Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Methane study, EPA debunk claims of water pollution, climate change from fracking


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#51 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:47 PM

 

I do not even understand how Fracking and Climate Change could be even in the same sentance.  Makes no sense to me.  Release methane? 

Methane is FAR worse for climate change than CO2.  Relaeasing the amount of methane that fracking does is devastating



#52 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:49 PM

I came here to point you to another place that has Josh Fox on Bill Maher.

 

http://rackjite.com/...nd-ii-josh-fox/



#53 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:55 PM

 

 

Since people are not drinking well water (in general or in masses) 

:picard:

 

<--almost spits out his well water 

 

(I believe approx. 15% of Americans drink well water)



#54 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 10:59 PM

I really urge you all to watch the Josh Fox interview, Sky is Pink and Gasland 2 on HBO July 8th

 

We haven't touched on the extremely high levels of radioactivity in the radon in the Gas in the Marcellus Shale that they want to bring into your cities and homes.



#55 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:09 PM

I heard Lois Gibbs speak yesterday at the rally in Albany

 

She mentioned how they told them at the time that the area had a large number of people who genetically were predisposed to the health problems... ya know, NOTHING to do with Love Canal and toxics.   And ya know, some people repeated this, and if that was happening today, no doubt they would be repeating that here (believing it), just like they repeated tobacco industry talking points 

 

In the same way some people want to believe that these toxic chemicals just HAPPEN to find their way into wells.  They are there suddenly even though they hadn't been there, and gosh, they just happen to be the toxics that we know the industry uses (and some more that we don't)

 

I'm sorry but the EPA already confirmed that fracking contaminates   http://thehill.com/b...fracking-debate

 

But ya know, that was before.  

 

See Gasland 2 for more on this



#56 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:38 AM

:lol:



#57 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:15 PM

So Dan are you going to be posting in this forum again?

 

I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your views on all the shit that's gone down under the current administration. Back before the election you were quite adamant that you'd be calling them out like you did the Bush administration, yet when the time came you all but disappeared.



#58 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,409 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:26 PM

You are wrong.  At least in NY State.  Wrong wrong wrong. (though this is likely how it USED to be)    Look at recent polls

 

From your local Gannet rag today:  "A Siena College survey released Monday found 44 percent of New York voters do no support allowing hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale, compared to 37 percent in favor. Outside of New York City and its suburbs, 52 percent oppose fracking and 38 percent support it, according to the poll."

 

And look at all the bans and moratoria in places without municipal water supplies.  

 

 

I wasn't referring to NY State.  I said "in this immediate area".



#59 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:56 PM

:picard:  = : facepalm :

 

<--almost spits out his well water 

 

(I believe approx. 15% of Americans drink well water)

 

15% is a minority, and 85% being the majority.  I did say in general or the masses.  The masses being more people live in big cities, than rural areas.  Hence 15%.

 

I have never drank well water.



#60 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,409 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:00 PM

Andy,

 

Obviously it's still pretty unclear what you mean.

 

Please elaborate a little more.

 

kthx

 

:lol:



#61 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

Methane is FAR worse for climate change than CO2.  Relaeasing the amount of methane that fracking does is devastating

 

 

True that. Just above cow farts on the scale and methane in total, is considered 9% of all GG. It's absolutely ruining the planet. I think cows should be banned also.



#62 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 19 June 2013 - 02:32 PM

True that. Just above cow farts on the scale and methane in total, is considered 9% of all GG. It's absolutely ruining the planet. I think cows should be banned also.

 

I didn't want to go that far, but ...  This.



#63 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:29 AM

I wasn't referring to NY State.  I said "in this immediate area".

Fair enough.  I don't know exactly where you live.  The pockets in rural NY where a majority is pro-fracking is shrinking dramatically



#64 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:30 AM

15% is a minority, and 85% being the majority.  I did say in general or the masses.  The masses being more people live in big cities, than rural areas.  Hence 15%.

 

I have never drank well water.

15% is masses of people.  What's that?  45 million + people?



#65 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:36 AM

I didn't want to go that far, but ...  This.

Don't fall for bull and cow crap.

 

Co2 is natural and necessary.  Methane is natural (no idea if it's necessary)

 

It's the elevated human released, mostly from fossil fuels, that is causing climate change.  And methane is far worse for climate that than CO2.  If I recall correctly 9 times worse.  That is why methane is important, and why the large inevtiable leakage of methane from hydrofracking operations is such a problem.



#66 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:45 AM

I came here today to post this:

http://ecowatch.com/...try-deceptions/

 

B.C. Tap Water Alliance

Alberta-based environmental consultant Jessica Ernst just released the first comprehensive catalog and summary compendium of facts related to the contamination of North America’s ground water sources resulting from the oil and gas industry’s controversial practice of fracking.

frackwaterART.jpg

Photo courtesy of Peakwater.org

Based on research collected over many years, the 93-page reportBrief Review of Threats to Groundwater from the Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Migration and Hydraulic Fracturing, looks to be a game-changing document, providing little wiggle room for private industry and government spokespeople advocating fracking’s immunity from public concern, criticism and liability.

Ever since the pioneering days of coalbed methane fracking experiments in southeast and southwest U.S. in the late 1970s, and through subsequent and evolving grandiose technical stages of widespread experimenting with fracking in the U.S. and Canada, the deep-pocketed inter-corporate industry has consistently fought and influenced both government and citizenry by burying the truth about its cumulative impacts to the environment and human health through confidentiality agreements, threats, half-truths and deceptions. This catalog, devoted primarily to the theme of groundwater impacts, helps to shine the light upon a behemoth circus of utter pitch black darkness.

“Jessica Ernst has made a strong case,” notes Will Koop, B.C. Tap Water Alliance coordinator. “Her collection provides excellent and technically friendly working tools, enabling the public to draw their own conclusions from the critical information. This is not just an invaluable document for North Americans, but for the world.”

------------------------

 

The study, Brief Review of Threats to Canada's Groundwater from the Oil and Gas Industry’s Methane Migration and Hydraulic Fracturing can be found here



#67 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:22 PM

:lol:

 

 

 

It takes a special kind of chutzpah to push an agenda and then accept no responsibility for the results.

 

:titiping:

 

 

Obama's Science Advisor agrees with experts: Fracking has never contaminated drinking water

 

Expert witnesses, including Obama Administration officials, unanimously testify before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that hydraulic fracturing has never contaminated drinking water.

 



#68 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:35 PM

  Anti-Fracking Group Criticizes Energy Nominee for Not Disclosing Industry Ties

A watchdog group that opposes fracking for natural gas released a report on Wednesday that criticizes the president’s choice to be energy secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, for failing to disclose in an energy study that he led his ties to the natural gas industry.

 

According to the report, prepared by the group, Public Accountability Initiative, Mr. Moniz “took a lucrative position on the board of ICF International, a consulting firm with significant oil and gas ties, just prior to the release of the report,” which the group described as having “an extremely industry-friendly message.” ICF, the study noted, sells a gas market analysis tool and consults with gas industry trade groups. Mr. Moniz has received $306,000 from ICF since 2011, the group said.

 

More

http://thecaucus.blo...-industry-ties/



#69 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:47 PM

Yahtzee... :rolling:



#70 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:00 PM

http://www.iogcc.sta...e Jan. 2009.pdf

 

IX. EPA Study

In June 2004, EPA conducted and released an extensive study of hydraulic fracturing.

The study addressed “the potential for contamination of underground sources of drinking water

from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane wells.” In the Executive

Summary, the report stated: “Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has

concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane wells poses little

threat to USDW.” Executive Summary, page ES-1. The report noted that, “the threat posed to

USDW by the introduction of some fracturing fluid constituents is reduced significantly by the

removal of large quantities of ground water (and injected fracturing fluids) soon after a well has

been hydraulically fractured. In fact, coalbed methane production is dependent on the removal of

large quantities of ground water. EPA believes that this ground water production, combined with

the mitigating effects of dilution and dispersion, adsorption, and potentially biodegradation,

minimize the possibility that chemicals included in the fracturing fluids would adversely affect

USDWs.” Executive Summary, page ES-17 (parenthesis in original).



#71 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:10 PM

Don't fall for bull and cow crap.

 

Co2 is natural and necessary.  Methane is natural (no idea if it's necessary)

 

It's the elevated human released, mostly from fossil fuels, that is causing climate change.  And methane is far worse for climate that than CO2.  If I recall correctly 9 times worse.  That is why methane is important, and why the large inevtiable leakage of methane from hydrofracking operations is such a problem.

 

Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2011, CH4 accounted for about 9% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

 

 

http://epa.gov/clima.../gases/ch4.html

 

 

 

Only if 1% of atmospheric gases are wagging the other 99%. Even the mainstream psuedo-scientists admit that humans may be enhancing climate change. Howeer, climate change is a natural occurence. We're not the cause of climate change. That assertion is absolutely ridiculous.



#72 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 20 June 2013 - 02:53 PM

15% is masses of people.  What's that?  45 million + people?

 

 

Approx 265 million Americans drink water not from a well.  That is the masses, you reference a much smaller portion of the population.

 

 

Don't fall for bull and cow crap.

 

Co2 is natural and necessary.  Methane is natural (no idea if it's necessary)

 

 

I believe I touched on this earlier, but the Bermuda Triangle releases more Methane than Man and cows.

 

http://www.isciencet...uss-cyclops.htm

 

Methane Gas

There are large pockets of methane gas trapped beneath the ocean surface, some of which are found in the Bermuda triangle region. If this gas gets released, water density in that area can reduce significantly and the frothy water can no longer provide the buoyancy required to keep a ship afloat.  Since methane is highly flammable it is believed that pockets in the Bermuda triangle not only sink ships, but engulf them in flames as well.

 

The fact remains that no one knows for sure what, if anything, is the cause behind so many unexplained disappearances in the Bermuda triangle. IT could be nothing, just a place where pilots and sailors have crashed over the years due to any number of the perils that face travelers on the open sea. Or it could be a natural oddity like methane gas bubbles or a confluence of strong weather patterns. It could be something supernatural or extraterrestrial, too. We simply don't know, and based on the astounding number of books and websites dedicated to the theories, it looks like we don't really want to know that whole truth anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the elevated human released, mostly from fossil fuels, that is causing climate change.  And methane is far worse for climate that than CO2.  If I recall correctly 9 times worse.  That is why methane is important, and why the large inevtiable leakage of methane from hydrofracking operations is such a problem.

 

 

I agree man has some affect on climate change.  But I am already a sceptic on this subject, see Cycles of the Sun thread here.  Which I believe has more to do with Climate change than man (see Earth's history (or the ice they dig out of Antartica) for reference).

 

 

 

Which leads me to your point about Methane.

 

Here is a recent article that does not mention the word Methane once.  The article is about water useage (but nothing of chemicals being put into the ground), and drought striken areas where the fracking people are getting water but not farmers.

 

http://www.politico....ttle-92862.html



#73 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:29 AM

 

Which leads me to your point about Methane.

 

Here is a recent article that does not mention the word Methane once.  The article is about water useage (but nothing of chemicals being put into the ground), and drought striken areas where the fracking people are getting water but not farmers.

 

http://www.politico....ttle-92862.html

oh good.  This saves me from posting what I was going to on this point.

 

There are many many reasons why hydrofracking is a  big problem.

 

The release of methane CLEARLY is one

 

The proven contamination of water supplies and watersheds is another.

 

But there is also what you're pointing to... the HUGE amount of water that is taken out of the fresh water supply,  Forever. 

 

And then there is the disposal problems of that toxic what used-to-be-water.     Some techniques have cause earthquakes

 

And then in the Marcellus Shale there is the high radiation, incredibly high amounts of radon released, and in the gas

 

And that's just the start.

 

 

And you know what?  There is absolutely no need to frack.

 

We have the technology today to move to renewables.  It's happening today in places like Germany, in places around the world.

 

In the US we could take away the subsidies both in money (we've been subsidsing them for 100 years!) and in regulations that exempt hydrofracking and some other energy industries from the clean water act and clean air act.   If we take that money, and invest 1/2 of it in renewables we could be in the high 70 or 80% in renewables by 2030.  Not only would we dramatically decrease our contribution to climate change, but we would also saves lives (from the carcinogens), create more jobs (renewable jobs creation is MUCH higher than fossil fuel ), and make the US energy independent.

 

It's a no brainer.



#74 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:37 AM

A lot of high ideals there that dont match up to reality what so ever.

Anyway,the point of this thread was to see if those who support banning fracking believe the EPA. Clearly, Dan does not. Which leads to a whole host of other questions about trusting govt. agencies in total. But I believe addressing them would be a waste of time. Anyway, thanks for the responses, Dan.



