Cut the FRACK! It's time to get down to BUSINESS AND STOP FRACKING NATIONWIDE!

51 posts / 0 new

If we don't get off our butts, get united ACROSS THE NATION, to DEMAND a NATIONWIDE BAN ON FRACKING then we can just except the fate of more toxic water, more air pollution, earthquakes, scarred wilderness and the death of wildlife. We have the numbers to make this change happen if we all back and support a group that is working on this to happen. Please read below the latest that I found.

Pulling a Con Job on Fracking in Canada and Ohio

Oil Change International

By Andy Rowell

The leader of Canada’s opposition party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), Tom Mulcair has accused one of Canada’s leading oil and gas lobby of “pulling a con job” whilst trying to promote fracking.

Out political campaigning over the weekend, Mulcair slammed the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAAP) for “deceiving the public when it says there are regulations to ensure that shale gas fracking is safe,” according to reports in the Canadian press.

Any regular reader of this blog will know CAAP is a cheerleader for the dirty tar sands.

Now it seems that CAAP is also spinning the benefits of fracking. “I met with the leadership of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers who gave me a lovely brochure, colour, glossy, explaining that they had a policy that all companies doing fracking had to reveal the contents of the fracking fluid,” Mulcair said.

He continued: “I said, ‘But the companies aren’t doing that.’ You know what they said? ‘Well, we can’t force them, they’re just our members.’”

Mulcair added: “That representative of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was out here pulling a con job, trying to make people believe that somehow they were regulating, somehow they had rules that were going to mean something.”

Mulcair threw down the gauntlet to the industry to tell the public what is in fracking fluid. “Here’s one tough question: If you think that your method of getting to that gas is safe, why won’t you reveal the contents of the fracking fluid?” he said. “Because that fracking fluid contains known carcinogens and other very dangerous substances.”

Muclair’s comments come as across North America, state legislators are struggling to regulate the technique. And what you find is that it is not just in Canada where the industry and its allies are pulling one big fat con job.

In California, where they also don’t know what is in the fracking fluid, they are fighting to even find out that drilling is about to happen. But don’t get your hopes up. Last month the California Senate killed a measure requiring drillers to purely inform the public before fracking.

Amazingly, the bill would not have even regulated the controversial bill. According to the LA Times, it “merely would have required that drillers notify local property owners and water authorities in advance that fracking was going to take place.”

But even that small right to know has been denied.

But it gets worse. According to the local anti-fracking campaign group in Ohio, the local Gov. John Kasich has just signed what is known as SB 315 into law, “turning one of the worst fracking bills in America into the worst fracking laws.”

Kasich, who has taken a cool $200,000 from the gas industry, “has now more than adequately repaid the favour,” claim the activists.

It certainly looks that way. SB 315 “eliminates all public notice for fracking well permits, opens gaping loopholes in disclosure laws that allow fracking companies to keep toxic chemical cocktails secret from communities, establishes the lowest tax rates on the gas industry in the country, and gags doctors from discussing the health impacts of fracking.”

So you don’t get to know fracking is about to happen, what is in fracking chemicals and your doctor can’t tell you if the chemicals have made you sick.

If you live in Ohio, on June 17 Ohioans will be mobilizing in a rally against Kasich and his oil industry buddies. If you care about your future, be there. For more details go here. If the link doesn't work go to EcoWatch.org FRACKING PAGE.

Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.

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

Comments

I was reading an LA Times article that gave me hope regarding " Brown Administration to create regulations for hydraulic fracturing" until I got to the LAST SENTENCE......last year Brown FIRED TWO OFFICIALS who tried to toughen regulation of the procedure! WELL SO MUCH FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY GOVERNOR BROWN! I AM OUTRAGED! I WILL BE WRITING HIM A LETTER AGAIN!!!!

Governor Browns administration plans to review and update the state's decades-old regulations for other types of "underground injection," including a popular form of steam extraction that heats the ground and loosens oil deposits.

Oil regulators have linked the procedure to the death of an oil worker who was swallowed by a sinkhole and boiled alive in a caldron of oil fluids last June. If that doesn't make your blood boil nothing will. Will you take action NOW?

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTIVES IN CONGRESS & THE SENATE. TELL THEM WE WANT A NATIONAL BAN ON FRACKING!!!

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

I HOPE YOU WILL ALL SUPPORT A NATIONWIDE BAN ON FRACKING! Please write to your Senators and Congress members and let them know. Meanwhile have you seen "The Sky is Pink" ?? I posted a link to that movie on the topic titled the same as the movie. Lets get busy and make this happen!

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

I posted here a while back about fracking. Health issues have stopped me from posting til tonight.

What I thought may have been a fracking site turns out to be two pretty large ones, the one not three miles up the road from me.

