cigarman409
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:4,436
Points:1,826,635
Joined:Jul 2007
|
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 7:11:54 AM
sure will find out someday
|
cigarman409
Champion Author
Massachusetts
Posts:4,436
Points:1,826,635
Joined:Jul 2007
|
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2013 7:11:36 AM
who knows
|
DORELBC
Rookie Author
Abbotsford
Posts:14
Points:3,160
Joined:Mar 2013
|
Message Posted: Mar 16, 2013 4:41:35 PM
When is done around residential areas , is VERY BAD !!! Just go ask those guys ... It should be kept 50 km away from the nearest residence !!!
|
scabpicker1
Rookie Author
Twin Cities
Posts:4
Points:22,080
Joined:Mar 2013
|
Message Posted: Mar 13, 2013 11:44:53 PM
Having worked on many well sights in the Bakken,ND Peasall and Barnett, TX shale formations. The well sights are safe. The sights are set up for spill containment of fuel spills from equipment used for generating the high psi needed. Chemicals are housed in special containers. Silica sand and man made propapants are delivered to the well sight and stored in Sandstorms or Mountain-movers. All in all I would say that it is safe to do. The process and continuing innovations will only make it safer.
|
GuzzleMeThis
Rookie Author
New York
Posts:8
Points:14,140
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 8:04:43 PM
While there is growing evidence that it is NOT safe at all as currently done, it could potentially be developed to be safe in some form of improved methodology. But right now we're not even close to safe, taking into account the vast amounts of water necessary for the process, coupled with the problem of what to do with the toxic "leftover" water that is permanently poisoned and needs a place to go. Oh, and let's not forget the adverse health consequences (known and unknown) on our population which will need to be resolved well into the future, burdening us all with enormous public health costs. The oil and gas aren't going to disappear if we put off the drilling until the science catches up and a case can be made for extracting the stuff in a cleaner and safer manner. Those clamoring to "drill now" are the voices of greed.
|
nopnopnsht
Rookie Author
London
Posts:23
Points:4,160
Joined:Feb 2013
|
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2013 2:51:58 AM
not too sure what that means..yahh 20 points!
|
Samsplace5022
Rookie Author
Tucson
Posts:46
Points:13,405
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 3:26:23 PM
In many places, not safe at all.
|
RevDrCBJ
Veteran Author
Ann Arbor
Posts:364
Points:187,555
Joined:Jul 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2013 12:07:38 AM
I do question how safe fracking can be. Given the accidents that happen with "non-fracked" fuel, I can only impaine the environmental impact of pumping gallons of who knows what into the ground to draw out oil from the ground.
|
thorman52
Veteran Author
South Bend
Posts:388
Points:40,050
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2013 12:44:29 AM
Not safe. Just another cost-cutting measure by big oil so they can get richer and take over the world.
|
ginmeister
Rookie Author
Cincinnati
Posts:2
Points:43,245
Joined:Aug 2012
|
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 12:23:14 AM
http://fracknation.com/ .... don't just listen to your "whacked" Prof . (because those who can - DO ... and those who can't - Teach)
|
ginmeister
Rookie Author
Cincinnati
Posts:2
Points:43,245
Joined:Aug 2012
|
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2013 12:17:59 AM
You need to watch "Frack Nation"
|
oteros1234
Rookie Author
Allentown
Posts:11
Points:450
Joined:Feb 2013
|
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2013 5:15:39 PM
There are 2 families near us that had fracking distroy their vacation land due to fracking at a nearby farmers land. It distroyed the water on the farmers land and as well as the retirees land. All of his livestock died or had to be sold and now their land is worthless. The Other home, the people there can only use bottled water to live there. The poor farmer allowed it on his land for the $$$. Too late now.
|
walrus1951
Rookie Author
Michigan
Posts:26
Points:160,795
Joined:Sep 2012
|
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2013 4:00:42 PM
You ask the word " safe " , well it is " safe " , but it will eventually F...up the underground environment !
|
Pinetown
Rookie Author
Philadelphia
Posts:26
Points:46,485
Joined:Feb 2013
|
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 12:22:46 PM
Very safe and should be continued. We need to keep producing our own energy.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,945
Points:752,210
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 14, 2013 9:26:42 AM
Fraccing causes storms AmynHH??? Wow!
|
AmynHH
Veteran Author
Houston
Posts:407
Points:128,400
Joined:May 2012
|
Message Posted: Feb 13, 2013 12:50:11 PM
I don't think it is safe, only because we have seen too many incidents, like earthquakes, and storms. All these do not make sense. Hopefully they will figure this out soon.
|
NakedDriver
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:15,855
Points:2,461,200
Joined:Oct 2004
|
Message Posted: Feb 12, 2013 12:40:44 PM
ə i said it is moderately safe. ə
|
makerofrules
Sophomore Author
South Bend
Posts:210
Points:42,025
Joined:Oct 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 7:44:06 PM
Not safe at all, while in college in Colorado , 1968, our Government was pumping poison gas underground at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal ... Caused a few earthquakes, one took off the corner of my house ...
