Connect with us

Environmental

What’s With All The Fracking?

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energy at the end of the era of cheap energy is crucial and is not optional–the laws of Thermodynamics cannot be repealed and Mother Nature has a way of settling such issues for those who choose to ignore them.”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

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

Serious Errors Found In Widely Cited Global Warming Study

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed, has turned out to be false.

  • Reflect On:

    Many scientists within the field have been quite outspoken about the politicization of climate science, and how it's a serious problem. We see it in all fields, like the medical field, for example. Ridicule has been used to suppress discussion.

There is a troubling trend among internet readers, and that’s the fact that billions of people area reading titles of an article and having a bad reaction before reading the actual article and examining the sources. The bad reaction usually comes when evidence is presented which strongly goes against the widely accepted belief held by the majority of people. This type of evidence is often ridiculed by the mainstream media, which is why the majority of people believe what they do in the first place.

We have been subjected to massive amounts of ‘mind-persuasion’ on various topics. Today, when evidence goes against the grain, especially when it threatens many political and financial interests, false evidence is manufactured in order to counter the actual evidence. This has happened in all areas that touch humanity. I refer to it as the politicization of science, in this case, climate science. We’ve seen this everywhere, especially with medical science.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. . . . Science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet (source)

Now, just to be clear, this article is NOT debating climate change. Drastic and unexpected climate change and natural disasters are rampant right now on our planet, for multiple reasons. It’s clearly a problem that needs to be fixed and could have been fixed/mitigated decades ago, yet we still seem stuck. Revolutionary technologies have been in existence for a long time, from solar, to wind, to vortex-induced vibrations and over-unity energy technology. Many of them have been subjected to patent suppression and secrecy, for “natural security” purposes. Meanwhile, it’s this national security apparatus that have created a breakaway civilization, one that’s become highly technologically advanced. They use these technologies, not for the benefit of humanity, but it seems more so, for their own purposes and the enslavement of humanity.

All that being said, climate change is, in my opinion, the result of multiple factors that go beyond human beings. These include natural cycles Earth has gone through before in it’s past, the activity of our sun, etc…

Again, I am not denying climate change, I am not even denying anthropomorphic climate change. I’m simply pointing towards the politicization of science. Something fishy is happening.

advertisement - learn more

In fact, approximately more than thirty thousand scientists have all signed a petition regarding the political agenda of global warming. The scientific consensus, which includes over 9,000 scientists with Ph.D.s, is the real scientific consensus. There is no real source for the “97” percent of scientists agreeing, that’s false information.

Warmer Oceans?

Princeton scientist Laure Resplandy (pictured above) and researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography recently published a study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The reported was beamed out by multiple establishment mouthpieces, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Reuters and others.

Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher. The post appeared on the website of Judith A. Curry, an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has been one of the many outspoken scientists in the field the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.

Lewis corrected the math area, and found that the paper’s rate of ocean warming “is about average compared with other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993-2016.” Roger Pike Jr., a Professor at the University of Colorado, tweet his work and replicated the data. Key phrase: “It’s a big error at the core of the paper’s findings.”

It seems that the majority of climate scientists all support this type of fraudulent data, and the problem of political interests taking over what the science is actually saying.

Lewis found the study’s authors, led by Princeton University scientist Laure Resplandy, erred in calculating the linear trend of estimated ocean warming between 1991 and 2016. Lewis has also criticized climate model predictions, which generally over-predict warming. Resplandy and her colleagues estimated ocean heat by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. The results: the oceans took up 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study only sent alarm bells ringing, especially in the wake of the United Nations’ latest climate 

Laure Resplandy, the author of the widely distributed and cited study, has recently replied, acknowledging the error. Although the reply comes from an establishment mouthpiece, one that ridicules any questioning of anthropomorphic climate change via carbon output.

Below is a brief interview with Curry.

The Politicization Of Climate Science

Again, we need to be looking at deforestation, the lack of disclosure of new energy technologies, and the lack of implementation of new ones. We need to be looking at the destruction of our Earth and the poisoning of our water and soil, more so than we do our carbon output. But carbon is very heavily focused on.

The politicization of climate science is something that’s vouched for by the majority of actual climate scientists.

It’s hard to talk about because I am a proponent of clean energy technologies, and they are a must. Our industries and our usage of pollution services, like the automobile industry, is a toxic and environmental health hazard. But the global elite are very smart, they are using climate change, and global warming, to basically cause climate hysteria for political and financial gains.

The “97 percent” tagline is often used to demonize those who question anthropogenic induced climate change, and the mainstream media will do their best to make those who question it, no matter their background, credentials, or credibility, look foolish.

Ivar Giaever, a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973, compares current climate science to pseudoscience.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, among many others, refers to this type of narrative as hysteria and argues that climate scientists raising this issue have been demonized. He’s one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.

He is a  dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation and pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer, and dynamics interact with each other. He is also the Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A slide from one of his lectures below states:

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public. The misuse of language extends to the misuse of models. For advocated of policies allegedly addressing global warming, the role of models is not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible. As they understand, proving something to be impossible is itself almost impossible.

I am using him as one of many examples. pointed out how policymakers were heavily involved with the IPCC and their publications. He is one of many to do so. Here’s a video in which he did try to bring awareness to what climate scientists REALLY believe. It’s quite contrary to the climate hysteria we see that’s constantly beamed. Right now it’s happening with forests fires, which have been happening for hundreds of millions of years.

Why No Mention of Climate Engineering?

What about climate engineering? Geoengineering is the manipulation of the atmosphere through artificial means.

The US Air Force has the capability to manipulate climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use.  These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts, and earthquakes.

