gubernatorial candidate wants to drill and frack yellowstone?

just curious, but what would honestly happen if we were to drill and frack on top of one of the worlds LARGEST, ACTIVE calderas? would it actually aid in helping this pop its cork? why risk it? is he insane?

and why waste such a pristine area for the pursuit of profit? must profit come before everything?

www.salon.com...

trib.com... 728c073.html

But, but....he's a politician. Most aren't all that smart.....if they were, they wouldn't want the job.

a reply to: blackthorne
I'm not sure how far they would be able to drill in magma.
Isn't the ground hot enough to melt blacktop roads there?
If the chemicals they pump into the ground are toxic wouldn't they be released as steam in the geysers there?
Would the geysers shoot out flames like it does in people's tap water where they have already been fracking?
I believe rickymouse is right they aren't very bright, probably just greedy.

a reply to: irgust

i know, more than likely, that he is, (hopefully) is just spouting off. but lets say he isn't? wouldn't one think that his campaign manager would at least get a credible geologist to give some hard data for his constituents? because, to me, this just makes him look like an idiot!

Well, when the first hole appears they should stick that idiots head in it!

And yes, he must surely be insane.

a reply to: blackthorne

Yes, profit MUST come before everything.
Every banker, businessman and politician knows this.
/end sarcasm

The guy is clearly way out on the fringe with this bit (op source):

If elected, Haynes would send federal government agencies a certified letter and invite them to attend a meeting in which he will explain his plan. He said they must be gone by January 2015, when he would takes office.

“Then in whichever county they attempt to have any official activity, they will be arrested for impersonating a law enforcement officer in Wyoming,” he said.

but I don't think he's too far from the mainstream right when he suggests things like opening Yellowstone for drilling. See, under the General Mining Act of 1872, federal lands can be prospected/mined/drilled for $2.50-$5 an acre, a sum that hasn't been increased since. Couple that with the percentage depletion allowance and you're off to the unfair subsidization races.

Either way, I'm going to give him about a 0% chance of being the GOP candidate.

Dude...if you so much as rip a fart near Yellowstone, I guarantee ya, God's gonna come down here, and he's gonna bust yer freakin skull, capiche?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Well, when the first hole appears they should stick that idiots head in it!

And yes, he must surely be insane.

That would be good BBQ idiot on a stick.
I'd be more worried about the chemicals getting into the water table.
If it would blow it would take out a big chunk of the US with just the falling ash.

a reply to: blackthorne

Well, the article states that the candidate was not entirely serious about that particular proposal, admitting that he made it for the attention it would no doubt gain him.

However, also from the article, he is not the first political figure to have suggested doing such a thing.

Which makes me think about all the myriad things that could go wrong, when probing an area which contains the largest, and most potentially dangerous store of pressurised molten rock under the face of the planet. This enormous carbuncle under the skin of the world, has not even been totally mapped, and some geologists believe that it could be larger than it is. I speak of course of the vast caldera which exists underneath Yellowstone.

Now, what with the concerns about fracking, crucially the widely held belief that this process causes seismic instability, one would have thought that suggesting the possibility of fracking, in such a volatile location, one which many geologists believe is well overdue for a violent event, is not a good way to gain positive attention. To be honest, it sounds like the sort of plan that one of the many enemies of James Bond would have come up with. One can only imagine, that such suggestions have to be made as the final remark made by the baddie from the door of a chopper, as he leaves the hero agent to an uncertain death at the hands of an improbably augmented henchman.

These are not statements that a candidate aiming at a seat of power in a democratic election, ought to be making!

originally posted by: blackthorne
just curious, but what would honestly happen if we were to drill and frack on top of one of the worlds LARGEST, ACTIVE calderas? would it actually aid in helping this pop its cork? why risk it? is he insane?

and why waste such a pristine area for the pursuit of profit? must profit come before everything?

www.salon.com...

trib.com... 728c073.html

Hmmm, an idiot driven by greed, known as "Guber," the notorious candidate wants to potentially end life on the planet. Or at least bugger up the US of A. Wow, who's got this clown's back?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: blackthorne

He is insane but greed is seldom sane, gold fever and all.