My Geology Professor said "For every action there is a reaction " Put pressure on Mother Earth and She will react like all women !!!
|
gizmojoe
Sophomore Author
Ontario
Posts:172
Points:254,760
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 9:37:55 PM
i don't know
|
achung53
Veteran Author
Orange County
Posts:487
Points:85,225
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Feb 6, 2013 10:40:26 AM
I am not sure.
|
GuzzleMeThis
Rookie Author
New York
Posts:8
Points:14,140
Joined:Oct 2012
|
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 1:54:56 PM
Excellent question which, unfortunately, we cannot currently know because 1) the so-called "Cheney Exemption" allows the fracking companies to avoid being subject to the laws intended to safeguard us, and 2) many adverse consequences are unanticipated and only show up years, or even decades, later as in the case of cigarette smoking, diethylstilbestrol (DES), lead paint, asbestos and any number of other enormous public health catastrophes. Let's not repeat the same mistake, jumping at the promises of short-term gains (enormous profits for the few, a small number of impermanent jobs and some new impermanent tax revenues) at the expense of long-term consequences which will cost the average citizen an amount far exceeding those gains, in the form of burdens on public health and permanent destruction of an exceedingly more significant and valuable resource called clean water.
|
leebloome
Rookie Author
Grand Rapids
Posts:17
Points:12,275
Joined:Jan 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 3:45:47 PM
It sounds like a good investment opportunity now....
|
Rocksnobster
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:12,911
Points:213,790
Joined:Feb 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 7:20:20 AM
Frack them. Let them drill in your yard.
|
thorman52
Veteran Author
South Bend
Posts:388
Points:40,050
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:04:27 AM
You're right Batdan, maybe never. BUT IT COULD BE SAFE. I've mentioned before this is a technology that is great for extracting more oil/gas from the ground. This would help in alleviating the need for foreign imports. What the oil/gas industry needs to do is eliminate the carcinogens and other potentially harmful chemicals completely. I'm sure there are other vehicles to do the same job even though it might cost a little more. Thus, no threat for spillage, seepage, etc. Why won't they? Bottom line is...bottom line. Greed. I'm all for making money but not at the expense of the health and well-being of the American public. A multi-billion dollar industry needs to step up to the plate and become a hero in health and safety rather than profits. I'm sure noone in the industry will suffer much, especially those at the top.
As mentioned before, yes I am a "greenie." But I do not belong to any organization, club, society, enterprise, or lobby etc. I am simply a concerned citizen expressing my opinion and hopefully getting some others to look into this subject a little deeper. I respect the opinions of others but reserve the right to disagree. Remember folks, this is the only planet to date that we have to inhabit. Let's take care of it. Please.
I'm still waiting for my first check from anyone. I could use the money.
[Edited by: thorman52 at 1/30/2013 11:06:23 AM EST]
|
Batdan
Rookie Author
Atlanta
Posts:98
Points:32,940
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 11:43:36 PM
Not very safe, yet. Maybe never.
|
BigMike87
Rookie Author
Riverside
Posts:4
Points:120,935
Joined:Oct 2010
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:39:39 PM
Are U kidding? This is So. Cal. We don't fracture oil. Maybe bones...or Algebra. I'll go get a Hybrid 1st!
|
thorman52
Veteran Author
South Bend
Posts:388
Points:40,050
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 8:42:35 AM
Hey Gonz...where did you use the word internet? Seems you were refering to your life experience in Colorado.
I'd like to see the various CEOs in front of a Congressional Committee and asked some very tough questions just like the tobacco execs that swore in front of a Committee that nicotine was not addicting and their products were safe.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,945
Points:752,210
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 8:29:58 AM
LOL, and there we have it from Gonz82! This must be the truth since Ginz82 saw it on the Internet! ROFL.
