Gasland

[GWV5903]

I think I have made my point. The exemptions from the environmental laws are real, as is the damage done by fracking.

If you mean that you do not have a shred of proof, this much is clear. Did you read anything you profess to be the facts? There is NOTHING in your post other than speculation.....

The surface damage from the guy in Hickory, PA a stretch at best and provides no proof fracking damaged the water tables. His complaint should be to the regulatory control of the state of Pennsylvania, in Texas it is the Rail Road Commission and as producer you do not want to get on their wrong side.....

Let me make it clear, to date there is zero proof that fracking has damaged any water table....

All you have provided is dialog of fear, nothing more.....

There is every reason to monitor and question the method, but your over zealous attempt to sensationalize only divides the issue further.....

 

[Mr. H.]

I think I have made my point. The exemptions from the environmental laws are real, as is the damage done by fracking.

Then let it be proven out. You've made a point and you've quoted links that may or may not have merit.

Salving your own ego is one thing, but let's step back and see what the real players have in store. This issue is a work in progress.

 

[newpolitics]

Chemicals used in Fracking http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/0...n-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-in-pennsylvania/
http://www.earthworksaction.org/fracfluidslarge.cfm

I have a pretty good idea of what is happening... the US is tired of buying energy from abroad and losing money, and they want to profit. Hence, natural gas. This has nothing to do with terrorism, or being dependent on the middle-east. The US government and the players involved want money off of the natural gas on our land. When pure profit motive are the cause, regulation is easy to throw out the window when those who run our regulatory commissions are so intimately involved with those in high up places in Washington. They have the media, money, and the knowledge that people will do anything to be 'free' from the middle-east, who they hate because of terrorism. So, little people getting sick on farms and water tables being ruined just doesn't stack up against the big picture- freedom, or at least, how it is being sold to us.

I don't care about what anyone says, if you pump chemicals into the ground, its going to get back up somehow and affect anything and everything living on the surface. How do you account for flammable water taps, if there is 'no evidence of fracking affecting the health of those on the ground?' This is so absurd to me, that anyone could convince themselves that fracking has no drawbacks. That it is simply free energy, and there are all positives and no negatives. C'mon... Regardless of whether a Halliburton Loophole exists, this is really dangerous to be doing. The amount of chemicals being pumped into the ground, is going to create a negative affect. That is only reasonable and logical to assume. Then you have evidence from people getting sick in areas where there is fracking. I mean, what other evidence do you need?

Just two of many hits on google for 'Halliburton Loophole:'

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton_Company
http://www.newsinferno.com/health-concerns/fracking-hazards-obscured-by-halliburton-loophole/

If you think the idea of a "Halliburton Loophole" has no merit, then you are simply not listening or perceiving accurately. Any and all articles posted providing 'evidence' to deny the existence of the loophole are from websites who have a stake in natural gas somehow. It is not real information.

------------------------------------- http://www.earthworksaction.org/halliburton.cfmThe Halliburton loophole

Despite the widespread use of the practice, and the risks hydraulic fracturing poses to human health and safe drinking water supplies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") does not regulate the injection of fracturing fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials -- unchecked -- directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.

This exemption from the SDWA has become known as the "Halliburton loophole" because it is widely perceived to have come about as a result of the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. Before taking office, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton -- which patented hydraulic fracturing in the 1940s, and remains one of the three largest manufacturers of fracturing fluids. Halliburton staff were actively involved in review of the 2004 EPA report on hydraulic fracturing.

State regulation

Several oil and gas producing states have regulations governing some aspects of hydraulic fracturing, but they rarely, if ever, require companies to provide detailed information on types and quantities of chemicals being used, and whether the amount injected underground returns to the surface or remains underground. Additionally, in most states companies do not have to prove that fractures have stayed within the target formations. Nor do companies have to monitor water quality when there are drinking water formations in close proximity to areas where hydraulic fracturing occurs.

 

[newpolitics]

But, like I said, all this discussion of who did what, and who said what... doesn't matter. It's common sense. You intentionally inject our soil with chemicals, it is going to harm somebody, yet, because it is in the name of 'energy independence,' it is okay to do. American propagandist bullshit. Suck my ass.

 

[Mr. H.]

Good posts. But I'll pass on the ass, thanks.

 

[editec]

The problem with this shale gas recovery is the enormous amount of water needed to crack it.

Solve that problem and Bob's your uncle.

Fail to solve that problem and the water table of PA is going to go to shit.

Bullshit.....

Is it?

A 2008 investigation of benzene contamination in Colorado and Wyoming led some EPA officials to suggest hydraulic fracturing as a culprit. One of the authors of the 2004 EPA report states that it has been misconstrued by the gas-drilling industry.[25]

It should be noted that a typical frac will utilize approximately 15,000m3 of water per well.

And, FYI, here's a list of the chemicals added to the water/sand combination used in fracting

CAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1AcrylamideCAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1Acrylamide

Doesn't the above chemical (many of the carcinogenic, I note) read like something YOU want in your kids' water supply?

 

[mdn2000]

"...in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one."

Energy in Depth

Now if it is so safe, why all the exemptions from existing pollution laws?

Now if it is so safe, why all the exemptions from existing pollution laws?

I think the jury's still out as to a direct correlation specifically targeted at a particular frac job that has resulted in the pollution of a fresh water table. If not, links would be appreciated such as documented cases. Documented as in DNR or EPA reports, not a video such as Gasland.

I know that the state of Illinois has very specific guidlines for protecting groundwater including drilling, casing, and cementing procedures as well as folow up monitoring.

As to exemptions- none that I'm aware of.

Natural Gas Fracking: Ruining Your Lunch

Pollution of water, air and food from the gas drilling industry is exempt from federal pollution laws, thanks to Dick Cheney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act and its ‘Halliburton Exemption.’ Incredibly, gas drillers can pollute without regard to the basic protections in Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Clear Air Act. For instance, it is legal for gas drilling to cause drinking water to contain high levels of carcinogens like benzene that violate the Safe Drinking Water Act because that law simply does not apply if gas drilling is the cause. The public and the environment have been essentially defenseless against gas drillers (who are often the same companies as the oil drillers). They have used the cover of this exemption to ruin the air, water, and landscape of large swaths of several western states, and are now moving east.

It's About Fracking Time! U.S. EPA Lights a Fire Under Hydraulic Fracturing – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Hydraulic Fracturing and the Clean Water Act
Actually there is a little something called the Clean Water Act. Its primary focus is surface water such as lakes and rivers, though with some wiggle room it could indirectly apply to ground sources like wells and aquifers. There is also something called the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 but hydraulic fracturing was exempted from that, an omission that was reaffirmed by the EPA under the Bush administration. Fracking was also exempted from the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Then there’s the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976, which covers the use and disposal of hazardous substances, but fracking is also at least partly exempt from that. And just to top things off, the chemical brines used in fracking are considered proprietary and companies are under no obligation to disclose what’s in them (so they don’t).

But Old Crock, you are proposing Hydraulic Fracturing when it comes to Geothermal. Old Crock shows how the Green Anarchist lies, you see no EPA rules are good for the Green Anarchist but bad for Oil. Hydralic Fracking is good for toxic Geothermal but baaaad for a powerful, rich source of energy such as Oil or Gas.

Old Crock, tell me your suffering the effects of your age and cannot remember what you post. Old Crock is my greatest source to show Old Crock and the Green Anarchists are liars. I have more Old Crock so do not be too angry and fly off the handle and reply to my posts without thinking, I actually have searched and found my next two or three responses. Lets watch and see if Old Crock takes the bait.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/143346-oil-gusher-in-california-3.html

And so I am to believe a dumbass poster on an internet message board over the scientists at MIT.

Power from down under

Everywhere on Earth, a few miles below the surface, the bedrock is hot, and the deeper you go the hotter it gets. In some places, water heated by this hot rock comes naturally to the surface or close to it, where it can be easily tapped to drive a turbine and generate electricity.

But where naturally heated water is not available at or near the surface, this process can be recreated by drilling one very deep well to inject water into the ground, and another well nearby to pump that water back to the surface after it has been heated by passing through cracks in the hot rock. Such systems are known as Engineered Geothermal Systems, or EGS.

A 2006 report by an 18-member team led by MIT Professor Jefferson Tester (now emeritus, and working at Cornell University) found that more than 2,000 times the total annual energy use of the United States could be supplied, using existing technology, from EGS systems, and perhaps 10 times as much with improved technology.

 

[GWV5903]

The problem with this shale gas recovery is the enormous amount of water needed to crack it.

Solve that problem and Bob's your uncle.

Fail to solve that problem and the water table of PA is going to go to shit.

Bullshit.....

Is it?

A 2008 investigation of benzene contamination in Colorado and Wyoming led some EPA officials to suggest hydraulic fracturing as a culprit. One of the authors of the 2004 EPA report states that it has been misconstrued by the gas-drilling industry.[25]

It should be noted that a typical frac will utilize approximately 15,000m3 of water per well.

And, FYI, here's a list of the chemicals added to the water/sand combination used in fracting

CAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1AcrylamideCAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1Acrylamide

Doesn't the above chemical (many of the carcinogenic, I note) read like something YOU want in your kids' water supply?

Do you have any proof? No you say? This is a real problem, real answers are needed, the chemicals you listed are of real concern, yet you have to prove they are in our water table FIRST!!

Instead of yelling wolf, try to work with the O & G industry to come up with real solutions for this concern, the wolf theory is for fairy tales....

 

[GWV5903]

"...in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one."

Energy in Depth

Now if it is so safe, why all the exemptions from existing pollution laws?

It's About Fracking Time! U.S. EPA Lights a Fire Under Hydraulic Fracturing – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Hydraulic Fracturing and the Clean Water Act
Actually there is a little something called the Clean Water Act. Its primary focus is surface water such as lakes and rivers, though with some wiggle room it could indirectly apply to ground sources like wells and aquifers. There is also something called the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 but hydraulic fracturing was exempted from that, an omission that was reaffirmed by the EPA under the Bush administration. Fracking was also exempted from the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Then there’s the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976, which covers the use and disposal of hazardous substances, but fracking is also at least partly exempt from that. And just to top things off, the chemical brines used in fracking are considered proprietary and companies are under no obligation to disclose what’s in them (so they don’t).

But Old Crock, you are proposing Hydraulic Fracturing when it comes to Geothermal. Old Crock shows how the Green Anarchist lies, you see no EPA rules are good for the Green Anarchist but bad for Oil. Hydralic Fracking is good for toxic Geothermal but baaaad for a powerful, rich source of energy such as Oil or Gas.

Old Crock, tell me your suffering the effects of your age and cannot remember what you post. Old Crock is my greatest source to show Old Crock and the Green Anarchists are liars. I have more Old Crock so do not be too angry and fly off the handle and reply to my posts without thinking, I actually have searched and found my next two or three responses. Lets watch and see if Old Crock takes the bait.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/143346-oil-gusher-in-california-3.html

And so I am to believe a dumbass poster on an internet message board over the scientists at MIT.

Power from down under

Everywhere on Earth, a few miles below the surface, the bedrock is hot, and the deeper you go the hotter it gets. In some places, water heated by this hot rock comes naturally to the surface or close to it, where it can be easily tapped to drive a turbine and generate electricity.

But where naturally heated water is not available at or near the surface, this process can be recreated by drilling one very deep well to inject water into the ground, and another well nearby to pump that water back to the surface after it has been heated by passing through cracks in the hot rock. Such systems are known as Engineered Geothermal Systems, or EGS.

A 2006 report by an 18-member team led by MIT Professor Jefferson Tester (now emeritus, and working at Cornell University) found that more than 2,000 times the total annual energy use of the United States could be supplied, using existing technology, from EGS systems, and perhaps 10 times as much with improved technology.

Well done....

 

[Old Rocks]

For sure only in Texas do they make people this stupid. That is what this is all about. Those chemicals have been found in aquifers that did not have them there before the fracking.

 

[GWV5903]

For sure only in Texas do they make people this stupid. That is what this is all about. Those chemicals have been found in aquifers that did not have them there before the fracking.

Link??????????????????

 

[mdn2000]

For sure only in Texas do they make people this stupid. That is what this is all about. Those chemicals have been found in aquifers that did not have them there before the fracking.

Link??????????????????

Lets see if Old Crock responds to being called a hypocrite, what is Old Crock's defense of having two standards.

Geothermal can pollute water supplies with hydralic fracking, the Geothermal Brine is rich in toxic radioative pollutants, why is that not a problem, Old Crock has repeatedly promoted Geothermal as Green Energy yet it pollutes the ground water using Hydralic Fracking.

How about Old Crock, your quick to call people stupid, how about addressing Old Crock's lies, either its good or bad. Is it that difficult Old Crock to stand on one side of an issue.

 

[GWV5903]

For sure only in Texas do they make people this stupid. That is what this is all about. Those chemicals have been found in aquifers that did not have them there before the fracking.

EPA official is grilled in Range Resources water well case | Barnett Shale | Dallas Busi...

Try and soak this up Einstein.....

 

[Old Rocks]

EPA Finds Secret Fracking Chemicals in Drinking Water | OMB Watch

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has discovered numerous pollutants in well water near gas drilling sites, including chemicals that are used in a controversial technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The investigation in central Wyoming is the first water testing by EPA examining the impacts of gas drilling on drinking water. However, EPA is hobbled in its duty to protect the public because gas drillers are allowed to keep secret the chemicals they pump into the ground – toxic chemicals that may be entering ground water supplies.

Responding to years of complaints of water contamination and illnesses from citizens in rural Wyoming, the EPA investigated the water quality of 39 wells surrounding a small community besieged by gas drilling. The agency found a range of contaminants, including arsenic, copper, vanadium, and methane gas in the water. Many of the substances are found in various fluids used at drilling sites. EPA scientists are acknowledging the growing body of evidence linking hydraulic fracturing to numerous cases of contamination and health problems.

The drilling industry claims no federal regulation of fracking is needed, citing the lack of conclusive proof linking fracking chemicals to contamination of a particular water source. Unfortunately for EPA and citizens like those in Wyoming who depend on wells, EPA has little authority to do the scientific analysis needed to effectively protect water supplies. A 2005 energy bill exempted gas drilling operations from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA eventually was able to exercise its authority under the Superfund law to begin its investigation in Wyoming

 

[Old Rocks]

Companion Bills Introduced to Protect Drinking Water from Natural Gas Fracking

Companion Bills Introduced to Protect Drinking Water from Natural Gas Fracking
American Public Deserves to Know Chemicals Used Near Their Water Sources

WASHINGTON – Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) joined U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Jared Polis (D-CO) today to introduce companion Senate and House bills, the FRAC ACT -- Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation would repeal the exemption provided for the oil and gas industry and would require them to disclose the chemicals they use in their hydraulic fracturing processes. Currently, the oil and gas industry is the only industry granted an exemption from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

“Drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale across much of Pennsylvania is part of our future,” said Senator Casey. “I believe that we have an obligation to develop that natural gas responsibly to safeguard the drinking water wells used by 3 million Pennsylvanians. We already have private wells contaminated by gas and fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. We need to make sure that this doesn’t become a state-wide problem over the next few decades as we extract natural gas.”

