Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Do you want fracking stopped?

yes    
  16 (76.2%)
no    
  3 (14.3%)
not sure.    
  2 (9.5%)




Total votes: 21
« Created by: Bobby. on: Oct 6th, 2013 at 10:01am »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 10
Send Topic Print
Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes (Read 17314 times)
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #15 - Oct 4th, 2013 at 11:33pm
 
Look at what has happened in the USA:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/04/fracking-us-toxic-waste-water...

Friday 4 October 2013 21.01 AEST      
Quote:
Fracking produces annual toxic waste water enough to flood Washington DC

Growing concerns over radiation risks as report finds widespread environmental damage on an unimaginable scale in the US.
Fracking in America generated 280bn US gallons of toxic waste water last year – enough to flood all of Washington DC beneath a 22ft deep toxic lagoon, a new report out on Thursday found.


The report from campaign group Environment America said America's transformation into an energy superpower was exacting growing costs on the environment.


"Our analysis shows that damage from fracking is widespread and occurs on a scale unimagined just a few years ago," the report, Fracking by the Numbers, said.


The full extent of the damage posed by fracking to air and water quality had yet to emerge, the report said.


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


A number of recent studies have highlighted the negative consequences of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which have unlocked vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas from rock formations.


There have been instances of contaminated wells and streams, as well as evidence of methane releases along the production chain.


The Environment America report highlights another growing area of concern – the safe disposal of the billions of gallons of waste water that are returned to the surface along with oil and gas when walls are fracked.


The authors said they relied on data from industry and state environmental regulators to compile their report.


More than 80,000 wells have been drilled or permitted in 17 states since 2005.


It can take 2m to 9m gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to frack a single well. The report said the drilling industry had used 250bn gallons of fresh water since 2005. Much of that returns to the surface, however, along with naturally occurring radium and bromides, and concerns are growing about those effects on the environment.


A study published this week by researchers at Duke University found new evidence of radiation risks from drilling waste water. The researchers said sediment samples collected downstream from a treatment plant in western Pennsylvania showed radium concentrations 200 times above normal.


The Environment America study said waste water pits have been known to fail, such as in New Mexico where there were more than 420 instances of contamination, and that treatment plants were not entirely effective.


"Fracking waste-water discharged at treatment plants can cause a different problem for drinking water: when bromide in the wastewater mixes with chlorine (often used at drinking water treatment plants), it produces trihalomethanes, chemicals that cause cancer and increase the risk of reproductive or developmental health problems," the report said.


Other consequences of fracking highlighted in the report included: 450,000 tons of air pollution a year and 100m metric tons of global warming pollution since 2005.

     
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #16 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am
 
Bump.

Do we really want more fracking in Australia?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ex Dame Pansi
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24168
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #17 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:31am
 
Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am:
Bump.

Do we really want more fracking in Australia?



The Australian people certainly don't.

The mining industry and the governments do. It's called Greed Inc. and will most certainly sacrifice any decent lifestyle for our future generations.

Don't let that worry you though, as long as we get a surplus today, we can buy water from Kenya tomorrow.
Back to top
 

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #18 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am
 
Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:31am:
Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:24am:
Bump.

Do we really want more fracking in Australia?



The Australian people certainly don't.

The mining industry and the governments do. It's called Greed Inc. and will most certainly sacrifice any decent lifestyle for our future generations.

Don't let that worry you though, as long as we get a surplus today, we can buy water from Kenya tomorrow.



Yes Panis,
I think fracking is shocking.
mankind has damaged the air, the sea, the ground &
now we're on a course to damage places that are underground.

We seem to be intent on destroying everything on our planet.

What will farmers use for water in the next 10,000 years?
It will all be contaminated with uranium & other poisons.

Science & technology is destroying our planet.
It would have been better if we hadn't "advanced" so much in the last 200 years.

Any Govt. that gives a license to perform fracking is criminal in my opinion.

No one has the right to destroy our environment forever
for a few petro dollars now.
None of that money goes into my pocket anyway -
only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ex Dame Pansi
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 24168
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #19 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:09am
 
Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am:
None of that money goes into my pocket anyway -
only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less.



That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits.

We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage.

Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back.


FRACKING HELL


Back to top
 

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." Hendrix
andrei said: Great isn't it? Seeing boatloads of what is nothing more than human garbage turn up.....
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 106527
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #20 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:48am
 
Hi Panzi,
I watched that video - both parts 1 & 2.
It is very disturbing.

I hope Tony Abbott will stop it here in Australia but I doubt it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #21 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:11am
 
double post
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #22 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:12am
 
Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
You've been a touch untruthful yourself, methinks

Really, how?

Pay attention and I will show you.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Wait, what? Too close to homes and it's just political spin? I think you need to explain this.


If the process mentioned is within 600m of residential properties then it is within the buffer zone and should not be approved.  Carrying on like a pork chop about something that has not even been assessed yet is political spin.....savvy?

It is NOT political spin to point out that it is within the exclusion zone. This is one place where you have been untruthful.

If they are being forceful with their opposition to the proposal on reasonable grounds, so what?

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Buckingham is stating an OPINION.


That's a good one... Grin  Julia was just staing an opinion when she said there'd be "no carbon tax" was she? Grin

This is another place where you have lied. Buckingham stated an opinion, not a fact. Do learn the difference.

As for Gillard's alleged "lie", it is comparable to Howard's lie of August 13, 1998 when he said "The price of petrol will not increase for the average motorist" in relation to the GST. According to the ABS, when the GST was introduced, the price of petrol went up 10%.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
That is debatable.

So debate it.

Debate what? Where's the context?

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
So can many other cheaper and/or less controversial energy generation techniques.


Bring them on then, it's a free country.  If these 'lone ranger' energy sources are indeed cheaper and less controversial then they will be more competitive won't they Bam?

Not when we have a bunch of forkwits in Canberra, beholden to vested interests who are actively and forcefully discouraging investment in renewables just so their fossil fuel donor mates can keep making donations to the Party.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
False. It increases CO2 emissions because it turns fossil C into CO2. Do try to keep up.


If the use of natural gas replaces the use of other 'dirtier' fosil fuels it will reduce emmissions?  Do try to keep up. Huh

There are plenty of energy generation techniques that do not have net emissions of CO2. Why are you being wilfully misleading over this point by only presenting comparisons among fossil fuels?

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
To whose profit? The government of Singapore?

As I said...the tax payers of NSW.  Royalties, jobs, infrastructure, income taxes, investment, consumption = wealth and prosperity.

The Government of Singapore stands to make a lot more out of this than the Government of NSW.

Quote:
It is also a buffer for rural communities against drought.  Mining royalties and the cash investment and jobs created in rural communities will fund rural commerce and regenerate rural communities and provide diversified income sources in times of drought.

These same rural communities may have difficulty using their bore water due to contamination from CSG. And if anyone is proposing to put CSG wells anywhere near the source aquifers for the Great Artesian Basin they deserve the most severe condemnation.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
I thought you were against the carbon tax?


I'm against all taxes but they are a necessary evil in a civilised society.

My point is that the natural gas industry creates jobs, people with those jobs spend their incomes and create more jobs and generate profits for local business which creates jobs.  Profits and taxes rec'd from individuals and business fund the bloodsucking Govt.

Creating jobs is not the exclusive domain of CSG. All other forms of energy generation also create jobs.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
So can other energy generation techniques - geothermal, solar, coal ...

Yes they can but do you see me advocating the ban on these energy sources?  Go for it I say.  If they can be cheaper and more efficient than natural gas bring them on. Smiley

How about less controversial? About the only source of energy that is more controversial than CSG is nuclear power.

Quote:
Bam wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:16am:
Again, incorrect. This is one of those rare areas of policy where the National Party and the Greens find common ground.

Show me where the NATS want to rule CSG out entirely?

Stop moving the goalposts. I never said that.
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 59148
Here
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #23 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:26am
 
Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes

Libs are Fracking dangerous!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 75087
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #24 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:29am
 
Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:51am:
John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am:
why would anyone even consider taking a chance with our water supply and farmland when there are much better alternatives out there ...


Geezuz I keep hearing about these "better alternatives"?

WTF are they?

If they are "better" they would be being used NOW.

how about solar, geo thermal and wind for starters .... why don't we subsidies these companies to the same level we subsidies mining companies? Afraid of the competition?



John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:57am:
if just proves that level of stupidity by the posters on this forum


Such as yourself, Yes.  Grin


nope, are you trying to volunteer?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Swagman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #25 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am
 
I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? Grin

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 75087
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #26 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:05am
 
Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am:
I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? Grin



exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Swagman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #27 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:52am
 
John Smith wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:05am:
Swagman wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:59am:
I assume all you frackin Pinkos don't use frackin natural gas as it's frackin against your frackin principles? Grin



exactly! I occasionally use LPG for my BBQ, but I'm happy to stop using that if necessary


Just use CO2, apparently it's good at heating.... Cheesy

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
adelcrow
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #28 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:55am
 
Why resort to fracking while we are sitting on a gold mine of gas which will be worth a lot more money when everyone else exhausts their own resources?
We have plenty of natural gas for now so why not sit on our vast reserves?
In short...whats the fracking rush?
Back to top
 

Go the Bunnies
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Libs Want Dangerous Fracking Under Homes
Reply #29 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 11:19am
 
Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:09am:
Bobby. wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:40am:
None of that money goes into my pocket anyway -
only into someone else's greedy pocket who couldn't care less.



That's why I wonder at the naivety of those ordinary people who  claim to back CSG exploration. The disadvantages and drawbacks far outweigh any benefits or perceived benefits.

We can't sit back on this one, if there's a rally near you, try to attend, then at least you can say you tried. I'm leaving a written record for my grandkids, they won't be blaming their grandma for the wreckage.

Once the underground aquifers are polluted, it will be too late to go back.


FRACKING HELL




It seems the full story is over 17 minutes long, you may be interested in the info after the 9 minute mark.


Fracking as bad as Coal, Water supply stuffed with dangerous chemicals, Radioactive elements involved in Fracking & THEN THERE'S THE POLITICAL & RELATED PAY OFFS.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2013 at 12:14pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 10
Send Topic Print