Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fracking Is Draining Water From Areas In US Suffering Major Shortages

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the looking-for-a-drink dept.

United States 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."

cancel ×

268 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About beta. (-1, Offtopic)

sodar (550013) | about 6 months ago | (#46172677)

beta sucks.

Re:About beta. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172703)

The boycott is from 10th to 17th of February.

Re:About beta. (-1, Flamebait)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about 6 months ago | (#46172825)

Can we stop it with the childish off-topic rants? They have a feedback form, if you have a problem with the new design, I suggest you use it. There's a proper time and place for everything.

No, just kidding. Fuck the beta.

Re:About beta. (0)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 months ago | (#46173297)

Where is it?

All I could see was the ugly design and I sure left it before I noticed any functionality.

Re:About beta. (-1, Offtopic)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46172903)

I think I'm gonna get withdrawal symptoms. The 14th is a must though, even if some of us can't hold our for the full week.

Re:About beta. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172719)

Hopefully they'll switch everybody to Beta soon. I have not seen it yet but I have great hopes that it will cure my Slashdot addiction and I will finally get much better use of my time! Go Dice, Go!

Re:About beta. (-1, Flamebait)

VAXcat (674775) | about 6 months ago | (#46172747)

They need to remember what happened to Digg. Sites like this can lose almost all of their users in the blink of an eye.

Re: About beta. (-1, Flamebait)

JWW (79176) | about 6 months ago | (#46172827)

Yep. When digg fucked up their upgrade I left and never looked back.

Re:About beta. (5, Insightful)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 6 months ago | (#46173111)

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:About beta. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172865)

This is the person responsible for beta [linkedin.com] .

Whining in the comments is not enough. Send her email. Buy a subscription on LinkedIn to do it if you have to.

Re:About beta. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173269)

This one could also be responsible.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/clairwhit?trk=pub-pbmap

I think we need to go over their heads and let their boss know directly how much they're managing to fuck everything up.

Here's his info.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/shravan?trk=pub-pbmap

Re:About beta. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173471)

Someone mind posting her email address? I'm not going to hand my info over to LinkedIn.

Re:About beta. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173189)

Slashdot Beta sucks so much cock, officials are worried there may soon be a shortage of jizz in the SouthWestern U.S.

you suck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173291)

you suck

Re:About beta. (0)

ReallyNiceGuy (721792) | about 6 months ago | (#46173591)

Slashdot will die if they keep pushing this beta site.
Start a new site, but think about COMMENTS first!
Crappy design, crappy filtering, crap all over...

"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Offtopic)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 6 months ago | (#46172681)

I've never felt the urge to pile on with "off-topic" spam -- until now. We've tried lobbying, we've tried rational discussion, we've tried voting; none seem to have any effect. So, now, we're "movin' on up" to the equivalent of rioting in the streets.

And, yep, I'm signing my name.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

Koen Lefever (2543028) | about 6 months ago | (#46172697)

Mod parent up.

Keep /. alive: kill beta.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Offtopic)

iONiUM (530420) | about 6 months ago | (#46172699)

They are hoping this fuck beta movement dies down before they have to acknowledge it or change.

But Slashdot users aren't the typical internet users. This won't go away.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

demontechie (180612) | about 6 months ago | (#46172845)

Well, when/if beta becomes non-optional, this _will_ go away - because so will the users.

And then so will the site.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

kry73n (2742191) | about 6 months ago | (#46172949)

They are hoping this fuck beta movement dies down before they have to acknowledge it or change.

But Slashdot users aren't the typical internet users. This won't go away.

The way I see it they could silently turn off the meta moderation for a while and mod every "anti beta" post as off-topic thereby shutting down the outcry a bit. This would give the community the illusion that the fellow slashdot veterans accept the situation and the decision that would come down to everyone is take it or leave it.

However, I sadly cannot see Dice giving in on this for now.

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172775)

good for signing with your name. sadly I'm at work and don't have my passwordmanager here have my non-work passwords (self protection) , but even if this is ac I still agree

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Offtopic)

Dogrunner (3527949) | about 6 months ago | (#46172857)

I don't normally post, but I would add to the comments - the BETA SUCKS!

