DISH, Tex., a town of 200 on the far outskirts of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, is home to more than a few seekers of the country life. ...[More]
CITY LIMITS:
DISH, Tex., a town of 200 on the far outskirts of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, is home to more than a few seekers of the country life. "People want to move out just a little bit; get three, five acres; get a horse, whatever. That's a pretty popular thing to do," says Mayor Calvin Tillman, who grew up in Tulsa, Okla. "We wanted to have horses, kind of move out into the country, you know, become good Texans." But the town also hosts 11 facilities for handling natural gas and at least 20 pipelines serving the Barnett Shale—where water pressure and horizontal drilling are used to release natural gas from rock formations.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Five facilities to compress natural gas and send it all over the country like this one sit side by side on the outskirts of DISH. Collectively they add up to major air pollution, according to residents, including benzene (a known human carcinogen) at levels 55 times higher than that deemed safe by regulators....[More]
COMPRESSORS:
Five facilities to compress natural gas and send it all over the country like this one sit side by side on the outskirts of DISH. Collectively they add up to major air pollution, according to residents, including benzene (a known human carcinogen) at levels 55 times higher than that deemed safe by regulators. "After the compressor site moved in, the only thing [the neighbor] can do with his property is this pipe yard," Mayor Calvin Tillman says. "They're going to turn this area into essentially an undesirable place to live. We're just going to be a dirty old town, and it doesn't have to be that way."
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Hydraulic fracturing—pumping a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals roughly two kilometers deep to shatter shale and release natural gas—isn't confined to the countryside....[More]
FRAC FIELD:
Hydraulic fracturing—pumping a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals roughly two kilometers deep to shatter shale and release natural gas—isn't confined to the countryside. For example, this clustering of trucks is fracking a well next to a high-end suburb along the banks of the Trinity River in Fort Worth.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
There are more than 8,000 wells within an 80-square-kilometer area around of Fort Worth, according to natural gas driller Range Resources, many of which can be seen in suburbs, next to shopping malls, and even on private property....[More]
URBAN DRILLING:
There are more than 8,000 wells within an 80-square-kilometer area around of Fort Worth, according to natural gas driller Range Resources, many of which can be seen in suburbs, next to shopping malls, and even on private property. "These companies have the power of eminent domain" in Texas, DISH Mayor Calvin Tillman notes. "So they come in, say 'Sign here, or we'll just take it from you.'"
At the same time, landowners lucky enough to own the mineral rights to their property can enjoy regular royalty payments and leases that have been as high as $30,000 per acre. "People want to lease their minerals. A lot of people call that mailbox money," says Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, an industry group. "It's found money."
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Hydraulic fracturing requires a lot of water—at least 11.5 million liters per well—and then faces the problem of what to do with the contaminated water left over at the end....[More]
FRAC WATER:
Hydraulic fracturing requires a lot of water—at least 11.5 million liters per well—and then faces the problem of what to do with the contaminated water left over at the end. In the Barnett Shale, that typically means pumping it even deeper into the ground for disposal.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Of course, not all the wastewater is properly disposed, as evidenced by the leaks at a facility in Pennsylvania. "There's never been a documented case of contaminated water supply," says Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council....[More]
WATER POLLUTION:
Of course, not all the wastewater is properly disposed, as evidenced by the leaks at a facility in Pennsylvania. "There's never been a documented case of contaminated water supply," says Ed Ireland, executive director of the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council. "People are worried that they don't want anything to affect their water, or to use too much of it."
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Ultimately, the town of DISH may be fated to become less rural and more industrial. "Why did they do it here?" Mayor Calvin Tillman says. "Because they can."
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Show All | Jump To:
1-10 |
11-20 |
21-30 |
31-40 |
Next
View
1. JohnSciNew
02:25 PM 3/30/10
Go to:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html
For a NOW (PBS) video about the hazards of Fracking. From their website:
"This week, NOW talks with filmmaker Josh Fox about "Gasland", his Sundance award-winning documentary on the surprising consequences of natural gas drilling. Fox's filminspired when the gas company came to his hometownalleges chronic illness, animal-killing toxic waste, disastrous explosions, and regulatory missteps."
This article is misleading and hysterical in nature. Service companies have agreed not to use diesel oil which would be the source of benzene.The 2004 EPA study determined that fracking was not responsible for water contamination. Obviuosly if you live over coal beds or shale, methane will leak naturally into the atmosphere. Well casings need to be properly sealed when they are abandoned which eliminates methane leaking into the atmospehere from that source.
I don't understand why the author cites Ed Ireland's statement that there hasn't been a single documented case of contamination as "technically true" then goes on to cite cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. Which is it? If the cases in Pennsylvania are hearsay and undocumented, then be clearer on that. If they are documented, then don't repeat the lie that they aren't. Journalists should be careful of the distinction between presenting truths from both sides and presenting lies from either side.
There are certainly risks to the environment associated with natural gas being used as an energy source. There are also concerns with other forms of energy production.
So given that virtually everyone agrees that vast amounts of additional electrical power need to be produced......what is the right method???
Hydrofracking in the marcelus shale will be a night mare for the environment and is not the kind of local economic development which is healthy, boom economies for iternerent workers and leathernecks . ( the promise of the wildcatters) As residents of New York State we are faced with drilling sites a stones throw away from the New York watershed repositories. Where zoning rarely allows camping for fear of contamination they are now willing to erect industrial operations . The state agencies are behaving like desperate brides willing to take any offer of marriage from even the most depraved and low quality suitors. This is a disaster for New York State and PA and the country in general. This extraction method is far more damaging than the traditional natural gag mining ( into pockets) The water will be taken from protected small river systems that are already being pushed, class A trout streams, basically this land is a national treasure and should not be raped and pillaged for short term profits. I urge everyone to really research this issue, the industry is trying to sell you a bill of goods and many DEC (state agencies are in bed with the mineral industry) This is Bad NEWS for human health. Water is what we are made of %99 so this is not a deal we want to make. And they are not mining in a wasteland it is the watershed, it is gods country. Stay safe and stay informed resident Delaware county NY
Currently American nuclear power costs 3 cents a kwh (OECD).
Bids from Korea to supply 60 years of power to the UAE and AECL to supply the same 60 years to Ontario all costs included are coming in at 1.5 cents a kwh with modern efficient nuke plants and computer control
Since deadly toxic radon gas spewing NG plant is coming in at over 4 cents a kwh why would anybody bother?
Drilling and pipeline leakage from NG is around 2%. Since methane is 25 times as strong a GHG agent as CO2, NG's CO2 contribution is in the same ballpark as coal.
Natural Gas will be the cheapest, cleanest source of energy to bridge the gap between the oil-dependent civilization we live in now and the renewable energy resources we must transition to (will still take decades at best) in the future. Meanwhile, there needs to be stricter environmental codes and stronger enforcement of these codes. Done right, fraking can be quite environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, it only takes a few irresponsible companies to do serious environmental damage ... I suggest fining these guys into oblivion.
Pyrolyse the gas to seperate the carbon from the hydrogen. Bury the coke in land-fill sites and burn the hydrogen to produce electricity. Result : zero pollution and zero climate change. (This is not possible for coal of course). Fracking needs to be done safely.
Another excellent film on natural and coal bed methane gas drilling and the health hazards it poses to the environment and human communities is Split Estate. http://www.splitestate.com/ Fracking cannot be done safely as long as a poisonous cocktail of lubricants is used. Barite is mined for the drilling mud. Indigenous communities in Chiapas are compromised for this practice and at least one protester was assassinated for protesting injustices related to such mining. http://www.rightsaction.org/articles/mining_assassination_chiapas_120909.html The disadvantages outweigh the benefits of natural gas when you consider the availability of renewable, non-fossil fuel based technologies.
Another great film on the environmental and health hazards is Split Estate http://www.splitestate.com/. Fracking cannot be done safely. It requires a toxic cocktail of chemical lubricants that worm their way into groundwater. Barite, used for drilling mud, is mined in Chiapas at the cost of human rights and environmental health. One person was recently assassinated for protesting the injustice by Canadian mining company Blackfire in his community. http://www.splitestate.com/ Given that renewable, non-fossil-fuel based energy technologies exist, there is no excuse for the rampant destruction by oil and gas companies.
Actually what you suggest is equally possible for coal. Thousand degree steam over coal produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide via partial oxidation/steam reformation. Then sequester the CO2. That is what the coal industry calls their FutureGen program.
