If all goes well, and we kick the current crop of baggers to the curb in the 2012 election, the administration
can go full bore towards renewables and not even consider old, dirty fossil fuels.
Cross your fingers smilie icon goes here.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
17
#TarSands #GasFracking.
Started by Hayden, Oct 20 2011 01:59 PM
553 replies to this topic
#22
Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:30 AM
"Canadian pipeline developer TransCanada will shift the route of its planned oil pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, two company officials announced Monday night.
The announcement follows the federal government's decision last week to delay a decision on a federal permit for the project until it studies new potential routes that avoid the Sandhills area and the Ogallala aquifer as the proposed pipeline carries crude oil from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries."
http://www.msnbc.msn...454/ns/us_news/
Question being; where will the move it too? That locale and the residents there will pitch a fit too.
You know those radical groups that think they should be able to drink clean, safe water.
The announcement follows the federal government's decision last week to delay a decision on a federal permit for the project until it studies new potential routes that avoid the Sandhills area and the Ogallala aquifer as the proposed pipeline carries crude oil from Canada to Texas Gulf Coast refineries."
http://www.msnbc.msn...454/ns/us_news/
Question being; where will the move it too? That locale and the residents there will pitch a fit too.
You know those radical groups that think they should be able to drink clean, safe water.
#23
Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:09 AM
Oil and gas companies received exemptions regarding the clean water act. (chaney/bush)
This video will open your eyes on "gas fracking" and as you can see from the map, it effects most
of the states.
If your water faucets catch on fire, and maybe set your house on fire, how do you put out the fire?
http://www.msnbc.msn...316444#45316444
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
This video will open your eyes on "gas fracking" and as you can see from the map, it effects most
of the states.
If your water faucets catch on fire, and maybe set your house on fire, how do you put out the fire?
http://www.msnbc.msn...316444#45316444
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
#26
Posted 18 November 2011 - 04:04 AM
gangandealer, on 17 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:
Oil is the only kind of resource that does this, so why not refer to Wind or Water energy making ways?
"Current members of Congress took over $25 million in campaign contributions from the oil, coal and gas industries in 2009-2010.
This follows a decade-long trend of increasing contributions and influence. Since 1999, these Dirty Energy industries
have shelled out over $137 million in contributions to members of Congress. Figure 1(see link)
illustrates the increasing influence of the fossil fuel industry over the U.S. Congress.
Eleven elected officials have taken over $1 million in Dirty Energy Money
When it comes to Dirty Energy contributions in the period leading up to the 112th Congress,
House Speaker Boehner leads the way with nearly $400,000 in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten House recipients in this period are made up of seven Republicans and three Democrats.
Together they received nearly $2.5 million in 2009 and 2010.
The top ten Senators took over $4million in the lead up to the last election with former House Rep. Blunt (R-MO) leading the pack.
Republicans make up nine of the top ten and three of these had Tea Party backing: Pat Toomey (R-PA),
Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rand Paul (R-KY).
The top ten contributing corporate entities – including six coal companies and four oil companies – have contributed between $2 million and $8 million each, amounting to over $38 million since 1999.
In the last election cycle they contributed over $6.5 million. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association tops the list at over $8 million. Koch Industries, one of the driving forces behind the Tea Party, comes in second at over $5 million since 1999 and over $1.3 million in the last election cycle. ExxonMobil is a close third.
Keating Amendment (Oil and Gas Subsidies):On March 1, 2011, Rep. William Keating (D-MA) tabled an amendment to a continuing appropriations bill in which he sought to remove over $4 billion of subsidies and tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. The motion was defeated 176-249. All voting Republicans voted against it. They were joined by 13 Democrats.
Upton Bill (Greenhouse Gas Regulation): On April 7, 2011, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) passed the house 236-172. The bill seeks to, “amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.” Not a single Republican voted against it and 19 Democrats also voted for it. Supporters of the bill took on average over five times more Dirty Energy Money in the last election cycle than those that opposed it.
McConnell Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Regulation): On April 6, 2011, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), fifth on our list of Dirty Energy Money recipients (see Table 1) tabled an amendment to the Small Business Act that sought to, “prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.”
The amendment failed by only one vote. All but one Republican voted for it and four democrats joined them. Those in favor received on average nearly five times as much Dirty Energy Money in the last election cycle as those against."
*See complete list of dirty money and who it went to here:
http://dirtyenergymo...ey_findings.php
Most of the repubs but sadly, some dems too want money over sustainability.
