An Industry Reborn

[Intense]

Fracking (also often referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking) is a process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into oil or methane gas deposits to fracture the rock above and release the liquid or gas below. The process and its aftermath has generated controversy because of harm to drinking water and health where it has been used, in Colorado and New Mexico [1], and more recently in expanded drilling plans in the Marcellus Shale in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic states.[2]

Fracking -- which uses enormous amounts of drinkable water along with toxic chemicals and which also releases radioactive materials and other hazardous substances in shale deposits -- has raised significant environmental and health concerns.[3] In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.[4]

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.[5] 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.
Fracking - SourceWatch

 

[Intense]

President Barack Obama enthusiastically backs gas drilling, and these days 90 percent of it is done by fracking, which involves forcing below ground chemically treated water under high pressure to smash through layers of rock, thus freeing the gas to flow upward. Along with wind, solar, and nuclear power, natural gas is crucial to Obama's goal of producing 80 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. But the drilling is taking place with minimal oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State and regional authorities are trying to write their own rules—and having trouble keeping up.

Now, reports of contaminated water and alleged disposal of carcinogens in rivers have caught state and federal regulators, and even environmental watchdogs, off guard. Sometimes the fracking mix includes diesel fuel. Between 2005 and 2009, drillers injected 32 million gallons of fluids containing diesel into wells in 19 states, an investigation by Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) concludes. Just as it recovers its footing from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Administration faces a new threat, again involving a risky drilling technology and charges of lax regulation. Obama is "evaluating the need for new safeguards for drilling," says White House spokesman Clark W. Stevens. "It's likely that the science is going to say we need to regulate fracking," says Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for Public Citizen, a liberal advocacy group. "But Obama's political team is going to say don't regulate, and I think the political team will win."

The Marcellus Shale may contain 490 trillion cubic feet of gas—enough to heat U.S. homes and power electric plants for two decades, says Terry Engelder, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. That makes it the world's second-largest gas field behind South Pars, shared by Iran and Qatar. The shale gas rush is creating thousands of jobs and reviving the economy in states such as Wyoming, Texas, and Louisiana. In Pennsylvania, where 2,516 wells have been drilled in the last three years, $389 million in tax revenue and 44,000 jobs came from gas drilling in 2009, according to a Penn State report. Perhaps best of all, natural gas emits half the carbon emissions of oil.

While there have been no documented cases of fracking fluids flowing underground into drinking water, there have been spills above ground. Fracking produces millions of gallons of wastewater; some of it containing benzene has spilled from holding tanks. The wastewater can overwhelm treatment plants not equipped to handle high levels of contaminants. A Feb. 26 New York Times article, using documents from the EPA and state regulators, described how radioactive wastewater is being discharged into river basins. Sierra Club Deputy Executive Director Bruce Hamilton says Obama "has been sold a bill of goods." But even the Sierra Club has struggled with fracking. Last year it overruled New York and Pennsylvania chapters calling for a national fracking ban; now it's reconsidering that decision, Hamilton says.
Fracking: The Great Shale Gas Rush - BusinessWeek

 

[Intense]

The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q]YouTube - The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again[/ame]

 

[chikenwing]

Fracking -- which uses enormous amounts of drinkable water along with toxic chemicals and which also releases radioactive materials and other hazardous substances in shale deposits -- has raised significant environmental and health concerns.[3] In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.[4]


So wrong not funny.they use zero zip potable water non. and just what is enormous amounts anyway,ya just don't know do ya,repeat what is heard not what is true.

No drill no gas its really that simple.

Take the high road and refuse to use or buy anything that used natural gas in its manufacturing. But the alarmist will not do this,they will demand their food,their heat their electricity selfishness beyond belief.

 

[RGR]

While there have been no documented cases of fracking fluids flowing underground into drinking water, there have been spills above ground.

This particular factoid really bugs the crap out of NIMBY anti-fracing types, don't it? Hydraulic fracturing started in the 40's, and has been done millions of times now. And there are no documented cases of fluids polluting drinking water....BUT LETS REGULATE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE WE'RE ALL IGNORANT AND WATCH UTUBE VIDEOS AS OUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

 

[sparky]

I'm ALL for it.

When they can do it without screwing up the water.

Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.

You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)

Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch Gas Land and ignore the facts
Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water | 9news.com

There are millions of jobs in fracking, a highly labor intensive activity: However these jobs won't be found in NYC, Chicago, LA, the NE, the NW, or any other Democratic Party Stronghold:

Democrats would much rather extend a $500/week unemployment check ($12.5/hr) to their consituants, than to see job creation at a $15/hr minimum rate among their non-constituants.

