The problem here isn't that companies are negligent. The problem is they have managed to win the court system making it extremely difficult for someone who has been harmed from getting remedy. It should be a very quick shut and dried case in any instance where someone had a working well before fracking that stopped working that they get compensation++. And that compensation doesn't end at things that are easy to value like the cost of a home or moving expenses, it's things like people having to pick up and move away from an area they loved or were happy with to some other place they may like less, or if their commute to work is now longer, or any other of the little shit that makes a "life" that is next to impossible to value. And it needs to happen quickly. The wheels of justice move too fucking slowly in this country.

4/23/2011 6:05:30 PM

Quote :

"And that compensation doesn't end at things that are easy to value like the cost of a home or moving expenses, it's things like people having to pick up and move away from an area they loved or were happy with to some other place they may like less, or if their commute to work is now longer, or any other of the little shit that makes a "life" that is next to impossible to value."

Now if only eminent domain would consider this...

4/23/2011 6:11:07 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. Every single instance of a cracked well casing was pointed out either by the company itself or the land owners. Not once has a state inspector actually caught a problem before it happened. Nor could they. If it is obvious enough for a state inspector to notice, then the company employees would have noticed and fixed it."

You should stop shooting from the hip because you're full of fucking shit

4/23/2011 6:41:38 PM

Alright. How do you think a state inspector is going to know more about a drilling operating than the workers who work there?

If you want to make such accidents less common, increase the fine and let the companies figure out how not to screw up. More regulation is just going to complicate matters and might not even reduce the incidence.

4/23/2011 7:19:54 PM

Many of the problems are with companies knowingly flouting regulations

IIRC your claim that every single company has pointed out cracked well casings is just yanked straight out of your ass. I've been through the public records of violations in my county and the neighboring ones, and willful negligence is a huge problem. These guys know they're skirting regulations (duh, even though corporate dick-lickers like yourself would do and say anything to defend them) and putting the public at risk. They just don't care, because this country is full of people like you who either could give 2 shakes less about poors (or people over *there*) getting cancer if it means it keeps prices low.

[Edited on April 24, 2011 at 8:47 AM. Reason : .]

4/24/2011 8:45:31 AM

"your claim that every single company has pointed out cracked well casings"
I said no such thing and never would. I am a libertarian, not an idiot. People working at a company are no more saintly or clairvoyant than the rest of us. I was merely pointing out that it is usually the victims (namely the land owners) that figure out something has gone wrong, not the police.

4/24/2011 9:16:12 AM

Quote :

"I am a libertarian, not an idiot."

Could have fooled me.

4/24/2011 3:16:55 PM

Quote :

"I was merely pointing out that it is usually the victims (namely the land owners) that figure out something has gone wrong, not the police."

You don't think this has anything to do with the poor regulatory situation?

4/25/2011 1:22:03 AM

Quote :

"I was merely pointing out that it is usually the victims that figure out something has gone wrong, not the police. "

This is basically true for almost all crimes. The person being robbed knows they have been robbed before the police do etc

4/25/2011 8:22:28 AM

^^ No. Short of a ban, it will be the case regardless of whatever regulations you pass. All you can do is make the bad acts less common by increasing punishments.

^ Quite right.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/25/2011 9:56:42 AM

How about we get back OT, and if a natural gas there is desired....make one?

4/25/2011 10:24:04 AM

Quote :

"^^ No. Short of a ban, it will be the case regardless of whatever regulations you pass. All you can do is make the bad acts less common by increasing punishments. ^ Quite right. "

Oh how fucking convenient. Lonesnark's inadequate a priori semantics arguments have shown that, in fact, companies can't be held accountable at all! (I mean let's be reasonable here, people!)

Fuck regulators, that's not the problem in PA. Let's just let these companies get that sweet cheddar by polluting the living fuck out of (the people and state of) Pennsylvania. Looks like we can't do anything boys . . . *smiles and drinks brackish water*

Edit: It's pretty remarkable how much you want to rely on the "market correction" rather than common-fucking sense. These companies out here are being willfully negligent. Many of the offenders even fail to turn in adequate (if any) E&S plans.

