Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 10, 2014

One of the largest oil companies in the world has been forced in court to reveal one of the key environmental impacts of developing oil shale in the arid West: It will consume an enormous amount of water in a region where drought and climate change are already stressing available water supplies. Chevron USA, in legal filings in a case brought by the conservation group Western Resource Advocates, has admitted that to meet a goal of developing a half million barrels of oil from sedimentary rock in northwest Colorado it would need 120,000 acre feet of water a year -- enough to meet the needs of 1 million people per year.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

LarryMohr

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

If link is in violation give me a demerit

#1 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-08 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"it will consume an enormous amount of water in a region where drought and climate change are already stressing available water supplies"

Could apply that to Las Vegas as well. Not that I condone shale extraction using mega-masses of water.

#2 | Posted by path at 2014-07-08 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

This has always been a concern the Athabasca oilfields as well.

I know they use a lot of water in the process, I just wonder what prevents it getting back into the water cycle like water usually does.

I can see pumping it far enough underground that it takes longer, but it should eventually resurface?

It's not actually being "consumed", just perhaps ecologically misplaced.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I have no idea how to prevent the water from contaminating aquifers and the like. NOTHING is fool proof. Hell My hometown had 2 natural gas explosions that was fueled by natural gas 7 MILES AWAY. so no clues.

#4 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-08 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I have no idea how to prevent the water from contaminating aquifers and the like."

Well, you can't contaminate an aquifer with water, for one thing.

"Hell My hometown had 2 natural gas explosions that was fueled by natural gas..."

Well, that's kinda the same idea.

Just kidding. It's a complicated issue.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-09 12:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Seems like this is a Catch-22 issue.

If pro-fracking groups are correct and the chemicals they are injecting into the substrata cannot make it into the aquifer, then the water carrying those chemicals cannot, either, and there's a water usage issue - but no chemical contamination issue.

If the anti-fracking groups are correct and the chemicals being injected into the substrata CAN make it into the aquifer, then the water can as well, and there's no water issue - but there's a contamination issue.

Regardless of who's correct, it seems like this claim hurts the overall argument on both sides.

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-09 07:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If pro-fracking groups are correct and the chemicals they are injecting into the substrata cannot make it into the aquifer, then the water carrying those chemicals cannot, either, and there's a water usage issue - but no chemical contamination issue."

They're lying. Some of it resurfaces during the fracking process.

#7 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-09 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#7 Then there's no water issue, because that water is making it back to the aquifer.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-09 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7 Then there's no water issue, because that water is making it back to the aquifer.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-09 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its actually worse if that water gets back into the general supply because its tainted with very dangerous chemicals. That's why they lie and claim that it can't get into the water supply.

Serious question: Why did you just make me say that when you knew this already? I don't understand the point unless it was just to be annoying in which case the effort was a minor success.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-09 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#9 I'm just pointing out the Catch-22. If the chemicals CAN make it to the aquifer, then this isn't a water issue. If the chemicals CAN'T, then it isn't a chemical issue. I don't care either way, I'm just surprised that nobody else is picking up on the conundrum.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-09 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10 you're ignoring the fact that fracking chemicals get into aquifers through surface spills.
Hope this helps.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-09 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really it's the worst of both worlds.
Most of the water that's used in fracking is lost.
That little bit that spills is what isn't lost. It then becomes a source of pollution.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-09 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Clean drinking water, is highly over-rated . Folks can always drink Pepsi"
The free market righties

#13 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-07-09 11:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who needs clean drinking water when there is plenty of Brawndo!

#14 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-07-10 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Who needs clean drinking water when there is plenty of Brawndo!

#14 | Posted by schmanch at 2014-07-10 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's literally where we are headed.

Already oil is a valuable resource but somehow clean water isn't even for people living in arid locations.

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2014-07-10 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Water? Like out of the toilet?

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-07-10 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If pro-fracking groups are correct and the chemicals they are injecting into the substrata cannot make it into the aquifer, then the water carrying those chemicals cannot, either, and there's a water usage issue - but no chemical contamination issue.

If the anti-fracking groups are correct and the chemicals being injected into the substrata CAN make it into the aquifer, then the water can as well, and there's no water issue - but there's a contamination issue.

