Gas Fracking Again...

[catman70]

Here's a recent article from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing

Yes, there's been problems, but a 2004 EPA study found fracking harmless. Also, it appears that as recently as this past winter environmentalists – particularly those concerned with climate change – were championing fracking and it's fruits as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bottom line: There's 14,000 wells on a shale formation in TX alone. If 140 have problems that's 1%, and I think there are less than that with problems. Now, I want to protect human health and the environment as much as the next guy (that's why I became an environmental engineer), but let's keep things in perspective. Should these companies be forced to disclose proprietary information? No. Should they be required to formulate compounds using substances (or concentrations of substances) that aren't harmful? Yes. Or perhaps they can add a dye or indication so that if the fracking fluid does leak into water its presence is known immediately.

[bobber]

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

[bobber]

http://arpanel.org/content/index.php/Arkansas-water-future-dinner-and-discussion.html

[Al Agnew]

Catman, having read the whole article you cited, I found it interesting that the article said that the EPA's 2004 study found fracking harmless, while the entire rest of the article was about all the problems that are showing up with it, and that the EPA is now doing another study. Kinda makes you wonder just how intensively the studied the issue back in 2004.

It's obvious that at the very least, this whole industry really requires some careful and diligent oversight, which in the boom mentality taking place now, it just as obviously isn't getting. This process has been around for a long time, but now energy prices have risen far enough, and technology has developed enough, to make it profitable for the first time. The thing is, like oil, there is little or no "easy to get" natural gas left, and companies are having to spend more to get it out, and do it in more difficult and potentially hazardous ways. And because the process is still expensive, some will look to cut corners.

And perhaps there is still the question...are there places and methods of getting gas (or oil, as we are now asking after the disaster in the Gulf) that simply shouldn't be done until there is a foolproof way to do it, because of the severity of the potential problems? If, as you suggested, only 1% of wells end up having problems, but if even one well has a problem it could seriously and long term contaminate a water supply or a stream, is that a risk too high to take?

I really liked the gas industry guy saying that half of one percent of the fracking fluid is the chemicals and not sand or water. Sounds pretty benign, but if some of those chemicals are highly toxic or carcinogenic, in doses measured in parts per million (which we don't know, because they won't tell us what the chemicals are) then it may not be too comforting that the chemicals "only" make up 0.5% of the fluid.

And you really think they shouldn't have to tell SOMEBODY in charge what those chemicals are? Gee, say some chemical shows up in the drinking water after fracking begins. All the companies have to say is, "Well, we aren't going to tell you whether that chemical is in our fluid." Then the regulatory agency will not be able to prove it came from fracking, because they don't know whether it's in the fluid or not. Still sounds like a way to keep the public from knowing anything to me.

[eric1978]

Should these companies be forced to disclose proprietary information? No. Should they be required to formulate compounds using substances (or concentrations of substances) that aren't harmful? Yes.

And we're supposed to take their word for it? Ha! I'm sorry, but my trust in energy companies ran out long ago. Screw their proprietary confidentiality. If the crap they pump into the earth can eventually come through the tap in my sink and into my family's mouths, I darn well have the right to know what's in it. It's not Heinz 57, I'm sure of that.

[catman70]

Al, I agree with your assessment of the EPA studies. However, I'd like to note that many of the employees at the EPA are paid way too much for the relatively menial amount of data they produce each year – not to mention the analysis that goes into it.

Did you completely read Bobber's link to the "debunking" of Gasland? It appears that PA and NY require fracking compounds to be listed and are made available for public review. Also, I don't have a problem with regulating concentrations of specific compounds. If a pollution event occurs than a neighboring fracking operation can have their fluid checked for that specific compound. If these companies are forced to turn over their exact formulas (i.e., mixing ratios) they put themselves in danger of loosing a competitive advantage – similar to what the feds did to Monsanto with Round-Up.

What's more, industries are allowed to release hazardous fluids at depths of 4,000 ft and greater below the surface. Most fracking takes place at 6,000 ft or more. That's why I'm not sure exactly which areas of regulation these companies were exempted from.

The "isn't one too much" argument is one that can be used for any situation that has the potential to be hazardous. For example: Isn't it possible that a truck or train with harmful chemicals could overturn and pollute a stream? Therefore, we shouldn't allow the transportation of harmful chemicals.

I suppose my whole point is that based on what I've seen from Gasland and what I've read elsewhere Mr. Fox seems to disregard fact to make points. He's even openly admitted it in interviews. Once someone goes down the Michael Moore route their films should not be considered documentaries. There should be further studies and increased oversight, but I don't think this film justifies a knee-jerk reaction that fracking shouldn't be done anywhere.