From the Rockies to the Gulf, from the Upper Midwest to Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Front there are complaints of fouled wells, stinking air, dead streams, earth tremors, and, in at least one West Virginia case, an entire river gone dry. It’s all part of a frantic rush to tap and drain America’s shale gas fields before meaningful regulations can be enacted to protect drinking water and public health.

Unfortunately, as this American catastrophe unfolds in gas-producing states, Congress does worse than nothing. U.S. legislators have made fracking exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act and other federal environmental regulations.

<snip>
Then there&#8217;s the problem of frack water &#8212; the public doesn&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in it, and fracking companies won&#8217;t say. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 65 commonly used fracking chemicals are hazardous, including formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol and hydrochloric acid. They cause asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, autoimmune diseases, liver failure, cancer, headaches, nausea and sleeplessness. Oh, and frack water is flammable. In one case, shown in the film &#8220;Gasland&#8221;, water from a homeowner&#8217;s faucet ignites on camera.

Now there is evidence that naturally occurring radioactivity, trapped in bedrock, is coming out of the ground along with fracking fluid. But we wouldn&#8217;t know much about that if we relied on the EPA. The agency hid studies about radioactive drilling wastewater dumped into America&#8217;s waterways, reports The New York Times.

Even U.S. Energy Secretary Ken Salazar, a longtime ally of the gas industry, says fracking could kill the industry, and with it any chance capitalizing on the benefits of gas &#8212; including the role of gas in decoupling the U.S. from foreign oil. Salazar is concerned that if the industry can&#8217;t extract shale gas without depleting and fouling freshwater, the American public will turn against natural gas. He may be right.

Halliburton and BJ Services acknowledged to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2008 that they had used diesel in the some of their fracking projects in violation of a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (&#8220;EPA&#8221. The current investigation may be gaining the momentum it would require to make the case for federal regulation.
U.S. Congress to investigate shale gas &#8220;fracking&#8221; process | Horn River News

The diesel fuel was used by drillers as part of a contentious process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives &#8212; including diesel fuel &#8212; into rock formations deep underground. The process, which has opened up vast new deposits of natural gas to drilling, creates and props open fissures in the rock to ease the release of oil and gas.

But concerns have been growing over the potential for fracking chemicals &#8212; particularly those found in diesel fuel &#8212; to contaminate underground sources of drinking water.

&#8220;We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought &#8212; and no state and federal regulators have issued &#8212; permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing,&#8221; said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and two other Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the letter. &#8220;This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.&#8221;

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/energy-environment/01gas.html?_r=1


At the risk of fighting in the war room, I'll take the manure, thanks....

~S~

 

[Samson]

Hydraulic fracturing hasn't screwed up the water any worse than farming does. Isn't near a problem. You don't see people advocating a cessation of farming because of what their runoff does, no reason to stop hydraulic fracturing for doing even less.

You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)

Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch Gas Land and ignore the facts
Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water Commission: Gas wells not causing flaming water | 9news.com

There are millions of jobs in fracking, a highly labor intensive activity: However these jobs won't be found in NYC, Chicago, LA, the NE, the NW, or any other Democratic Party Stronghold:

Democrats would much rather extend a $500/week unemployment check ($12.5/hr) to their consituants, than to see job creation at a $15/hr minimum rate among their non-constituants.

From the Rockies to the Gulf, from the Upper Midwest to Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Front there are complaints of fouled wells, stinking air, dead streams, earth tremors, and, in at least one West Virginia case, an entire river gone dry. It’s all part of a frantic rush to tap and drain America’s shale gas fields before meaningful regulations can be enacted to protect drinking water and public health.

Unfortunately, as this American catastrophe unfolds in gas-producing states, Congress does worse than nothing. U.S. legislators have made fracking exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act and other federal environmental regulations.

<snip>
Then there’s the problem of frack water — the public doesn’t know what’s in it, and fracking companies won’t say. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 65 commonly used fracking chemicals are hazardous, including formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol and hydrochloric acid. They cause asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, autoimmune diseases, liver failure, cancer, headaches, nausea and sleeplessness. Oh, and frack water is flammable. In one case, shown in the film “Gasland”, water from a homeowner’s faucet ignites on camera.

Now there is evidence that naturally occurring radioactivity, trapped in bedrock, is coming out of the ground along with fracking fluid. But we wouldn’t know much about that if we relied on the EPA. The agency hid studies about radioactive drilling wastewater dumped into America’s waterways, reports The New York Times.

