Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:26 AM Feb 2014

*ahem* [View all]

Fracking in the West has used 97 billion gallons of water since 2011.

97 billion gallons of water.

---

“Hydraulic fracturing is increasing competitive pressures for water in some of the country’s most water-stressed and drought-ridden regions,” said Mindy Lubber, president of the Ceres green investors’ network.

Without new tougher regulations on water use, she warned industry could be on a “collision course” with other water users.

“It’s a wake-up call,” said Prof James Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine. “We understand as a country that we need more energy but it is time to have a conversation about what impacts there are, and do our best to try to minimise any damage.”

It can take millions of gallons of fresh water to frack a single well, and much of the drilling is tightly concentrated in areas where water is in chronically short supply, or where there have been multi-year droughts.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/05/report-fracking-is-depleting-water-in-americas-driest-areas/

It's data. Use it or abuse it, but there it is.

74 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
*ahem* [View all] WilliamPitt Feb 2014 OP
K & R !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #1
But we buy water in bottles from corporations. Rex Feb 2014 #2
but but but... progressoid Feb 2014 #3
Gee, Will . . . Jack Rabbit Feb 2014 #4
The best, professional grade jsr Feb 2014 #16
Forget reality and facts, why do you hate Obama?!!1! n/t Skip Intro Feb 2014 #5
+1 L0oniX Feb 2014 #46
One of thousands of reasons why no tax on the 1% is high enough. merrily Feb 2014 #6
Bologna! you mean those saying theres no connection between the two 1awake Feb 2014 #7
Then you'd better STOP them yourself. DeSwiss Feb 2014 #8
FABUOUS!!!!! I wondered how Maine ultimately beat Nestle into leaving!!!!! magical thyme Feb 2014 #25
De nada. DeSwiss Feb 2014 #45
Don't. fleabiscuit Feb 2014 #9
The water is so important, I'm happy you addressed it. Cleita Feb 2014 #10
recommend frwrfpos Feb 2014 #11
Well, this is what it boils down to, IMHO: ReRe Feb 2014 #12
From today's TOON Roundup 4... Electric Monk Feb 2014 #13
I want to know. . . ReasonableToo Feb 2014 #14
I find it incredibly disappointing that Governor Brown Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #15
Link to reliable news source? xfundy Feb 2014 #17
Per your request: Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #22
I love one of the comments to your fracking article. SunSeeker Feb 2014 #23
See My Post #20. LA is on the way to banning fracking in Los Angeles. Hooray! JDPriestly Feb 2014 #21
Los Angeles comes through! Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #33
More! proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #48
Absolutely fantastic! I hope other counties follow LA's lead. Cheese4TheRat Mar 2014 #64
Do you think he should have vetoed so there would be no rules? antiquie Feb 2014 #28
I think he should impose a moratorium. Don't you? Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #35
No. antiquie Feb 2014 #36
The Governor is elected by the entire state. Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #37
Not in my universe. ~ nt antiquie Feb 2014 #38
Do you live in a state where the Governor is not elected by the people of the state? Cheese4TheRat Feb 2014 #42
Hell I'll kick this even though I may regret it later in another thread. Agschmid Feb 2014 #18
Who cares? We have more billionaires than any other nation! Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #19
But, Los Angeles is leading the way toward banning fracking. JDPriestly Feb 2014 #20
"leading the way toward banning fracking." ProSense Feb 2014 #27
This won't be solved overnight. Obama has ramped up solar. That can be seen JDPriestly Feb 2014 #32
Kick. Scuba Feb 2014 #24
Invest in water...thats what our investment counselor said. Historic NY Feb 2014 #26
hmmm In_The_Wind Feb 2014 #31
The One Percent already are.... woo me with science Mar 2014 #67
I guess it proves his point... Historic NY Mar 2014 #68
Absolutely. woo me with science Mar 2014 #70
***Gasp***. You want people to look at facts? Silly you. nt antigop Feb 2014 #29
This one I can k&r. uppityperson Feb 2014 #30
Yes but we've learned here that you are now persona non grata. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #34
By "banned list" you mean the "subject to criticism list" ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #49
Staggering...I didn't think anything could shock me anymore KauaiK Feb 2014 #39
K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #40
Actually, that time was 40 years ago. redqueen Feb 2014 #41
Shhhh iamthebandfanman Feb 2014 #43
and meanwhile: Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #44
It gets worse. proverbialwisdom Feb 2014 #47
It's not like we need water for more important uses, like drinking, growing food, or putting out tclambert Feb 2014 #50
97 billion gallons of water that is forever removed from the cycle Champion Jack Feb 2014 #51
Oh, don't worry about it. Curmudgeoness Feb 2014 #52
coming back to when I am not tired. This is astounding rurallib Feb 2014 #53
97 billion gallons of water is 7/10ths of 1% of the annual water consumption in CA. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #54
Except that, in normal use it returns to the cycle Champion Jack Feb 2014 #56
With such a small amount, it doesn't matter. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #57
the "small amounts" impact--but keep trying niyad Mar 2014 #74
link please niyad Feb 2014 #58
97 billion gallons of water is 293,000 acre feet of water. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #60
Being poisoned. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #61
That's not a complete thought. I don't know what you're trying to say. Gravitycollapse Feb 2014 #62
so it's okay with you to permanently destroy our water, even in the supposedly small amounts niyad Feb 2014 #63
It's not a "supposedly" small amount. It is a small amount by any relevant measure. Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #66
Stop trying. ProSense Mar 2014 #71
so you have no problem with the fact that the supposedly (since the figures come from industry, niyad Mar 2014 #73
several weeks ago in the sunday denver post, there was an "article" (which read more like an niyad Feb 2014 #55
Fracking, being an environmental disaster, makes no freakin' sense: neither does TPP or indepat Feb 2014 #59
In 2012, people said we aould get to see the REAL OBama in his 2nd term. bvar22 Mar 2014 #65
Trading Water For Fuel is Fracking Crazy handmade34 Mar 2014 #69
My understanding is that FRESH water is not Ilsa Mar 2014 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*ahem*