Frack, Baby, Frack !!!

[marmar]

from Grist:


Obama makes strong call for clean energy — oh, and drilling and fracking too

By Lisa Hymas
25 Jan 2012 12:53 AM


Clean energy rocks. Nice, deserving people get jobs at wind-turbine plants. Solyndra-style investments are critical. Oil-company subsidies suck. Energy efficiency is an economic engine. We need to drill, baby, drill. And we need to frack, baby, frack.

Those weren’t the words, but those were the sentiments in the energy portion of President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. He dedicated a significant chunk of the speech to energy issues, making an unexpectedly vigorous appeal for renewable power, cleantech investment, and efficiency — as well as for natural-gas fracking and oil drilling.

“This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” he said. That line got a standing O even from the Republicans — as it should have, considering Obama took “all of the above” straight from the GOP playbook. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://grist.org/politics/obama-makes-strong-call-for-clean-energy-oh-and-drilling-and-fracking-too/

[badtoworse]

1. Obama is quite correct, we need to supply our oil and gas needs with domestic resources

I am confident that fracking can be safely done with the right standards and precautions.

[marmar]

2. What's a little earthquake or ruined water supply here or there, right?

nt

[badtoworse]

3. Every form of energy production involves potential environmental risks

You have to develop the appropriate safeguards, implement them properly and inspect to be sure of compliance. There is a lot more hype about the risks than actual data to back it up.

[limpyhobbler]

6. There are no safeguards in place.

All the scientific advise is being ignored.

[badtoworse]

7. Fracking is currently regulated at the state level

Federal standards are being developed. What scientific advise (sic) are you talking about?

[limpyhobbler]

9. The federal government also has the authority to regulate this stuff.

I was talking about this advice here...this advice from the EPA, from the Shale Gas Advisory Panel.

In December, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft study that tentatively confirms hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater and drinking water wells. The gas industry has argued the opposite, putting communities and the environment at risk.

In November, the President’s own Shale Gas Advisory Panel advised that “…. if action is not taken to reduce the environmental impact accompanying the very considerable expansion of shale gas production expected across the country – perhaps as many as 100,000 wells over the next several decades – there is a real risk of serious environmental consequences…”

In November, the Scientific American – the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States and 2011 National Magazine Award winner -- editorialized that “drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe”.

The President should be putting communities first. But by promoting increased gas drilling when his own advisors and the scientific establishment tell him that we have neither the science nor the oversight to ensure safe drilling, he is not.

http://www.earthworksaction.org/media/detail/president_obama_should_put_communities_first_not_drilling_industry_profits

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=safety-first-fracking-second

Also please see this study "IMPACTS OF GAS DRILLING ON HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH" from New Solutions Journal

Environmental concerns surrounding drilling for gas are intense due to
expansion of shale gas drilling operations. Controversy surrounding the
impact of drilling on air and water quality has pitted industry and lease -
holders against individuals and groups concerned with environmental
protection and public health. Because animals often are exposed continually
to air, soil, and groundwater and have more frequent reproductive cycles,
animals can be used as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health. This
study involved interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling
operations. The findings illustrate which aspects of the drilling process may
lead to health problems and suggest modifications that would lessen but
not eliminate impacts. Complete evidence regarding health impacts of gas
drilling cannot be obtained due to incomplete testing and disclosure of
chemicals, and nondisclosure agreements. Without rigorous scientific studies,
the gas drilling boom sweeping the world will remain an uncontrolled health
experiment on an enormous scale

http://ia700801.us.archive.org/1/items/ImpactsOfGasDrillingOnHumanAndAnimalHealth/Bamberger_Oswald_NS22_in_press.pdf


Fracking near water should be halted until shown to be safe. If federal regulations are coming, halt until regulations are in place, because right now the American people are suffering harm.

[badtoworse]

10. The Pavillion is only a draft and has not been peer reviewed

There are other studies that show it does not pollute groudwater (see the Penn State University study). I'd like to read the final Pavillion before commenting further.

[Kolesar]

4. Obama's EPA is actually implementing clean-air rules with teeth, and the smog standard comes next ye

Lisa Hymas was truly awful to read, so let me post one of the comments:
----
Comment by jimmydimmy

A lot of the grunt work put in by people concerned about toxic pollution is paying off. Obama's EPA is actually implementing clean-air rules with teeth, and the smog standard comes next year when everything is finalized. Old dirty coal plants are finally on their last legs, cleaning up downwind states from polluter-centric ones like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio and Illinois (though the people of those great states are awesome! But fossil-fuels dominate their legislatures). The EPA has also spent and been on the ground restoring important ecosystems like the Great Lakes (google GLRI for more info), the work being done on the Gulf Coast, and very importantly, the work being done in the Chesapeake Bay.