Personally, I think the dems that are selling us down the road should switch parties. They obviously don't
hold the democratic view of watching out for the little guy.
#27
Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:20 PM
Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo plays the Hulk in the forthcoming "Avengers" film, so it's probably best not to make him angry. It's a safe bet that he's pretty happy today.
Rumors began circulating last night that the vote expected Monday on whether to allow oil companies to frack in the Delaware River Basin, the one that Mr. Ruffalo has been so vocal in opposing, may be delayed.
A few hours later, he reached out to us to confirm that it was indefinitely postponed.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/
Rumors began circulating last night that the vote expected Monday on whether to allow oil companies to frack in the Delaware River Basin, the one that Mr. Ruffalo has been so vocal in opposing, may be delayed.
A few hours later, he reached out to us to confirm that it was indefinitely postponed.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/
#28
Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:51 AM
artistry, on 13 November 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:
The protests against the pipeline worked well enough, that the administration, has suspended the operation until after the election. There is also an ongoing investigation with the State Department, regarding the clearance for the project. Maybe the decision will be permanent.
Don't think it'll be permanent. I've seen worldwide oil & gas markets speed up and pause based on looming elections and what could happen next (Australia is an example of this).
#29
Posted 25 November 2011 - 04:21 AM
"The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on Wednesday to begin developing rules requiring makers and
processors of certain chemical cocktails used in the oil and gas industry to maintain and submit records on those chemicals.
The agency, which said it plans to "initiate a dialogue process to seek public input" on the design and scope of the reporting requirements, would also be ordering the companies to submit health and safety studies related to the various
chemical cocktails they produce.
A consortium of state regulators and industry stakeholders have already developed a voluntary effort called Frac Focus,
which seeks to encourage oil and gas service firms -- typically those companies that perform the actual drilling operations -- to disclose the fracking products they are using on a well-by-well basis.
The reporting rules that EPA said it would be developing Wednesday are aimed at the actual makers of those fluids.
Some large oil and gas service companies like Halliburton
and Schlumberger also manufacture fracking fluids, and as such,
they would come under any new reporting rules.
Various iterations of a so-called FRAC-Act have been introduced in both the House and the Senate --
chiefly with support from Democrats -- with a goal of bringing the practice of hydraulic fracturing under increased federal oversight."
http://www.huffingto..._n_1110817.html
processors of certain chemical cocktails used in the oil and gas industry to maintain and submit records on those chemicals.
The agency, which said it plans to "initiate a dialogue process to seek public input" on the design and scope of the reporting requirements, would also be ordering the companies to submit health and safety studies related to the various
chemical cocktails they produce.
A consortium of state regulators and industry stakeholders have already developed a voluntary effort called Frac Focus,
which seeks to encourage oil and gas service firms -- typically those companies that perform the actual drilling operations -- to disclose the fracking products they are using on a well-by-well basis.
The reporting rules that EPA said it would be developing Wednesday are aimed at the actual makers of those fluids.
Some large oil and gas service companies like Halliburton
and Schlumberger also manufacture fracking fluids, and as such,they would come under any new reporting rules.
Various iterations of a so-called FRAC-Act have been introduced in both the House and the Senate --
chiefly with support from Democrats
-- with a goal of bringing the practice of hydraulic fracturing under increased federal oversight."http://www.huffingto..._n_1110817.html
#30
Posted 29 November 2011 - 11:19 AM
"The Alberta Innovates report noted that there is no peer reviewed research on this issue, identified gaps in safety data
kept by regulators, and found that many of the corrosive properties of diluted bitumen are shared by certain blends of very heavy Canadian crudes.
Also like tar sands diluted bitumen, the production and export of significant quantities of heavy Canadian
crude on the U.S. pipeline system is a recent development. Combined exports of heavy crude and diluted bitumen
have increased over four-fold over the last fifteen years, from less than a quarter million barrels per day (bpd) in 1995
to over a million bpd last year.
This development has been accompanied by early warning signs. The pipelines moving the bulk of this crude in the United State’s upper Midwest spilled nearly three times as much crude per mile as the national average between 2007 and 2010.
Enbridge’s line 6B, which spilled over 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen in Michigan and on which hundreds of
corrosion abnormalities have been identified, has been used to move large quantities of Canada’s heavy crude
and diluted bitumen exports.
