# I don't agree with these FAQs



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Reg said:


> Physicians for Social Responsibility article.


Anything for Social responsibility = progressive think.... 


Only one documented case like this since 2008?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Reg said:


> I meant to say Halliburton, not BP. My bad.
> 
> Here is Newsweek article on it. http://www.newsweek.com/oil-gas-exploration-fracking-safe-87557
> 
> ...


Let's get serious on facts. Less than 1 percent is used when fracking. So it is mostly water and sand. This is true. There was a chemical spill...they happen all the time and the vast majority of chemicals when exposed in large doses will cause very harmful side effects.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Let's get serious on facts. Less than 1 percent is used when fracking. So it is mostly water and sand. This is true. There was a chemical spill...they happen all the time and the vast majority of chemicals when exposed in large doses will cause very harmful side effects.


My plumber uses a chemical that's pretty damn harsh. Where's the outrage?


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

Reg said:


> It seems like it just a way to sway us. In this mountain town, we are very close the fracking situation and people are getting nervous about their water. They make it seem like fracking is all hunky dory.
> 
> A few years back there was a situation where a worker got fracking solution up his body. He raced in to the hospital and the nurse who cared for him, within the first half hour, her body started shutting down. Her organs. She almost died and still has health problems today. Anyway, BP wouldn't release the ingredients to the hospital because of "privacy". The doctors needed to know what the hell the stuff was so they could care for this worker and his nurse. The worker fared better because of his semi-protective coveralls.





Reg said:


> I meant to say Halliburton, not BP. My bad.
> 
> Here is Newsweek article on it. http://www.newsweek.com/oil-gas-exploration-fracking-safe-87557
> 
> ...


Reg....* Read your own artical*... You say the nurse Behr almost died... I saw she claimed a sickness, and has returned to work..... despite this chemical spill, no one else seemed to have a serious problem. Seemed to me to be very similar to exposure to sulfuric acid....yes industrial actions occur, and yes hospitals (by their own admission) over react, and yes a certain patient (not plural in this case) have been known to have serious symptoms, and some have even filed civil tort claims.

It makes a great news story though, during a slow news week.

You don't mention, the artical does, that the EPA has passed on the safety of fracturing fluids.

The artical is basically unproven allegations/conjecture, and scare tactics for people who can't comprehend what is written. 

(It does serve a good purpose in that Zeta frac fluid should be further evaluated, as I would assume we have enough agencies to do so.)

If Weatherfords Zeta fluid is that dangerous, then yes it should either be safely handled or banned... 

but because of one instance, one error, and seemingly one possible industrial accident, you don't indict a whole industry that heats your home......especially one that has safely operated for 60 plus years.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

This I believe is what my plumber uses, just by reading this it sounds pretty bad. But because it wasn't made by Halliburton it will never be scrutinized. Keyword here is Halliburton. They are EVIL 

TOOLBOXTOPICS.COM

Company Name __________________________ Job Name __________________________ Date________

BE CAUTIOUS WITH SULFURIC ACID
Sulfuric acid is widely used in industry for a variety of purposes such as metal cleaning and etching, production of fertilizers, petroleum produces, dyes and explosives. Like all acids it is reactive. Simply put, this means that when the liquid comes into contact with another material, something is going to happen. This is where the danger lies. If sulfuric acid comes in contact with any part of your body, a rapid destruction of tissue takes place, capable of causing severe burns. When a burn occurs, it also gives rise to the possibility of secondary problems such as infection. Burns are never to be considered trivial.
The strength or concentration of acids can vary. If transported in bulk quantities, the acid is usually "full strength." If used as a cleaning agent, it may be highly diluted. In both cases, the material is dangerous. In its concentrated form, sulfuric acid destroys not only the outer skin, it can also penetrate into the flesh under your skin, destroying it. This causes great pain and, if the damage is great enough, may result in shock, collapse or other problems which typically accompany thermal burns. Even dilute concentrations in contact with skin can cause dermatitis, or skin irritation. Prolonged breathing of the vapors or mists can cause respiratory disorders.
Protection: Here is something to think about. Sulfuric acid can burn through your skin into your flesh. It can cause your clothes to disintegrate. It can erode concrete and etch metal. Imagine what a drop or two would do to your sensitive and unprotected eyes. When working with or around Sulfuric acid, eye and face protection is a must. Safety glasses alone are not adequate. Wear chemical-type goggles (these have indirect vents), and a face shield. Protective clothing should include, at a minimum, an acid-resistant long apron and gloves. When working with large quantities, you will need to wear an acid-resistant "rain-suit" and high-top boots, with the pant leg extending over the top of the boot.
First Aid - Rapid treatment is very important. You must wash the acid off the body quickly. Get the victim to the emergency shower or to a hose as quickly as possible. Start washing and as you do so, remove all acid-wet clothing. Keep the water flowing. In cases where there are severe burns, shock may set in. If this occurs, treat for shock by placing victims on their back and keeping them warm. Call immediately for medical help. Do not apply any ointments, oils or other treatments to the burned area.
If acid is swallowed, it burns tissues all the way down to the stomach. Do not induce vomiting, which will cause additional burns as it comes up as well. Never give anything to an unconscious person but, if the victim is conscious, the acid should be immediately diluted. Provide milk, preferably mixed with egg whites. If this isn't available, give as much water to drink as possible.
Prevent contact with sulfuric acid! Pre-determine hazards in your operation and implement a prevention and treatment plan with professional assistance.