[Edited by: drpepperTX at 1/28/2013 8:31:57 AM EST]
|
Gonz82
Sophomore Author
Illinois
Posts:232
Points:63,625
Joined:Oct 2010
|
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 2:23:07 AM
Fracking is NOT safe, period. I have seen the consequences of fracking first hand while living in Colorado for over 8yrs. There is nothing good about it & there is a reason why they don't release the names of most the nearly 600 toxic chemicals used in the hydraulic fracking process. If it's so safe & great for this country then I would love to see some of the CEO's of these companies set up fracking wells on their personal property & subject their own families to the many dangers that come with it.
|
sdecteacher
Sophomore Author
San Diego
Posts:112
Points:188,095
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 3:53:20 PM
Fracking has been done for over half a century and although claims were made not one well was contaminated due to the fracking. Those who reported contamination were proven to already have had bad water before the fracking began. These contamination scares are another lie by the greenies trying to end carbon energy and divert funding and donations to promote their ageda and line their own greedy pockets, pretending to be watchdogs. This diverts attention from what the country needs to create thousands of new jobs and have cheaper natural gas and intentionally drives up our cost of fuel. The only major thing different is pipelines are now able to run horizontally.
|
thorman52
Veteran Author
South Bend
Posts:388
Points:40,050
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 11:58:41 AM
As I look into answering some more comments from my friends at GB, I never fail to stumble upon new disturbing (to me at least) information regarding the practice of hydraulic fracturing. OSHA. (More on that later.) It’s been suggested that I should go to FracFocus to see the chemicals used in each well. I’ve done that. Here I randomly selected one well in PA and came up with 5 different well’s information, why I don’t know but I’ll use them.
Well #1
Fracture Date 1/7/2013
Well Name and Number: Moe Trust 33-28-160-98H-1BP
API Number: 33-023-00886
Operator Name: Baytex Energy USA Ltd
North Dakota, Divide County
Production Type: Oil
True Vertical Depth (TVD): 9,410
Total Water Volume (gal)*: 2,187,528
In the middle of the list of ingredients this was posted on a bright red ribbon across the page: “Ingredients listed below this line are part of the fluid composition provided by Weatherford which do not appear on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).” Why not? What are these 17 ingredients (other than water)? I see one of them listed is called “Proprietary Ingredient” and is the second highest in concentration below that line of ingredients not listed on the MSDS.s
Well #2
Fracture Date 8/6/2012
Well Name and Number: Love 6H
API Number: 42-255-32513
Operator Name: Plains Exploration & Production
State: Texas, Karnes County
Production Type: Oil
True Vertical Depth (TVD): 11,758
Total Water Volume (gal)*: 3,823,827
This particular well has no red ribbon across the page but has 6 ingredients listed as proprietary, albeit in minute amounts.
Well #3
Fracture Date 1/22/2013
Well Name and Number: Univesity 58-2#4
API Number: 42-461-38459
Operator Name: Opal Resources
State: Texas, Upton County
Production Type: Oil
True Vertical Depth (TVD): 9,922
Total Water Volume (gal)*: 1,827,798
This well has no Proprietary ingredients but lists its Chemical Abstract Service Number as proprietary for 8 ingredients.
Well #4
Fracture Date 11/5/2012
Well Name and Number: County Line South -3
API Number: 42-353-33352
Operator Name: LCS PRODUCTION
State: Texas, Nolan County
Production Type: OIL
True Vertical Depth (TVD): 6,472
Total Water Volume (gal)*: 69,762
This well has one ingredient listed as Trade Secret and 5 listed as Trade Secret in the Chemical Abstract Service Number column.
Well #5
Job Start Date: 4/25/2012 Job End Date: 4/25/2012
Operator Name: PDC Energy
API Number: 05-123-20877-00-00
Well Name and Number: State Lease 6524 21-28
State: Colorado, Weld County
Total Base Water Volume (gal): 292,420
Total Base Non Water Volume: 3,806
This well has the red ribbon excluding one ingredient from the MSDS (Water and Ammonium Salt) (?) Don’t understand that one. The scariest part of this well is the supplier of ingredients was Halliburton.
FracFocus is joint venture of Interstate Gas & Oil Compact Commission and the Groundwater Protection Council. And, as I can see is not anywhere near transparent. My original concern was the Proprietary Property and Trade Secret entries. Why are some not listed in the MSDS? Are they secret to keep from competition or the public?