Agreed! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172891)

Sir, I am going to stop eating the grits out of Natalie Portman's naked butt crack just long enough to agree with you and say.....

BETA SUCKS! OLD DESIGN! OLD MODERATION SYSTEM! SLASHDOTTERS HAVE SPOKEN!

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

Common Joe (2807741) | about 6 months ago | (#46172979)

I've never felt the urge to pile on with "off-topic" spam -- until now.

Damn straight. I'm signing my name and more! I'm boycotting!

-- Common Joe

Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre: Boycott Slashdot because "Fuck Beta!": February 10 - 17

And Support Okian Warrior's Alternate Slashdot [slashdot.org] Idea!

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

chebeba (241394) | about 6 months ago | (#46172987)

Here it is. My first post on Slashdot. After how many years of just reading and enjoying? 20? Almost. I don't know.
But I totally agree with this revolution. 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...

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (-1, Flamebait)

unitron (5733) | about 6 months ago | (#46173019)

Help kill beta!

Join the Slashcott!

February 10th-17th

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173693)

Join the Slashcott! February 10th-17th

Done. Though I think I will start n

Re: "MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (2)

schlouse (36695) | about 6 months ago | (#46173177)

/rioting in the streets/

Dare I say that such a thing might be properly termed a "pussy riot"

Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 6 months ago | (#46173711)

I just set my monitor on fire. Take that slash-beta!

Fracking *not* the water shortage cause (5, Funny)

grommit (97148) | about 6 months ago | (#46172693)

Is it a coincidence that the water shortages started with the whiteboarding of Slashdot Beta? I think not.

What the frack? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172707)

Nobody wants it yet there all he'll bent on doing it.
Wtf?

Leviathan?

Re:What the frack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172849)

Nobody wants it yet there all he'll bent on doing it.

By "Nobody" you really mean the minority in this country who oppose anything related to fossil fuel. Most people either don't care or support cheap energy.

Re:What the frack? (4, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 6 months ago | (#46172921)

I think he was talking about Slashdot beta.

Re:What the frack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173483)

the part that no one seems to be mentioning is that you don't use fresh water for fracking. you use salt water. this is the same salt water that is taken as waste from other wells.

think of it as recycling.

Can anyone help me? I can't read the content here! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172709)

I'm having a lot of trouble with the new beta site. It makes it really, really difficult to read the Slashdot content and to participate in the discussion.

The font coloring is really bad. There's too little contrast between the text and the background, so it's hard for people like me with poor eyesight to read what has been written.

There's a lot of empty space too. I find it very distracting and it's very wasteful. I have to scroll so much now just to read a few comments!

The story and comment text spacing is really weird too. It's like there are no paragraphs for some reason? Why's that?

Can anyone help me get back to the normal Slashdot? I could read that fine. I have tried the Slashdot Classic link at the bottom and I've tried the nobeta thing but they aren't working. I'm still getting the new site and it's very frustrating. Maybe I should just go to reddit instead?

fkbta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172853)

This is exactly my thinking. I thought I was the only one hating this too. I never even bothered reading comments on the new beta site until now and the RSS feed has been pumpin out beta URLs for weeks. This is in fact my first comment. I AM NOT ALONE! fuck beta.

Holy crap (5, Insightful)

hyfe (641811) | about 6 months ago | (#46173073)

Holy crap. Up until now I thought all the 'beta sucks' comments where just 'I hate new stuff'-type comments...

.. but I just got served my first beta-page and well, it sucks. It sucks on so many levels I actually think this design isn't salvagable. It's so hard to read, navigate and use that it is, well, useless. I am honestly curious how anyone would think it's a good idea to push anything like this out to users.

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?

Buck feta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172723)

Fuck beta

This is missing critical information (5, Insightful)

Eric Coleman (833730) | about 6 months ago | (#46172733)

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?

Re:This is missing critical information (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172777)

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:This is missing critical information (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#46172893)

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?

Dumb uses of water. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173131)

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?