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence  purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ . Emphasis added)

We’ve covered this topic in depth in multiple articles, and right now, geoengineering is being proposed as a solution to climate change, or what scientists above mentioned as ‘climate hysteria.’ The weather today is largely manufactured and owned, it’s changed and manipulated for various reasons. It’s hard to tell what’s actually going on. Here’s a clip of Ex-Cia director voicing his support for geoengineering…

Climate hysteria can be created, as much as terrorism can in order to create the war on terrorism…

The Takeaway

You could literally write a book on how the majority of reputable scientists within the field of Climate Science, and the ones actually involved with the IPCC, are all concerned about these things. As many of these scientists have pointed out, at a certain point, the final drafts and publications are taken over and written by politicians and policymakers.

There is a big problem here, and the elite who seem to be behind this type of thing, have been using their tools for years (mass media, education, etc..) to drill this idea in the people’s heads. Climate initiatives are being supported like war was with mass propaganda, our hearts and care for Mother Earth are being taken advantage of and capitalized on. Those who question the official narrative of global climate change are often the ones who care about Earth the most. This is one of the reasons it is so important for the awakening community to strive for the truth, and then to bring out that truth widely. The future of our planet hangs in the balance.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Straw & Plastic Bag Bans Are Great, But What About The Single Most Littered Item In The World?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cigarette butts account for one-third of all trash collected according to the ocean conservatory project. Research shows that filters aren't even needed as they do next to nothing to mitigate the harmful effects of smoking.

  • Reflect On:

    What can we do to minimize our impact on the environment? Is it time to re-evaluate our smoking habits and do what we can to be the change?

Over the past several years a lot of attention has been brought to the amount of trash that is ending up in our world’s oceans. We have seen straw bans happening around the world and bans on single-use plastic bags as well. There has been a concerted effort to make single-use cutlery compostable or even edible. Although this is a huge step in the right direction and something that we should continue to do, there is one pollutant that should be in the spotlight as it is the single greatest source of ocean trash — cigarette butts.

For some reason, this small, but ubiquitous source of trash has mostly avoided any form of regulation. This soon could change if a committed group of activists has a say.

A tobacco industry academic, California lawmaker, and a worldwide surfing organization are among the growing number of people who are arguing that cigarette filters should be banned.

“It’s pretty clear there is no health benefit from filters. They are just a marketing tool. And they make it easier for people to smoke. It’s also a major contaminant, with all that plastic waste. It seems like a no-brainer to me that we can’t continue to allow this,” Thomas Novotny, a professor of public health at San Diego State University told NBC News.

A California assemblyman proposed an outright ban on cigarettes with filters but wasn’t able to get the proposal out of the committee. A state senator from New York has written legislation to create a rebate program for butts returned to redemption centers, but that idea is also on hold. San Francisco has propositioned for a 60 cent per pack increase to raise around $3 million annually to help to cover the cost of cleaning up these discarded butts.

Time To Tackle The Most Littered Item In The World

The Truth Initiative, one of the largest anti-smoking initiatives in the U.S. is doing everything it can to raise awareness around this issue. they use funds collected between state attorneys general and tobacco industries to deliver hard facts against smoking. The group used a nationally televised Video Music Awards show to launch a brand new campaign against cigarette butts. The group is going against the hands down, “most littered item in the world.”

advertisement - learn more

With 5.6 trillion cigarettes manufactured worldwide each year, the filters made from cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that takes a minimum of 10 years to decompose. An alarming two-thirds of those butts are dumped irresponsibly each year according to Novotny, who founded the Cigarette Butt Pollution Project.

Since 1982 the Ocean Conservancy has sponsored a beach cleanup. Each year, cigarette butts have been the most collected item on the beaches of the world. Over 60 million have been collected over that period of time. Out of all the plastic wrappers, eating utensils, bottles, containers, cigarette butts have accounted for one-third of all the trash collected.

Let’s not forget that these discarded filters contain synthetic fibers and hundreds of chemicals that are used to treat tobacco. Novonty is actively pursuing further research to see exactly what waste from cigarettes is leaching into the soil, streams, rivers, and oceans.

“More research is needed to determine exactly what happens to all of that,” said Nick Mallos, director of the Trash Free Seas campaign for the Ocean Conservancy. “The final question is what impact these micro-plastics and other waste have on human health.”

Do We Even Need Filters?

Filters were made in the mid-20th century to help mitigate growing concerns in regards to the health impacts of tobacco. It was determined that filters weren’t even able to control the carcinogenic compounds from smoking. Then “filters became a marketing tool, designed to recruit and keep smokers as consumers of these hazardous products,” according to research conducted by Bradley Harris, a graduate scholar in the history of science and technology at Stanford University.

How Can We Take Action?

Are you a smoker? If so it is up to you to take responsibility for the proper disposal of your butts. This may even be enough of a drawback from smoking that it may inspire you to quit. If not, there are many options available. One being, rolling your own cigarettes, and either just going filter-less or using a reusable, cleanable filter. The mass produced, chemical-laden, filtered cigarettes are hardly ideal. It is possible to get organically grown, additive free tobacco, which would be much less harmful to you.

What can you do to minimize your impact? Change starts with us! We can all do our part.

Much Love

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?

In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.

The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.

Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.

What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.

The 2014 Memo

Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.

Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.

advertisement - learn more

2014 memo referring to neonic pesticides.

When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:

2014 memo referring to GMO use.

In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.

“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters

The 2018 Memo

When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:

And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:

As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.

What Media Coverage In This Way?

When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.

You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.

With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?

We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.

Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.

Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.