You might get away with corporate/capitalist dick sucking on other issues where it doesn't affect people personally, but I live down-river from some of these wells and it's the people of *my* state who are going to suffer to prop up these evil assholes' sweet, sweet profits. The fact that you're so willing to let it happen (I MEAN WHAT CAN WE DO RITE) suggests to me you're too comfortable in that armchair.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/25/2011 10:41:18 AM

nuclear power has to carefully monitor all releases and report them. If someone brings a safety issue to the regulator and the regulator deems it credible to some degree the company then has the burden of proving that they're operating safely. They have to internalize all costs by paying a fee to the government for disposal of the waste.

Natural gas should have to internalize its impacts too. If it can't, it should be replaced by nuclear.

[Edited on April 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2011 12:03:37 PM

Nope don't you understand that if we can't force companies to internalize their filth, we can't stand in the way of industry? Looks like the "rest of us" just have to tighten our belts and deal with cancer and pollution. Daddy fat stacks needs to count his bills after all.

4/25/2011 1:00:14 PM

^^^ Nice strawman. Let me know when you get tired of beating up on it so we can actually talk about what the government should be doing to minimize the damage.

4/25/2011 11:42:23 PM

Why don't you tell me what point you were trying to make, then? I'm pretty used to seeing you stack your definitions against your ignorance, so excuse my lack of imagination here

Just catch em after the fact once everybody's made their money, right? Nothing else to see here folks, shuffle along.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 8:33 AM. Reason : Seriously tired of corporate apologists like you]

4/26/2011 8:32:43 AM

You seriously think regulations hurt their pocketbook? Even if you succeed in driving up costs, the price paid for leases will fall an equal amount, so you only succeeded in harming the land owners. However, the cost of regulation almost always falls more heavily upon small firms, which just happen the be the price setters.

Which is why I believe whatever law you have in mind, even if you have one in mind, was probably written by the gas industry in order to enable cartellization of the industry and bring an end to the current fierce competition for drilling leases, driving up profits far more than any costs from the regulation.

I apologize for no one. I am not in favor of the corporations. However, they are very much in favor of you and your unthinking willingness to do their bidding.

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/26/2011 9:36:38 AM

It's pretty hard to talk to somebody who only cares about money. We'll chalk this up to a difference of values, that being that I have some.

Quote :

" Which is why I believe whatever law you have in mind, even if you have one in mind, was probably written by the gas industry in order to enable cartellization of the industry and bring an end to the current fierce competition for drilling leases, driving up profits far more than any costs from the regulation. "

There's a ban on injection drilling in PA that excludes hydraulic fracturing so you're basically right. Remind me why I'm committed to agreeing to shady corporate business tactics thinly veiled as actual regulatory legislation?

Quote :

"You seriously think regulations hurt their pocketbook? Even if you succeed in driving up costs, the price paid for leases will fall an equal amount, so you only succeeded in harming the land owners. However, the cost of regulation almost always falls more heavily upon small firms, which just happen the be the price setters."

I don't care about hurting their fucking pocketbooks, I care about them not hurting the people of my state

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2011 12:57:32 PM

Quote :

"I don't care about hurting their fucking pocketbooks, I care about them not hurting the people of my state"

Then make the punishments more severe. A ban on drilling just makes the rich richer and the rest of us pay for it.

4/26/2011 1:15:39 PM

do you not see the stricter regulations and oversight from groups such as NCDENR having a positive impact on water quality and sustainable construction practices? Do you not think heavy regulation of coal burning facilities and motor vehicle emissions by the EPA have caused drastic improvements in our air quality?

[Edited on April 26, 2011 at 9:09 PM. Reason : no one is talking about a ban on drilling except for you]

4/26/2011 9:05:41 PM

McDanger did. He said it on the previous page.

Pollution from all sources was falling before the EPA existed and it would have continued to fall after the EPA. However, I fully support regulation in favor of the environment. But, there is boneheaded regulation and there is incentive wise regulation. People in this thread have yet to state which form of regulation they are in favor of, and I am 100% against regulation when no one knows the details, as without the details it is impossible to separate stupid feel-good regulation that harms the environment and wise regulation that serves both man and nature.