Regardless of who's correct, it seems like this claim hurts the overall argument on both sides.

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG

Fracking either uses a ton of water in the middle of a drought, or contaminates groundwater, AND POSSIBLY BOTH.

This news is anti-fracking no matter how you spin it.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-10 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I don't care either way,

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG

And that's why you're a republican. Pollution - don't care. Water shortage - don't care.

It's all about profit baby! Screw the future!

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-10 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

the solution, of course, is to either develop a type of water that can be also used as flammable fuel or to develop a type of oil that can be used for swimming, cleaning and consumed to alleviate thirst.

now i have seen situations where humans have successfully swum in oil-- at that bar in frederick, for example-- several scantily clad women managed to wallow and wade in the stuff quite well, and even had time for a bit of rough-housing, much to the mostly 21-30 yo male crowd's delight. don;t tell me you can't also make that stuff consumable.

also, some types of water can be used as fuel. why just the other evening (about 3 am to be exact) i poured a bunch of filtered tap water into my annoying neighbor's lawnmower. a few days later i saw that same neighbor mowing the lawn-- and that same mower was purring like a kitten and looked good as new-- you wouldn't even believe it was the same mower if i didn't tell you that it was, due to an obvious repainting and polish...

anyway, that's the solution.

#19 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-07-10 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can see pumping it far enough underground that it takes longer, but it should eventually resurface?

#3 | Posted by REDIAL

How does that work?

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-10 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

We are killing ourselves and future children to satify our hunger for oil.

#21 | Posted by junebubbles at 2014-07-10 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7 Then there's no water issue, because that water is making it back to the aquifer.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG

Not true.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-10 12:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mr Sniper you can have oil but good luck drinking it when we have destroyed ourselves.

#23 | Posted by junebubbles at 2014-07-10 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Run out of gas, or f the water table.

Sounds like more hope and change to me.

#24 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-07-10 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The drillers will consume water, potentially contaminate ground water forever, raise the price of produce, while selling their oil and gas to China at maximum prices.

Only the corporations benefit in this heist, while all Americans will be required to pay more for everything while they will claim to create a relatively few jobs. This oil belongs to all Americans for responsible retrieval as needed for our energy, and not to Chinese or drillers. We the people need to see benefits and not higher costs.

#25 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-10 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

And of course the oil companies want free access to our water so they can profit more.

Something is seriously wrong in America. But what can we expect when sports entertainment wants and gets free stadiums paid by taxpayers so they can raise the value of a football team into the billions, and pay their owners and players astronomical sums and get huge sums for advertising?

We have a broken corrupt system that is skewed to benefit one group of people instead of all the people.

#26 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-10 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

We have a broken corrupt system that is skewed to benefit one group of people instead of all the people.

#26 | Posted by Robson

This would all be fixed with one solution - PUBLIC ELECTION FUNDING.

No more campaign contributions = the government functions for the voters not the donors.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-10 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Only the corporations benefit in this heist"

not in the eyes of the landowners and oil service contractors that are thriving right now.

I know some folks who received $1,000 an acre for oil leases and receive royalties from the oil companies on a monthly basis. In addition, many many towns have thrived from the employment and the large spike in tax revenue in the localities from this activity.

new schools, streets, etc...are being built right now as a result of this activity.

right or wrong on the water use (and I agree with most here on the potential devastating effects of this amount of water use).....if you go into these communities and ask them how they feel about it.....they'll all tell you they are happy as can be.

#28 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-10 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

right or wrong on the water use (and I agree with most here on the potential devastating effects of this amount of water use).....if you go into these communities and ask them how they feel about it.....they'll all tell you they are happy as can be.

Posted by eberly at 2014-07-10 05:16 PM | Reply

Up until they can't drink their water anymore. Then they will wonder how could they be so stupid.

#29 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-10 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some perspective on water usage. Energy Facts: How Much Water Does Fracking for Shale Gas Consume?

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-10 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

How? The water is running out. If we put oil before food and drinking water, we might as well just all drop dead.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-12 09:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Some perspective on water usage. Energy Facts: How Much Water Does Fracking for Shale Gas Consume?"

Fracking industry shill's attempt to fool people. Thanks a heap.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-12 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort