Unfortunately our state legislature has proven itself to be out of control and fracking is no exception. It appears inevitable the House will fast track final approval this week only be signed by a bought and paid for governor. This is a little of what we have to look forward to:

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12106895-oil-boom-brings-wealth-and-waste-to-north-dakota

According to data obtained by ProPublica, oil companies in North Dakota reported more than 1,000 accidental releases of oil, drilling wastewater or other fluids in 2011, about as many as in the previous two years combined. Many more illicit releases went unreported, state regulators acknowledge, when companies dumped truckloads of toxic fluid along the road or drained waste pits illegally.

State officials say most of the releases are small. But in several cases, spills turned out to be far larger than initially thought, totaling millions of gallons. Releases of brine, which is often laced with carcinogenic chemicals and heavy metals, have wiped out aquatic life in streams and wetlands and sterilized farmland. The effects on land can last for years, or even decades.

Compounding such problems, state regulators have often been unable — or unwilling — to compel energy companies to clean up their mess, our reporting showed.

6/8/2012 3:54:45 PM

The market will deal with it

6/8/2012 4:02:25 PM

what amazes me are all the landowners that support this knowing what it has done in other areas...taking the chance on ruining thier property for a quick buck

6/8/2012 4:12:34 PM

why do you hippies hate our freedoms?

6/8/2012 4:14:16 PM

So what is the story on the volume of gas available? I've heard that recent estimates are magnitudes lower than previous estimates.

I haven't research fracking enough to really have an opinion on it, but on the surface, I'm against it. I'm also against it if the volume of available gas isn't enough to create a long-term industry in the state (risk isn't worth the reward).

Also, the OP references enforcement issues, not fracking issues. If the state won't enforce laws/regulations, then that's the state's problem, not the company's. In other words, if fracking was indeed safe in ever other aspect, and these were the issues, then I'd have much less of a problem with it, in fact, I'd support it. My concern is the actual damage from fracking, the well failure rate, etc., not the enforcement of waste disposal.

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/8/2012 4:25:54 PM

Fracking causes all kinds of ecological damage. The most direct thing on people is when chemicals leak into the water table and come through your faucets. Brown water, acid water, and water with methane in it are all well-documented. Areas near fracking industry have ridiculously high rates of cancer.

If you want a good documentary to watch on it watch GasLand.

6/8/2012 4:32:06 PM

Yes, I've heard all of that, just haven't really delved into the sources and details. Is there some unbiased, independent research on the topic?

FWIW, most "documentaries" I've seen on such topics are from activists fighting for one side of the argument...

6/8/2012 4:38:38 PM

Potential spills and leaks aside, think of how much water fracking uses (~4.5 million gallons PER well), and then think of how often and how pronounced droughts have been in the state of NC alone in just the past few years. Next, think about how these potential shale deposits sit right under the majority of major water sources in the Piedmont. I can't fathom how anyone thinks this is a good idea while natural gas prices are so depressed at the same time water resources in this state are already at a premium.

It's worth noting that for the first time in two years that no county considered in drought condition. First time in two years. 36 counties are listed as "abnormally dry".

6/8/2012 4:48:25 PM

Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear. It's the truth though. Fracking is an incredibly destructive and dirty industry.

6/8/2012 4:58:13 PM

Quote :

"FWIW, most "documentaries" I've seen on such topics are from activists fighting for one side of the argument..."

Sometimes "one side of the argument" is reality, and there really isn't an argument at all.

6/8/2012 5:00:32 PM

That may be the case. I've already said I hadn't researched this much, but I'm not going to take Internet Guy's post as absolute truth.

And it has nothing to do with what I want to hear. I already said that with what little research I've done, I'm against fracking, for precisely the reasons that have been stated ITT; however, I haven't heard/looked at what I'd call reputable sources very much. I've heard from environmental activists/left-wingers and I've heard from environmental destroyers/businessmen/right-wingers. Much like any issue, I'm sure the truth lies in between them.

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 5:05 PM. Reason : /]

6/8/2012 5:05:22 PM

I just don't see (other than my own cynical musings*) the need to pass all of this RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT given how low the price of natural gas is.

*I see this as a giant pre-emptive strike by the right to both play the "energy independence" card as well as to get ahead of any future regulations and environmental protections to which they will assuredly be grandfathered out of.


Repeal the fracking exemption from the Clean Water Act!

