Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Has anyone read this 1987 EPA report, just found it. Seems there is plenty of oil and gas contaminations listed along with one West Virginia fracking related ground water contamination.
The case study in the 1987 report is an unusual one. The hypothesis was that an old well bore manifesting a number of mechanical failures, including degraded casing and no cement isolation of fresh water zones, that was drilled to the same reservoir as the stimulated well provided a conduit from the hydrocarbon bearing zone up to the acquifer.
If the hypothesis is considered confirmed, it still does not condemn hydraulic fracturing. The presence of old well bores is not enough to result in acquifer contamination in this manner. You must have old well bores that were improperly abandoned, that penetrated the reservoir to be stimulated, that remain open to the reservoir, that are within a certain radius of the well to be stimulated, that are a certain direction from the well to be stimulated and that have redundant mechanical failures at a depth that will communicate with an acquifer. It indicates that geologic and engineering due-diligence was lacking and that such a scenario had never been contemplated by the operator or by the regulatory authority. This can be avoided with procedure and modern GIS tracking.
If fracking has no harmful side effects why did they need a waiver from the Clean Water Act. Some of the earlier sites in PA were allowed to just dump the excess chemicals in rivers, they still have not addressed how they will dispose of the water in NY.
If fracking has no harmful side effects why did they need a waiver from the Clean Water Act. Some of the earlier sites in PA were allowed to just dump the excess chemicals in rivers, they still have not addressed how they will dispose of the water in NY.
There is nothing "radical" or extreme about not wanting the ground water poisoned with fracking...water in the end will be more precious than gold and oil - It is radical and extreme to pee in your own cup - which is what some oil companies do.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
If fracking has no harmful side effects why did they need a waiver from the Clean Water Act. Some of the earlier sites in PA were allowed to just dump the excess chemicals in rivers, they still have not addressed how they will dispose of the water in NY.
Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Clean Water Act on the basis that it is not "subsurface injection" to dispose of waste fluids and that the volume of fracs nationwide would bog down the EPA with permit applications and, therefore, permitting should be the responsibility of state government. The EPA retains full power to regulate and enforce against pollution resulting from any step in the process of extracting hydrocarbons from the ground.
This is probably the most misunderstood, misapplied and misquoted point about hydraulic fracturing that I have encountered. The exemption was never an insidious politician with ties to the big red mother peeing on your head and telling you that it's raining, it was always a logistics concession. The EPA never gave up any power, just refused to do an enormous volume of paperwork that would effectively transform them into the "Frac Approval Agency". The operator and contractors still must perform to the same standards that everyone else does with regard to surface contamination, subsurface contamination, etc. etc. - they just don't have to file for a permit from the EPA.
...By the way, what is it that everyone here thinks that the Clean Water Act does?
Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Clean Water Act on the basis that it is not "disposal injection" and that the volume of fracs nationwide would bog down the EPA with permit applications...
Interesting excuse, albeit a bit different from last one (by thecoalman).
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Interesting excuse, albeit a bit different from last one (by thecoalman).
They don't do many fracs when mining for coal, as far as I know. The EPA and many state agencies have released some public responses to the very same question we're discussing - there is going to be more regulation in response to the outcry. I think that's a good thing, but the notion that our water is being destroyed by fracking isn't supported by much and it certainly doesn't make sense to destroy domestic natural gas production.
They don't do many fracs when mining for coal, as far as I know.
thecoalman is a C-D member. I simply compared his excuse (provided a few days ago) to yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I simply compared his excuse (provided a few days ago) to yours.
