been last year and I wonder if it was from fracking also
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 07:43 PM   #20
Guest121514
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 25, 2009
Location: texas
Posts: 1,407
Encounters: 229
Default

Methane, ethane and propane gases have historically been found in fresh water aquifers, wells and springs. There is scant evidence that there is a direct correlation of this to well fracing. There are, however, many documented cases of oil and gas wells polluting fresh water sands, usually because of holes in casing. WTF are you discussing this on a hooker board where most people are not aware of the tremendous amount of documentation regarding this procedure?
Guest121514 is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 07:46 PM   #21
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Ok here is the article from the NYT:
Over the past nine months, The Times reviewed more than 30,000 pages of documents obtained through open records requests of state and federal agencies and by visiting various regional offices that oversee drilling in Pennsylvania. Some of the documents were leaked by state or federal officials.
But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle.

Other documents and interviews show that many E.P.A. scientists are alarmed, warning that the drilling waste is a threat to drinking water in Pennsylvania. Their concern is based partly on a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008.

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

And the citizens of Pennsylvania aren’t the only ones in harms way. There are many others:

There were more than 493,000 active natural-gas wells in the United States in 2009, almost double the number in 1990. Around 90 percent have used hydrofracking to get more gas flowing, according to the drilling industry.

Gas has seeped into underground drinking-water supplies in at least five states, including Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia, and residents blamed natural-gas drilling.

Air pollution caused by natural-gas drilling is a growing threat, too. Wyoming, for example, failed in 2009 to meet federal standards for air quality for the first time in its history partly because of the fumes containing benzene and toluene from roughly 27,000 wells, the vast majority drilled in the past five years.

In a sparsely populated Sublette County in Wyoming, which has some of the highest concentrations of wells, vapors reacting to sunlight have contributed to levels of ozone higher than those recorded in Houston and Los Angeles.

Back to the Keystone State. Here are some more of the NYT’s findings:

More than 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years, far more than has been previously disclosed. Most of this water — enough to cover Manhattan in three inches — was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste.¶At least 12 sewage treatment plants in three states accepted gas industry wastewater and discharged waste that was only partly treated into rivers, lakes and streams.

¶Of more than 179 wells producing wastewater with high levels of radiation, at least 116 reported levels of radium or other radioactive materials 100 times as high as the levels set by federal drinking-water standards. At least 15 wells produced wastewater carrying more than 1,000 times the amount of radioactive elements considered acceptable.

So, are these levels of radioactivity dangerous? Here’s where the American Petroleum Institute comes in:

Industry officials say they are not concerned.

“These low levels of radioactivity pose no threat to the public or worker safety and are more a public perception issue than a real health threat,” said James E. Grey, chief operating officer of Triana Energy.

In interviews, industry trade groups like the Marcellus Shale Coalition and Energy in Depth, as well as representatives from energy companies like Shell and Chesapeake Energy, said they were producing far less wastewater because they were recycling much of it rather than disposing of it after each job.

But even with recycling, the amount of wastewater produced in Pennsylvania is expected to increase because, according to industry projections, more than 50,000 new wells are likely to be drilled over the next two decades.

The radioactivity in the wastewater is not necessarily dangerous to people who are near it. It can be blocked by thin barriers, including skin, so exposure is generally harmless.

Rather, E.P.A. and industry researchers say, the bigger danger of radioactive wastewater is its potential to contaminate drinking water or enter the food chain through fish or farming. Once radium enters a person’s body, by eating, drinking or breathing, it can cause cancer and other health problems, many federal studies show.

Little Testing for Radioactivity

Under federal law, testing for radioactivity in drinking water is required only at drinking-water plants. But federal and state regulators have given nearly all drinking-water intake facilities in Pennsylvania permission to test only once every six or nine years.

The Times reviewed data from more than 65 intake plants downstream from some of the busiest drilling regions in the state. Not one has tested for radioactivity since 2008, and most have not tested since at least 2005, before most of the drilling waste was being produced.

And in 2009 and 2010, public sewage treatment plants directly upstream from some of these drinking-water intake facilities accepted wastewater that contained radioactivity levels as high as 2,122 times the drinking-water standard. But most sewage plants are not required to monitor for radioactive elements in the water they discharge. So there is virtually no data on such contaminants as water leaves these plants. Regulators and gas producers have repeatedly said that the waste is not a threat because it is so diluted in rivers or by treatment plants. But industry and federal research cast doubt on those statements.

A confidential industry study from 1990, conducted for the American Petroleum Institute, concluded that “using conservative assumptions,” radium in drilling wastewater dumped off the Louisiana coast posed “potentially significant risks” of cancer for people who eat fish from those waters regularly.