6/8/2012 5:45:11 PM

This is probably one of the best and most convincing articles I've seen yet:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108




Basically Duke reseachers found higher concentrations of methane in groundwater near fracking wells (I'll go hunting for others articles I've seen but this was by far the most convincing to me)


There are also some recent concerns over the geology in NC, which is a bit different than where fracking has previously occurred

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/20/v-print/3252218/fracking-in-north-carolina-could.html

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 6:14 PM. Reason : I'm pretty sure comprehensive EPA study comes out at the end of 2013?]

6/8/2012 6:12:25 PM

Quote :

"Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear. It's the truth though. Fracking is an incredibly destructive and dirty industry."

Despite all evidence to the contrary? Faulty wells cause water pollution and are for this reason regulated. Fracking as an industry does not.

Quote :

"Yes, I've heard all of that, just haven't really delved into the sources and details. Is there some unbiased, independent research on the topic?"

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/mixed-verdict-on-fracking.html

Quote :

"Basically Duke reseachers found higher concentrations of methane in groundwater near fracking wells"

So areas that are rich in natural gas tend to be rich in natural gas? I'm shocked.

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/8/2012 7:48:27 PM

no, you're reading the graph wrong, areas that are a few hundred meters from active fracking sites have many times higher groundwater methane concentrations when compared with areas that are a few thousand meters away from active fracking sites. I doubt geology changes that significantly within a few kilometers

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM. Reason : NOte that these groundwater samples were taken at the same depths of typical residential wells ]

6/8/2012 8:13:31 PM

Nm


[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 11:23 PM. Reason : I read the study]

6/8/2012 11:18:33 PM

Quote :

"Despite all evidence to the contrary? Faulty wells cause water pollution and are for this reason regulated. Fracking as an industry does not. "

Cool now name a single financial or political or legal incentive to actually abide by those regulations

I take it you're familiar with PA and not intentionally dishonest

6/10/2012 11:27:21 AM

Hmm...I take it you have no idea how government regulation works. If the inspectors find evidence the drillers aren't abiding by the regulations then they get punished somehow, be it fines or closure of a million dollar well since it cannot be operated safely.

Is it a perfect system? No. inspectors get lazy. they get stupid. But from what I've read the regulations in question are not expensive to obey, it is just that early well drillers didn't know what they were doing as the regulations did not yet exist to tell them what the minimum standards for fracking should be.

6/10/2012 6:44:27 PM

I like how you talk about lazy, stupid regulators and don't even mention the thing we've had the most problems with: government officials friendly to the industry hire industry insiders to guard the process.

6/10/2012 6:50:52 PM

I like how the government already has too many regulations, but we shouldn't hold early well drillers responsible for cleaning up their mess because there weren't any government regulations to tell them what to do.

6/10/2012 7:16:06 PM

Libertarian FAIL

6/10/2012 8:22:45 PM

To me, the Duke study suggests that faulty wells might not be the only cause of pollution, but fracking, especially around some suspect geologic formations, may allow methane to migrate up to drinking water depths. In which case, some fracking wells will be inherently polluting even if the industry gets the "minimum casing thickness", etc right.

Thats not set in stone, because there is still a lot of science to be done, but I think there is enough evidence for that to be a legitimate question of the industry.

6/10/2012 8:27:56 PM

Quote :

"but fracking, especially around some suspect geologic formations, may allow methane to migrate up to drinking water depths."

i think it would be obvious that pumping millions of gallons of water/sand/chemicals a mile or more into the ground to disrupt and capture natural gas would result in toxic gas seeping into underground aquifers and eventually rivers and reservoirs that people use and wildlife depend on. i don't think that studies are needed to determine that. of course, the details should be researched. but if it's even allowed, corporations involved in such an industry need to be tightly regulated, b/c we all know that their top priority is $. If regs are lax, pollution would be a distant second (or further).

6/10/2012 9:33:22 PM

Quote :

"I like how the government already has too many regulations, but we shouldn't hold early well drillers responsible for cleaning up their mess because there weren't any government regulations to tell them what to do."

Don't play dumb. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. Obviously the drillers should be, and were, sued in court and settled paying damages to those they harmed.