Take no chances! Mishaps can be serious.


----------



## Reg (Dec 15, 2013)

MTN REMODEL LLC said:


> Reg....* Read your own artical*... You say the nurse Behr almost died... I saw she claimed a sickness, and has returned to work


I think you read only part of the articles. 

From the first article: A few days later, Behr's skin turned yellow. She began vomiting and retaining fluid. Her husband rushed her to Mercy where Behr was admitted to the ICU with a swollen liver, erratic blood counts and lungs filling with fluid. "I couldn't breath," she recalls. "I was drowning from the inside out." The diagnosis: chemical poisoning. 

From the second article: A few days after this ER visit, Behr appeared jaundiced and began vomiting fluid and having difficulty breathing. Behr’s husband took her back to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with multiple organ failure, including liver failure, respiratory distress and erratic blood counts. She was admitted to the ICU with the presumptive diagnosis of poisoning from an unknown chemical.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Reg said:


> I think you read only part of the articles.
> 
> From the first article: A few days later, Behr's skin turned yellow. She began vomiting and retaining fluid. Her husband rushed her to Mercy where Behr was admitted to the ICU with a swollen liver, erratic blood counts and lungs filling with fluid. "I couldn't breath," she recalls. "I was drowning from the inside out." The diagnosis: chemical poisoning.
> 
> From the second article: A few days after this ER visit, Behr appeared jaundiced and began vomiting fluid and having difficulty breathing. Behr’s husband took her back to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with multiple organ failure, including liver failure, respiratory distress and erratic blood counts. She was admitted to the ICU with the presumptive diagnosis of poisoning from an unknown chemical.


What's your point? She was involved in a chemical spill that caused severe damage. How does that mean that fracking is bad? I just don't get the leap.

Tens of thousands of people die every year due to over exposure to dihydrogen monoxide, especially in larger quantities. And this stuff is all over the place. Probably should start there first. :thumbsup:


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Reg said:


> http://studyfracking.com/faq/


I'll bite - do you mean you disagree with the FAQs, disagree with the answers, or a web page tried to eat you and it got a sore tummy?:laughing:


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Reg said:


> I meant to say Halliburton, not BP. My bad.
> 
> Here is Newsweek article on it. http://www.newsweek.com/oil-gas-exploration-fracking-safe-87557
> 
> ...


That's silly. There are a bazillion proprietary formulations out there - NOBODY does this, and the doctors have to know it. 

Furthermore, HIPPA laws prevent any disclosure of the ER nurse's medical information, so there is no way to verify that story.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

Classic industry speak. My table saw manual has more caveats. As long as we remind ourselves that those FAQ's are written to promote fracking. Short-term, it's safe, but there will likely be a day when a casing fails and an aquifer gets ruined, or some other catastrophe. Then everybody will be surprised and "shocked". 

Just like the space shuttle disasters. The more it performed well, the more everyone used those successes to convince themselves of the safety. By doing that, they unintentionally let their guard down and courted disaster. This is one of the flaws of human nature that gets repeated over and over. Hopefully, the fracking industry will remain vigilant and cautiously optimistic instead of patting itself on the back so much.