I live in a National forest and if it can be doine here, it can be done anywhere.

I'll keep an eye on the "progress" of these sites.

Meanwhile, we MUST stop these fracking sites!

CelticStriker's picture
CelticStriker
Joined:
Mar. 27, 2012 6:44 am

Which National forest has the fracking sites? In what state are you in? How long have the fracking sites been there? I am sorry to hear that you've been dealing with health issues. I wish you well.

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

If you have not seen "The Sky is Pink" I suggest you watch it. It's short and very informative.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/new-anti-fracking-film-by-gaslands-josh-fox-targets-cuomo-governor-what-color-will-the-sky-be-over-new-york-20120620

You will see it at the bottom of the article.

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

I heard a short debate on this topic on a recent Bill Moyer show. There was one poor soul pointing out some of the holes in the arguements against fracking. Of course he got shouted down and was told that his points were nothing more than oil company talking points.

The reality of this is unless you are a petroleum engineer or at least a geologist, you simply are in no position to have an informed opinion on this subject. ALL information on the internet is suspect.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but unles you have the proper background and have at least some operating experience in this area, you simply are not in a position to have an informed opinion. Sorry.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Only An Expert Can Deal With The Problem

Now only an expert can deal with the problem
Because half the problem is seeing the problem
And only an expert can deal with the problem
Only an expert can deal with the problem

So if there’s no expert dealing with the problem
It’s really actually twice the problem
Cause only an expert can deal with the problem
Only an expert can deal with the problem

Now in America we like solutions
We like solutions to problems
And there’s so many companies that offer solutions
Companies with names like Pet Solution
The Hair Solution. The Debt Solution. The World Solution. The Sushi Solution.
Companies with experts ready to solve the problems.
Cause only an expert can see there’s a problem
And only an expert can deal with the problem
Only and expert can deal with the problem

(the rest)

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

A woman in Ohio too action against fracking to a whole new level.

http://ecowatch.org/2012/ohio-woman-arrested/

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

NEW JERSEY BAN'S FRACKING WASTE!

In the latest state-level action against fracking, the New Jersey legislature today approved a measure to ban the processing of waste from the dirty gas drilling practice. Environment New Jersey and our allies stepped up efforts to build support for the ban after learning that fracking waste had been discharged into the Delaware River by a DuPont facility in Salem County. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Bob Gordon (D-38) and Sen. Jen Beck (R-12), passed by a bipartisan landslide margin of 30-5.

“Toxic waste from fracking should not be allowed anywhere near New Jersey’s waterways,” said Doug O’Malley, interim director of Environment New Jersey. “The New Jersey Senate chose drinking water over gas drillers today, and we urge Gov. Christie to sign this bill into law.”

http://ecowatch.org/2012/nj-legislature-bans-fracking-waste/

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

As I have said before even a card carrying right winger like me wants to drink clean water. I assume there are standards for discharging water and other wastes into lakes and streams. Oil refineries (the industry I am in) have very strict rules about what they discharge into lakes, rivers, and oceans, even regulations on the temperature. I assume that the oil producers have the same rules. If that is not the case, it certainly should be.

PS, they do have oil refineries in New Jersey. As far as I know, they have not been cited recently for any violations. Does the state of New Jersey not hold the oil producers to the same standards?

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Silence your minds for a minute, of everything you've been told about hydrocarbons.

Now read Thomas Gold's "The Deep Hot Biosphere".

Finished?

Now you see, the Fossil Fool Theory was designed to control the supply of oil and natural gas, in effect, to make invisible what they are now fracking for, while leaving all the old gas wells capped.

Abiogenic methane, in unlimited quantities, rising out of the Earth and burning in the atmosphere, whether we burn it or not.

Since these bubbles of methane are the primary cause of earthquakes, siesmology is just a cover story.

Similarly, since the driving factor of climate change is the Earth, 'Carbon' Science is a cruel joke.

Since we do not believe in bubbles of methane rising from the core into the atmosphere, a plane could never fly through one and drop like a stone, 'mysteriously'.

We need separation of Science and State, as well.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Did you see how fast the truth disappeared?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

I studied Gold's and the Russians' theory of abiotics years ago. Even if the abiotic theory eventually proves to be partially or wholly valid, it will have little or no practical consequences in terms of oil depletion and global peak oil that's driving measures like fracking and tar sands energy extraction. I'm sorry to be the one to inform you, but you haven't discovered anything new.

More critically, it doesn't change the current environmental catastrophe problem humans are creating. More hydrocarbon energy cannot save a dying, self destructive system. What's actually needed is some genuinely creative thinking that can help humans to learn how to organize themselves into sustainable, steady state relationships with the planet. And while some people are working frantically at trying to figure something out, the results, like the recent ones from the Rio+20 conference show little promise.

