John Fielding

John Fielding 9 months ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

I repeat your statements are factually correct but inane. You are clueless as to how to have a reasonable discussion, where commonly accepted notions of such things as water is nontoxic and volatile hydrocarbons are will not be challenged.

If you want to stick strictly to the scientific standard of relative toxicity, probably expressed in scientific notation as ten to the nth power, then have that conversation with others who speak that language. Here you are in the world of commonly accepted definitions of common English words.

Again I assert, you diminish your own credibility, got all the facts right but no common sense.

0

John Fielding 9 months ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

I think you have just proved that you are in fact clueless as the writer suggested.

0

John Fielding 9 months ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

Steve, there is a point that reasonable people will agree on regarding the definition of "toxic". Ordinary water and air will not meet that criteria even if it is possible to ingest then in sufficient quantity to be lethal. The product of a fossil fuels well, that can kill by inhalation or cause violent illness by exposure clearly will, (even though in rare cases it can be benign, such as some very sweet Pennsylvania oils that were actually bottled and sold as medicine).

Why in the world would you bother making that point? Much of what you have written before that seemed intelligent, even perhaps insightful. You diminish your credibility; even though what you said was factual it was inane.

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on David Moss: Climate change context

Much of the physical evidence that links higher CO2 levels with warmer climate is clearly accurately reported. What is less certain is whether the CO2 was the result of or cause of the warmer weather, or even coincidental in that the same forces produced them both but they did not produce each other.

Anyone?

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

Much of the water used in fracking also comes back up after the pressure is relieved, we call this "flowback" water and it is handled in much the same manner as production water. The main difference is that flowback is much cleaner than production water, does not have to go through a series of settling and cleaning procedures. This is because it was already cleaned before its re-use in fracking. The water that naturally exists in gas and oil fields is highly toxic, and is handled as carefully as the equally toxic hydrocarbons it was formed with. The only really safe and sane thing to do with it at present is to return it to whence it came.

If the demand is great enough, the filtering equipment is so good that it will support life again, I have seen the algae growing in it when it has sat for a while. Considering how deadly it once was that is pretty impressive. I still would be reluctant to drink it though.

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

When I worked as a water plant operator in the Grand County gas fields the problem was too much water, more than could be disposed of in fracking. All the water used there was "production water", meaning it came up with the gas and oil from deep strata where it had been for millions of years. We had the equipment to clean it up to a theoretically potable condition, but there was no demand, so we simply cleaned it to a less toxic condition so we cold safely handle it (and recover all the salable hydrocarbons) then re-injected it into much the same strata it came from, sometimes pushing out a little more product in the process.

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

Another more local example I observed was on Apres Ski Way at Ski Trail Lane. There was a twelve or fifteen foot depth of homogeneous soil, apparently from a mudslide.

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on Bill Wallace: Letter is clueless

To the question posed regarding whether we ought to be pursuing alternatives to fossil fuel with some urgency, the answer is yes, and that we are doing so. The real question is whether the level of urgency assigned the task is appropriate.

To the discussion of catastrophic flooding, it is worth note that a major mechanism for topographical change in the western US is the (1000 year?) cloudburst in a steep drainage. While excavating for a fish hatchery renovation in the Uintas my geologists' curiosity was aroused and I had to stop work to examine the strata. From a drainage of less than 100 acres, debris flows had accumulated to a depth of more than the twenty feet I had dug into, in layers generally two to four feet deep, apparently since the retreat of the last glaciation.

Fascinating!

0

John Fielding 9 months, 1 week ago on Sarah Jones: Sustainability matters

A community that "hosts a vibrant, equitable society.” This phrase is being implemented on the federal government level to serve as the new political correctness, the social engineers mandate, the equal outcomes regardless of efforts mantra, the all value systems are equal philosophy.

If completely implemented it would assure a path for tyranny to follow on, first by the majority, then by the minorities, and eventually by a dictator. The former Soviet Union is an excellent case in point.

I fully support sustainability in its elemental form, the prudent use of the earths resources. Most of this other baggage has hitched a ride on that wagon.

0