4/26/2011 11:49:09 PM

Does my actual opinion enter into what you think my opinion is, or do you just reconstruct it a priori like the majority of your arguments?

Fracking opens up lots of intractable-to-predict fractures. If this means that it can't be used without essentially draining toxic shit into the ground water then it should be banned. Do you honestly think we should just say "fuck it" and pollute PA? I guess giving a fuck about normal people is not your strong suit

4/26/2011 11:53:44 PM

So which is it? Did I misrepresent you when I said you want a ban, or do you think "it should be banned"? Is it that you just want to be outraged at whatever anyone says regardless of what it was?

I am telling you in my professional opinion it is impossible to engage in fracking without someone somewhere screwing it up at least once. By your words before and here again that means you want it banned. So take a friggin' position and be happy with it.

4/27/2011 12:04:02 AM

I haven't done the extensive environmetal research that's required for fracking. As was said earlier in this thread that report will be out within a year. If it's determined that it's too dirty (or too dirty to be done economically) then it shouldn't be done. De facto allowing these guys to externalize cleanup costs (and other preventative costs) is fucking ridiculous.

Quote :

" I am telling you in my professional opinion it is impossible to engage in fracking without someone somewhere screwing it up at least once. By your words before and here again that means you want it banned. So take a friggin' position and be happy with it. "

Look it's not my fault you're being so fucking dense. There's a difference between making a calculated risk in a position of public trust and simply offsetting risk onto people who can't do shit about it. Wouldn't you be happy to acknowledge that distinction, or are you too much of a stooge to get it?

I'm not opposed to anything with environmental risks. I'm opposed to things with outrageous environmental risks, especially when those risks are unaddressed so some guy can score extra cash. The fact that you constantly charge out to stooge it up for these guys should fucking embarrass you

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2011 12:09:07 AM

Ok, you have retracted yet another statement ("If this means that it can't be used without essentially draining toxic shit into the ground water then it should be banned."). Should I accept this as your new position: "I have no fucking clue, but I'm going to talk angry at anyone here that thinks they do know"?

I can tell you right now what the report is going to say: Fracking poses environmental risks, primarily to the land owners that have leased their property to the drillers, but also to everyone down-stream. The risks are not large, so far only a handful of major accidents have been documented. Such accidents are often easily rectified at the drillers expense. Nevertheless when they happen they are major hassles to everyone involved, sometimes forcing residents to relocate, other times requiring residents to re-think elements of how they live. All of this is so some guys can get more cash, owners of established NG wells get less cash, and consumers get lower utility bills. This is the situation as I understand it. Given this, what is your policy position going to be?

Also, please tell me again which of my positions makes me a stooge?

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 12:27 AM. Reason : ,.,.]

4/27/2011 12:26:30 AM

I haven't retracted anything. You asked for more details and got more details. Seems like we had a misunderstanding; rather than clarifying what I said you decided to roleplay a conservative talk show host.

"Easily rectified"? How so? Also, fracking pollutes regardless of accidents. I'll be curious to see what the conclusions are about pollution that just occurs from harmful chemicals (many naturally occuring). If normal operating can't be done cleanly, it should be shut down. If it can be run cleanly with the proper regulations but we don't have the money or will to regulate, it should be shut down. If it can be run with occasional accidents (all things do), but those accidents aren't due to neglect (due to a health regulatory situation), and actual cleanup is possible (pretty sure you'd be happy with them polishing it with shit if it saved a buck), then it should be legal.

Quote :

"Also, please tell me again which of my positions makes me a stooge? "

You parade around making scholastic arguments for the benefit of privilege and authority. Plantations are cool because one day you might be the master, right? That's why you're a stooge; typical wage-slave yes-man just hoping for some sweet corporate sack to lick (for a buck).


[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 2:03 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2011 2:01:48 AM

Nope. I will never ever be rich and even if I was how the hell would I ever come to be so in that industry? I am in favor of pollution because I am a big fan of technological civilization and enjoy the products of that civilization. I grew up on a farm here in North Carolina and we polluted the hell out of that place while engaging in basic agriculture. The difference is our behavior is a grandfathered exception to the clean water act. Are you equally angry at my grandfather for polluting the environment just to make a buck and feed his family as you are at these drillers?

"Easily rectified"? No, as I understand it, the pollution cannot be cleaned up and after a major accident the local water table can remain unsafe to drink for years, depends on the geography and flow of the water table. Accidents are currently rectified by the drilling company either buying the house of everyone affected or paying to provide access to alternative sources of water and paying fines to both state and federal agencies.

And yes, traditional fracking pollutes by its very nature, but it pollutes in a way that the pollution is put so deep under ground that it should never escape and so far has never been documented as escaping into either the natural environment or water table.

It is my opinion that current regulation is correct: fines for surface pollution and financial liability if any land owners are affected. What else can you do, prison instead of fines? Death penalty for the workers responsible?

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ,.,]

4/27/2011 9:43:14 AM

I can't wait to be able to "Buy Local!" my petroleum.

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : I don't drink water anyway, just soda.]

4/27/2011 10:57:21 AM

Quote :

"but it pollutes in a way that the pollution is put so deep under ground that it should never escape"

This is still up for debate IMO.


If it is found that fracturing can be done safely (that is, only significant accidents can lead to water contamination) there is still a lot of room for potential regulation to ensure "best practices" are being used


excerpt from Josh Fox's letter to the Delaware River Basin Commission

Quote :

"In specific, the regulations are inadequate in the following ways: 1) No regulations should be approved without a proper cumulative impact study of the effect of 22,000 gas wells and the corresponding pipelines, compressor stations, refineries, truck trips injections wells, waste impoundments, access roads will have on the river basin as a whole 2) There are no restrictions on harmful fracking chemicals. No limitations or disclosure required for proprietary chemicals. No restriction on carcinogenic, nerotoxic or endocrine disrupting chemicals. 3) There is no appraisal of human health risk in the region from drilling. Please see the Garfield County/Battlement Mesa health study which details health impacts in a similar river basin in Colorado. The report can be found here:http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/Health%20Risk%20Assessment%20Garfield%20Ritter%209-10.pdf 4) There is no enforcement capability within DRBC, PA or NY DEP, local law enforcement or citizen or federal groups. 5) There is no adequate inspection capability for gas wells. 6) There are no standards for well casing depth 7) There are no standards for well casing cement 8) There are no standards for well casing pressure tests 9) There are no standards or limitations on frack pressures 10) There are no standards or limitations on frack depth, multi-stage fracks, no frack length monitoring. 11) No assessment for how much frack liquid is left in the ground relative to total water injected. No monitoring of wastewater left in the ground or reporting of how much is brought to the surface. There is no adequate tracking of waste. 12) Companies are not required to report drilling logs, drilling mud records, frack chemical records, depths, frack pressures, directional drilling locations to the public. 13) There are no regulations for drill cutting disposal or storage. 14) There are no regulations for drill pit lining disposal. (PA allows these pits and liners to be buried on site) 15) There are no regulations or restrictions on drilling muds, which are injected before wells are cased. Drilling muds are often synthetic and/or petroleum products. 16) Inadequate assessment of violations and fines. What happens to these companies if they are in violation of the regs or are found to have caused substantial harm? What are the penalties? Can these penalties be severe enough to actually stop companies from continuing to pollute, or will they just pay the fines as a cost of doing business without changing their ways. 17) There are no requirements for clean up of accidents, spills, gas migration, chemical contamination. 18) There are no requirements for chemicals used during the life of the well such as anti-freezes, Glycol Ethers, methanol, etc, which are used on site throughout the life of the wells to keep the pipes from freezing. 19) There are no adequate standards for condensate tank lids, pressure valves or caps. Condensate tanks leak volatile organic compounds or release them into the air via pressure valves. No assessment has been made of the effects of those releases on humans, plants, aquatic life, water quality, air quality etc. 20) There is no emergency plan for spills, blowouts, well casing failure, pipeline leaks. 21) There are no safeguards for natural springs or spring houses (Many people, including myself use spring houses which are located near roads in many cases, for water) 22) There are no regulations on spreading wastewater on roads near residential areas, natural springs, streams or the river itself. 23) No adequate program to examine contaminants in wastewater. 24) No adequate treatment program or facilities to deal with the enormous quantities of wastewater. 25) No enforcement capability for illegal or inappropriate dumping of wastewater (which has been documented by both the NY Times, Gasland, pro-publica as many other sources as a typical practice within the industry) 26) No compensation for landowners who have properties adjacent to drill sites whose land value will be destroyed by drilling. 27) No regulation of wastewater impoundments, flowback pits. 28) No assessment of the effects of chemical and volatile organic compound evaporation on plants, animals, infrastructure, water sources, aquatic life, etc. 29) No assessment of what truck traffic will do to critical infrastructure (roads and bridges) 30) Totally inadequate setbacks from water sources including springs, streams and the river itself. Wells should be required to be set back one mile or more from water sources. 31) No water monitoring program to check the health of groundwater, streams or the river itself for contaminants related to gas development 32) There are no standards for hours of operation of drilling—no enforcement of noise or light ordinances. No assessment of noise or light pollution on animal populations. 33) There are no noise level standards for drilling, compressor stations, refineries etc. 34) There are no standards for disclosure or testing for Hydrogen Sulfide or VOCs that may be emitted from wells 35) No assessment of the use of biocides on aquatic, animal, plant or insect life on the region whether injected or evaporated 36) No assessment of methane discharge (vented, flared or fugitive emissions) on on aquatic, animal, plant, human or insect life or on the biodiversity of the region. 37) No requirements for pipeline easements, construction, placement or pipe/pipe coupling standards 38) No assessment of civil unrest, citizen outrage, mass migration, property value, psychological damage, rise in crime, influx of transient work force or any of the social costs that are well documented with massive industrial gas drilling. 39) No requirements for seismic testing or its impacts on aquatic, animal, plant or insect life or underground streams, aquifers and rivers 40) No requirements for the assessment of natural underground fractures, abandoned wells or other migratory pathways for gas and or harmful chemicals 41) No assessment of probably seismic disruptions 42) No program for assessing or monitoring the hauling, treatment, disposal or spillage of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMS) in wastewater, flowback water, condensate, gas emissions, particulate matter or its effects on aquatic, animal, plant, human or insect life. 43) Refusal to acknowledge the sustained and passionate outcry on behalf of the majority of residents of the river basin against industrial gas drilling in the river basin. 44) No standards for fact checking for fraud/misinformation among gas company representatives home visits or presentations to the public about the nature of industrial gas drilling. 45) Inadequate public comment period to address these regs, it should be extended or reopened 46) No adequate appraisal period for drilling—No way to check in with the citizens of the region or assess what is happening once it has begun. An outside independent review of the effects of gas drilling on the region should be done at least once every six months to assess how the project is going and address public comments 47) No assessment of what 22,000 gas wells will do to downstream, downwind and down river communities and individuals dependent on clean water from the Delaware river such as Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey (Trenton/Camden) 48) No assessment on the cultural/character changes to the region 49) No assessment of what will happen to organic farm certification in the region. 50) There is no assessment of what will happen to tourism, or summer camps in the region 51) Inadequate set backs from houses, schools, campsites, recreation areas scenic areas, etc. 52) There is no appraisal for wind patterns, peaks and valleys. 53) There is no appraisal of fog patterns (which can be quite dangerous to drivers) in the region on truck traffic, or on flowback pits, emissions, chemical evaporation, etc. 54) No adequate fund or fee for increased use of local services such as hospitals, ambuances, fire departments etc due to increased population and activity. 55) No fund/insurance assessment for increased loss of property/life due to increased truck traffic. 56) No reporting requirements for venting events from condensate tanks, compressor stations, pipelines, well pads. 57) No restrictions for waste materials to clean pipelines or well bores 58) No maintenance requirements for well bores, pad sites, or any gas drilling infrastructre over a period of several years. No maintenance requirements for well casings. 59) No assessment of gradation of hills, valleys, seasonal runoff streams for well pad placement. There is no requirement for placement of impoundments or wastepits near graded slopes or valleys so that run off is contained. "

4/27/2011 12:55:40 PM

continues . . . .

Quote :

" 60) No requirements for clean up/remediation of spills, pad sites, toxic materials, etc. 61) No requirements for baseline testing for ALL fracking chemicals used in the region. Gas Companies should be required to do baseline testing for ALL fracking chemicals used in each well for ALL domestic water wells, rivers, streams and springs in a 5 mile radius from each well site before any drilling is to occur and each year for 10 years there after and every 2 years for the following 20 years after drilling. Citizens should not have to bear the cost or the difficulty of baseline testing, or with subsequent water testing for years and years down the line. This extensive testing is the only way to insure that the water of the region is safe for decades into the future. 62) LLC's should not be allowed to drill in the River Basin. Any company which is created to have limited liability should not be allowed to drill in the region. Companies must have long-term financial and legal liability if they are to risk the watershed with this practice. In addition to the above, I must address the overall problem of drilling conditions nationwide. DRBC is creating regs within a totally inadequate national structure. DRBC should not even consider formulating regulations until the following conditions have been met at the federal level I submit these conditions on behalf of myself and the whole GASLAND team which includes several other residents of the river basin. 1. END THE FEDERAL EXEMPTIONS We demand that the Natural Gas Industry's exemptions to the following laws be ended immediately: Safe Drinking Water Act Clean Water Act Clean Air Act Superfund Act Natural Gas drilling should be subject to the same laws as every other Industrial, Private or Commercial sector. 2. END TO FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR FRACKING. Fossil Fuel Industries receive three times the level of Federal Subsidies as compared to Renewable Energy Sources. This creates an unfair advantage in the marketplace for fossil fuel drilling technologies such as Hydraulic Fracturing, which undercut truly green forms of energy. 3. EXPANSION OF EPA STUDY AND CREATION OF INDEPENDENT HEALTH STUDY and EPA PERMITTING. Fracking has never been proven to be safe. Thousands of contamination cases, and testimonials across the country, point to a massive failure to protect water, air and human health. Each of these cases must be investigated and damage must be assessed. We appreciate that the EPA has just begun a study of Hydraulic Fracturing but it is under-funded and incomplete. a) EPA must broaden the scope of its current ecological study. The current EPA Study is only funded through the end of this year and does not adequately address issues of hazardous emissions and overall emissions from gas drilling. b) EPA Ecological study must be conducted by scientists without conflict of interest. c) A five-year parallel health impact assessment should be conducted in all of the most areas by an independent third party working alongside the EPA, either from an unbiased charitable foundation or an esteemed University. d) Fracking should require permitting from EPA as well as state and local departments of environmental protection/planning. 4. IMMEDIATE HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN DRILLING AREAS We call upon the Federal Government to immediately address concerns of citizens in areas that have been drilled and are experiencing negative ecological and health effects. Recommendations include but are not limited to: 1) Vapor recovery units to control emissions at existing well-sites, separators, refineries, compressor stations and condensate tanks, 2) Replacement water via municipal pipelines in areas where aquifers have been contaminated and, 3) Restoration of areas that have been industrialized with compressor stations, refineries and other gas drilling and refining machinery to a state appropriate for residential use. Communities experiencing irreparable damage should be compensated appropriately for loss of property and physical injury. 5. BURDEN OF PROOF- THE GAS COMPANIES AND FRACKING PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS- Product manufacturers must be required to disclose chemical ingredients in the products used to drill and Frack to the general public, landowners and surrounding communities in accordance with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Chemicals should be listed and made publicly available online on well-by-well basis. If a chemical listed by the product manufacturers is found in a citizens private well or in a municipal water source, and is not found to be naturally occurring in the geology before drilling, both the product manufacturer and the drilling and extraction companies shall have the burden of proving that contamination was not caused by the drilling company. Independent Baseline Water Testing should be mandated for all chemicals used in drilling and paid for by companies wishing to drill in any area where people are dependent upon groundwater. 6. CHEMICAL PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION- BENIGN ISOTOPE ID's AFFIXED TO FRACKING CHEMICALS Each chemical product used in Fracking for underground injection, should be tagged with a non-radioactive isotope so that it is easily identifiable if these compounds should migrate into drinking water supplies. Each Fracking product will be required to have its own non-radioactive isotope so that there is no doubt as to the migration of such chemicals into underground water supplies. 7. TRACKING AND REPORTING OF WASTE Currently there is a huge problem with illegal dumping and improper disposal/treatment of drilling waste. Every drop of drilling waste, drilling fluids, produced water or drill cuttings should be identified by its contents, tracked and reported in trucks that carry hazardous waste placards and must have a detailed and outlined waste management program for disposal and/or treatment. Contents of hazardous waste should be posted online in an easily accessible manner with waste routes and disposal sites clearly outlined. Any truck deviating from the designated waste route should be immediately suspended and all work on the site from which waste emanated should be immediately halted. "

