Print 76 comment(s) - last by Catalina588.. on Feb 12 at 8:17 PM

Ninety-seven billion gallons of water was used for drilling oil and gas wells in the U.S. since 2011

A new study shows that our search for energy via fracking in certain parts of the country is taking a toll on the water supply.

According to RT, a report by the Ceres investor network shows that 75 percent of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled in the U.S. since 2011 were located in parts of the country that now have a water scarcity problem. 

Fracking is where water, sand, and various chemicals are injected into layers of rock to release oil and gas deep underground. But fracking in a single well can require millions of gallons of freshwater.

This is problematic for many communities, especially those in rural towns that have a limited water supply. The amount of water needed for fracking can drain aquifers used for local communities, leaving them in drought conditions. 


Ceres discovered that 97 billion gallons of water were used for drilling oil and gas wells in the U.S. since 2011. Half of that went into wells in Texas, which is experiencing a serious drought that has lasted years. To make matters worse, fracking is expected to double in the state over the next five years.
According to the RT report, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said 29 communities across the state could run out of water in 90 days, and that many reservoirs in west Texas are at around 25 percent capacity.

Texas isn't the only state with water supply issues due to fracking. In Colorado, 97 percent of wells were in areas with water shortages. Fracking water in the state is expected to double to six billion gallons by 2015. Other states, like New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, are in similar situations.
In California, 96 percent of new wells were located in areas where water is limited. The state even declared a drought emergency last month. 

In April 2013, U.S. District Judge Paul Grewal in San Jose ruled that the federal government violated U.S. environmental law by declining to perform an environmental impact study on fracking in the Monterey Formation. 

Source: RT

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By siconik on 2/6/2014 6:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
97 Billion (Dr Evil) gallons per year sure sounds scary!
0.00067% of USA's annual water consumption (410 billion gallons/DAY!), not so much

Funny, try as I might I was not able to find the second number anywhere. Humm....

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Ammohunt on 2/6/2014 6:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sssshhhh! you are ruining the FUD/conspiracy theory! I am sure the Bilderberger group is behind this! or maybe Reptilian Aliens! Call Jessie Ventura i am sure he has the answers!

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By michael67 on 2/6/2014 7:37:37 PM , Rating: 5
Not saying its FUD or not, but that number is a total number, and some heavy industries use a lot of water, and do that in place ware there is plenty, same go's for agriculture, and those are the biggest consumers of water.

But i you start using extra water from wells that all ready pump up more water then get replenished, as i read that many southern states have declining water tables, the extra consumption of fracking can make something thats all ready a (big) problem, a acute one.

So a simple law or clause in the permit that says that they cant use more water then what get replenished would solve the problem.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By ritualm on 2/6/2014 8:07:01 PM , Rating: 5
As usual, Tiffany skimps on some of the hard facts in that RT article:

Levels of vital aquifers that serve local communities near Eagle Ford have dropped by up to 300 feet in the last few years.

Translation: the oil/gas industry is literally drying up water supplies in areas where such supplies are already scarce to begin with.
A separate study published this week found that the industry does a very poor job recycling fracking water in Texas. Researchers at the University of Texas’ Bureau of Economic Geology found that 92 percent of water used in 2011 to frack Barnett Shale in north central Texas was “consumed,” and not recycled. Only about five percent of all water used for fracking in that area has been reused or recycled in the “past few years.”

Translation: for every liter (1000ml) of water used in fracking, only 50ml is ever returned to the water system; the rest of the water is used to extract oil/gas.

So much for the US trying to be energy-independent.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Ammohunt on 2/6/14, Rating: -1
By ritualm on 2/6/2014 9:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a stretch only the oil and gas industry is using that waters aquifer?

I never said that.

It's like you're sharing a cup of lemonade with several friends. All of you are getting a fraction of a cup of the stuff. Then a bully shows up and dips the business end of the ShopVac into the cup, while asking the rest of you to not drink as much because he "needs" more of the lemonade for himself.
All water is returned back to the "system"

No, it clearly is not.

By michael67 on 2/6/2014 10:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and there are no pollutions in drill/frack water?, yes there are, and actually some of them are real hard to remove!

SO you actually really dont want it to return to the system!

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By km9v on 2/7/2014 11:06:32 AM , Rating: 3
Every drop of water that has ever been used or will be used is already on earth. It's all recycled eventually.