We will probably have to go through a catastrophic collapse before we act on the environmental science. Sigh.

Separating science and state in a crisis is a really brilliant idea. Science tells state we are approaching catastrophe, corporatized global neoliberal states then step on the accelerator. Sounds like something's gone awry with the feedback mechanism. The thermostat says hot and the furnace turns on full blast.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Linda, you're absolutely right.

A quantum leap in knowledge is worthless today.

We should all give up.

The spies are falling. The spies are falling.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

Linda, you're absolutely right.

A quantum leap in knowledge is worthless today.

We should all give up.

The spies are falling. The spies are falling.

If you want to give up, that's entirely up to you. Knowledge is only a small part of our human capacity to understand and engage the world. But though our modern technomachine-oriented societies give knowledge and experts the voice of authority, I don't. For programmed cybernetic machines a quantum "leap" might be something important, of course, along with newer, advanced micro transistorized, multi core Central Processing Units with ever higher clock speeds and multi tasking capabilities. If that's how you see yourself, so be it.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

You have the answers to all your questions, and the solution to all your problems, in Gold's work.

You could:

Take back all the money Energy companies have absconded with by instituting Public Power, again.

Take back the hydrogen fuel cell technology stolen by Bush's fascist military.

Take back the troops we sent all over the world to control Oil Interests, and use them to protect us from what some would perceive as God's wrath on America.

Take back the lies of science about Hydrocarbons and their true origin in our Universe.

Take back the Estate tax clauses in Bush's fascist tax cuts, and make them apply retroactively to 9/11, 55% on every motherf&^&*( who died and took it with them, while the other kids died on America's dime.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Those aren't any of my questions. I don't see why your solutions to what are obviously your questions are being posted on a thread about the environmental destruction caused by fracking.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

HERE IS A PETITION AGAINST FRACKING I HOPE YOU WILL SIGN!

https://secure3.convio.net/engage/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=5846&autologin=true&s_promoCode=email

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

That took me less than thirty seconds. :)

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN DO! Do you live close enough to Washington D.C. to attend a protest at the White House or can you make the trip? Here is the info on the next event.

Help Stop the Frack Attack!

Posted on May 1st, 2012 by Lauren Pagel

If you think drill rigs don’t belong in kitchen windows, join us in D.C. to stop the frack attack!

From California to New York, from North Dakota to Texas, people across the country are converging on the U.S. Capitol to tell Congress, the President and the world to end the rush to drill and STOP THE FRACK ATTACK.

JOIN US — a nationwide coalition of citizens, communities and organizations declaring the time is NOW to use our collective power to end oil and gas drilling that harms public health, water and air quality, and the climate.

http://www.stopthefrackattack.org/

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

PLEASE SIGN THE CALIFORNIA PETITION TO OUR GOVERNOR TO BAN FRACKING IN CALIFORNIA!

To be delivered to: The California State House, The California State Senate, Governor Jerry Brown, and The United States House of Representatives

California is already earthquake prone. Fracking will exacerbate the risks of earthquakes as huge hydraulic drills will core deep into the earth, moving already loose tectonic plates. Please! It is common sense. Additionally, poisonous gases will permanently pollute many precious aquifers, irreversibly poisoning our drinking water. Please follow the sane example of Vermont, and Ban Fracking in California. Protect our land, and Waters, Wetlands, Ecosystems, and Oceans. Please Help to Protect ourselves. Please use common sense. Please Ban Fracking in California. Protect our water! We are each at least 90% Water!Ban Fracking in California http://signon.org/s/4fvcO2 #signon

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

Any objective studies beenDione to prove there is any environmentalcharm being done?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

Any objective studies beenDione to prove there is any environmentalcharm being done?

Ah ha, a very good question Commonsense! I don't have the answer, but at least you recognize that there are only a very few people who actually have enough information to make any inteligent comments on the topic. I'm not one of them, and I bet a dollar to a dime that no one else on the blog is either.

Have there been instances of environmentalists banning something based on bad science and having the politicians swallowing the bad science hook line and sinker. Of course! (the ban on Freon comes to mind here)

Have there been instances of companies ignoring environmental risks and lying to the public, of course!

Is Fracking either of the above. Heck if I don't know, but I really don't think anyone else here knows either. But I do know Fracking has lowered the price of natural gas to $3 a MMBTU. In Europe, that price is at least 4 times that.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Thank you .ren for signing....

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

It's sad to see so many people who have little if no understanding of hydrocarbons.

Please, first read Thomas Gold, The Deep Hot Biosphere., and forget about the people who say 'so what if hydrocarbons aren't million year old shrimp gumbo.'

