Fracking - where is it headed ?
This seems to be a particular issue for NE Pennsylvania.
Are any Dwellars involved with it yet ???
An OregonLive article
Cracking down on fracking
Published: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 5:00 AM *** Updated: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 2:17 PM
By Amy Goodman
Mike Markham of Colorado has an explosive problem: His tap water catches fire. Markham demonstrates this in a new documentary, "Gasland," which just won the Sundance Film Festival Special Jury Prize. Director Josh Fox films Markham as he runs his kitchen faucet, holding a cigarette lighter up to the running water. After a few seconds, a ball of fire erupts out of the sink, almost enveloping Markham's head.
The source of the flammable water, and the subject of "Gasland," is the mining process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."
Fracking is used to access natural-gas and oil reserves buried thousands of feet below the ground. Companies like Halliburton drill down vertically, then send the shaft horizontally, crossing many small, trapped veins of gas and oil. Explosive charges are then set off at various points in the drill shaft, causing what Fox calls "mini-earthquakes." These fractures spread underground, allowing the gas to flow back into the shaft to be extracted. To force open the fractures, millions of gallons of liquid are forced into the shaft at very high pressure.
Drillers do not have to reveal the chemical cocktail, thanks to a slew of exemptions given to the industry, most notably in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which actually granted the fracking industry a specific exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
There is virtually no federal oversight of fracking, leaving the budget-strapped states to do the job with a patchwork of disparate regulations. They are no match for the major, multinational drilling and energy companies that are exploiting the political goal of "energy independence." The nonprofit news Web site ProPublica.org found that, out of 31 states examined, 21 have no regulations specific to hydraulic fracturing, and none requires the companies to report the amount of the toxic fluid remaining underground.
From Hare to Heir (1960)
Bugs Bunny: Hey Sam, pass the salt please.
Yosemite Sam: Salt? GET IT YOURSELF!
Bugs Bunny: Uh oh, that'll cost you about...
Yosemite Sam: Salt? Why didn't you say so. Here's your salt, Bunny, I hope you like it.
[Brings it across the table to him then walks back]
Yosemite Sam: Ooh that rackin' frackin'...
Bugs Bunny: The pepper please.
Yosemite Sam: PEPPER! WE... Uh, yeah the pepper. Coming right up.
[Walks to the end of the table and gives it to Bugs]
Yosemite Sam: Ooh that rackin' frackin'...
Bugs Bunny: Oh Sam!
Yosemite Sam: Oh no.
Bugs Bunny: How about the olives?
Seven counties in PA now have cases of contaminated water due to fracking.
This is not just a threat to rural counties. This problem threatens water sources for both NYC and Philadelphia.
Yes, the reason I brought it up is that on a recent MSNBC talk show there was discussion of how some farm families are loosing their farms because the (well) water is so contaminated, and supposedly there have been several farmers to commit suicide.
Oregon has a couple of bills in the State Legislature in the works to specify what levels of specific "permanently placed compounds (?)" will be allowed, but since the methane is already in the ground it probably can not be included.
This legislation will probably also raise the hackles of sports fishermen and the ODFW because there are plans to use the process in drilling under rivers and lakes for pipelines. Messing about with rivers and lakes is a BIG NO! NO! NO! in this state.
(e.g.:
Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale and Pennsylvania’s Coldwater Resources
Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited
February 13, 2009
I saw a piece of that show on MSNBC... Wasn't one of the issues what was in the compound they were/are using?
That's the drilling company's proprietary information... you can't have it.
Gee thanks. You think that might be an important aspect of all this?
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
That's the drilling company's proprietary information... you can't have it.
Same thing with the dispersant used for the gulf oil spill.
Thanks to our laws favoring HUGE business over us, so long as the chemicals they use are MIXED, they have no obligation to reveal them. If it was just ONE chemical, they would have to.
Logic has no place in business, i guess.
Logic has no place in [COLOR="Red"]government[/COLOR], i guess.
gotcha covered. :3_eyes:
gotcha covered. :3_eyes:
Just stop that shit.
nope. but thanks for the kind words. :finger:
Logic has no place in [COLOR="Red"]the republican party[/COLOR], i guess.
:thumb::thumb2:
yeh, no. not so funny that way. You're better staying with the snarky crap.
yeh, no. not so funny that way. You're better staying with the snarky crap.
Translation: Yes. No. Good when Republicans in the PA legislature subvert government regulations and sunshine laws. Water contamination is another myth created by evil liberal movie makers. We must burn up as many fossil fuels as we can find. Necessary to wage war all over the world to protect our oil.
Besides, now that corporations can spend as much as they want on 'their' politicians, then 'contributions' are even larger when protecting those corporations from evil liberals.
His snippets actually say something. Most of the words are only invisible.
If the corps were paying for the D's you wouldn't be bitching at all. Take your partisan BS elsewhere. You are AGAIN trying to pick a fight where it need not be. Run along and piss on someone else. OH wait you can't because most of the rest ignore you. Maybe I'll join them, again.
If the corps were paying for the D's you wouldn't be bitching at all.
Stupid and insulting is to associate me with Democrats. I have no respect for either. But wacko extremist Republicans, such as you, openly advocate harm to America to advance their political agenda.
You did not see Democrats advocating "Mission Accomplished" based only on lies and their political agenda. You did not see Democrats all but protect bin Laden. Even deny bin Laden should be hunted. You did not see Democrats all but surrender to the Taliban. You did not see Democrats subvert law enforcement when, for example, at least four FBI offices were on the trail of 11 September highjackers.
You did not see Democrats rewrite science in the White House for the destruction of mankind and to keep people ignorant. You did not see Democrats harming of Terry Schiavo and her family to impose their religion on all others. You did not see Democrats subvert a budget surplus AND run America in massive debts. You did not see Democrats subverting government oversight to enrich Wall Street and to create the world's worse recession since 1929.
You do not see Democrats promoting their propaganda machine (Fox News) as fair and balanced. You did not see Democrats inventing an obviously stupid Man to Mars program. You did not see Democrats do nothing to plan for the replacement of the Shuttles. And then create a least innovative solution - Orion and Aires - which is nothing more than the Apollo program on steroids. You did not see the Democrats driving fundamental research (ie quantum physics) from America. You did not see Democrats subvert stem cell research.
You did not see a long list of famous scientists including Nobel prise winners citing their science as rewritten by the Democrats.
You did not see Democrats subverting international relationships with virtually every other nation in the world. You did not see Democrats screaming about a mythical Al Qaeda hiding under everyone's beds waiting to kill us all. You did not see Democrats putting political hacks into FEMA. You did not see Democrats advocating unlimited spending by corporations to buy the politicians they wanted. Then denying unlimited political contributions is harmful. You did not see K-Street - America's largest corruption scandal - promoted by the most powerful members of their party.
You did not see Democrats openly enriching the top 2% at the expense of all other Americans. You did not see Democrats in power (both White House and Congress) when America's average incoming dropped 2%. You did not see Democrats subverting mileage standards and other government requirements - only reason why American automakers would let their engineers innovate. You did not see Democrats intentionally subverting science education in Dover Pa schools for obvious benefit to fundamentalist religion and to impose that religion on all others.
You did not see Democrats impeding the investigation of Enron. You did not see Democrats try to create a war with China over a silly spy plane. You did not see Democrats advocating hate of gays and other minorities. You did not see Democrats destroying the careers of Federal prosecutors (all of which happened to be Democrats) for a political agenda. You did not see major Democratic leaders promoting hate of Islam - even invent Islamofasism. You did not see Democrats ignoring $20,000 sexting parties paid for by big oil to subvert industry oversight.
You did not see anything like a highly respected Christine McDonald in the Democratic party.
You did not see Democrats openly attacking their moderates as is routine against John McCain, Christie Whitman, Colin Powel, Tom Ridge, Olympia Snow, and Lindsey Graham.
So many less reasons exist to criticize Democrats because lying is not routine. Lying - such as leaving the USS Bataan sitting for five days off New Orleans not permitted to help anyone. Or the Eisenhower task force sitting in port for a week while a million people were nearby and dying due to a tsunami.
I accuse Democrats of not doing spin that is routinely and masterly done by Limbaugh, the American Enterprise Institute, and Karl Rove. So that makes me a Democrat? Hardly. Those who routine promote harm to innovation, science, America, and the advancement of mankind earn my criticism. And you are on that list. You confuse hard fact with politics because those facts contradict 'your' politics. You will not even admit to being an extremist.
Stupid and insulting is to associate me with Democrats. I have no respect for either. But wacko extremist Republicans, such as you, openly advocate harm to America to advance their political agenda.
After two completely inaccurate statements in your first 3 sentences, reading the rest is, as usual, pointless. Have a blessed day.
After two completely inaccurate statements in your first 3 sentences, reading the rest is, as usual, pointless. Have a blessed day.
The is the problem with reality. You do not want to read it.
Meanwhile, victims of fracking are apparently guilty of their own greed - your reasoning. Or do you also blame liberals for that.
You'd rather derail yet another thread because you cannot admit you are wrong?
The is the problem with reality. You do not want to read it.
Nice grammar there by the way :eyebrow:
No tw. You cannot admit when you are wrong. No matter how many times you are faced with facts counter to your incorrect preconceived notions, you just cannot do it.
Instead, in typical tw fashion ....
Meanwhile, victims of fracking are apparently guilty of their own greed - your reasoning. Or do you also blame liberals for that.
... you retort with the personal attacks, diversions and/or outright lies.
Where did I blame liberals for this, tw? Show your work.
Quote where I said anything of the sort or apologize. You've tried this before - many times and not just with me. To date your responses have consistently been to ignore the post & lurk for awhile. Its getting old.
Lets try the truth this time. Are you man enough to respond like you know you should. Just admit you are wrong. No emotional outburst necessary.
You'd rather derail yet another thread because you cannot admit you are wrong?
Wow. classicman, who posts in most every thread when he even has nothing to say, now complains when his biases in this thread are confronted. A smarter classicman should have posted nothing here because he had nothing to contribute. And then complains because tw calls him on his extreme bias and doing the same 'nothing' is so many threads.
A reality is why laws, to protect from fracking, are stifled. Protecting citizens is secondary to a political agenda so corrupt as to even advocate and not apologize for "Mission Accomplished". Putting citizens at risk for fast profits from fracking are just another example of that political agenda.
Well look what just happened? gotcha covered. :3_eyes: Expect as Good as you Give.
Ahhhh, the diversionary tactic again? You are too transparent.
STRIKE 1 - Try again. Support your claim or apologize. You're a smart guy. C'mon you still have two more shots at it before being completely humiliated .... again.
no pressure. it shouldn't be that hard, there are only 20 posts in the thread. Now take a deep breathe and give it another go.
No mentioning WMD's, 85%, metal midget, george jr....just back up your statement with the quote by me blaming the liberals...
just back up your statement with the quote by me blaming the liberals...
gotcha covered. :3_eyes:
that was weak even for you, tw....
STRIKE 2
Last chance ....
Tell you what - I'll go to bed now and check your work in the am. That'll give you all night to find some article in the economist you can plagiarize instead of admitting your wrong.
Oh, knock it the fuck off. :rolleyes:
no Shit !!!
Hey is this Fracken any thing like sharten ????
Fracking and the east coast earthquake ???
Can Humans Cause Earthquakes?
By Natalie Wolchover, Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
12 January 2011 11:50 AM ET
Life's little mysteries...
According to John Vidale, director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network,
there are actually many ways that human activity can trigger earthquakes.
"The main one is by filling large dams," he told Life's Little Mysteries.
"The weight of the water that builds up behind a dam exerts
a huge amount of stress on the land below."
Occasionally the land shifts under all that new weight.
In the 1930s, for example, the construction of Hoover Dam in Arizona
unleashed a burst of seismic activity in the vicinity that reached magnitude 5 on the Richter scale.
And in 1963, a severe earthquake — magnitude 7 — shook the reservoir behind Koyna Dam in India
shortly after its construction, killing 200 people in a nearby town.
Forcefully injecting fluid into the planet's crust also can induce earthquakes.
For a three-year period in the 1960s, the government injected wastewater byproducts
12,000 feet deep into rock fractures in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, Vidale said.
"Then suddenly you got a whole slew of earthquakes near Denver, so they had to stop," he said.
Similarly, enhanced geothermal-energy projects have been known to make the ground shake.
This process involves pumping pressurized water a mile into the Earth,
then sucking up the heated liquid to make steam and drive turbines to generate electricity.
But as folks in Basel, Switzerland, found out in 2006,
sometimes the injection phase can trigger larger earthquakes,
especially if the pumping is centered over an already geologically active area.
Yeah, but think of the job loss and higher natural gas prices. :cool:
Hi Lamplighter! Good to see you again. :)
It is my understanding that fracking is going to give us womenfolk STDs.
:/
Wasn't Jinx into fracking? I thought she had some property that was fracked.
I was thinking the same fff.
Wasn't Jinx into fracking? I thought she had some property that was fracked.
[COLOR="PaleTurquoise"]she threw him out[/COLOR]
The "fracking industry" seems to be having a field day in the countryside of eastern Pennsylvania.
Obviously, living in Oregon I don't have a personal stake in this issue,
but we have seen the long,
very long, term effects of industrial mining on water resources.
Once water supplies are contaminated, the costs of reclaiming is too high and the land is abandoned.
This article speaks to the small number of people in the areas who get jobs, and actually $ from the industry.
NY Times
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: October 14, 2011
Gas Boom Aids Pennsylvania, but Some Worry Over the Risk
The gas boom is transforming small towns like this one (population 4,400 and growing)
and revitalizing the economy of this once-forgotten stretch of rural northeastern Pennsylvania.
<snip>
But the boom — brought on by an advanced drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing,
known as fracking — has brought problems too.
While the gas companies have created numerous high-paying drilling jobs,
many residents lack the skills for them.
Some people’s drinking water has been contaminated.
Narrow country roads are crumbling under the weight of heavy trucks.
With housing scarce and expensive, more residents are becoming homeless.
Local services and infrastructure are strained.
“Very little tax revenue goes to local governments to help them
share in the benefits of the economic development,” said Sharon Ward,
executive director of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center,
an independent policy research organization.
And some are asking whether short-term gains have obscured the long-term view
of an industry marked by boom-bust cycles.<snip>
In Pennsylvania, more than 3,000 wells have been drilled in the past three years
and permits for thousands more have been issued.
Here in Susquehanna County, a poor rural county of which Montrose is the seat,
262 wells had been drilled by a half-dozen different gas companies as of the end of July;
permits have been issued for 400 more.
.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Susquehanna County is in the middle 20% of the country for household income and our unemployment rate was 7.5% in August. It was a lot poorer when I was a kid.
I would also assume gas dollars are spread widely as virtually every landowner in the county who wanted to sign a lease did. Landmen screwed a bunch of people early on, underpaying for lease rights, but the real money for landowners is in royalties. The minimum royalty in PA is 12.5%. To preserve its rural character, Susquehanna County has a minimum lot size of 10 acres, which was implemented years ago when dairy farms were being broken up due to retirements and the milk price collapse. I assume any land, presently in a gas unit, purchased from that time on is large enough to produce significant income.
Our county has long been dependent on folks working outside its borders so I'm glad to see local truckers and heavy equipment operators working locally. I'm concerned about the impact on our water, but fracking technique has improved since 1982 and so far as I've seen the mistakes made around here have been more in the handling of the bulk materials not so much in the drilling process itself. We should be taxing these guys at a rate high enough to cover regulatory oversight. The road issue is interesting because a lot of dirt roads have been improved by the drilling companies so they can access remote properties, but that should probably be formalized as well.