I'm not an expert, some of these maybe over-the-top, but it definitely shows there is room for improvement

Quote :

" I am in favor of pollution because I am a big fan of technological civilization and enjoy the products of that civilization."

I too am a fan of technology and I realize that as long as there is civilization, there is likely going to be atleast some form of pollution. We have to keep it in perspective though and can't forget where we came from, the fundamentals, so to speak.

NOT shitting in your water supply is pretty much civilization101 IMO.

4/27/2011 12:56:10 PM

That there is what I would call boneheaded regulation that will harm the environment.

4/27/2011 2:53:43 PM

statements like that are why no one can take you seriously. That is exactly the type of regulations we need; full disclosure of MSDS, standardized concrete strength requirements and well casing depths, periodic inspections from third party, minimum setbacks requirements, Hydrogen Sulfide testing, wastewater management, etc.

There are a few in there regarding public outcry that need to be tossed out, but they bring up a lot of good points.

4/27/2011 3:56:25 PM

Further proof (not that it's needed) that Obama wants the US to have (and keep) high gasoline prices.

Quote :

"Shuts Down Drilling in Alaska by Brian McGraw on globalwarming.org Shell announced today, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR. Companies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won’t be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA: The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. “What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell’s drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards,” said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice’s lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits. Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be “close” to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Events like this are a prime example of why many in Congress want to strip authority from the EPA. Shell had reportedly invested over $4 billion in this project. When companies make investment decisions, consideration is given to whether or not bureaucrats can make arbitrary decisions to shut the project down halfway through a multi-year process. There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity, and in the eye of a corporation, after an event like this these locations begin to look more preferable to dealing with the United States."

TL DR: The EPA isn't allowing Shell to develop a site off the coast of Alaska b/c of the "chance" they might need to use an ice breaker ship. Naturally that ship would give off evil CO2 emissions. Oh the irony, since the eco nuts are insistant that the ice is disappearing up there altogether

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/26/epa-abuses-the-permit-process-for-an-icebreaker/#more-38772

5/2/2011 12:16:56 PM

^ if you don't want high gas prices, you're not paying attn

5/2/2011 12:56:36 PM

Quote :

"There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity"

LOL, Shell should just stay in the Niger Delta

5/2/2011 1:08:42 PM

As one of those "eco-nuts" that folks on the right likes to slander with such labels I, for one, disagree with the EPA here unless there are other environmental mitigating factors that weren't listed in the article. Allowing drilling in already approved locations is a step closer to conserving the pristine nature of places like the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Do we know if the local native village had opposition to this project?

5/2/2011 3:06:25 PM

Ok i'm not a right wing person nor an eco nut but i'm telling you this if we don't start selling something to someone other than ourselves our economy is going to crash hard.

and i don't think we bought Alaska from Russia because its pretty.