That sucks up water too. And so does the idiotic lawns that are a must in sub-urban America (lawns are one of the MOST useless dumbest fucking things ever!), the need to wash cars, GOLF courses, showers with multiple heads, livestock (all those burgers and steaks suck up a LOT of water - much more than that vineyard or corn farm, .....

Fracking is late to the party so of course they're gonna get most of the blame. But good luck in fighting the deeply entrenched farm lobby or getting people to give up their lawns and steam showers.

Re:This is missing critical information (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172789)

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 (5, Funny)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 6 months ago | (#46172837)

We don't flush our toilets in Texas.

We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.

Re:This is missing critical information (5, Funny)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#46173285)

And here I thought that was only done in Illinois...

Re:This is missing critical information (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#46173287)

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:This is missing critical information (1)

AGMW (594303) | about 6 months ago | (#46172877)

Also, are the non-drought-ravaged areas of the US being similarly "heavily targeted" for oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing too, in which case if EVERYWHERE is being heavily targeted then, really, the drought areas aren't really being targeted at all now, are they. It's not like the Frackers are like "Hey, they're really dry over there, let's go todally frack them up dude"!

Re:This is missing critical information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172883)

However, this is article is missing critical information

The heading is also wrong. Fracking is not "Draining" water it is "Using" water.

No doubt there is an issue if water resources are being used, but to imply that fracking is draining water is incorrect

Re:This is missing critical information (4, Insightful)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 6 months ago | (#46172915)

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:This is missing critical information (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 6 months ago | (#46172965)

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 (4, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46172969)

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.

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:This is missing critical information (1)

SteveG3942 (3527969) | about 6 months ago | (#46173179)

Good eye. The whole point of RT/RT.com is to be selective about the information they present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is missing critical information (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#46173305)

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:This is missing critical information (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173327)

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.

Spelling is Fundamental (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173377)

FFS people, can we please at least talk right? Hydraulic Fracturing doesn't have a "k" in it! They even say fracturing repeatedly in the summary and article, yet there is "fracking" with an extra letter like you didn't even read the first sentence!

Say it with me, fracing.....fracing......fracing......

Re: This is missing critical information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173421)

I don't agree. With this operation, it's shortlived. Fracking comes in, does its thing and goes. The people who need that water, are still there. Well, maybe. Point is, for a convenient temporary profit on the global market, they've cut the longterm water supply by, possibly, up to half, for a specific area. If that doesnt make you at least pause and examine real world consequences for fracking, nothing will.

Re:This is missing critical information (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 6 months ago | (#46173717)

Normally, when people use water, it goes out into the environment, evaporates, turns into rain, runs back into lakes and rivers, and is generally reclaimed. I'm no fracking expert, but my limited understanding is that water is pumped way underground. Well, if it's way down there, it seems to be pretty effectively taken out of circulation.

Slashdot Beta is draining the life out of me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172737)

I can't take it much longer. I may have to stop coming here soon to preserve what sanity I have left.

Freakin' Fracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172741)

is Frickin' Cracking our Critical Regional Residential Resources in groundwater.

Propaganda bullshit (5, Interesting)

Nickodeimus (1263214) | about 6 months ago | (#46172745)

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.

Re:Propaganda bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172835)

" Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land"

Riiiighht because pumping millions of gallons of it underground is completely contained and not putting it into the land at all... o_O

With 4 states already confirming that fracking had polluted their ground water. ( http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com] )

That's not just what you're drinking, that's what's growing your food, and your animals food.

Re:Propaganda bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173477)

Low estimate for the average depth for a shale gas reservoir: 3000m (usually more), about 10000 feet for the metrically impaired
High estimate for the average depth for ground water: 500m (usually less), about 200 feet
High estimate for the vertical length of fractures obtained from hydraulic fracturing: 100m (usually much less), about 30 feet

You have gas in an impermeable rock at 3000m/100000 feet. You make a 100m/30ft fracture on that rock to get the gas out. Tell me, how do you contaminate water at 500m/200 feet? The only way you could do that would be if you are completely incompetent and you don't want to get the gas. You could frack as hard as possible, or near a natural fault, but that's just stupid. It's throwing out your money. Oil companies are greedy, they want to spend as little money as possible and get as much gas as possible; so they use the smallest fractures they can. They don't do that near faults, because then their gas could leak and they would lose money.

