Political Move Cave-In

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Our natural resources belong to us, not you. Keep your straws out of our milkshakes.

Are you sure you wont let China drink if they bring their own straw. If all Canada was like you, I would agree with you but all Canada aint like you. Just like all America aint like me.
 
Not every country has that same kind of natural resources in other countries that are rich in. If a country is willing to sell their natural resources to other countries that are poor or lacking any natural resources (e.g. oil) then let them. North American happens to be sitting on the most richest natural resources on planet Earth. And the U.S. has the capacity, the means to drill for our own oil and gas to sustain ourselves, and sell abroad our natural resources. You see, "Drill, baby, drill" is working in Canada. Proof positive it works just as it working very well in the Bakken shale in North Dakato and the Marcelleus shale in the Pennsylvania area on helping the economy and creating jobs.

It also comes at a risk to harvest these natural resources too. Living on top of the Marcellus shale is no exception. There are less lives to be toying with in North Dakota drilling, but plenty to be messing with in WV, MD, VA, PA, NY. Hydrofracking isn't 100% safe and we know it.

Virtually 99.99% of Cornell is opposed to the Marcellus drilling mostly because of the fact that it will likely contaminate groundwater in the areas they're drilling for it. They are having conventions and discussions on it weekly as we type.

Now those people in those area, they're now going to start needing more water sanitation and quality departments in those areas around to verify that the water is toxin-free. Who will be paying the money for these departments? Taxpayer dollars?

The energy companies aren't offering that much either. I've got friends and family around the shale area, and can see that the amount that they are offered for drilling to allow (if they own land) are nowhere near enough to cover themselves in the case a medical emergency happens in the long term from drinking poisoned/hydrofracked water.
 
It's now the law that gas shale corporations are exempted from disclosing chemicals used during fracking to the Safe Drinking Water Act. AKA The Haliburton Loop.

I
n 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

Gasland: A film by Josh Fox
 
^^^ Yes, it's a great documentary. I recommend anyone who is interested in learning about the issue to watch it. It simplifies the amount of reading material necessary to understand what the energy drilling companies are doing when they are hydrofracking for the shale energy. It looks good and clean, professional on the outside, but once you look inside it's nothing but bad bad bad.

There are reasons why NY and PA passed laws near major cities to disallow drilling. They know that their clean water supply is at stake.
 
See...I don't complain about members going off topic on my thread....post away
 
It also comes at a risk to harvest these natural resources too. Living on top of the Marcellus shale is no exception. There are less lives to be toying with in North Dakota drilling, but plenty to be messing with in WV, MD, VA, PA, NY. Hydrofracking isn't 100% safe and we know it.

Virtually 99.99% of Cornell is opposed to the Marcellus drilling mostly because of the fact that it will likely contaminate groundwater in the areas they're drilling for it. They are having conventions and discussions on it weekly as we type.

Now those people in those area, they're now going to start needing more water sanitation and quality departments in those areas around to verify that the water is toxin-free. Who will be paying the money for these departments? Taxpayer dollars?

The energy companies aren't offering that much either. I've got friends and family around the shale area, and can see that the amount that they are offered for drilling to allow (if they own land) are nowhere near enough to cover themselves in the case a medical emergency happens in the long term from drinking poisoned/hydrofracked water.

there are no documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing," Senator Inhofe said. "Hydraulic fracturing is a safe production technique that is thoroughly regulated by the states. We have a 60 year history to prove it.

"With the unemployment rate at 10 percent, we need to put people back to work. Imposing more bureaucracy and regulation will destroy jobs and stifle opportunities for those looking to find a job. The oil and gas industry employs 6 million people in the U.S. I want to see that number go up, not down."
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The issue I understand coming from you is the frequency of cross contamination between hydraulic fracturing and water wells. Fracking is hydraulic fracturing based on fluid pressure exerted on rocks far below the ground (a few thousand to several thousand feet below) to force oil and gas out of the porous rocks. I'm not adverse to seeing regulations improve such as introducing to Congress the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act). That Act would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the same laws and regulations that are used for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program which has its own controversy as well. Updating and improving this regulation is necessary to help protect groundwater resources. This is NOT an unregulated activity.