To touch on the amount of water used, you can see above the water volume ranged from 69,762 gal. to 3,823,827 gal. In the draft to study of 2011 it states:
“The amount of water needed in the hydraulic fracturing process depends on the type of formation (coalbed, shale, or tight sands) and the fracturing operations (e.g., well depth and length, fracturing fluid properties, and fracture job design). Water requirements for hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane range from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons per well (Holditch, 1990 and 1993; Jeu et al., 1988; Palmer et al., 1991 and 1993). The water usage in shale gas plays is significantly larger: 2 to 4 million gallons of water are typically needed per well (API, 2010a; GWPC and ALL Consulting, 2009; Satterfield et al., 2008).”
In other words, it depends on the type of well. I wonder what the impact of fracking 1,000 shale wells in an arid area as North Dakota? Could be significant.
As to the number of wells the EPA estimated are fracked each year, I have not looked into that too much. Touche’. Took their word on it and the word “assume” was used. Can see if I can find this site (Bene et al., 2007, as cited in Galusky, 2007).
But, 17,000 or 35,000, that is a lot of wells being fracked, and a lot of water used, and a lot of toxic chemicals used, and countless opportunity for accidents, human error, explosion, contamination, equipment failure, Acts of God, negligence, and outright corrupt business practices. The concerns are real and I’m glad not to live anywhere near an oil or gas well that I know of.
As the question went…is is safe? I do not recall one time the mention of employee safety. It was mentioned that risks were there and they were well paid but safety should be of utmost importance. The reason I say this is in my travels of the internet I came across a OSHA/NIOSHA HAZARD ALERT concerning Silica exposure during hydraulic fracturing. It reads like a horror movie. More later.
Hazard Alert from OSHA
[Edited by: thorman52 at 1/27/2013 11:59:49 AM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,945
Points:752,210
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 10:04:37 AM
Well said once more gax!
|
CrackedLCD
Champion Author
Alabama
Posts:9,030
Points:1,754,825
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 4:13:41 AM
How safe it is depends on how much you're willing to pay for natural gas and fuel for your cars in the future.
|
gax
Champion Author
Midland Odessa
Posts:28,209
Points:3,210,925
Joined:May 2004
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 1:54:19 AM
"I mentioned transparency above. Why doesn’t the gas/oil industry disclose all of the chemicals used in the fracking process to the EPA or other state regulatory agency? They claim “Trade Secret” or proprietary privilege." - thorman52
You really make it sound like O & G companies are not disclosing anything, when in fact they have been. Did you look on the FracFocus site? There you can search thousands of wells and pull up a PDF file showing the chemicals used in the frack on that well. I know about this because within the last year we were required to submit this information on our frack jobs. I pulled up a couple dozen wells across the country and I did find a few that mentioned one or two chemicals as proprietary among the dozens of chemicals used. So if the chemist in you wants to see what is in a frac job, the info on thousands of wells is there... online... for regulatory agencies or the public to see. And I'd lay pretty good odds that you would be hard pressed to find one where the proprietary chemicals make up more than 0.05% of the total job.
"From the draft plan to study of 2011, “EPA estimates that approximately 35,000 wells are fractured each year across the United States. Assuming that the majority of these wells are horizontal wells, the annual water requirement may range from 70 to 140 billion gallons.""
I guess I have to question the numbers and assumptions that went into that statement in your EPA study just based on the first sentence. I spent the last couple hours trying to verify that estimate from other sources. In the Marcellus Drilling News a year ago they said this:
"In the U.S., horizontal drilling, the precursor to most fracking activity, is expected to rise to almost 19,000 new wells this year, breaking 2011’s record of 16,000, according to Spears."
That is not just in the Marcellus, but in the U.S. So last year they expected a record year of 19,000 horizontal wells, up from 16,000 in 2011. But the EPA says that were already fracking 35,000 a year and most of them are assumed to be horizontal. Obviously there is some difference of opinion out there. Not only that, suddenly the EPA is assigning ALL 35,000 of those frack jobs 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 gallons of water per well. Really? Not all fracks are horizontal nor are they all numbered in the millions of gallons. Next week I am fracking 3 vertical wells with only about 100,000 gallons of water each. Perhaps its just me, but I think the EPA is using a bit of hyperbole here.
"Also, I have not heard of any OPEC backed organization wanting to stop the U.S. from furthering its quest to decrease the dependence to foreign oil. Someone please enlighten me. It’s a tragedy if there are such organizations."
I have to give you that, thorman52. I agree. I didn't put that out there and when I read it, I rolled my eyes. I am not too big on those sort of conspiracy theories. Of course, that also includes the assumptions that O&G companies have something to hide and don't want to tell you what is in a frack job.