#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 12:54 PM

http://theenergycoll...raulic-fracking

 

Water pollution risks: So far, so good (mostly)

There will be no shortage of information awaiting anyone that wants to form an opinion on shale gas and whether it poses a risk to freshwater resources. However, much of the debate is characterised by little more than heated rhetoric with frequent disregard for any meaningful supporting evidence. What, then, does the (peer-reviewed) scientific literature actually say about the risks of water pollution due to fracking activity?

It be should stated upfront that this is something of a nascent field and research continues apace. However, the available evidence so far appears to paint a fairly positive picture for fracking proponents. Thus, one of the first studies to systematically investigate the water contamination risks posed by the shale gas industry was presented by Osborn et al. (2011). Despite being published in the prestigious U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), this paper still managed to inspire some amusingly contradictory headlines.[**] Nevertheless, by comparing neighbouring sites, the authors observed that gas leaks in shale formations were most likely the result of natural processes rather than human activity. They further concluded that there was probably no correlation between gas drilling and chemical contamination of shallow groundwater systems. (From the abstract: “We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids.“) Osborn and his co-authors did, however, note the presence of abnormally high methane levels near some drilling sites. Nevertheless, the uncertainty surrounding its origins – e.g. whether thermogenic or biogenic – led them to conclude that more research was needed in order to draw definitive conclusions: “More research is needed across this and other regions to determine the mechanism(s) controlling the higher methane concentrations we observed.” (p. 4)

PNAS then published an intriguing paper by Olmstead et al. (2013) last month, which investigates instances of surface water pollution due to shale gas developments. (A press release of the paper can be found here.) To summarize, despite examining over a decade's worth of data from across a wide geographic area, the authors were unable to find any statistical evidence of water contamination due to leaks at the actual well sites (i.e. drilling locations). They did find some evidence of pollution downstream from wastewater treatment facilities in the form of raised chlorine levels. This suggests that improved handling of wastewater could effectively eliminate the observed problems of water contamination due to shale activity. Moreover, the authors are clear to point out that such developments have already been ongoing in Pennsylvania (the region under examination) for some time.

 

 

Conclusion [with slight edits based on the comments]

It would be strangely naive to suggest that there are no potential risks to our water resources due to fracking activity. Like all energy sources, there are trade-offs to securing the benefits of shale gas and the possibility of water contamination is one of those. However, anti-fracking advocacy groups do their credibility few favours through the selective interpretation of – or pure disregard for – the existing scientific evidence, and what this actually says about the extent of these risks. Several comprehensive studies have thus far failed to establish any systematic relationship between drilling activity and water pollution. Important research is ongoing, but we clearly have reason to be optimistic at this stage. Regardless of the final outcome, I believe that such matters should be handled according to a clear regulatory framework that incorporates full liability and assures other stakeholders of the requisite contingency plans should an accident occur. After all, effective risk management is an entirely different animal to prior restraint.



#76 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 June 2013 - 02:06 PM

oh good.  This saves me from posting what I was going to on this point.

 

There are many many reasons why hydrofracking is a  big problem.

 

The release of methane CLEARLY is one

 

The proven contamination of water supplies and watersheds is another.

 

But there is also what you're pointing to... the HUGE amount of water that is taken out of the fresh water supply,  Forever. 

 

And then there is the disposal problems of that toxic what used-to-be-water.     Some techniques have cause earthquakes

 

And then in the Marcellus Shale there is the high radiation, incredibly high amounts of radon released, and in the gas

 

And that's just the start.

 

 

And you know what?  There is absolutely no need to frack.

 

We have the technology today to move to renewables.  It's happening today in places like Germany, in places around the world.

 

In the US we could take away the subsidies both in money (we've been subsidsing them for 100 years!) and in regulations that exempt hydrofracking and some other energy industries from the clean water act and clean air act.   If we take that money, and invest 1/2 of it in renewables we could be in the high 70 or 80% in renewables by 2030.  Not only would we dramatically decrease our contribution to climate change, but we would also saves lives (from the carcinogens), create more jobs (renewable jobs creation is MUCH higher than fossil fuel ), and make the US energy independent.

 

It's a no brainer.

 

 

Did you read the article?

 

They are using grey water or sewage treated water, for the simple reason to not be taking fresh water.  And they are paying big money to strugling municipality for excess water.  Yes the municipality may be selling more fresh water than that, but that is their fault not the industries fault.  $$$ always trump science or logic.  Do we discard this portion of the equation?



#77 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:24 PM

Did you read the article?

 

They are using grey water or sewage treated water, for the simple reason to not be taking fresh water.  And they are paying big money to strugling municipality for excess water.  Yes the municipality may be selling more fresh water than that, but that is their fault not the industries fault.  $$$ always trump science or logic.  Do we discard this portion of the equation?

Sewage treated water, as long as their are not toxics in it is stll fine as water

 

And I don't know what you mean by "fault"

 

It is bad, unnecessary, and should be stopped



#78 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:26 PM


 

I'm sorry but the EPA already confirmed that fracking contaminates   http://thehill.com/b...fracking-debate

 

But ya know, that was before.  

 

See Gasland 2 for more on this

I'm sorry to report terrible news of further shenanigans at the EPA.  The fix is in

 

Fracking Pollution Probe in Wyoming Cast in Doubt by EPA
By Mark Drajem - Jun 20, 2013 9:15 PM ET

iaUt__V_eFu4.jpg
Brennan Linsley/AP Photo
A worker monitors water pumping pressure and temperature, at an Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. hydraulic fracturing and extraction site, outside Rifle, in Colorado.

The only finding by U.S. regulators of water contamination from fracking was thrown into doubt yesterday when the federal government halted its investigation and handed the probe over to the State of Wyoming.

State officials will now investigate the integrity of gas wells owned by Encana Corp. (ECA) near 14 domestic water wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, while the Environmental Protection Agency stops further work on its draft report from 2011, which linked groundwater woes to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas. While EPA said it stands by its data, that preliminary finding is now effectively abandoned.

“EPA’s decision to not rely on premature conclusions in its 2011 draft report is a positive and wise step,” Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso said in a statement. “I am confident that our state agencies will work hard to get the people of Pavillion the answers they deserve.”

Complaints from ranchers and homeowners in the rural Wyoming town have taken on national significance as the EPA findings were seized on by critics of fracking to illustrate the risks of the drilling technique. EPA tests found evidence of methane, ethane, diesel-range organic compounds and phenol in test wells it drilled, results that were criticized both by Encana and state regulators.

