Connect with us

Environmental

What’s With All The Fracking?

Avatar

Published

on

“Rethinking energy at the end of the era of cheap energy is crucial and is not optional–the laws of Thermodynamics cannot be repealed and Mother Nature has a way of settling such issues for those who choose to ignore them.” David Hughes

advertisement - learn more

For those unfamiliar to the process of hydraulic fracturing also known as hydrofracturing, fracking (or fraccing) is another method used by the oil and gas industry to release hydrocarbons from deep under the earth’s surface. The technique of fracturing rock formations entails oil and gas companies drilling a vertical shaft, often penetrating the earth for some two or three kilometers. Then, a horizontal well bore is drilled in an area believed to contain trapped natural gas or oil. Under high pressure a cocktail of chemicals, water, and sand are pumped into the well. This pressure creates fissures in the shale formation, from which oil and gas can escape.

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

Fracking Rushed Through to Avoid Protests and Maximize Profits

While oil and gas companies have been quick to develop and implement fracking operations, there has been little empirical evidence and few long-term studies conducted to test the safety on natural ecosystems and human populations. It is only more recently that studies have been undertaken which highlight the consequences. A recent study by a Cornell University-led research team, published in the National Academy of Sciences, underscored the risks of these operations. The report into 41,000 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania revealed that many of the oil and gas wells tapping the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania are leaking methane gas, either into the air or into underground sources of drinking water. (1)

Another more recent study showed that oil and natural gas fracking, on average, uses more than 28 times the water it did 15 years ago, gulping up to 9.6 million gallons of water per well and putting farming and drinking sources at risk in arid states, especially during drought. Fracking was banned in New York last week due to water pollution and climate concerns. While the amount of water used for fracking varies widely from well to well, it seems strange to risk contamination of underground aquifers and ecosystems by polluting the most crucial resource on the planet. (1a)

The Low Hanging Fruit Are All But Gone

David Hughes a geoscientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for nearly four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada, has most recently worked on a paper titled “Drill, Baby, Drill, Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a New Era of Abundance.” In conjunction with the Post Carbon Institute, he outlines the fundamental problem with unconventional resource plays such as fracking: “The net energy, or ‘energy returned on energy invested’ (EROEI), of unconventional resources is generally much lower than for conventional resources (traditional oil fields such as those found in Texas and the Middle East). Lower EROEI translates to higher production costs, lower production rates, and usually more collateral environmental damage in extraction.” (2)

So why is there so much fracking going on?

It is estimated that over 500,000 wells have been developed in the U.S alone over the last decade. Unlike traditional (conventional oil) fields which can take decades before they enter decline, fracking has high depletion rates. Estimates and predictions on the rate of depletion from unconventional oil and gas plays vary. However, it is generally agreed that decline rates of individual wells are very steep, especially early in the life of the well (as much as 75% in the first year for the average Eagle Ford), though the decline rates become lower over time and eventually stabilize at around 6 to 7% per year in the Bakken. (3) This means that once a well is fracked, most of the resource has been utilized, hence, the continual need to expand and move to new locations. To put this into context, one of the largest oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the world, “Ghawar,” produced up to 5 million barrels of oil per day in 2009.(4) It takes U.S. fracking operations thousands of wells and fields to match this one well’s production output. Some of the U.S. fields are retrieving as little as 100 barrels of oil per day from a well, hence why they need to exploit more and more territory. While significant amounts of (natural gas) are extracted through fracking, the more highly valued and prized product is shale oil, also known as tight oil.

advertisement - learn more

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

The world now uses approximately 93 million barrels of oil each day. This is a dramatic increase from the 1980’s when the world was using around 58 million barrels per day.(5) Back in 1980 there were just over 400 million vehicles on the world’s roads, today there are over 1 billion, most of which run on some form of crude oil. Similarly, in those days China and India weren’t major consumers of oil. Today China uses around 10.68 million barrels per day compared to the 19 million of the U.S. The People’s Republic of China now has the second largest fleet in the world behind the U.S, with slightly more than 78 million vehicles, overtaking Japan in 2010. (6)

This thirst for black gold has seen the development of fracking, tar sands, and deep water drilling as conventional fields start depleting. All these activities represent efforts to maintain production and keep up with global demand. Thus fracking has spread out of the U.S, where it originated, to many corners of the globe. Off the back of the Josh Fox documentary “Gasland,” “Frackman” is taking to the streets in Australia to raise awareness and try to put an end to the environmental destruction being perpetrated. Check out his efforts to help put an end to Coal Seam Gas exploration down under…

WATCH TRAILER TO FRACKMAN BELOW

Article compiled by Andrew Martin, editor of onenesspublishing  and author of Rethink…Your world, Your future.

RethinkcoverCE2Source: excerpts from Rethink…Your world, Your future.