For a good overview of the future of natural gas in a greening energy economy and the local effects of a natural gas boom check out haynesvillemovie.com
hydraulic fracturing...when will we wake up and stop the destruction of our country, and ultimately the destruction of ourselves. The United States needs to follow Europe's lead. Wind and sun.
Proponents tout the benefits of fracking - natural gas is a "cleaner" way to produce energy than coal is, and by some estimates there may be enough natural gas trapped in the country's shale to supply us for 100 years. Opponents cite exploding tap water and a long list of chemicals infused into the ground during the fracking process, many of which are reportedly appearing in people's well water.
I can only believe that if we can put men on the moon and a rover on Mars, we can figure out a way to drill for crude oil a mile below the ocean's surface and extract natural gas from shale. Safely. Without destroying our environment, polluting our water, or making our pets and kids sick.
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Now I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the short term, that is what matter the most for me.
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Now I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the very short term, that is what matter the most for me.
The most obvious incongruity here is the claim that the fracking fluid formulas must be "kept secret". These are industrial chemicals that are being pumped into the public domain. If this were drycleaning fluid at your neighborhood cleaners, it would come with a materials data sheet, denoting all of its components, proprietary or not. Let them get patents if the stuff is so wonderfully unique.
what we know is that it is possible to do fracking in a way that pollutes water and air. it is also possible to do fracking in a way that does not pollute water or air. rather than condemn the process because it is possible to do it wrong, we should demand that if it be done, it be done right, with no pollution. The alternative for now is the ravages of continued addiction to global oil, which is both economically and environmentally unacceptable.
20. joe mota
in reply to Featherdust03:20 PM 6/30/10
can fracking be done safely if a non-poisonous lubricant is used? I mean is it possible, not whether some companies do a bad job of it.
Mexicans need to regulate the mining in Chiapas... we need to reduce our dependence on oil, and quickly, and solar, wind, and hemp are not enough. we need nat gas.
I am amazed that this drilling technique called "fracking" is so evil. You are pumping very large quantities of poison into the ground that eventually mixes with the ground water. Oh well, once the well is "fracked," then it ought to produce for a long while, and the damage is done, right? Wrong, a well can be "fracked" a dozen times during it's life-time. I am trying to fathom the psychology of a people who allow their ground water to be poisoned...it doesn't bode well for our continued existence in the remote future.
I am a resident of Sullivan County who has an out of state neighbor who sold drilling rights. The map of where they want to put the well is across the street from my house. I have a 6 year old daughter and will now have to spend $1,000 to have my well tested prior to any drilling. If my water goes bad I will have to litigate to recover for damages. What gives anyone or company the right to do such a thing. I will have to prove that my well went bad at my own expense. I recently found out that banks are not issuing mortgages in Sullivan county near the proposed drilling sites. What kind of clear message does that send.
If fracking is safe then why are the gas companies so afraid of being included in the clean air and water acts. Because it's not safe. What makes it not safe is that the companies are not held accountable for their " accidents", they sigh back alley deals with people effected and make them sign non disclosure agreements to keep them quiet.
I think they should get the Frack out of my neighborhood. The solution is to tax non renewable energy and subsidize renewable energy. Let the big gas and oil companies become stewards of the planet. We will still pay them for energy and they will do the planet a service.
Is this the same EPA that worked for the Bush Administration. We all know that they put yes men and bible thumpers in key positions and anything that the EPA studied under Dick Cheney should be restudied by credible scientists. Back then Global Warming did not exist and we were in the last throws of the insurgency.
Natural Gas is more catastrophic to the enviroment. Naturaal gas is essentially methane. Methane is 70x more potent as a greenhouse gas and reacts with orther molecules. When methane is burned, co2 is emitted. However the leakis from the extraction and transportation of natural gas make it laughabel that it could be safer than the burning of fossil fuels. Methane is the second largest contributer of greenhouse gases.
Its really odd that we would want to free natural gas (methane) from shale when it is effectively being sequestered in the rock itself and poses no risk to the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more dangerous than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Doesn't it make sense to just leave it in the ground? Just another example that common sense does not prevail when compared to corporate profit motives.
