Fracking (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

Both sides seem pretty adamant about the subject. Are the benefits worth the risks? Are improvements being made to reduce some of the issues that have come up? Sounds pretty damaging to me but admittedly I'm not that up on all the details yet.

 

[kface]

At this time I don't think there is enough evidence to say whether the benefits outweigh the risks...

 

[[icon]]

Flooding our groundwater with highly toxic chemicals? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[eoMMan]

I like to frack daily.

 

[sporthenry]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind. I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

 

[kface]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind. I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

I think this is why there is such a strong opposition to it. Same argument applies to GM foods. Sure they might be good or they might be bad but most people don't want to be part of the experiment. There is nothing wrong with waiting and doing some research to find out.

 

[Rayderr]

This is a big deal here in Ohio. The big concern seems to be that the companies don't have to say what's in their secret sauce to perform the fracking.

 

[jamny]

This is a big deal here in Ohio. The big concern seems to be that the companies don't have to say what's in their secret sauce to perform the fracking.

I've read that the chemicals only account for .5% of the material used. They can't just use water and sand?

 

[Rayderr]

This is a big deal here in Ohio. The big concern seems to be that the companies don't have to say what's in their secret sauce to perform the fracking.

I've read that the chemicals only account for .5% of the material used. They can't just use water and sand?

I'm rather new to the fracking debate as it wasn't really an issue in Northern Virginia. But here in Ohio, it's all over the place. There seems to be daily protests at some fracking site and every couple weeks people get arrested for it. An anti-fracking group came through my neighborhood, going door to door to get us all to sign petitions to end fracking and to write our representatives. They went on to say how the companies don't have to disclose what chemicals are being used, and if people get sick from the chemicals, they won't even tell the doctors what they've been exposed to. (no idea if that's true or not. If it is, then yes, they should have to disclose the chemicals.) They didn't mention any other concerns. Granted, I'm a little suspicious of that group seeing as the petitions and letters they wanted us to write were not for our representative.

 

[IC FBGCav]

My dad barely has .25 acres of land in PA. Someone comes to his house at least monthly asking him to sell his rights for 400 bucks. They call him all the time. They have even called my house in North Carolina asking for him and my number is unlisted. He doesn't need the money so he will not sell the rights. Almost everyone else has, even the city sold the rights to their land. Nothing good can come from this for the homeowner IMO. Their tactics alone on how they are trying to get people to sell their rights should be a big red flag.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind.

I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

Here's a question: who is the "they" in the bolded statement?The obvious answer would be the states. Some have acted to ban it completely, but it's up to each of them individually to weigh the pros and cons and to set the requirements and restrictions themselves. Most of them have done this.

The federal government currently doesn't have the authority to just put an outright ban or moratorium on fracking. For them to do it would take new legislation, which for many reasons would never happen, certainly not in the current climate.

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, as far as why it has to be done now, obviously it doesn't. The "hurry" is just companies attempting to beat their competitors to mineral rights on land they think may be productive- something they can do even if there's a moratorium in place. But we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions. It's not a one-sided equation on the environmental side. Certainly not saying they outweigh the dangers, I'm not qualified to say that. But it should still be noted.

 

[bigbottom]

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

No matter what? See Kelo, Keystone and the expansion of eminent domain.

 

[sporthenry]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind.

I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

Here's a question: who is the "they" in the bolded statement?The obvious answer would be the states. Some have acted to ban it completely, but it's up to each of them individually to weigh the pros and cons and to set the requirements and restrictions themselves. Most of them have done this.

The federal government currently doesn't have the authority to just put an outright ban or moratorium on fracking. For them to do it would take new legislation, which for many reasons would never happen, certainly not in the current climate.

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

The EPA?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

No matter what? See Kelo, Keystone and the expansion of eminent domain.

I don't think we're gonna see application of eminent domain to a production operation any time soon. It's a different animal than a pipeline, because a single person can't doom an entire large scale project. All they can do is move the drills somewhere else. I guess it's possible, but it would take another huge shift towards even more government eminent domain authority, and considering the resistance they've got at the moment, it's hard to imagine. But at the moment and probably for the foreseeable future, "no matter what" is appropriate.

 

[Rayderr]

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

No matter what? See Kelo, Keystone and the expansion of eminent domain.

I don't think we're gonna see application of eminent domain to a production operation any time soon. It's a different animal than a pipeline, because a single person can't doom an entire large scale project. All they can do is move the drills somewhere else. I guess it's possible, but it would take another huge shift towards even more government eminent domain authority, and considering the resistance they've got at the moment, it's hard to imagine. But at the moment and probably for the foreseeable future, "no matter what" is appropriate.

I drink your milkshake.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind.

