553 replies to this topic

[DeeNeely]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 16 May 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

"Companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands will be required to disclose publicly
the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations, the Obama administration said Thursday.
Details here

Now if we can just get that same regulation on private lands, we'll be better off.

I wonder how that will work since they have exemptions passed by congress where they don't have to. It was one of Cheney's pieces of work.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

DeeNeely, on 16 May 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

I wonder how that will work since they have exemptions passed by congress where they don't have to. It was one of Cheney's pieces of work.

They either won't drill on public lands or they'll change the exemption. The latter is a fat chance, imo.

[DeeNeely]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 May 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

They either won't drill on public lands or they'll change the exemption. The latter is a fat chance, imo.

I agree because the companies really don't want the public to know what they are putting in the ground water. I still don't see how the EPA could give them a pass when they kept the ingredients secret.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

DeeNeely, on 17 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

I agree because the companies really don't want the public to know what they are putting in the ground water. I still don't see how the EPA could give them a pass when they kept the ingredients secret.

chaney was the boss. He got it pushed through some how. Back door deals.

[Besoeker]

FWIW this was sent to my business email yesterday:

click here

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 17 May 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

FWIW this was sent to my business email yesterday:

click here

It's not so much the methane that taints the water supply but rather all the chemicals used to get the gas to the surface.
Holding ponds are an issue too, as the water can seep down into aquifers.
http://www.endocrine...ntroduction.php

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 May 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

It's not so much the methane that taints the water supply but rather all the chemicals used to get the gas to the surface.
Holding ponds are an issue too, as the water can seep down into aquifers.
http://www.endocrine...ntroduction.php

So who do you believe regarding the geology?
Geologists or a zoologist?
Or the one that best suits your own take on the subject?

I have no expertise in this field. The last time I learned anything about geology was in geography and in how the physical landscape for formed - folding, volcanic activity, fault lines, rift valleys, glaciers and erosion -that kind of thing. But that was at secondary school (maybe the equivalent of your high school). Fifty some years ago.

So, in this case, I'm just the messenger. Not the interpreter. I'm simply not qualified to analyse their findings.

[yoder]

Looks like Duke also did a study in 2010 from 68 private groundwater wells across five counties in northeastern Pennsylvania and New York.  In this study they did find "high levels of leaked methane in well water collected near shale-gas drilling and hydrofracking sites"

So what I take from this is that contamination from fracking is a gamble.  And if you win, you don't really win anything, you just don't lose anything.  But if you lose, you get to use bottled water for the foreseeable future and get saddled with tanking property values.

Another link that discusses the study.

[yoder]

FTA "We found measurable amounts of methane in 85 percent of the samples, but levels were 17 times higher on average in wells located within a kilometer of active hydrofracking sites,"

[yoder]

From Besoeker's article:
...the Arkansas study "suggests that variations in local and regional geology play major roles in determining the possible risk of groundwater impacts from shale gas development.  As such, they must be taken into consideration before drilling begins."

[Besoeker]

yoder, on 17 May 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

From Besoeker's article:
...the Arkansas study "suggests that variations in local and regional geology play major roles in determining the possible risk of groundwater impacts from shale gas development.  As such, they must be taken into consideration before drilling begins."

Seems reasonable. Take it on a case by case basis and do the geology rather than simply condemning it out of hand.

[E3 wise]

Part of the problem here is lack of standardization of procedures and chemicals.  Several companies have proprietary mixtures that are not being evaluated for toxicity or carcinogens.  Likewise some of the information I have seen points to some heavier then water chemicals which could easily be left in the gas field.  Finally lack of oversight is producing a Wild West like atmosphere where money and profits greatly outweigh the risk of fines and litigation.

[DeeNeely]

E3 wise, on 18 May 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

Part of the problem here is lack of standardization of procedures and chemicals.  Several companies have proprietary mixtures that are not being evaluated for toxicity or carcinogens.  Likewise some of the information I have seen points to some heavier then water chemicals which could easily be left in the gas field.  Finally lack of oversight is producing a Wild West like atmosphere where money and profits greatly outweigh the risk of fines and litigation.

It is amazing that this late in the United States environmental game that companies are able to do with so little supervision. It just goes to show you what person status can get you.

[yoder]

There doesn't appear to be anything reasonable or case by case about any of this up to now, but if the actual physical citizens (and not the pretend ones) are able to inject reason, logic, control and effective oversight into the current morass of corporate will and control, we might be able to get through this.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Figures.

"House Republicans pushed through a bill Wednesday to bypass the president to speed approval of the
Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
The bill was approved, 241-175, largely along party lines."
Source

[yoder]

Bypassing the president.  Something that if the Dems had done 10 years ago, they would have been called terrorists.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Public statements (for and against) the Keystone pipeline are being released.

Article

The docket can be viewed here.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

GE to invest billions-with a B; in fracking.
http://www.huffingto...reen&ref=topbar

[E3 wise]

Honestly I just wish fracking would stop.  The water usage, chemicals used, and pollution of water sources in my mind make the overall cost to the planet too high.  As I have stated in the past we have more than enough natural gas (methane) avalible from water treatment, manufacturing, and land fills to provide our needs without polluting our planet to get more.

[yoder]

The logic, science, economics and reason all say that fracking is not the answer.  Politicians, on the payroll of the fracking industry, say otherwise.