By Samus on 2/8/2014 12:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
Water is very easy to clean. Billions of gallons around the world is cleansed through vapor or solar distillation (evaporation/rainfall) every day.

However, the crap in water doesn't evaporate and stays behind. That's the concern. There will always be clean water somewhere, but not everybody will be drinking it.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Solandri on 2/7/2014 2:34:03 AM , Rating: 4
But i you start using extra water from wells that all ready pump up more water then get replenished, as i read that many southern states have declining water tables, the extra consumption of fracking can make something thats all ready a (big) problem, a acute one.

You do not assign full blame to the straw that broke the camel's back. The proper way to assign blame is in proportion to all the weight that was loaded onto the camel - because all the weight contributed to breaking the camel's back.

So (making numbers up) say 50% of groundwater is used for irrigation, 29% for industry, 20% for household use, and 0.00067% for fracking. Then 50% of the blame for the water shortage goes to irrigation, 29% to industrial use, 20% to household use, and 0.00067% to fracking.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By purerice on 2/7/2014 7:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, you are right except that if the weight loaded on before the straw was accidental, but the straw loading was intentional, and with knowledge of the extreme load on the camel's back, well then that's criminal.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By japlha on 2/10/2014 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that all other uses for water is "accidental"? Only fracking can be blamed because it is "intentional" water use somehow?

Whoops! I just drank another glass of water, took a shower and irrigated my crops.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By maugrimtr on 2/11/2014 8:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're evading logic. If previous uses did not exhaust a water supply, then there's nothing to be blamed. If a new use emerges and it's allowed without proper oversight and study, then it damn well can be blamed.

By flatrock on 2/11/2014 9:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
How can you evade something that isn't there?

So by your "logic" any new uses should be blamed. Any new businesses. New residents. By all means don't have any children. Babies use a lot of water with all the cleaning up after all the messes they make and all that laundry. Water use isn't constant either. Irrigation uses large amounts of water but depends considerably on the amount of rainfall and when that rainfall occurs and is generally needed most when water is in short supply. But let's just concentrate on the tiny portion of water used in fracking since it is evil and must be stopped at all costs.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By TheDoc9 on 2/7/2014 10:11:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is a serious problem, the areas with the oil are typically already on the borderline of drough and fracking makes it worse. It can also contaminate the water supply.

Why don't you visit some of these areas and see for yourself. The few lucky people who owned the land walk away with piles of cash and their family will never want for anything for generations. Of course for everyone else the town becomes full of roughnecks and the oil trucks run 24/7. The water that comes out of the faucet is thick and at times has to be boiled or shut off.

Imagine, in this day and age in the US shutting the water supply off for 50 thousand people!

By JediJeb on 2/10/2014 4:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
Imagine, in this day and age in the US shutting the water supply off for 50 thousand people!

This is happening right now in California where they are keeping water from being used to irrigate farms because it could catch a few fish in the intake of the pumps.

That is a 2009 article and the fight continues today. Water that could have been stored or used during wet years is simply allowed to flow into the ocean. Then in dry years as now, it is still allowed to flow into the ocean instead of being used to grow food. It has also been shown that the excess water does nothing to improve the population of fish, so why continue to divert water when it does no good?

While this may not be cutting off drinking water to people, it is cutting of a ready supply of fresh vegetables which is costing us all more in a time when we can't afford it. And it isn't as if there is limited water there to use, plenty is just being flushed out into the ocean where it is no longer readily usable. In a sense it is government mandated wasting of fresh water which serves no purpose.

By sixteenornumber on 2/6/2014 6:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
i'm really not surprised... can you post a reference?

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Akrovah on 2/6/2014 7:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure where he got the numbers specifically, but curious myself I did a Bing search and I found this link on the U.S. Geological Suvery's website about estimated water consumption in 2005:

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By michael67 on 2/6/2014 8:01:34 PM , Rating: 1
The numbers here say that about half is used for cooling nuclear power stations, and a other 37% is used for irrigation, and only 44.2 Bgal/d or 13% is used for water withdrawals for public supply.

So that huge 410 Bgal/d number is a hole lot smaller in practical numbers, as nuclear plants use mainly or river lake water, for once true cooling, but still counts as a real consumption number.

So imho its more that siconik with his 410 Bgal/d number is creating more FUD then the article.