I'm so tired of hearing that there's no "direct" evidence that blah blah blah. Fracking causes contamination of water. Some part of the process causes it. Accidents, spills, fracking itself, I don't care. And it's not just water and sand pumped into the earth; it's 4.5 MILLION gallons of water on average and .5% (22,500 GALLONS) of endocrine distrupters and carcinogens. 20% (5,000 Gallons) comes back up and has to be disposed of (in landfills, to de-ice the roads, diluted and dumped in the rivers, or injected to existing wells.) Barnett Shale is different from Marcellus shale; the geology is different; the technology is only 7 years old (forget that 60 year history--this is a new process altogether). Every place the frackers go, there are problems. The Susquehanna River is suddenly bubbling methane from its bed just a mile downstream from a drill site. The UN declared recently that humans have the right to clean water. The PA Constitution states that citizens have the right to clean air, clean water, and the beauty of the landscape for generations to come...Hydraulic fracturing violates our rights as citizens and as humans.
AS someone who lives in the Marcellus Shale region, I can say that this practice has enormous deleterious impacts on human and animal life. I personally know people who have become ill from drinking contaminated water and breathing air containing benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. We are poisoning our own population for natural gas. Nothing, nothing is worth this.
There is nothing good about this type of gas removal. It is a dirty, polluting industry fraught with problems. These multi-nationally owned, limited liability companies care only for getting the gas out of the ground quickly and cheaply. New York is still trying to clean up industrial Superfund sites from years ago. (Note: one of the many environmental protection laws they have been handily exempted from.) Have we learned nothing? I built a house in a watershed and had to put in an engineered septic system to protect the lake. We seek to safeguard our wetlands, streams and waterways from sewage, chemicals, and invasive species but allow gas companies to lease, drill and spill anywhere they want?! What are the environmental repercussions of pulling millions upon millions of gallons of clean water from our local water supplies to be forever contaminated with poisons? Water is a finite resource. T. Boone Pickens, Mr. Oil and Gas, apparently considers water to be "the new oil" and is quietly buying it up. He reportedly owns more water than anyone in America. ( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm) Doesn't that tell us something? Fresh water is becoming increasingly scarce all over the world. It must be protected.
What are the effects on air quality, health, wildlife, property values and agriculture? There are too many unanswered questions and too many politicians who have been paid to look the other way. We, the people, should not be sacrificed for corporate greed.
ENKI109 : Hydrocarbon-Pyrolysis hydrogen and Coal-originated hydrogen are not the same. Pyrolysing hydrocarbons produces hydrogen and coke which can be safely put in landfill. Reacting steam and coal produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which, when burnt, produces water and CO2, causing climate change. This is why hydrogen-powered vehicles pollute as much as gasoline-powered vehicles, UNLESS the hydrogen is produced by pyrolysis!
31. rockncoal
in reply to eco-steve10:56 PM 7/10/11
The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. There have been oceans, tropical swamps and huge ice sheets within what is now the continental US. There have been times when polar ice caps have been non-existent. And it happened when there were no people, no automobiles, and no fossil fuels being burned. There is no such thing as "no climate change"!
33. rockncoal
in reply to Bill Brady11:03 PM 7/10/11
Check your state regulations - in many areas the resource companies are required to inventory and sample/test nearby water sources at no cost to the resident. Where I live in WV there is a "rule of presumption" which basically states that if a water supply within 1000 feet of a gas well is contaminated, the company is presumed guilty unless they can prove they did not affect the water supply.
This is a really good article, thank you for posting this information. I was looking for <a href="http://www.lichy.com/services/roof_waterproof_expert_services.html">roof consultants</a> to help us out and came across this article. Very informative, fracking can be a dangerous job to work with all of those chemicals. Good luck and thanks for posting!
How Can Los Angeles Adapt to Coming Climate Change?
Environmental Enforcer: How Effective Has the EPA Been in Its First 40 Years?
Concerns Spread over Environmental Costs of Producing Shale Gas
With Natural Gas Drilling Boom, Pennsylvania Faces Flood of Wastewater
Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: Living with Industry
Fixing the Global Nitrogen Problem
Spread Reckoning: U.S. Suburbs Face Twin Perils of Climate Change and Peak Oil [Excerpt]
EPA Fights Back over Mountaintop Mining
34 Comments
Add CommentGo to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html
For a NOW (PBS) video about the hazards of Fracking. From their website:
"This week, NOW talks with filmmaker Josh Fox about "Gasland", his Sundance award-winning documentary on the surprising consequences of natural gas drilling. Fox's filminspired when the gas company came to his hometownalleges chronic illness, animal-killing toxic waste, disastrous explosions, and regulatory missteps."