The Alberta Innovates report also noted that large diameter pipelines in Alberta have rates of internal corrosion
that are comparable to those in the United States. This is actually a sign of trouble, as the U.S. pipeline system is
on average (pdf file) twice as old as the Alberta pipeline system.
Because the risk of internal corrosion increases with pipeline age, the newer Alberta pipeline system should also
have a significantly lower rate of internal corrosion. That it doesn’t is evidence of a potential problem."
http://switchboard.n..._medium=twitter
Or I could have posted this in the "Is your city leaking?" thread.
kept by regulators, and found that many of the corrosive properties of diluted bitumen are shared by certain blends of very heavy Canadian crudes.
Also like tar sands diluted bitumen, the production and export of significant quantities of heavy Canadian
crude on the U.S. pipeline system is a recent development. Combined exports of heavy crude and diluted bitumen
have increased over four-fold over the last fifteen years, from less than a quarter million barrels per day (bpd) in 1995
to over a million bpd last year.
This development has been accompanied by early warning signs. The pipelines moving the bulk of this crude in the United State’s upper Midwest spilled nearly three times as much crude per mile as the national average between 2007 and 2010.
Enbridge’s line 6B, which spilled over 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen in Michigan and on which hundreds of
corrosion abnormalities have been identified, has been used to move large quantities of Canada’s heavy crude
and diluted bitumen exports.
The Alberta Innovates report also noted that large diameter pipelines in Alberta have rates of internal corrosion
that are comparable to those in the United States. This is actually a sign of trouble, as the U.S. pipeline system is
on average (pdf file) twice as old as the Alberta pipeline system.
Because the risk of internal corrosion increases with pipeline age, the newer Alberta pipeline system should also
have a significantly lower rate of internal corrosion. That it doesn’t is evidence of a potential problem."
http://switchboard.n..._medium=twitter
Or I could have posted this in the "Is your city leaking?" thread.
#31
Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:38 AM
"Authorities are investigating an oily muck found in a creek north of Denver near the Suncor Energy tar
sands refinery in Commerce City."
http://blog.nwf.org/...drinking-water/
In other news-
"A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
would require the administration to approve
the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Dirty oil leaking and spoiling drinking water for several states, for the few piddly jobs it would create is
not in the "public's interest."
sands refinery in Commerce City."
http://blog.nwf.org/...drinking-water/
In other news-
"A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
would require the administration to approve
the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Dirty oil leaking and spoiling drinking water for several states, for the few piddly jobs it would create is
not in the "public's interest."
#32
Posted 04 December 2011 - 03:13 AM
"A new Pennsylvania law could curb municipalities' ability to zone and fracking.
Right now, local regulations on where drilling rigs can go, how loudly they operate and how far they need to be
from buildings differ from community to community.
Pennsylvania lawmakers who support the natural gas drilling industry are trying to standardize the rules across the state.
Some places, such as Pittsburgh, have passed outright bans on fracking.
So have several New York communities, in anticipation of drilling in the Empire State.
A measure now before Pennsylvania lawmakers would assign an "impact" fee to each Marcellus Shale well.
It would also set statewide guidelines for what local governments can and can't regulate."
http://www.npr.org/2...enn?ft=1&f=1025
Right now, local regulations on where drilling rigs can go, how loudly they operate and how far they need to be
from buildings differ from community to community.
Pennsylvania lawmakers who support the natural gas drilling industry are trying to standardize the rules across the state.
Some places, such as Pittsburgh, have passed outright bans on fracking.
So have several New York communities, in anticipation of drilling in the Empire State.
A measure now before Pennsylvania lawmakers would assign an "impact" fee to each Marcellus Shale well.
It would also set statewide guidelines for what local governments can and can't regulate."
http://www.npr.org/2...enn?ft=1&f=1025
#33
Posted 04 December 2011 - 01:53 PM
A small note for everyone.
In Canada the natural habitat is being destroyed to get to tar sand to so you can get oil out of it.
According to an assignment for geography my girlfriend made, It takes around 60 ton of tar sand ( I think it was 60k ? ) to get one barrol of oil, whether that's correct or not, it's a big number nonetheless, COMPLETELY NOT WORTH IT !.
But why do they do it ?
In Canada the natural habitat is being destroyed to get to tar sand to so you can get oil out of it.
According to an assignment for geography my girlfriend made, It takes around 60 ton of tar sand ( I think it was 60k ? ) to get one barrol of oil, whether that's correct or not, it's a big number nonetheless, COMPLETELY NOT WORTH IT !.