The industry study focused on drilling industry wastewater being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where it would be far more diluted than in rivers. It also used estimates of radium levels far below those found in Pennsylvania’s drilling waste, according to the study’s lead author, Anne F. Meinhold, an environmental risk expert now at NASA.

Other federal, state and academic studies have also found dilution problems with radioactive drilling waste.

Uh, okay, NYT, you’ve sold me on the notion that I shouldn’t trust industry statements that these levels of radioactivity are harmless.

BUT how about a little follow up on that 1990 API study. Has the petroleum industry kept knowingly dumping wastewater with radium in it off the Louisiana coast that could be causing cancer in people? I’m sure the beleaguered people of the Bayou state would be interested in the answer.

The bottom line this bombshell story is that the natural gas industry should no longer be given any presumption of innocence or safety in regards the health impacts of fracking. Time for the EPA and the wastewater industry to do some testing and inform the public of the dangers.


Everyone should see Gasland which exposes the Gas drilling industry. You can watch the whole thing here:

http://stagevu.com/video/gqjurcfjrwge
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 07:52 PM   #22
Guest121514
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 25, 2009
Location: texas
Posts: 1,407
Encounters: 229
Default

Since WHEN is the NYT scientifically qualified, with peer review, to test and evaluate anything? Or you, for that matter. Lmao
Guest121514 is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 08:10 PM   #23
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Is that all you got? Really?
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 08:53 PM   #24
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrock View Post
Methane, ethane and propane gases have historically been found in fresh water aquifers, wells and springs. There is scant evidence that there is a direct correlation of this to well fracing. There are, however, many documented cases of oil and gas wells polluting fresh water sands, usually because of holes in casing. WTF are you discussing this on a hooker board where most people are not aware of the tremendous amount of documentation regarding this procedure?
So, is that what you think of the providers? That they are just "hookers" and not capable of making an informed and educated opinion about this? Explain why you have such a lowly opinion and contempt for them. I'll wait, I will really.
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 09:12 PM   #25
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrock View Post
Methane, ethane and propane gases have historically been found in fresh water aquifers, wells and springs. There is scant evidence that there is a direct correlation of this to well fracing. There are, however, many documented cases of oil and gas wells polluting fresh water sands, usually because of holes in casing. WTF are you discussing this on a hooker board where most people are not aware of the tremendous amount of documentation regarding this procedure?
Scant evidence? After what I and others have already posted? I can go all night about this and post link after link supporting my point. I've been debating and fighting things like this for quite awhile and I do my research before I make a claim like this do you?
You're trying to tell me that the incredible pressure the hydraulic process produces to split shale and release the pockets of gas is so finely calibrated that it does no damage and the contaminates that result (remember you've already admitted that this happens) are not of any danger to the underlying geological structure or to the surrounding water supplies? Hmmm.....
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 09:43 PM   #26
Mokoa
The Mod In Black®
 
Mokoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 36,496
Encounters: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodram View Post
So, is that what you think of the providers? That they are just "hookers" and not capable of making an informed and educated opinion about this? Explain why you have such a lowly opinion and contempt for them. I'll wait, I will really.
Where in the following did he come to such a conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrock View Post
WTF are you discussing this on a hooker board where most people are not aware of the tremendous amount of documentation regarding this procedure?
Not being aware of something does not reflect on one's intelligence. I am sure there are quite a number of areas where you are a fish out of the water just some of us here are because we are not familiar the topic.

As someone who claims the following...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodram View Post
I've been debating and fighting things like this for quite awhile and I do my research before I make a claim like this do you?
I would think that you would already be aware of that. Perhaps, that is an incorrect assumption on my part.
Mokoa is offline   Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 10:42 PM   #27
Rodram
BANNED
 
Rodram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 674
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mokoa View Post
Where in the following did he come to such a conclusion?


Not being aware of something does not reflect on one's intelligence. I am sure there are quite a number of areas where you are a fish out of the water just some of us here are because we are not familiar the topic.

As someone who claims the following...


I would think that you would already be aware of that. Perhaps, that is an incorrect assumption on my part.
Let's see, on the first question the "WTF" part establishes the negativity and "hooker" part kind of establishes the contempt, as it is a derogatory term.

