An Environmental Disater, FRACK You Very Much...

[Minor Axis]

Hydraulic Fracturing:

Considerable controversy surrounds the current implementation of hydraulic fracturing technology in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process of utilizing pressurized water, or some other liquid, to fracture rock layers and release petroleum, natural gas, or other substances so that they can be extracted. Environmental safety and health concerns about this process have emerged and are being debated at the state and national levels.[1]

Just had a conversation with a conservative leaning fellow whose family has a farm in North Dakota. We got into a discussion regarding the lack of morality in the name of the once all mighty dollar who tells me that "fracking" the process of forcing gas and oil out of the ground is an environmental disaster and that one of the things that Mr. Halliburten Cheney (called "Dick" by both friends and enemies) did when in office was push through rules that blocked the EPA from regulating this practice. I don't know if that is true or not. Ground water is polluted in many cases, where in some cases victims can light the water coming out of their faucets on fire. I was told that 100 tankers of volatile chemicals (not just water) are forced into the ground to harvest 40 tankers worth of oil/gas. Where do all those chemicals go?

If you want to read more about this:
EWG:What You Need To Know About Fracking

Fracking- A Tale of Two States

Fracking Causes Environmental, Human Disaster

Or checkout the HBO Documentary if you get a chance:
Gaslands

 

[Aeval]

My island is in a huge debate over this very thing, I'm glad I saw this...I really wasn't sure what was involved with the process.

This area has one of the largest unemployment rates in the country and the battle is employment vs environment. It's going to get very ugly.

 

[Alien Allen]

This is another view Minor

No great surprise eh

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/03/hydraulic-fracturing-is-it-safe/

Two studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC)—the national association of state ground water and underground injection agencies whose mission is to promote the protection and conservation of ground water—found that there have been no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing.

This is particularly noteworthy in consideration of the fact that approximately one million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the United States. Furthermore, according to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)—the multi-state governmental agency representing states’ oil and gas interests—each IOGCC member state has confirmed that there has not been a case of groundwater contamination where hydraulic fracturing was attributed to be the cause.

Where I live there are areas with natural gas that is mixed in with the groundwater. It occured naturally. It is actually a pain in the butt because sometimes it causes problems with pumps cavitating. In one area unless the water supply is not installed properly and vented then you can light the gas as it comes out the faucet. I can assure you this is not a result of hydro fracing.

If you read the article it explains how these wells are done and how the aquifers are protected. I would love to know the specific sites where they claim these wells have caused damage and harm.

 

[Minor Axis]

This is another view Minor

No great surprise eh

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/03/hydraulic-fracturing-is-it-safe/

My tendency would be to investigate the neutrality of a pro-energy organization and the contention there has been no ground water contamination. Go check out Gaslands...

The other issue, is fracking being conducted under any kind of Federally mandated guidlines, standards, and inspections? That is a very big question. If it's not, you know damn well that industries do a lousy job policing themselves.

 

[Alien Allen]

My tendency would be to investigate the neutrality of a pro-energy organization and the contention there has been no ground water contamination. Go check out Gaslands...

The other issue, is fracking being conducted under any kind of Federally mandated guidlines, standards, and inspections? That is a very big question. If it's not, you know damn well that industries do a lousy job policing themselves.

Now are you going to try to tell me the EPA is pro energy and anti environment?

You might be over your head on this one Minor.

.

 

[Minor Axis]

Now are you going to try to tell me the EPA is pro energy and anti environment?

You might be over your head on this one Minor.

.

Whatever you say...I'll acknowledge that Obama has been in office for over 2 years and they are still doing it...

Sourcewatch:

The industry lobbied the Bush Administration and Congress with its claims that the "fracking fluid" should be considered "proprietary" and exempt from disclosure under federal drinking water protection laws.[SUP][5][/SUP] Led by Halliburton and aided by the former CEO of Halliburton, then-Vice President Dick Cheney, the industry obtained this exception in the law along with favorable treatment by political appointees and regulators in the "Environmental Protection Agency." As a result of the "Halliburton loophole" to the law, drilling companies have not been required to divulge the cocktail of chemicals that are in the fracking fluids used at each of the proposed or continuing drill sites across the country.

Hydrofracking and the EPA:

Politicians who supported the industry had tried for years to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the 1974 law that regulates the injection of waste and chemicals underground. The EPA’s 2004 study was used to justify that effort. With the help of then-Vice President Dick Cheney — the former head of Halliburton — President George W. Bush’s landmark energy legislation, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, included a provision that prohibited the EPA from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation would be left to the states, many of which had underfunded agencies, looser standards and less manpower than the federal government.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hydro fracking has been going on since long before Bush. If it was so bad then Obamas EPA would have found a way to stop it the same as they did off shore drilling.