“When it comes to protecting the public’s health, it’s not unreasonable to require these companies to disclose the chemicals they are using in our communities – especially near our water sources,” said U.S. Rep. DeGette, Vice Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. “Our bill simply closes an unconscionable Bush-Cheney loophole by requiring the oil and gas industry to follow the same rules as everyone else.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Polis, DeGette sign letter supporting ‘fracking’ chemical disclosure on public lands | Colorado Independent

Forty-six members of Congress, including Colorado Democratic Reps. Jared Polis and Diana DeGette, sent a letter to former Colorado senator and current Interior Secretary Ken Salazar Thursday backing the disclosure of secret chemicals used in the controversial natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”

Polis and DeGette, along with Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., co-sponsored the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act in 2009, only to see it languish in the overall gridlock over energy policy and climate-change legislation. Dubbed the “Haliburton Loophole” for the oil services company that perfected the process, fracking was granted an exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act during the Bush-Cheney administration in 2005.

It involves injecting water, sand and undisclosed chemicals deep underground to fracture tight geological formations and free up more natural gas. Haliburton and other companies say they must keep chemical formulas secret for proprietary reasons and that the process is safe. Critics say fracking has led to contamination of drinking water.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fracking Still Fouling Pennsylvania Drinking Water

Pennsylvania Drinking Water Fouled by Fracking
50 Million Tons of Waste Unaccounted For
By Jimmy Mengel
Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Potentially toxic “frack water” is continuing to make its way into Pennsylvania's rivers and streams, according to a new AP report.

“Fracking” (a nickname for hydraulic fracturing) has been an energy buzzword this year as more areas are opened up for natural gas exploration.

The process involves drilling a mile or more below the earth's surface and blasting a pressurized solution of water, sand, and chemicals to fracture the rocks below and release the natural gas.

The drilling companies have maintained the fracking process is safe, and the chemicals used would not do any significant harm to the environment.

However, the process creates a tremendous amount of wastewater which contain both fracking chemicals as well as heavy metals. In most areas, the wastewater is disposed of in deep underground wells.

 

[Old Rocks]

Chemicals Found in PA Well Water…. Fracking to Blame? | Water Quality: Testing, Filters for, and Purification of Drinking, Ground and Pool Water

CNN) — Water testing by a private environmental engineering firm has discovered toxic chemicals in wells in a township in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.

Victoria Switzer, a resident of the northeastern Pennsylvania township of Dimock, revealed the results of the water tests from her well this week at an Environmental Protection Agency hearing on hydraulic fracturing in Binghamton, New York.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a controversial process used to extract natural gas from deep underground. Critics say chemicals used in the process can be injected into groundwater.

Farnham & Associates confirmed that ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and toluene were present in her water, Switzer said.

…

The tests, which were verified by three certified laboratories, found chemicals in the majority of samples taken from water wells in Dimock, said Daniel Farnham, president of Farnham & Associates, based in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

 

[mdn2000]

"...in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one."

Energy in Depth

Now if it is so safe, why all the exemptions from existing pollution laws?

It's About Fracking Time! U.S. EPA Lights a Fire Under Hydraulic Fracturing – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Hydraulic Fracturing and the Clean Water Act
Actually there is a little something called the Clean Water Act. Its primary focus is surface water such as lakes and rivers, though with some wiggle room it could indirectly apply to ground sources like wells and aquifers. There is also something called the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974 but hydraulic fracturing was exempted from that, an omission that was reaffirmed by the EPA under the Bush administration. Fracking was also exempted from the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Then there’s the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act of 1976, which covers the use and disposal of hazardous substances, but fracking is also at least partly exempt from that. And just to top things off, the chemical brines used in fracking are considered proprietary and companies are under no obligation to disclose what’s in them (so they don’t).

But Old Crock, you are proposing Hydraulic Fracturing when it comes to Geothermal. Old Crock shows how the Green Anarchist lies, you see no EPA rules are good for the Green Anarchist but bad for Oil. Hydralic Fracking is good for toxic Geothermal but baaaad for a powerful, rich source of energy such as Oil or Gas.