By siconik on 2/6/2014 11:26:00 PM , Rating: 4
So water used for fracking is NEVER sourced from rivers and lakes? You think that only pure spring water freshly ripped away from baby woodland critters goes down the wells?

410 billion galons of water of various sources and quality is used in US every day.
97 billion galons of water of various sources and quality was used for fracking in 2011.

Apples = apples

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Solandri on 2/7/2014 2:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
The numbers here say that about half is used for cooling nuclear power stations

It's used for all thermoelectric power stations, not just nuclear. Coal, oil, natural gas, wood power generation plants all need cooling to maintain efficiency.

And the water in these plants isn't "used". In most cases heat is dumped into it and the water is returned to the source (ocean, river, or lake). The clever plants will use cogeneration and heat up water that you wanted to heat up in the first place (to use as hot water or heating buildings). A few plants use evaporative cooling, and that water is lost into the atmosphere.
So imho its more that siconik with his 410 Bgal/d number is creating more FUD then the article.

The USGS site says 128 Bgal/day is used for irrigation, and 44 Bgal/day is used for public consumption. So if you consider the 410 Bgal/day number to be FUD, it is only off by a factor of about 2x.

Assigning blame for the drought to fracking OTOH is off by a factor of about 35,000x. So even if you consider both figures to be FUD, they are nowhere near similar in magnitude. The article blaming fracking is creating about 35,000x times the FUD of siconik.

By michael67 on 2/7/2014 4:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
People have a problem with even reading the article header.
Report: Parts of U.S. Experiencing Water Shortages Due to Fracking

The problem is not that fracking causes a US national water shortage.

The problem is that fracking causes some local water shortage .

And people go to the streets because they can use less water because of fracking, but then hey fuck the hill billies, as the rural country back side, counts only for a low percentage of the people.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Hakuryu on 2/6/2014 8:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
What isn't so funny, is being able to light your tap water on fire with a lighter, or having to buy bottled water shipped in because your well ran dry. Both directly related to fracking.

Regardless of the 'total' water use, if you lived in one of these areas, where the ONLY thing that has changed is the fracking boom (rural areas), then it is pretty obvious who and what is to blame.

People that believe fracking is like some great cuddly bunny that can do no harm either have stock in fracking enterprises, believe environmental problems are dreamt up to give hippies something to do, or are just stupid.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By AssBall on 2/6/14, Rating: 0
RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Hakuryu on 2/7/2014 2:56:12 AM , Rating: 2
Care to share your proof of that, or do your 'pulled out of your ass stats' trump the documented and filmed cases which say otherwise?

I've seen tap water lit on fire. Natural occurrence maybe? When it happens in 10 out of 10 areas with high fracking concerns... well, only the brainwashed can hold onto their dream of exploitation without consequence.

I hope you tell your great-grandchildren to stay the hell out of those areas.

By AssBall on 2/7/2014 11:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
So your source is CNN? 10 out of 10 areas? So there are ten total areas? Then you ask for my source? Really? My source is that the farts that you smell are probably yours, and you apparently are one of the people that can't smell them.

You do not really understand the geological impact of fracking. You clearly know nothing about how it works. And you throw out "brainwashed". Look in the mirror.

Methane has been in groundwater aquifers for much longer than you have been learning from garbage unscientific media outlets that feed you fear.

It is there in the water well already, fracking doesn't put MORE gas into the pipes. Get a grip.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By KCjoker on 2/7/2014 6:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap you fell for the tap water lit on fire Do some research it's absolutely nothing new/shocking.

By Dorkyman on 2/8/2014 4:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the movie "Gasland" used the lighting-the-tap-water-on-fire trick. The movie's maker later refused to admit that fracking had absolutely nothing to do with it, that the particular water supply had always had methane in it.

By Captain Orgazmo on 2/7/2014 3:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
You are a gullible moron. The burning water trick has nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing. Farmers drill water wells into coalbeds and naturally occurring methane dissolved in the water comes out at the surface. Often gas separators are required at the wellhead, and this is common in areas where fracking has never been performed (or any oil and gas drilling activity).

Also, freshwater aquifers are not normally used as sources in drilling and fracturing processes, and never without permits. Read my other post about the sources of water and fracturing methods.