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,021
Points:523,150
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 1:22:46 AM
thorman52 - I linked the same, EPA, Dec 2012, progress report only a short while ago, along with many other scientific studies/investigations. It seems to fall on deaf ears, for some here, that are of the persuasion that fracking is safe. Whatever logic is used, they deny any and all evidence that fracking is bad.
Many supporters of fracking only see what they want to see; they go on that fracking has been around for a long time, they neglect to state that it began with vertical fracturing in 1947; it has evolved; beginning, just recently, (relatively) in 1998 with the common practice of horizontal drilling they have also incorporated the horizontal fracturing. This horizontal fracturing of the shale layers; this is what is particularly bad, as it allows for more gas to permeate out of those layers. Unfortunately it seeps up through the fractured layers into ground waters and/or into the upper atmosphere, as in the case of the "front range" and Weld county Colo.
Fracking also has evolved more recently as "gelled propane fracking"; that was thought to be safer, however, their are now concerns over this third evolution of fracking; I would like to point ou,t if horizontal fracking is so great/safe, why have they evolved to gelled propane fracking (rhetorical)!
The supporters of this horizontal fracking, negate the fact that these fracked areas quickly run dry, in itself making for whatever boom we see now with an abundance in natural gas, will quickly peter out.
There has been an ongoing debate between myself and a few others on another GB thread (and additional threads also), that they have since stopped any dialogue re: "Study Finds Shale Gas is not as Clean as Thought"
I am not sure what it will take, for the supporters of fracking, to begin to see their stance has been damaging the health of the planet, hopefully before irreparable harm has been done! I do know this, they are wrong, and it is only a matter of time, before we all will have to admit fracking is wrong! For the ones that state, fracking is good, many, may have hidden agendas and others may be just wishing for their way of life to remain as it always has (status quo) and are deniers of the unknown reality facing them. Unfortunately, with time, we must evolve or we will be left behind.
Deniers, want you to agree with them; they do not read the overwhelming scientific data that is fed to them; they attack the messenger, whether it is you or me or the gov't (EPA, particularly). To paraphrase the deniers; You will have to rip the gas-can from the obstinate cold dead hands! Sad!
|
Pizzaslut
Champion Author
Baltimore
Posts:4,354
Points:749,015
Joined:Apr 2010
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 11:29:49 PM
Unsafe.
|
Lbro
Champion Author
Denver
Posts:1,035
Points:442,020
Joined:Jan 2004
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 11:06:43 PM
don't know
|
SKILLZD
Sophomore Author
Lansing
Posts:137
Points:558,880
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:25:08 PM
I DON'T KNOW
|
toadNY
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:7,042
Points:1,513,150
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:16:15 PM
Like many other's I don't know! The question is who does?
|
Wsamson7121
Champion Author
San Jose
Posts:5,943
Points:2,011,895
Joined:Feb 2003
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:05:24 PM
I don’t know
|
zacksnanny
Champion Author
New Brunswick
Posts:1,635
Points:2,202,640
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:59:21 PM
I don’t know
|
johnnWA
Rookie Author
Seattle
Posts:31
Points:4,975
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:55:00 PM
i dont know
|
johnnWA
Rookie Author
Seattle
Posts:31
Points:4,975
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:48:43 PM
safe
|
BuckyTJones
Champion Author
Salt Lake City
Posts:4,932
Points:967,950
Joined:Mar 2010
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:37:55 PM
I really do not have much interest in this topic, but this I do know that things can be slanted one way or the other, depending witch side your own. I trust neither side.
|
bobray
Rookie Author
Rochester
Posts:30
Points:6,650
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:34:09 PM
in 5 years with luck
|
thorman52
Veteran Author
South Bend
Posts:388
Points:40,050
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 6:18:29 PM
Thanks teafortwo for the kudo. Sometimes I feel quite alone out here in “opinionated” land. As first posted I said that I did not know much about fracking and would do some research. I did more than I care to think about. I formed my opinion on that research and concluded that fracking is not a safe policy as it is practiced today. Fracking is a great tool to extract more oil/gas from the ground in an effort to decrease our dependence of foreign oil. My problem is the manner in which it is done and the lack of transparency of the process. For those that wish to criticize and ignore the peer review conducted by the EPA in the study I posted a link to today, so be it. It’s your government and who do you trust to give the people the facts? The oil/gas industry? And also I ask, did any of you read any of the reports posted? They are very well cited.