Note that your link is about "complaints about water from drilling". That includes nonsense ideas like "reduced water flow" and (specially) conventional drilling. Conventional oil/gas is MUCH shallower, so it has a much bigger chance of contaminating anything on the surface. Actually, according to the data there, there are no confirmed cases of contamination from fracking; also, even for conventionals, the number of complaints and confirmed cases is dropping every year on all states.

Re:Propaganda bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173329)

Ya,
You rabble rouser you. If it smells like troll acts like a troll it might be a troll.

Please try to keep outlandish and unscientific hearsay to a minimum. You are right to follow the money, for if you take your eye off of it, you'll surely lose track of who's winning and who's losing, it's the first rule of Journalism.

PS I love how simple you use the term cleanse. The carcinogenic chemicals that make up fracking fluid, while only a tiny percentage of the whole amount still equate to several tons per well when you toss numbers like 10^6 gallons. Once that fluid goes down the shaft, how do you say we recover ALL of it? Its the fluid that stays below that worries me. Its when our kids drink from the cleansed water that I get scared, its when uncleansed water seeps into my garden and I eat the veggies grown with it, or my animals drink it. The effects are mind numbing.

Re:Propaganda bullshit (2)

rabun_bike (905430) | about 6 months ago | (#46173697)

That is true. Hydraulic fracking has been in use for many years. The main difference here is the magnitude and scale of frack drilling in the past 10 years. And as most people on slashdot know, not everything scales without consequences.

alternatives to slashdot? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172781)

Yeah yeah, I hate beta too.

What slashdot alternatives are there? What place could turn pretty good with enough people?

Consider the source (2, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 6 months ago | (#46172783)

This most of this article is based on information from the Ceres Investor Group [ceres.org] . So, who are they?

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 in areas that are experiencing water shortages and/or drought.

The rest of the article is based on information from another journalistic source that is known to be biased.

Re:Consider the source (2, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | about 6 months ago | (#46172815)

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 (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46172905)

They are a self-professed environmental activist organization. That puts the results of their self-done study in question.

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.

It implies that fracking is causing water shortages by destroying watershead via draining.

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:Consider the source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173185)

Regardless of Ceres' provenance or their study's methodology, is it possible that a Russian state media organ (i.e. RT) has an interest in ensuring that the Russian oligarchs and rulers are able to continue to exert an undue influence over the world's supply of oil and natural gas?

That influence is a powerful geopolitical weapon that the Russians enjoy using to enforce their will over Europe from time to time at the very least.

While RT can provide compelling coverage of events that do not enjoy coverage in other parts of the world, it's ultimately a Kremlin mouthpiece.

Context people (5, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | about 6 months ago | (#46172805)

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 (5, Insightful)

rabun_bike (905430) | about 6 months ago | (#46173617)

Of course all of the water usage you are citing in comparison is sent back into the water supply system. A lot of fracking fluid is injected into deep disposal wells and does not re-enter the water system. The industry is trying to move to more recycling but is complicated and costly due to the chemicals and minerals in the fracking water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03... [nytimes.com]

Drought ravaged? Slashdot is Beta ravaged (-1, Flamebait)

nixon (12262) | about 6 months ago | (#46172817)

I guess Slashdot isn't monetized enough? How else to explain the miserable Beta redesign?

Users should cause a revenue drought for Dice. Money talks...............

Wait, Fracking uses Water? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172821)

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?

Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water? (2)

hey! (33014) | about 6 months ago | (#46173053)

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:Wait, Fracking uses Water? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#46173205)

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?

No Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172823)

There is no problem here. People are being well trained to believe that water is something that only comes in a plastic bottle and it costs $1.

Re:No Problem (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 6 months ago | (#46173191)

What, do you get it on sale or something?

See you in a few weeks on some other website (0)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 6 months ago | (#46172855)

Since the collective have hijacked every discussion, reading slashdot in classic ain't worth the effort.

If Matt Damon says fracking is bad, it probably is...

US irrigation uses 128bn gallons EACH DAY (2)

tp1024 (2409684) | about 6 months ago | (#46172867)

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.. (1)

SlashDread (38969) | about 6 months ago | (#46172869)

And SO IS THE BETA!

First come first serve (2)

rjstanford (69735) | about 6 months ago | (#46172875)

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.

beta comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172889)

Yes, it is crap. For now.

But stop whining in comment thread and suggest to /. staff how to make beta look better.

Re:beta comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173037)

Because nobody tried that. Open your eyes, it'll help your reading abilities.

Need to regulate fracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46172923)

We have this Clean Water Act that was protecting us for a long time until Dick Cheney and his pals were able to push fracking through in true libertarian fashion that "companies don't do anything wrong because they don't want to lose business and get bad press." Well, I have seen what they are doing first hand, I have seen the movies, and I have seen the environmental reports of what is happening, and there is no reason that it should be allowed to spread, let alone continue.

Now, the next problem is that local governments, land owners, and state governments are getting paid off handsomly when they are able to setup shop. Through income taxes and other royalty payments, it is "money for nothing" to most of them. What does a homeowner who just moved into to the area care? If they would pay me $1 million +, I can't blame them for taking the money and running away to somewhere nice.

And it isn't even about draining the already scarce water, it is how much of these unknown chemicals get into the water and don't get filtered out? If you were sitting at a restaurant and had to drink a glass of water, how many drops or even fractions of a drop would it take before you consider that the water isn't good anymore?

Oh, and Slashot Alpha is still working fine. It is quick to load compared to all the other sites. Hell, I think a bunch of web devs need to learn assembly to make pages for us on slow internet connections still...

Re:Need to regulate fracking (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | about 6 months ago | (#46173201)

Can we have some hard data on how many restaurant-goers in fracking areas died because they drank frackwater the restaurant served?

Oil thicker than water (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 months ago | (#46172967)

Surely the ability to keep America powered with "cheap" domestic oil is far more important than drinking water, right? I mean it's not like Americans drink tapwater, bathe, or eat vegetables anyway. Also, Beta sucks.

Slashdot beta and the GUI paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173005)

It is strange how the world of "interface design" has some kind of never-ending quality leading to eternal clashes and debates.
I have often thought why 'Window Managers' and 'Graphical Interfaces' were not hot-swappable and user-customizable against a programming SDK.

An example (I'm a Windows user) -- The audio player 'foobar2000':
It has an SDK. It does not lock you into a fixed GUI paradigm. Every single graphical element is customizable or hot-swappable with something else.
If you go to the website 'deviantart' you will find a whole community devoted to customized and ready-to-use skins and themes for foobar2000.
You can skin foobar to look exactly like 'Notepad' or 'Winamp' or 'iTunes' .....If you have the skill and patience, you can even make it look like Slashdot (classic view) !!!

Another example:
The Windows operating system. Why doesn't Microsoft allow it to be TOTALLY skinned like foobar2000 ? If this was the case, then -for example- you could customize newer versions of Windows to look EXACTLY like Windows XP to every last detail...that includes making EXPLORER.EXE and your DESKTOP look exactly like the one in XP. Conversely, if you are happy to make your Windows box look and act exactly like your favorite mobile phone GUI, you can do that too.

If the world of 'interface design' was like this, then all these arguments up and down the internet WOULD JUST STOP! There would no longer be clashes and debates about the next Windows version or why this design was better than that design.

Looking into a crystal ball, I have a feeling that the future of computing MUST progress towards something like I described. Otherwise we will be stuck in a never-ending loop we don't want to be in.

Re:Slashdot beta and the GUI paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173323)

Fully skinnable UIs are absolute hell for tech support. Support: "Click the orange, round orb at the top left the the screen" User: "What round thing? Everything is bright blue and square."

Further, it takes much more effort to make things customizable (unless you're using Java's Swing) and you need to provide documentation for the API and support it for all future versions.

Finally, the design people can't let anything happen to their pixel perfect designs. UI has gotten considerable worse than it used to be in the past. Many more programs are refusing to let you fully shrink them down. At least Microsoft had documented standards backed by actual UI research and most people used to follow them.