This article is misleading and hysterical in nature. Service companies have agreed not to use diesel oil which would be the source of benzene.The 2004 EPA study determined that fracking was not responsible for water contamination. Obviuosly if you live over coal beds or shale, methane will leak naturally into the atmosphere. Well casings need to be properly sealed when they are abandoned which eliminates methane leaking into the atmospehere from that source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand why the author cites Ed Ireland's statement that there hasn't been a single documented case of contamination as "technically true" then goes on to cite cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. Which is it? If the cases in Pennsylvania are hearsay and undocumented, then be clearer on that. If they are documented, then don't repeat the lie that they aren't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJournalists should be careful of the distinction between presenting truths from both sides and presenting lies from either side.
There are certainly risks to the environment associated with natural gas being used as an energy source. There are also concerns with other forms of energy production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo given that virtually everyone agrees that vast amounts of additional electrical power need to be produced......what is the right method???
Hydrofracking in the marcelus shale will be a night mare for the environment and is not the kind of local economic development which is healthy, boom economies for iternerent workers and leathernecks . ( the promise of the wildcatters) As residents of New York State we are faced with drilling sites a stones throw away from the New York watershed repositories. Where zoning rarely allows camping for fear of contamination they are now willing to erect industrial operations .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe state agencies are behaving like desperate brides willing to take any offer of marriage from even the most depraved and low quality suitors. This is a disaster for New York State and PA and the country in general. This extraction method is far more damaging than the traditional natural gag mining ( into pockets) The water will be taken from protected small river systems that are already being pushed, class A trout streams, basically this land is a national treasure and should not be raped and pillaged for short term profits. I urge everyone to really research this issue, the industry is trying to sell you a bill of goods and many DEC (state agencies are in bed with the mineral industry) This is Bad NEWS for human health. Water is what we are made of %99 so this is not a deal we want to make. And they are not mining in a wasteland it is the watershed, it is gods country.
Stay safe and stay informed
resident Delaware county NY
Currently American nuclear power costs 3 cents a kwh (OECD).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBids from Korea to supply 60 years of power to the UAE and AECL to supply the same 60 years to Ontario all costs included are coming in at 1.5 cents a kwh with modern efficient nuke plants and computer control
Since deadly toxic radon gas spewing NG plant is coming in at over 4 cents a kwh why would anybody bother?
Drilling and pipeline leakage from NG is around 2%. Since methane is 25 times as strong a GHG agent as CO2, NG's CO2 contribution is in the same ballpark as coal.
Natural Gas will be the cheapest, cleanest source of energy to bridge the gap between the oil-dependent civilization we live in now and the renewable energy resources we must transition to (will still take decades at best) in the future. Meanwhile, there needs to be stricter environmental codes and stronger enforcement of these codes. Done right, fraking can be quite environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, it only takes a few irresponsible companies to do serious environmental damage ... I suggest fining these guys into oblivion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPyrolyse the gas to seperate the carbon from the hydrogen. Bury the coke in land-fill sites and burn the hydrogen to produce electricity. Result : zero pollution and zero climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(This is not possible for coal of course).
Fracking needs to be done safely.
Another excellent film on natural and coal bed methane gas drilling and the health hazards it poses to the environment and human communities is Split Estate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.splitestate.com/
Fracking cannot be done safely as long as a poisonous cocktail of lubricants is used. Barite is mined for the drilling mud. Indigenous communities in Chiapas are compromised for this practice and at least one protester was assassinated for protesting injustices related to such mining.
http://www.rightsaction.org/articles/mining_assassination_chiapas_120909.html
The disadvantages outweigh the benefits of natural gas when you consider the availability of renewable, non-fossil fuel based technologies.
Another great film on the environmental and health hazards is Split Estate http://www.splitestate.com/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFracking cannot be done safely. It requires a toxic cocktail of chemical lubricants that worm their way into groundwater. Barite, used for drilling mud, is mined in Chiapas at the cost of human rights and environmental health. One person was recently assassinated for protesting the injustice by Canadian mining company Blackfire in his community.
http://www.splitestate.com/
Given that renewable, non-fossil-fuel based energy technologies exist, there is no excuse for the rampant destruction by oil and gas companies.