I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

Here's a question: who is the "they" in the bolded statement?The obvious answer would be the states. Some have acted to ban it completely, but it's up to each of them individually to weigh the pros and cons and to set the requirements and restrictions themselves. Most of them have done this.

The federal government currently doesn't have the authority to just put an outright ban or moratorium on fracking. For them to do it would take new legislation, which for many reasons would never happen, certainly not in the current climate.

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

The EPA?

EPA can only do what statutes direct it to do. There's no environmental statute that allows EPA to ban fracking in its current form. That's why I said it would take new legislation for the federal government to act in a significant way for there to be a ban. There are things they can do to make it safer though. For example last April they passed new emissions standards for the practice under the Clean Air Act.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

No matter what? See Kelo, Keystone and the expansion of eminent domain.

I don't think we're gonna see application of eminent domain to a production operation any time soon. It's a different animal than a pipeline, because a single person can't doom an entire large scale project. All they can do is move the drills somewhere else. I guess it's possible, but it would take another huge shift towards even more government eminent domain authority, and considering the resistance they've got at the moment, it's hard to imagine. But at the moment and probably for the foreseeable future, "no matter what" is appropriate.

I drink your milkshake.

Yup. Can't spill it on you, though. If they do you can sue the hell out of them.(actually some states require them to share the milkshake too)

 

[sporthenry]

What I don't understand is why it has to be done now? Why don't they put a moratorium on it and find out the safest possible way to do it? The natural gas will still be there when we finally decide to go get it and I don't think we are in that much of an energy bind.

I know those people hate the word regulation but that is when you get stuff like BP. No reason to just let it be a ticking time bomb.

Here's a question: who is the "they" in the bolded statement?The obvious answer would be the states. Some have acted to ban it completely, but it's up to each of them individually to weigh the pros and cons and to set the requirements and restrictions themselves. Most of them have done this.

The federal government currently doesn't have the authority to just put an outright ban or moratorium on fracking. For them to do it would take new legislation, which for many reasons would never happen, certainly not in the current climate.

The only other party who has an obvious right to stop fracking (there's some question about municipalities and counties and whatnot) is the private citizen. No matter what the government does or doesn't do, nobody does this without permission from the person who owns the land.

The EPA?

EPA can only do what statutes direct it to do. There's no environmental statute that allows EPA to ban fracking in its current form. That's why I said it would take new legislation for the federal government to act in a significant way for there to be a ban. There are things they can do to make it safer though. For example last April they passed new emissions standards for the practice under the Clean Air Act.

In the meantime, Helms said, he believes there will be a moratorium on fracking because of the history of many-months moratoriums in Alabama, when the EPA, because of an environmental lawsuit, revoked Alabama’s underground injection program until the state wrote new rules specific to fracking under Class II well standards.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/helms-says-epa-could-halt-fracking-in-oil-patch/article_fe9a3284-18b9-11e1-ba39-001cc4c03286.htmlArticle is a bit old but I'm sure there are ways for the EPA to either issue a moratorium or make it very hard to continue to frack.

 

[moleculo]

related earlier FFA thread

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/helms-says-epa-could-halt-fracking-in-oil-patch/article_fe9a3284-18b9-11e1-ba39-001cc4c03286.htmlArticle is a bit old but I'm sure there are ways for the EPA to either issue a moratorium or make it very hard to continue to frack.

That article deals with fracking for oil production, not natural gas production. I don't want to get too nerdy and lawyerly, but the key there is the phrase "when diesel fuels are used in fracking fluids." If diesel fuel isn't used (and it often isn't), no such luck. I'm not an engineer, but my assumption is that there's something about the Bakken that makes fracking with diesel fuel to produce oil preferable or necessary. That's not necessarily the case for, say, the Marcellus.Also the guy is a bit misinformed about the Alabama stuff, which was superceded by legislation in 2005.

 

[FlapJacks]

we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions.

ThisCheaper cleaner energy, which helps everybody. Higher energy prices hit those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest.

 

[sporthenry]

we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions.

ThisCheaper cleaner energy, which helps everybody. Higher energy prices hit those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest.

Well the point is, is it really cleaner? Sure, it might burn cleaner but is that worth it if it causes more damage in order to get it? I don't think fracking is what the normal person thinks of when they think of clean energy.

 

[FlapJacks]

we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions.

ThisCheaper cleaner energy, which helps everybody. Higher energy prices hit those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest.

Well the point is, is it really cleaner? Sure, it might burn cleaner but is that worth it if it causes more damage in order to get it? I don't think fracking is what the normal person thinks of when they think of clean energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/hydrofracking-safe-says-ny-health-dept-analysis.html?_r=1&

 

[sporthenry]

we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions.

ThisCheaper cleaner energy, which helps everybody. Higher energy prices hit those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest.