An unlimited supply of abiotic methane is leaking from your planet, from every pore, from every crack, every day. It rises up in the atmosphere, and 100% of it turns into CO2, with in ten years.

Every ten years, an entire planet's worth of methane 'burns' in your atmosphere, and you cannot stop it.

Why do they frack? Because although they are telling you about the dangers of 'fossil fuel', they really are using Gold's science. They know that if they pulverize rock, the methane from below will seek the path of least resistance.

Unfortunately, because they are 'begging' methane to come hither, at times they get more than they bargained for.

Gold states that the movement of bubbles of methane are actually the true cause of earthquakes, and if you use your mind, you'll see he is right.

So, if you coax these bubbes of methane to your well, you might just find the earth collapsing where the bubble used to be.

This would explain the earthquake activity they deny is from fracking.

The real danger in fracking, besides the poisons they pump into your aquifers, is that they have created a channel for methane, and unnatural one.

Methane will comply, it has no choice, it has no mind.

So... it should be safe to power all our cars, grids, etc. with methane because it's gonna burn up in the air whether you do it or not.

Get it?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

There has never been a scientific report showing that fracking operating within regulations has contaminated any water the last report on fracking by the EPA was done in 2006 and found no evidence of your claims .

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

2006!!!!!! ok you are just trying to antagonize everyone here! GET A LIFE ALREADY!

Fracking has also been criticized by scientists at CornellUniversity, who say leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, atdrilling sites can make natural gas an even worse emitter of gasesblamed for warming the planet than coal. [ID:nN12172699]EPA INVESTIGATING DIESEL USE Earlier this year, a Congressional probe found a dozenenergy companies used diesel in their fracking operations

without permits. For details, see [ID:nN31240520]

The dirty truth behind the new natural gas. Related: A V.F. video look at a town transformed by fracking.

By Christopher Bateman

Photographs by Jacques del Conte

Frack water has 10,000x more contamination
than the EPA allows in drinking water

A typical frack job uses 25,000 gallons of chemicals

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.

I'm sure you can find plenty of scientific reports on the internet if all of the above doesn't satisfy you.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 9:45 am
Quote Commonsense461:

There has never been a scientific report showing that fracking operating within regulations has contaminated any water the last report on fracking by the EPA was done in 2006 and found no evidence of your claims .

From Scientific American

EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination December 9, 2011

In a first, federal environment officials today scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process.

The findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released today, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

"The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers...and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field," the draft report states. "Alternative explanations were carefully considered."

The agency's findings could be a turning point in the heated national debate about whether contamination from fracking is happening, and are likely to shape how the country regulates and develops natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale and across the Eastern Appalachian states.

Some of the findings in the report also directly contradict longstanding arguments by the drilling industry for why the fracking process is safe: that hydrologic pressure would naturally force fluids down, not up; that deep geologic layers provide a watertight barrier preventing the movement of chemicals towards the surface; and that the problems with the cement and steel barriers around gas wells aren't connected to fracking.

------>

The EPA's findings immediately triggered what is sure to become a heated political debate as members of Congress consider afresh proposals to regulate fracking. After a phone call with EPA chief Lisa Jackson this morning, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told a Senate panel that he found the agency's report on the Pavillion-area contamination "offensive." Inhofe's office had challenged the EPA's investigation in Wyoming last year, accusing the agency of bias.

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking May 9, 2011

For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.

The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks.

Here's a link to the study:

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Results and Discussion

Methane concentrations were detected generally in 51 of 60 drinking-water wells (85%) across the region, regardless of gas industry operations, but concentrations were substantially higher closer to natural-gas wells (Fig. 3). Methane concentrations were 17-times higher on average (19.2 mg CH4 L−1) in shallow wells from active drilling and extraction areas than in wells from nonactive areas (1.1 mg L−1 on average; P < 0.05; Fig. 3 and Table 1). The average methane concentration in shallow groundwater in active drilling areas fell within the defined action level (10–28 mg L−1) for hazard mitigation recommended by the US Office of the Interior (13), and our maximum observed value of 64 mg L−1 is well above this hazard level (Fig. 3).

(read more of the study from the pdf link)

(Concluding paragraph):

Based on our groundwater results and the litigious nature of shale-gas extraction, we believe that long-term, coordinated sampling and monitoring of industry and private homeowners is needed. Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level. Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wells are not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturing firms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in the fracturing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. More research is also needed on the mechanism of methane contamination, the potential health consequences of methane, and establishment of baseline methane data in other locations. We believe that systematic and independent data on groundwater quality, including dissolved-gas concentrations and isotopic compositions, should be collected before drilling operations begin in a region, as is already done in some states. Ideally, these data should be made available for public analysis, recognizing the privacy concerns that accompany this issue. Such baseline data would improve environmental safety, scientific knowledge, and public confidence. Similarly, long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface methane emissions during and after extraction would clarify the extent of problems and help identify the mechanisms behind them. Greater stewardship, knowledge, and—possibly— regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction.