Eric1978: No, it's not Heinz, but the substance that's primarily used (other than sand and water) is found in most ice cream. I assume in St. Peter's you're on city water and not well water. If it's the former I'd be more worried about the halogenated chlorine compounds that are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. These form as the chlorine used for disinfection progresses through its life cycle. If it's the latter – well, who knows what your neighbor is dumping in their yard, and with MO's Karst topography it's probably finding its way to your well relatively unfiltered. Furthermore, the energy companies' proprietary property represents a portion of their profits. If we remove those profits people who have a 401K, mutual funds, etc. will suffer. Surely you're not suggesting the government take over the energy industry. That's not working so well in Venezuela. Tough to drive to the river when you can't buy gas.

I've spent too much time on this and need to work on writing a thesis. Again, not saying that fracking causes no harm. Just saying I don't think it's as bad as what the film suggests.

[bobber]

on the second link i posted is the proof, on the bottom ..down load it and take a look! this is what's going ON. (IN THE REAL WORLD)

[Trout Commander]

Al, I agree with your assessment of the EPA studies. However, I'd like to note that many of the employees at the EPA are paid way too much for the relatively menial amount of data they produce each year – not to mention the analysis that goes into it.Did you completely read Bobber's link to the "debunking" of Gasland? It appears that PA and NY require fracking compounds to be listed and are made available for public review. Also, I don't have a problem with regulating concentrations of specific compounds. If a pollution event occurs than a neighboring fracking operation can have their fluid checked for that specific compound. If these companies are forced to turn over their exact formulas (i.e., mixing ratios) they put themselves in danger of loosing a competitive advantage – similar to what the feds did to Monsanto with Round-Up.What's more, industries are allowed to release hazardous fluids at depths of 4,000 ft and greater below the surface. Most fracking takes place at 6,000 ft or more. That's why I'm not sure exactly which areas of regulation these companies were exempted from.The "isn't one too much" argument is one that can be used for any situation that has the potential to be hazardous. For example: Isn't it possible that a truck or train with harmful chemicals could overturn and pollute a stream? Therefore, we shouldn't allow the transportation of harmful chemicals.I suppose my whole point is that based on what I've seen from Gasland and what I've read elsewhere Mr. Fox seems to disregard fact to make points. He's even openly admitted it in interviews. Once someone goes down the Michael Moore route their films should not be considered documentaries. There should be further studies and increased oversight, but I don't think this film justifies a knee-jerk reaction that fracking shouldn't be done anywhere.Eric1978: No, it's not Heinz, but the substance that's primarily used (other than sand and water) is found in most ice cream. I assume in St. Peter's you're on city water and not well water. If it's the former I'd be more worried about the halogenated chlorine compounds that are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. These form as the chlorine used for disinfection progresses through its life cycle. If it's the latter – well, who knows what your neighbor is dumping in their yard, and with MO's Karst topography it's probably finding its way to your well relatively unfiltered. Furthermore, the energy companies' proprietary property represents a portion of their profits. If we remove those profits people who have a 401K, mutual funds, etc. will suffer. Surely you're not suggesting the government take over the energy industry. That's not working so well in Venezuela. Tough to drive to the river when you can't buy gas.I've spent too much time on this and need to work on writing a thesis. Again, not saying that fracking causes no harm. Just saying I don't think it's as bad as what the film suggests.

Word.

Josh Fox is beginning to look like as big of a dolt as Michael Moore. He is a great director it seems, he just needs to stick to fictional films (he did a bang up job on this one!)

http://newledger.com/2010/06/gaslands-false-fire-water-claims/

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

http://www.jlcny.org/site/index.php/news/latest-news-articles/192-debunking-gasland-the-movie

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/gasland-debunked

http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Fracturing-Ingredients/Pages/information.aspx

Sorry for any reposts of links.

[eric1978]

However, I'd like to note that many of the employees at the EPA are paid way too much for the relatively menial amount of data they produce each year – not to mention the analysis that goes into it.

I'm not sure what their salaries have to do with the content, but by that rationale, I'd say energy companies' CEOs and other higher-ups make way too much for the relatively terrible prices we pay for their products considering their windfall profits and the short and long term damage they do to the environment.

If these companies are forced to turn over their exact formulas (i.e., mixing ratios) they put themselves in danger of loosing a competitive advantage – similar to what the feds did to Monsanto with Round-Up.

As far as I can tell, Roundup is doing just fine. It's still on the shelves at Home Depot and Lowes. The proprietary secretiveness is total BS, and it's simply a way for them to keep us from knowing what they're putting in the ground. What differentiates a successful energy company and an unsuccessful energy company is access to the resource (well sites) and their ability to extract them (money, which means equipment, manpower and lobbyists). There are plenty of engineers and scientists to hire that can tell them which lubricants and other chemicals are needed to get the job done...they just don't want us to know what they are because they're obviously harmful.

What's more, industries are allowed to release hazardous fluids at depths of 4,000 ft and greater below the surface. Most fracking takes place at 6,000 ft or more. That's why I'm not sure exactly which areas of regulation these companies were exempted from.

Apparently they were exempted from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act at least. I'll believe that part of the documentary until proven otherwise.