Or just be another useful idiot for OPEC and keep spreading lies. Don't forget to ask Damon who funded his film. Here's a hint: same country that purchased Al Gore's propaganda channel.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By ritualm on 2/6/2014 8:16:16 PM , Rating: 1
97 Billion (Dr Evil) gallons per year sure sounds scary!
0.00067% of USA's annual water consumption (410 billion gallons/DAY!), not so much

97 Billion gallons since 2011 in areas where availability of potable water supplies is limited is a very scary, serious problem.

Meanwhile, 410 billion gallons per day is for all of USA's water consumption, and is relatively meaningless for those hard-hit by water shortages.

Stop spreading FUD.

By siconik on 2/6/2014 11:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Please point out where 97 billion figure is attributed solely to specific areas, as opposed to entire country. There is plenty of ongoing fracking in PA and upstate NY, areas with plentiful water supply.

By Captain Orgazmo on 2/7/2014 3:24:04 AM , Rating: 4
You think they are using potable water? You stop spreading FUD you uninformed reactionary.

Frac fluid can use just about any type of water, including salty produced water from deep formations that is useless for anything else. Flowback from the fractured wells can be used again after treatment, or re-injected into disposal wells miles below freshwater aquifers (and contained by multiple layers of non-permeable formations like shale). Fracturing can also be done with nitrogen, propane, and even carbon dioxide.

When surface water is used, numerous regulations have to be followed, and permits approved. Basically everything to do with drilling is regulated to levels you can't even imagine. You should be more worried about the number of trees cut down to print the reports the government requires.

How do I know this? I'm a petroleum engineer.

By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2014 9:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Dude! Thats fracking awful.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By nafhan on 2/7/2014 10:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
I would generalize that to: "numbers given without context are great for propaganda".

However, I think you're wrong in this case. Using your own numbers (and the US population), 97 billion gallons is the amount of water needed to support 200,000 people for a year. That indicates, to me, that the premise of the article is plausible.

RE: Absolute numbers are great for propaganda
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2014 10:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
Again, that's way less water use than what people WASTE watering lawns.

At least fracking provides something. What does having the greenest lawn possible actually DO for anyone other than your own vanity?

Also look who's providing these numbers. Oh yeah, an anti-fracking lobbying group. Real credible!

By nafhan on 2/7/2014 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
Here's what I was saying:
97 billion gallons would be enough water to provide for the average daily needs of 200,000 people for a year. I was also pointing out that that number gives the article some credibility - rather than taking away form it. That's all.

Water is very heavy and expensive to move long distances. If people in other parts of the country are "wasting" it watering their lawns, that doesn't have much bearing on what's happening in an area with a bad drought.

Also, I don't have a problem with the general concept of fracking, but you've got environmentalist nuts on one side of the issue and lots of money on the other side. So, a high level of mis-information should be expected. If you can find actual info showing that the numbers in the article are wrong, bring that up. Saying it's wrong just because you dislike the source isn't very helpful.

By ammaross on 2/7/2014 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Not just that, but from the language of the article's title, you'd think they were implying that fracking caused the drought, not that they're using only 1% of the annual Texas water use in fracking.

We can't drink money...
By aurareturn on 2/6/2014 6:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
Damn right. I don't understand why we're wasting precious water for this. No water = no life.

RE: We can't drink money...
By mousewiz on 2/6/2014 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 1
Money can be exchanged for goods and services. Goods and services include water.

Of course the amount of water used by fracking probably needs to be an amount that can be 'produced' (shipped, desalinization, filtered, whatever) using the energy generated by fracking or we lose...

RE: We can't drink money...
By daboom06 on 2/6/2014 6:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
but american culture tells us no money = no life.

RE: We can't drink money...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/14, Rating: -1
RE: We can't drink money...
By ritualm on 2/6/2014 9:36:57 PM , Rating: 3
Precious water? Water is the most common thing on this planet.

Most of it locked up as seawater (which is unsafe to drink directly, and expensive energy-wise to purify into freshwater) and polar ice. That leaves less than 10% as freshwater globally for 7 billion plus humans to use. That wouldn't be so bad if such freshwater supplies are distributed equally across the planet, however in many places water supplies are limited thanks to many factors, some of them outside human control.

When the limited supplies already have to be used for many things at once, and the supply situation isn't necessarily improving with each passing year, is it such a good idea to add more heavy water consumers onto an already overtaxed supply?