I think a lot of the negative public perception on shale gas and hydraulic fracturing is mostly from the lack of technical awareness of how shale gas extraction occurs.

I'm also not adverse to expand on drilling studies based on drilling methods, geologic type and formation, groundwater understanding in the confined, unconfined and semi-confined aquifers, etc...etc.... There will be cross contamination issues and it will happen. This has been true with groundwater withdrawal (nothing to do with oil and gas) where cross contamination between fresh water and brackish or saline water has happened many times. We can only learn from it and reduce the risk of such cross contamination.

Also, what many people don't realize is that in that region (Pennsylvannia, West VA, Ohio, western Maryland, etc) it sits on a geologically rich shale formations (Marcellus and Utica shale) whose rocks are naturally fractured due the folding of the shale stratigraphy over the hundred of millions of years (btw, the Appalachian mountains are ancient mountain chain which is much, much older than the mountains of the west and was underwater many times, hence the many shale and coal seams found throughout the eastern Appalachian states). It is common that groundwater in aquifers naturally gets "contaminated" with methane and natural gas seepage. They are known as VOC or Volatile Organic Compounds. Benzene is one of the VOC species found in natural gas.

Of the "4,528 (groundwater) samples collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (mostly benzene, toluene, styrene, and xylenes)" from 1979 to 2006, in Pennsylvania, 23.5 percent exceeded the MCL (maximum contaminant level). Pretty telling, huh? And this was before hydraulic fracturing which began in 2007.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/314/pdf/ds314.pdf

Lastly, this horizontal hydraulic fracturing is typically done anywhere from over 2000 to 8000 feet below the surface into the Marcellus shale formation (Utica shale beneath the Marcellus shale is even deeper!). Access to groundwater aquifer for domestic use typically occurs a few feet below the ground surface to depths over 100 to 200 feet. Some 20,000 new private wells are drilled each year around in Pennsylvania. Yet water quality problem persists and it is a huge drinking water problem for the state because many aquifers are found in shallower shale and limestone geologic formations. In shale aquifers you'll find "hydrogen sulfide (which causes the rotten-egg odor), iron, and manganese often occur in certain sandstone and shale aquifers." Also, "corrosive water from acidic sandstone and shale can cause the lead and copper to dissolve from household plumbing, leading to toxic concentrations capable of causing serious health effects in humans."
http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh183.pdf

You have two things, horizontal hydraulic fracturing occurs anywhere from 2000 to 8000 feet below the ground surface versus groundwater wells for domestic use and consumption typically go several below to 100 to 200 feet below the ground surface. This is one of the biggest reason the problem of proving that hydraulic fracturing causes groundwater contamination problem. Hence, proving that the forced VOC will cause it to migrate upward thousands of feet (through several different kinds of geologic formations) and affect groundwater quality near the surface. Plus, much of the groundwater are already naturally contaminated with variety of contaminants including benzene that is found in natural gas, for example, in many cases as I have already shown to you in the above (see links to documents I've provided).

As a reminder to those reading this, avoid movies like "Gasland" because it is designed to prey on the public limited understanding about geology, hydrogeology and the geological technology being used to access gas and oil today. It's not that simple to assume a direct connection when you're dealing with such a technology being used several thousand feet below to a groundwater contamination problem several tens of feet below the surface. Now, I'm not saying this is not possible. I've already addressed that I'm not adverse to seeing more studies on hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination and, if any, a connection between the two.

Just to let you know I have a M.S. in geology with an emphasis on contaminant hydrogeology, groundwater and contaminant modeling which includes DNAPL and LNAPLs. I still do hydrogeology work today.
 
Ah...so you wouldn't exactly extol the negatives if you depend on mining and gas companies for your income.
 
Ok, have you been commissioned to do work that would be of benefit to gas/oil and/or mining companies?
 
Koko, what about the contents of the brine found in local private wells that harbor the Marcellus area?

Even if there are no traces of contaminants from hydrofracking, studies have been indicating that there is an increased amount of methane in the solution that was not there previously.

It may not have been directly from the fracking chemicals, but it is entirely and likely possible that it is induced from the pressure of the machinery and process involved, as a result of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top