Minor did you actually look at how these wells are drilled? And while the injection of the so called cocktails are not regulated the disposal of them is. One of the quirks of some environmental law. In MI we can legally put some stuff down wells but you can not just dump them on the ground. The drinking water division and the disposal division have different agendas. They may not know exactly what is being injected but you can sure as hell bet the EPA knows exactly what is coming out. And what comes out will be the original injection cock tail along with the native soils.

Let me ask you if there is fracking done in the middle of the Bakken reserve and it is a long distance from population are you still against the practice?

 

[Minor Axis]

Hydro fracking has been going on since long before Bush. If it was so bad then Obamas EPA would have found a way to stop it the same as they did off shore drilling.

Minor did you actually look at how these wells are drilled? And while the injection of the so called cocktails are not regulated the disposal of them is. One of the quirks of some environmental law. In MI we can legally put some stuff down wells but you can not just dump them on the ground. The drinking water division and the disposal division have different agendas. They may not know exactly what is being injected but you can sure as hell bet the EPA knows exactly what is coming out. And what comes out will be the original injection cock tail along with the native soils.

Let me ask you if there is fracking done in the middle of the Bakken reserve and it is a long distance from population are you still against the practice?

If ground water contamination is involved, I'm against it, period.

Only a criminal would orchestrate the exemption of fracking from the Clean Water act and allow companies to keep secret the brew of poisons they are allowed to pump into the ground. If the process is harmless, why officiate its cover up? The process is supposed to be so far underground that ground water contamination is NEVER supposed to happen but it HAS happened. This is just a case where a shithead from Halliburten in a position of power made it easier for his company to increase revenue by poisoning the environment without public scrutiny.

http://www.water-contamination-from-shale.com/

 

[Alien Allen]

nice unbiased site you have chosen there Minor

and you never did answer this question

Let me ask you if there is fracking done in the middle of the Bakken reserve and it is a long distance from population are you still against the practice?

Also as I noted which you still can not comprehend. They are subject to disposal regulations. They know exactly what is coming out. This disposal is more of an issue than the injection.

Keep on reading what you like but you do not understand the design of these.

 

[Minor Axis]

nice unbiased site you have chosen there Minor

and you never did answer this question

I'm dealing with an incompetent reader. And you expect me to keep entertaining you with replies, lol. And you never answered my question, if there is nothing to hide, why hide it?

Also as I noted which you still can not comprehend. They are subject to disposal regulations. They know exactly what is coming out. This disposal is more of an issue than the injection.

Keep on reading what you like but you do not understand the design of these.

Allen, you just don't comprehend. Maybe it takes a flaming faucet to help you add 1 and 1 together.

 

[Alien Allen]

you are the one with the comprehension issue

what goes in comes out

they have to dispose under regulations what comes out and in order to do that they have to analyze what comes out

Get it

The reason Haliburton is not providing the mixture of what goes in is because of proprietary reasons. They have a right to do that and the EPA has the right to ban them from doing so. There may not be a regulation but then that never stopped environmental groups from halting things. The other groups submitted the data. In time we will find out more.

As I said you are out of your league Minor on this one. You have not a clue what you are referencing other than what comes from your beloved anti environmental sources.

 

[Minor Axis]

You have not a clue what you are referencing other than what comes from your beloved anti environmental sources.

And you are the expert taking on the role of the industry mouth piece, got it. It's funny how when it's something you apparatnly believe in, the EPA has your full trust and confidence. :smiley24:

I have to fall back on my original statement, if it's harmless why exempt it from Clean Water Act regulations and why keep secret the mix of highly toxic chemicals? We don't need to know the exact mix if it is proprietary, but once toxic chemicals are acknowledged being distributed into the environment, there is an obligation to divulge what they are. It was not the act of an ideal national leader but the act of an industry insider.

In the perfect situation, my guess is that fracking chemicals are introduced well below the water table and are not a threat to human beings, just like in a perfect situation a oil well never blows up. We know how that goes and there have been many reports of contaminated drinking water by the fracking process. The more scrutiny the better. How much contaminated ground water are we willing to accept in the name of energy and corporate profits? Bypassing environmental protections for the sake of expediency and profits is BS.

 

[Minor Axis]

This may not be fracking but it appears that Canada is having it's issues with oil/sands harvesting (a report from 2010): A Smoking Gun on the Athabasca River Basin-Deformed Fish