ITH Poker Forum

[janeg]

This documentary about hydraulic fracturing is unreal; ground water has become so polluted by this process that people can actually set their tap water on fire. Proof that Carlin was right

"If it’s true that our species is alone in the universe, then I’d have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little."

[Bullajami]

WOW!

[janeg]

This story is so wide ranging and unreal decided to do some more digging; a rebuttal site had a somewhat different take that I didn't find all that credible

Debunking Gasland - a rebuttal from a site run by independent oil and gas producers.

(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”

* This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.

* The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.

First they say the gas and oil industry are fully regulated under all three listed acts and in the very next paragraph they say hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA. Isn't hydraulic fracturing a part of the gas and oil industry?

* Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.

<snip>

Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a “loophole” for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.

Partisan or not, the 2005 Energy Policy Act specifically exempts fracturing from the SDWA

Subtitle C: Production - (Sec. 322) Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to exclude from the definition of underground injection the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil or gas, or geothermal production activities.

The site claims fracturing was never covered by the SDWA to begin with; given this exemption, I guess that is true

The Clean Air Act also contain a loophole. It is in 42 USC§7412(n)(4)(A) which was added in 2006. The act itself requires "Small sources of toxic air pollution that are under common control and are grouped together in close proximity to perform similar functions are required to be added together and considered as one source of emissions. If the aggregate emissions of these small sources meet the thresholds for major sources, then they must comply with NESHAPs"

Section USC§7412(n)(4)(A) and (B) override the above requirement

U.S.C. § 7412(n)(4) (2006) – Section 7412(n)(4)(A) provides that emissions from oil and gas wells, pipeline compressors, and pump stations cannot be aggregated with emissions from other similar units to determine whether such units or stations are major sources of air pollution. For oil and gas wells, emissions cannot be aggregated for any other purpose under Section 7412, either. Section 7412(n)(4)(B) provides that the EPA may only establish an "area source" category for oil and gas production wells if they are located in a metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area with over a million people if such wells present "more than a negligible risk of adverse effects to public health."

Fracturing operations are typically small wells operated by one group and until recently most have been in low population areas. If what the infra-red cameras revealed in the documentary is accurate, the containment tanks on the well sites give off a good deal of gas but under this exemption the EPA can only test the output of one well at a time and they are not allowed to aggregate and report on emissions from 2, 3, 5 or more wells on the same property.

Drilling Down - a report on the subject issued in 2007 - it's 48 pages long, haven't read through it all yet.

[url=http://www.questerre.com/shale-gas-backgrounder-english[/url]A video on the process[/url] by a firm drilling in Quebec - it's basically how the industry presents the drilling; they don't mention using chemicals only referring to 'mud' and 'additives' commonly found in the household, that make up .05% of the drilling process

Story on a fracking lawsuit in Alberta - there appear to be quite a few lawsuits in both the US and Canada

[Bullajami]

* The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

It was clear to me from watching the documentary that the author was only claiming the industry is exempted from the SDWA, nothing else.
That statement is also misleading in that the SDWA has not been around for 60 years, nor has widespread hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas.

I'm no geologist or engineer, but common sense says that when they pressure blast a shale formation to free up the gasses in it they can't accurately predict where everything is going to go. Clearly some of the injection chemicals and gas intended for extraction are ending up in the ground water - at least in some instances. The mining companies must be held accountable when that happens. The SDWA might not be the perfect answer, but it's already in place, with enforcement mechanisms. You could convince me that the 2005 energy act should be amended to remove the exemption for hydraulic fracturing.

[janeg]

Found a Safety Advisory from the BC Oil & Gas Commission

A large kick was recently taken on a well being horizontally drilled for unconventional gas production in
the Montney formation. The kick was caused by a fracturing operation being conducted on an adjacent
horizontal well. Fracture sand was circulated from the drilling wellbore, which was 670m from the wellbore
undergoing the fracturing operation.
To date, the BC Oil and Gas Commission (Commission) is aware of 18 fracture communication incidents in
B.C. and one in Western Alberta ....

A kick is an unintended entry of water, gas, oil, or other formation fluid into wellbore that is under control and
can be circulated out. It occurs when the formation fluid is driven by a formation pressure that is greater than the
pressure exerted on it by the column of drilling mud in the wellbore. If the formation fluid is not controlled a
blowout may result.

Incidents have occurred in horizontal wells with separation distances between well bores ranging from 50m
to 715m.
Fracture propagation via large scale hydraulic fracturing operations has proven difficult to predict. Existing
planes of weakness in target formations may result in fracture lengths that exceed initial design expectations

If the fluids from one well can interfere with the fluids from a second well 2/3 of a mile away it's not a stretch to think the fracking fluids can also get into the ground water.