Well the point is, is it really cleaner? Sure, it might burn cleaner but is that worth it if it causes more damage in order to get it? I don't think fracking is what the normal person thinks of when they think of clean energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/hydrofracking-safe-says-ny-health-dept-analysis.html?_r=1&

And I can find studies that say otherwise. That is the point, the studies seem incomplete. And this little tidbit from the article

But it remains difficult to discern how much original research the state has done on potential health impacts, and environmentalists worry that the administration’s lack of transparency is hiding a lack of rigor in its assessment of public health risks.

This seems similar to the global warming debate. Studies come out for and against it and nobody seems to agree on much. But unlike global warming, this is something we can stop for the time being and still reap the benefits of it at a later date.

 

[jamny]

Also, as far as why it has to be done now, obviously it doesn't. The "hurry" is just companies attempting to beat their competitors to mineral rights on land they think may be productive- something they can do even if there's a moratorium in place. But we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions. It's not a one-sided equation on the environmental side. Certainly not saying they outweigh the dangers, I'm not qualified to say that. But it should still be noted.

Thanks for your perspective on this Tobias.All the movies and documentaries about the subject seem incredibly biased. Are there any even-sided shows to watch about it?

 

[TobiasFunke]

we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions.

ThisCheaper cleaner energy, which helps everybody. Higher energy prices hit those on the lower end of the income scale the hardest.

Well the point is, is it really cleaner? Sure, it might burn cleaner but is that worth it if it causes more damage in order to get it? I don't think fracking is what the normal person thinks of when they think of clean energy.

I don't know that there's a definite answer to that, I just wanted to point out that the environmental calculation isn't one-sided. You can't talk only about the risks (or for that matter only about the benefits).

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, as far as why it has to be done now, obviously it doesn't. The "hurry" is just companies attempting to beat their competitors to mineral rights on land they think may be productive- something they can do even if there's a moratorium in place. But we are currently reaping benefits from both ongoing fracking and the presumed future of expanded gas supplies. You probably can see those benefits reflected in your power bill, and certainly in your gas bill if you pay one. And there are actually environmental benefits as well. Most of you probably know that natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. If we have significant natural gas resources in this country, we can shift even more of our plants from coal and oil to natural gas (this process is already underway) and see the resulting improvement in power plant emissions. It's not a one-sided equation on the environmental side. Certainly not saying they outweigh the dangers, I'm not qualified to say that. But it should still be noted.

Thanks for your perspective on this Tobias.All the movies and documentaries about the subject seem incredibly biased. Are there any even-sided shows to watch about it?

Probably not. Anyone putting a packaged message out there for the public right now has an agenda. The NY Times does seem pretty thorough with their coverage, they're probably the best major media source since it's a significant upstate issue. When stuff like this sees the light of day, they'll have it.

 

[FlapJacks]

IMO, wind, CFLs and possibly solar have a more detrimental impact on the environment than Fracking or nuclear

 

[ActionHero]

So you would be okay living next to a nuclear plant or a fracking site, but wouldn't be comfortable with putting solar panels on your roof?

IMO, wind, CFLs and possibly solar have a more detrimental impact on the environment than Fracking or nuclear

 

[FBG26]

So you would be okay living next to a nuclear plant or a fracking site, but wouldn't be comfortable with putting solar panels on your roof?

IMO, wind, CFLs and possibly solar have a more detrimental impact on the environment than Fracking or nuclear

He probably means that the overall environmental impact of Wind, CFL, and Solar is not really that good. CFLs have mercury. The permanent magnets used in windmills require rare earth materials that are nasty to mine for. I know nothing about solar panels but wouldn't be surprised if they also include some materials that result in lots of pollution due to mining/manufacturing.

 

[urbanhack]

Tim: What are your thoughts?

 

[jonessed]

So you would be okay living next to a nuclear plant or a fracking site, but wouldn't be comfortable with putting solar panels on your roof?

IMO, wind, CFLs and possibly solar have a more detrimental impact on the environment than Fracking or nuclear

He probably means that the overall environmental impact of Wind, CFL, and Solar is not really that good. CFLs have mercury. The permanent magnets used in windmills require rare earth materials that are nasty to mine for. I know nothing about solar panels but wouldn't be surprised if they also include some materials that result in lots of pollution due to mining/manufacturing.

As is the process to make batteries for electric cars.

People want to eat their cake and have it too. The energy grid can only handle so much energy from solar and wind because it's sporadic. The grid needs a stable energy flow. Nuclear, coal, and natural gas all have downsides, but for anyone concerned with global warming nuclear and natural gas are much, much better.

There are no other options. If you put all of your eggs into solar and wind you end up like Germany, with high energy prices AND rising emissions instead of falling emissions.

The energy is going to be delivered. Don't get greedy and kill the good because you want the perfect. The perfect is not a realistic option right now (is it ever?)