Actually what you suggest is equally possible for coal. Thousand degree steam over coal produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide via partial oxidation/steam reformation. Then sequester the CO2. That is what the coal industry calls their FutureGen program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a good overview of the future of natural gas in a greening energy economy and the local effects of a natural gas boom check out haynesvillemovie.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out Ecosphere ESPH Clean water technology for fracking wells
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishydraulic fracturing...when will we wake up and stop the destruction of our country, and ultimately the destruction of ourselves. The United States needs to follow Europe's lead. Wind and sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Fate of Fossil Fuels
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProponents tout the benefits of fracking - natural gas is a "cleaner" way to produce energy than coal is, and by some estimates there may be enough natural gas trapped in the country's shale to supply us for 100 years. Opponents cite exploding tap water and a long list of chemicals infused into the ground during the fracking process, many of which are reportedly appearing in people's well water.
I can only believe that if we can put men on the moon and a rover on Mars, we can figure out a way to drill for crude oil a mile below the ocean's surface and extract natural gas from shale. Safely. Without destroying our environment, polluting our water, or making our pets and kids sick.
http://www.arizonaic.org/blog/257-arizona-investment-council-blog-fate-of-fossil-fuels
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the short term, that is what matter the most for me.
First, I wasn't enthusiast to the idea of shale gas. I though that was another "scam" just to make money regardless of the environnement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I have to admit, natural gas does LESS environnmental damage that coal, be it CO2 or heavy metals spewing. Furthermore, all this will cost nothing more than coal, it may even cost less.
My point is that we have limited means and we have to do the best we can for the environnment. An all in renewables will cost too much and do little. I say save the most we can now, after we'll try to save more.
Now I understand drilling for shale gas is risky and can cause environnmental concerns, but don't forget the learning curve: it may improve over time because theses problems are indirect (coal will always emit CO2 and to some extent heavy metals).
Shale gas is not perfect right now but could be way better than coal in the very short term, that is what matter the most for me.
The most obvious incongruity here is the claim that the fracking fluid formulas must be "kept secret". These are industrial chemicals that are being pumped into the public domain. If this were drycleaning fluid at your neighborhood cleaners, it would come with a materials data sheet, denoting all of its components, proprietary or not. Let them get patents if the stuff is so wonderfully unique.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat we know is that it is possible to do fracking in a way that pollutes water and air. it is also possible to do fracking in a way that does not pollute water or air. rather than condemn the process because it is possible to do it wrong, we should demand that if it be done, it be done right, with no pollution. The alternative for now is the ravages of continued addiction to global oil, which is both economically and environmentally unacceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscan fracking be done safely if a non-poisonous lubricant is used? I mean is it possible, not whether some companies do a bad job of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMexicans need to regulate the mining in Chiapas... we need to reduce our dependence on oil, and quickly, and solar, wind, and hemp are not enough. we need nat gas.
I am amazed that this drilling technique called "fracking" is so evil. You are pumping very large quantities of poison into the ground that eventually mixes with the ground water. Oh well, once the well is "fracked," then it ought to produce for a long while, and the damage is done, right? Wrong, a well can be "fracked" a dozen times during it's life-time. I am trying to fathom the psychology of a people who allow their ground water to be poisoned...it doesn't bode well for our continued existence in the remote future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a resident of Sullivan County who has an out of state neighbor who sold drilling rights. The map of where they want to put the well is across the street from my house.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a 6 year old daughter and will now have to spend $1,000 to have my well tested prior to any drilling.
If my water goes bad I will have to litigate to recover for damages.
What gives anyone or company the right to do such a thing.
I will have to prove that my well went bad at my own expense.
I recently found out that banks are not issuing mortgages in Sullivan county near the proposed drilling sites. What kind of clear message does that send.
If fracking is safe then why are the gas companies so afraid of being included in the clean air and water acts. Because it's not safe. What makes it not safe is that the companies are not held accountable for their " accidents", they sigh back alley deals with people effected and make them sign non disclosure agreements to keep them quiet.
I think they should get the Frack out of my neighborhood.
The solution is to tax non renewable energy and subsidize renewable energy. Let the big gas and oil companies become stewards of the planet. We will still pay them for energy and they will do the planet a service.
Is this the same EPA that worked for the Bush Administration. We all know that they put yes men and bible thumpers in key positions and anything that the EPA studied under Dick Cheney should be restudied by credible scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack then Global Warming did not exist and we were in the last throws of the insurgency.
