...are the same imbeciles who think ethanol releases more energy than octane and that burning tons of natural gas to process (and eventually ferment) ethanol from corn is 'energetically efficient.'
[deleted]
I doubt you'll be laughing when we've burned so much s**t for energy that you have to use an oxygen tank to go outside. Do you people really believe you can just burn as much crap as you want with no repercussions? Efficiency is only the #1 priority for people who can make a profit out of it, and the idiots who buy those peoples propaganda.
shareMaybe you should watch the movie first lol
share...are the same imbeciles who think ethanol releases more energy than octane and that burning tons of natural gas to process (and eventually ferment) ethanol from corn is 'energetically efficient.'
There has never been any REAL incident of water sources being ruined by fracking. Just made up ones.
It is simple science. The fracking chemicals CANNOT leech 2 miles UP the ground to get to the water table.
are you stupid ? having live in the marcellus shale region i can tell you that it has happened before and it is not physically impossible
shareMost contamination is caused by the pits of spent chemicals held above the ground, which have not been properly contained. The chemical then leach downward.
At this point scientists are not sure what is happening underground, in that horizontal fracking, where you dig down, then over before the chemicals are fracked (spreadout) in the underlying deposits. These chemicals are under high pressure which could cause them to leach into areas which you would not expect (such as up).
Actually a little birdy told me.. that fracking is causing many of the
"sinkholes" making the news lately.. Illinois recently started fracking.. hmm..?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/18/17810648-sinkhole-swallows-three-cars-on-chicagos-south-side?lite
lol, notice how quiet he went after you posted this. A year later...
shareI don't think they're "fracking" in Chicago, dude..
___________
"That's pretty dangerous; building a road in the middle of the street."
Just like there's no evidence of increased anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, huh?
share
Obviously you haven't looked up studies done on this very topic. Check out Pavilion Wyoming: There is an ongoing EPA study there that shows ground water contamination in wells in areas where fracking is occurring.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/EF35BD26A80D6CE3852579600065C94E
but let me guess, the EPA is a conspiracy and all false.
The simple science is that when you pump chemicals diluted in water along with sand and other proprietary materials into the ground as part of the fracking process, that contaminates not only the water in the aquifer and the soils directly touching, but it leaches to other area. Water levels underground change (they can go up and down...if it goes up, the chemicals int he water contaminate soil that's higher up). Have you ever dipped an end of a paper towel in water and held it up? The water moves UP and soon the whole paper towel is wet.. Same thing can happen underground. Furthermore, I'm sure you realize that water flows so any contamination that occurs doesn't stay in one spot. There's many more aspects to this that would involve chemistry, geology, and a mess load of other influencing factors but that's just the simple run down
But I'm sure I'm just spreading liberal lies that have no scientific merit despite my experiences as an environmental consultant and my college degrees. I'm a young guy and reading comments like this really make me worry about our collective future. :/
It is man's ultimate hubris to think that chemicals deliberately put down a hole and that do not break down over time simply will never end up in unintended places.
shareEveryone needs to watch Gasland and FrackNation as they are the only two documentaries (of substance) devoted to the subject. From there you can arrive at your own conclusion.
shareThe flaming water bits happened fifty years before the area was ever fracked. Wherever oil and natural gas exist, they are trying to escape. Water wells finding places where natural gas is escaping is just luck. The well owner should think himself lucky, put a separater in his well head and use free natural gas to power his house. The big gulf oil spill (and it was huge) was spit in the ocean compared to the amount of oil that naturally seeps from the seabed in the gulf. The only real prolem is that its all in one place. Once the ocean gets is dispursed, it deals with the oil very efficiently. Same with Prince William Sound. We have been fracking for seventy years. Only once was a water table compromised, and thst was corrected and recovered in about two years. If the water sourse is being used for agricultural irrigation, its just providing free fertilizer during the later half of the recovery. That just goes to show that not everything is all good or bad, it just is what it is.
People were able to light their tap water on fire long before there was fracking. Methane causes this to occur due to poorly dug wells. I hate to disappoint you, but this is a Hollywood scare tactic.
shareNo it's not, the actual fracking method of drilling disturbs methane deposits in the ground and sets them loose to contaminate preexisting wells.