The main issue with fracking re: water usage is that the majority of fracking operations occur in areas where natural precipitation is minimal, so water conservation is already very high on the list of things to do - especially if you want those places to remain relatively habitable for decades to come.

RE: We can't drink money...
By michael67 on 2/6/2014 11:01:27 PM , Rating: 3
Man why do you even bother to reply, its clearly that he is just Trolling, and if not, then he is just too stupid to warrant a reply!

RE: We can't drink money...
By atechfan on 2/9/2014 5:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think number 2 seems to be the case. Why try to argue with someone who can't see that water is more important than gas? For anyone who thinks otherwise, I have a challenge. I'll go 1 week without using any natural gas, and you go one week without using any water.

RE: We can't drink money...
By JediJeb on 2/10/2014 4:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
If I had gone this past week without using any natural gas I would have frozen to death since it is the only means of heating in my house.

I could put out the cost to convert to electric(which comes from coal here) and after incurring that cost paid three times as much per month(both cost I could not cover currently)on my energy bill. But that is ok, since I can't afford it I am sure I could get some of your tax money to help pay for it.

It is all in how you look at things. If people lived where water is plentiful instead of scarce then this would not be a problem. Also if people all lived where the temperature is always warm we could do away with natural gas for heat. But then some of the best ground for crops is in areas where it gets very cold in winter and is sometimes dry in summer, so both gas and water are precious commodities.

RE: We can't drink money...
By piroroadkill on 2/7/2014 6:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
If will was there, we could set up new nukes to power enormous desalination plants.

There's no ultimate reason we should run out of clean water in rich countries...

RE: We can't drink money...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2014 8:04:55 AM , Rating: 1
If will was there, we could set up new nukes to power enormous desalination plants. There's no ultimate reason we should run out of clean water in rich countries...

Thank you!

Hell for a fraction of the money this Administration has wasted, utterly wasted on nothing, we could have done any number of things to nip this in the bud.

Not that we should. Water shortages are purely natural, now it's just another boogeyman being used by the anti-progress "progressives" to attempt to shut down life-giving resource reclamation technologies like fracking.

These guys probably watched that turd of a flick "Promised Land" one too many times and think they have it all figured out.

RE: We can't drink money...
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2014 8:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
Beat me to it. Nuclear power and desalinization could solve any water problems the world has. And provide thousands of jobs while doing so.

RE: We can't drink money...
By TSS on 2/6/2014 11:03:53 PM , Rating: 3
You're an idiot.

Ignoring the whole "only 3% of all water is fresh and about 2% of it is locked up in ice" arguement, the US draws most of it's water supplies from underground aquafers. While it is true these get replenished due to the water cycle, this process takes thousands of years.

Water doesn't travel through hundreds of feet in bedrock in just a couple of days, yknow.

These aquafers are already at historically low levels and dropping, due to the US consuming more out of these aquafers then is replenished each year and has been for a long time now. Fresh water shortage is going to be one of the US's major problems in the 21st century.

Even above ground things aren't as rosy as you think they are. just go look at the state of the colorado river. The thing *dries up* before it reaches the sea of cortez. Fresh water is the most precious thing in the world.

That said... The article has completly missed the point, twice. If you wanna talk water problems and fracking, a report on how the chemicals contaminate ground water is FAR more usefull. It's one thing to use water, it's quite another to poison it for the future generations.

Yes i've heard the explanation the gas wells are much deeper then the water table. Doesn't fly with me though because i doubt this is always the case. And even if it is, it'll truely take the water out of the water cycle. Water always finds the lowest point to flow to, it doesn't flow up to the water table. I also cannot see how ground ontop of poison will remain healthy.

Aside from that, if one wants to talk wasting fresh water, Lawns are a much better place to start. 97 billion gallons per year is nothing compared to the 3285 billion gallons each year used for, according to the epa, "residential landscape irrigation". Note the residential, so this doesn't mean farms either. Once again the big problem is returning the used water to the source.

Also bottled water would be a good topic since it uses underground aquafers as well. Which is all about location, companies pump dry one location and just move on to the next leaving the local communities with all the shortages.

How about you learn a thing or 2 before you start spreading your own propaganda. Otherwise, if you're so smart, how about phoning up all those "fresh water for africa" charities to explain to them exactly your solution for the "problem that is easily fixed". I'm sure you'd make alot of people happy.