The "isn't one too much" argument is one that can be used for any situation that has the potential to be hazardous. For example: Isn't it possible that a truck or train with harmful chemicals could overturn and pollute a stream? Therefore, we shouldn't allow the transportation of harmful chemicals.

A truck carrying harmful chemicals that flips over on the highway is bad news, too. But it's a localized contamination, and in most cases the majority of the mess can be cleaned up. Fracking causes contamination of groundwater which travels great distances and is impossible to contain or clean. Look at the trouble we're having controlling the oil spill mess, and that's right at the surface. If that problem was a mile below there would be absolutely nothing we could do.

I suppose my whole point is that based on what I've seen from Gasland and what I've read elsewhere Mr. Fox seems to disregard fact to make points. He's even openly admitted it in interviews. Once someone goes down the Michael Moore route their films should not be considered documentaries. There should be further studies and increased oversight, but I don't think this film justifies a knee-jerk reaction that fracking shouldn't be done anywhere.

I agree with you to an extent, but they were lighting people's tap water on fire. That's a fact. And it takes only common sense to say that's a direct cause of the fracking that is being done near their homes. The other ailments the people in the documentary were having, like the headaches and neuropathy, are harder to prove are being caused by the fracking, but I for one see no reason to deny it. The film was made by an environmentalist, so you can bet it was biased, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true.

I assume in St. Peter's you're on city water and not well water.

We have a water cooler and drink mostly bottled water (on a side note, the water we drink is Mountain Valley Spring Water from Arkansas...guess I should prepare to switch companies since their source will likely be contaminated if AR continues to allow the expansion of their fracking). We cook and shower with tap water, but I prefer to ingest as little of it as possible...and our water isn't even flammable yet. Our world is filled with contaminants, so much so that it's probably not even worth trying to avoid them anymore, especially when given the fact that I occasionally eat poisonous fast food and still smoke cigarettes...but at least that's a choice I make and can stop that behavior if I tried hard enough. And that's still not a reason to say, "Ah what the hell, we're already living at toxic levels, so go ahead and make it worse."

Surely you're not suggesting the government take over the energy industry.

If it meant clean, renewable energy, then yes, I would be okay with that. The energy industry could use some competition anyway...as of right now they have a stranglehold on us with their oligopolies.

...he just needs to stick to fictional films (he did a bang up job on this one!)

The film provided empirical evidence that fracking contaminates groundwater...people's faucets are flammable. If natural gas is making its way into the drinking water, then so are the chemicals used for the drilling. Pretty tough to deny that, and even the companies doing the work don't. In fact they are paying for fresh water to be trucked in to some people's homes. If they aren't responsible, why would they do that?

[catman70]

on the second link i posted is the proof, on the bottom ..down load it and take a look! this is what's going ON. (IN THE REAL WORLD)

It seems that the largest concern is sediment transfer. I used to sell log homes in AR, and construction in general needs to monitored to assure proper measures are taken to reduce such transfer.

The only compound of concern that I saw for AR in the presentation is chloride – a derivative of chlorine. They give a mixing ratio (500 ppm) discovered, and then a permissible concentration (20 mg/L). Trouble is that these two methods of expressing amounts are fundamentally different. The EPA's drinking water regulations call for a maximum permissible concentration of 250 mg/L of chloride ions in drinking water (http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education2/76-chloride-sulfate.htm).

Look, if these people/companies are in violation they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. I think that AR – or AR counties – should pass regulations regarding construction (all construction, not just for drills) and disposal of fluids, and permits for drilling or construction should cover the cost of enforcement. This of course means that if a farmer wants to build a barn he needs to get a permit because the run-off from his activities may affect conditions downstream from his property.

The idea that the federal government would do a better job that AR is bogus, IMHO. We've seen how good of a job MMS did with deep water drilling. What's more, AR may want to place more stringent regulation on drilling outfits than what the feds would impose. But... If AR did that they may be sued by the feds for disrupting interstate commerce. They're suing AZ for simply enforcing federal law. Imagine if AZ's law went beyond federal law....

Eric: Please read Bobber's first link. Not saying you have to believe everything on there, but please take it into consideration. Also, there's no such thing as clean, affordable green energy. Anything having to do with wind/solar is being subsidized out the wazoo. And yes, there are oil subsidies, put every step of the process from drilling to refinement to purchase is taxed. The government's windfall profits from oil and gas far outweigh the subsidies these companies have been given. No so with wind and solar.

A spill anywhere can seep into the groundwater. Please look up Karst topography.

Please do the research and tell me how they were exempted from the clean water act. I'm in total agreement that they should have to treat whatever water they discharge. What's more, I think studies should be done to determine the extent of the fracturing that may occur underground. It may be that the fissures are able to run up a few thousand feet to the water table, or it may be the excess water above ground is the only concern. Again, industries are allowed under the clean water act to dispose of hazardous chemicals/fluids so long as they pump them to depths greater than 4,000.