Fracking and Brewers

There are documented cases of wells being contaminated by fracking, although in fairness, they represent a very tiny percentage of the areas currently under extraction by fracking companies.

What always saddens me about these debates is that they are always obfuscated by political groupthink, on both sides. The grown-up thing to do would be to admit that fracking causes water pollution (it does), also admit that up until now after nearly a decade of widespread fracking, it only occurs in a very small percentage of wells near fracked land (it does), assess the actual risk, if any, of pollution spreading to large aquifers (I have no idea if this has been done or what the results are), and ask if stricter regulation is worth the cost in terms of diminished development that would result from such regulations.

As well pollution is a known risk, albeit a small one, from fracking, Ommegang has a right to be concerned if fracking is going to commence close to their wells. That's about all there is to say about it.

 

Back to the groundwater/beer connection:

http://rockesci.co.ke/rocke-reviews/the-geology-of-beer/

 

To bring it back to the original post, here's an article that actually involves Ommegang:

http://www.thedailystar.com/localnews/x1267472742/Ommegang-Fracking-may-force-us-to-leave

You may want to read the whole thing, but here's the choice quote:

 

Any large scale brewery should be using reverse osmosis anyways, so this is a moot point. Upstate New York is a cesspool of chemicals from the last 50 years from pre-fracking operations and using well water blindly there would probably introduce a vast array of toxic chemicals into your beer.

 

as someone doing graduate work in ecological ethics, i can tell you that it's nowhere remotely close to being worth the headache that comes with trying to reverse climate change. if climate change, environmental degradation, fracking, etc. were not serious threats, environmentalists would be elated, because we wouldn't have to bash our heads against the wall for a living. i speak from my own experience, as well as countless colleagues when I say we're smart and talented enough to get rich doing other things if we really wanted, but we feel that having an earth for future generations to live on is more important. now can we please move past the "environmentalists have ulterior motives" argument?

 

My argument was that as a body they are predisposed to believe in man made global warming and that's possibly why they took that career path to begin with.It's more to do with commitment than financial incentive.
Scientists are supposed to be impartial and act on evidence but they are humans and it's this may well affect which evidence to work on.Not a financial reason in itself, they aren't particularly well paid and could probably get jobs elsewhere but nevertheless turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
My own view FWIW is that recent warming fitted the existing cycles of climate change pretty well but human activity may well have exacerbated it .By how much is difficult to assess.Beats cooling though, an ice age would really screw up the works

 

if anything, the predisposition is to be skeptical of global warming. it's a) way more convenient for everyone involved to keep living lives as usual, b) more obvious, since the effects of climate change are way harder to perceive on an individual/day-to-day level, and c) easier to palate on a moral level, since we affluent, industrialized people don't have to blame ourselves for destroying the planet. unfortunately, scientific consensus has repeatedly and soundly rejected this predisposition over the past three decades, so a lot of us have decided to come to terms with it and see what we can do about it.

 

Evokes a reminder of the fight between Bell's and tar sands oil pipelines. A sobering commentary courtesy of BA VictorWisc:
http://www.beeradvocate.com/communi...the-keystone-xl-pipeline.106133/#post-1557996

 

But no one applies this reasoning to things they don't personally wish to be false. This never happens:
Surgeon: Marquis, you have appendicitis. We need to remove your appendix.
Marquis: Hmm, I'm concerned that you're predisposed to cutting people open and that's why you're in this career path. It could be clouding your judgement. I think this pain is just natural gas.
Surgeon: ...

 

On a related note, I think Ommegang should certainly be concerned. While fracking doesn't always disturb groundwater supplies, it certainly has the potential to do so. I would not be okay with the guy on the 5 acres next door inviting Halliburton over for a ten year lease.

That's just me. Oh, don't forget to keep arguing with people you've never met on the internet guys. I don't know what else I would read at work without all of your help.

 

Franking's totally safe.... and 9 out of 10 Doctors prefer to smoke Camels.


I forsee a new Yuengling ad campaign: Drink Yuengling, it's Fracking Delicous!

 

There is a chance of contaminating groundwater but it'svery exaggerated by opponents. Remember that most shale gas formations are 1 to 7 miles deep but most drinking wells are between 50 to 500 feet deep. Fracking is a powerful tool, but it's not nearly strong enough to open fractures for miles around through solid rock. Groundwater contamination of potable aquifers is most likely to come from improper casing of wells, not the fracking itself. Proper well casing can be managed by regulations, oversight, and strict penalties.

As for treating frack wastewater. Yes it absolutely can be treated but not every treatment facility is equipped properly. Furthermore the permits and testing requirements the wastewater treatment facilities operate under vary greatly. Oddly there is no consistent nationwide and often not even statewide standards that all wastewater treatment facilities follow. Again this problem could be solved or greatly reduced with the proper regulations oversight and penalties for non-compliance.

 

But someone wouldn't choose to be a surgeon if he had any objection to cutting people open.Most people join the medical profession because they want to do good.
The East Anglian data manipulation scandal indicated that not all scientists are impartial.

 

The State of New York has a moratorium on fracking, so the entire thread is moot.

 

Watch Gasland 1 and 2 and tell me if you still believe that

 

There are legitimate gripes with Gasland. The flaming water in particular was probably not caused by fracking but by natural gas produced near the surface by bacteria.

 

Fracking is linked to contaminated water, and increased earthquake activity. If I owned a brewery, I would not want that shit anywhere near my property. I wouldn't care how much money they were offering me...

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pubsscanned/openfile/OF1_2011.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/oklahoma-earthquakes-california-2014-partly-fracking/