RE: We can't drink money...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: We can't drink money...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2014 12:33:24 AM , Rating: 1
Fresh water shortage is going to be one of the US's major problems in the 21st century

Well were 14 years in. When exactly is this "major" problem going to show up?

Do you know how many doomsday predictions like this I've seen in my lifetime? I suppose the ozone layer is gone too. And it's 20 degrees hotter from all the "global warming". Oh yeah, in the 1970's people were saying we would already run out of oil at this point. And did the polar icecaps melt yet? Still waiting on that.

When we run into problems, we solve them. If water shortages become a problem, we'll figure it out. It's not that hard! We went to the goddamn Moon and can split the atom. Give us some credit.

So basically until that day comes, FRACK it!

RE: We can't drink money...
By michael67 on 2/7/2014 1:00:51 AM , Rating: 3
So basically until that day comes, FRACK it!

Spoken like a true modern day Republican!

Just ignore the problem as free market will sort everything its self out, and just keep on borrowing from the future, we seen how that works, as even a shutdown of the government dose not cure them from stacking up the problems from today for tomorrow.

RE: We can't drink money...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2014 2:56:34 AM , Rating: 1
And spoken like a true modern day Liberal hypocrite.

You probably live in a house that has natural gas. It's easy to talk the talk. I would like to see you people go a week without gasoline or electricity or natural gas, than come talk to us about how "evil" we are for wanting a certain standard of living maintained.

Besides last time I checked this is happening under the Saviors watch. Don't bring "Republicans" into something they had nothing to do with.

RE: We can't drink money...
By Dorkyman on 2/8/2014 4:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
I find "Savior" to be very insulting.

I prefer to use "Messiah."

RE: We can't drink money...
By hpglow on 2/7/2014 1:19:43 AM , Rating: 1
No nitrogen is the most common "thing" on this planet. And how did you get FITcamaro's junk out of your mouth long enough to type that post?

RE: We can't drink money...
By StevoLincolnite on 2/7/2014 2:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the driest state on the driest continent in the world, outside of Antarctica.

You cannot tell me it is common where I live, especially after exiting a decade long drought.

Water is so scarce here it's actually not feasible to run water heavy farms of nuclear energy due to the water consumption required, we are forced to only water gardens on certain days and at certain hours.

By StevoLincolnite on 2/7/2014 2:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
As the saying goes... If you're out at sea, surrounded by water you can still die of thirst.

RE: We can't drink money...
By Dorkyman on 2/8/2014 4:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
Two solutions:

(1) The authorities can simply raise prices. Surprise! The law of supply and demand really works.

(2) Move somewhere else. Water is scarce in the Mojave desert, too, so not very many people live there.

RE: We can't drink money...
By NicodemusMM on 2/6/2014 8:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how much water is used in the production of everyday items? Obviously not, otherwise you would've shunned the device you posted with, not to mention the electricity that drives it.

Utterly laughable.

RE: We can't drink money...
By michael67 on 2/6/2014 11:07:31 PM , Rating: 1
I think you are even more utterly laughable.

As you clearly did not think your reply true, as non of those factory's are build in rural places ware there is all ready a water shortage.

RE: We can't drink money...
By stm1185 on 2/7/2014 12:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
Oh please this is just anti oil environmentalist crap. How much you want to bet these protesters have a yard at home? That's wasting water for nothing but appearance!

RE: We can't drink money...
By purerice on 2/7/2014 7:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
imaginary ad hom attack to avoid the issue. Real classy.

Why are they using drinking water?
By Belegost on 2/6/2014 6:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why not have fracking be done with treated wastewater, it doesn't need to be potable.

RE: Why are they using drinking water?
By glowingghoul on 2/6/2014 7:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
They often do use non-potable water.

By michael67 on 2/6/2014 8:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
They mainly use non-potable water, and a lot of waste water gets recycled back to potable water in dry places.

By NicodemusMM on 2/6/2014 8:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm starting to think the water shortages may be due to the sheer amount of kool-aid you're drinking.

If you really have an issue with petroleum, please make sure you're not using anything with plastic in it... or in the manufacturing process... or delivery process... or packaging... etc. Oh, you may want to make sure it doesn't use electricity from any source.

I'd suggest you start with computers and smart phones. At the minimum it would save from seeing your... whatever you call this.