To set the record straight, I do not have any vested interest in the oil industry or the practice of fracking or not fracking. I have no idea where the closest oil/gas drilling site is to my home. I would think that anyone working in the industry for any length of time would have said vested interest. Nor do I belong to any left wing subversive group. I’m a retired Teamster and belong to the American Legion, no other ties.
What I do have a vested interest in is the United States. As an American why shouldn’t I expect to have clean air, a clean and plentiful water supply, an uncontaminated food supply, safe roads, well-paying jobs with reasonable benefits, honest government, and laws passed that are fair to all, not just the privileged few? Many of these expectations have been eliminated or watered down for the majority of citizens all in the name of the almighty dollar.
A few points I will make. I’m accused of disseminating misinformation that I learned from extensive research I’ve done in the past week, yet some change their vote on the posts of a few people with ties to the issue in question.
It has been written that the adverse effects have been few and far between when in fact there have been many well documented instances of well pollution, decreases in water supply, adverse health issues, accidental spillage, increased seismic activity and the list goes on. I would think that is why the Congress wanted the EPA to conduct such a study. And yes, the study talks of “fear mongering of what MIGHT HAPPEN” or better put “potential hazards”, “potential impacts”, “possibilities”. (An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) All of these potentials are backed by case studies of each step of the fracking process. That is why it’s a STUDY to evaluate and come up with recommendations to present to Congress so they can intelligently enact any necessary legislation to stop and prevent these potential hazards.
Also, I have not heard of any OPEC backed organization wanting to stop the U.S. from furthering its quest to decrease the dependence to foreign oil. Someone please enlighten me. It’s a tragedy if there are such organizations.
Then it’s been posted that the fracking does not take place in your aquifers. No, they do not. But where does the millions of gallons of water used in the fracking process come from? More often than not from the aquifer nearest the well. And how much water does fracking use? From the draft plan to study of 2011, “EPA estimates that approximately 35,000 wells are fractured each year across the United States. Assuming that the majority of these wells are horizontal wells, the annual water requirement may range from 70 to 140 billion gallons. This is equivalent to the total amount of water used each year in roughly 40 to 80 cities with a population of 50,000 or about 1 to 2 cities of 2.5 million people.”
I’m discredited for mentioning the Bush/Cheney loophole. Simply go to the below mentioned Public Law and see if that is what it states or am I lying.
“…Congress passed an amendment to the SDWA as a part of EPAct 2005 (P.L. 109-58) that addressed this issue. Section322 of EPAct 2005 amended the definition of “underground injection” in the SDWA as follows:
The term “underground injection”—(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by
well injection; and (B) excludes—(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of
storage; and (ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel
fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities.”
But I was informed that fracking was never covered or intended to be covered under the SDWA.
Finally a lesser point bugging some is the regulation responsibility. Again in the draft plan to study of 2011 states the following:
3.5 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production wells is typically addressed by state oil and gas boards or equivalent state natural resource agencies. However, EPA retains authority to address many issues related to hydraulic fracturing under its environmental statutes. The major statutes include the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Clean Water Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The states regulate the EPA laws is the way I interpret this. Not a biggie to me.
I mentioned transparency above. Why doesn’t the gas/oil industry disclose all of the chemicals used in the fracking process to the EPA or other state regulatory agency? They claim “Trade Secret” or proprietary privilege. The EPA wouldn’t tell anyone. And who would they tell anyway…the competition that is using the same stuff?
That’s enough. Anti-Progressive…NOT. Progress for whom? The few or the masses?
Today is Saturday and tomorrow a new question will be asked and this forum will be tabled like the 100s before it. That does not make the issue go away though.
[Edited by: thorman52 at 1/26/2013 6:23:33 PM EST]
|
jorjab
Sophomore Author
Philadelphia
Posts:155
Points:1,151,650
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 6:15:59 PM
Not sure but probably not safe especially for the environment
|
Rocksnobster
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:12,911
Points:213,790
Joined:Feb 2011
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 5:32:07 PM
F**k fracking. All those who want it can have them drilling in their yards.
|
notijeka
Sophomore Author
Oklahoma
Posts:167
Points:1,541,920
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 4:32:56 PM
I really don't know but I will bet you that something bad will come of it, it just seems that new stuff causes new problems.....eventually
|
SuperMoto
Champion Author
Connecticut
Posts:1,006
Points:1,577,940
Joined:Sep 2007
|
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 4:15:00 PM
I don’t know!
But I have heard some bad reports!
|