Concerns go back to the '80, a 1988 investigative piece in The New York Times:

Over the past seven months, The Times reviewed several thousand pages of documents related to natural gas extraction, focusing on a case where hydraulic fracturing is believed to have contaminated a family’s water well. The most important of the documents are provided here.

1987 E.P.A. Report Documents Water Contamination

(go to the site and read the list )

(Here's a link to the) 1987 EPA report to Congress

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Really a study based on one town get real. To prove that was result of proper fracking you would need multiple towns and a careful look at their operations records and site conditions. The more likely cause of the contamination is a spill outside of the well pad or a crack in the well pad.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:

Really a study based on one town get real. To prove that was result of proper fracking you would need multiple towns and a careful look at their operations records and site conditions. The more likely cause of the contamination is a spill outside of the well pad or a crack in the well pad.

Now you're just a troll.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote Commonsense461:

Really a study based on one town get real. To prove that was result of proper fracking you would need multiple towns and a careful look at their operations records and site conditions. The more likely cause of the contamination is a spill outside of the well pad or a crack in the well pad.

Again, I don't know about this study, but I do know that environmentalists have been known to leap to the wrong conclusion before all the facts are in. Again look at Freon, a classic case of that.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Not really just pointing out that his source was unscientific as it only had one data point. Anyway even if it was risky the federal government cant ban it as it affects ground water and is Outside the authority of the clean water act. This is a state issue you can say no to it at the state level. though states likeTexas, Pa and north Dakota will keep it for the jobs.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

The PNAS study .ren cited looks like solid science and I agree with the authors' modest recommendations.

we believe that long-term, coordinated sampling and monitoring of industry and private homeowners is needed. Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level.Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wellsare not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturingfirms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in the fracturing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. More research is also needed on the mechanism of methane contamination, the potential health consequences of methane, and establishment of baseline methane data in other locations. We believe that systematic and independent data on groundwater quality, including dissolved-gas concentrations and isotopic compositions, should be collected before drilling operations begin in a region, as is already done in some states. Ideally, these data should be made available for public analysis, recognizing the privacy concerns that accompany this issue. Such baselinedata would improve environmental safety, scientific knowledge, and public confidence. Similarly, long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface methane emissions during and after extraction would clarify the extent of problems and help identify the mechanisms behind them. Greater stewardship, knowledge, and—possibly—regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction.

yes, monitor and regulate Fracking wells the same as any other extraction or injection well. An outright ban on Fracking? Reactionary and absurd.

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

.ucsusa.org/publications

The U.S. Department of Energy has claimed that the potential for toxic chemicals to enter drinking water supplies during hydraulic fracturing is low, assuming proper development and monitoring of the well.[44] With a few important exceptions, shale gas deposits where hydraulic fracturing is employed are typically thousands of feet deeper than freshwater aquifers. Fracturing fluids would have to penetrate multiple overlying rock layers to reach aquifers from the gas-bearing shale where hydraulic fracturing takes place. There is some concern that the hydraulic fracturing process itself could compromise these layers, but the greater risk appears to be in failures of the metal casings and cement barriers used to isolate gas wells from groundwater supplies.[45] A casing failure in 2007 in a shale gas well in Bainbridge, Ohio, allowed natural gas to leak into nearby residential drinking water wells, where it caused an explosion that severely damaged one home and forced the evacuation of 19 others.[46]

Gas production also poses serious challenges with respect to wastewater disposal. Even conventional gas wells yield unwanted water that comes to the surface along with the gas. This “produced water,” as it is known, can carry with it naturally-occurring dissolved solids, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons in quantities that make it unsuitable for human consumption and difficult to dispose of safely. When hydraulic fracturing is used for shale gas or coalbed methane extraction, the wastewater disposal issues are compounded by the huge volumes of fracture fluids involved. After a hydraulic fracturing operation, well operators pump the fracturing fluids out of the well along with any naturally occurring produced water. This “flowback” water is usually highly saline and may contain toxic fracturing chemicals and small quantities of naturally-occurring radioactive minerals. Gas companies often temporarily store flowback water in open-air pits with impermeable liners to avoid seepage, but unexpected precipitation can cause these pits to overflow. Covered holding tanks, used in some locations, offer a more secure temporary storage option.[47]

The ultimate disposal method for flowback water varies from state to state. Where possible, the wastewater is directly injected into underground saline aquifers that are already unsuitable for drinking. In the Marcellus Shale region, where the occurrence of saline aquifers is limited, produced water is usually sent to municipal wastewater treatment plants before being released back into surface water bodies. Increasing shale gas production could strain the capacity of local treatment facilities, which are not always equipped to handle the volumes of fluids involved in shale gas production or the high salinity of the water produced. The large water requirements of hydrofracturing make it essential that research is done to ensure that overall water use is reduced, flowback water is recycled where possible, and wastewater is properly treated or disposed.