Us environmentalists have accomplished tons, so much, during this presidency, and his stance on Keystone is another key reflection of that, as well as the new fuel efficiency standards. Yes, fracking is messed up, and Obama's devotion to investing in clean energy companies like A123 among others will have profound effects, maybe even offsetting natural gas. It's a powerful, multi-million dollar lobby, but natural gas is SO MUCH better than coal, and we know of its dangers, and Obama is addressing those dangers.

Obama has been the best environmental President perhaps in our nations history! Of course we can always choose to fight in the grassroots, but it is so wonderful to know that the President has policies that directly address the environment in a positive way, and an EPA Administration that takes its responsibilites seriously, even if it rubs fossil-fuels and developers the wrong way in protecting public health and the environment.

Look at Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Santorum's rhetoric on the environment and you don't just get a contrast, you are staring at environmental nihilism, where nothing matters. The EPA will be completely scrapped. You think fracking is bad now? I bet they impose rules on New York State to begin fracking immediately, regardless of states rights. It is a completely different picture, a scary one, where polluting is endless and no measures are taken to address it. I hope we keep that in mind as voters and as we talk with one another about the most important election in our lifetimes. So much is at stake, the least of which is our vision as Americans in this land.

[PA Democrat]

5. Fracking is exempted from the Clean Water Act standards thanks to Dick Cheney

and the infamous "Halliburton loophole". There is no way that we should be rushing forward before we are sure that we can safeguard the environment and our water supply.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=safety-first-fracking-second

Public fears are growing about contamination of drinking-water supplies from the chemicals used in fracking and from the methane gas itself. Field tests show that those worries are not unfounded. A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away. Yet states have let companies proceed without adequate regulations. They must begin to provide more effective oversight, and the federal government should step in, too.

Nowhere is the rush to frack, or the uproar, greater than in New York. In July, Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a ban on fracking. The State Department of Environmental Conservation released an environmental impact statement and was to propose regulations in October. After a public comment period, which will end in early December, the department plans to issue regulations, and drilling most likely will begin. Fracking is already widespread in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania.

All these states are flying blind. A long list of technical questions remains unanswered about the ways the practice could contaminate drinking water, the extent to which it already has, and what the industry could do to reduce the risks. To fill this gap, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now conducting comprehensive field research. Preliminary results are due in late 2012. Until then, states should put the brakes on the drillers. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie set an example in August when he vetoed a bill that would permanently ban fracking, then approved a one-year moratorium so his state could consider the results of federal studies. The EPA, for its part, could speed up its work.

In addition to bringing some rigor to the debate over fracking, the federal government needs to establish common standards. Many in the gas industry say they are already sufficiently regulated by states, but this assurance is inadequate. For example, Pennsylvania regulators propose to extend a well operator’s liability for water quality out to 2,500 feet from a well, even though horizontal bores from the central well can stretch as far as 5,000 feet.

[badtoworse]

8. Penn State also did a study and reached a different conclusion

The evidence on this is not conclusive either way

[PA Democrat]

11. Post a link

[badtoworse]

12. Try this one

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2011_rev.pdf

[blue neen]

14. There is some very interesting and important information about contamination in this article:

"The second acid spill, at the Vannoy well site in Granville Twp., may have contributed to the contamination of a private pond and a 30-foot swath of dead or stressed vegetation, including several evergreen trees."

"The 420-gallon acid spill was one of several accidents at the site DEP thought might have caused the damage, including a spill of several thousand gallons of water on March 3, 2009, that was never tested for metals and salts, the hallmark constituents of Marcellus Shale wastewater."

"The acid spill, on March 20, also flowed into the pond. Chesapeake neutralized the acid and removed the contaminated soil, but a cleanup plan commissioned by the company in December said some of the acid likely percolated through the pad and may have remained perched on the shallow bedrock causing additional contamination."

"In July, DEP inspectors found stained areas at the base of a waste pit where the company left rock cuttings and drilling fluids in direct contact with the ground, and said the stain was a sign that drilling fluid "either has or is seeping from the pit."

"DEP fined Chesapeake $27,271.93 and its hydraulic fracturing contractor BJ Services $8,598.46 for the second hydrochloric acid spill in February 2010, a fine the agency never announced publicly."

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/hazards-posed-by-natural-gas-drilling-not-always-underground-1.857452#ixzz1kcx3kWxk