So geobros, redpill me on fracking. I almost never see actual

there's not a lot to know, it's just more extreme methods of extracting natural gas etc that are generally worse for the environment

File: fracking_toaster_by_manlivs-d53ivya.jpg (122KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x650px

SO SAY WE ALL

>>8279048
That's geothermal, not fracking you retad

File: Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 2.14.46 AM.png (658KB, 1374x912px) Image search: [Google]

658KB, 1374x912px

A lot of work for such little output but it was okay when we had the money for it. Oil that is not in the Gulf of Mexico has really shitty seismic data. I guess it's a matter of "who can figure out what first" and fracking won.

File: rekt.gif (406KB, 300x231px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 300x231px

>>8279048
>tfw BSG is shit

I worked in the Marcellus shale for a year right after undergrad. I'm not going to "redpill" you, but here are some pros and cons.

Pros
>can be used to make plastics, chemicals, fertilizers, and hydrogen.
>cleanest fossil fuel
>DOE estimates 1.8 trillion barrels
> no waste or residue to deal with
>end line appliances already exsist
> employs 1.2 million people

Cons
>contains 80.95 percent methane
>companies not required to disclose what chemicals they use (I never knew what was used, only that quartz sand was a proppant)
>Has been linked to seismic activity
>potential fluid migration

I'd say it's best serves as a bridge fuel for renewables, and it allows us to a degree to be energy independent.

>>8279776
What area of the marcellus? I'm from Cincinnati

>>8279776
What about earthquakes? I always hear libcucks bitch about it, and it kind of seems like the only legit concern that they have

>>8280331
I'm not that anon but they did mention it:
>>Has been linked to seismic activity

Also, this shit started causing quakes in my old town in Colorado where quakes are extremely rare to nonexistent. My understanding from that incident is that it wasn't caused by the fracking itself but rather by the wastewater disposal. They inject that shit deep underground and apparently it can cause rock formations to slip. I don't know if all instances of fracking induced quakes come from this but at least that was the explanation in my town.

Another issue that occurs with fracking is that certain parts of the process can weaken rock formations deep underground. In some cases this can cause some underground caverns to collapse. in some instances this may cause natural gas to be exposed to the water supply which is where you get all of those videos of people shooting flames out of their water sockets. In these cases the water isn't contaminated by the fracking or the wastewater itself but rather the fracking process has just weakened existing rock formations and led to this happening.

>>8279310
YOU TAKE IT BACK

>>8280331
>science is liberal

Are you American or what?

>>8279043

Earthquakes are the real concern with the technology. You may release built up energy and cause damage. You could also argue it is stopping a much larger quake thousands of years later but yeah...

As for water contamination, fracking occurs thousands of feet below most water sources. The concern would be well casing integrity if it cracked over time. This is no different than any other well we have been digging through aquifers for the past 100 years so it seems as a aociety we have accepted this risk. Even so, a slight leak (which will happen as nothing lasts forever) still wouldn't be an issue as you would be diluting it to a point of nontoxicity (solution to pollution is dilution).

>>8279776
Hey anon

What does the Marcellus shale formation look like?

Does it look like a bitch?

[For the record, it looks like a cock and balls]