Shale gas development is relatively new, and many of the potential environmental effects from the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing and the disposal of produced water are not completely understood. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. At the state level, regulations covering the hydraulic fracturing process and the disclosure of the chemicals used vary widely among states. The EPA and other organizations are undertaking much needed efforts to more fully characterize the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, secure more complete and public disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing fluids, and examine non-toxic or less toxic alternatives. Above all, stronger regulation of shale gas production, whether under existing clean water laws or new regulations, will be critical for minimizing its environmental impacts.

Earthquakes

I think cheney got the exemptions from his secret energy task force meetings. Poison first, see if civil suits follow, delay, deny, poison, delay, deny, poison, sounds like a remarkable business plan.

The map in #[44] shows where they plan to drill, and where you don't want to live. TX has 6% of the country's natural ga.s output. TX also put a cap on civil suit claims, they called it tort reform.

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

I think cheney got the exemptions from his secret energy task force meetings. Poison first, see if civil suits follow, delay, deny, poison, delay, deny, poison, sounds like a remarkable business plan.

Yes, this was pointed out on another thread about fracking awhile back. Apparently Cheney and his powerful political/corporate cabal he'd been nurturing since the '70s managed to get the EPA regs changed about 2005 so that minimal disclosure and environmental impact statements would become the new norm. I'm not going to bother to hunt for that source right now, I have to leave. But it's well worth keeping in mind. The result has been a weakening of public oversight and a strengthening of the private sector's ability to use their bought and paid for science as support for their efforts while allowing it to become more private and secretive about its proprietary methods.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote stwo:

The PNAS study .ren cited looks like solid science and I agree with the authors' modest recommendations.

I appreciate your voice in this. Coming from someone with your busines involvement in this area, it's significant.

The key issue here is political at this point. Naturally we can expect "representatives" from the institutions in line to profit from this fracking process to show up and try to kill public debate. Much of the public is not aware of what's been done to weaken the EPA over the years and they need to respond to what may or may not be very serious health and environmental threats to us all. With that, then we let the objective science do its thing. It appears from all that I've been seeing on this topic that objective science was by-passed and is something that is critical to begin now before it's too late to fix the damages. The political process has to work or we are all screwed. Even those making all the money are screwed. They lack the moral conscience when money is involved and so we have to step in. That's just the way it is.

Regarding the money aspect of this fracking process, I just got word this morning that two bills have been introduced in the House: H.R. 4025 and H.R. 4024

Official Summary

2/14/2012--Introduced.North America Natural Gas Security and Consumer Protection Act - Prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from approving, before January 1, 2025, any application under the Natural Gas Act:
(1) for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal for activities related to exporting natural gas from the United States to a foreign country; or
(2) to amend an existing FERC authorization in order to modify an existing authorized facility to an LNG terminal that will be used for such activities. Exempts an application from such prohibition if the natural gas would be exported solely to meet certain requirements of:
(1) the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (regarding presidential foreign exchange authorities),
(2) Trading with the Enemy Act (regarding transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, and vested interests), or
(3) the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (regarding the International Energy Program).

Anyone interested in getting their representative to co-sponser these bills can go to this site:

Stop the Export of Fracked Gas!

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

YOU ARE AWESOME .ren !! THANKS FOR POSTING THAT. I am all over it!!!!

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

Today, celebrities and environmental leaders joined the call for the first-ever national mobilization on fracking on July 28 in Washington, D.C., called “Stop the Frack Attack.” The event will have three demands for Congress: stop dangerous fracking, close seven legal loopholes that exempt the oil and gas industry from parts of the Safe Drinking Water, Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and implement a pathway towards 100 percent clean renewable energy.

Mark Ruffalo, Pete Seeger, Lois Gibbs, Bill McKibben, Ed Begley Jr., Ed Asner, Josh Fox, Gus Speth, Cornel West, Vandana Shiva, Holly Near, James Hansen, Dar Williams, Michael Kieschnick, Joe Uehlein and Margot Kidder join more than 100 organizations and community groups in their call to action.

I HOPE YOU WILL BE THERE IF YOU CAN! SEE THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE LINK BELOW.

http://ecowatch.org/2012/celebrities-rally/

“Fracking is proof our addiction to fossil fuels has gone too far,” said Margot Kidder. “In the face of this kind of destruction, doing nothing is not an option. I’ll be in D.C. on July 28 because I’m worried about the world my grandchildren will inherit without immediate action. We have to stop the destruction, and we have to do it now.”

