VERMONT SENATE HAS VOTED TO BAN FRACKING!

10 posts / 0 new

EcoWatch

Vermont is quietly on its way to being the first state to ban fracking. On April 18, the Vermont Senate voted in favor of a ban on fracking for natural gas by a margin of 27-1, sending a strong message that the state’s legislature is on board to lead the way in protecting its citizens from fouled water and air.

Although Vermont sits on a relatively small reserve of natural gas compared to, say, New York or Pennsylvania, the ban will set an important precedent while prohibiting the collection, treatment or storage of fracking wastewater within state borders. This is of special concern due to Vermont’s immediate proximity to the Utica and Marcellus shale formations—two hotbeds containing massive amounts of shale gas that are virtually under siege by the gas industry.

“This vote brings Vermont one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to ban the dirty and dangerous practice of fracking,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).

“This is exactly the kind of leadership that is needed on this issue. Fracking is wreaking havoc in nearby states. This bill sends a clear message to the oil and gas industry that we value clean water too much to allow fracking in Vermont,” Burns added.

For more information, click here.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 9:45 am

Comments

This ban is based on zero groundwater impacts due to oil or gas extraction in Vermont. Exactly zero wells are affected by this ban, There are no producing oil or gas wells in Vermont.

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/geo/oilandgas.htm

I like the phrase "...immediate vicinity of the Utica and Marcellus shale formations.." Immediate as in over one hundred miles from the border in neghboring states- there are no Utica or Marcellus gas plays in Vermont.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So MrsBJLee, you care about land... just not the people that live on it.

AGENDA 21 should play a nice role in sterilizing and killing people. No people = no fracking. No cars = no accidents.

That's so cute!

Fletcher Christian's picture
Fletcher Christian
Joined:
Feb. 15, 2012 12:49 pm

UPDATE! VERMONT has actually BANNED FRACKING! Now if only we can make that happen across the nation!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 9:45 am

Let me posit a counter intuitive assertion.Fracking is good for the environment.

How could this be? It drives down the price of natural gas, a much cleaner burning fuel then oil. Right now much ot the homes on the east coast are heated with dirtier oil, if we can get them converted to natural gas then we could make a significant dent in overall emissions.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

I agree Worker bee, plus, even if a spill occurs, surface releases are infintely easier to clean up than emissions to the atmosphere

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

We hear all these horror stories about gas in the water but in reality most of these areas already had gas in there water do to natural seepage.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I am sorry to see that some of you are buying into the propaganda spread by the oil companies regarding fracking and natural gas. I WISH it were the "clean energy" solution and that the process of extracting it was without environmental damage but that is not the case!

Hydrofracking allows gas companies to extract natural gas from shale rock-a process that was once too expensive and complex to be feasible. Basically, a corporation drills vertically down several thousand feet to get into the Marcellus shale formation, and then drills horizontally for more than a mile through the shale layer. Since the gas is trapped in fragmented pockets of the shale, the companies use a special fluid to extract it. To frack open the pores in the shale rock, the companies must first "borrow" millions of gallons of water from local sources. Then, they add sand(which holds open the rock to allow gas to seep out) and numerous chemicals. The chemicals are considered proprietary-a "secret", in industry speak-so the landowners and residents of the area won't even know whether or not certain carcinogens and toxins are entering the soil under their feet. Lastly, this concoction is shot deep into the ground. Will it seep into the groundwater? It has in Pennsylvania and in Colorado. But the gas companies say it's safe, so don't worry: everything will be all right.

Water Acquisition Stage: Large volumes of water are required for hydraulic fracturing operations, anywhere from tens of thousands to several million gallons of water per well.

The water is sourced from local surface or subsurface water bodies. With large scale development, this could mean a net loss from local water supplies of millions of gallons of water per day. Because fresh water is contaminated by the hydraulic fracturing process, it generally cannot be returned to the reservoir from which it was sourced. This could potentially have an adverse impact on water quality and availability, and aquatic species and habitat. For example, levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded drinking water standards in 2008 and 2009 in the Monongahela River, an important source of drinking water, and were linked in part to water withdrawals for Marcellus shale drilling.

OF COURSE they want you to believe the gas was ALREADY in everyones water! How else could they protect their profits!

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 9:45 am

Actually texas just passed a law that the chemicals used musted be reported to the texas railroad commission and the TCEQ

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I am not suggesting that it is the "clean" energy as much at it is the "cleaner" energy. The fact is that people need to stay warm in the winter and without a viable alternative they will continue to use heating oil.

For the environmental movement to be effective it must understand and work within the economic realities that surround energy issues.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Currently Chatting

Should public radio program in the public interest?

NPR is supposed to be our national public radio, but they're barely covering climate issues that are in the public's interest.

Only one month ago, a national New York Times/CBS News poll found that half of all Americans think that global warming is already having a serious impact. Sixty percent of those surveyed even said that protecting our environment should be a priority “even at the risk of curbing economic growth.”

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system