But I was thinking on the yellowstone issue and this brought it back to mind, as the magma chamber is obviously swelling and getting ready to blow at some future point would it not be an intelligent move to try to find a way to reduce the pressure in a managed fashion, I know it would amount to the single largest project in human history given the size of the caldera and looking back at the deccan traps in india which were created by another supervolcano about 65 million years ago, en.wikipedia.org...

Of course he and his financial backers are being more than presumptuous if they think they can get away with such a game of geologically destabilizing subterranean extraction as and if the Yellowstone calder explodes it will effect far more than north america and will cause a volcanic winter across the world much like a nuclear winter so not only would this be brought up in the UN as a serious question of national interest for every other nation on the planet but he could very well become guilty of genocide if not the extinction of the human race as well as a global extinction level event which will effect all life on this planet, that is honestly how bad the eruption could get.

But a managed bleed off by building artifical lava tubes (the Subterrain comes to mind but it would need one hell of a cooling upgrade) to syphon off the lava and gases safely), also it could provide more than surplus power using steam turbines to power all of america freely as a by product, and also allow the sale of excess spare energy of which there would then be a surplus but of course that much free energy coupled with the electric motor would have the CEO's of oil and gas conglomerates up in arms and they would do everything possible to stop it even if it meant the end of the world, but think of the spin off technology's, new heat resistant applications and technology's.

Imagine a nation with sufficiant free energy to distribute freely to all it's citizens, the money spent on new electronic's and consumerism boost, the rapid electronic highway's and train's, the all night hydroponic fields with illuminated crops growing at increased speed to provide more efficiant farming and the surplus produce potentially ending starvation at least in that country, the rebirth of the city's and of the entire culture.
Now realize you will never see it as long as greed, imbeciles and corruption run the world.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Ever poke an angry bear to release its anger in a controlled fashion?

Probably not a good idea, besides, the park does it on its own.

A reply to: blackthorne

No!!!!!!!!

America, what is wrong with you?? Please, wake up. You are throwing it all away at the altar of money!!

Geysers are super rare on to find on earth. This would destroy them, they are super fragile.

I weep for my nation.

A reply to: blackthorne

Double post. Please remove.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well look what they are already doing in Washington on Mt St. Helens, Fully funded. I have a thread about it
Setting Explosions around Mt St. Helen

It was brought up in my thread if Yellowstone could be next. I doubt there would be much cooperation with Yellowstone. I'm still trying to figure out how they got the ok for the Mt St. Helens project.

In regards to the OP They could just simply be testing the waters to see what reaction they get from the people.
To see who they need to pay off and how to better sell the idea.

a reply to: Observationalist

The thing that disturbs me about this particular idea, were anyone insane enough to actually go through with it, is that unlike the Mt. St. Helens blasting, which happened a very short time (on the geological scale) after a major event which saw the top of the mountain blast clean off its moorings, the fracking methods that exist at the moment and could be applied to Yellowstone, involve steady and continuous increases in pressure being applied to the location which is being worked on. A few small explosions are no where near as dangerous by comparison.

Think of it like a spot on your face. If you flick it (detonations) then it may aggravate the situation, and be a little painful. But if you put a finger either side of that thing, and slowly increase the pressure you apply (fracking) that thing is going to blast pus a distance of perhaps a foot. Scale it up!

Also, because the Yellowstone caldera has not had a major event for some considerable time, it is likely to be many times less stable, so poking holes in it and piping pressure directly into the area seems thousands of times more daft than setting of an explosion or two near a volcanic region which has recently had a tantrum.

call me old fashioned but a steam turbine or two on yellowstone would create free electric so no need to frack at all.
so to conclude this, it is not about resources as free electric abounds there. therefore population reduction must be considered as a motive.

First time a whole country will win a darwin award I guess.