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

The end of oil?

http://coldfusionnow.org/is-it-finally-happening-supporting-evidence-for...

Greg Goble's picture
Greg Goble
Joined:
Jan. 10, 2013 8:39 pm

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or cold fusion........

I don't know enough about these energys, do you? How are they different than the Nuclear power plants like Fukushima or in my case San Nofre?

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

Actually I am glad this topic got revived because I just read an article in the editorial section of the PRESS TELEGRAM . Here is a link to the web version.

http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_22294372/editorial-californias-water-supply-must-be-protected-from

THE great fracking debate is coming to California, pitting the oil and natural gas industry against environmentalists in a battle for control of the Monterey Shale, which extends from the Central Valley down to Los Angeles County. It is believed to be the richest oil deposit in the United States.

Energy companies dream of setting off a 21st-century Gold Rush, bringing jobs and riches to a region now suffering from high unemployment. California has a golden opportunity to help meet the nation's energy needs while enacting model legislation for other states to follow. But the experiences of Pennsylvania, New York and Texas provide a wealth of knowledge about fracking's considerable risks to groundwater and air quality and we have to learn from them.

Gov. Jerry Brown has gotten off to a terrible start. The draft rules he has released are ridiculously inadequate. They fail the primary test, which is to protect the integrity of the state's water supply - a resource more precious than oil in California.

We need to send letters to Governor Brown right away!!!

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

<snip> But the experiences of Pennsylvania, New York and Texas provide a wealth of knowledge about fracking's considerable risks to groundwater and air quality and we have to learn from them. <snip>

I agree. The EPA tested the Pennsylvania water supply and declared it safe

"The conclusions reached by the EPA mirror those previously made by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Cabot," Dan Dinges said in a statement. "I am satisfied that concerns over water quality have been studied to the highest levels of scrutiny."

In New York: The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others, and concludes that fracking can be done safely. It delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”

So, yes, there is a lot to learn from what happened in New York and Pennsylvania. It is amazing what happens when real science is used instead of political hyperbole.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, just don't use tap water to put out a fire. Where fracking takes place, it's flammable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K5_JE_gOys

Buying bottled water from the supermarket to bath in is probably a good idea unless you don't mind the sores and rashes.

It would really be a shame to destroy the water supply in one of the few habitable states that will be left.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-10/extirpation-nation-how-much...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

In New York: The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others, and concludes that fracking can be done safely. It delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”

So, yes, there is a lot to learn from what happened in New York and Pennsylvania. It is amazing what happens when real science is used instead of political hyperbole.

And the next paragraphs say:

But it remains difficult to discern how much original research the state has done on potential health impacts, and environmentalists worry that the administration’s lack of transparency is hiding a lack of rigor in its assessment of public health risks. At the same time, the drilling industry, and landowners who have leased their land in the Southern Tier, have grown increasingly frustrated with delays by the Cuomo administration to announce a final plan. State regulators have now been studying the issue of fracking for about four years.

Emily DeSantis, a spokeswoman for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, said the analysis obtained by The Times was out of date. “The document you have is merely a summary, is nearly a year old, and there will be substantial changes to that version,” she said.

She added that a revised version of the Environmental Impact Statement on hydrofracking — which last ran about 1,500 pages — would include more material delving into health issues. The administration has also turned to three outside experts to review the state’s own health assessments.

Lack of transparency is one of the serious issues that has come about in these battles between ever weakening government watchdog agencies and the desperation to keep an unsustainable form of economic life going. The reasons we need to be concerned about "original research" issues is because these agencies are subject to ever more accepted corporate infiltration through the political system, just as this message board is.

The Federal Government through our K Street influences on Congress, the Obama Administration as well as many state politicians are under fire from a failing global economy. Constituencies may want safe environments but they also want work from an increasingly dysfunctional economy, and therefore the money to use for their personal needs.

Few of these politicians are informed enough about the complexities of environmental systems and the feedback loops that can trigger even more costly problems -- a predictable result from an ever increasingly complex and problem beset economic system -- thus few have a clue about how to address these threats to what they are supposedly charged with safeguarding. Those few that do have some idea are easily thrown under the bus of public opinion by half-assed truths set in a Eddie Bernays-induced public relations format. The result is inevitable. We will witness a steady sacrificing of whatever can't be determined with precise exactitude to satisfy short term criteria, no matter how it may result in future environmental devastation.