(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-fracking-safe-for-the-public-and-environment/

(1a) http://www.climatecentral.org/news/fracking-water-use-skyrockets-19177

(2) J. David. Hughes. Drill, baby Drill, Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a new era of energy abundance?, Post Carbon Institute, February 2013.

(3) http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-field-models-decline-rates-convolution/

(4) http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2010/04/the-king-of-giant-fields

(5) http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx

(6) Automobiles and Truck Trends.” Plunkett Research. John Sousanis (2011-08-15). “World Vehicle Population Tops 1 Billion Units.” Ward AutoWorld.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Man One Ups Tesla By Inventing An Electric System That Charges Itself

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso has invented an electric system that runs off a battery. The unique thing is the battery charges itself with electromagnetic radiation that's present naturally in the environment. It can run forever.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do these technologies never see the light of day? Why are they usually ridiculed and brushed off as fake? What would the implications be if this technology was released to the world?

A few years ago multiple media outlets began to report a new development designed by a man from Zimbabwe named Sangulani (Maxwell) Chikumbutso, who claimed to have successfully created an electric powered vehicle and system which runs on a battery that has the ability to charge itself, making it the first ever electric vehicle that never needs charging.

According to Maxwell’s claims, the energy to power the battery is taken from electromagnetic waves that exist all around us and are naturally present in our environment. The vehicle had 5 normal gel batteries which were sufficient enough to start the vehicle and charge the batteries, and from there on in, the batteries are constantly charging.

His story and developments began to make noise. For example, SABC News, a major news station owned by the South African Broadcasting Corporation picked up the story and relayed it to their viewers.

According to the Zambian Observer,

“The United States government has given Zimbabwe’s prolific inventor Maxwell Chikumbutso a new home in its populous state of California. Chikumbutso is the founder of Saith Holdings Inc. under which he made headlines for his serial innovations which include the world’s first ever green power generator which can produce electricity using radio frequencies, an electric powered car which doesn’t consume fuel, a fuelled helicopter and many more.”

When this story broke, a number of “fact-checkers” simply labelled it as false without any investigation. When I first saw this I thought to myself, why would multiple media outlets cover the story, film it and present it to the entire country if it was fake? And why did fact checkers simply label the story as false from the armchairs of their offices without providing any evidence showing that it was?

Despite fact-checkers labelling this information as false without any investigation, new energy enthusiasts and makers of one of the most viewed documentaries in human history, THRIVE: What on Earth Will It Take, Foster Gamble and Kimberly Carter Gamble decided to actually go to Zimbabwe and vet the technology for themselves. Since Foster has been looking into and studying new energy technologies for more than 30 years, this was both an exciting moment but one filled with careful consideration, as the vast majority of claims like this are in fact false.

The Thrive team met Maxwell when they landed, and quickly sensed that Maxwell was a good hearted soul who has the desire the change the world. But did his technology truly work? The next morning, Maxwell took them to see a device, which uses the same technology behind the electric car mentioned above. The unit shown in the video clip below is ample enough to power 300 homes, continuously, forever. Likely with maintenance of course. Think about the implications of that…

The full story and more is covered in their new film, Thrive II: This Is What It Takes.  You can see a brief clip from THRIVE II below and Foster and Kimberly’s interaction with Maxwell.

In the film, Chikumbutso explains:

One of the painful realities I have seen in energy is this is a very dangerous game all together. Yeah, especially free energy, because you know they can try to kill it – using professional people and that has happened to me…I went through a lot, poisons, like I’m saying right now, I’m fighting it. They come to you then they say, No, you mustn’t do this.” When they see you’re not giving up, then they can just frame you, then they can so no, you’ve done ABC.” My prayer is this thing must see the light of day.

As far as those “fact checkers” go. As I mentioned above they simply labelled this development as false. For example, PolitiFact explained that “Three years ago, a man at a one-day event touted “inventions,” including a car that defies the laws of physics. Since 2015, his story has only found a home on false news blogs and conspiracy sites.”

Snopes did the same, also mentioning our article that was publishing covering the story:

On 25 April 2018, the conspiracy oriented, reality-adjacent website Collective Evolution picked up the story once again, this time citing the aforementioned Zambian Observer story and the 2015 video of that same event from South African television. As is often the case with Collective Evolution articles, the claims made there have been cloned and regurgitated ad infinitum by other dubious clickbait sites.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence or investigation by these fact checkers to vet the technology, and the common theme used to try and debunk Chikumbutso is that his invention breaks the laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics to be exact, because it produces more energy than is put into the device. They also use ridicule to support their narrative.

We here at Collective Evolution would argue that the device does not at all break the laws of physics, and that the law is not well understood, or needs to be revised. Furthermore, if there’s one thing constant about physics it’s change.