I understand the whole "jobs" thing,
and the "dependence on foreign oil" thing.
My problem with fracking can be put in a nutshell:
My neighbors sign a lease agreement, but I don't.
Something goes wrong... ground water is contaminated
My family is S.O.L. - my whole community is S.O.L.
Followed by
Property values go down, many people move away
More fracking ensues...
The gas companies go happily along their way
Then maybe
NIH and CDC discover birth defects due to fracking chemicals
Gas companies blame the "fracking companies"
Everyone whines "Oh my, how sad "
One thing I might like... the possibilities for bumper stickers:
Xxxx the FRACKING DRILLING COMPANIES
.....
FRACKING COMPANIES SUCK GAS
..........
SHUT UP and EAT YOUR FRACKING SOUP
Unfortunately, there are other issues with such mining, but that's for another day.
Here are a couple of other maps I've come across:
Earth Justice
Geology.comA
big Pandora's box has been opened for those
who have "fracking-leased" their property
within the
area of the Marcellus shale.
NY Times
By IAN URBINA
Published: October 19, 2011
Rush to Drill for Natural Gas Creates Conflicts With Mortgages
As natural gas drilling has spread across the country,
energy industry representatives have sat down at kitchen tables in states
like Texas, Pennsylvania and New York to offer homeowners leases
that give companies the right to drill on their land.
<snip>
But bankers and real estate executives, especially in New York,
are starting to pay closer attention to the fine print and are raising provocative questions,
such as: What happens if they lend money for a piece of land that ends up
storing the equivalent of an Olympic-size swimming pool filled with toxic wastewater from drilling?
The first reaction to these "fracking leases" is among the lending institutions:
Fearful of just such a possibility, some banks have become reluctant
to grant mortgages on properties leased for gas drilling.
At least eight local or national banks do not typically issue mortgages on such properties, *lenders say.
For the individual property owner is this warning:
Some real estate agents have started raising red flags
“When you decide to sell your house you may find it difficult to do so because many banks,
here and elsewhere, will not mortgage properties with gas leases, which,
in turn, limits the number of buyers willing and able to buy your property,”
wrote Linda Hirvonen, an agent in Ithaca, N.Y., in a newsletter last month.
[COLOR="Black"]Obviously, real estate that can not be mortaged will eventually be abandoned.[/COLOR]
---
[COLOR="Black"]This NY Times article is 3 pages, and it goes on to discuss
some of the national and political issues that are or may result
from these "fine print" issues.[/COLOR]
Pretty good Q and A this morning on
Capitol Connection.
The industry has a new site that is supposed to allow you to track the chemicals which were used in each well, but I don't see any useful information yet. Fracktrack.org
Pretty good Q and A this morning on Capitol Connection.
The industry has a new site that is supposed to allow you to track the chemicals
which were used in each well, but I don't see any useful information yet. Fracktrack.org
Good catch, Griff. It's a very interesting discussion - well worth the listen.
It was frustrating to listen, yet not be able to either disagree or ask a (pointed) question.
Likewise it's ironic (but predictable) that Dr. Conrad relies so heavily
on "regulators" to prevent or control issues, but the industry is pushing for less regulation.
My ultimate question would be... regardless how it happens or who is at fault,
what will the (fracking) industry do if/when ground water actually is contaminated ?
Conrad's thesis that State agencies (regulators) have now or will have
the where-with-all to "visit a site, diagnose the problem and fix it" was truly disingenuous.
.
Nice piece in the Times by a
guy who went ahead with it.
The last line:
I still don’t really know the answer.
Oh, I think he does: Fracking is not what it's cracked up to be
[COLOR="Black"]Cooperstown is talking about fracking... and not just the Baseball Hall of Fame[/COLOR]
Mother Nature Network
Baseball Hall of Fame blacklists fracking
The National Baseball Hall of Fame supports the Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce's anti-fracking position.
“As a member of the Cooperstown Chamber of Commerce,
the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum supports the Chamber’s
recent resolution that hydrofracking for shale gas in Otsego County
could cause serious damage to the qualities that make Cooperstown
a world-renowned tourist destination and a unique community.
Bloomberg News
Cooperstown Brewer Fights N.Y. Fracking Sought by EOG Resources
The Daily Star
Trustees: Fracking may leave Cooperstown in 'permanent recession'
NY Times
Issue of drilling turns personal, nasty in village.Bloomberg News
Brian Swint, ©2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Gas Fracking Probably Caused Blackpool Earthquakes in U.K.
Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Two small earthquakes near Blackpool in northwest England
earlier this year were probably caused by hydraulic fracturing,
a technique of grinding underground rocks to extract natural gas.
It's "highly probable" that fracking, as the process is known,
at the Preese Hall-1 site caused the quakes, U.K.-based shale explorer
Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. said in a report published today.
The geological circumstances were "rare" and the strongest possible tremor,
of a magnitude of 3, wouldn't be a risk to safety or property on the surface, it said.
<snip>
The fracking company in this link plans ~ 400 wells in the area.
IIRC back in the 50's, liquid wastes pumped into the old wells lead to earthquakes near Denver.
About the same time, new dams and lakes in the West were shown (statistically) to be sources of earthquakes.
Any large change to the weight on a patch of earth will lead to earthquakes. The (more-or-less solid) crust floats on the (viscous liquid) mantle, and if you build up weight at one point, the crust gradually sinks. This happens a lot at the end of ice ages when the ice caps melt. China's three Gorges Dam has earthquakes every year as it fills and empties. Any large structure causes this.
Good news? These are tiny earthquakes. The only quakes to worry about are continental plate boundaries shifting.
The contamination of ground water, long term, over a wide area, is a very real concern.
How about a ten-year moratorium on new fracking to let us assess the consequences of the fracking done so far? And if it turns out that groundwater is not getting contaminated, we can do more fracking.
A ten year moratorium destroys a lot of existing companies and jobs (see Norse Energy). New York had about a year long moratorium in place which they are lifting after environmental review and placement of restrictions and regulations.
David Brooks
Already shale gas has produced more than half a million new jobs, not only in traditional areas like Texas but also in economically wounded places like western Pennsylvania and, soon, Ohio. If current trends continue, there are hundreds of thousands of new jobs to come.
Chemical companies rely heavily on natural gas, and the abundance of this new source has induced companies like Dow Chemical to invest in the U.S. rather than abroad. The French company Vallourec is building a $650 million plant in Youngstown, Ohio, to make steel tubes for the wells. States like Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York will reap billions in additional revenue. Consumers also benefit. Today, natural gas prices are less than half of what they were three years ago, lowering electricity prices. Meanwhile, America is less reliant on foreign suppliers.
All of this is tremendously good news, but, of course, nothing is that simple. The U.S. is polarized between “drill, baby, drill” conservatives, who seem suspicious of most regulation, and some environmentalists, who seem to regard fossil fuels as morally corrupt and imagine we can switch to wind and solar overnight.
The shale gas revolution challenges the coal industry, renders new nuclear plants uneconomic and changes the economics for the renewable energy companies, which are now much further from viability. So forces have gathered against shale gas, with predictable results. "Fracking creates jobs"
This has to be one of the worst justifications for doing something.
It is short-term thinking. No, it's public relations and rationalization.
Brooks tries to be clever by casting environmental concerns as "moral corruption".
But such words are really divisive ploys.
Realistically, the fracking industry is planning for thousands of wells.
We already know that even in relatively smaller areas ,
the number of wells is in the 100's (e.g., 400 in Cooperstown).
The primary question to ask is: How many wells can be drilled / operated
without incident?
By incident, I don't mean just a "broken pipe" or "leak" in the well casing.
I include the spread of fracking compounds into ground water via natural fractures
AND via travel through old, abandoned wells as has been found by the
EPA studies in West Virginia.
I am convinced such incident(s) are inevitable.
Fracking wells are not like coal mining. It is more like nuclear power.
When an incident (eventually) does occur, the clean up problems will be enormous.
Not only will the problems be wide spread, they may be technically un-solvable.
Permanent contamination and abandonment may be the outcome.
The fracking industry has already faced crowds of skeptics,
but I am unaware a single idea being put forth in any forum,
how the industry proposes to decontaminate a polluted water resource.
Plastic booms are sort of difficult to put in place several hundred feet underground.
I have not heard of a single company that is in business to contain and/or
remove fracking chemicals from contaminated ground water resources.
I do agree though, such a company would create new kinds of jobs.
Politically, I ask myself, if fracking in innocuous and safe,
why has the industry lobbied to prevent governmental oversight, and
maintained secrecy about the fracking chemicals used under the blanket
of "proprietary information" ?
Somehow, a rush to begin industrial-strength fracking seems to me to be naive,
except to those companies and investors who think only in terms of $.
.
A few points to consider:
- The EPA is studying the matter in depth, moving towards a 2012 interim report and a 2014 final report. However, the EPA
has yet to document ANY confirmed groundwater contamination from fracking operations.
- "I am unaware" "I have not heard" Lack of information is not grounds for any conclusions.
- Similarly, the complaint that "...why has the industry... maintained secrecy about the fracking chemicals used under the blanket of "proprietary information"?" They haven't. You may now look up the list of fluids for any well, at
fracfocus.org.
- If you do, you'll find that the fluid is 98.5% water and 1% sand, leaving 0.5% for the "scary" parts such as acids, anti-bacterials and lubricants. Each well has a probability of contaminating a small area of ground water, even though such an occurrence has not happened we find it is "inevitable" in exactly the same way that every local gas station in the country may contaminate the ground water (and has).
- But not contaminating the water for a major city. Each well contains an average of 2 million gallons (again, 99.5% water and sand) and most of that fluid is recovered for use in the next drilling. The total flow of a major river is more on the order of 25 billion gallons per day and each river has the capacity to absorb a certain amount of pollutants to the point where they are measured in harmless parts per million.
- If it is not removed, it is displacing an even more poisonous gas which has been proven to contaminate wells. Such as the "methane faucet" of Gasland, which was...
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275
When the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission investigated the burning water of the well owner most prominently featured in Gasland, whose tap water was gray and actually effervesced, they found that his methane was naturally occurring and had nothing to do with any natural gas drilling. His water well had been drilled directly into a shallow natural gas deposit. Nevertheless, Gasland portrayed this as a consequence of fracking
So it isn't just me who is wondering why this one technique is being held to an unmeetable standard? The use of the precautionary principle in human activities seems to be something which could be used to stop anything if what constitutes harm is defined at a low enough threshold.
The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. Swiped from something sorta related
here.
A few points to consider:
- The EPA is studying the matter in depth, moving towards a 2012 interim report
and a 2014 final report. However, the EPA has yet to document ANY confirmed
groundwater contamination from fracking operations.
[COLOR="Navy"]Sorry, but the bit about EPA not documenting... is just not true.
Here is the link to EPA's; 1987 report, which did exactly that.
(See pages II-20 and II-23 (pp 149-151 of the PDF) in the section entitled:
"Damage to Water Wells from Oil or Gas Well Drilling and Fracturing"
There is discussion of that EPA report in my link above about West Virginia.
Here is that link again: http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade
The problems with statements about "EPA not documenting/etc... "are the
"wiggle words" or "omissions", i.e., EPA Drinking Water Act does not cover fracking
or there were violations of State law, not EPA, or not federal laws.[/COLOR]
- "I am unaware" "I have not heard" Lack of information is not grounds for any conclusions.
[COLOR="Navy"]Right, I'm not making a claim that such information does not exist.
If it does, someone needs to cite a reference or article[/COLOR]
- Similarly, the complaint that "...why has the industry... maintained secrecy
about the fracking chemicals used under the blanket of "proprietary information"?"
They haven't. You may now look up the list of fluids for any well, at fracfocus.org.
[COLOR="Navy"]Here are a couple of items on the first page of your link:[/COLOR]
November 1, 2011 (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS) Denver —
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has started
the process of adopting rules for the public disclosure of chemicals
used in hydraulic fracturing.
[COLOR="Navy"]Another on that same page:[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]Q.: I know there are wells in my area that have been fractured,
but when I search for them I get no results. Why?
A.:The most likely reasons are that either the wells were fractured before January 1, 2011
or they have not yet been entered into the system.
Only wells fractured [U]after January 1st [2011] [/U] will be entered into the system
[COLOR="Navy"]UT, I don't mean to be facetious.
I'm just pointing out that at the federal level, EPA was prohibited oversight of fracking
and lobbying did produce rules against such disclosures.
Public disclosure is/was left to the States to pass their own laws.
I agree, NOW there is a database to look up individual wells, etc.
The "fracfocus" is an industry operated database. (good ? bad ? )
And discussing the quality of that database is, perhaps, something for another day. [/COLOR]
- If you do, you'll find that the fluid is 98.5% water and 1% sand,
leaving 0.5% for the "scary" parts such as acids, anti-bacterials and lubricants.
Each well has a probability of contaminating a small area of ground water,
even though such an occurrence has not happened we find it is "inevitable"
in exactly the same way that every local gas station
in the country may contaminate the ground water (and has).
[COLOR="Navy"]Using % can be a booby trap
How much benzene (a carcinogen) is tolerable in drinking water ?
The EPA MCL is 0.005 mg/L or 0.05%, or 1/10 of the "scary parts"
I have no idea what that means... does anyone ?
I certainly would not drink it. :greenface
I agree with your example of gas stations leaking... they do.
But usually such leaks are into the ground (surface dirt) and
a man with a shovel +truck could deal with the problem.
It's not the same magnitude for fracking, where the deliberate
purpose of creating fractures to allowing materials to flow.
Compare the statement from above:[/COLOR]
"[COLOR="Black"]Each well has a probability of contaminating a small area of ground water,...[/COLOR]"
[COLOR="Navy"]With this: [/COLOR]
[COLOR="Black"]State regulators in Illinois and Texas, as well
as Congress’ investigative arm, the Government
Accountability Office, have also documented
contamination problems caused when oil and gas
waste fluids injected underground for disposal
migrated up nearby older wells and broke out
near the surface, where groundwater is found,
a phenomenon sometimes called “saltwater
breakout.”
One case in Texas involved fluid that
traveled half a mile underground from an injec-
tion well and then migrated up through an old,
improperly plugged well.
There were four abandoned natural gas wells
within about 1,700 feet of the gas well and water well
involved in the West Virginia case documented by the EPA in 1987.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Black"]- But not contaminating the water for a major city.
Each well contains an average of 2 million gallons (again, 99.5% water and sand)
and most of that fluid is recovered for use in the next drilling.
The total flow of a major river is more on the order of 25 billion gallons per day
and each river has the capacity to absorb a certain amount of pollutants
to the point where they are measured in harmless parts per million.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Navy"]Sorry, others may, but I just don't buy justification based on "Dilution is the solution"
[/COLOR]
- If it is not removed, it is displacing an even more poisonous gas which
has been proven to contaminate wells. Such as the "methane faucet" of Gasland, which was...
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275
[COLOR="Navy"]Again perhaps, the skeptoid website and the "Debunking of Gasland"
are for discussion on another day[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]
Sorry, others may, but I just don't buy justification based on "Dilution is the solution"
Sure you do. Because:
I agree with your example of gas stations leaking... they do. But usually such leaks are into the ground (surface dirt) and a man with a shovel +truck could deal with the problem.