In my life time the whole of it has never got better. We are currently committing a form of natural species global genocide, the whole of which we cannot possible understand as we solve one abstracted problem after another and declare everything is just fine. Just like in abstracting the quality of drinking water in one community from the whole does not teach us much about what this invasive mining of the earth with technology will do in many other ways. (And notice too that not all of Pennsylvania's water was tested as the other "public relations" point pretended to say: "The EPA tested the Pennsylvania water supply and declared it safe": the EPA did not test "the" Pennsylvania water supply, it tested water in a Pennsylvania "'fracking' village " and declared it "safe to drink") That much we can learn as the environment continues to decline at a rapid rate.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I wonder if they tested the water RIGHT after the fracking and then several weeks after that. Something I remembered reading was that it takes some time for the fracking chemicals to migrate into the water supply so if they tested RIGHT after the fracking and ONLY RIGHT after the fracking took place then I can understand their test results. That would certainly be deceitful but do you expect the truth?

THE great fracking debate is coming to California, pitting the oil and natural gas industry against environmentalists in a battle for control of the Monterey Shale, which extends from the Central Valley down to Los Angeles County. It is believed to be the richest oil deposit in the United States.

Energy companies dream of setting off a 21st-century Gold Rush, bringing jobs and riches to a region now suffering from high unemployment. California has a golden opportunity to help meet the nation's energy needs while enacting model legislation for other states to follow. But the experiences of Pennsylvania, New York and Texas provide a wealth of knowledge about fracking's considerable risks to groundwater and air quality and we have to learn from them.

Gov. Jerry Brown has gotten off to a terrible start. The draft rules he has released are ridiculously inadequate. They fail the primary test, which is to protect the integrity of the state's water supply - a resource more precious than oil in California.

Developed by oil-field-services provider Halliburton, which first implemented the technology commercially in 1949 (and which was famously run by Dick Cheney before he became vice president of the United States), hydraulic fracturing has been used in conventional oil and gas wells for decades to increase production when a well starts to run dry. But its use in unconventional types of drilling, from coal-bed methane to shale gas, is relatively new. When a well is fracked, a small earthquake is produced by the pressurized injection of fluids, fracturing the rock around the well. The gas trapped inside is released and makes its way to the surface along with about half of the “fracking fluid,” plus dirt and rock that are occasionally radioactive. From there, the gas is piped to nearby compressor stations that purify it and prepare it to be piped (and sometimes transported in liquefied form) to power plants, manufacturers, and domestic consumers. Volatile organic compounds (carbon-based gaseous substances with a variety of detrimental health effects) and other dangerous chemicals are burned off directly into the air during this on-site compression process. Meanwhile, the returned fracking fluid, now called wastewater, is either trucked off or stored in large, open-air, tarp-lined pits on site, where it is allowed to evaporate. The other portion of the fluid remains deep underground—no one really knows what happens to it.

Fracking is an energy- and resource-intensive process. Every shale-gas well that is fracked requires between three and eight million gallons of water. Fleets of trucks have to make hundreds of trips to carry the fracking fluid to and from each well site.

Due in part to spotty state laws and an absence of federal regulation, the safety record that hydraulic fracturing has amassed to date is deeply disturbing. As use of the technique has spread, it has been followed by incidents of water contamination and environmental degradation, and even devastating health problems. Thousands of complaints have been lodged with state and federal agencies by people all over the country whose lives and communities have been transformed by fracking operations.

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

READ THE NEWS! About all of the issues we cover on the environment section of this board.

http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/306182/ac4a396297/1641760667/aefbbb245c/

SEVERAL FRACKING ARTICLES. KEEP UP TO DATE!

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

Frackers Are Losing $1.5 Billion of METHANE Yearly to Leaks

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/frackers-are-losing-15-billion-yearly-leaks

telliottmbamsc's picture
telliottmbamsc
Joined:
May. 20, 2010 4:06 am

Probably since methane is quickly becoming a primary problem in global warming, the leaks should be stopped.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-ar...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Looks like there have been 10 earthquakes just north east of Oklahoma City topping magnitude 3.0 in the couple of days, and two of the ones yesterday registered magnatude 4.2 and 4.3. Of course this new rash of earthquakes has nothing to do with all the oil and gas extraction and fracking that is going on there.

First there were climate change deniers. And now there are fracking earthquake deniers. I wonder just who funded that Durham University Study that found earquakes and fracking are not related?

I for one, would like to see a time study of the level of toxins in Oklahoma well water. I would bet the family farm and my whole life savings that Oklahoma's well water quality is not getting better.

Sacramento Dave's picture
Sacramento Dave
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2010 10:46 am

I can't remember where I read it but I believe there WAS a study regarding earthquakes from fracking done in ENGLAND that tied the two together. Of course NOT HERE! I wonder if we could get the results of THEIR study and pass it around to who ever is out there fighting fracking. Be sure to send one to Gov Brown and the president if you find it on the web! Post it here too!!

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

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system