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

amborin

(16,631 posts)
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:02 PM May 2016

Fracking (which Hillary has promoted worldwide) Destroys Rural America & Health

The Sand Mines That Ruin Farmland

By NANCY C. LOEBMAY 23, 2016


Chicago — WHILE the shale gas industry has been depressed in recent years by low oil and gas prices, analysts are predicting that it will soon rebound. Many of the environmental hazards of the gas extraction process, called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, are by now familiar: contaminated drinking water, oil spills and methane gas leaks, exploding rail cars and earthquakes.

A less well-known effect is the destruction of large areas of Midwestern farmland resulting from one of fracking’s key ingredients: sand.

Fracking involves pumping vast quantities of water and chemicals into rock formations under high pressure, but the mix injected into wells also includes huge amounts of “frac sand.” The sand is used to keep the fissures in the rock open — acting as what drilling engineers call a “proppant” — so that the locked-in oil and gas can escape.

Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota are home to some of the richest agricultural land anywhere in the world. But this fertile, naturally irrigated farmland sits atop another resource that has become more highly prized: a deposit of fine silica sand known as St. Peter sandstone. This particular sand is valued by the fracking industry for its high silica content, round grains, uniform grain size and strength. These qualities enable the St. Peter sand to withstand the intensity of fracking, and improve the efficiency of drilling operations.

In the Upper Midwest, this sandstone deposit lies just below the surface. It runs wide but not deep. This makes the sand easy to reach, but it also means that to extract large quantities, mines have to be dug across hundreds of acres.

snip

But the effects cannot be hidden indefinitely. These mines are destroying rural communities along with the farmland. Homesteads and small towns are being battered by mine blasting, hundreds of diesel trucks speed down rural roads dropping sand along the way, stadium lighting is so bright it blots out the night sky, and 24-hour operations go on within a few hundred feet of homes and farms. As a result, some farmers are selling and moving away, while for those determined to stay, life is changed forever.

Quality of life is not their only concern. Silica is a human carcinogen and also causes lung disease, including silicosis. Because of its dangers, silica is heavily regulated in the workplace, but there are generally no regulations for silica blown around from the sand-mining operations. These mines also use millions of gallons of groundwater every day. Local wells are running dry, and the long-term availability of water for homes and ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/the-sand-mines-that-ruin-farmland.html?_r=0

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fracking (which Hillary has promoted worldwide) Destroys Rural America & Health (Original Post) amborin May 2016 OP
oddly enough millennials and independents show no signs of giving up cars or electronic devices msongs May 2016 #1
And that's your rational for destroying the environment? It's the millennials fault? rhett o rick May 2016 #13
everyone should watch Gasland 2, kinda scary litlbilly May 2016 #2
Oddly enough most rural Americans I know rjsquirrel May 2016 #3
The alternative is coal, which is worse Recursion May 2016 #4
The alternative is renewable energy AgingAmerican May 2016 #7
Nope. Not today, and not for 10 years, if we start today. Recursion May 2016 #8
The alternative is renewable energy AgingAmerican May 2016 #10
You should really read more about this if you think NG isn't replacing coal in generation Recursion May 2016 #12
You have no idea what you're talking about. TwilightZone May 2016 #17
Are you "The fossil fuel guy"? AgingAmerican May 2016 #18
My sister and brother-in-law are trying to sell My Good Babushka May 2016 #5
Fracking is just horrible for the planet. DookDook May 2016 #6
Because coal is arguably worse, and renewables won't be ready for at least a decade (nt) Recursion May 2016 #9
So we should be mad at Hillary for wanting to close coal mines, Nye Bevan May 2016 #11
Those that blindly follow Clinton do have trouble. But it's simple. She has long supported rhett o rick May 2016 #14
The owners of fracking operations felix_numinous May 2016 #15
Probably, but fracking advocacy can be quite lucrative. NorthCarolina May 2016 #16

msongs

(67,415 posts)
1. oddly enough millennials and independents show no signs of giving up cars or electronic devices
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:04 PM
May 2016

powered by electricity generated from natural gas

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. And that's your rational for destroying the environment? It's the millennials fault?
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:48 PM
May 2016

Clinton wants to frack, frack, frack for oil company profits which they split with her (for speeches of course). Her goal is to amass as much wealth as possible and her fans root her on not caring about those whose environment is destroyed.

Mammon: The greedy pursuit of wealth. This seem to have infected the Clinton fans.

 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
3. Oddly enough most rural Americans I know
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:16 PM
May 2016

who live in fracking country (a lot, I'm a native North Texan) are in favor of fracking.

Go figure why.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
8. Nope. Not today, and not for 10 years, if we start today.
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:39 PM
May 2016

If we started building it out literally today, in 10 years we could be talking about moving our power generation mostly to renewables.

Today, do you want fracking, or coal? Those are your choices, and pretending they aren't is a lie to yourself and to the next generation who will have to live with whichever one we choose. There's not a solution that lets you feel good about yourself and keep your hands clean. In the time between now and when renewables are online (which is at best a decade, and probably longer), we have two sources of energy, and you support one of them whether you want to or not. If you oppose fracking, you support coal.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
10. The alternative is renewable energy
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:42 PM
May 2016

Coal is not used the same way Oil is, sorry. One doesn't replace the other, sorry. A coal fired power plant cannot just switch to crude, sorry. Just as a car cannot run on coal, sorry.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
12. You should really read more about this if you think NG isn't replacing coal in generation
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:43 PM
May 2016

It is. Coal use has been dropping as NG use has increased. And that means fracking.

(Obviously it's not replacing it in the same plants, but you're the one who made that up -- coal plants are going offline and new plants are NG)

TwilightZone

(25,471 posts)
17. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Mon May 23, 2016, 10:35 PM
May 2016

You should really do some research before you further embarrass yourself.

My Good Babushka

(2,710 posts)
5. My sister and brother-in-law are trying to sell
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:21 PM
May 2016

the house they built almost thirty years ago because fracking operations very near to them are lowering the property value and compromising their water. They don't want to wait for the value to get any lower.

DookDook

(166 posts)
6. Fracking is just horrible for the planet.
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:29 PM
May 2016

I can't believe that there is even any debate over this. When will these people realize that we're all on this planet together? It's not like there is another place to go to once we've wrecked this one. I can understand the evangelical Christians who think that Jesus is going to come along and fix it all up...how can anyone think that fracking is okay?

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
11. So we should be mad at Hillary for wanting to close coal mines,
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:42 PM
May 2016

but also mad at her for not wanting to shut down fracking sites?

It's hard to keep up sometimes.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
14. Those that blindly follow Clinton do have trouble. But it's simple. She has long supported
Mon May 23, 2016, 09:52 PM
May 2016

fracking for profits. She has been rewarded by the industry for her support. She has zero empathy for those that lose their homes or drinking water. It's all about greed. The Clintons have amassed $150,000,000 so far, not counting their Foundation Retirement Plan, and are looking to make more and more and more and they don't care who is harmed along the way. But I guess her fans admire that. Heaven help the poor if she becomes queen.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
16. Probably, but fracking advocacy can be quite lucrative.
Mon May 23, 2016, 10:02 PM
May 2016

You have to weigh what's important to you, the environment (that will probably be more-or-less just fine for the rest of your life) vs a BUTTWADD of cash. Some folks simply go with the buttwadd.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Fracking (which Hillary h...