5/2/2011 3:10:35 PM

^^That I do not know.

^agreed.

5/2/2011 3:15:31 PM

Gas Prices started going up as soon as Republicans won in 2010. It's their fault.

5/2/2011 3:16:50 PM

Seriously, any reference to "eco-nuts, eco nazi's, eco-fascists, environmental extremists, environmentalist wackos, etc." whenever talking about someone who supports and promotes conservation or preservation is completely antithetical to having a rational conversation about energy management. Just sayin'.

5/2/2011 3:27:49 PM

^who resorted to name calling?

^^sorry, but they've been increasing since 2009. I keep every gasoline purchase I made in a little notebook so yeah, I have proof.

5/2/2011 3:41:06 PM

Quote :

"Oh the irony, since the eco nuts"

And I am not making this about your specifically because I know you to be a rather decent individual, I am mostly speaking in general. It makes it difficult to have any meaningful compromise when from the start you are characterized as some kind of irrational fringe of society.

5/2/2011 3:52:55 PM

ah, my bad

5/3/2011 8:51:01 AM

I mean, it's fine to call the fringe, the fringe. Folks like ELF and people with a serious hatred towards capitalism or progress, sure, call them out. It's just a key distinction that not all environmentalists are wackos or hippies or loons or anti-capitalist.

As far as oil and gas exploration go, there should be a comprehensive approach and not just whatever makes the quick, easy buck or placates some politician's corporate overlord/voter base. I've said all along, with the American spirit, capital and ingenuity we, not Europe, should be leading the way on fusion technology. In the interim we need to ramp up nuclear as well as improving solar and wind.

5/3/2011 2:57:47 PM

^unfortunately because of irrational fears and our litigous society we've fallen behind in nuclear powerplant technology and will probably remain that way.

If the US had built all the nuclear plants as originally proposed in the 60s we'd be emitting less CO2 per year (as a nation) than we did in the 70s. Instead irrational fear took over and look at where we are today, relying heavily on coal power.

5/3/2011 4:26:09 PM

And the incident in Japan certain didn't and won't help matters going forward.

I'll be honest, despite what the right wing media would have you believe, the environmental movement (rational and otherwise) is in the minority even within the Democratic party so I am very surprised that the president hasn't thrown us under the bus in order to do what is politically expedient and open up more drilling just to appease the clammer of high fuel costs as he approaches re-election. I'd like to say that he has real convictions about clean energy but my optimism doesn't run that high, even for him.

5/3/2011 4:41:43 PM

this

Quote :

"the environmental movement (rational and otherwise) is in the minority even within the Democratic party"

is a result of this

Quote :

"It's just a key distinction that not all environmentalists are wackos or hippies or loons or anti-capitalist. "

If Environmentalism had ever been ideologically structured well, with a healthy degree of humanism, I think about 99% of us would proudly consider ourselves environmentalists.

5/3/2011 5:36:06 PM

Realizing our intrinsic connection to nature is about as fundamentally human as one can really get. It isn't until we add things like jobs, cars, iphones, personal power and wealth that we get distracted from the existential paradigm of preserving or at a minimum living in balance with the support structure that we rely on for survival known as our environment.

5/3/2011 5:55:35 PM

Yes, before those tools existed no one was ever distracted from nature by their own hunger, pain, disease, etc.

We care about nature today because we can afford to. Your average caveman crapped in the woods. The environment survived this only because cavemen tended to starve to death. If we today tried living that way the six billion of us would quickly ruin the place.

5/3/2011 6:13:11 PM

I don't and never have expected you to understand much that didn't involve worshiping at the alter of the almighty dollar but this notion that environmental conservation is a luxury is nothing more than a cheap guise to hide behind your own greed and apathy. Using tools and cultivating from nature is by no means mutually exclusive to using our advanced brains to realize the prudence of sustaining a balance with the world in which we live. No one is rationally saying that we should live as "cavemen" again and your assertion of the point is, as usual, downright laughable and insulting.

5/3/2011 6:31:29 PM