Small leaks perfectly OK and can be cleaned with a shovel, but large dilute leaks are a mind-boggling disaster = you believe what you like to believe.
But toxicity is science. There's a part per million that won't hurt you -- and you are drinking and eating and breathing that part right now.
Point taken.
A man with a shovel can clean up a small (concentrated) leak.
The question remains: who and how for large dilute (?) leaks underground ?
The point of fracking is to create flow in the rock. This means any toxicity has greater potential to spread.
The fracking liquid is not the only source of toxins. Fossil carbon deposits contain all sorts of chemicals, a lot of which you don't want in your ground water. These would also be mobilised by fracking.
Take a long term view. A shale gas field would be productive for what, ten, twenty, thirty years? Contaminated groundwater would remain contaminated for ... centuries? How many jobs, and human lives, depend on that ground water? (Maybe here my Australian view is biasing me - we spend more time drilling for water than for oil, I think. Water is precious. Your view may differ.)
Back to a moratorium. It wouldn't "kill" the industry, just defer it. In a decade, the gas will still be there, and it will probably be worth even more. Brooks' thinking is very much RIGHT NOW, not at all long term.
Check out how the US lead industry for decades fought and suppressed the evidence about how bad lead was for human health. (Try A Short History of Almost Everything, Bill Bryson, quite a fun read). Think about how tobacco companies did the same about cigarettes.
I think people are right to be wary. We are relying for protection on a system that is slow and clumsy at best, and are risking significant long term penalties if this call is wrong.
Fracking IS an efficient and apparently clever way to extract the least-dirty fossil fuel. Provided it can be done without sodding up the groundwater and soil, we might as well. I think we should be more careful to make sure that proviso is being met before calling for full steam ahead. Remember, the companies who are saying we should take the risk are not the ones who will suffer if the risk goes bad. We all know where that can lead - Wall Street.
Contaminated groundwater would remain contaminated for ... centuries?
We'll just stick with the nukes then?
We'll just stick with the nukes then?
Which completely misses are few important points.
1) We have more than enough energy. The problem was obviously defined by this simple example. For every ten gallons of gasoline burned in a car, only about one actually does anything productive. We waste over 8 of those ten gallons doing nothing but heat, noise, and pollution. We don't have an energy shortage. We have an innovation shortage.
2) The problems with both nuclear power and fracking are not the process. In both cases, it is the management who screws everyone else for their greater glory and profit. In every case (Fukushima or fracking), problems were not created by the technology. Problems were created by management with outright contempt for the technology and for those who actually make things work.
These fracking problems are so serious that fracking has been banned in areas that provide NYC with drinking water. Or course, clean water is one reason for NYC's success. Water so clean that it is not even treated or chlorinated. Management problems and other unknowns are so great that fracking is banned where it might affect water supplies. And where consumers actually have political power.
1. Internal combustion cars are inefficient. That's an argument for changing the energy mix away from internal combustion. But electric cars are gonna have to be plugged in somewhere.
2. So we'll just stick with the coal then?
That's an argument for changing the energy mix away from internal combustion. But electric cars are gonna have to be plugged in somewhere.
Nobody said internal combustion must be so inefficient. And nobody said electric cars are a solution. Both speculations are often promoted as if fact in propaganda that exists without numbers.
Meanwhile, we don't have an energy shortage. Never did. We have an innovation shortage. Same reason also explains a shortage of jobs and another problem called global warming. Rather than innovate, many want to find solutions in sound bytes. "Drill, baby, drill."
Absolutely amazes me how so many want to waste so much money on more energy. Simply view the numbers of customers filling gas tanks at Wawa, Sheets, Hess, Giant, and US Gas. They remain so naive as to not understand why they are spending about $0.26 per gallon higher than the $3.47 showing on that pump. And why they increase this nation's foreign oil imports by maybe 8% to 14%. They do so because energy is so plentiful and cheap.
The coal then?
You are asking for an answer using concepts that MBAs use. Amazes me how the problem is solved by switching to an different fuel rather than address the actual problem.
Well, the answer if found in why hybrids extend the life expectacy of the internal combustion engine. This was all discussed previously with numbers.
An example of fools advocating absurd solutions was hydrogen. Another myth that was obviously a lie had they bothered to first learn the numbers. Had they first bothered to define the problem before solving it.
OK UT, how about...
Coal... for the next 10 years/then complete shutdown
Methane... for the following 10 years/then almost complete shutdown
Mixed solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc ... thereafter
Ultimately, oil will stop being a fuel and will be only a lubricant.
Electrical power will replace long distance carbon-based fuels
Nuclear, perhaps in a StarTrek sort of way, may be the ultimate long range fuel.
But until the waste disposal is acceptable, it probably "can't fly"
When these will happen will depend on when such decisions as:
... shut down the long haul trucking industry in favor of rail shipping
... shut down business air travel in favor of internet-types of video conferencing
... shut down personal air travel in favor of high speed rail service
The mechanisms of these changes will probably be $ and public attitudes.
It's the long term negative effects (nuclear waste storage, water contamination,
over-consumption of non-renewable resources) that need to be considered now,
not later when resolution of such problems will be more expensive or un-do-able.
Unforeseen problems are part of the process of innovation.
Overcoming these problems furthers innovation.
Well that seems like the most reasonable LL. Let's go with that.
I like the Lamplighter plan.
It won't happen overnight, but it had better happen.
...Ultimately, oil will stop being a fuel and will be only a lubricant....
I prefer K-Y, but whatever floats your boat.
Don't forget plastics, medicine, etc. There'll still be a market for oil.
I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.
Not just the best "battery", but the most efficient way to use (and re-use) energy, sending
it from point A to point B, C, D and back to A with the least amount of loss.
Drive energy production requirements way down - to the point of sustainability - this will minimize (though probably not eliminate) the importance of energy source.
The one with the best battery wins.
We just have to learn how to herd electric eels to work and back home again :)
But seriously, welcome to the discussion, Jacquelita
I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.
Hallelujah. Someone demonstrates a grasp of the actual problem. We have plenty of energy. More energy solves nothing. For the past decade, I kept posting variations of this expression. "Application to a changing load". And still don't understand why so many do not get it.
Burn ten gallons of gasoline in a car. Only a little more than one does anything productive? Over 8 gallons burned to do absolutely nothing. Why is that acceptable? Because so many want to solve the problem with alternative energy sources. So many would encourage the stifling of innovation by letting spin doctors avert the problem for political purposes or self serving profits.
This even applies to batteries. The bunny battery (Energizer, Duracell, etc) are a battery developed by Americans for WWII walkie-talkies. That little has been achieved in battery development. Most of that innovation has only achieved in the past generation.
Everyone remembers a GM electric car: EV1. Its designer wanted to use a new technology - the NiMHd battery. GM loves to screw the world to maximize profits. Business school graduates said GM did not make a NiMHd battery. So he had to use lead acid - an 1860 technology.
Hydrogen as a fuel benchmarks the so many brainwashed by business school liars. Hydrogen obviously solved nothing when George Jr (an MBA) advocated it in his State of the Union address. He demonstrates the problem. So many are brainwashed about alternative energy rather than address the problem. Only one plus gallons of gasoline moves a car that burns ten.
No viable replacement exists for petroleum. Nothing else has the energy concentration required. Damning reality to so many who forget to first define the problem. Solutions are found in application to a changing load. That (and not more energy) is the problem to be solved.
BTW, this month's edition of Scientific American describes fracking by defining the problem. And by defining spin that averts informed discussion.
Oil is and always will be part of our life. It is more than fuel. Our world is completely dependent.
"Application to a changing load".
Distributed electric production using wind and solar slaved to natural gas would seem to be the way to go, but Jacqie is right storage is the real barrier.
9 Shocking Things Made From Oil (PHOTOS)
(Not all that shocking, but you get the point. We can't do without it and live in our current state of existence.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/11/9-shocking-things-made-fr_n_570796.html#s89403&title=PlasticsI'm too lazy to check your links because I already agree. (lets mark this moment with a :beer: ) We make all sorts of things out of oil.
Which, to me, makes burning the stuff to get around seem awfully extravagant.
Just saw a report on TV about the significant rise in earthquakes near fracking sites.
One hypothesis is that fracking, which fractures rock, is affecting existing fault lines.
Of course, this is just a hypothesis. Since the proving of this hypothesis might damage a multi-billion dollar industry, I predict the swift hiring of battalions of lobbyists and tame scientists to delay, debate, and debunk any attempt at actual fact finding.
It took 50 years before pro-smoking forces finally folded their tents on the harmfulness of smoking.
Can the scrappy lobbyists of a nascent industry do as well as those of an entrenched industry at stopping any attempt to study an issue critical to public welfare? Only time will tell.
It is
only a hypothesis at this point, so no action is needed except more study. If, however, it is true, then the millions of dollars in damages need to measured against the benefits. This might make fracking uneconomic unless the industry manages to keep forcing the public to shoulder the burden. Some businesses are good at this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060798/Oklahoma-earthquake-possibly-caused-controversial-energy.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1108/Earthquakes-in-Oklahoma-Is-fracking-to-blame-or-something-else ..., but Jacqie is right storage is the real barrier.
Storage is one technique for adapting to a changing load. Electricity is another technique to address the actual problem.
This is old technology. Implemented even in 1930 diesel electric locomotives to make another poor system redundant - steam locomotives. Steam locomotive was obsoleted quickly because it could not adapt to a changing load.
From the NY Times of 2 Dec 2011:
Learning Too Late of the Perils in Gas Well Leases
So Mr. Ely said he was surprised several years later when the drilling company, Cabot Oil and Gas, informed them that rather than draining and hauling away the toxic drilling sludge stored in large waste ponds on the property, it would leave the waste, cover it with dirt and seed the area with grass. He knew that waste pond liners can leak, seeping contaminated waste.
"I guess our terms should have been clearer" about requiring the company to remove the waste pits after drilling, said Mr. Ely, of Dimock, Pa., who sued Cabot after his drinking water from a separate property was contaminated. "We learned that the hard way." ...
In Pennsylvania, Colorado and West Virginia, some landowners have had to spend hundreds of dollars a month to buy bottled water or maintain large tanks, known as water buffaloes, for drinking water in their front yards. They said they learned only after the fact that the leases did not require gas companies to pay for replacement drinking water if their wells were contaminated, and despite state regulations, not all costs were covered. ...
Some industry officials say the criticism of their business practices is misguided. Asked about the waste pits on Mr. Ely’s land in Pennsylvania, for example, George Stark, a Cabot spokesman, said the company’s cleanup measures met or exceeded state requirements. ...
Mr. Astrella said that leases also typically lacked a clause requiring drillers to pay for a test of the property's well water before drilling started, and landowners often do not think to do the tests themselves. If drilling leads to problems with drinking wells, landowners have few options if they want to prove that their water was fine before drilling started.
For some landowners, it can be a costly mistake.
"It's been one expense after another since our water went bad, and the company only has to cover part of it," said Ronald Carter, 72, of Montrose, Pa. ...
On Wednesday, Cabot stopped delivering water to the Carters, the Elys and others in Dimock after state regulators said the company had satisfied requirements of a settlement agreement with the state.
Drilling is already contaminating land and water that provides drinking water for Wilkes Barre, Harrisburg, and Chesapeake Bay (Maryland). That includes Dimock and Montrose. Other water sources currently protected but under threat of future drilling include drinking water for Easton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, and a large part of western New Jersey including Princeton.
The Governor of PA has been taking major campaign contributions for stifling all regulation on these drillers. Has insisted all this has not contaminated water supplies. Has banned taxes on any of these wells except by the local county. Even townships get nothing from the risk that they are stuck with long after the drilling companies have no more responsibility. Cities such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia must suffer risk to their water supplies but get no money from the mineral rights.
Burial of toxic chemicals inside plastic sheets is supposed to protect the water? Nonsense.
They can leave extremely toxic chemicals on the land. PA Governor Tom Corbett says that is safe.
Put simply, the federal laws are slanted in favor of shielding fracking operations,
and state laws are currently insufficient to protect the public interests.
It's up to citizens in each state to get ahead of the fracking industry
by getting state laws updated enough to protect land owners and water resouces.
Of course, the fracking industry is relatively certain this won't happen in time to stop them.
.
Hey, we allow poisons in our air and rat shit in our food, why start regulating now?
There is an improved version of fracking on the way called
liquified petroleum gas fracking that will eliminate the use of water which has been a major problem.
I'm assuming the the buried waste is being contained the same way landfills do it, which may not be good enough. I don't know the level of contamination we're talking about though. The whole system needs to be transparent, but Corbett and Cabot hate that idea. We are talking about one player, Cabot, which has proven to be a corner cutter and ought to be cut out of the picture. The water delivery thing is a made for media event, however. Cabot was going to hook them to municipal water, but they refused. They then offered to put methane elimination in each house and were refused. They didn't want the problem dealt with, probably due to lawyerly intervention looking for a big cash payout, which is understandable. The contamination is upper level methane which existed in their water to some extent but may have been exacerbated but improper concreting. They do not have fracking chemicals in their well water. The lefty mayor of Binghamton is now inserting himself into the situation, so there will be many photo ops.
Griff, thanks for finding this article.
It's the first I've seen that seems to offer any better way to go.
Like any "new" idea, there are always questions lingering in the background.
Some are discussed
in the link provided within your article.
The one of greatest concern right now seems to be the US patent
and proprietary aspects of implementation.
Apparently the patent is awaiting US approval, and held by a small company
that may not be able to service the entire industry.
Plus the wait-and-see attitude of the existing fracking companies.
In the meantime the "water-fracking" companies will continue doing what they do.
Cost and potential danger of explosions have to be considered,
but these are routine bean-counter and technical steps along the way.
Again Griff, good catch.
[COLOR="Black"]Your congress in action - working for the good of (his) people[/COLOR]
NY Times
ERIC LIPTON
12/3/11
As Gas Riches Remake Plains, Lawmaker Shares in Bounty
The spreading wealth from gas fields has also benefited Representative Dan Boren,
a Democrat who has deep family ties to the industry
— and has acted as one of its best friends on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Boren’s stepfather is an independent oil and natural gas producer in East Texas, just over the border.
His father, David Boren, a former senator and Oklahoma governor, received $350,000 last year
in total compensation for serving on the board of Continental Resources,
whose stock has surged while it helps lead the exploration of gas reserves nationwide.<snip>
Mr. Boren was among the 41 House Democrats who joined Republicans
in 2005 to pass legislation that largely prohibited the federal government
from regulating fracking under the Safe Water Drinking Act,
and he has repeatedly pushed the Obama administration since then to keep the prohibition in place.<snip>
The congressman’s income has jumped in the last six years, thanks to two family businesses
he partly owns that have signed more than 300 mineral leases,
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Many of those deals are with Chesapeake Energy, a top donor to his campaigns.<snip>
Between 2005, when Mr. Boren entered Congress, and 2011, his family
signed 325 oil and gas leases on thousands of acres of mineral rights;
in the previous five years they signed only 35, according to state records.<snip>
Serving as co-chairman of the House Natural Gas Caucus, Mr. Boren has worked
to block any move by federal regulators to restrain the drilling and efforts
by the Obama administration to curtail tax benefits for the gas and oil industries.
He has also pushed for federal incentives to increase demand for natural gas.
And he sees no problem with entangling his professional advocacy and his self-interest.
“There’s zero conflict,” Mr. Boren said in an interview.
