Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Domestic Fracking on the rise
#11
Here in PA, our biggest fracker is recycling all frack water, as are most other companies operating here.

There are expensive chemicals in frack fluid. Recovering them saves money and is good PR to boot.

Like anything, if done right, your groundwater will not catch fire. But like anything, someone needs to be watching to make sure it's done right. If something goes wrong, financial and legal resources need to be in place to make it right.
Reply
#12
>>If something goes wrong, financial and legal resources need to be in place to make it right.

I think a big part of the argument against fracking is that financial and legal resources CAN'T make it right.

"Sure, we truck in all our water but everything else is fine"
Reply
#13
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/13/...wanted=all

"Fracking and drilling are not the same thing," said University of Houston engineering professor Michael Economides, who consults for drillers on fracturing. "We drill wells. Then we frack."

But to many outsiders, particularly industry critics, fracking and drilling are the same thing. Advances in fracturing technology made possible the current shale gas drilling boom, so they have taken to lumping all shale gas production under the banner "fracking," deeming it a new form of natural gas drilling.

The study released this week, done by scientists at Duke University, suggested that gas drilling causes methane gas to leak into people's water and sometimes their homes (Greenwire, May 9). But methane contamination is not caused by injecting chemicals down the well. It is caused by bad well construction during drilling.

"The hot-button issue is fracking," said Robert Jackson, the Duke professor who authored the study, in an interview. But, he said, "I believe it's more about the drilling than the fracking."

Both drilling critics and supporters use the confusion to their advantage. The result is that the two sides often talk past one another when discussing the environmental consequences of oil and gas production from shale formations.

Drilling companies have repeatedly assured Congress, and whoever else asks, that there has never been a "proven" instance of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater (E&ENews PM, May 6).

That denial infuriates critics who can point to numerous fines and penalties issued by regulators against shale drilling companies for contaminating drinking water with methane and for spilling toxic fracturing chemicals into streams near drill sites.

But by the definition of industry, along with most everyone who followed oil and gas issues before the current shale drilling boom, fracturing didn't cause those problems.

That is because the companies are saying, specifically, that no one has ever proven that hydraulic fracturing fluid rises up a mile or so from the production zone, through layers of rock, to pollute drinking water aquifers.

They rarely, if ever, clarify that regulators have repeatedly linked water contamination and other environmental problems to other aspects of drilling.

For example, a well blowout during fracturing last month in Pennsylvania, sent fluid to a nearby stream, threatening surface water, not groundwater (Greenwire, May 4). And a well-known contamination case in Dimock, Pa., involved methane -- not fracturing fluid -- in local water wells (Greenwire, Dec. 16, 2010).

Environmentalists and other industry critics consider this distinction to be nothing more than word games concocted by oil and gas lobbyists. Whatever you call it, they say, gas production is fouling air and water.

"When they confine their definition to the single moment of the underground fracturing -- a part of the process that has never been investigated -- they can legally deny the obvious," wrote Josh Fox, director of the anti-drilling documentary "Gasland," in a rebuttal to industry criticism of his film.

"Very tricky wording," Fox wrote, "which belies the real truth. Quite deliberately."
Reply
#14
Acer wrote:

Like anything, if done right, your groundwater will not catch fire. But like anything, someone needs to be watching to make sure it's done right. If something goes wrong, financial and legal resources need to be in place to make it right.

What is most needed to make sure this technology is safe are scientists whose sole interest is in finding out the facts about what is happening and transparently reporting what they find.
Reply
#15
Ted King wrote:
What is most needed to make sure this technology is safe are scientists whose sole interest is in finding out the facts about what is happening and transparently reporting what they find.

And of course once it goes into the courts it becomes entirely opaque (most settlements involve gag orders).
Reply
#16
Love Canal:
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/

Hydraulic Fracturing:
http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/
Reply
#17
Didn't Dick Cheney Darth Vader ensure that the law was rigged to "Prohibit the EPA from regulating new mining technologies".


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.

http://www.salon.com/2011/06/27/hydrofra...d_the_epa/
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)