RE: Really...
By michael67 on 2/6/2014 11:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
I actually work in the oil my hole life and make a good living from it, but the closer i get to the top and work with them, i more and more see that there is little difference between them and crime syndicates, there just as ruthless, and will try to get away with anything as long as it brings in money.

So saying stop one in a wile to oil companies is really not a bad thing, and you really dont have to feel sorry for them, as the Gulf spill costs will exceed the $42.4bn they put a side, as compensation costs still rises.

And still BP only lost about 20% of its value, so yeah if they can build a gas pipes all over the country to refinery's, they can also build water pipes to rural area's.

RE: Really...
By Dorkyman on 2/8/2014 4:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you've missed the ads in the papers run by BP that show a lot of the settlement money is being given away to groups that lost NOTHING due to the spill. Once again, lawyers warping the system for their own gain.

And of course oil companies want to make a profit. Capitalism is a wonderful thing; only the efficient and successful survive. Kind of like Natural Selection at work.

And as you get to the top of the oil company I'd gently suggest having someone else write your memos.

By glowingghoul on 2/6/2014 7:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yet nowhere in this article, or the RT source is this mentioned.

You have to dig just to find out who even wrote the report.

Either extreme bias or negligent reporting by the author.

Who needs water?
By DukeN on 2/7/2014 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
Dat fracking dollaz gunna buy you all the brawndo and coke dudes..

Old Problem, New Thing to Blame
By ICBM on 2/7/2014 3:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so living in Eagle Ford region, and being involved with both oil companies and agriculture I can perhaps put some things in perspective.

Aquifer levels have been dropping well before the oil play came into.

To irrigate crops, it takes 27,154 gallons per acre to amount to 1" of rainfall. Lets say we need 20" of water to produce a corn crop. There is around 1.6 million acres of irrgated corn in Texas. This is 868,928,000,000 gallons of water for 1 year(specifically 2010) of corn production in Texas. This is JUST irrigated corn, not other crops.

So in the grand scheme, these Frac numbers pale in comparison to what the agriculture(not counting municipalities)sector uses.

Listening to RT?
By DocScience on 2/8/2014 8:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
The population of Texas is 26 million people. Fracking in Texas uses the same amount of water as 153,000 Texans, and much of that in the wetter east, south and central Texas. It's an issue, especially in the western Permian basin where there's not much water to start, but it's not like fracking is using all the water in Texas.

In the wetter Marcellus shale (listed in the report as in serious drought), fracking uses 0.1% of the water, less than swimming pools. There are no water shortages in Pennsylvania.

And drillers are learning to use LESS water by recycling and cleaning the waste water from the wells and by using cleaned up sewage water discharges for drilling.

By flatrock on 2/11/2014 9:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how this water use compares to the water needed for biofuels such as ethanol from corn.

Fracking water is recycled
By Catalina588 on 2/12/2014 8:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
But fracking in a single well can require millions of gallons of freshwater.

The first well in an area like the Barnett in Texas requires about 3.5 million gallons of water. That's used to drill three wells on one pad the size of a queen-size bed. Then the water is cleaned up and piped or trucked to the next drilling site -- recycled. Water is too expensive for drillers to ignore the consequences of re-use, such as major environmental pollution laws.

By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 2/6/2014 8:37:32 PM , Rating: 1

Last time I checked the Earth was 75% water and the US is surrounded by ocean; I think we can work something out.

What isn't so funny, is being able to light your tap water on fire with a lighter, or having to buy bottled water shipped in because your well ran dry. Both directly related to fracking.

Show me your peer reviewed study that directly links fracking to being able light your tap water on fire. Last time I checked that was debunked.

If you still believe it than I recommend going down to Georgia where you will find "Government, Chem-trail Snow"; that doesn't melt when you put a lighter to it.

Water Shortage Nothing New
By jardows on 2/7/2014 9:49:00 AM , Rating: 1
I live in Eastern Colorado, where water scarcity is always an issue. It has been an issue since before fracking. You know know what the problem is? It doesn't rain here. People are living in an area not designed to sustain large populations. Denver and Colorado Springs areas are growing in population fast, and are sucking more and more of the state's water supply.

To say that fracking is a primary contributing factor to the water shortage is absolutely wrong. Whatever you feel about fracking, the water shortage is not being caused in any bit by it. Just a warning to look past the bias of an article and look to the truth.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki