Fracking, coming to a town near you.

Parent Cafe
141

<p>I’m not familiar with the editing functions of this forum, but,</p>

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>First, as a landowner, no company can force you to lease. </p>

<p>"This is not quite true. Eminent domain considerations (and related laws) often force landowners to accommodate pipes, wells or fractures on or beneath their surface properties. In many cases, mineral rights are divorced from surface rights (especially in Western Pennsylvania where the rights were divorced long ago due to various coal, oil and gas booms of the past) so you can be a surface landowner and have no say over what activities are going on beneath you.</p>

<p>This is not to say that these considerations are completely unjustified, but there are some issues of individual liberty and safety that should be resolved in the American way: democracy, not plutocracy. Local and regional governments should also have some discretion over such activities of local and regional concern. It is possible for my water supply to suffer because of a private decision between my neighbour and a fracking company. "</p>

<p>No. You are mistaken. What I stated is true. Eminent domain can be used for major transmission lines which serve a public good. Eminent domain cannot be used to force a mineral owner to accomodate a well or allow a frack. If you purchase surface severed from minerals, you knew the deal going in, and knew, or should have known, that under English law going back centuries, surface owners have never had the right to deny mineral owner access to their property. Again, you purchased surface KNOWING you did not get minerals, and that the mineral owners had a right to access. That is why they were severed in the first place. If you want fee simple ownership in an oil, gas, and coal bearing area, you should be willing to pay extra for that fee simple ownership.</p>

<p>Surface owners are usually paid handsome bonuses for surface access, but have no right to royalties or to unfairly deny access. If you don’t own the subsurface, well, you don’t really own the subsurface, do you? You never purchased the right to control that aspect of the property, and now you come back saying you want to control it anyway? How is that fair to the mineral owners, who likely would never have sold the surface if they hadn’t retained the minerals? As a surface owner, would you be willing to pay the mineral owner the full value of all royalties to prevent drilling? Because otherwise, you are taking his property from him without compensation. Is that the Amercian way?</p>

<p>As I said initially, these are issues for each community to decide, but it should be done on a rational basis, and if you decide to seize private minerals, you should be prepared to pay for them.</p>

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>“The EPA should absolutely NOT be given regulatory authority over fracking, as they have a demonstrated bias and disregard for science.” </p>

<p>“I’m curious because one of our environmental chemistry professors was a former highranking official at the EPA, and she writes her own textbooks, and the sheer barrage of quantitative data that she asks students to process each week is quite notorious.”</p>

<p>Did you follow my link to the RRC summary? They could not be bothered to attend a technical hearing, and issued a finding based on -0- science. Perhaps your chem professor is a good scientist, but by their actions her former agency has little regard for science.</p>

<p>“It is possible for my water supply to suffer because of a private decision between my neighbour and a fracking company.”</p>

<p>Should you be able to stop your neighbor from realizing financial gain because you have irrational fears? I worry that my neighbor’s dog is in communication with the CIA, and is reading my diary. Should I be allowed to have the dog put down?</p>

<p>I don’t mean to be dismissive of your concerns, but tell me how deep your fresh water is, and the geology of the pay zone and the strata between, and perhaps we can have a rational discussion of the actual risk involved and the step which should be taken to ameliorate that risk.</p>

142

<p>“Frac fluids are a largely a combination of treated fresh water and sand. The primary gelling agent is a guar based viscosifier. Guar is also the primary gelling agent in salad dressing. In past decades we did a lot of fracking with gelled crude oil and other oil based systems. This is much less common now, mostly because of the cost of oil and the danger of pumping it under very high pressure.”</p>

<p>Sparkybarkin, Why didn’t you mention that toxic chemicals are used in fracking?</p>

<p>Benzene and lead for example…</p>

<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;

143

<p>Yes, but there hydraulic fracturing imposes a potential cost to surface owners, an externality, so to speak. When the surface owner bought that property he or she was probably imagining that some sort conventional mineral extraction could occur, not millions of gallons of water’s worth of flowback. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Look up “forced pooling” and “rule of capture”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>yes because the EPA should be obligated to attend every little technical forum they are invited to.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>oh please I’m not that ■■■■■■■■ of course I know our aquifiers are separated by tons of bedrock most of the time. Most of the time. But sometimes little “features” occur…</p>

<p>read this link on one possible mechanism:
[url=<a href=“http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks”>http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks</a> in the Fa</p>

144

<p>Fracking fluid is one thing, flowback is another. The bedrock and the shale that the fluid penetrates is extremely salty (the remnants of the dried up Appalachian Basin and Rheic Ocean ca. 380 million years ago that separated what we know now as North America and Africa) and full of radioactive or toxic metals – deposited carbon is kind of like activated carbon that can bind redox-sensitive materials from chromium to uranium.</p>

<p>In fact, Marcellus Shale is easy to detect in a well log because of its radioactivity.</p>

<p>How do companies deal with this flowback in a “perfectly safe” manner? It comes gushing out of the ground, where it must be sealed in lined chemical pools the size of several Olympic swimming pools, often for years on or near surface owners’ lands without their consent (yay for “forced pooling” and the “rule of capture”!). Well, as long as those pools don’t leak, we’re perfectly safe right? But there are documented cases of spills - or spills that the companies denied but residents knew something was amiss when animals died en masse and skyrocketing benzene and toluene levels showed up in children’s urine. (See: my original post and the NYT article.)</p>

<p>Assuming the fractures haven’t connected with ancient wells or fault lines, providing flowback/fluid access to the aquifiers in that manner, the flowback must often be transported by hundreds and hundreds of trucks, and are often released into water treatment plants. These plants break down or adsorb organic toxins but are not generally great at removing salts or radioactive atoms (since that calls for very expensive ultrafine osmosis generally) – whereupon the flowback is then released into local aquifiers.</p>

145

<p>Sparkybarkin, welcome!</p>

<p>Thank you for providing objective facts and reality to this thread. So many people fall victim to incorrect information or intentional partisan deception on topics like these. Others are the folks spreading the lies (and they are usually either making money off of it, or indirectly benefitting).</p>

<p>We can manage progress so it’s safe. A strong America with thriving businesses, not dependent on foreign oil, is any thinking person’s goal.</p>

146

<p>Dstark you are pretty funny calling out Sparkybarkin for not mentioning that toxic chemicals are used in fracking. Where are there no toxic chemicals? Certainly not in the solar industry, or in many other pro environment ruses such as the new light bulbs we are being pushed to use.</p>

<p>

[Solar</a> energy’s dirty little secret | Grist](<a href=“http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-06-solars-dirty-little-secret]Solar”>Solar energy's dirty little secret | Grist)</p>

<p>

[CFL</a> Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198]CFL”>CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury : NPR)</p>

<p>Not only do these stupid light bulbs look bad, and function poorly, but you break one and you pretty much need to turn your house into that scene from ET when the guys in the white suits come to check out the biohazard.</p>

<p>Like anything else, follow the money and you can know why we are using these things. It certainly isn’t about the environment. It’s about money and power, and creating a new economy so you can personally benefit from it (and advance your agenda). At least businesses admit they are about profit.</p>

147

<p>if oil sands and the marcellus shale could be extracted in an environmentally-safe manner, I would have little qualms about them (except for a need for a financial tax that instead of propping up deficits, was directly earmarked for energy research).</p>

148

<p>Spideygirl…</p>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>You have somebody who is an expert in the field arguing about the safety of fracking and he left out the fact that toxic chemicals are used in the process of hydraulic fracking.</p>

<p>And that same guy argues that the composition of ingredients that goes into fracking should be secret…like what is in the Coke recipe…</p>

<p>I did not talk about what you wrote about…but thanks…</p>

<p>If you want to argue that other energy sources use toxic chemicals…go ahead…</p>

149

<p>You make a good point Spideygirl. Much more environmental damage can be done by people who fail to recycle florescent light bulbs containing mercury than any fracking. I am not worried about responsible companies with professional engineers who are worried about being sued. I am worried about the typical lazy American who does not know that florescent light bulbs need to be recycled otherwise mercury will poison the environment.</p>

150

<p>Surprising that you can’t see the link between this fracking business and prior industrial/financial crises, Collegekm. You said, “The dramatic misrepresentation is tiring. On this thread the gas industry has been linked to Enron, the tobacco industry, Love Canal, the current financial crisis, etc. I don’t see the same drama coming from those of us who support this industry.” The link is that in all of these cases the industry rep’s swore on their metaphorical mama’s graves that everything was all safe and sure and hunky dory and no need for regulamacation cuz we are good people and would never harm anyone. Right next door though, metaphorically speaking, people were wheezing and having heart attacks and lung cancer and babies were being born deformed or getting sick and dying and mamas were convinced that the playgrounds were contaminated (the mamas were right in the end) and they were ridiculed and and and in the financial/Enron game there were many forseeing problems while the “experts” (the smartest guys in the room, right?) said no way … and then bang - folks are losing their life savings and the public has to pay while the industry’s crash trickles down through the economy. What would be a good name for this syndrome? </p>

<p>It just seems like fracking might be the same old mess all over again. Frack. What do they all have in common? The industry did not want regulation but in the end we all wished there had been better recognition of the risks and better regulation to mitigate those risks. It’s not for sure true, but you have people lighting their kitchen sink water on fire a short while after the fracking industry comes to town and those ppl are being ridiculed by the industry. Same ol’ same ol’. Frickety frack.</p>

151

<p>In the Marcellus area of Pa, people with well water have always been able to light their water on fire. Those people aren’t ridiculed by the industy, those people are the reason that the gas industry began drilling here. If you are referring to the movie that highlights the big flame moment, that occured in Colorado where their regulators have also labeled as naturally occuring. What do we call that syndrome? The industry was GASLANDED!</p>

<p>The industry is regulated. The industry isn’t fighting being regulated but is continually being GASLANDED. You know, where Foxtivists twist facts and throw mud to see what sticks. Joshingly, Fraudily, GASLANDED!</p>

152

<p>Dstark - Yes. Really. Keep it real.</p>

153

<p>[Gas</a> fracking grabs headlines, fills airwaves as Colorado braces for new drilling boom | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/108204/gas-fracking-grabs-headlines-fills-airwaves-as-colorado-braces-for-new-drilling-boom]Gas”>Gas fracking grabs headlines, fills airwaves as Colorado braces for new drilling boom - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>“The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on Tuesday unanimously adopted a new rule compelling full disclosure of both hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals used in the oil and gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.””</p>

<p>[In</a> wake of new fracking disclosure rule, activists seek still more drilling regulations | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/107921/in-wake-of-new-fracking-disclosure-rule-activists-seeks-still-more-drilling-regulations]In”>In wake of new fracking disclosure rule, activists seek still more drilling regulations - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>[Colorado</a> oil and gas regulators impose new hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure rule | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/107883/colorado-oil-and-gas-regulators-impose-new-hydraulic-fracturing-chemical-disclosure-rule]Colorado”>Colorado oil and gas regulators impose new hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure rule - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>[EPA</a> report: Pavillion well water tainted with chemicals consistent with fracking | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/107531/epa-report-pavillion-well-water-tainted-with-chemicals-consistent-with-fracking]EPA”>EPA report: Pavillion well water tainted with chemicals consistent with fracking - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>[Inhofe</a> questions EPA study of contaminated well water near gas drilling in Wyoming | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/107490/inhofe-questions-epa-study-of-contaminated-well-water-near-gas-drilling-in-wyoming]Inhofe”>Inhofe questions EPA study of contaminated well water near gas drilling in Wyoming - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>Wells aren’t only contaminated from fracking fluids in Pa and Colorado. Also Wyoming.</p>

154

<p>Razorsharp, I’m sorry you are so concerned about mercury - and rightfully so! I am sure you are delighted with the new EPA regs re to mercury.</p>

<p>[EPA</a> mercury rules hailed as environmental victory for Obama | The Colorado Independent](<a href=“http://coloradoindependent.com/108803/epa-mercury-rules-hailed-as-environmental-victory-for-obama]EPA”>EPA mercury rules hailed as environmental victory for Obama - The Colorado Independent)</p>

<p>Paul Krugman’s most recent column is about this.</p>

<p>Incidentally, mercury lightbulbs may be considered old technology - LED are what is a more current, energy efficient lightbulbs.</p>

<p>Mercury lightbulbs shouldn’t be a problem if they are disposed of properly. </p>

<p>Flor… lightbulbs have been around forever and nobody was concerned about the mercury in those.</p>

155

<p>Parent1986, I am sorry you had to read an idiot like Krugman. Too bad he cannot objectively apply economic theory. </p>

<p>Here is a more accurate assessment:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[The</a> EPA’s Mercury Madness - Investors.com](<a href=“http://news.investors.com/Article/595653/201112221818/the-epas-mercury-madness.htm]The”>http://news.investors.com/Article/595653/201112221818/the-epas-mercury-madness.htm)</p>

<p>The reality is that mercury in the air is different from mercury in the water. It is just stupid for the EPA to dramatically increase the risk of poisoning our water and then champion itself for removing an insignificant amount of mercury from the air at the cost of billions of dollars to people living in localities who cannot afford those costs.</p>

156

<p>parent1986

</p>

<p>Disposing of theses bulbs properly IS a problem. Most people still throw them in the trash, where they end up in landfills and then leach into soil and water. Break one in your home or yard and you have a dangerous biohazard on your property. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We now have WAY MORE mercury in homes, yards, and landfills because of yet another pseudo-eco product. Another example of Big Government doing as bad of a job of protecting us as businesses do.</p>

<p>The issue, people, is the HYPOCRISY. The good news is that more and more of us are getting wise to it.</p>

<p>Just because something ‘sounds good’ to say, and ‘feels good’ to do, doesn’t mean that it is the right thing to do, the best thing to do, or the most effective thing to do.</p>

157

<p>The article in the link in Razorsharp’s post was written by a poorly informed person, since there is no such thing as an incandescent bulb ban:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[It’s</a> lights out for traditional light bulbs - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm]It’s”>http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm)</p>

<p>Even though the stricter efficincy standards might have been equated with a “ban”, the writer of the abovementioned IBD article should have been familiar with this:</p>

<p>[Congress</a> Spares Incandescent Bulbs in Victory for U.S. Tea Party - Bloomberg](<a href=“http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-16/incandescent-light-bulb-spared-in-u-s-lawmakers-spending-bill.html]Congress”>Congress Spares Incandescent Bulbs in Victory for U.S. Tea Party - Bloomberg)</p>

158

<p>

</p>

<p>Incorrect.</p>

159

<p>

Identifying everyone who disagrees with you as an “extremist” is name calling. That’s pretty simple.</p>

<p>

The idea that the financial motive for …dissembling… is on the side of the folks who question the safety of a particular energy source, and not the side which stands to make billions from exploiting that source, is FOMCMSOOMN funny. Seriously - that makes sense to… anyone???</p>

<p>Speaking of which, who is “Sparkybarkin” who just happened to parachute into CC to make his very first post about how cool fracking really is, and how the EPA is “biased?” The last time the 'bots were this quick was the long-locked thread about that little operation baby boys get…</p>

160

<p>Also you know what’s really annoying? Gas industry officials who describe respectable and grand geologic formations dating to a time when the predecessors of the Appalachians were once higher then the Himalayas … as a “play”. It’s the “Lower Huron play” or the “Marcellus play” or “Rhinestreet play” or some ridiculous thing like that. Ugh. It reveals the industry’s attitude to things – nature is just a thing to be poked and “played” with. Environmental disaster at one “play”? It’s okay, go on to the next “play”. </p>

<p>Ugh I wish I could tunaslap whoever coined that term in the face. Worst term ever.</p>