Now those state officials will be replacing the EPA, and Encana will be providing $1.5 million in funding for the state’s work and for a public-education effort.

Gasland Filmmaker

“I can’t believe this is happening. I’m dumbfounded,” said Josh Fox, the filmmaker whose documentary, “Gasland,” portrayed the difficulties of people living near gas wells, including a family in Pavillion. “Wyoming was openly hostile to this investigation from the get go. And to have Encana pay for it? That’s insane.”

The decision, announced in a joint statement by Republican Governor Matt Mead, the EPA and Encana, will stop progress on a study begun in 2009 by the EPA. A draft report in 2011 was the first by a federal agency to find pollutants tied to fracking in groundwater. The study had been in the process of peer review, and the agency had been collecting comments on its results.

Wyoming will complete its study by September 2014.

“In light of this announcement, we believe that EPA’s focus going forward should be on using our resources to support Wyoming’s efforts, which will build on EPA’s monitoring results,” EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe said in the statement, referring to Wyoming’s pledge to investigate.

The EPA “stands behind its work and data” from Pavillion. Still, the agency said it won’t finalize the report drafted in 2011, nor does it plan to rely on that report’s conclusions.

Should Retract

The agency’s decision pleased industry groups and lawmakers who have criticized its methodology and conclusions.

“EPA should not only drop the Pavillion work from consideration, it should fully retract it,” Erik Milito, a group director for the American Petroleum Institute, the Washington-based organization representing the oil and gas industry, said in a statement.

Both Encana and the state had argued that the test wells the agency drilled weren’t sound and that its conclusions not warranted given the chemicals and compounds it found. EPA got involved in Pavillion after town residents went to federal officials and argued that state regulators weren’t acting on their health and water complaints.

The environmental group Earthworks said the EPA’s decision could actually sap support for fracking, as the practice needs effective regulation.

Communities Ignored

“It’s clear that the White House’s ‘all of the above’ energy policy means fracking’s impacts on communities are being ignored,” said Alan Septoff, a spokesman for Earthworks. “The EPA is being forced by political pressure to back off sound science that shows fracking-enabled oil and gas development is a risk to public health.”

In fracking, millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals and sand are shot underground to break apart rock and free trapped gas or oil. The technology has helped the U.S. cut its dependence on imported fuels, lower power bills and cut state unemployment fromPennsylvania (BEESPA) to North Dakota (BEESND).

Critics have said it endangers water supplies, while the industry maintains that no confirmed case of such contamination has ever been demonstrated scientifically. If the Pavillion results had held up to further scrutiny, they could have been used to counter that contention.

“If the EPA had any confidence in its draft report, which has been intensely criticized by state regulators and other federal agencies, it would proceed with the peer review process,” Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a group representing gas drillers, said in an e-mail. “But it’s not, which says pretty clearly that the agency is finally acknowledging the severity of the report’s flaws. It’s about time.”

 

http://www.bloomberg...racking-1-.html



#79 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:28 PM

"Blatant, dishonest, dismaying. EPA sells out once more. Encana the company being investigated for contamination will actually fund the fracking investigation in Pavillion WY. This is beyond comphrehension. The state of Wyoming has been hostile to the EPA from the beginning. And allowing Encana to pay for the investigation????? This is the fox buying the chicken factory"   

-Josh's Gasland page



#80 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:40 PM

http://theenergycoll...raulic-fracking

He apparently works at the Shill Shell sponsored Energy Collective



#81 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 07:18 PM

He apparently works at the Shill Shell sponsored Energy Collective

 

 

Of course. Anyone who reads scientific studies that are peer reviewed and doesn't selectively interpret or disregard the findings entirely is a shill for the big energy companies.

I suppose all the scientists that worked on the papers that were published inthe PNAS are also shills working for the oil companies to make sure that the big oil runs roughshod over the environment and other people.

 

It becomes very difficult to take someone who is so entirely tunnel visioned on a  subject such as this seriously, Dan. AS for your often cited Josh Fox, he's been caught omitting information in his film. He's not a credible source for scientific information on this subject, which takes the level of seriousness within this discussion to an entirely different level.

 

Anyway, Im over it. Wear your t-shirt, chant BAN and spread false information if you want. i dont think it's working anyway.



#82 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 07:40 PM

So then I take it he does work for them.  :lol:        



#83 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 07:44 PM

Regardless of your personal opinion of energycollective, the author of the piece cites the scientific studies that were peer reviewed and published in the PNAS. Is you contention now that these scientists have been bought to make these studies, as well as the peer review process?

 

Like I said, Dan. I don't really care. The point here was to show that people with agendas love govt. regulatory groups...as long as they are carrying the message that such groups want to see delivered. If not, well, then they must have sold out to big energy to hide the truth. Even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

 

Have a nice weekend.



#84 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 21 June 2013 - 08:49 PM

Like I said, Dan. I don't really care. The point here was to show that people with agendas love govt. regulatory groups...as long as they are carrying the message that such groups want to see delivered. If not, well, then they must have sold out to big energy to hide the truth. Even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

This is what I was going for with fault.  The municipality is at fault for chasing $$$ and not seeing fresh water should not be for sale and is a valuable commodity.

 

And companies taking advantage of this industry are also to blame.

 

There is lots of blame to go around.



#85 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:33 PM

Another peer reviewed article that show methane contamination of groundwater, 

http://www.scribd.co...-of-Groundwater

 

Expect the industry to say that it's impossible to say for sure it's from fracking



#86 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:34 PM

uhm...  from this morning (I actually saw it yesterday after work).

 

http://www.gathering...-fracking-site/



#87 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:47 PM

The point here was to show that people with agendas love govt. regulatory groups...as long as they are carrying the message that such groups want to see delivered. If not, well, then they must have sold out to big energy to hide the truth. Even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary..

I've never said representative democracy is perfect.

 

It's hard, and it requires citizens to step up.  But we don't have a better way (I'm not speaking specifically the American model,  But of representative democracy and regulation of industry).  

 

And that's one of the main ways that the 1% have profited from their decades long project to spread their cynical less government ./ no government agenda.   Instead of people like you working hard to make government better, to keep corporations 'honest'. to keep the playing field level, to keep our air and water clean, we have smart people like you instead working on saying "no" to anything the government does, and buying their "nobody has proven tobacco causes cancer" type lies..  And so the 1% get their way, and get to continue to pollute and sicken and kill people for profit.

