Marcellus Shale: An Environmental Disaster In The Making

[WinterWarlock]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD

If Indian Point didn't straddle the Hudson I would agree with your line of thinking.

I don't follow...

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Policy isn't written based on the knowledge of the general public (otherwise a nuclear power plant wouldn't be a few miles from millions of people). Plus it's a great way for the anti crowd to keep muddling the issue by constantly claiming to be uninformed. I know you aren't opposed to fracking (or aren't opposed but are..) but there are those out there that are opposed no matter what and are just as guilty as some in the energy industry of confusing the facts.

Perhaps we do have a "neutral body" with info that has been out for years:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials...CMarcellus.pdf

[cityboy]

Originally Posted by Glen

Thats half the story. Here is the other half:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97449702/100-Fracking-Victims

I am not against fracking in principle, but the industry has not been forthcoming and has a lot of clout. There is no shortage of NG and prices are low. They need to get this right, not just for us but for future generations.

Glen there are over 40,000 fracking wells in the US. That adds some perspective.
I would agree with you about getting it right however that is not the message that is being delivered. That message is no fracking ever. Why else are they coming up with doomsday scenarios.
The title of this thread is a perfect illustration. What environmental disaster?
Any accidents are limited to surrounding parcels. Katrina was a disaster. That offshore drilling platform blowing up in the gulf was a disaster. That tsunami in Japan and resulting meltdown of the reactors was a disaster. Disasters effect the lives of 10s of thousands.
We have an obligation to get it right but I know of no industry that is accident free.

[WinterWarlock]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD

Perhaps we do have a "neutral body" with info that has been out for years:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials...CMarcellus.pdf

I thought I read recently that the initial estimates for the amount of gas in Marcellus were wildly inflated, and the actual amounts were only about a quarter of what was initially published...still an awful lot, but if so, that skews a bit of the first link's point.

[WinterWarlock]

Originally Posted by cityboy

Glen there are over 40,000 fracking wells in the US.

I'd be curious to know how many 'hydro' fracking wells specifically...

[Glen]

Originally Posted by cityboy

Glen there are over 40,000 fracking wells in the US. That adds some perspective.
I would agree with you about getting it right however that is not the message that is being delivered. That message is no fracking ever. Why else are they coming up with doomsday scenarios.
The title of this thread is a perfect illustration. What environmental disaster?
Any accidents are limited to surrounding parcels. Katrina was a disaster. That offshore drilling platform blowing up in the gulf was a disaster. That tsunami in Japan and resulting meltdown of the reactors was a disaster. Disasters effect the lives of 10s of thousands.
We have an obligation to get it right but I know of no industry that is accident free.

Cityboy,

My message was not "no fracking ever". I think most level headed people would like some facts and disclosure so they can make informed decisions. With the secrecy involved, the industry invites this sort of response, especially when they attempt to buy everyone off rather than come clean, admit mistakes and encourage oversight. When companies go to great lengths to keep secrets, usually there is fire with the smoke. Sorry, I don't trust them a bit so I personally choose to err on the side of caution. The fact that state legislatures are in bed with a lot of these companies does not give the individual a lot of ability to get straight answers. In short, there is no real watchdog on this. I will say again I simply do not understand the rational for additional sites while there is an abundant supply at a low price, but then again I don't run a hedge fund having investments in this sector.

[cityboy]

Originally Posted by WinterWarlock

I'd be curious to know how many 'hydro' fracking wells specifically...

This is what I read. It is as of 2009. They indicate that fracking means Hydro-Fracking.

"There were more than 493,000 active natural-gas wells across 31 states in the U.S. in 2009, almost double the number in 1990. Around 90 percent have used fracking to get more gas flowing, according to the drilling industry".

[Pumpkin QAAD]

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...ion/#more-6391

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."

It's a little disappointing that President Obama is limiting the disclosure requirement to only public lands but I guess it's a start to assuage the chemical concerns.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...ion/#more-6391

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."

It's a little disappointing that President Obama is limiting the disclosure requirement to only public lands but I guess it's a start to assuage the chemical concerns.

Guess this is the glass half full/half empty.

My take would be that it's optimistic that a president is requiring that any disclosures be made at all.

More then likely by requiring the disclosure on public lands, delays by appeals as to the constitutionality of it by the fracking industry can be avoided. It's a start. Now if Cuomo could inherit a set of b...s.

[WinterWarlock]

Originally Posted by redhawk

.

My take would be that it's optimistic that a president is requiring that any disclosures be made at all.

When I read the quote from a State of the Union address, I sort of thought the same thing...he didn't require anyone to do anything, it was all wishful thinking. If we could see real data, component mixtures, etc then I'd be a lot more comfortable assessing the impact, but as long as everything remains secret, I remain skeptical, and maybe even a little curmudgeonly.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Originally Posted by WinterWarlock

When I read the quote from a State of the Union address, I sort of thought the same thing...he didn't require anyone to do anything, it was all wishful thinking. If we could see real data, component mixtures, etc then I'd be a lot more comfortable assessing the impact, but as long as everything remains secret, I remain skeptical, and maybe even a little curmudgeonly.

HaHa!

I am surprised they allow fracking on public land, perhaps this is a well worded promise of nothing but yeah it's a start at least.

[cityboy]

Looks like the start of a beautiful relationship!

“Natural gas and renewables complement each other very nicely,” Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said this morning at a press conference.

"A report released this morning makes it clear that the renewables industry sees itself in the latter camp, forming an unexpected alliance with the natural gas industry, since both groups are intent on giving coal the boot."

Renewables see Gas as a short to midterm alternative to Coal. Make sense to me.

[Ishmael8]

This incredible picture from space shows how the U.S. oil industry has boomed to such an extent that a gas field now burns as brightly as a major city.

The rapid increase in shale oil production means it is now often more economical to 'flare off' unwanted gas than to sell it.

As a result, one field in North Dakota, the state leading the energy revolution, is now burning off enough gas to power all the homes in Chicago and Washington D.C. combined.

What a sloppy, short sighted, waste........The "leaders" of the oil industry should be required to live in and around these areas. They should be required to drink the water from the wells near these areas.

[randomscooter]

The long awaited result is in.

[Fisheater]

I am familiar with the basics of the "Haliburton Clause" and the ability to given to protect fracturing compound formulations. However, I work in the construction industry and I find it unlikely that trademarking can eliminate OSHA MSDA labeling requirements. Mining is more regulated than construction, it is hard for me to believe workers could be in a position to be possibly exposed to a chemical of any kind without access to accurate MSDA sheets. Just my 2 cents.

[Boreal Fox]

Originally Posted by randomscooter

The long awaited result is in.

It's official: New York has banned fracking.

After more than seven years of study, the state Department of Environmental Conservation today issued the final document needed to ban the controversial drilling practice, known formally as high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...ofracking.html

[Schultzz]

Farmers are content because they are making money from the royalties. I am not sure that fracking in itself is deleterious to the environment but I'll tell what is. Instead of remediating the chemical slurry that they use they drill a few miles down and under pressure dump the chemicals into the earth. In Ohio alone these pressurized chemicals migrate into fissures and faults. (Something that the mining companies are supposed to avoid.) As a result there are 50-80 small earth quakes daily in Ohio. With all the money they are making couldn't they afford to abate the chemicals and render them harmless through the proper technology instead of forcing them down into the bowels of the earth?
What kind of stewards are we to permit that?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Schultzz

What kind of stewards are we to permit that?

C'mon Schultzzy, you know the answer to that one.

[Schultzz]

Hey Glen, what can we do to stop them? Aside from nothing? Might as well go fishing.