Take, for example, prominent physicist Lord Kelvin, who stated in the year 1900 that, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” 

It wasn’t long after this statement when Einstein published his paper on special relativity. Einstein’s theories challenged the accepted framework of knowledge at the time, and forced the scientific community to open up to an alternate view of reality.

It serves as a great example of how concepts that are taken to be absolute truth are susceptible to change. It’s also important to mention that if these fact-checkers actually did some investigation into this case, they would have a different opinion. How come fact checkers have the ability to label something as false without any actual investigation?

That’s why people like Foster and Kimberly are so important.

In fact, there are multiple inventions out there that appear to break the second law of thermodynamics which have received absolutely no attention. For example, renowned inventor and engineer Paramahamsa Tewari developed an electrical generator that put out more power than it takes in, achieving over-unity efficiency. He published a paper in Physics Essays titled “Structural relation between the vacuum space and the electron” in 2018 before he passed. The paper explains the concepts behind the make-up of what we perceive to be our physical material world, the concepts in there explain the the thoughts behind his generator. You can view a video of the generator here, and read more about it in an article I dive deeper about it, here.

Concluding Remarks: The fact that these technologies, and similar technologies that can provide “free energy” to the planet exist is very exciting. We here at Collective Evolution have also had the privilege of seeing some of these technologies with our own eyes, and it’s quite unfortunate that they always come under such a harsh resistance. What does that tell you about our world and the underlying stories that navigate our current thinking? The fact is, new energy technologies like the one mentioned in this article have the ability to completely collapse the biggest energy companies in the world. Just because this is true, does not mean we should not approach the conversation and determine how we can implement them and perhaps create further adjustments in our society along the way.

I started to examine the breakthrough solutions, and much to my surprise, these concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories throughout the world, and yet they have not really seen the light of day. If the new energy technologies were to be set free worldwide, the change be profound, it would affect everybody, it would be applicable everywhere. These technologies are absolutely the most important thing that’s happened in the history of the world.  – Dr Brian O’Leary, Former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor

Professor Emeritus at the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and Space at the University of New Hampshire. He outlined the importance of these concepts in his paper titled Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies For The 21st Century.

There is significant evidence that scientists since Tesla have known about this energy, but that its existence and potential use has been discouraged and indeed suppressed over the past half century or more.  – Dr. Theodor C. Loder, III (source)

Imagine a planet where we live in transparency and all developments are made public. Why does something that threatens power have to be kept a secret? Why is the excuse always to protect “national security.” Why is our planet like this, and why are we accepting and choosing to live the way we do when we have the potential to do so much better?

Of course, energy is a huge part of our existing economy, and thus it’s easy to see how disrupting energy is disrupting the entire economy. We would lose jobs, industries etc. Our progress as a species is held back by our love affair with our current ways of thinking and economy, even when it creates a world that is slowly destroying itself. So what’s the solution then? Transparent discussion ad a new conversation. We must begin realizing what it is that truly holds back these technologies, and it isn’t as simple as saying ‘the elite’ or ‘the deep state.’ It’s our ways of thinking and being, our collective story.

We talk about this in great detail in an interview with someone who has been working in the ‘new energy’ space for many years. Dive into this important conversation on CETV here.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Half a Million Sharks Could Be Killed to Make COVID-19 Vaccine

Avatar

Published

on

Drug maker GlaxoSmithKline may need to slaughter half a million sharks to harvest squalene, an oil made in shark livers, to make a new line of COVID jabs. Glaxo mixes squalene with a witches’ brew of proprietary surfactants to produce its controversial AS03 vaccine adjuvant. Adjuvants are compounds that amplify immune response to hyperstimulate the immune system. They are associated with a variety of autoimmune diseases.

Scientific studies have linked squalene adjuvants to Gulf War syndrome and to a wave of debilitating neurological disorders including epidemics of narcolepsy caused by Glaxo’s H1N1 Pandemrix vaccine during the 2009 swine flu “pandemic.” One study showed a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy in children who received Pandemrix.

The devastating cascade of brain injuries to children and health care workers forced the termination of that Glaxo vaccine after European governments used only a small fraction of the jabs they had purchased from Glaxo. A recent study links squalene to carcinomas. In a bizarre and reckless twist, Glaxo has revived the dangerous adjuvant as its hall pass to the COVID-19 money orgy.

The company said it would manufacture a billion doses of this adjuvant for potential use in coronavirus vaccines. Around 3,000 sharks are needed to extract one ton of squalene.

Shark Allies, a California-based group, said Glaxo will kill around 250,000 sharks to make enough AS03 for the world’s population to receive one dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. If, as expected, two doses are needed, half a million sharks must die.

Glaxo declared that it would be producing 1 billion doses of AS03 “to support the development of multiple adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine candidates.”