 

Of course governments and regulatory agencies can get corrupted, the story is thousands of years old.  The answer is citizen participation and watchdog and voting and keeping money out of elections.

 

Work on making government better, not on destroying it.



#88 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:51 PM

Don't Believe Thomas Pyle's Hype

By Josh Fox

195124_5_.jpg

Industry’s denial of the dark side of natural gas fracking shouldn’t fool anyone. Thomas Pyle’s claim on this site that there is not one “confirmed case of groundwater contamination” from fracking is the big lie, repeated often.  It’s like saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer.  And industry’s intentional disinformation campaign comes from the same tobacco playbook (it even uses the same PR firm).

After spending the past four years traveling the country and meeting people whose lives were wrecked by fracking operations at their doorstep, I’ve learned the oil and gas industry is willfully misleading the public. Let’s look at each of Pyle’s misrepresentations one by one:

“Hydraulic fracturing has been in use for more than 60 years without any confirmed cases of groundwater contamination.”

Fracking – when taken to mean the entire process of developing an oil or gas well – has conclusively been linked to water contamination by federal and state environmental authorities many times.  In Dimock, Pennsylvania, for example, the PA Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) determined that methane contamination of the local water supply was due to gas drilling, specifically finding that 18 drinking-water wells in the area were affected by the operations of Cabot Oil & Gas.[1]  

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tests of Dimock water also clearly showed contaminants that could be traced to the fracking activities of Cabot Oil & Gas. Independent expert Dr. Rob Jackson from Duke University also analyzed EPA’s data and concluded that the water was contaminated by Marcellus shale gas fracked by Cabot.[2]

When oil industry spokespeople say "not one well" has been contaminated by fracking, it's deeply and dangerously misleading. The claim itself requires the parsing of language so that “fracking” only refers to one step in the process, namely the point when a toxic slurry of water and chemicals is pumped at enormous pressure into the ground to fracture the shale rock and free the gas within.  

Industry knows it’s the drilling and well construction stages where it all breaks down -- literally. As the drill penetrates deep into the earth, it punctures different gas pockets that can mix together. The well around the hole is generally sealed with cement. But this thin layer of cement – the supposed barrier to gas and chemical migration into drinking water supplies – is notorious for cracking and leaking.

Industry’s own documents show that 5% of oil and gas wells leak immediately and up to 60% of them fail over a 30-year time period. Industry estimates that about 35% of all oil and gas wells are leaking now. These conclusions aren’t my own: They come from drilling giant Schlumberger, Archer Oil & Gas, Southwestern Energy, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, to name just a few.[3]

Why do so many wells leak? Pressures under the earth, temperature changes, ground movement from nearby wells and shrinkage all crack and damage the thin layer of brittle cement that seals the wells. And getting the cement right as drilling goes horizontal is extremely challenging. Meanwhile, once the cement leaks, no one can go thousands of feet under the earth to repair it.

And it is not a question of stronger cement or better technology. Industry’s own documents say that “strength is not the major issue in oil well cementing under any circumstances … cement clearly cannot resist the shear stress that is the most common reason for oil well distortion and rupture during active production.”[4]  In other words, the great pressure underground will cause a significant proportion of wells to fail no matter what.

Fracking has got to be seen as the sum of all parts of the operation. While the gas industry is busy playing semantics, people’s health, lives and property is being compromised.  

 “[W]hen water from a kitchen faucet is set ablaze … the stunt is completely unrelated to drilling; rather it’s the result of naturally occurring methane.”

The flaming faucets documented in Gasland I and II are the product of natural gas migration into water supplies due to fracking right next door. Numerous investigations have confirmed this fact, including studies by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and many others.[5] When industry says no, that’s not true, it’s telling you to believe in some giant conspiracy theory – that families all across the country are lying in reporting that their wells never flamed before fracking.

Piling on the evidence, Duke University recently conducted a peer-reviewed study that links water contamination with nearby drilling and fracking, concluding that water wells near drilling and fracking operations were 17 times more likely to contain elevated levels of methane.[6]  Seventeen times!

 

“[S]hale gas drilling stands accused of methane contamination. But in April, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection concluded that naturally occurring shallow gas was responsible for contaminating well water of the three private homes in question.”

The Pennsylvania Department of Energy issued a consent order specifically concluding that 18 drinking-water wells in the area were affected by the drilling and fracking operations of Cabot Oil & Gas.[7]  

“Even the Environmental Protection Agency’s groundwater studies cited by Fox were so deeply flawed that then-EPA administrator Lisa Jackson publicly disputed them.”

Here’s what Lisa Jackson really said, as captured in an on-camera interview with her for Gasland II: “We do have cases where we believe we see many cases of groundwater contamination and drinking water contamination that are, if not brought on entirely by natural gas production, were exacerbated by it. Not just methane, which is natural gas, but other contaminants as well.”

“Domestic energy production is leading to a more secure energy future and economic prosperity here at home.”

First, we don’t use gas to power cars – save a few niche city bus fleets – nor oil to generate electricity, so the “energy independence” hype is truly misleading. Much of the gas fracked in the U.S. will end up overseas. Currently gas in Europe costs about 3 times more per unit than it does in the U.S. Prices in Asia are even higher. These realities are leading to an explosion of permitting requests for the construction of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals on our coasts for the purpose of transporting gas overseas.

What’s more American prosperity will be gutted anyway if we continue to flood the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Some say gas is a bridge to get us over the climate hump because it’s cleaner than coal.  But this ignores the leakage of methane – a heat-trapping gas up to 105 times as potent as carbon dioxide over 20 years. Experts have said anything more than a 2 percent leakage rate of methane means any climate benefits of gas over coal are voided.[8]  Results now coming in from the field show leakage rates between 7 and 17 percent[9] – making natural gas from fracking way worse than coal as far as climate is concerned.

The explosion of fracking across the American landscape is being painted by industry as a blessing to us all. But for the families I’ve met with, it’s the worst kind of curse. Lives upended, forced to move, health hanging in the balance – these are the “blessings” families I now know well are experiencing. Don’t believe the hype. See the film and judge for yourself.