“It’s like if you are living in a timber community and your parents are working for the local mill.
You should go and advocate for your local mill, even if you derive some benefit from it.”
The (E) elite party... The (Letter) after their name means very little anymore other than which sales pitch they are throwing.
Lots of borderline criminal stuff going on here. A couple local lawyers were representing gas companies and land-owners and buying property to lease to the gas companies... They didn't even get dis(?)barred even though they clearly had a conflict of interest.
[COLOR="Black"]And the damages to water resources continues,
but now EPA had joined the friggin fracking fracus.[/COLOR]
LA Times
Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau
December 8, 2011
EPA says 'fracking' probably contaminated well water in Wyoming
The Environmental Protection Agency said that hydraulic fracturing,
a controversial natural gas drilling process, probably contaminated well water in Wyoming,
a finding sure to roil the debate about expanding natural gas drilling around the country.
The EPA's new draft report found dangerous amounts of benzene in a monitoring well
near the town of Pavillion, in central Wyoming.
The EPA is conducting a comprehensive study about the possible effect
of "fracking" on water resources, but initial results are not expected until late 2012.
As a result, the Pavillion report may not give either side in the fracking debate
the conclusive answers they seek.
But the EPA report is the first that uses multiple, on-the-ground samples
to determine the effect of fracking on underground water sources in areas of oil and gas development.
"Alternative explanations were carefully considered to explain individual sets of data,"
the EPA report said of the presence of synthetic chemicals found in the Wyoming water.
"However, when considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicate
likely impact to groundwater that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing."
The Feds are looking into the Dimock situation after the state DEP essentially sided with the gas company. I'd been pretty skeptical of the land-owner claims assuming some level of neutrality at DEP. We'll see what the Feds say. Dem President and Rep Governor somebody or everybody is letting political expediency guide what should be a clear issue of environmental testing. Yay for election years...:greenface
There is also another new fracking method coming on line that is more an expansion of the old technique than a less controversial technology. Interesting times...
Lots of borderline criminal stuff going on here.
In much the same way as the Atlantic ocean is a border between North America and Europe.
EPA: Water quality OK in Pa. gas drilling town
Contamination in Dimock wells within safe levels, it says
SCRANTON, Pa. -- Federal environmental regulators said Thursday that well water testing at 11 homes in a northeastern Pennsylvania village where a gas driller was accused of polluting the aquifer failed to show elevated levels of contamination.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which is sampling well water at dozens of homes in Dimock, Susquehanna County, said initial test results "did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern."
Dimock has been at the center of a fierce debate over the environmental and public health impacts of Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale drilling industry.
State environmental regulators had previously determined that Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. contaminated the aquifer underneath homes along Carter Road in Dimock with explosive levels of methane gas. Residents who are suing Cabot assert their water is also polluted with drilling chemicals. Many other residents of Dimock say that the water is clean and that the plaintiffs are exaggerating problems with their wells to help their lawsuit. Three cheers for Oceania! We've defeated Eurasia!
Dimock? Isn't that Cantonese for death touch?
Foots, your very cheery tonight.
three cheers for cheeriness!
Dimock? Isn't that Cantonese for death touch?
It is becoming that, which is really pissing off the locals who are not party to the dispute.
We're gonna frack in Ohio.
We're gonna frack it but, *good*
Cabot Oil and Gas are coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drilling,
Four fracked in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Frackers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if your water
left you dead on the ground
How can you drink when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Frackers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if your water
left you dead on the ground
How can you drink when you know?
Cabot Oil and Gas are coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drilling,
Four fracked in Ohio.
We can Frack if we want to
We can frack your farm's behind
Cuase your farms don't frack
and if they don't frack
they're no farms of mine
How can we frack when our earth is turning
How do we frack while our faucet's burning
How can we frack when our earth is turning
How do we frack while our faucet's burning
I wanna frack you like an animal!
I want to drill you from the inside
I wanna frack you like an animal!
My whole aquifer is flawed
You get me closer to Gawd.
frank you all. Imma go sit and watch my windmill turn...
EPA: Water quality OK in Pa. gas drilling town
Contamination in Dimock wells within safe levels, it says
SCRANTON, Pa. -- Federal environmental regulators said Thursday that well water testing at 11 homes in a northeastern Pennsylvania village where a gas driller was accused of polluting the aquifer failed to show elevated levels of contamination.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which is sampling well water at dozens of homes in Dimock, Susquehanna County, said initial test results "did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern."
Dimock has been at the center of a fierce debate over the environmental and public health impacts of Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale drilling industry.
State environmental regulators had previously determined that Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. contaminated the aquifer underneath homes along Carter Road in Dimock with explosive levels of methane gas. Residents who are suing Cabot assert their water is also polluted with drilling chemicals. Many other residents of Dimock say that the water is clean and that the plaintiffs are exaggerating problems with their wells to help their lawsuit.
Do you trust these government regulators?
Taking lease money from fracking companies may seem like a good deal... (right now).
But when these property owners go to sell or refinance,
they suddenly may wish they had paid more attention to the warning signs.
Neighbors should be talking with one another about what is going on in their area,
including this policy development....
NY Times
IAN URBINA
March 18, 2012
Mortgages for Drilling Properties May Face Hurdle
The Department of Agriculture is considering requiring an extensive environmental review
before issuing mortgages to people who have leased their land for oil and gas drilling.
Last year more than 140,000 families, many of them with low incomes and living in rural areas,
received roughly $18 billion in loans or loan guarantees from the department
under the Rural Housing Service program. Much of the money went to residents in states that have seen
the biggest growth in drilling in recent years, including Pennsylvania, Texas and Louisiana.
The program is popular because it generally requires no down payment.
As its financing has grown and credit markets have tightened in recent years,
the program’s loans have roughly quadrupled since 2004.
<snip>
The proposal by the Agriculture Department, which has signaled its intention
in e-mails to Congress and landowners, reflects a growing concern that
[COLOR="DarkRed"]lending to owners of properties with drilling leases might violate the National Environmental Policy Act,
known as NEPA, which requires environmental reviews before federal money is spent.
Because that law covers all federal agencies, the department’s move
raises questions about litigation risks for other agencies, legal experts said. [/COLOR]
<snip>
Over the last year, some banks and federal agencies have started revisiting their lending policies
to account for the potential impact of drilling on property values.
“[COLOR="DarkRed"]We will no longer be financing homes with gas leases,” [/COLOR]Jennifer Jackson,
program director for rural loans in the Agriculture Department’s New York office,
wrote in an internal e-mail this month, citing several factors,
including the costs of conducting such reviews.
Do you trust these government regulators?
I do... but only for what it's worth in the exact wording of the EPA statements.
I have not seen this EPA report, but I read somewhere that they were
testing only for certain
specific fracking-additives in the ground water.
For those tests, I would believe the specific data values obtained
and those values being below EPA's "maximum allowable limits".
This would then allow EPA to state their tests "did not show levels
of contamination that could present a health concern."
This statement does
not say the values were zero or non-detectable
Beyond that, there might be additives for which EPA did not test, or
toxic levels that are below the limits EPA now considers to be safe.
Likewise, they may not have tested all appropriate water sources.
(The unknown boogeyman argument.)
I feel EPA is generally what you want in a governmental agency.
That is, their actions are based heavily on scientific sampling, testing and lab assays, etc.
From my experience interacting with EPA , they are pretty "unbiased".
Also, they are subject to public hearings and inputs, so there is a "real world" link in their actions.
Compared with agencies (such as the Dept of Agriculture) that
have missions "to promote...", I put EPA at a pretty high level of authenticity.
Industry and business don't always have the same opinions of EPA.
Remember the politicians who pledged to voters they would "get rid of EPA" ?
The other side of industry is, if EPA says it's OK then it's OK,
regardless of some lab data values being above zero.
Do you trust these government regulators?
Not with great depth in an election year. They (DEP and EPA) are, however, our only option so I hope their decisions are based on the best science. Like lamp I rate them higher than whoring agencies like Dept of Ag.
This came up on my news feed.
The natural gas jobs-and-investment scene is going gangbusters, but despite the boon to our economy and energy portfolio, environmentalists just can’t abide forms of energy that a) make money, and b) provide affordable energy to the masses. They’ve got all sorts of projects going to shoot the whole industry down.
The battle plan is called “Beyond Natural Gas,” and Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune announced the goal in an interview with the National Journal this month: “We’re going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can.” The big green lobbying machine has rolled out a new website that says “The natural gas industry is dirty, dangerous and running amok” and that “The closer we look at natural gas, the dirtier it appears; and the less of it we burn, the better off we will be.” So the goal is to shut the industry down, not merely to impose higher safety standards.
This is no idle threat. The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its “Beyond Coal” campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party. …
The federal Energy Information Administration reports that in 2009 “the 4% drop in the carbon intensity of the electric power sector, the largest in recent times, reflects a large increase in the use of lower-carbon natural gas because of an almost 50% decline in its price.” The Department of Energy reports that natural gas electric plants produce 45% less carbon than coal plants, though newer coal plants are much cleaner.
and this ...
The controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas does not pose a high risk for triggering earthquakes large enough to feel, but other types of energy-related drilling can make the ground noticeably shake, a major government science report concludes.
Even those man-made tremors large enough to be an issue are very rare, says a special report by the National Research Council. In more than 90 years of monitoring, human activity has been shown to trigger only 154 quakes, most of them moderate or small, and only 60 of them in the United States. That’s compared to a global average of about 14,450 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater every year, said the report, released Friday.
more links at the link
LinkMeh. Very glad that Vermont's banned that shit. I actually interviewed for a job with/had an observation day the other day with VPIRG, the VT public interest research group, who were instrumental in getting that legislation passed.
I was in Dimock over the weekend when I went to the sheep dog trials at Sheepy Hallow in Hopbottom. Unlike New York where gas is highly politicized, I counted all of three gas related signs. One giant anti banner, one don't believe the liberal media sign, and one sign reminding people that the water in Dimock has been tested by the EPA and is safe to drink. Cabot sponsored the sheep dog trials and had a spokesman on hand to answer questions. It is a world view controversy. The "local" opposition is out of Ithaca, New York which as the bumper sticker says is "10 square miles surrounded by reality". People were polite and much more into the dogs than the controversy. Benny had a great time.
Griff! How ya been?
Are you out for summer yet?
Been good, needed to cut my screen time to break a depressy mood. One more week! Imma work part-time this Summer though as some of these kids lose too much ground if they're off until Fall. It should leave time for this kinda stuff, general farm craziness, and some puppy training.
Benny is beautiful. :thumb2:
He should be with Griff and a house full of beautiful women fawning over him. Come to think of it, all the critters we've seen at Griftopia looked happy.;)
Meh. Very glad that Vermont's banned that shit.
To be bold, Vermont banned fracking because they are just as anti-intellectual as the anti-climate change group. The only difference is that they vote for different parties. Now I am not an expert on hydraulic fracturing, but as someone who has done a lot of work in rock mechanics I know enough to realize that almost every claim by the anti-fracking crowd is unrepresentative, if not outright wrong.
Hydraulic fracturing is a potentially dangerous method that can cause massive environmental harm if performed irresponsibly. There will always be an inherent risk with gas and oil extraction from fracking methods, but most if not all risk can be reduced to basically nothing if performed correctly.
I will admit that oil, gas, and especially mining companies tend to be oblivious to public opinion and concerns and that is something that needs to change. They know that they are an indispensable resource and many hold the "too big to fail" mindset. Yet, to completely work against these companies, like banning fracking, is no different than outright banning derivatives on wall street.
Quickly onto the science.
1) Fracturing shale will not cause the oil or gas to reach natural aquifers. Shale reserves are many THOUSANDS of feet underground while aquifers are usually less than a hundred. Also, shale is a weak rock and only occupies a smaller layer of the overall geology. This means that there are THOUSANDS of feet of more competent, impermeable rock that will not allow any gas or oil to reach the drinking water.
What can happen is that gas or oil leaks from the borehole (well). This can easily be prevented by highly insulating the borehole depths where drinking water is present.
2) Now I don't have too much knowledge of the chemicals used in process but basically they included to make the rock more viscous (why else would they do it??) and to mitigate other issues that can arise.
This link gives a list of some of the additives and the reason for their use.
http://www.chk.com/Media/Educational-Library/Fact-Sheets/Corporate/Hydraulic_Fracturing_Fact_Sheet.pdf
3) Fracking will not magically cause earthquakes. Just so you guys are aware, I am defining earthquake as something that will cause damage to surface structures. Fracking will cause micro-seismic events (the fracturing itself) but these alone will not produce anything over 4.5 or so on the Richter scale (remember the Richter scale is exponential!).
In order for a earthquake to occur, the stress (forces) on a fault must be greater than the resistance (this is a simplification!). In rare circumstances, it is possible for rock fractures to cause a stress redistribution which can overly stress a fault. But, this can easily be prevented by initially identifying these risky regions and avoiding them. To my knowledge, this is already happening.
To add to my argument, a study was performed determining the contamination from each stage at drilling. The injection (hydraulic fracturing) process was found to be the LEAST damaging!
http://energy.utexas.edu/images/ei_shale_gas_regulation120215.pdf
In summary, hydraulic fracturing is an important technique that is inherently risky, but manageable if performed correctly. I, and other people in the field, will admit that there is a lack of consistency between companies and how the frack. This leads some companies to cut corners and damage the surrounding environment, harming the process for everyone.
This is number one concern environmentalists should be focused on. Put more regulation on fracking, don't outright ban it.
I agree that regulating would be better than banning but it's a tough sell to people that have witnessed so much failure.
Industry, after industry, from coal mines and oil companies, to food producers and financial institutions, were supposed to be regulated only to find half were on an honor system, and the other half were watched over by industry insiders.
Then when they get caught, or worse fuck up big time, it's oh sorry here's .00001% of the extra profit we made by destroying your corner of the world for the foreseeable future.
To really regulate these potentially disastrous operations takes tough independent watchers who know exactly what's going on in these "proprietary" processes, and that takes money. Nobody wants to pay for it.
Everything Bruce said + hey lets work on RENEWABLE and SUSTAINABLE energy CMON
What Bruce and Ibby said.
[voiceover]
...from the industry that brought you the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon it's .... SAFE DRINKING WATER!!! :right:
<snip>
In summary, hydraulic fracturing is an important technique
that is inherently risky, but manageable if performed correctly.
I, and other people in the field, will admit that there is a lack
of consistency between companies and how the frack.
This leads some companies to cut corners and damage the surrounding environment,
harming the process for everyone.
This is number one concern environmentalists should be focused on.
Put more regulation on fracking, don't outright ban it.
PW45, I sincerely appreciate your post.
I think you've made a genuine effort to address the issues,
without the hysteria that I usually infuse into my own writing.
Obviously, internal sources of natural gas are very important to the US economy.
And as you say, fracking can be an efficient way to obtain it... IF
... it is done in the right (environmentally safe) way.
But even in your current posting, this tiny word creeps in to many paragraphs.
For me, the issues are that the fracking chemicals are not environmentally safe.
And
even if each particular fracking-well is constructed properly,
EPA has shown that the chemicals can make their way into other passages
(such as abandoned wells) and back up towards the surface.
Again for me, IF the industry were to put forth a feasible way to recover most of
the fracking chemicals once the fissuring-operation is completed,
it would be much more politically acceptable.
But I personally can't imagine how that would be done.
Likewise, and closer to impossible, would be how to rehabilitate
a contaminated ground water or drinking water source.