At least you guys have some laws in place; I can't find anything on Canadian law, with or without exemptions, that might bring some pressure to bear on the industry. Instead, I found that BC and Alberta are aggressively pushing for the drilling and even offering royalty incentives

[janeg]

The ProPublica site has a new of article on fracturing; What You Need to Know About HydroFracking. They actually have a whole section on the topic with links to related material.

PBS Need to Know last week aired a report on a recent investigation of possible fracking water contamination in Wyoming

[kinnipak]

The ProPublica site has a new of article on fracturing; What You Need to Know About HydroFracking. They actually have a whole section on the topic with links to related material.

PBS Need to Know last week aired a report on a recent investigation of possible fracking water contamination in Wyoming

I just saw something on CNN.com about this in Upstate NY I believe...will research and post.

[Taardvark]

I listened to a podcast where the filmmaker and someone from the opposition were on (I believe it was NPR's science Friday but don't quote me) and I found the woman who represented the opposition to have little credibility. I recall her main argument to be the exemption and little else.

[janeg]

This debate is, I think, going to be a very tough one. The gas companies employ a lot of people in both the US and Canada plus, in some states, they are leasing land which is putting money into the pockets of small farmers, etc. It's one of those areas where people are inclined to look at their economic improvement and pooh, pooh those objecting until the negative impact of living near the wells impacts them directly.

The other problem is that, up until now, the wells have mostly been built in low population areas; I expect things to heat up more when they start to intrude on more heavily populated areas. This is starting, somewhat, in Calgary.

Companies have been drilling sour gas wells, and displacing small farmers in Alberta, for decades with little public attention. The province owns all mineral rights, people have no say to where the wells are placed and no recourse to stop drilling on their farms. Recently the Alberta gov't okayed 6 of new wells within a stone throw of Calgary's suburbs and now people are getting concerned; the wells are highly toxic, the gas is mixed with hydrogen sulfide which has to separated which can involve venting into the air.

The industry says they aren't dangerous but there has to be an evacuation plan for each area containing a well as open-air venting and blow-outs can and do happen. Unfortunately, the biggest concern over the 6 wells near Calgary is the feasibility of being able to evacuate 300,000+ people and not the advisability of drilling these wells, anywhere, using the current methods.

[janeg]

Looks like people in Pennsylvania are about to be fracked

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?opt ... mival=5846

Part 2 - Free Gas - PA Governor is arguing on 0% tax for Marcellus Shale gas extraction

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php ... mival=5810

[Bullajami]

Close theHalliburton loophole.

I am also troubled that Homeland Security people were involved in surveillance of anti-fracking protesters. There needs to be some prison time for that.

[janeg]

Close theHalliburton loophole.

That would be a great start. It's naive to think the drilling will go away but the risks to the water tables in high population areas is very high given the evidence of what so many families in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming have gone through, along with the stories out of Alberta and the latest problems in Dimock, PA; allowing the gas & oil companies free reign is simply asking for trouble.

I am also troubled that Homeland Security people were involved in surveillance of anti-fracking protesters. There needs to be some prison time for that.

It's troubling but sadly not surprising

[Bullajami]

It's naive to think the drilling will go away...

I hope we can develop the resources, but it simply MUST be done in a safe and responsible manner. These mining companies have accumulated a ton of data. They know with better precision than anyone if a given location is likely or unlikely to create nasty ripple effects if fracked. Making them legally liable if it does isn't the only way to increase public safety, but it's the best way. Their bean counters will decide whether or not to accept the risks of fracking every location under consideration.

I am also troubled that Homeland Security people were involved in surveillance of anti-fracking protesters. There needs to be some prison time for that.

It's troubling but sadly not surprising

I have not seen much abuse of authority in my life, so it does surprise me when I hear of these things. I hope it is not as common as you seem to believe.

[janeg]

I have not seen much abuse of authority in my life, so it does surprise me when I hear of these things. I hope it is not as common as you seem to believe.

You may not have experienced it yourself but it happens fairly frequently, in all decades and all countries. Governments have been targeting activists forever, the term is generic and can pretty much include whatever behaviour they say it does. In the early 1900's it was union activists; in the '50's and '60's, anyone involved in civil liberty fights were activists. In the '70's and '80's, environmentalists were added; now they're tending to prefer the term anarchists which has an even wider scope than the activist moniker.

On looking at the details of this incident again, what is really troubling is the fact that Homeland Security contracted out the surveillance; if that's a regular practice wouldn't it make it much tougher to trace the surveillance back to the government? Possibly giving them deny-ability?

[janeg]

60 Minutes ran a bit tonight called Shaleionaires; they covered pro and con but the first half emphasized two men in Louisiana who have made millions by leasing their land to a gas and oil company; they completely failed to mention that in 32 out of 50 states property owners may only own surface rights; the mineral rights to the property may be state owned or they may have been sold or leased out by a previous owner years ago. Split estate drilling is causing all kinds of problems for people in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico.