FTFY
1 Like
Just gonna leave this here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/24/river-on-fire-in-greens-mps-video-is-natural-not-fracking-says-csiro
(CSIRO is our national scientific organisation.)
1 Like
I get the play on words, but as a Flori-duhhh-ian who considers manatees to be one of the more badass things on Earth that do not deserve in any way, shape, or form the epic annus horribilis visited upon them, I wholeheartedly object to the image of one of these beautiful creatures on fire.
Probably should add (?) that fracking is bullshit and I remain amazed that people are okay with injecting chemical slurries into the ground, to break rocks, to obtain hydrocarbons.
8 Likes
The joy of serenading co-workers 
1 Like
Iân sorry the image bothers you. I suppose I find it funny in part because itâs just so impossible. I wouldnât find the actual hacking of a manatee, by say a boat prop, funny at all. Iâd be glad to delete it, if you like.
1 Like
Excepting that the increase seen in the last twelve months, that correlates with the expansion of the gas field, has several possible explanations, one of which among the others,the gas field, cannot be ruled out.
CSIRO can be credited with not decisively ruling out the gas field expansion, less so the press.
Very kind, thank you, no deletion necessary, and I know very well you meant no harm in posting it. 
They functioned a lot like my introduction to the natural world and the importance of respecting wilderness. And if youâve never visited Crystal River in Florida, or any of the springs down in Northern Florida, the manatees are the icing on the cake.
and the other tourists are generally the seagulls trying to either shit on, or eat, that cake.
1 Like
You more of a Crowded House sort of a âŚperson?
1 Like
Weâve had this convo before. Still doesnât change my point about the Oils not being classified as pop.
1 Like
Not really a new one. The Cuyahoga caught fire several times, although hopefully nobody had been using that for drinking water.
2 Likes
Yes, but is it naturally occurring in that river? Because the 20 geologists for the prosecution say: no.
I do agree thereâs deeper issues than the water offgassing methane, which isnât great for the human body. But in the grand scheme of of the mostly science-illeterate public, it seems to me necessary to show the dramatic short term effects to get them onboard with mitigating the longer term problems.
I used to live in an area of my county called Swamp Creek. Basically a big valley following a crick that was also a salmon spawning stream. A developer spent literally a decade trying to get the county and locals onboard for his gross high-priced high-density developments on the side of the valley in exchange for clearing out our gorgeous temperate rainforest. We took photos of the crick during peak salmon spawning every year for five years. The year the developer got its permit and paved the hillside, the spawning completely stopped because the salmon just wouldnât do it with all the oil in the water. Too murky.
A progression of five photos. The first four showed the crick practically overflowing with salmon in clear water. The fifth year it was completely empty of salmon, murky with algae, and gross. I think this kind of demonstration can be valuable. Even if itâs not telling the whole story. In the case of Swamp Creek, the part that wasnât told was all the ecological damage down stream of the development, and the fact that salmon wouldnât swim further upstream to find clearer water. They just gave up and died there instead, because they couldnât see an end to the murk.
The area used to be quite pristine. Literally a temperate rainforest. Now itâs nothing more than high density housing. It no longer provides any ecological services, they tried to mediate the damage to the crick at least once, by manually widening and deepening it with excavators, and it still overflows every single year due to all the pavement allowing contaminated street water to wash directly into the crick. Pretty soon itâs going to end up being a completely paved waterway like the Los Angeles river, and it wonât support any worthwhile life.
9 Likes
Sorry for being unclear, site=gas-bore site. The only wells conceivably âjust a km awayâ are the dormant never-fracked never-in-production Oranna 8-11 ones in the report, which while they are more than a km from the seep sites are less than a km from other parts of the river. To get CSG wells where extraction activity could be causing or exacerbating gas seeps, one has to go >5 km away to the production fields to the SW, seeps from that formation wouldnât be appearing that far downhill in the river. And AFAIK that hasnât been fracked either.
I think itâs probably closer akin to the Cuyahoga River during the 70s.
eta: Dâoh! Sniped by L_Mariachi!
The river near my office gets ignited almost daily. People tend to complain when it doesnât light up.
3 Likes
If you think Disney has been taking Marvel and Star Wars in interesting directions just wait until they acquire HBO.
1 Like
HaveâŚhave they met people?
10 Likes
Hmm, a politician (a senator from a different state) tries something, and people go haywire. The State department of REsources, and the Federal Foremost scientific body describe it as a non-issue, for several reasonsâŚ
- The condamine river sits above a massive hydrocarbon basin (i.e. coal and gas field).
- The location in question while a km or two from a âwellâ, said well, was an exploration well, and is capped and has never been used for fracking.
- Methane has been coming out of the Condamine river for as long as locals can remember - long before any drilling or mining in the area.
- The nearest real fracking is over 40 kms away.
- Multiple scientists have analyzed the gases coming off the river, and compared them to the gases coming from fracking sites - they are dramaticallly chemically dissimilar.
But letâs not let science get in the way of a good story.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