Also, fuck the beta site. Why is there a little space man next to the subject field? Do I really need a link to the page I'm current on? At one time that was considered a bad practice...

Also, double fuck the beta. I couldn't preview and thus post this comment. I ended up individually allowing all 5 scripts (rpxnow, googleapi, slashdot, fsdn, ooyala) as well as Janrain (blocked by Ghostery)and it still wouldn't work. I switched back to classic to post this. What's the magic to post through the beta site? Fuck it, this coward is outta here. By guys and thanks, it's been educational.

Hello good sir (1)

schlouse (36695) | about 6 months ago | (#46173083)

Beta = female genital mutilation

You're damned if you do... (2)

American Patent Guy (653432) | about 6 months ago | (#46173101)

... 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 actress. She puts in on, then she takes it off. She puts something else on, then she takes it off. Ad nauseum.

Check your sources (2)

SteveG3942 (3527969) | about 6 months ago | (#46173113)

RT.com is the Kremlin's mouthpiece in the West. The Kremlin's power derives from oil money, and they desperately need oil prices to remain above $100/barrel. Oil prices are undermined by fracking. Russia has been engaged in an anti-fracking campaign in Europe, and apparently, they're bringing this campaign to the US. In the meantime, you can expect more articles attempting to undermine the Western hemisphere's domestic oil operations, such as this one: http://rt.com/usa/native-ameri... [rt.com] . I'm not pro- or anti- some oil production or transport method or another. I'm simply saying that there's insight to be gleaned from examining from where certain information originates.

Slashdot Beta is surprise prison sex for the eyes (2)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 6 months ago | (#46173197)

There's nothing like getting fucked.
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 (2)

some old guy (674482) | about 6 months ago | (#46173233)

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.

Water for a small city for a day = 1 Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173263)

Umm, 10 MILLION gallons of water is what a city of 100,000 will use in just a day.

For that investment, we get oil and gas production, gas being the most useful because it cuts CO2 release by half compared to coal.

In "Drought Stricken California," agriculture still uses the majority of water in the state.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, umm, yeah, please go tell that to folks that can't do science and numbers - maybe they will believe you.

Problem Solved (1)

Cycloid Torus (645618) | about 6 months ago | (#46173279)

All I can say is: http://www.originoil.com/produ... [originoil.com] . These folks are just bringing their good solution to commercial markets around the world. Recycled frac water will overcome the issue.

Give priority to human consumption (4, Insightful)

grahamm (8844) | about 6 months ago | (#46173295)

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.

No good (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about 6 months ago | (#46173307)

Everyone said they were no frackin' good!

Sorry Jimmy, no dinner tonight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46173531)

... you see the liberal leftist statists on slashdot promoted some bullshit propaganda from PETA dna enviro-nazis and that caused the democrat controlled goverment to outlaw fracking, which put me out of a job.

Water this (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#46173535)

I'd rather see it used for this than watering yet another person's house who wants to live in the desert.

Most water is farming and industry anyway -- limit discs in California are asinine when home use is only 11% while most of it is used watering a desert so we in the north can have winter vegetables (oh, thank you, Californians).

Fracking Contaminates Water - Very Hard to Reclaim (1)

rabun_bike (905430) | about 6 months ago | (#46173593)

One of the big differences in water use with fracking wells is that the water is contaminated with many dangerous chemicals including benzine as well as natural elements like salt. That water is so nasty it is hard to reclaim back into water that can be used again. Therefore most fracking fluid water it is taken out of the water supply system forever in many cases by injecting contaminated water into deep wells for permanent storage. In other words the fresh water is contaminated for a one-time-use and then stored in deep wells forever (hopefully). Contrast this with other uses of water such as agriculture where the water does re-enter the water supply system - abet not free of agriculture contaminants but certainly not locked away in deep wells. So in this very arid regions water is being consumed and never returned back into the water system. Not good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03... [nytimes.com]

There is some movement in the industry to reuse fracking fluid but of course that drives up costs and this is an industry no known for spending money when not required to do so.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>