Old Crock, tell me your suffering the effects of your age and cannot remember what you post. Old Crock is my greatest source to show Old Crock and the Green Anarchists are liars. I have more Old Crock so do not be too angry and fly off the handle and reply to my posts without thinking, I actually have searched and found my next two or three responses. Lets watch and see if Old Crock takes the bait.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/143346-oil-gusher-in-california-3.html

And so I am to believe a dumbass poster on an internet message board over the scientists at MIT.

Power from down under

Everywhere on Earth, a few miles below the surface, the bedrock is hot, and the deeper you go the hotter it gets. In some places, water heated by this hot rock comes naturally to the surface or close to it, where it can be easily tapped to drive a turbine and generate electricity.

But where naturally heated water is not available at or near the surface, this process can be recreated by drilling one very deep well to inject water into the ground, and another well nearby to pump that water back to the surface after it has been heated by passing through cracks in the hot rock. Such systems are known as Engineered Geothermal Systems, or EGS.

A 2006 report by an 18-member team led by MIT Professor Jefferson Tester (now emeritus, and working at Cornell University) found that more than 2,000 times the total annual energy use of the United States could be supplied, using existing technology, from EGS systems, and perhaps 10 times as much with improved technology.

Old Crock, how about this, why does this not concern you? When it comes to Geothermal Energy you support Hydro Cracking, when it comes to Oil, its off limits, why Old Crock, why.

 

[newpolitics]

Bullshit.....

Is it?



And, FYI, here's a list of the chemicals added to the water/sand combination used in fracting

CAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1AcrylamideCAS NumberChemical Constituent2634-33-51,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one95-63-61,2,4 trimethylbenzene123-91-11,4-Dioxane3452-07-11-eicosene629-73-21-hexadecene112-88-91-octadecene1120-36-11-tetradecene10222-01-22,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide , a biocide27776-21-22,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride73003-80-22,2-Dobromomalonamide15214-89-82-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer46830-22-22-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride52-51-72-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol111-76-22-Butoxy ethanol1113-55-92-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)104-76-72-Ethyl Hexanol67-63-02-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol26062-79-32-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer9003-03-62-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt25987-30-82-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate71050-62-92-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)66019-18-92-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite107-19-72-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol51229-78-83,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,115-19-53-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol127087-87-04-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol64-19-7Acetic acid68442-62-6Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine108-24-7Acetic Anhydride67-64-1Acetone79-06-1Acrylamide

Doesn't the above chemical (many of the carcinogenic, I note) read like something YOU want in your kids' water supply?

Do you have any proof? No you say? This is a real problem, real answers are needed, the chemicals you listed are of real concern, yet you have to prove they are in our water table FIRST!!

Instead of yelling wolf, try to work with the O & G industry to come up with real solutions for this concern, the wolf theory is for fairy tales....

You seem to be unable to accept any possibility that fracking contains contaminants, and hence remove yourself from the responsibility of even having to be aware of it. It is pretty sad my friend. Unless you have absolute proof, you will not believe. What will that take? don't you think that will be a little hard with a government and big business trying to keep that evidence from reaching anyone? There IS evidence, you are just not accepting it as as being sufficient. We, as the little people, have to try and get at the information however we can. We have to search for it, because 'they' don't want you to see it, and 'they' have control over everything (media, big business, legislation, regulation, money, police, FBI, etc...) They can silence the little people pretty easily. It is much harder to dissent than to simply go along with a program to avoid being construed as a dissident. In this case, I would say it is most prudent to be a dissident, because this is going to injure very many people more than it already has, including, you, me, and every person on this board... perhaps we will then all have to buy 'filtered drinking water' at some point... yet another ploy for big business to make money, else we get all get sick from drinking out tap water.

They might be doing fracking that would affect the entire New York City watershed. That's 8 million people (non-business hours). Let's hope Fracking isn't dangerous, or a lot of shit is going to go down.

So far, it looks as though some people don't feel fracking is safe:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/new-york-governor-vetoes-fracking-bill/