Glaxo has developed partnerships with multiple companies, including its behemoth rival Sanofi, China’s Clover Biopharmaceuticals and Innovax Biotech in the city of Xiamen. Glaxo has also agreed to make the technology available to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for COVID vaccines in Australia and elsewhere. Glaxo said it is focusing on what it considers a “proven technology” that will give the company “several shots on goal.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Childhood Cancer Caused Largely by Environmental Factors, Report Finds

Avatar

Published

on

For children in the U.S., cancer is the leading cause of death from disease. Worldwide, cancer has become so prevalent and devastating that some may use the phrase “like curing cancer” when describing something unfeasible or highly complicated. Yet in September, a team of more than 60 stakeholders and leaders in the health, science, business, policy and advocacy sectors collaborated to take a different, perhaps less flashy approach — preventing cancer, specifically by ending the use of toxic chemicals. Under the umbrella of the Childhood Cancer Prevention Initiative (CCPI), this collection of organizations published a report examining the impact of different cancer-causing chemicals and calling for a “national plan” to address the rising incidence of childhood cancer.

In 2020, an estimated 1,806,590 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. and 606,520 people will die from the disease, including an estimated 16,850 children and adolescents ages 0 to 19 being diagnosed and 1,730 children will die of the disease. Researchers estimate that only 10% of all childhood cancers come from hereditary factors, meaning the lion’s share of childhood cancers come from environmental factors. To CCPI, this means 90% of all childhood cancer is preventable.

The authors of the report indicate that cancer charities and research organizations don’t devote enough resources to prevention.

“The vast majority of childhood cancer research funding goes towards studies of childhood cancer treatment and survivorship, leaving only a small portion for the critical work on prevention,” the report explains.

The CCPI report identifies pesticides, traffic-related air pollution and paints/solvents as the three groups of chemicals giving rise to the most common types of childhood cancer.

The report points out that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has listed several U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved pesticides as either known, probable or possible carcinogens, including glyphosate. The report cites multiple studies that indicate increased risks of childhood leukemia and brain cancer with exposure to residential pesticides, including a recent study showing “increased risk of childhood leukemia associated with higher levels of the residential herbicide chlorothalonil and possibly alachlor, used as an agricultural herbicide.” It also explains that a child with parents working in the agriculture sector is more likely to have a brain tumor, because of their exposure to agricultural pesticides.

The IARC has classified many air pollutants as known, probable or possible carcinogens as well. CCPI describes one study demonstrating that “soot in air pollution, which is a mixture of known carcinogens … can cross the placenta and expose the developing fetus.”

The report explains that a third category, paints and solvents, can increase a child’s risk of leukemia, lymphoma and brain tumors. For example, benzene is a chemical present in many solvents and a known cause of leukemia. The CCPI report lists multiple studies documenting that a mother’s exposure to benzene during pregnancy puts the child at elevated risk for childhood leukemia.

The authors furthermore acknowledge that children living near industrial manufacturing, agricultural facilities, major transportation routes or hazardous waste sites are at a higher risk for chronic diseases.

CCPI also emphasizes a need for research into the more than 85,000 manufactured chemicals in use in the U.S. today. “Known carcinogens are used throughout the economy … but recent research suggests that many chemicals in addition to those known to be carcinogens may contribute to cancer,” the report reads. “Because most of these chemicals have never been tested for safety or toxicity, we do not have a comprehensive list of those that may cause cancer in children.”

In terms of solutions, CCPI wants the private sector and the government to work together towards what it calls a “common goal” of “enabl[ing] all children to thrive.”

The authors go on to contend that there is a “compelling business case” for ending the production of these chemicals and products. They note the examples of Lumber Liquidators, who saw a 25% decline in value after being exposed for selling flooring with formaldehyde, and Bayer, who’s stock value fell 44% after a lawsuit found that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused cancer.

“Businesses that avoid making needed changes risk millions in legal fees from consumer lawsuits, and even more if an accident occurs involving chemicals of concern that harms employees and local residents,” the authors argue. CCPI sees the companies who produce and use dangerous chemicals and emissions as a not only the problem, but a “potential source for solutions.”

Policymakers have a role to play too. CCPI advocates tight limits on both levels of pesticides in food and exposure to suspect environmental factors. CCPI also recommends that U.S. legislators protect the environmental regulatory programs that are “under attack.”

“Priority efforts should be given to environmental justice: restoring policies that protect communities of color and low-income neighborhoods, who are disproportionately harmed by polluting activities,” the report reads.

Overall, CCPI suggests the way forward includes vast levels of investment into a new economy without chemicals, products and technologies that contribute to cancer.

“Our work suggests that prevention is possible, via research, education, development of safer chemistries, business innovation and strong public policies. But the scale of investments in these areas must dramatically increase,” the report concludes.

CCPI sees its new report as a “first step,” and a demonstration of commitment by the 12 organizations to phasing out cancer-inducing chemicals and finding safer alternatives.

Written by Jeremy Loffredo

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!