[1] See, e.g., PA DEP Consent Order, 15 December 2010:http://files.dep.sta...lCO&A121510.pdf

[2] Mark Drajem, “High Methane in Pennsylvania Water Deemed Safe by EPA,” Bloomberg, March 30, 2012: http://www.bloomberg...afe-by-epa.html

[3] Southwestern Energy, PowerPoint Presentation on Wellbore Integrity; Schlumberger, Oilfield Review, Autumn 2003; Archer, “Better Well Integrity,” PowerPoint presentation (2011); Theresa Watson et al., “Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and CO2 Leakage along Wellbores,” American Society of Engineers, March 2009; Maurice Dusseault et al., “Why Oil Wells Leak: Current Behavior and Long-Term Consequences,” SPE International (2000); Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Association, “2010 Report to the Water Quality Control Commission” (2010).

[4] Maurice Dusseault et al., “Why Oil Wells Leak: Current Behavior and Long-Term Consequences,” SPE International (2000).

[5] Pennsylvania DEP Consent Order, 15 December 2010:http://files.dep.sta...lCO&A121510.pdf. See also Mark Drajem, “High Methane in Pennsylvania Water Deemed Safe by EPA,” Bloomberg, March 30, 2012:http://www.bloomberg...afe-by-epa.html and http://stateimpact.n...hane-migration/

[8] Limiting Methane Leaks Critical to Gas, Climate Benefits, Climate Central, May 22, 2013:http://www.climatece...-benefits-16020; Suzanne Goldenberg, Methane leaks could negate climate benefits of US natural gas boom: report,” The Guardian, June 4, 2013:http://www.guardian....efits-gas/print

[9] Nature 493, 12 (03 January 2013) doi:10.1038/493012a; Gabrielle Pétron. et al. (2012). “Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A pilot study,” J. Geophys. Res. 117, D04304; Jeff Peischl et al. (2013). “Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin, California,” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. doi: 10.1002/jrgd.50413

 

Josh Fox is an Academy Award-nominated investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film, Gasland Part II, premiers on HBO this July 8. Follow him @gaslandthemovie and #gaslandalert.  http://www.realclear...ype_107101.html



#89 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,527 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:51 PM

Another peer reviewed article that show methane contamination of groundwater, 

http://www.scribd.co...-of-Groundwater

 

Expect the industry to say that it's impossible to say for sure it's from fracking

And expect the Obama administration to help aid that very same industry

 

 

Obama administration turns blind eye to toxic fracking pollution

 

 

The Obama administration caved to pressure from the oil and gas industry Thursday and had the EPA abandon an investigation that directly linked contaminated groundwater to deadly fracking pollution.

 

Had the Environmental Protection Agency been allowed to pursue their evidence to its ultimate conclusion, the Obama administration would likely have been forced to take steps to end to the explosive expansion of hydro-fracking throughout America.

 

What the oil and gas industry bought by objecting to the EPA findings is time to squeeze as much profit as they can out of an environmentally unsustainable endeavor.

 

The preliminary Environmental Protection Agency report on fracking fluid water contamination was released in 2011 and “sent shockwaves through the oil and gas sector, by finding that hydraulic fracturing fluids used in shale gas drilling had likely contaminated groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming,” Reuters reported.

 

More

http://www.allvoices...cking-pollution



#90 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:08 PM

Another peer reviewed article that show methane contamination of groundwater, 

http://www.scribd.co...-of-Groundwater

 

Expect the industry to say that it's impossible to say for sure it's from fracking

 

Good read. Although there is certainly something to be mentioned abotu the sampling. Also, why were no other fracking chemicals found in these samples? I think this kind of self answers that question.

 

This study examined natural gas composition of drinking waterusing concentration and isotope data for methane, ethane, pro-pane, and

He. Based on the spatial distribution of the hydro-carbons (Figs. 1 and 2), isotopic signatures for the gases (Figs. 3and 4), wetness of the gases (Fig. 2 andFigs. S5,S6, andS7), and observed differences in He:CH4 ratios (Fig. 5), we propose thata subset of homeowners has drinking water contaminated by drilling operations, likely through poor well construction. Futureresearch and greater data disclosure could improve understandingof these issues in several ways. More research is needed across theMarcellus and other shale gas plays where the geological charac-teristics differ. For instance, a new study by Duke University andthe US Geological Survey showed no evidence of drinking watercontamination in a part of the Fayetteville Shale with a less frac-tured or tectonically deformed geology than the Marcellus andgood confining layers above and below the drinking water layers(48). More extensive predrilling data would also be helpful. Ad-ditional isotopic tools and geochemical tracers are needed to de-termine the source and mechanisms of stray gas migration that weobserved. For instance, a public database disclosing yearly gascompositions (molecular and isotopic δ 13 C and δ 2
H for methaneand ethane) from each producing gas well would help identify andeliminate sources of stray gas (49). In cases where carbon andhydrogen isotopes may not distinguish deep Marcellus-derivedmethane from shallower, younger Devonian methane, the geo-chemistry of 4He and other noble gases provides a promising ap-proach (15, 50). Another research need is a set of detailed casestudies of water-quality measurements taken before, during, andafter drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Such studies are underway,including partnerships of EPA- and Department of Energy-basedscientists and industry in Pennsylvania, Texas, and North Dakota.In addition to predrilling data, disclosure of data from mud-loggases and wells to regulatory agencies and ideally, publicly wouldbuild knowledge and public confidence. Ultimately, we need tounderstand why, in some cases, shale gas extraction contaminatesgroundwater and how to keep it from happening elsewhere.
 
Methods
 
A total of 81 samples from drinking water wells were collected in six countiesin Pennsylvania (Bradford, Lackawanna, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wayne, andWyoming), and results were combined with 60 previous samples described inthe work by Osborn et al. (4). The samples were obtained from homeownerassociations and contacts with the goal of sampling Alluvium, Catskill, andLock Haven groundwater wells across the region. For analyses of 4He (Fig. 5),samples from 30 drinking water wells were used to estimate concentrationratios 4He:CH4. Wells were purged to remove stagnant water and thenmonitored for pH, electrical conductance, and temperature until stablevalues were recorded. Samples were collected upstream of any treatmentsystems and as close to the water well as possible, preserved in accordancewith procedures detailed in SI Text 
 


#91 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:24 PM

uhm...  from this morning (I actually saw it yesterday after work).