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

MarkJames said:


> Classic industry speak. My table saw manual has more caveats. As long as we remind ourselves that those FAQ's are written to promote fracking. Short-term, it's safe, but there will likely be a day when a casing fails and an aquifer gets ruined, or some other catastrophe. Then everybody will be surprised and "shocked".
> 
> Just like the space shuttle disasters. The more it performed well, the more everyone used those successes to convince themselves of the safety. By doing that, they unintentionally let their guard down and courted disaster. This is one of the flaws of human nature that gets repeated over and over. *Hopefully, the fracking industry will remain vigilant and cautiously optimistic instead of patting itself on the back so much*.


^^^^Yes^^^^^

*Mark*....Despite my dislike of someone taking a seemingly isolated industrial accident to indict an important and productive industry, I do agree wholeheartedly with you*Mark.*

Yes... with any technology we have to vigalently review and assess the risk/reward tradeoffs... 

If we want energy, there will be risks/rewards...if we want transportation, there will be risks/rewards... if we want space travel there will be risks/rewards,... if we want agricultural products, there will be risks/rewards .... ad infinutum. 

Best


----------



## Reg (Dec 15, 2013)

hdavis said:


> That's silly. There are a bazillion proprietary formulations out there - NOBODY does this, and the doctors have to know it.
> 
> Furthermore, HIPPA laws prevent any disclosure of the ER nurse's medical information, so there is no way to verify that story.


But it IS happening by the very large corporation Halliburton run by very powerful people. (remember, Dick Cheney was the CEO?)

There is a lot of public pressure to disclose and I believe that they have disclosed some of the chemicals but not all. I think it's still tied up in litigation. 

TNT- my point is, if a mixture of chemicals can do that to a person, What do you imagine it is doing to our drinking water? 

Unfortunately, chemicals, once they go in to the ground, don't just "poof" go away or turn clean. It's eventually, everyones problem, Not just the people that live near the fracking sites. 

Water get's recycled. We are drinking the same water the dinosaurs drank. The hydrologic cycle is a perpetual motion, a natural process of water molecules recycling from the land, to the air, and back to the land. So, it becomes everyone's problem. Even the guys making the big bucks off the profits of fracking. But greed gets the best of them. That becomes more important than thinking about their own grandchildren left on the earth when they die.


----------



## ElHefe (Jan 28, 2014)

I worked in the oil patch in ND for close to a year at a wireline company. If you don't know how a wireline company is involved in the frac process.... Stop reading educate yourself and then come back and reply. I have stood in puddles of frac fluid and I am fine. It is mostly water and sand and 99% of it gets flushed out after the frac is done. The ones that are against it seem to know what they are talking about but have no clue..... Can you even tell me why the chemicals are used?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Reg said:


> But it IS happening by the very large corporation Halliburton run by very powerful people. (remember, Dick Cheney was the CEO?)
> 
> There is a lot of public pressure to disclose and I believe that they have disclosed some of the chemicals but not all. I think it's still tied up in litigation.
> 
> ...


There is so much bad info here I don't know where to start. 

The earth filters our water by several methods. 

You have one story about one person who had a reaction to something. 

The problem with a conspiracy is the more people involved the easier it is to fall apart. Halliburton is a company and what is a company? You got it, people. Just like you and me.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

My main problem with fracking involves the toxic chemicals. Injecting that [email protected] everywhere - consequences be damned. If/when they eventually turn out to be deleterious (harmful), especially to water supplies, there will no remedy. How does one isolate/contain that kind of damage? Anybody thought of that, or shall we just be glorified pollyannas like a short-term hack doing a crappy shower pan? The proprietary nature of the chemical mixtures is an attempt to shield from litigation and keep the public in the dark.

To me, it's about as smart as pouring paint thinner down a storm drain. "It'll be fine. Who's gonna know?" 

That all being said, I accept it, but they need to come up with cleaner methods. Keep the benzene at home.


----------



## Reg (Dec 15, 2013)

ElHefe said:


> Can you even tell me why the chemicals are used?


That's my whole point of this post is the non disclosure of ALL their chemicals. But what I have gathered so far is that about 750 chemicals that have been used in the process of fracking, 29 of which are either likely or known carcinogens. The main chemicals being, Uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde.

Just because you worked out in the field for a year doesn't make you an expert. And I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert either. And standing in fracking fluid, which my thought, was mostly water anyway, doesn't mean you are okay. You might be now but many chemicals and chemical combinations catch up to you later. Think cigarettes.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

ElHefe said:


> I worked in the oil patch in ND for close to a year at a wireline company. If you don't know how a wireline company is involved in the frac process.... Stop reading educate yourself and then come back and reply. I have stood in puddles of frac fluid and I am fine. It is mostly water and sand and 99% of it gets flushed out after the frac is done. The ones that are against it seem to know what they are talking about but have no clue..... Can you even tell me why the chemicals are used?