Natural Gas is more catastrophic to the enviroment. Naturaal gas is essentially methane. Methane is 70x more potent as a greenhouse gas and reacts with orther molecules. When methane is burned, co2 is emitted. However the leakis from the extraction and transportation of natural gas make it laughabel that it could be safer than the burning of fossil fuels. Methane is the second largest contributer of greenhouse gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts really odd that we would want to free natural gas (methane) from shale when it is effectively being sequestered in the rock itself and poses no risk to the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more dangerous than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Doesn't it make sense to just leave it in the ground? Just another example that common sense does not prevail when compared to corporate profit motives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm so tired of hearing that there's no "direct" evidence that blah blah blah. Fracking causes contamination of water. Some part of the process causes it. Accidents, spills, fracking itself, I don't care. And it's not just water and sand pumped into the earth; it's 4.5 MILLION gallons of water on average and .5% (22,500 GALLONS) of endocrine distrupters and carcinogens. 20% (5,000 Gallons) comes back up and has to be disposed of (in landfills, to de-ice the roads, diluted and dumped in the rivers, or injected to existing wells.) Barnett Shale is different from Marcellus shale; the geology is different; the technology is only 7 years old (forget that 60 year history--this is a new process altogether). Every place the frackers go, there are problems. The Susquehanna River is suddenly bubbling methane from its bed just a mile downstream from a drill site. The UN declared recently that humans have the right to clean water. The PA Constitution states that citizens have the right to clean air, clean water, and the beauty of the landscape for generations to come...Hydraulic fracturing violates our rights as citizens and as humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://vimeo.com/14295502
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishear it from an industry professional (retired) this is not in any way safe
AS someone who lives in the Marcellus Shale region, I can say that this practice has enormous deleterious impacts on human and animal life. I personally know people who have become ill from drinking contaminated water and breathing air containing benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. We are poisoning our own population for natural gas. Nothing, nothing is worth this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing good about this type of gas removal. It is a dirty, polluting industry fraught with problems. These multi-nationally owned, limited liability companies care only for getting the gas out of the ground quickly and cheaply. New York is still trying to clean up industrial Superfund sites from years ago. (Note: one of the many environmental protection laws they have been handily exempted from.) Have we learned nothing? I built a house in a watershed and had to put in an engineered septic system to protect the lake. We seek to safeguard our wetlands, streams and waterways from sewage, chemicals, and invasive species but allow gas companies to lease, drill and spill anywhere they want?! What are the environmental repercussions of pulling millions upon millions of gallons of clean water from our local water supplies to be forever contaminated with poisons? Water is a finite resource. T. Boone Pickens, Mr. Oil and Gas, apparently considers water to be "the new oil" and is quietly buying it up. He reportedly owns more water than anyone in America. ( http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm) Doesn't that tell us something? Fresh water is becoming increasingly scarce all over the world. It must be protected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are the effects on air quality, health, wildlife, property values and agriculture? There are too many unanswered questions and too many politicians who have been paid to look the other way. We, the people, should not be sacrificed for corporate greed.
ENKI109 : Hydrocarbon-Pyrolysis hydrogen and Coal-originated hydrogen are not the same. Pyrolysing hydrocarbons produces hydrogen and coke which can be safely put in landfill. Reacting steam and coal produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which, when burnt, produces water and CO2, causing climate change. This is why hydrogen-powered vehicles pollute as much as gasoline-powered vehicles, UNLESS the hydrogen is produced by pyrolysis!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. There have been oceans, tropical swamps and huge ice sheets within what is now the continental US. There have been times when polar ice caps have been non-existent. And it happened when there were no people, no automobiles, and no fossil fuels being burned. There is no such thing as "no climate change"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this..and bankruptcy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck your state regulations - in many areas the resource companies are required to inventory and sample/test nearby water sources at no cost to the resident. Where I live in WV there is a "rule of presumption" which basically states that if a water supply within 1000 feet of a gas well is contaminated, the company is presumed guilty unless they can prove they did not affect the water supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a really good article, thank you for posting this information. I was looking for <a href="http://www.lichy.com/services/roof_waterproof_expert_services.html">roof consultants</a> to help us out and came across this article. Very informative, fracking can be a dangerous job to work with all of those chemicals. Good luck and thanks for posting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this