Typical Hollywood liberal BS. I wish for once these Hollywood liberal types would do something different. It's COMPLETELY predictable that Damon and Krasinski would create something like this attacking the big, bad natural gas industry...an industry controlled by and large by southern conservatives, people who happen to have a different world view than them, and thus, in their eyes, deserve the attack.
If Hollywood were filled with independent minds, rather than ignorant liberal masses, this would be a story of raising poor farm families out of poverty and making average American country folk into millionaires overnight SANS the whole 'wow, I work for this natural gas company, but now I see that what they are doing is terrible and actually bad for the people it affects and now I'm going to change my evil ways.' Why do people accept this crap?
But, I guess I gotta hand it to Damon and Krasinski. They know who pays the bills and who their masters are. They probably don't care anything about the natural gas industry or who it affects or why. They just want to make money. This is hot button issue right now and a film with an independent guise, but a true liberal slant, is just the thing that will bring a smile to some liberal Hollywood producer with fat pockets. Bravo, gents.
Have you seen this film? I'm really asking. You seem to have a lot of judgement for a piece of art that has yet to be seen. Gus Van Sant is an excellent film director so I find it funny that people are rushing to such hasty judgments.
shareHave you seen this film? I'm really asking. You seem to have a lot of judgement for a piece of art that has yet to be seen. Gus Van Sant is an excellent film director so I find it funny that people are rushing to such hasty judgements.
But in the end, it's only a movie made for entertainment. I don't know why the people bashing the film sight unseen are acting like it's a documentary instead.
Really? You think this movie was made to entertain?? Really??? If you believe that I have some land I'd like to sell you. Tranformers and Mission Impossible are made to entertain. This movie was made to indcotrnate.
No, Transformers and Mission Impossible are made to be whores for money. Entertainment is a secondary concern to the people involved there compared to the money to be made.
Tangentially related, this doesn't made the frakking out to be some inherently evil thing, it really is relatively balanced. Rather than...certain news sources. My opinions don't align with this film's and yet not once did I feel my views were under some sort of indoctrinating attack by "teh libruls". Also, any documented sources to back up your claim of "this movie was made to indoctrinate," or are you just pulling *beep* from your ass because using harshly emotive words like "indoctrinate" do well to eliminate rational thought and work your audience into a blind fervor of panicked individuals clamoring to the one speaking to them simply because the speaker is the only one seemingly providing any sort of beacon amidst the maelstrom of emotions that the speaker himself created to swirl in their heads? Your rhetoric is pathetic, sickening, somewhat offensive to my intellect, and most of all ironic, seeing as you're using a fallacy in order to get your audience worked up to accept your postulation that this movie is the one that's propaganda.
I just find that somewhat hilarious.
Anyway, yeah, it's entertainment, it's meant to provoke thought, and maybe, just maybe, some people are dumb enough to just parade along with what the movie seems to be saying rather than have their curiosity over the issues here presented piqued enough to look into it on their own. But then they're idiots for being blind followers of anything, not unlike the idiots who would accept your "indoctrination" claim offhand. the movie's far from propagandic if you're not an easily manipulated individual, and only the most feeble of minds would go forth unquestioningly.
Well spoken.
Side note: If his rhetoric is pathetic, sickening, somewhat offensive to your intellect, and most of all ironic, and despite all of that you still find it somewhat hilarious... you pursue a very strange sense of humour (and one that I oddly share.)
The only indoctrination you need to worry about is the indoctrination of ignorance. I could only read parts of your "intellectual" post for the bad grammar and misused words. You need to learn what rhetoric actually is before throwing around a word you obviously haven't studied. Also learn some basic writing skills before talking about your intellect being insulted. Your definition of balanced is also fairly off.
shareIndoctrinate? Are you kidding me? Indoctrination is for children and I don't think many kids are watching this movie. As for the adults, you give movies WAY too much credit. Even "Top Gun", the militaries best advertisement ever, only recruited those who believed in the glamour of the military in the first place. It certainly didn't sway any pacifists.
"Nothing is more ill bred than trying to steal the affections of someone else's dog."
But in the end, it's only a movie made for entertainment. I don't know why the people bashing the film sight unseen are acting like it's a documentary instead.
It's funny that "liberal" points-of-view happen to be the points-of-view of almost everyone else in the world except America and the "Axis of Evil" countries.
I for one wonder since when have worrying about the environmental implications of harvesting energy resources become "liberal"? Does that mean that a "make money even when you destroy the future of everything in the process" an acceptable "conservative" point-of-view?
Risk assessment and conservation impact is a requirement in everything, from strip mining, to oil drilling, to fishing, to farming, to logging. It's a requirement because these resources don't last forever, and they also happen to be on places that also support other potential resources in the future. But then again, you guys never worry about the future anyway. You want money, and you want it now.
I'm not one of those treehugger types, but what you Americans call "liberal" is what everyone else in the world calls "common sense".
Well said. I'm an American conservative, and I think it's important to consider the long term ramifications of fracking. It's really not a liberal vs conservative issue; it's a liberal vs republican (American political party) issue. Any conservative with half a brain is not only interested in fiscal conservation but also in environmental conservation.
shareWhat are you talking about? You have yet to see this movie. The only ignorant person on this forum I see is you. I don't mean to be rude in any sort of way, but your aggressive approach towards this issue is completely misinformed. Instead of focusing about who gets what "money in their pockets", maybe you should turn your focus on the detrimental effects fracking does have within geographic shales, aquifers, plate boundaries (incorporating the thrust of water in the bedrock), and most of all the people who live in the communities who have to face with these environmental issues.
sharePlease stick to films that are aimed at people like you.
Mindless rightwing propaganda crap by Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis.
>>> Mindless rightwing propaganda crap by Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis.
Can you please illustrate with some examples how the films of these four are rightwing propaganda?
I cried because I had no shoes üntil I met a man with no sole. ~ Ancient Disco Proverb
Sounds like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder. Are you a part of the workforce? or do you wear a suit and tie to work? You are either loaded or a dumb piece of trailer trash. *beep* YOU!
shareAnd who is your master and who is paying your bill? The blade cuts both ways, Sparky. You and the rest of the toadies spout the company line so righteously, though.
shareMatt Damon's films are full of liberal propaganda. The Bourne movies while entertaining, portray the CIA in an unrealistically negative light, like they were the KGB or something. And Green Zone is also full of liberal conspiracy theories and anti-Americanism.
share"Portray the CIA in an unrealistically negative light, like they were KGB or something".
But CIA IS like KGB.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Actually the Soviet counterpart to CIA would be GRU. The KGB is the equivalent of FBI.
GRU just as CIA was the Soviet agency operating abroad and KGB just as FBI was the domestic agency. If you really think the CIA was good guys compared to the Soviet counterparts then I suggest you open up a history book and read about CIA history and especially their countless operations in South and Latin America overthrowing democratically elected governments and supplying arms and advisers to dictators and corrupt regimes.
Then again I guess that's all just liberal propaganda and anti-Americanism.
For being from a country founded on the principles of freedom you sure don't have the slightest *beep* clue what liberalism is.
"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."
MYTH: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
Man made global warming is a pure MYTH.
Wow are you dumb.
shareCalling people "imbeciles" is a bad way to win people over to your side of things. I'm already predisposed to think of you as a raving hate-monger.
I take it you haven't seen the film, which was a lot more complex than you think.
Most people who work in the in industry say the biggest problem is that hydraulic fracturing is a complex process that, when done wrong or cheaply, can cause a lot of damage to the environment. When done right, then it is a big question of the positives (jobs, energy independence - although eventually we're gonna run out regardless so we need to figure out alternatives and ways to mass produce them) vs. negatives, but when done wrong and cheaply, the negatives are impossible to ignore. So it does become a question of laissez-faire capitalism vs. regulated capitalism. The idea of doing things at the absolute cheapest to maximize profit leads to awful things for the environment, like the BP Oil Spill, and if it's propaganda to point that out, then it might as well count as propaganda to take a stand against institutionalized slavery, or rape, or stealing, or lying.
shareCan you people just quit your fracking?
share