 

http://www.gathering...-fracking-site/

 

OK. So what we're seeing is not necessarily the results of fracking, but (potentially, the study is certainly not groundbreaking esp. considering how they sourced samples) the results of doing it poorly in regard to well covers/construction. In light of that, I would say the industry is probably trying hard to cover themselves from liability in areas where they may actually be liable for damages. In that, Dan and I can agree. But again, this study does not show that fracking itself contaminates well water as a result of its procedure. it shows neglegence.

 

With that, I'm not going to be buying an anti-fracking T-shirt or protesting the industry to be shut down. I would suggest to those that are, to hold the representatives they elected and the regulatory agencies that these reps create, more accountable for protecting property rights instead of looking to ban human behavior. Since that never, ever works out. Ever.

 

 

reposted here from Andy's original for Dan to see.
 



#92 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

Only if facing reality requires one to be cynical. The point here has been of course, lost. The idea behind BAN AFRACKING NOW! campaigns such as the one Dan is fond of, are built on information that EPA is saying isn't true. Regardless of the debate on whether failed computer models are still viable after they deviate so heavily from observation.

 

I dont see that as cycnical, it's simply reality.

 

In science, when a model is created, it is put up against observation. If the model fails agaisnt observation, it's thrown out and we start over. In the case of AWG, the ground temp reader data has proven to be corrupted to the point where it's unsure if anyone knows the true reaadings. That's why the top AWG guys hate the satellite readings. The absolutely devastate predicitons against observation.

 

Such as:

 

 CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-m
 

 

 

Watch if anything, just the last ten minutes of the video.

 

In real science, you make some predictions based on a hypothesis.  Then you observe and to see if your predictions are accurate...and more importantly....how accurate they are.  If they are not accurate, you scrap your failed hypothesis and go back to the drawing board.

Clearly, climate science is not real science.  The hypothesis as depicted in climate models has failed spectacularly.  What is the response by climate science?  Do they acknowledge that their hypothesis that CO2 is driving the climate has failed and go back to the drawing board to see if they can begin to figure out what actually does drive the climate?  Hell no.  Not the high priests of the church of pseudoscience.  They go about trying to form rational explanations for the abject failure of their hypothesis and attempt to explain where all the unobserved heat went.  Maybe the dog ate the warming.

 

http://hockeyschtick...s-dr-murry.html

 

Monday, July 1, 2013
 
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
 
Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has recently replicated the work of Dr. Murry Salby, finding that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Dr. Björnbom confirms Salby's hypothesis that the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change, detailed in his report Reconstruction of Murry Salby's theory that carbon dioxide increase is temperature driven [Google translation].

Dr. Björnbom discusses his findings in this post from The Stockholm Initiative [Google translation + light editing]:

Murry Salby, climate science innovator who challenges established views

Murry Salby is a highly qualified and well-respected professor, academic teacher, and climate scientist. He has a series of innovative talks challenging the leading circles representing the IPCC sanctioned culture of consensus in climate science. He presents startling research that fundamentally questions the established views of the IPCC consensus. An important hypothesis that he advances is that the atmospheric CO2 rate of change is a function of only the global temperature changes and that this may explain the increase in carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times. This result was I able to reproduce, in a report given here.

 


#93 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:25 PM

/Peer review'd



#94 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:31 PM

/Peer review'd

 

Good luck with that on this one. There is way too much at stake to have the ICPP monopoly on "the debate is over" view challenged.



#95 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:32 PM

You know, these guys are probably big oil shills.. :lol:



#96 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:35 PM

Good luck with that on this one. There is way too much at stake to have the ICPP monopoly on "the debate is over" view challenged.

 

Of course, but shouldn't scientists on the side of climate change now replicate this work, to verify.

 

You know, these guys are probably big oil shills.. :lol:

 

So is this legit peer review, or is this the other side just putting out "research" to counter the masses?



#97 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,445 posts

Posted 02 July 2013 - 01:56 PM

Of course, but shouldn't scientists on the side of climate change now replicate this work, to verify.

 

 

So is this legit peer review, or is this the other side just putting out "research" to counter the masses?

 

Both Pehr and Murry are climate scientists. Pehr replicated Murry's work. That's what this article is about.

 

It's not "peer reviewed" in the fashion we've come ot expect. What it cetainly isn't, is the "other side". There are no sides in science. Unless, you're not really interested in the science and much more interested in concensus to push an agenda.



#98 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 02 July 2013 - 02:12 PM

Both Pehr and Murry are climate scientists. Pehr replicated Murry's work. That's what this article is about.

 

It's not "peer reviewed" in the fashion we've come ot expect. What it cetainly isn't, is the "other side". There are no sides in science. Unless, you're not really interested in the science and much more interested in concensus to push an agenda.

 

May be I commented on this in poor context, I was going from the "You know, these guys are probably big oil shills."  That was the basis of this.

 

But he being of the same ilk, this replication should hold more water than say a shill.



#99 Deadshow Dan

Deadshow Dan
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,883 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 05:05 AM

In case you missed this:

Josh Fox

Dear President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Moniz, Heather Zichal and Valerie Jarrett,

jfox.jpgI write to request a meeting with you and families directly impacted by oil and gas drilling and fracking—as documented in Gasland Part II—together with a small group of scientists and engineers who are also featured in the film. We would like to discuss health and economic impacts felt by communities located near the oil and gas fields, share our first-hand stories, and provide you with evidence on rates of well leakage, water contamination, air pollution and methane emissions.

gasland.jpg

We are aware that your administration has met with the natural gas industry and their representatives and lobbyists many times. We now ask you to meet with us: representatives of those suffering from unconventional drilling and fracking, and members of the scientific community who wish to inform you of the perils of this unprecedented push to drill.

We believe that the natural gas industry has not been forthcoming with your administration about the real effects of drilling and fracking on our water, air, land, climate, public health and safety—and on democracy itself. As such, we seek to discuss with you the dark side of fracking, a perspective that has not yet been presented to you with adequate weight or emphasis.

In 2008, when I was offered a gas lease on my land in the upper Delaware River watershed in Pennsylvania, I decided to investigate the effects of drilling and fracking around the nation. That investigation became the documentary Gasland. While filming, I discovered widespread water contamination, air pollution, methane leakage, land scarring and massive industrialization of previously rural, suburban or urban areas. Most disturbingly of all, I discovered in the gasfields of America people who had lost control of their lives, their communities and their human and civil rights.

Although I had never before made a documentary, Gasland was accepted at the Sundance Film Festival, picked up by HBO, nominated for the 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary and received four Emmy nominations—winning one for my direction. The film has been aired on television in over 30 countries to an estimated audience of 50 million people.