More distantly, natural gas is still putting CO2 into the atmosphere,
and as such has the same political problems as the fabled "clean coal".
Here in PDX, the Willamette River is considered to have been cleaned
and is a show piece for many environmentalists.
But in the
downtown area of the river, it is still an EPA Superfund Toxic Waste site.
Dioxans and many other industrial polutants are in the mud sediments of the river bottom,
and there is immense worry about disturbing these sediments and
spreading the carcinogens throughout the river systems.
Some of the clean up problems are due to the companies and
industries that caused the situation have gone out of business
All these years after Love Canal, the professionals have finally developed plans for
starting the clean up.
But it will still be many years and $millions before the work actually begins or is completed.
Given the Sunday morning tv ads, I am troubled by the credibility of the coal and fracking industries.
I agree that regulating would be better than banning but it's a tough sell to people that have witnessed so much failure.
Industry, after industry, from coal mines and oil companies, to food producers and financial institutions, were supposed to be regulated only to find half were on an honor system, and the other half were watched over by industry insiders.
Then when they get caught, or worse fuck up big time, it's oh sorry here's .00001% of the extra profit we made by destroying your corner of the world for the foreseeable future.
To really regulate these potentially disastrous operations takes tough independent watchers who know exactly what's going on in these "proprietary" processes, and that takes money. Nobody wants to pay for it.
Understandable. I understand that anecdotal accounts are extremely powerful, big industry has a horrible track record with this kind of stuff, and there is a strong case of "I support this but not in my backyard" but what are the alternatives?
On a side note, I feel fracking is more of a scape goat for the entire extraction process.
+ hey lets work on RENEWABLE and SUSTAINABLE energy CMON
It's a nice little bumper sticker but currently doesn't hold up to reality. And just so you are aware, there is currently a shit ton of work on renewable and sustainable energy. I mean, A LOT. There are many extremely intelligent people working on various creative ideas.
The problem is that they are so far from being economically feasible, or entirely impractical all together, that no one is willing to invest. In the midwest you will see wind farms but these provide very little additional energy and there are many issues quickly arising with them. Solar isn't much better. Geothermal energy requires fracking and is much riskier in certain aspects. Nuclear, which I personally support in many cases, has very little political support. There are other ideas I won't go into but they currently more unrealistic than any of the standard ideas.
That leaves what? Eventually, I am confident that certain forms of renewable energy will eventually arise that will eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. But, that time will not come for many more decades. That leaves us in an intermediary period where there is no good solution to our global energy needs. All the cheap, easily accessible oil is gone or under control of authoritarian or unstable regimes. Clean renewable sources are not even close to mature enough to power a national grid. That leaves dirty unconventional oil whose extraction is risky and mistakes can cause local economic devastation. This is far from ideal but it is the reality.
Obviously, internal sources of natural gas are very important to the US economy.
And as you say, fracking can be an efficient way to obtain it... IF
... it is done in the right (environmentally safe) way.
But even in your current posting, this tiny word creeps in to many paragraphs.
That tiny word is inevitable. But, it is also currently present in any other form of energy extraction or production. Not to very overly pessimistic, but we need to choose our poison.
EPA has shown that the chemicals can make their way into other passages (such as abandoned wells) and back up towards the surface.
I'm not denying that it hasn't happened but in what cases? The point is that many fracking situations involve situations where there really is zero chance of the residual chemicals reaching the surface (assuming the well is properly sealed). If that wasn't true, there currently would not be any research in CO2 sequestration and there currently is a lot. I am guessing that situation occurred in a situation where the shale gas was very close to surface, which is not usual.
Remember, shale gas and oil extraction situations can occur in many different situations. Banning the entire process due to problems from one type of situation doesn't make sense.
Again for me, IF the industry were to put forth a feasible way to recover most of the fracking chemicals once the fissuring-operation is completed, it would be much more politically acceptable. But I personally can't imagine how that would be done. Likewise, and closer to impossible, would be how to rehabilitate a contaminated ground water or drinking water source.
Fracking will never recover all the fluid but I'm sure the industry is doing everything they can to recover as much as possible. It wouldn't make sense for them to just leave it there and spend additional money to create more.
Although, this argument doesn't make too much sense since gas shale is looked into for CO2 sequestration. I don't know much about it so I am not going to make any definitive statements but if that is true, then residual frack chemicals shouldn't make it the surface anyways...
There is work to convert CO2 into calcite but that may be a completely different issue.
More distantly, natural gas is still putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and as such has the same political problems as the fabled "clean coal".
Of course, but what are the alternatives? There is currently no way to completely eliminate CO2 emissions so it makes perfect sense to work on ways to reduce them.
Some of the clean up problems are due to the companies and
industries that caused the situation have gone out of business
Yes, even though it isn't ideal or even close to perfect, regulating the companies while in business is the best solution in my opinion.
The reality is, all the products we want and depend on are produced using environmentally hazardous methods. Unless nanotechnology suddenly takes off, there is no way to avoid this. So instead of cutting off our nose to smite our face, there needs to be innovation in regulations that works with companies to being as environmentally friendly as possible without becoming economically unsustainable. There are many problems that arise with that but I guess that is why there is never any simple solutions....
For CO2 sequestration, if it fails we're back to where we started. But if fracking fails we're in deep shit.
So we need to hold their balls in a pair of vice-grips to make sure they are vewy vewy careful. :haha:
For CO2 sequestration, if it fails we're back to where we started. But if fracking fails we're in deep shit.
That is true from an environmental aspect. Economically, if CO2 sequestration fails, a lot of money is lost.
So we need to hold their balls in a pair of vice-grips to make sure they are vewy vewy careful. :haha:
Agreed.
That leaves what?
(even more) substantial government investment.
Expand. In academic research or industry?
So we need to hold their balls in a pair of vice-grips to make sure they are vewy vewy careful.
Problems start where best solutions must always first be implemented. Peer pressure. Casing failures are major disasters if casing failures are only 5%. Unfortunately the industry is rather lacks about promoting peer pressure on their bad apples.
Also necessary is to define every chemical in that fracking fluid so that all (even generations later) know exactly what was put in there.
The earth is chock full of fissures. That means corrupt fracking companies can know they are creating a disaster. And the disaster does not appear in the drinking water for decades.
Since those chemicals are unknown (a secret), then corrupt fracking companies have little fear about dumping toxic chemicals elsewhere.
First step to addressing the issues and to gain public trust is for fracking companies to be brutal and excessive with their bad apples. No such structure exists. The fracking industry would have you believe the entire industry is good because the other 'apples' try to be honest.
Credibility means the industry viciously attacks and 'corrects' their bad apples. If not, the industry has a serious credibility issue.
Expand. In academic research or industry?
both! you made the point that right now, the cost vs profit just isn't there, and there isn't enough interest by corporations in putting their money into technology, research, and actual execution, with no hope for real profit in the near future.
That's what government is
for. to step in when the market fails.
We need infrastructure spending
anyway. we need clean or renewable energy
anyway. we need more research
anyway. all of those things will return on their investments hugely, but not in a time frame that makes economic sense for corporations or private capital. Thats
why we have a government.
Fortunately, no one ever makes a mistake and pushes the wrong button.
ABC News
RALEIGH, N.C. July 4, 2012 (AP)
NC State Rep Pushes Wrong Button, Overrides Veto
A North Carolina state representative says she voted mistakenly to override
the governor's veto of a bill to allow the shale gas exploration called "fracking"
but was told she couldn't change it because this would have altered the outcome.
Democratic Rep. Becky Carney of Charlotte says she pushed the green "yes" button
at her desk Monday night to override Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's veto
of the measure before realizing she wanted to vote red, or "no."
Her "yes" vote made the tally 72-47 — just above the 60 percent required
to override in the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The chamber's rules prevent members from changing a vote if it affects the outcome.
Carney had voted earlier against fracking. She said Tuesday she feels terrible
about her error but acknowledged the bill passed legally.
MIT issued a 178-page report called “The Future of Natural Gas”
With over 20,000 shale wells drilled in the last 10 years, the environmental record of shale gas development
has for the most part been a good one — but it is important to recognize the inherent risks and the damage
that can be caused by just one poor operation. (page 39) The fracturing process itself poses minimal risk to
the shallow groundwater zones that may exist in the upper portion of the wellbore. (page 40)
The physical realities of the fracturing process, combined with the lack of reports from the many wells to date of fracture fluid contamination of groundwater, supports the assertion that fracturing itself does not create environmental concerns. (page 41)
The report also finds that it’s very likely we’ll see an increase in the number of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles due to the abundance of cheap natural gas.
It’s a fascinating report.
Take the time to at least scan it. Classic, I actually had "scanned" that report earlier. I don't remember
all my thoughts, but IIRC I felt it was a valid engineering study.
By that, I mean... as written from the "technical side" of the industry.
In scanning the Study Group Participants, it looks as though all are
well-credentialed members from engineering, management, or banking.
For a technical study group, that is fine. (I do believe this)
But I looked for people that might be representing public health or
environmental aspects, and found only one... maybe there are others.
Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible.
But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage,
and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs.
It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.
As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems
that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.
Urgency is a factor in making decisions, but short term economic
needs should not overwhelm planning for long term (unintended) consequences.
My major concerns to avoid repeating our history in Montana and Appalachia,
are the technical "how-to's" and the $cost of cleanups after a water supply is contaminated.
For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.
deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter
But natgas is toxic and it's in the ground now! What to do??? :confused:
But natgas is toxic and it's in the ground now! What to do??? :confused:
UT, just to be argumentative... If by "natgas" you mean "natural gas" or methane,
so are 02 and CO2 (in high enough concentrations).
I was referring to the compounds they add to the fracking fluids,
such known carcinogens as benzene and s2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE)
(
Scientific American. Nov 2011).
EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells,
and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers.
.
Newsmax
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012 04:29 AM
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Kasich-Backed Bill Keeps Some Fracking Compounds Secret
A bill that requires that companies disclose chemicals used in gas fracking
in Ohio still allows some of the compounds to be kept secret.<snip>
The Senate bill, backed by Gov. John Kasich,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]will require that companies report most fracking compounds to the state,
unless they involve chemicals deemed proprietary or a trade secret[/COLOR].
In that case, the substances would only be identified by their chemical class.
<snip>
Trent Dougherty, a lawyer with the advocacy group Ohio Environmental Council,
said the bill will not inform the public what is being used in fracking operations.
“It will only spark more debate and more discussion about what is a trade secret
and what really needs to be held in confidence,” he said.
That's what government is for. to step in when the market fails.
We need infrastructure spending anyway. we need clean or renewable energy anyway. we need more research anyway. all of those things will return on their investments hugely, but not in a time frame that makes economic sense for corporations or private capital. Thats why we have a government.
Ideally I agree but increasing funding on research doesn't guarantee results since many breakthroughs are technologically limited. My research for example. No matter how much funding was poured into the topic 10-15 years ago, the smartest professors could not produce more results than I, a single master's student, can now solely because of computing power. Much of the technology is just not ready yet and improvements come slowly. Over the course of years, as technology improves, these alternative energies will become slowly more efficient until it either reaches a peak or becomes close to economically feasible and the private industry will invest an incredible amount of money in it.
Also, it is possible that reducing greenhouse gases requires more research in producing cleaner fossil fuels than research in alternative energy. Then, as technology catches up, alternative energy can take off.
Although, if you really want to promote non-fossil fuel sources as energy, push nuclear. The technology is there and it is safe and clean. The only obstacles are politics and a lack of incentive for private companies to invest in new nuclear facilities (that is where the government comes in).
Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible. But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage, and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs. It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.
It is no different than off-shore drilling. If a bad accident happens, the local environment is most likely devastated. In the case of fracking, the local aquifer. I agree that the industry is not good with public relations in that sense and needs to improve but I doubt the industry could ever produce an acceptable plan.
On the other hand, environmental groups also need to be more technical. The basic concepts of fracking are not that difficult (unlike financial regulation) but there seems to be a refusal to learn.
As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.
Based on how many incidents that have happened, I don't think it was failure of "best practices". It is more likely a mix of probability (spills can happen no matter how good the practice is) and bad practice (improper sealing of boreholes for example). Increasing technology will create safer practice but those are more design and regulation issues than fracking technology.
For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.
EPA found such chemicals in Wyoming aquifer-monitoring wells, and did not find the sort of agricultural chemicals as insecticides or fertilizers.
You realize that these two issues are unrelated?
Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so) and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel. And remember, this is going against gravity! In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient. If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction, which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface.
Also, gas companies are not deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground. I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology.
What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer. This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.
<snip>
Once again, shale formations are thousands of feet deep (8,000 or so)
and aquifers are below 1,000 ft if not 100. That leaves 7,000 feet of
very low permeability rock for the chemicals to travel.
And remember, this is going against gravity!
In order for the chemicals to travel that 7,000 feet, there must be a TREMENDOUS pressure gradient.
If there are chemicals still left in the ground, that means there either is
a very small pressure gradient from the rock and the borehole or a lot of friction,
which means it is a near impossibility for the chemicals to reach the surface.
Also, gas companies are [COLOR="DarkRed"]not deliberately[/COLOR] leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground.
I mentioned this. This are irrecoverable with our current technology.
What contaminates groundwater are leaks or failure of the steel
and concrete coverings separating the borehole from the aquifer.
This has nothing to do with the injection process and is preventable.
Although the EPA Report will not be out until the end of this year,
the link/article I cited above was pretty explicit.
A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo.,
contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one
chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results
released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.
<snip>
The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas
that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy.
The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry
says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination
was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.
I readily agree this gas field has been drilled and fracked
for many years, and so technology has (almost certainly) improved.
But nonetheless, that aquifer is now contaminated.
Other than "dilution is the solution", what does the industry offer
to mitigate such events, particularly if 20 years from now we find that
today's best practices are not sufficient.
PH45, in an earlier post you mentioned nanotechnology.
Is that something like the "Fabreze" deodorizer in which
the offending smell molecule is physically trapped inside
the deodorizer chemical... e.g. inside a special "Bucky-ball" ?
particularly if 20 years from now we find that today's best practices are not sufficient.
For your concern to be justified many more aquifers need to be contaminated then currently realized. From Classicman's link, there have been reported groundwater contamination at 0.10% of total fracking boreholes (as of 2009). That is 1 in a 1,000. Assuming that the number of reported incidents is the actual amount, that is probably not a problem with "best practice". That is likely just mess ups or bad luck. It would the same as blaming a single plane crash on our lack of understanding of aerospace engineering.
Yet, even if the number of reported incidents are only a tenth of the actual amount of contaminated wells, which is still unacceptable, that is most likely a regulation issue. In other words, something that can be avoided.
Although, I fully support additional testing of groundwater around fracking locations. That would give invaluable information of what borehole sealant designs works and the reliability of them.
Other than "dilution is the solution", what does the industry offer to mitigate such events,
No idea. Honestly, there probably isn't much that can be done. Not sure though.
PH45, in an earlier post you mentioned nanotechnology.
Is that something like the "Fabreze" deodorizer in which the offending smell molecule is physically trapped inside the deodorizer chemical... e.g. inside a special "Bucky-ball" ?
This is all speculation but nanotechnology possibly could get to the point where we can produce machines that can physically rearrange an atom's infrastructure. Therefore, it will be able to destroy (or rearrange) any particle that is considered harmful.
Although, if we ever get to that point, it won't be for centuries.