Quote :

"but fracking, especially around some suspect geologic formations, may allow methane to migrate up to drinking water depths."

methane is flamable but not otherwise harmful. These areas are rich in natural gas, so natural gas has been migrating up to drinking water depths for millions of years.
This is awesome BTW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjoga1yrn0

6/11/2012 12:33:25 AM

Quote :

"Basically Duke reseachers found higher concentrations of methane in groundwater near fracking wells (I'll go hunting for others articles I've seen but this was by far the most convincing to me)"

So what this study might have said is that areas with naturally high concentrations of methane in groundwater tend to be where we drill for gas.

That makes complete sense.

6/11/2012 11:11:34 AM

*says we can regulate industry without regulation by suing for damages*

*passes law limiting or even removing liability for corporations*

Hey, the General Assembly tried it with drug companies last year, why not with this? The gas companies are Job Creators.

6/11/2012 1:47:20 PM

^ That's called Libertopia.

6/11/2012 4:52:11 PM

Quote :

"methane is flamable but not otherwise harmful."

Its also explosive or could suffocate you. The other possibility is that if there are pathways for methane to migrate up to near the surface then the fracking wastewater/chemicals could also eventually move up into the same areas.

Quote :

"These areas are rich in natural gas, so natural gas has been migrating up to drinking water depths for millions of years. "

Link? It may have been migrating upward, but I doubt it was reaching the concentrations they are finding in the groundwater now. But with this argument, you are contradicting what the gas industry has been telling us from the start - The marcellus shale is a mile below drinking water aquifers and there is no way things from that depth will mix with the aquifers. Don't you think fracturing the rock will only create more and larger pathways for not only methane but fracking wastewater to eventually make its way up to drinking water depths?

Quote :

"So what this study might have said is that areas with naturally high concentrations of methane in groundwater tend to be where we drill for gas. That makes complete sense. "

The only "naturally high" concentrations of methane you will find at groundwater depths is due to microbes producing it (Very recently from a geologic perspective). Scientist can distinguish between this type of methane and methane that has been stored in the shale for millions of years, which is exactly what this study did (and why its one of the best studies right now IMO). They found shale gas, which is supposed to be trapped a mile below the surface, at groundwater depths a few hundered feet from the surface.

6/12/2012 9:23:21 AM

Quote :

" methane is flamable but not otherwise harmful. These areas are rich in natural gas, so natural gas has been migrating up to drinking water depths for millions of years. This is awesome BTW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjoga1yrn0"

It's not just the methane, it's the chemicals they pour down the hole to extract the methane that poisons the water.

Quote :

"Typically, a mixture of water, proppants and chemicals is pumped into the rock or coal formation. There are, however, other ways to fracture wells. Sometimes fractures are created by injecting gases such as propane or nitrogen, and sometimes acidizing occurs simultaneously with fracturing. Acidizing involves pumping acid (usually hydrochloric acid), into the formation to dissolve some of the rock material to clean out pores and enable gas and fluid to flows more readily into the well. Some studies have shown that anywhere from 20-85% of fracking fluids may remain underground. Used fracturing fluids that return to the surface are often referred to as flowback, and these wastes are typically stored in open pits or tanks at the well site prior to disposal. Hydraulic fracturing - Issues and impacts "

http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

[Edited on June 12, 2012 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ...]

6/12/2012 9:57:14 AM

Quote :

"The other possibility is that if there are pathways for methane to migrate up to near the surface then the fracking wastewater/chemicals could also eventually move up into the same areas."

And that such chemicals have not been detected in ground water except in areas where surface spills have been reported is strong evidence that the methane that has been detected in peoples water as long as there have been people there was not put there by fracking.

6/12/2012 9:28:34 PM

Bad at logic. Bad at grammar.

6/12/2012 10:24:38 PM

Doesn't matter how you get the energy. There are always people that will bitch about something.

6/13/2012 8:50:41 AM

Quote :

"So what is the story on the volume of gas available? I've heard that recent estimates are magnitudes lower than previous estimates. "

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2012/may/22/estimates-lowered-ncs-natural-gas-supply-ar-2299629/

Quote :

"Fracking was originally billed as the golden key to unlocking a 40-year supply of natural gas and reversing North Carolina’s dependency on other states for energy. Proponents said it was the state’s ticket to an economic revival and newfound status as an energy supplier. Now with the state legislature poised to pass laws allowing fracking, estimates for North Carolina’s natural gas supplies are more modest: closer to an amount that’s equivalent to about five years of the state’s natural gas use. "

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ^^trying so hard]

6/13/2012 9:23:56 AM

5 years? And that's enough to be economically viable? Risk isn't worth this reward. 40+ yr supply + strict regulations + strict oversight + strict monitoring + some of the past "issues" with fracking being resolved, then yeh. But 5 years? GTFO.

6/13/2012 10:35:58 AM

Pennsylvania resident here.

All you have to look forward to for now is conservatives mindlessly supporting fracking 100% because of the dollas and jobs and NO MORE ALLEGIANCE TO SAUDI OIL SHIEKDS and you'll be lucky if they even acknowledge the possibility of environmental externalities existing at all.

What you have to look forward to in the long run is cancer.

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2012 1:41:47 PM

The final decision ultimately lies with the landowners...hopefully the majority of them will just refuse to lease the mineral rights.

6/13/2012 1:45:07 PM

Let's hope that the government doesn't force it via imminent domain (thanks Kelo, worst decision SCOTUS has made in the last 30 years!).

I'm on the fence about fracking, I don't know enough about the technical side of it. I've heard extremely passionate arguments about whether or not it's safe from lots of folks.

Whether or not it is, there are serious issues in that limited liability exposure can encourage potentially unsafe practices. "Tort reform" laws have had a lot of really bad unintended consequences.

6/13/2012 1:55:02 PM

Oh, and for the record, there wont be dollas, as the companies will immediately start working with your State government to make sure they pay no taxes at all if not get subsidies.

6/13/2012 2:00:52 PM

Quote :

"The final decision ultimately lies with the landowners"

Or does it. . . . . .

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/04/12/1995516/new-homes-sold-without-underground.html

Quote :

"New homes sold without underground rights spur fracking fears "

[Edited on June 13, 2012 at 2:51 PM. Reason : buyer beware. . . . . i guess]

6/13/2012 2:51:00 PM

And be aware that if you don't own your own mineral rights that whomever does can set up shop/build roads on your land to get to them...

6/13/2012 3:34:05 PM

If a river runs through my property, can I build a dam and deprive people of water that live downstream?

6/13/2012 4:23:55 PM

Quote :

"you'll be lucky if they even acknowledge the possibility of environmental externalities existing at all."

I acknowledge the possibility. I also acknowledge the very real possibility of environmental externalities from the car parked in my driveway (oil leaks, fuel leaks, all immediately on top of my water source). But what would you have us do? Abandon industrial civilization?

I wish the only threat to the environment was fracking. But the threat posed by the chemical plant down the street is far greater, yet we manage to put up with that.

6/13/2012 4:28:54 PM

Yeah, we don't try to regulate chemical plants.

6/13/2012 4:35:18 PM

If fracking wasn't potentially dangerous to water supplies (both through contamination and depletion), then why did the industry lobby (championed by Dick Chaney) for the exemption to The Clean Water Act?

6/13/2012 4:42:21 PM

^^^what's that called? deflection?

i think it's quite obvious that it has a serious potential to contaminate drinking water.

6/13/2012 4:43:26 PM

Quote :

"New homes sold without underground rights spur fracking fears"

most of the fracking operations in NC will take place in areas where people have owned large swaths of land for years...they own the mineral rights too, it's just a matter of them allowing drilling.

If the regulations are set up prudently, and actually enforced (including proper disposal of brine), it could very well be a positive operation...that seems to be a big if though.

6/14/2012 10:18:39 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, we don't try to regulate chemical plants."

I don't think anyone here is against regulation of fracking. But what Str8Foolish and others seem to want is a ban on drilling.

Quote :

"i think it's quite obvious that it has a serious potential to contaminate drinking water."

And therefore we should do what? Regulate it like my car and the chemical plant are regulated? Or ban it, as some want to do?

6/14/2012 11:59:26 AM

Tightly regulate it, severely limit its use, and continue to research, since there's a lot we don't know yet.

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

6/14/2012 12:57:36 PM

Quote :

"Abandon industrial civilization? "

false dichotomy

Quote :

"But what Str8Foolish and others seem to want is a ban on drilling. "

just plain making shit up

6/14/2012 1:18:33 PM

Try real hard Loneshark, and maybe you can argue against people that actually exist instead of the imaginary tree-hugging ELF luddite in your mind.

[Edited on June 14, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2012 1:19:24 PM