Even U.S. Energy Secretary Ken Salazar, a longtime ally of the gas industry, says fracking could kill the industry, and with it any chance capitalizing on the benefits of gas — including the role of gas in decoupling the U.S. from foreign oil. Salazar is concerned that if the industry can’t extract shale gas without depleting and fouling freshwater, the American public will turn against natural gas. He may be right.

Halliburton and BJ Services acknowledged to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in January 2008 that they had used diesel in the some of their fracking projects in violation of a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The current investigation may be gaining the momentum it would require to make the case for federal regulation.
U.S. Congress to investigate shale gas “fracking” process | Horn River News

The diesel fuel was used by drillers as part of a contentious process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives — including diesel fuel — into rock formations deep underground. The process, which has opened up vast new deposits of natural gas to drilling, creates and props open fissures in the rock to ease the release of oil and gas.

But concerns have been growing over the potential for fracking chemicals — particularly those found in diesel fuel — to contaminate underground sources of drinking water.

“We learned that no oil and gas service companies have sought — and no state and federal regulators have issued — permits for diesel fuel use in hydraulic fracturing,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California and two other Democratic members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in the letter. “This appears to be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/energy-environment/01gas.html?_r=1


At the risk of fighting in the war room, I'll take the manure, thanks....

~S~

Point?

That the NYT is once again out in left field.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not just the NYT but almost all media that tilts left and aids and abets the 'greenies' and the Obama administration in trashing all fossil fuels and promoting 'green energy'. They are often dishonest in how they do it.

For instance they use pictures of ANWR like this to illustrate how tragic it would be to allow oil companies to take the vast oil reserves there:

When in reality the tiny part of ANWR (2000 scattered acres which is a tiny fraction of the whole thing) where the oil leases are looks like this:

\

Again there are very few things worth doing for the benefit of humankind that does not come with some risk. Ironically it is often the same people who oppose new and different forms of mining natural gas and crude oil because there is some risk of harm being done who insist that other programs that do more harm than good are okay because they do some good.

Personally I think energy independence is a worthy goal and I think we should explore all our options to accomplish that.

 

[Samson]

Not just the NYT but almost all media that tilts left and aids and abets the 'greenies' and the Obama administration in trashing all fossil fuels and promoting 'green energy'. They are often dishonest in how they do it.

For instance they use pictures of ANWR like this to illustrate how tragic it would be to allow oil companies to take the vast oil reserves there:

When in reality the tiny part of ANWR (2000 scattered acres which is a tiny fraction of the whole thing) where the oil leases are looks like this:

\

Again there are very few things worth doing for the benefit of humankind that does not come with some risk. Ironically it is often the same people who oppose new and different forms of mining natural gas and crude oil because there is some risk of harm being done who insist that other programs that do more harm than good are okay because they do some good.

Personally I think energy independence is a worthy goal and I think we should explore all our options to accomplish that.

When unemployment is 10% and energy prices rise (right now, natural gas prices are low), it really won't matter what the NYT, Ken Salazar, or CA Congressmen Waxman (note there is no frackable shale in CA), thinks.

Halliburton is already reformulating frack chemicals (that make up a very small % of the total fluid) into components acquired from the food industry:

The CleanStim formulation is designed for use in hydraulic fracturing. Even though all the ingredients are acquired from food suppliers, the CleanStim fluid system should not be considered edible

Regardless, The Green Fringe remains unimpressed.

Not sure what, short of moving the entire population of the USA into mud huts, will ever make this group competely happy.

 

[RGR]

Halliburton is already reformulating frack chemicals (that make up a very small % of the total fluid) into components acquired from the food industry:

The CleanStim formulation is designed for use in hydraulic fracturing. Even though all the ingredients are acquired from food suppliers, the CleanStim fluid system should not be considered edible

Regardless, The Green Fringe remains unimpressed.

Not sure what, short of moving the entire population of the USA into mud huts, will ever make this group competely happy.

Oh this is great. Near edible frac fluids. Love it! And of COURSE it isn't good enough for the greens, until all economic activity ceases, they won't be happy. I'm beginning to wonder if eco isn't becoming synonymous with human-haters.

 

[Mr. H.]

BIN LADEN IS DEAD!




Hey- it's my thread- I'll celebrate if I wanna.

 

[RGR]

BIN LADEN IS DEAD!




Hey- it's my thread- I'll celebrate if I wanna.

Watching on TV. Good deal. See ya Osama, wouldn't wanna be ya!

