Fracking Is Draining Water From Areas In US Suffering Major Shortages 268
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."
Fracking *not* the water shortage cause (Score:5, Funny)
This is missing critical information (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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. Peo
Re:This is missing critical information (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Waste (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re:This is missing critical information (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.
Re:This is missing critical information (Score:5, Funny)
And here I thought that was only done in Illinois...
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re:This is missing critical information (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's then pumped back out. It generates quite a lot of wastewater.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Propaganda bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
"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,
Re: (Score:3)
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 boug
Re: (Score:2)
> 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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should alleviate some of your own ignorance [howstuffworks.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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... [ceres.org]
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
Context people (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [epa.gov]. 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [epa.gov].
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. [cato.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I have a well, and septic. I recycle all of my water.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
US irrigation uses 128bn gallons EACH DAY (Score:3)
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... [usgs.gov]
Shut the fuck up if all you have are not arguments but LIES!
fracking is bad.. (Score:2)
And SO IS THE BETA!
First come first serve (Score:3)
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.
Oil thicker than water (Score:3)
You're damned if you do... (Score:2)
... 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 actre
Check your sources (Score:2)
Slashdot Beta is surprise prison sex for the eyes (Score:3)
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. [youtube.com]
Oh well, back to 4chan.
Fracking is good for business (Score:3)
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.
Give priority to human consumption (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Hell yeah!
But not the farmers... they only use about 100-150 billion gallons per day. Says the USGS [usgs.gov]. But Willie Nelson says they're good people...
Re: (Score:2)
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!
No good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the fracking, or the beta?
Fracking Contaminates Water - Very Hard to Reclaim (Score:2)
industry talks about recycling the water (Score:2)
SI Standard of Measure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
15.
Fuck Beta, Fork Alpha.Time to resurrect slashcode? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/ [sourceforge.net]
food for thought: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlashDot [c2.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:What the frack? (Score:5, Funny)
I think he was talking about Slashdot beta.
Recycling? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org] including benzene, formaldehyde, ferric chloride, napthalene and toluene. But, yes, it's *primarily* water.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, because heavy industry never uses two things in any given process.
Holy crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap. Up until now I thought all the 'beta sucks' comments where just 'I hate new stuff'-type comments...
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
"This is a triumph.
I'm making a note here, huge success.
It's hard to over state my satisfaction."
(Looks around)
Just wondering.....
the soul is lost (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have been fucking beta instead of fracking for gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since we're coming up w/ " tau/2 - in the sky" alternatives, how's about convincing that other site [reddit.com] to add a "/s" subdomain alongside the existing "/r" subdomain. Move slashdot non-beta there lock, stock,& barrel.
Re:About beta. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"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: (Score:2)
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...
I'll say this about Linkedln.... (Score:2, Funny)
...they have got moxxy. To go this far just to get me to sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
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: "MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (Score:2)
/rioting in the streets/
Dare I say that such a thing might be properly termed a "pussy riot"
we need a new community if beta goes forward (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Check this out:
http://www.altslashdot.org/wik... [altslashdot.org]
and remember s/he's only been at it for a few hours.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have your dates wrong... Today is the 6th.
Right. 4 days 'til Slashcottpocolypse begins.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Slashdot, it's the comments, stupid!
We don't read the article.
We also don't watch the video.
Re: (Score:2)
revolution? Revolution?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahhaha.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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... [youtube.com]
And
nope (Score:2)
The ag argument fails because fracking removes that water from the water cycle. Ag does not.
Don't look now, your lie is showing (Score:2)
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.