For your concern to be justified many more aquifers
need to be contaminated then currently realized.
<snip>
Yet, even if the number of reported incidents are only a tenth
of the actual amount of contaminated wells, which is still unacceptable,
that is most likely a regulation issue. In other words, something that can be avoided.
<snip>
I take your point about only 1 in a 1,000 incidents, especially when
we are talking about "old" drilling (and early fracking) situations.
But I'm not so sure when it comes to the idea that it's (only ?) a regulation issue,
given there are so many "stove pipe" regulators throughout different states.
Although not an academic or technical paper, the 12-page,
ProPublica article
includes a layman discussion of the
Pinedale Anticline (p4),
and the potential magnitude of contaminated mid-western aquifers.
As part of that review, in 2007 EPA hydrologists sampled
a pristine drinking water aquifer that underlay the region.
What they found was a show-stopper: frighteningly high levels of benzene,
a known carcinogen, in 88 separate samples stretching across 28 miles.
<snip>
The Colorado River, which supplies drinking water to one in 12 Americans,
is fed from the drainage that runs through the Pinedale Anticline and
is vulnerable to pollution from gas development not just in Wyoming,
but throughout the most intensive drilling regions in western Colorado and Utah.
Not to worry. My old buddy is on job inspecting in upper PA. Ya trust him!!!
Some good news for this thread.
CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because
it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action
People only see what they want to see.
I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.
http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources,...
No shit, business will always choose the cheaper alternative... that's not new.:rolleyes:
I was waiting to post this link until they post more videos but I feel this group does make an effort to talk to a wide variety of people on the energy debate.
http://www.rationalmiddle.com/movies/preview/
Nice series so far, bears watching.
People are right to question things that have to potential for major consequences. When you eat that hot fudge sundae and then say I shouldn't have done that, you can live with the damage, it can be corrected. But when there's a chance of major environmental damage, like making a large area radioactive, killing off a million acres of trees, or in this case fucking up the water supply for millions of people, you better be damn sure of what you're doing. That's pretty hard when the people doing it are not forthcoming with information. Especially when those people, I pointing at you energy companies, have not proven very trustworthy in the past.
I agree that drilling companies who frack should be subject to strict regulations and the chemical names should be released to the public. Hell, most of the frackers I've met agree with that. Gas and oil companies will push against it, but outside of them, there should be a wide consensus.
I hate wording it like this (the whole "it's there fault!" argument) but the problem I have with the 'ban fracking' crowd is that they push way to hard and most of their arguments are not grounded in reality. For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue. There will always be a risk associated with those, but groundwater pollution can be largely reduced (like almost 0%) with strict regulation. Also, from what I have heard, big gas companies are usually good with their designs but some of the independent companies have a tendency to skip corners and that is where accidents occur. That is why most frackers I've encountered tend to support regulations. Yet, if people think there is a fundamental risk associated with fracking and not a regulation issue, they will immediately try to ban it.
I think this will eventually just turn into another "not in my backyard" situation. Not that I don't think it is a legitimate justification (it's always easier to tell other people to suck it up), but if we get rid of shale gas we go back to coal, which is worse in almost every aspect.
For example, it is impossible that fracking fluid at the shale level will seep into our groundwater aquifers. It is impossible. On the other hand, borehole breakouts (pipe failure) and surface spills can occur but this is more of a regulation issue instead of a fracking issue.
Fracking fluids are pumped back out in mass quantities - on the order of millions of gallons. Why so much stress on roads? They have that much fracking fluid to dispose of.
Many drilling companies say that fluid can be stored in large ponds lined with plastic. And then unilaterally dispose of that water in some cases by any convenient means - such as the public sewer system.
Always be suspicious when companies refuse to define what materials are being used. And instead, pay a Governor massive sums to 1) keep all regulations away from fracking, and 2) take the mineral rights virtually tax free.
It is not about fluids two miles down. It is about the blantant attitude of some fracking companies. They even ignore the large pools of fracking fluid stored on the surface as if the only threat was only two miles down. And the 'powers that be' are acting as if on the take. Plenty of reasons to be suspicious.
Like I said, there are good reasons to be suspicious with fracking and fracking fluid disposal is one of them. On the other hand, many environmentalists need to stop going FOX news on everyone by putting emotion over science. When your bullshit arguments get debunked time and time again, people stop listening to you when you actually have a few legitimate concerns.
Shale gas going to be a extremely beneficial resource so it will be extracted. It just needs to be extracted responsibly. Easier said than done but any other outcome is far worse.
They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.
Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought. :blush:
They have to be over the top and as hysterical as possible to get attention, I'm afraid, or they'll never get on the news. Going up against big energy companies is like climbing Mt Everest. They have to figure out how to get answers/information, without appearing to be crackpots.
Oh, a thought. The fracking fluids can't be that much of a secret, I mean there must be a lot of people in that business that know. I wonder if they're reticent to list everything in case the chemicals they buy turn out, under analysis, to be contaminated. They could be worried about getting crucified if something not listed showed up. OK, it was just a thought. :blush:
kind of like the list of ingredients on Romney's tax forms, eh?
Carbon storage is touted as a future part of the solution
of the environmental (climate change) due to burning oil and natural gas.
But what I don't understand (yet) is how it will work.
If liquified carbon dioxide is pumped underground for storage,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]is it not to be expected that eventually this "liquid" will warm up enough to revert to CO2 gas[/COLOR],
and create enormous back-pressure - leading to fracturing of rock
--- and leakage back up into the atmosphere ?
NY Times
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
9/6/12
Shell to Test Capturing of Carbon in Canada
HOUSTON — In a bid to make oil sands production less polluting,
Royal Dutch Shell announced on Wednesday that it would go forward with
the first carbon capture and storage project ever tried in the fields of western Canada.<snip>
The project, which is scheduled to begin operations by 2015,
is intended to capture and permanently store underground more
than a million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which Shell estimated
was equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road.
Carbon capture projects have lost favor in recent years because of concerns
about their heavy costs, which have typically been subsidized by governments<snip>.
Shell said it was hoping to reduce the carbon emissions from a treatment plant in Scotford,
outside Edmonton, that processes extra-heavy oil called bitumen
so it can be shipped to refineries in the United States.
The Quest project will pipe liquefied carbon dioxide to injection wells
and then store the substance nearly a mile underground under
multiple layers of rock and mineral formations.
The oil sands will originate from the Athabasca Oil Sands project,
a giant mining endeavor operated by Shell in a partnership with
Chevron and Marathon.<snip>
Same reason why our core is solid at the center and liquid outside of that. High pressures tend to turn elements and molecules into solid/liquid states.
CO2 sequestration has many issues right now and it is doubted whether it will ever be a realistic alternative. However, much research on it is being done right now. There have been many times when a streak of innovations have changed what we view as "realistic".
The fracking industry was counting on New York to set the
environmental standard for the other states to follow.
Now, not so much...
NY Times
DANNY HAKIM
Published: September 30, 2012
Shift by Cuomo on Gas Drilling Prompts Both Anger and Praise
ALBANY — A few months after Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was poised
to approve hydraulic fracturing in several struggling New York counties,
his administration is reversing course and starting the regulatory process over,
garnering praise from environmental groups and stirring anger among
industry executives and upstate landowners.
Ten days ago, after nearly four years of review by state regulators,
the governor bowed to entreaties from environmentalists to conduct another study,
this one an examination of potential impacts on public health.
Neither the governor nor other state officials have given
any indication of how long the study might take.
It will take just long enough for Cuomo to move on to Presidential politics and not be tied to a decision either way.
Well, maybe so...
But the original decision in NY was only to publish the fracking
chemicals AFTER a well was completed and sealed !
This was essentially based on industry's lobby, and really did not take
into account the professional environmental and public health issues.
So, taking another look doesn't seem too radical an idea, especially for New York.
I have no idea what Cuomo has in mind for his future, but I think
professional health review input will turn out to be worth while...
so long as they do eventually come to agreement about what the rules will be
.
Seem there might be a problem with credibility.
The original report by UT Austin’s Energy Institute, ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in the Shale Gas Development,’ was released early this year, and claimed that there was no link between fracking and water contamination. But this summer, the Public Accountability Initiative, a watchdog group, reported that the head of the study, UT professor Chip Groat, had been sitting on the board of a drilling company the entire time. His compensation totaled over $1.5 million over the last five years. That prompted the University to announce an independent review of the study a month later, which was released today.
The industry tie-in doesn't look good, but it doesn't mean the report is bad. However further down,
Aside from that conflict of interest, the review finds many other errors and missteps in both the study and University policies:
•Because of “inadequacy” in conflict of interest policies at UT at the time, “conflict of interest and disclosure policies were largely ignored.”
•The report itself was presented as having scientific findings, but much of it was in fact “based on literature surveys, incident reports and conjecture.” The review goes so far as to say that “the term ‘fact-based’ would not apply to such an analysis” and it lacked a “rigorous, independent review” of its findings.
•The summary of the study, which was widely distributed and trumpeted by a UT press release, failed to include many of the caveats within the actual report. Some of the conclusions were “tentative,” the review says, and the press release and presentation of the report at a scientific conference in February was “inappropriately selective” and “seemed to suggest that public concerns were without scientific basis and largely resulted from media bias.”
•The study was also not ready for distribution, as Public Accountability Initiative noted in July. The drafts in the study “were not subjected to serious peer review and therefore were not ready to be considered for public release as fact-based work.”
More here.I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that gambling is going on in this establishment.
Oh and don't you love the way board members receive "compensation". Cause if it were "wages" or even "salary", they'd have to work for it.
Fracking is headed over here.
Govt just gave the go-ahead to resume it (
BBC link).
Just heard a woman literally in tears over the radio about it. Fruit-loop.
Doesn't mean I'm pro-fracking, just means I don't get people who come on air and weep for Mother Earth and talk about the indiginous people of the world rising up to stop this madness.
indiginous people are too indiginous to organize to stop anything. They will come together for a nice drum circle or a feast; but that's the extent of their organizational skillz.
The Germans on the other hand....
they're fracking here in northern Ohio. Making mini-millionaires overnight-----and everyone knows overnight millionaires are the best kind.
Doesn't mean I'm pro-fracking, just means I don't get people who come on air and weep for Mother Earth and talk about the indiginous people of the world rising up to stop this madness.
My father so loved adults who are still children. Therefore cigarettes were smoked to increase health. Listerene is so often used to do nothing. So many have their computers at increased surge risk due to a power strip protector. In every case, adults who are still children entertain their emotions rather than learn facts.
His biggest complaint was the FTC who was trying to make them tell the truth. That simply took the fun out of it.
Most amusing are the most emotional will adamently deny they can be so easily brainwashed. They just know because they were told what to think. It was indeed fun to play with those people's heads. Because victims routinely deny they are victims.
Sometime times I wonder about folks on here. Are they able to function in everyday life?
Sometime times I wonder about folks on here. Are they able to function in everyday life?
Nailed it, busterb! :lol:
Been watching the PA Farm Show on TV this week. One of the things they show is Information (propaganda) displays by various government agencies and trade groups. The representative/spokesman/explainer for the Marcellus Gas group, while explaining to the crowd how fracking works, looked me right in the camera and said the only thing they put down the well is water and sand.
Now how am I to trust these people after they try to blow that smoke up my ass? :(
Really?!
There wasn't some fast talking fine print guy with all the disclaimer talk or anything asterisk on the screen?
What if there's some example where that's true, just not for most/normal wells, some kind of weasel word I had my fingers crossed "out"?
Really, I sat here with my mouth open. No "proprietary fluids", no other euphemisms, just water and sand. :eyebrow:
Grind it up fine enough, I reckon pretty much any mineral could be called sand.
Or he's just a producer of deliberate inaccuracies with his lower garments in a state of conflagration.
Amazing. Did anyone call him on it?
Now that fracking is catching on in Europe, I expect to see a slowdown in activity here as the export market is not going to develop. We may actually become energy independent despite the best efforts of the industry.
No Griff, his audience was pretty slackjawed... you know, Farm Show zombies.
Must be the effects of all those chemtrails, eh?
No, sensory overload from trudging around 30 acres of concentrated indoor fair, for hours on end, carrying your winter coat, after getting up in the wee hours to drive there.
Today they had several teams taking wool fresh from the sheep, carding, spinning, dyeing, and weaving into a proscribed size shawl, in like two hours.
Then they auctioned them off for charity, bringing between $900 and $2500 each.
North Dakota Fracking fields can easily be seen from space at night and are as bright as a major city.
Lots of pictures at NPR.
[ATTACH]42496[/ATTACH]
These lights weren't there six years ago.
unemployment in some of those boom towns is as low as 0.1%. A tenth of a percent.
Well, if you didn't have a job keeping you there, would you stay in Bumtuck, North Dakota?
unemployment in some of those boom towns is as low as 0.1%. A tenth of a percent.
A boom is followed by a massive bust. Once wells are installed, contractors move on. Towanda PA is already seeing that boom start to crash.
A problem is that many 'boom town' citizens forget. A resulting crash will follow as the wells pump out natural gases with little need for humans.
That sounds grim, Buster.
"Although shale gas production has grown explosively to account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. natural gas production; its production has been on a plateau since December 2011."
That may be a price artifact. Some wells around here have been turned off or finished and but not hooked to the pipelines apparently because gas is too cheap.
From Chemical & Engineering News;
Sewage Plants Struggle To Treat Wastewater Produced By Fracking Operations
When energy companies extract natural gas trapped deep underground, they’re left with water containing high levels of pollutants, including benzene and barium. Sometimes the gas producers dispose of this contaminated water by sending it to wastewater treatment plants that deal with sewage and water from other industrial sources. But a new study suggests that the plants can’t handle this water’s high levels of contaminants: Water flowing out of the plants into the environment still has elevated levels of the chemicals from natural gas production (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es301411q).
When I first saw this I thought, well crap, sewage treatment plants aren't designed to handle this stuff.
But it says "plants that deal with water from other industrial sources".
Hmm, does that mean this stuff is harder to clean up, or maybe nobody has been checking to see how well they clean the stuff, "from other industrial sources"?
We have a leak, I guess... of something... from somewhere.
An unidentified “liquid natural-gas product” is flowing freely into the shallow ground near a creekside gas processing plant in rural western Colorado. After 11 days of cleanup operations and investigations, the source and precise contents of the toxic spill remain a mystery.
60,000 gallon of something. :eyebrow:
http://www.pressconnects.com/viewart/20130429/NEWS11/304290033/State-Drilling-didn-t-foul-northeast-Pa-wells
MONTROSE, PA. — Gas drilling isn’t to blame for a high-profile case of methane contamination in northeastern Pennsylvania, state environmental regulators declared Monday, but a homeowner with fouled water vowed to press on and said she doesn’t trust the agency. Now take a Google search of "tammy manning methane", restrict it to from a year ago to a few days ago before this finding, and determine who was fibbing about it all along.
Such as
Bloomberg:
Robert Poreda, an earth and environmental sciences professor at the University of Rochester, said his researchers have made their own analysis in Franklin Forks and found evidence that the gas seeping into the water table there is from the Marcellus Shale, indicating an impact from gas drilling and not natural causes.
Liar liar tap water on fire.
And of course the state Department of Environmental Protection is as pure as the driven snow, unaffected by politics or money. :rolleyes:
There are many ways to determine truth but conspiracy theory is not one of them.
It's not conspiracy theory to be skeptical of anyone with a dog in the hunt.