I have now made a second film, Gasland Part II, which covers a new form of contamination—the capture of our regulatory agencies by the oil and gas industry. I document industry’s undue influence on your administration as well as on state and local regulators whose job is to protect the public health and safety. A striking pattern emerges: Time and again, regulators investigating citizens’ concerns determine the gas development operation nearby is a clear cause of water contamination, only to walk away after protest from industry reaches an uncomfortable pitch. The film’s portrayal of the exclusion of “we the people” from the dialogue about the future of energy in the United States should concern you. Gasland Part II premieres July 8, on HBO.

We thus respectfully request a meeting with you. More specifically, I wish to introduce you to members of seven families from disparate regions across the nation who have all had their lives ruined by drilling and fracking operations. These families are emblematic. They represent thousands of people who have had their basic rights trampled by drilling on nearby properties and by the attendant gas refining and delivery infrastructure. These citizens include—

  • The Lipsky family in Texas, whose water was contaminated and made flammable by Range Resources;
  • The Gee family in Pennsylvania, who, after four generations, were forced off their land by a six-well horizontal drill pad built by Shell on a neighboring property;
  • The Fenton family in Wyoming, who have been battling Canadian drilling giant Encana and who are now suffering health problems from the air and water contamination around their house;
  • The Tillman family of Dish, Texas, who were forced by polluted air to move from the town that Mr. Tillman was serving as mayor;
  • The Switzer and Ely familes of Dimock, Pennsylvania, whose water was shown to be contaminated by both the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—only to receive a roller coaster ride of broken promises by both agencies; and
  • The Bevins family from West Virginia, whose son CJ was killed on a drilling pad in New York as a result of an unsafe drilling site, and whose campaign has helped alert the country that workers in the oil and gas industry are seven times more likely to die on the job than workers in other industries.

In addition, I would like you to meet with the scientists in the film: Dr. Tony Ingraffea, Dr. Robert Howarth and Professor Mark Z. Jacobson.

Dr. Ingraffea from Cornell University, a former oil and gas industry researcher, will explain how the industry is incapable of ensuring the integrity of wells being drilled and how the industry’s own science shows that wells are leaking at high rates, contaminating our country’s precious groundwater. Dr. Howarth, also of Cornell, will describe how the release of methane, one of our most potent greenhouse gases, into the air from fracking and natural gas production render the use of fracked gas even more deleterious to the climate than burning coal. Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, director of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, will explain that there is a way forward for America that is free of fossil fuels. As he and his colleagues have documented in a groundbreaking study, wind, water and solar resources available to us right now make it possible for our nation to claim true energy independence and protect the health and safety of the generations to come.

America has been forever changed by the sense of grassroots collective drive that your election in 2008 instilled in us as a nation. The grassroots movement that has sprung up across the country and across the world against fracking has all the enthusiasm, positivity, sense of history, endurance and resolve as the one that elected you our President. When speaking to your grassroots campaign staff in 2012, you reminded them that the only way to fight the enormous influence of corporate cash and power in the election was the strength of “neighbor talking to neighbor,” of communities coming together to fight for what is right. That is exactly what the grassroots movement against fracking is made of: people fighting for their communities locally, with an eye on the bigger global challenges ahead. Above all, we are a movement of people, not corporations; we are a movement of neighbors who care deeply about the places we live and about this country as a whole. We believe that it is your desire to put the people’s interests at the forefront of your political message and it is in this spirit that we ask you to meet with us.

President Obama, we support you. We support your earnest desire to fight climate change, but the science shows that your embrace of natural gas will undermine everything you are trying to accomplish in your plan. And the violation of health and property rights that inexorably accompany drilling and fracking operations undermines any claim of energy independence.

We urge you to meet with us as you have met with the gas industry. We are on your side. We do not wish to see your legacy inscribed by fracking chemicals in the ground, high levels of emissions and pollution in the air, ruined families, broken shards of the American dream and the terror felt by millions as the drilling industry descends on lands in 34 states. Do not let your legacy be a switch from coal to gas, a Pyrrhic victory, an exchange of one form of climate-killing pollution for another that, over its entire lifecycle, is just as calamitous. Instead, ground your energy policy in careful science and let your legacy include hearing the people out.

In the name of fairness and democracy, we implore that you meet with us, as you have met with the oil and gas industry.

We look forward to your reply. Thank you for considering this request.



#100 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,636 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 15 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

So I watched 2 hours of the 2 hours and fifteen minutes of this over the weekend.  

 

It is hard to argue with someone who has methane in their water that fracking is good in anyway.

 

Somethings of note that I noticed:

 

The biggest problem with fracking isn't the water being pumped into the ground.  The biggest problem is well failures which leads to gas escaping from the well in the ground, and eventually in water supplies.  They say 5% of all wells fail immediately and that over time (30 years) almost half will fail.

 

If they built better wells, this may not be as bad.  But 1 inch concrete does not seem to be enough to support the pressure the wall faces as different depths of the earth.

 

 

 

--------------

 

 

Next, There was a lot of Powerpoints from "big oil" or websites, or random documents that verify the claims in the movie.  My first thought was, how does one know if those numbers were doctored in anyway.

 

 

-------------

 

Then ....

 

 

At some point he shows the map of Shale accross the world.  And as he states, it is something we cant unsee.  His map seemed to include California, and talked about how most of our agriculture is grown in Cali, and how the map of shale under the ground covered much of this land.

 

But, when I googled it this morning to make it part of my reference, california is not in the same global map he used and there was more Shale areas in Marron else where, but do not remember where, but Cali is obvious to me.

 

 

Source (geology.com)

world-shale-gas-map.gif

 

 

 

A little further research shows this map of Shale in California (source CNN.money.com)

130110071032-california-shale-map-monste

 

The fear hear is, fracking on the San Andreas fault could cause cataclismic earthquakes.

 

 

-------------------------------

 

 

The most interesting piece of this whole documentary for was the five minutes spent with a lady who laid out the financial ramifications of what is actually happening.

 

She showed that Asia ia paying almost $15 a gallon, and Europe almost $9, while we pay $3-4.  Who would you sell your product to if you were a business, the highest bidder.  Going against the Producded in the US, for the US citizens, political campaigning that has worked so well.  That by doing this, our costs will go up, and eventually the price of natural gas will also go up, and not be a cheaper alternative.  Which I entirely agree with.