But why do they do it ?
#34
Posted 06 December 2011 - 04:24 AM
Ansem, on 04 December 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:
A small note for everyone.
In Canada the natural habitat is being destroyed to get to tar sand to so you can get oil out of it.
According to an assignment for geography my girlfriend made, It takes around 60 ton of tar sand ( I think it was 60k ? ) to get one barrol of oil, whether that's correct or not, it's a big number nonetheless, COMPLETELY NOT WORTH IT !.
But why do they do it ?
In Canada the natural habitat is being destroyed to get to tar sand to so you can get oil out of it.
According to an assignment for geography my girlfriend made, It takes around 60 ton of tar sand ( I think it was 60k ? ) to get one barrol of oil, whether that's correct or not, it's a big number nonetheless, COMPLETELY NOT WORTH IT !.
But why do they do it ?
they wouldn't bother.
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
http://www.treehugge...t-on-earth.html
#35
Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:02 AM
You gotta love the Sierra Club, Josh Fox (Gasland, the movie) and Mark Ruffalo (actor/activist) for paying (our of their
own pockets) for clean drinking water to residents in Dimrock, Pa.
http://www.huffingto..._n_1131805.html
#36
Posted 09 December 2011 - 04:15 AM
"For the first time, a government study has tied contamination in drinking water to an advanced drilling technique
commonly known as "fracking."
The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft study Thursday tying the technique, formally called
hydraulic fracturing, to high levels of chemicals found in ground water in the small town of Pavillion, Wyo.
EPA scientists found high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and synthetic glycol and alcohol, commonly found in
hydraulic fracturing fluid.
The gas industry and other experts have long contended that fracking doesn't contaminate drinking water.
The EPA's findings provide the first official confirmation to the contrary.
But many experts have raised concerns about a wide range of environmental risks.
In many areas across the country, people who live near gas production have complained that their wells have been contaminated.
EPA researchers drilled two wells and found lots of chemicals, which could be tied to drilling.
For example, they found levels of benzene, which is known to cause cancer and other health effects, far higher
than safe drinking water standards.
The presence of other chemicals — like synthetic glycols and alcohols — persuaded them that the contamination
was likely coming from fracking."
http://www.npr.org/2...ion?ft=1&f=1025
commonly known as "fracking."
The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft study Thursday tying the technique, formally called
hydraulic fracturing, to high levels of chemicals found in ground water in the small town of Pavillion, Wyo.
EPA scientists found high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and synthetic glycol and alcohol, commonly found in
hydraulic fracturing fluid.
The gas industry and other experts have long contended that fracking doesn't contaminate drinking water.
The EPA's findings provide the first official confirmation to the contrary.
But many experts have raised concerns about a wide range of environmental risks.
In many areas across the country, people who live near gas production have complained that their wells have been contaminated.
EPA researchers drilled two wells and found lots of chemicals, which could be tied to drilling.
For example, they found levels of benzene, which is known to cause cancer and other health effects, far higher
than safe drinking water standards.
The presence of other chemicals — like synthetic glycols and alcohols — persuaded them that the contamination
was likely coming from fracking."
http://www.npr.org/2...ion?ft=1&f=1025
#37
Posted 10 December 2011 - 07:31 AM
The Republicans and their corporations have seized this country. They're liars. They promised fracking would not pollute groundwater and it is doing so all over to a serious degree of unknown duration. Fracking itself is a common sense thing that shouldn't be done anyway. Once you have to shatter the bedrock under your country that should be a sign that things have gotten ridiculous. It's symbolic in more than a subtle way.
#38
Posted 11 December 2011 - 08:46 PM
It is true that the whole mindset of fracking ignores the realities of hydrology. Water will flow wherever it has a chance to go so if you fracture rock to get natural gas out, your obviously going to allow water in. Unless you ignorantly think that this water is just going to sit there, it is blatantly obvious that any pollution added to the water is going to come back to bite you.
#39
Posted 12 December 2011 - 04:39 AM
jasserEnv, on 11 December 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:
It is true that the whole mindset of fracking ignores the realities of hydrology. Water will flow wherever it has a chance to go so if you fracture rock to get natural gas out, your obviously going to allow water in. Unless you ignorantly think that this water is just going to sit there, it is blatantly obvious that any pollution added to the water is going to come back to bite you.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