Not to get off topic, but were your frack puddles always isolated and cleaned up? What sort of procedures did you have for that?


----------



## ElHefe (Jan 28, 2014)

Never claimed to be an expert. Just more knowledge than you... Still have not answered the question.... Why are the chemicals used? 
El hefe is the nick name I got in the patch and I was a white hat out there... Have to be sort of knowledgeable to get that. 
If you wish to argue with somebody that has been there and done that.. I will be willing to show you where your logic and unfounded fears are wrong.


----------



## ElHefe (Jan 28, 2014)

A small amount of frac fluid can be found around the well head. Well pads are designed with multiple layers of protection. Layers of plastic rock and other things


----------



## ElHefe (Jan 28, 2014)

And when I say frac fluid I mean the very diluted stuff that goes in the well


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Bearded Wonder said:


> Oh the oil companies dispute that fracking is bad? What a shock. I think johns manville disputed that asbestos causes cancer for a long time also...


You are making my point


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Framer53 said:


> And the people in the movie have been proven to over react and some are claiming their wells are contaminated, yet they were found to have been before the fracking was started.


So the guys water was flammable when he got his well drilled? 

Or they bought a house with flammable water?

What are you saying?!


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

duburban said:


> Obviously this is going to be very hard for some of you to come to terms with.
> 
> I'll try to break it down in terms you might relate to:
> 
> ...


I don't **** a mile underground, or for that matter eat there either.

You seem to be afraid that a process that has gone on for 60 years is suddenly contaminating the earth. I call bull crap.


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

duburban said:


> So the guys water was flammable when he got his well drilled?
> 
> Or they bought a house with flammable water?
> 
> What are you saying?!


Neither, the water was flammable before the fracking started.

I suggest you read some sources other than the biased sources you seem to believe.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

But he watched a movie


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Drill baby Drill!


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Californiadecks said:


> But he watched a movie


Some types of movie pictures are called documentaries. They display organized information to make a point. 

They work on many levels, congenitally, poetically, emotionally, when they all line up its a powerful thing.


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

duburban said:


> So what is it that makes the gains out way the risks? Are they doing it in your area?
> 
> You think it will raise prices of fuel if they don't?
> 
> ...


Duh.... Do you use energy..... 

Do I think energy prices will rise if we abolish fracking, have you graduated from high school.?

No, I think the industry is fracking either for the fun of it... but maybe to destroy your home from the underground.... boy you must have pissed them off. Write an apology letter, they'll probably stop.


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

You can bet when there is profits to be made such as this,
>>>>>>>>

You would not have a job without profit. You are regurgitating talking point of a group of people that can't or won't think for themselves.


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Are we going to live in the past or the future? You guys tell me. I'm shooting for some changes that will recreate our country and environment. 

What do you want?


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

Californiadecks said:


> But he watched a movie


Yep that has been proven by people that think, was pure propaganda of environmentalists.


----------



## MarkJames (Nov 25, 2012)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Nice Google catch.


Yeah, but I already knew it anyway. Just checking the wording. My cousin is a geologist in the natural gas industry.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

duburban said:


> Are we going to live in the past or the future? You guys tell me. I'm shooting for some changes that will recreate our country and environment. What do you want?


Until it's shown fracking hurts anything I'm all for it? I don't mean from Hollywood either.


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

MTN REMODEL LLC said:


> Duh.... Do you use energy.....
> 
> Do I think energy prices will rise if we abolish fracking, have you graduated from high school.?
> 
> No, I think the industry is fracking either for the fun of it... but maybe to destroy your home from the underground.... boy you must have pissed them off. Write an apology letter, they'll probably stop.



I guess i'm not being clear enough for you. I'm trying to tease out an idea here. I'm using questions to get you to think and tell me how you think, kind of like talking to a child. 

Do you want to frack forever? Are you going to just load them chemicals up in there and call it done or are you going to man up to a better solution.


----------



## TimelessQuality (Sep 23, 2007)

These kinds of threads always make it obvious who the business owners are, and the employees are...


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

duburban said:


> Are we going to live in the past or the future? You guys tell me. I'm shooting for some changes that will recreate our country and environment.
> 
> What do you want?


Why do you want to do that?

As a country we are doing fine, with the exception of too many people not wanting or desiring to work.


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Californiadecks said:


> Until it's shown fracking hurts anything I'm all for it? I don't mean from Hollywood either.