For those who think that fracking activities are kept hundreds of feet below ground,
or that fracking only involves Canada and northeastern states in the US,
or that the US Clear Air Act will prevent air contamination,
or that the Keystone Pipeline will only be used to transport natural gas,
or that Detroit deserves what it gets,
or that the Koch brothers are good guys ...
NY Times
IAN AUSTEN
5/17/13
A Black Mound of Canadian Oil Waste Is Rising Over Detroit
Detroit’s ever-growing black mountain is the unloved, unwanted
and long overlooked byproduct of Canada’s oil sands boom.
And no one knows quite what to do about it, except Koch Carbon, which owns it.
[ATTACH]44077[/ATTACH]
The company is controlled by Charles and David Koch, wealthy industrialists
who back a number of conservative and libertarian causes including activist groups
that challenge the science behind climate change.
The company sells the high-sulfur, high-carbon waste, usually overseas,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]where it is burned as fuel.[/COLOR]
<snip>
An initial refining process known as coking, which releases the oil from
the tarlike bitumen in the oil sands, also leaves the petroleum coke,
of which Canada has 79.8 million tons stockpiled.
Some is dumped in open-pit oil sands mines and tailing ponds in Alberta.
Much is just piled up there.
Detroit’s pile will not be the only one.
Canada’s efforts to sell more products derived from oil sands to the United States,
which [COLOR="DarkRed"]include transporting it through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline[/COLOR]
have pulled more coking south to American refineries, creating more waste product here.
<snip>
[QUOTE]“It is worse than a byproduct,” Ms. Satterthwaite said.
“It’s a waste byproduct that is costly and inconvenient to store,
but effectively costs nothing to produce.”
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
LL I know this stuff is difficult and I mean no disrespect. But.
Oil from oil sands recovery has nothing to do with gas fracking.
The Keystone pipeline was *always* about transporting oil sands oil out of Canada and *never* about natural gas.
If you don't like oil from this dirty sands process you should be in favor of gas fracking as a much cleaner alternative.
"nothing to do with gas fracking"
Ummmm...
Maybe so, but only if you limit your definition of "fracking" to the "natural gas" production.
The petroleum industry is changing... rapidly...more so than the public is aware.
Oil Change International
Tar sands (also known as oil sands) is a low quality form of oil that consists of bitumen mixed with sand, clay and water.
Vast quantities of the substance are found in Alberta, Canada and in eastern Venezuela.
Other deposits are known to exist in Utah, parts of Russia, Congo (Brazzaville),
Madagascar and elsewhere, but it is currently only commercially produced in Canada and Venezuela.
Tar sands is extreme oil in every way.
Its extraction is particularly energy and water-intensive, polluting, and destructive.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]It is either strip mined or produced by injecting high pressure steam into the ground [/COLOR]
to melt the bitumen and get it to flow to the surface.
To process it into usable fuel requires complex upgrading and refining that is also highly energy intensive and polluting.
But bitumin is not only brought to the surface by fracking,
it is transported by-products of "traditional hydrolic fracking" for natural gas:
How Fracking Boosts the Tar Sands
There is no doubt that the dirty tar sands and fracking are revolutionising the industry.
But what is less understood is how inter-connected the two are.
Ironically one dirty technology is actually boosting the other.
One of the big energy issues dominating the energy and political debate
over the last year has been the building of the Keystone XL pipeline,
which would facilitate the export of tar sands from Canada to the US.
The fracking boom has produced an excess of condensate in the United States.
Condensate is a by-product of oil and gas production.
It is a kind of wet gas or gaseous liquid depending on how you look at it.
It is abundant in the shale gas and tight oil wells that are being drilled across America using the fracking method.
<snip>
So as tar sands producers gear up for massive expansions of their high carbon production,
more and more of the condensate produced from fracking is being exported to Canada
to facilitate the transportation of bitumen to American refineries.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA),
the independent statistical arm of the US Department of Energy,
in the first three months of 2011,
the US exported 1 million barrels of a type of light condensates known as “pentanes plus”.
These exports rocketed to 10 million barrels in the same period this year.
I'm going to state a fairly unpopular position.
Big Oil isn't the problem.
The problem is - that even as greater and greater understanding world wide of the dangers and environmental impact of these kinds of projects - the world wide demand for fossil fuels is not diminishing, the demand for oil continues to grow. Fact is they wouldn't be looking for new and even more expensive sources if they weren't selling the stuff and they wouldn't be selling it if we weren't using it.
It's all well and good to blame "Big Oil" ... but at the end of the economic chain their is us. While there are still some coal mines - there aren't nearly as many or as large or as dangerous and expensive as they used to be... why? because we, the world, aren't really using much coal anymore. At the end of every economic chain - there is US.
We demand oil, we really only pay lip service (as a society) to real alternatives, and as long as we're demanding it - they're gonna keep looking to supply us with it.
We are the problem.
Maybe so, but only if you limit your definition of "fracking" to the "natural gas" production.
Nice try buddy.
Nice try buddy.
As in many discussions, there are the "lumpers" and the "splitters"
:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I am simply not interested in discussion with anyone who will not admit when they are plainly wrong.
It's not a matter of 'supply and demand', it's a matter of ethics, law, and public policy.
Fracking affecting public lands can be blamed on the 'tragedy of the commons' and the failure of government to act as a steward of public resources. The affect of fracking on private lands is also a failure of government to protect individual property rights in the face of economic development. Losing access to clean water, risking exposure to natural gas seepage, and the lowering of property values consist of a 'taking'. It's even worse than eminent domain because at least with eminent domain there is compensation.
Conservatives talk about smaller government and then go on to talk about personal responsibility. The failure to effectively government- or self-regulate fracking demonstrates the fallacy of applying the concept of 'personal responsibility' or 'self-regulation' to corporations. The system is at least partly broken even with government oversight involved. Weakening further or removing oversight will obviously make issues worse. At some point there would even be a weakening of tort to further shield businesses from responsibility for their actions.
We can point to many civilized cultures that practiced human sacrifice. In, some ways, hyper-capitalism (my term for it?), the concept of corporate socialism where the government operates under the assumption that in all cases the success of corporations are an automatic social plus, ignoring all negative factors, is a form of human sacrifice. Sickness, death, loss of property rights - all are considered acceptable sacrifice in the face of the perceived social good of business success if such losses are small enough to impact only a small group of citizens or communities. In theory, capitalism would provide a method for compensation, but in hyper-capitalism the risks are socialized and the benefits are not. Citizens impacted are considered 'collateral damage' and not accounted into the benefit/loss calculation.
Conservatives talk about smaller government and then go on to talk about personal responsibility. The failure to effectively government- or self-regulate fracking demonstrates the fallacy of applying the concept of 'personal responsibility' or 'self-regulation' to corporations. The system is at least partly broken even with government oversight involved. Weakening further or removing oversight will obviously make issues worse. At some point there would even be a weakening of tort to further shield businesses from responsibility for their actions.
This is an important point. If the individuals involved in fracking were held responsible for bad out-comes instead of being shielded it would be done much better. The antis need to stick to the facts though. There has been so much made up left-wing stuff especially in my county that they are no longer being taken seriously at all.
From reliable sources, fracking does cause earthquakes ... medium sized or smaller.
http://www.nature.com/news/energy-production-causes-big-us-earthquakes-1.13372
Natural-gas extraction, geothermal-energy production and other activities that inject fluid underground have caused numerous earthquakes in the United States, scientists report today in a trio of papers in Science1–3.
Most of these quakes have been small, but some have exceeded magnitude 5.0. They include a magnitude-5.6 event that hit Oklahoma on 6 November 2011, damaging 14 homes and injuring two people ...
Fracking for helium in Arizona.
Though helium is the second most common element in the universe, the gas is hard to find in commercial quantities here on planet Earth. Exception: northeastern Arizona. The region supplied the U.S. with some of the richest deposits of helium in the 1960s and 1970s, and could do so again.
The world now faces a helium shortage, thanks to an ill-advised federal sale of its dwindling stockpiles begun in 1996. Helium cools MRI scanners, particle accelerators, and the chips in your smartphone. It cleans rocket tanks, keeps deep-sea divers breathing, and may yet fill our skies with airships. (Hydrogen, not helium, blew up the Hindenburg.)
From reliable sources, fracking does cause earthquakes ... medium sized or smaller.
http://www.nature.com/news/energy-production-causes-big-us-earthquakes-1.13372
To make this clear, it isn't the fracking itself that causes an increase in pore pressure (the mechanism that can increase the probability of a quake) but the injection of fracking wastewater back into the Earth. Any seismic activity due to the actual hyraulic fracturing is minimal in comparison. This is not strong evidence against fracking but does hint that we need to be more wary of this particular method of wastewater disposal.
On a side note, this mechanism is actually well known within the geotech community and is a big problem for deep geothermal energy and CO2 sequestration since both involve raising the pore pressure at depth, possibly along fault lines.
Fracking is not an issue in the U.S. only....
NY Times
ROGER COHEN
August 26, 2013
Britain’s Furor Over Fracking
BALCOMBE, England — The lovely green hills of the High Weald are Tory country,
a corner of West Sussex full of affluent residents who commute to London and like their golf
and ambles and thatched cottages.<snip>
But peace and love are not the story. This is the heavily policed front line of Britain’s fracking war.
A conflict has erupted over Prime Minister David Cameron’s vision
of turning the English countryside into hydraulic-fracturing central, a place
where West Sussex would release its inner West Texas.
“There’s about 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas lying underneath Britain at the moment,”
he enthused this month. Extracting even one-tenth of it would provide 51 years of gas supply.
The man who vowed in 2010 to head “the greenest government ever” was adamant
in an article in The Daily Telegraph: “We cannot afford to miss out on fracking.”
To which banners on the road outside the village of Balcombe offer this retort: “Fracking kills.”<snip>
So Cameron has stuck his neck out on fracking, with little or no national debate.
He has vowed to win the fracking cause while avoiding any major speech
on the government’s supposed commitment to low-carbon energy.
Like the Labour prime minister Tony Blair’s advocacy of genetically modified food in the 1990s
— an attempt that failed — he has taken on nature-loving middle England.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Why? There is huge money involved....[/COLOR]
<snip>
Two local stories.
The DEP apparently issued a well permit for an unleased piece of land only a couple miles from Grifftopia. It was rescinded but does show how little effective oversight we have.
The local who took Yoko Ono and company on a tour has had an injunction filed against her for repeated trespass on Cabot sites. Word on the street is she's engaged in a lot of property damage but they can't make it stick.
So wait, someone tried to sell fracking rights on land they didn't own, or they sold rights to an area that should have been protected environmentally, but accidentally wasn't?
The driller sent a drilling proposal to the DEP that included a horizontal under a property they had no lease for. The owners of the property are not really anti-drilling, they just felt the compensation wasn't sufficient so they didn't sign a lease. As soon as they made their complaint, everything stopped but if a neighbor hadn't mentioned seeing a map of the proposal they could have been drilled under and could have ended up in court over it. It just looks like sloppy or corrupt work by the driller and/or DEP.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Susquehanna-County-Independent/111745075546371From New Scientist.
Third, we risk being surprised by the boom in shale gas production. That, too, may prove to be a bubble, maybe even a Ponzi scheme. Production from individual shale wells declines rapidly, and large amounts of capital have to be borrowed to drill replacements. This will surprise many people who make judgement calls based on the received wisdom that limits to shale drilling are few. But I am not alone in these concerns.
Even if the US shale gas drilling isn't a bubble, it remains unprofitable overall and environmental downsides are emerging seemingly by the week. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, whole towns in Texas are now running out of water, having sold their aquifers for fracking. I doubt that this is a boom that is going to appeal to the rest of the world; many others agree.
Fourth, we court disaster with assumptions about oil depletion. Most of us believe the industry mantra that there will be adequate flows of just-about-affordable oil for decades to come. I am in a minority who don't. Crude oil production peaked in 2005, and oil fields are depleting at more than 6 per cent per year, according to the International Energy Agency. The much-hyped 2 million barrels a day of new US production capacity from shale needs to be put in context: we live in a world that consumes 90 million barrels a day.
There is an editorial today in the NY Times about these new rules in Colorado.
The thrust of the rules is concern over C02 and VOC's on air pollution and climate change (warming).
This is
the link to that editorial, entitled: "
Fracking’s Achilles’ Heel"
LA Times
Neela Banerjee
November 18, 2013
Colorado proposes reducing methane leaks from energy production
Colorado proposed new rules Monday to reduce methane leaks from oil and gas operations,
the first effort in the country to address emissions of the greenhouse gas that is a byproduct
of the domestic fossil fuel boom.
Carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change, but while
less methane is emitted overall, it is an even more potent heat-trapping gas than carbon.<snip>
The state has rules in place to curb emissions of methane,
the primary component of natural gas, during drilling.
The proposed new rules call for detecting and repairing methane leaks
throughout a company’s infrastructure once a well is producing:
at equipment at the well site, above-ground pipelines and at compressor stations.
The rules would also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs,
an air pollutant that can be created from the production and burning of fossil fuels.
Because high output of VOCs tracks with high methane pollution,
the new rules base their monitoring requirements on the tons of VOCs companies generate annually.
Achille's other heel.
Water samples collected at Colorado sites where hydraulic fracturing was used to extract natural gas show the presence of chemicals that have been linked to infertility, birth defects and cancer, scientists reported Monday.
The study, published in the journal Endocrinology, also found elevated levels of the hormone-disrupting chemicals in the Colorado River, where wastewater released during accidental spills at nearby wells could wind up.
New study: Recent natural gas fracking operations have tainted the ground water, but it's actually good news, because it's the well casings that are to blame and they can be fixed.
The shale-gas boom of recent years has contaminated drinking-water wells in North Texas’ Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, a study published Monday concludes.
The study, by researchers from five universities, concludes that neither drilling itself nor the hydraulic fracturing that follows it is directly to blame.
Instead, gas found in water wells appeared to have leaked from defective casing and cementing in gas wells, meant to protect groundwater; or from gas formations not linked to zones where fracking took place.
“Our data do not suggest that horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing has provided a conduit to connect deep Marcellus or Barnett formations directly to surface aquifers,” the authors wrote.
The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to a growing body of science that examines the environmental impacts of natural gas production, which has seen a rush of drilling and processing in numerous states over the past decade.
In an email, lead author Thomas Darrah of Ohio State University said tracing the blame to well construction problems instead of fracking offers hope of protecting groundwater supplies.
“This is relatively good news because it means that most of the issues we have identified can potentially be avoided by future improvements in well integrity,” said Darrah, who teaches in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State.
Instead, gas found in water wells appeared to have leaked from defective casing and cementing in gas wells, meant to protect groundwater; or from gas formations not linked to zones where fracking took place.
“This is relatively good news because it means that most of the issues we have identified can potentially be avoided by future improvements in well integrity,” said Darrah, who teaches in the School of Earth Sciences at Ohio State.
So the drillers/frackers who install the casings and cement them, are doing a half-assed job. And have been right along, just nobody has been paying attention and it's not as noticeable as Deepwater Horizon/Macondo circus.
This announcement is from an long-expected "NY State Health Commission Report",
and appears to be based on the frequency of industry-wide leaks occurring in the fracking wells,
... as well as zoning laws passed by cities and counties and approved by an Appeals Court.
Cuomo to Ban Fracking in New York State, Citing Health Risks
NY Times
JESSE McKINLEY
DEC. 17, 2014
ALBANY — The Cuomo administration announced Wednesday that it would ban hydraulic fracturing in New York State,
ending years of uncertainty by concluding that the controversial method of extracting gas
from deep underground could contaminate the state’s air and water and pose inestimable public-health risks.<snip>
The state has had a de facto ban on the procedure for more than five years, predating Mr. Cuomo’s first term.
The decision also came as oil and gas prices continued to fall, in part because of surging American oil production,
as fracking boosted output.<snip>
Well they banned it in Denton, TX. the place where it was started.
first Soda, now fracking .... whats next? Bacon?!?!?!?!??!
HUmm maybe intercorse Spell check
New York takes the wrong approach to ‘fracking’
Fracking’s risks concern water and air contamination. States should control where and how wastewater is disposed of, require robust wells that are resistant to blowouts, demand that drillers prevent methane and volatile organic compounds from escaping into the air and regulate leaks from storage facilities and well sites. States such as Colorado have developed rules with sensitivity both to industry and to environmental concerns. The Obama administration is developing its own, national fracking rules, too. That’s the model to follow — not New York’s. He figures it'll be worth more later, after the others have petered out, and he's out of office so he can belly up to the trough, too. :haha:
Cuomo is the slimiest character to come out of New York politics in a while, always look for another rea$on for any policy.
As Mr Wonderful on Shark Tank says, "It's about the money, it's always about the money, all the time."
New York takes the wrong approach to ‘fracking’
...States such as Colorado have developed rules with sensitivity both to industry and to environmental concerns.
The Obama administration is developing its own, national fracking rules, too.
That’s the model to follow — not New York’s.
Hmmmm..... Did the Washington Post forget to mention ...
from
here
Colorado: yellow dots = violatlons
[ATTACH]49995[/ATTACH]
green lines = water sheds
lavender = shale plays
tan areas = shale basins
orange dots = horizontal wells
Pennsylvania: yellow dots = violations
[ATTACH]49996[/ATTACH]
green lines = water sheds
lavender area = EIA shale play
purple dots = permits
Maybe Kentucky doesn't have problems ... yet, but government prevention of coal ash problems hasn't set a good example.
I tried to figure out what a "violation" is LL, do you have any insight on that?
I tried to figure out what a "violation" is LL, do you have any insight on that?
Insight ???.
Since some maps on that link are showing "permits issued", I have to assume a violation is in terms of how each State defines those permits. Some maps show "contamination sites" which may be more self-evident.
There is a diversity of information among these maps, so I would not attempt to compare the numbers of violation in one state with the numbers in another state.
A few years ago when we were looking for a nursing home for my FIL, we looked at the state records for each. Every single place had tons of violations. One of them had a violation for letting a dementia patient wander out and get lost on the streets for a day, but most of them had violations like not having a DNR form in a holder on the back of a patient's room door.
You want there the be no violations, but there are violations and then there are violations.
I imagine it's similar here.
You don't want contaminated aquifers. That would be a big deal. But if a delivery truck has a shipment invoice with the wrong date on top, maybe that's not such a big deal.
Glatt, I'm not sure your examples are analogous, but I agree that there are levels of "violations",
particularly when the comparison is between management of a single business operation
and an industry made up of many different "operators".
But maybe I would say that preventing a violation is much more important
than trying to or having to remedy a violation that has already happened.
There may be no remediation of a contaminated aquifer, especially one used for drinking water.
For example, the aquifer feeding into the Columbia River from the Hanford Reservation
(atomic bomb era) is almost certainly beyond remedy.
P.S. Not having a DNR in the patient's file may well lead to a very nasty situation...
that may not have a good solution.
P.S. Not having a DNR in the patient's file may well lead to a very nasty situation...
True, I forgot to add that the DNR was instead at the nurse's station in the hall. But I agree it's still a violation and could, under certain circumstances, be a problem.
Glatt, I'm not sure your examples are analogous
My analogies are not perfect, and my made-up example of a truck invoice may not be how minor some of the infractions are. I don't trust the oil industry at all, but that doesn't mean I completely trust that map either. I'm sure it's mapping something, but I don't know what.
Operators (businesses/corporations/etc) seem to disappear
when significant problems arise. The federal government
has the EPA and the SuperFund to fall back on in severe cases,
but even there the number of such sites is small.
Maybe California and New York have the resources, but I doubt
many other states have such excess state taxes just lying about.
So when it comes to managing risks to public health, paying
heed to the "broken window" model of enforcement may be
the only/most effective path available to State governments.
violations like not having a DNR form in a holder on the back of a patient's room door
Not having a DNR in the patient's file may well lead to a very nasty situation
If you can't win an argument, just change it to something winnable.
If you post maps and don't know what they say, just talk about all the worst things that can happen. Holy shit, look at all the yellow dots! Every watershed in the entire state is in danger!
Not just "Inspected industry found violations!"
That's sort of what you hope would happen, that 1% of inspections would find something, that would be corrected, and the result is a safe, inspected industry. If that were what the maps showed, then mission accomplished. WaPo correct.
I read the local restaurant inspection reports, and 100% of them find something. Are we all in danger of being horribly poisoned?
~
So I went and looked into what the maps actually say.
Very good news:
In Pennsylvania the state puts all the inspections on file online so you can search for them and figure out what they say.
The worst one I found, an operator accidentally ignited fumes in a holding tank by checking it with a cell phone instead of an ignition-free flashlight, which resulted in the loss of about half a backyard pool's worth of backflow water. (This resulted in 7 different violations and a fine.)
In the least worst, an operator plugged a well and sold it but failed to mark it with an embossed metal tag within 90 days. (This is the, "form was at the nurses' station instead of on the door" kind of violation.)
Many violations are the result of spillage of diesel fuel or brine on the well pad itself. Sometimes there was equipment failure. Sometimes someone put a hole in a few 55 gallon drums by accident.
So now we know what the maps mean. Inspected industry found violations. Awesome, it's good news. If they found nothing I would assume the inspection system is badly broken. It would mean our asses are swimming in benzene, if they found nothing. They found small incidents that could not threaten aquifers and it resulted in thorough reports and non-trivial fines. That's what I would hope to find out.
So now we know what the maps mean. Inspected industry found violations.
Last I read, the state only has six inspectors. These are clearly overrun by inspecting so many sites - having to report so much small stuff. We know there should be at least 1% who are grossly violating the laws with permanent damage to the aquifier. Where are they? Hard to find with so many sites to inspect by only six inspectors. More reasons for Corbett's campaign fund raisers to get so much money from fracking companies. Money that did him no good.
BTW, today's gasoline price inceases another 10 cents - another Corbett's tax increase because he gave fracking gas away for free.
Last I read the state only has six inspectors
Yes, but you have to realize, all the facts you have read and remembered are from 1994 and earlier.
Today there are 80 inspectors.
We know there should be at least 1%
Made-up facts. It should be embarrassing.
Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water
An analysis of drinking water sampled from three homes in Bradford County, Pa., revealed traces of a compound commonly found in Marcellus Shale drilling fluids, according to a study published on Monday.
The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, addresses a longstanding question about potential risks to underground drinking water from the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The authors suggested a chain of events by which the drilling chemical ended up in a homeowner’s water supply.
“This is the first case published with a complete story showing organic compounds attributed to shale gas development found in a homeowner’s well,” said Susan Brantley, one of the study’s authors and a geoscientist from Pennsylvania State University.
NYTOil 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. Those are the results of a U.S. Geological Survey study published by the American Geophysical Union, the first national-scale analysis and map of water use from hydraulic fracturing operations.
~snip~
The amount of water used for fracking in each well varies widely by region. In southern Illinois, an operation can use as little as 2,600 gallons of water each time fracking triggers the flow of oil or gas into a well. In West Texas’ Permian Basin surrounding Midland and Odessa, fracking uses between 264,000 and 2.6 million gallons of water each time. In Pennsylvania, Ohio, south and eastern Texas, Arkansas, northern Colorado and Montana, fracking can use more than 9 million gallons of water.
Scientific AmericanThis article may be faux-science ... or it may not !
(Unfortunately there is no author or link back to an original article)
Penn’s fracking sites tied with higher hospitalization rates
Daily Times Gazette - - 7/18/15
Fracking is associated with higher hospitalization rates claims the research done by the Columbia University and University of Pennsylvania.
…
They compared Bradford and Susquehanna where drilling is active to their control group, Wayne County where extraction has been banned.
Researchers connected the dots when they analyzed 198,000 hospitalization records from 2007 to 2011 in Northern Pennsylvania counties. They categorized at least 25 medical scenarios and linked those cases with their proximity within different fracking sites.
…
The results showed that indeed, hospitalization rates are higher in places where fracking is practice than those that do not. Around 18 zip code areas have been identified to have a well density higher than 0.79 wells per square kilometer. Those citizens residing in those zip codes have at least 27% risk higher than those areas situated far from extraction points.
NEWSWEEKIn a study published Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania looked at hospital admittance rates from 2007 to 2011 for 18 ZIP codes in three counties in northeastern Pennsylvania, where the fracking industry has boomed in recent years. Two of the counties, Bradford and Susquehanna, saw a surge in new drilling activity during this period. The third, Wayne County, functioned as a control; it had no producing natural gas wells after a 2010 ban on drilling due to its proximity to the Delaware River watershed.
I didn't know Wayne had a drilling ban. Is that new wells or all well, I wonder?
I had heard rumors that there was drilling going on there, but didn't know for sure. I've got relatives there and hear them talking about so and so who sold out to the frackers.
If drilling is beginning in Wayne County, make sure your relatives have selected a good urologist.
So I did a bit of Googling, and apparently there was going to be tons of fracking in Wayne county, but the Delaware River Basin Commission, the agency that oversees the Delaware River watershed, banned it while it studied the impact on the basin. And it doesn't seem to be working very hard at completing that study. So all the oil companies pulled out and broke their leases with 1,300 or so landowners in Wayne.
Sucks for the economy there, but is great news for the environment. I'm happy because to me, this is what makes Wayne county valuable:
[ATTACH]52676[/ATTACH]
Among the 94 comments (as of today) the comment by ScottCannon is also worth reading.
So if you've got a little piece of ground away from the maddening crowd, spent your life and treasure building a comfortable home, say like Griftopia.
Now your water supply is gone along with your life's work and most of your net worth, because who'd buy it without water?
Well, fuck you, you're going to have to sacrifice for the greater good, we'll just make you into soylent green so you won't be a burden on society.
No wonder they want to take away your guns.
We are zeroing in on which parts of the process are actually dangerous to water supplies. Now we can clearly see where regulation can help.That is good isn't it or is science only for outcomes that fit cherished narratives?
Unfortunately, our representation here isn't exactly pro regulation so nothing will get done at the state level. So far the gas companies appear to have been quick to drill new water wells or pay to put people on water lines and pay compensation. Obviously stopping spills would be preferable.
It was also preferable to BP, to have the lowest bidder install the blowout protector.
Regulations mean more expense for the taxpayer trying to enforce them, and you know there's never enough eyes in those jobs. It also means spills won't be eliminated, just liability for the driller, if you can afford to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was them and not the company drilling a mile from them.
Regulations are way better than none, but they are not the be-all-end-all of the problems.
We are moving into another era of "cheap gas".
Today here in PDX, I paid only $1.99 / gal (regular)
(Oregon does not allow self-service, so other states should be even lower)
Imagine the consequences:
...long-trip vacations
...buy-a-new-car-every-two-years
...buy-a-house-in-the-suburbs
...more new freeways
Will Obama get credit for low gasoline prices
... or blamed the demise of "Drill Baby, Drill"
... or any problem associated with fracking
...$20 more in the pocket each month to spend on something else = lots of economic activity = more jobs = security = consumer confidence = more economic activity
inspired me to get the graph of miles traveled - it's on the upswing again
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=943990&postcount=1099We are moving into another era of "cheap gas".
Gasoline has never been expensive. If it was, then when gas was approaching $4 per gallon, then SUV sales would drop. Instead SUV sales continued to increase.
If gas was expensive, then efforts would have been implemented to increase gasoline mileage. It did not happen because gasoline even at $7 a gallon has been cheap. Not to one who is emotional. But true when that conclusion is based in numbers.
...$20 more in the pocket each month to spend on something else = lots of economic activity = more jobs = security = consumer confidence = more economic activity
inspired me to get the graph of miles traveled - it's on the upswing again
http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=943990&postcount=1099
We have these little displays in our elevators at work and they display short snippets. Friday they displayed that consumer spending was down in the last quarter, and they attributed it to cheaper gas.
So maybe people are saving the gas money they aren't spending?
Its weird, I bought the Civic in June. It only holds 11 gallons. It also gets 30-35mpg.
I'm also driving a lot less. The savings for me versus my old car has been HUGE.
I also love filling up for only $20.
We have these little displays in our elevators at work and they display short snippets. Friday they displayed that consumer spending was down in the last quarter, and they attributed it to cheaper gas.
So maybe people are saving the gas money they aren't spending?
They said on one of those Sunday news programs this morning, that individual saving was way up this last quarter, higher than it's been in years.
They said on one of those Sunday news programs this morning, that individual saving was way up this last quarter, higher than it's been in years.
More people are afraid and preparing for the impending collapse :3_eyes:
Australian Green politician sets river on fire to protest nearby fracking site.
[YOUTUBE]NvJAKVnK4qM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]NvJAKVnK4qM[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
The experts say it can be done safely, however the companies who make their money doing it have no incentive to insure they do, until we have a land version of Deepwater Horizon, like Russia's
Door of Hell :(
Copying this post here, into Fracking, from Charts and Graphs.
US carbon emissions down 12% since 2005 (
source):
Because of natural gas and to a lesser extent renewables, taking over the job of coal (
source):
(both sources are eia.gov, US Energy Information Administration)
"Energy related carbon dioxide" means electricity generation only, right? This doesn't include cars or home heating, or manufacturing?
Let 'em drink beer. :eyebrow:
No it's confusing because the charts are from two different stories, but the second graph only covers generation while the first "energy-related" means everything relating to, uh, creating energy. As opposed to, I suppose, making concrete or other kinds of CO2 generation.
They have another graph on the
"energy-related" story page which explains that the category includes transportation; and emissions from transportation are way down too. It's all good news.
Fracking has been identified as the reason for earthquakes in the Pawnee and Payne county areas of Oklahoma. More earthquakes now occur here than on the entire west coast US.
A 5.3 quake has just struck. This is a new high for shaking. Currently nothing has been done to limit the disposal of fracking fluids in this ground. This may be a first concern for the 'powers that be' in that state.
It occurred to me today that we've heard no horror stories about fracking. No big earthquakes, no ground water contamination, no poisoned watersheds
basically 4 years since we gave a shit
In fact, News generally stopped writing about fracking after 2016 (until recently when they've had economic-related stories about it) No big earthquakes, no ground water contamination, no poisoned watersheds
Until recently, there were maybe four earthquakes every day in the fracking regions of Oklahoma. Curious. Now that fracking gas is unprofitable, those earthquakes in OK have diminished. Only one has happened in the past seven days - on 11 April. In the same location where it happened on 26 March.
Now that fracking wells are not being drilled, those daily earthquakes (magnitude 2.5 or higher) have diminished. There were only 17 earthquakes in OK this past month.
Why have these earthquakes not been reported? It was an almost daily occurrence in OK for years - ever since fracking started. That is no longer news. It is routine.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rico has had well over 100 earthquakes (2.5 or greater) in the past month. Why is that also not news?