 

[sparky]

You're distracting the Parrots. (Jiggs, Sparky, Old Rocks)

Most Americans are to stupid to understand fracking (see this thread). The best they can do, is watch Gas Land and ignore the facts
Point?

That the NYT is once again out in left field.

you gotta be kiddin' me Sam

you're presented with a complete dialog of how fubar the system is, right on up to and including Congressional intervention (who apparently can't decipher their own legislation from a frackin' hole in the ground), and come back to the table with this?

who's distracting from the OP pal?


Tell you what, here's a few facts most Americans are also too stupid to understand>


Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900

2005
(per 100,000 population)
Year Tuberculosis,
all forms Malignant
neoplasms
(cancer) Majorcardiovascular
diseases Influenza
and pneumonia Motor
vehicle
accidents
1900 194.4 64.0 345.2 202.2 n.a.
1910 153.8 76.2 371.9 155.9 1.8
1920 113.1 83.4 364.9 207.3 10.3
1930 71.1 97.4 414.4 102.5 26.7
1940 45.9 120.3 485.7 70.3 26.2
1950 22.5 139.8 510.8 31.3 23.1
1960 6.1 149.2 521.8 37.3 21.3
1970 2.6 162.8 496.0 30.9 26.9
1980 0.9 183.9 436.4 24.1 23.5
1990 0.7 203.2 368.3 32.0 18.8
2000 0.3 200.5 340.4 24.3 15.2
2001 0.3 194.4 323.9 21.8 15.4
2002 0.3 193.8 318.3 22.9 15.5
2003 0.2 191.5 310.3 22.4 15.4
2004 0.2 187.4 293.8 20.9 15.0
2005 0.2 188.7 288.8 21.3 15.3

Source: 1900-1970, U.S. Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual, Vol. I and Vol II; 1971-2001, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report); and unpublished data.


Read more: Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900–2005 — Infoplease.com Death Rates by Cause of Death, 1900


yeah, we all wanna kick a smoker right? all those ppm's gotta be their fault, b*stard spawn of satan that they are

~S~

 

[Samson]

you gotta be kiddin' me Sam

you're presented with a complete dialog of how fubar the system is,~S~

Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about, and really don't take your "complete dialog" very seriously.


But you go ahead with your bomb-throwing campaign.

It won't matter.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about, and really don't take your "complete dialog" very seriously.


But you go ahead with your bomb-throwing campaign.

It won't matter.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're ever talking about. ESPECIALLY in regards to energy and its relationship with the economy. None. Don't flatter yourself.

 

[editec]

I'm ALL for it.

When they can do it without screwing up the water.

Total Agreement.

They've been doing it for the past 45 years without screwing up the water: The Flaming Water Faucet on "Gas Land" had biogenic methane (not from fracking) in it.

And here we go again, Sam.

The public does not KNOW what to believe.

On one hand there's you telling us this is safe. And, SAM, if your ricebowl didn't depend on that, we would have no reason whatever to question your claims.

ON the other hand, we have the complaints about fracking by citizens who have no vested interest in this issue other than their desire NOT to be poisoned by FRACKING problems.

You see the problem for most citizens, right?

The very same energy industry that periodically experiences enormous SPIKES in pricing, spikes that are market driven and that systematically make it impossible for so many of us to thrive; the same industry that takes oil depletion allowances that we citizens end up paying for while it is making BILLION in profits, is now telling us that everything is okay, and that our fellow citizens --people who are telling us that they can no longer drink their water! -- are alarmists.


Those of us who are no in a position to KNOW, naturally have our doubts about the veracity of the claims of the people who we KNOW don't give a flying fuck about us and who DO have a very good reason NOT TO TELL US THE TRUTH

Do I think YOU'RE a liar?

ABSOLUTELY not.

But do I trust your masters?

Not a far as I can throw an oil rig.

Their indifference to what their activities do to the indigenous populations AROUND THE WORLD, are well documented.

I don't blame you for that, but amigo?

That is the hump of credibility that you guys are going to have to overcome.

 

[RGR]

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're ever talking about. ESPECIALLY in regards to energy and its relationship with the economy. None. Don't flatter yourself.

Coming from the parrot, that statement is hysterical.

 

[Mr. H.]

The term is "drilling rig" not "oil rig".

This industry that revels in "price spikes" is the same said industry that often falters from price drops.

I suggest that you invest in the oil business. Not as a passive investor, but as an active participant.
Hire a geologist, hire a drilling contractor, lease some acreage, employ an engineer or two.

Put that "oil rig" on location, sit back, and see what happens.

Go ahead you gutless fucks. Risk it. Pony up.