Some movies aren't made in hollywood, kind of like the difference between a company and corporation


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

duburban said:


> Drill baby Drill!


I agree with ya bubbi..... let's stop producing energy....and you using energy.


----------



## duburban (Apr 10, 2008)

Framer53 said:


> Why do you want to do that?
> 
> As a country we are doing fine, with the exception of too many people not wanting or desiring to work.


So wrong my man… We need to lead, we are not leading without recreating our energy future. Plain and simple.


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

duburban said:


> I guess i'm not being clear enough for you. I'm trying to tease out an idea here. I'm using questions to get you to think and tell me how you think, kind of like talking to a child.
> 
> Do you want to frack forever? Are you going to just load them chemicals up in there and call it done or are you going to man up to a better solution.


You do realize that most if not all fracking fluid is recaptured in the process, right?


----------



## TimelessQuality (Sep 23, 2007)

I'd bet all the mercury in the landfills from those twisty cfls will make more of a cleanup hazard.... 

What about the lithium from your prius batteries??


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

tyb525 said:


> This is what we need to be doing with the suns power. If this kid can do it...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtzRAjW6KO0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


I hope you aren't serious, that's one of the least effective approaches.


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

hdavis said:


> I hope you atren't serious, that's one of the least effective approaches.


No, more of a joke than anything. I think it is cool though


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Set up like that can be used for materials research - easy to get very high temperatures to test ceramics, etc.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

duburban said:


> So guys, what a delightful conversation.
> 
> Lets break it down a little here and just ask, is it a good thing to have chemicals injected into the earth?
> 
> If we have the choice to do it, or not do it, what would you do…?


Let me ask this...

When oil is spilled on the ground by man it's a hazard waste situation...but when it occurs in nature it's a landmark. Just visit the tar pits some time.


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Let me ask this...
> 
> When oil is spilled on the ground by man it's a hazard waste situation...but when it occurs in nature it's a landmark. Just visit the tar pits some time.


Its just dead organic matter, so doesn't that make it organic?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

duburban said:


> Its interesting how much resistance there is to moving forward technologically. I wonder if this stems partly from the fact that as we move forward many of our jobs as craftsmen and laborers will change. Some people will become obsolete.
> 
> Its a fear that moving forward as a group will leave one behind.


I have no problem moving forward, but let's actually move forward instead of being pushed. Let's move forward and not side ways or backwards with "technology" that isn't consistent or take up 300x's the amount of land like wind, need a sunny day or a bank of batteries (not the most environmentally friendly product) like solar and actually wait until the need is here.

Why do we need alternative fuels? We have plenty of natural resources for the next 1000 years. There is enough oil and natural gas to last lifetimes and they keep discovering more.

I am not saying let's dry the place up, but let's actually move to a source of energy that makes sense. Oil is one of the greatest products the Earth has to offer. Most everything that you touch is in some way a bi-product of it. Let's jump off the physco eco-friendly band wagon and get back to making this a great nation.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

tyb525 said:


> Its just dead organic matter, so doesn't that make it organic?


Talk about the ultimate recycling program ever!


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I have no problem moving forward, but let's actually move forward instead of being pushed. Let's move forward and not side ways or backwards with "technology" that isn't consistent or take up 300x's the amount of land like wind, need a sunny day or a bank of batteries (not the most environmentally friendly product) like solar and actually wait until the need is here.
> 
> Why do we need alternative fuels? We have plenty of natural resources for the next 1000 years. There is enough oil and natural gas to last lifetimes and they keep discovering more.
> 
> I am not saying let's dry the place up, but let's actually move to a source of energy that makes sense. Oil is one of the greatest products the Earth has to offer. Most everything that you touch is in some way a bi-product of it. Let's jump off the physco eco-friendly band wagon and get back to making this a great nation.


I agree. instead of eliminating oil, make more effeciant ways to use it. The technology is there for vehicles to get 100+ mpg, but politics and oil companies are a big reason why mpg's haven't improved much in the last 30 years.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

tyb525 said:


> I agree. instead of eliminating oil, make more effeciant ways to use it. The technology is there for vehicles to get 100+ mpg, but politics and oil companies are a big reason why mpg's haven't improved much in the last 30 years.


I think it's simpler than that. Gas is cheap in the US so we don't use some of the technologies needed to get better gas mileage.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tyb525 said:


> I agree. instead of eliminating oil, make more effeciant ways to use it. The technology is there for vehicles to get 100+ mpg, but politics and oil companies are a big reason why mpg's haven't improved much in the last 30 years.


It would take one hell of a lot of people to not say anything for oil companies to have that kind of hold on technology. If this was the case someone against the oil industry would of found the technology. There's too much money to be made if you found a way to get 100 MPG cars and make it a more efficient way to power them. I don't think the oil companies can control a secret like that. 

Why would electric car companies not make an efficient car to protect the oil companies? This doesn't make since. Why can't it be that the technology isn't practical yet to save enough money to warrant it?

I just don't buy the oil company conspiracies that people like to claim, without one ounce of proof to back it up.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Now if you want to say the oil companies keep gas prices low to prevent the need for more efficient cars. I can believe that. As much as people may think gas is high it's still low enough to keep the desire down for spending a lot on other options.


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

A car magazine got 75 mpg out of an old VW golf diesel with some tuning and aerodynamic improvments, nothing special.

A new VW XL1 will get an estimated 261mpg, but the price is out of this world.

The technology is there. Why are the VW TDI's and Chevy Cruze diesels just now getting 45mpg, when a VW rabbit diesel could easily get above 45mpg 33 years ago?


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tyb525 said:


> A car magazine got 75 mpg out of an old VW golf diesel with some tuning and aerodynamic improvments, mostly homemade stuff. A new VW hybrid gets way over 100mpg, but the price is out of this world. The technology is there. Why are the VW TDI's and Chevy Cruze diesels just now getting 45mpg, when a VW rabbit diesel could easily get above 45mpg 33 years ago?


So where is the link to the oil companies?


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

duburban said:


> Well lads I got homework to do and this aint going anywhere. I'll leave with a final thought for you to sh$t on…
> 
> In one hour, enough sun hits the earth to supply all our power for the year.
> 
> Lets assume that this fact is true. What should we be doing? Discuss…


In a capitalist free market economy. we should internalize all third party costs (none shown or expected to exist as concerns fracking), and allow supply and demand to dictate what energy sources we employ.

We should not depend on lawn signs, self-interests, nor governments, or elitists to allocate capital and production.

EDIT: And by the way, we need to understand (and internalize the long range third part costs) of diminishing and redirecting the sun's heat to conventional energy generation. No joke, the sun's warming energy may very well be a limited zero-sum energy source, or have significant unintended consequences to agriculture, weather patterns and many things that we have not considered. The risks seem no less than fracking,perhaps lomger range, but clearly less evaluated to date.


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

Californiadecks said:


> So where is the link to the oil companies?


I dunno, why is it so far fetched for the oil companies to be in bed with the automakers?


----------



## tyb525 (Feb 26, 2013)

A 2000 VW Lupo diesel, available in Europe only, drove around the world, averaging 99 mpg.

America doesn't get near as effecient cars as Europe does. We're just now getting effeciant diesel cars. Europe has had them for years. Why?


----------



## Reg (Dec 15, 2013)

TimelessQuality said:


> Name some of those dead rivers?


Alamosa river watershed. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/us/the-death-of-a-river-looms-over-choice-for-interior-post.html

But now I suppose I will hear from some of you, " this is only one river..blah blah blah.


----------



## MTN REMODEL LLC (Sep 3, 2010)

tyb525 said:


> A car magazine got 75 mpg out of an old VW golf diesel with some tuning and aerodynamic improvments, nothing special.
> 
> A new VW XL1 will get an estimated 261mpg, but the price is out of this world.
> 
> The technology is there. Why are the VW TDI's and Chevy Cruze diesels just now getting 45mpg, when a VW rabbit diesel could easily get above 45mpg 33 years ago?


If that is true,and there is some conspiricy operating, then we need to reinstitute free markets, and quit voting for/electing those that allow/permit or profiteer from it.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tyb525 said:


> I dunno, why is it so far fetched for the oil companies to be in bed with the automakers?


 Because if they were influencing the cars MPG's, someone at least one person would of found it out by now. Do you realize how many people would have to keep that secret over decades? That would mean no one would of tried to exploit the secret for financial gain. Thousands of people are never that faithful, especially in a free market. It just doesn't make since.


----------



## Reg (Dec 15, 2013)

TimelessQuality said:


> Back to the greed thing Reg.. although you already admitted it's just your opinion.
> 
> Who do you work for?
> 
> ...


Not meaning to run off, just got burnt researching stuff. But I plan on returning and answering a lot of these questions.


----------