Meh, I'm bored already. I'm sure johnny is old enough to defend himself so until then, ciao mokoa.
Rodram is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 05:49 AM   #28
pixelwarrior
Valued Poster
 
pixelwarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 4, 2011
Location: planet earth
Posts: 154
Encounters: 12
Default

The newest find is the Eagle Ford Shale. The new fracking technology is very new. Of course it will fuck up the environment, what doesn't. We're here to go. The natural gas isn't the big deal. It's the oil. It's huge. The Chinese have invested. The companies are moving equipment from all over the US. There is a shortage. The drilling is now moving forward. They are just now building the pipelines to Corpus Christi. There are gonna be a lot of rich Polish immigrants in South Texas!
pixelwarrior is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 08:23 AM   #29
Rakhir
Valued Poster
 
Rakhir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 10, 2010
Location: san antonio
Posts: 1,052
Encounters: 62
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodram View Post
Please forgive me if I sound sarcastic but where did you get your info from, Exxon? Any effort searching Google would give you well documented information on fracking and it's effects supporting the numerous statements on this thread. If you still can't find it pm me and I'll help ya' out. Oh and I did try to post some links but I think they were too big for this website.
Well I get most of my information from the Texas A&M study commissioned for a project I am investing in and my best friend runs in the business. The company has now been doing geothermal for several years and we have never had a problem.

Out of curiosity though exactly where and how do you propose to capture and generated energy to meet the needs of this nation? Wind? A nice supplement but will never replace the fossil fuel carbon chain energy ratio. Nuclear? I personally am all for it but in comparison to wind yet again if you closed down the South Texas Project you'd have to pave over Rhode Island with windmills to equal the reactors output and you couldn't depend upon it to generate 360 out of the year.

The geothermal projects I am in generate about 10 megawatts per well and each well handles about 2500 homes. But even that has its limitations. Nice supplements but you can only generate power in certain geographical locations by taking advantage of fracturing strata to capture the necessary heat combined with pressure.

I am at a loss over the sudden manufactured concern over this new process. Especially since it seems to be the same cast of characters objecting to the retrieval of energy. (Please don't think I am lumping you in with them in this statement. I don't know you all that well but I am enjoying the conversation)

For years I have listened to the left anti drilling lobby complaining but never offering any real world solutions. Oh and the "leases have been given but the companies won't drill them" argument doesn't work for me either. The Destin Dome project off of the coast of Florida is a huge dry natural gas strike drilled by Cheveron in the 90's. To date they have never been able to produce off of it because of the usual nonsense. Here is merely one article concerning this:http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/ar...e-project.html.

Consider putting out the investment to explore, drill, and create infrastructure only to be told you can't produce to recapture that massive investment! This is only one example of many I can produce to make my point. Then, when someone comes up with a work around such as fraking to generate new yield form existing well heads suddenly there is a cry such as yours to deal with. I have yet to see any verifiable examples of such a danger from any credible source.

That is why I have taken this position. However, I am not so naive to believe there are not risks associated with this industry. All human endeavors involve risk. It is how we mitigate those risks and intelligently design and plan for them.

Another quick example is the reactor in Japan that is having so much difficulty. I still believe nuclear is a valid workable energy option, but who could have planned for a 9.2 quake (which the plant initially handled well) followed immediately by a massive tsunami? This was like a double bitch slap to the engineers of the plant! Like I said, no matter the planning and engineering there will always be something that will eventually fail. The laws of entropy are immutable. Blades will fall off windmills too and someone will die. If it hasn't happened already it will eventually! Make no mistake of that. Will we then have to suddenly reexamine that source as well?
Rakhir is offline   Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 12:47 PM   #30
oshins
Valued Poster
 
oshins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 837
Encounters: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakhir View Post

That is why I have taken this position. However, I am not so naive to believe there are not risks associated with this industry. All human endeavors involve risk. It is how we mitigate those risks and intelligently design and plan for them.
Well stated. The problem for both sides lies in ignoring that which they don't want to hear.
On one hand, those opposed to more drilling/fossil fuel exploration have yet to offer a viable alternative. I personally think the long term solutions have to be related to solar/geothermal. Needs work, but shows much promise. If it (solar) works in Germany, where the climate is much like Seattle, it will work anywhere in the US.
On the other hand, energy companies seem to ignore all other avenues to their own detriment. Additionally, there are real human health issues, and environmental problems associated with these new extraction techniques. Fracturing a formation under an aquifer used for drinking water is a recipe for long term contamination... and not at all easy to remediate. Think about trying to get contaminants out of a formation like the Edwards aquifer. That would be a herculean task, and monumentally expensive.
The problem with fracking as I see it is primarily that is endangers our fresh water supply. Is any amount of natural gas worth ruining the only fresh water resource that the entire city of San Antonio use?
To me the obvious answer is no.
oshins is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved