WunderBlog Archive » Angela's Blog

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

Earth Day 2013: Waiting to Get Fracked

By: Angela Fritz, 5:25 AM GMT on April 22, 2013

By Skyepony, Weather Underground Community member

A note from Angela:
"Fracking," or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of fracturing layers of rocks beneath the surface of the earth, using water and other chemicals and fluids, for the purpose of extracting natural gas that would otherwise be impossible to drill. For Earth Day, I wanted to surface the experience of one of our long-time true-blue Weather Underground community members. Skyepony has seen the front lines of the fracking industry from her family's tree farm in Mississippi, and she urges you to learn more about the fracking process and what it does to our environment, our health, and our families on this Earth Day.


This all started last spring when my family got together for a trip to check on the tree farm in southern Mississippi and to visit with relatives. En route to my uncle's farm, we gathered at a seafood restaurant and walked into an unexpected scene. A group of neighbors had gathered to join us, and boy, did they have news.

The oil companies were coming back.

Our neighbors told us the oil companies could recover the resources we all knew were lurking beneath the surface of the farm. They told us they could make our "dry holes" pay, which were drilled and capped back in the 1950s-1970s. Our neighbors and distant cousins were on a mission, and you could feel their intensity. This was a group of people who watch over the tree farm, and our family cemetery, every day. The neighbors and family who actually live there were bearing down for confirmation that we, too, would sign on the dotted line. If that happened, we could all cash in.


A WunderPhoto of the tree farm in southwest Mississippi. Almost 7 years after Katrina the damage can still be seen. This was the 3rd of the farm where the trees were destroyed by a tornado during the storm & then replanted.

The group needed to convince a fairly large percentage of us in a 16 square mile block in order for it to happen. They assumed they had convinced as many people as they needed. They knew they could roll us over either way, but wanted us to cash in with them. They frequently invoked our long-dead Great-Grandaddy who had insisted we hold the mineral rights until the day the oil companies came back, because that was all the land was ever going to be worth.

We nodded and expressed interest in looking into it, trying to hide our shock.

I did some research. What I found was that in 2011, Devon Energy and Encana, two North American oil and natural gas producers, began fracking the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS). According to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, TMS is sedimentary rock that is rich with organic material, which was deposited 90 million years ago when the area was marine. The counties in Mississippi that were being considered for the fracking venture were Wilkinson, Amite, Adams, Pike, Walthall, and Franklin. The TMS "play," or potential petroleum-bearing area, is an unproven 7 billion barrel oil reserve that runs through central Louisiana and southwest Mississippi for a total of 2.7 million acres. It's potentially enough oil to supply the United States for a year (if they can extract all of it).



The location of the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale (TMS) play, according to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

Some of this area was originally tapped and did produce oil, though many were dry holes, like what we had on the farm. However, now people were being told that this land could produce, through the magic of fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is where pressurized fluids of unknown origin are pushed deep into the earth with the intent of fracturing the sediments, which releases the otherwise undrillable fossil fuel. Fracking consumes 2.5 times the amount of energy, water, and effort of a traditional oil well, and though it produces up to 3 times the resources, the quality of oil and gas that's extracted is debatable. The TMS is known for containing both oil and liquid gas, which is more desirable to the industry than the dry, natural gas, which is typically sold at a much cheaper price.

Mississippi has been more than willing to invite fracking into the state, without consideration of where the 1 million gallons of water each well uses will come from, what the chemicals are that are being added, or the common practice of deep-injection disposal of the dirty water after it's been used. Two bills are currently in consideration to give sizable tax breaks to the oil companies involved in southwest Mississippi fracking. Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant announced that natural gas was a top priority in the new statewide energy policy. It is part of the T. Boone Pickens plan to run vehicles off natural gas. Natural gas stations could be opening across Mississippi by 2014. Exporting the resource out of Louisiana to the global market is also a hot topic.

The individual communities and counties pulled together and started discussing the potential impact on roads, and considered the angry people that didn't have mineral rights to cash in on. Discussions ranged from where they could draw water, to where money for road improvements would come from, to increasing law enforcement. They are even trying to secure state money for another chancery judge since there will certainly be more lawsuits.

Meanwhile, the oil companies have done their homework. Encana owns 310,000 acres on the TMS, Devon has 250,000 acres, Indigo II Louisiana Operating has around 240,000 acres, Amelia Resources has 110,000 acres, and Goodrich Petroleum owns approximately 74,000. Some of this property was was bought for as low as $175 an acre in the recent real estate depression. They appear to concentrate on both acquiring mineral rights and fresh water rights, along with finding available surface water to be drained, spoiled with fracking chemicals, and then hauled off to be injected into deep waste water wells. We know someone who had married into the family— this is how he made millions in Louisiana and Texas. He has a small drilling business, though deals mostly with land and mineral rights. He buys cheap land with the rights, drills it, and flips it. The trend is changing to "frack it and flip it." Any property for sale on the TMS is fair game.

I originally thought the tree farm would be safe, but that isn't the case. Six generations ago, William, my great, great, great, great-granddaddy, fought in the War of 1812. He was probably granted this land for his time spent defending Charleston, South Carolina. The original piece was large—large enough that today, if it was intact, it could hold out to fracking. Unfortunately three generations passed and the property was divided amongst the children. Some of it was sold to pay taxes. In the following generation, Great-Grandaddy worked hard to buy that portion back and was successful. That piece was divided several more times, so that now, many of my immediate family hold rights and have a say in what happens to our small portion. The segments of the farm are owned by close and distant kin, and some of them are people who managed to buy their way onto the property.

Though as much as I think fracking is horrible, my hands are tied. The decision is not mine. Even if it was, the land around the farm would be so heavily fracked that it would be impossible to protect it from the environmental consequences. Our farm's story is not exception—most of the land around the farm has been divided, inherited, or sold until 20 to few hundred acre-size tracts are common. Fortunately for us, the oil companies have drawn back the circus in our area, for the time being. I'm now hearing it is going to be 2 years before they are ready to drill in the farm's county. The companies are focusing more on the counties that are deeper in the play and have shown higher yields in the past. That buys a little more time for the farm before the frackers show, and perhaps a chance to change its fate. I'm glad I didn't decide to settle my life there.

The entire experience has shifted the way I see what needs to be done in order to stop the fracking industry. Convincing land owners will do nothing. They, like the land owners in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline, will most likely be compensated financially, but they won't be able to stop it. Until I approached this issue as a mineral rights owner, I never noticed how much the oil companies were "flipping" land, or how you need to own so many square miles to be able to stop them from using your neighbors against you. Politically, the regional government comprises well-to-do land owners that appear to want to cash off the land in any way possible. They are opening their doors and turning their heads. Local politicians in other areas have been successful in fending off the fracking companies, but not in southern Mississippi. Perhaps the answer for my farm is to concentrate on the federal laws that are treating the fracking industry unconventionally, letting them slide while they inject undisclosed chemicals into the ground, wasting billions of gallons of water, and releasing pollution into the air that other industries, including coal and conventional oil, couldn't get away with.

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working on the first federal environmental study on fracking. Results are due in 2014. Waiting on these results before allowing fracking has become a strategy in some local efforts across the nation.

Local anti-fracking efforts across the United States, their moratoriums and petitions to sign can be found here. Another wealth of information is a report the fracking industry had done on itself noting the effective grassroots efforts. It recommended giving in to all demands of the local movements, or risk being banned from fracking altogether. They also suggest making it more profitable to the land owners—directly pay all claims of loss, ruined land, and water. Pay anything not to go to court. Buy silence.

So on this Earth Day, instead of being silent, I urge you to learn more about fracking and talk to others about it.

Earth Day Fracking Opinion Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Great story Angela. Unfortunately even though I agree with you, I am not a land owner or even a home owner so I am not sure how much impact my voice would have. My bigest concern is for the quality and safety of the water we drink and use for baths and washing. I have already heard some horrendous stories of farmers finding Methane gas in their well water and have to have bottled water shipped in. I understand that the courts have ordered the oil companies to pay for that bottled water however, I live in Minnesota, the land of over 10,000 lakes. Can you imagine all of our beautiful lakes being polluted by Methane in the water? No one would be able to go swimming or boating or fishing in our lakes. An entire industry based on torrism as well as drinkinging water would be wiped out. As far as I know, Minnesota has no oil or natural gas in the ground here so hopefully we are safe.
Great Post Sky!!!!
Thanks to both Skye and Angela for sharing..
Fracking is an abomination in my opinion..
Are we as a species so desperate to once again destroy even more of our planet??
This question and more have yet to be addressed to my satisfaction and I don't think they ever will..
Todays industry is irresponsible..
Not just the oil industry..
Every time I think of landfills, sewage, and human disreguard for this planet I get mad/ ill..
OK..rant over..
Thanks again for the post..
Good Morning Angela..
Just a hit and run post this am..

Happy Earth Day..
Our Planet needs Us.. :)


Thanks for taking the time to make Earth Day very real and personal, Skye. I may support limited, short-term fracking in certain areas if only to shut down coal-but it is a bit harder to look directly into your words here, written by a community member that I respect, and not "flinch" a bit.

And the title of your post would normally garner an lol but not today.

Thanks for the space, Angela.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.


good post just in on lunch so i drop a tune in for the cause

Although I am a strong believer in global warming I also believe we should frack (safely) as much domestic natural gas as possible, for economic and foreign policy regions. We need to strengthen our economy at home. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, especially from unstable regions of the globe.

And natural gas produces less carbon dioxide per BTU than petroleum and especially coal.

Natural gas produced from fracking has become a significant source of fuel for power plants, and has helped reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

Environmental impacts from fracking must be monitored and regulated strictly. It may be that the environmental costs are greater than I think they are. But I think that fracking is a bridge to a low-carbon future.
Skyepony did write an excellent blog here. Deserves high praise.
Thanks everyone!

MNTornado~ The point is most times the landowner is hopeless to stop this. Grassroot efforts are having the greatest impact.

MN though it has no oil or Natural Gas, is being mined like never before for fracking sand..or silica. A component of the fracking fluid injecting during fracking. It's a rather large industry in your neck of the planet. Silica has been mined in that area for the last 100 years or more for glass, abrasive material and golf course sand trap sand. You actually are located very close to a frack sand mine (green dot).. Each well they frack requires 10,000 tons of industrial silica sand. So this is now the booming industry there. Currently 4 counties, Goodhue, Wabasha, Houston, and Fillmore, have stopped issuing new permits for industrial silica sand mining. Check out this map..there are several moratoriums that have already passed in your area. Seems the health & community effects are a hot topic their too..


Thanks, skyepony, for the excellent and wholly depressing post (and thanks to Angela for giving skyepony the forum).

For the most part, the people who settled the Americam wilderness had designs on profiting off their land the slow, time-honored way: through the raising of crops and livestock, or through well-husbanded forestry and the like. The idea was to acquire something of value and pass it on to one's heirs, each generation after the next improving on and valuing the land for the eternal investment that it can be. But nowadays, far too many people see land as just another commodity to be bought cheaply, pillaged completely, and dumped for whatever measly amount can be had. Some in control of land that has been held by the same family for three hundred years and longer are now heady with the smell of fracking cash, and are jumping headlong into the crazed feeding frenzy. These people would gleefully pimp out their own mothers if they thought it could fatten their portfolios. And when they're done, the barren, scarred, dessicated, treeless, lifeless, oil-fouled plots of property left will stand as mute testament to their greed. Not that they'll care; their new Lamborghini Aventadors will help assuage any lingering guilt they may feel for prostituting their birthright...
As I am done with the clutter at Ricky's blog, I am taking Sky's advise and posting here.

Henry David Thoreau Comes To The Aid Of Climate Science

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/04/22/17839751 9/henry-david-thoreau-comes-to-the-aid-of-climate- scienceLink

..........
The average date of spring flowering is now 11 days earlier than it was in Thoreau's time................
Good blog article Skye. Very well done.
With all the flooding in Illinois (and all over the Mid-West) I can only imagine how fracking may add even more of an unknown consequence to our beautiful natural resources such as Starved Rock State Park area.
"Starved Rock State park offices flooded"
Link

"Your Guide To Illinois Fracking"
Link

Thanks for the food for thought on this Earth Day, Angela, and Skyepony
The recharge zone(s) for the sands where Baton Rouge and a lot of the Felicianas gets its well water from is within the area of the TMS. These sands are fairly shallow. Hope the wells don't leak. Hope the faults don't leak.

Well written blog.
Quoting Neapolitan:
Thanks, skyepony, for the excellent and wholly depressing post (and thanks to Angela for giving skyepony the forum).

For the most part, the people who settled the Americam wilderness had designs on profiting off their land the slow, time-honored way: through the raising of crops and livestock, or through well-husbanded forestry and the like. The idea was to acquire something of value and pass it on to one's heirs, each generation after the next improving on and valuing the land for the eternal investment that it can be. But nowadays, far too many people see land as just another commodity to be bought cheaply, pillaged completely, and dumped for whatever measly amount can be had. Some in control of land that has been held by the same family for three hundred years and longer are now heady with the smell of fracking cash, and are jumping headlong into the crazed feeding frenzy. These people would gleefully pimp out their own mothers if they thought it could fatten their portfolios. And when they're done, the barren, scarred, dessicated, treeless, lifeless, oil-fouled plots of property left will stand as mute testament to their greed. Not that they'll care; their new Lamborghini Aventadors will help assuage any lingering guilt they may feel for prostituting their birthright...


Well, that is a rather harsh assessment. Personally, I think the worst thing about 'fracking' is its name: sounds a bit like 'fragging' a term from the Vietnam War where friendlies assassinated their commanding officers. I don't think the U.S. can immediately move to a renewable energy resource situation overnight. The shale extraction process may offer a 'bridge' opportunity to get us to the ultimate goal of renewable energy resources. There are many legitimate concerns about fracking: the most obvious being the possibility of a leak at the 50-200 meter depth level that could pollute an aquifer. That would be a catastrophic event. So, no I'm not convinced fracking is a panacea. But I do think it may be a route towards energy self-sufficiency for the U.S. It is a difficult decision to make (approve or disapprove) one way or the other. That being said, I really can't blame property owners making a decision (sale) of their mineral rights regarding their homesteads.
EPA Slams State’s Draft Impact Statement For Keystone XL

"On the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, EPA rated the adequacy of the State Department’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as having “Insufficient Information.”" ...


..."EPA’s Cynthia Giles, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement, has submitted the agency’s public comment. They could have rated the adequacy of the impact statement three different ways: “Adequate,” “Insufficient Information,” or “Inadequate.” They rated it “Insufficient Information,” which means that they do not know enough to fully assess the environmental impacts of a tar sands pipeline traversing the continent.

Here are the reasons EPA said that State’s DEIS needs more work:
•Increased carbon pollution: EPA acknowledged the DEIS’s attempt to do a life-cycle analysis of the pipeline’s emissions, which found that emissions from oil sands crude would be 81 percent higher than regular crude, or an incremental increase of 18.7 million metric tons of CO2 per year. EPA noted that “If GHG intensity of oil sands crude is not reduced, over a 50 year period the additional CO2 from oil sands crude transported by the pipeline could be as much as 935 million metric tons.” These statistics are alarming, yet EPA’s analysis did not stop there.
•Not inevitable: Like other experts, EPA doubted State’s assurance that this tar sands oil would come out of the ground with the Keystone pipeline or without it:


The market analysis and the conclusion that oil sands crude will find a way to market: With or without the Project is the central finding that supports the DSEIS’s conclusions regarding the Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts. Because the market analysis is so central to this key conclusion, we think it is important that it be as complete and accurate as possible.

It then goes on to detail the ways in which this market analysis is incomplete: It uses outdated modeling, and the expense and infeasibility of rail shipping as an alternative to Keystone both need to be considered.

•Pipelines don’t pump themselves: EPA recommends that renewable energy be used to power the pumping stations along the pipeline, because otherwise the constructed pipeline itself will actively emit GhG emissions.
•Tar sands oil is particularly dirty to clean up: The EPA notes that diluted bitumen is very dense and sinks to the bottom of rivers and lakes. The 2010 Enbridge spill will require dredging, because normal cleanup methods do not suffice. The Keystone pipeline would be 36 inches in diameter — larger than the pipe that leaked 20,000 barrels of oil in the Enbridge spill. EPA notes that dilbit contains some very toxic materials “such as benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals” that “could cause long-term chronic toxicological impacts” to wildlife. EPA recommends including a seriously revamped and rethought response plan as conditions before any permit is issued to build a pipeline.
•Who needs drinking water?: Though Keystone’e proponents received praise for moving the original route away from the Sand Hills, it still crosses the Ogallala Aquifer. The EPA notes there is another way: “The alternative laid out in the DSEIS that would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer is the I-90 Corridor Alternative, which largely follows the path of existing pipelines.” There were additional alternatives that State’s EIS did not address, and EPA asked it to do so."

There is more Empirical Data vindicating fracturing than drama and untruths can defeat.
When I see the opposite to be true, I'll change my mind.

The easiest way to cloud an issue is to deflect and start piling on with the entire Pseudo Green Agenda.

Green Agendas are great and I'm all for it. Pseudo is not.

Not directed at you personally Skye, but it's interesting how some can hold their nose so high while their head is stuck so far up somewhere else and expect their impact to be palatable...and then wonder why so many are repulsed at anything they have to say.

To claim that the EPA has not investigated fracturing vs water quality in the past is disingenuous at best.




Just play the music.
We can read.

Quoting theshepherd:
To claim that the EPA has not investigated fracturing vs water quality in the past is disingenuous at best.




We can read.



Really..did you read the whole entry & checked the link where I said that?


We're here ... in calling on Gov. Cuomo to wait for the results of the critical (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) study of hydraulic fracturing and its impact on drinking water resources before making his decision on whether or not to allow fracking in New York state, said group organizer Julia Walsh.

The results will be available in 2014, she said. This is the first comprehensive independent federal study on the practice of hydraulic fracturing.

That's from this article wrote April 09, 2013..(linked in the entry there)..

Please Shep bring us some EPA fracking results about water quality that has already or never been made public, one the people of NY have never seen...can't wait to read it.
Does it have be one the people of New York have never seen?
The EPA are captured here in the past investigating claims.
Just because a number of people have forced or otherwise effected the genesis of yet another expensive study doesn't mean that road has not already been traveled.
The EPA has tested water all over this country in relation to fracturing's affect. Can't they just hit the "tally" button? Is there justice in one or two people halting an entire industry with no regard to Empirical Data?
There are some shady folks in the anti-fracturing cause as well.

No, I'm not calling you shady.


Edit:
Video deleted.
No idea why it plays automatically.
I usually don't have that issue with tubes'..
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Food for thought about the vertical migration of pollutants underground. This story is about viruses going down into groundwater. Going up, of course, is a different matter, but since the pollutants are under pressure ... yes, they can.

"Scientists once thought that pathogens could not reach drinking water wells sunk into deep, protected groundwater aquifers. Nevertheless, over the past decade, researchers have identified diarrhea-causing viruses at a handful of deep bedrock well sites in the U.S. and Europe. Now, researchers in Madison, Wis., report where these pathogenic viruses may have originated. The viruses appear to seep from sewer pipes and then swiftly penetrate drinking water wells."
Great Job Sky!!
22. Ylee
From Paradise, by John Prine:

Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away


This isn't the first time that big money has wooed and walked over the little man "for the good of the country"(and their own pockets), and it won't be the last. Skye, I'm sorry it's going down like this.
Thanks everyone!

babbit~ That is a whole other unanswered question in this experiment..with the viruses/bacteria. So little has been looked into with the faults too.

shep~ Fracknation was a backlash to Gasland. In that report by the fracking industry I posted Gasland movie was mentioned as being very influential in starting the detrimental grassroots movement. Gasland isn't free of mistakes & could have been done more to the quality of the one that Matt Damon was in. Fracknation was actually put out the same day as Matt Damon's movie came out but on TV instead of theater.

It's no secret that methane can be in a well & make the water flammable. What is happening here is water becomes flammable after the fracking. To not disclose that flammable water existed in the world before fracking doesn't change all the wells that weren't flammable before fracking, that turned after.

A shot out of Fracknation comes from this media story..Fracking to poison your beer. They really changed the spin..

Also that EPA result in the there. That is one clean report they received... & check the land owners reaction.. They didn't buy it. Here's a 14sec clip from that day where the people from the EPA refuse to drink that water they say is safe..To be fair, a relevant fact that might have been included in FrackNation on the topic, but wasn%u2019t, is that the drilling company Cabot in 2012 reached a confidential settlement with some residents in Dimock, Pa., who claimed the company%u2019s fracking activity contaminated the water supply. Federal regulators testing the water in 2012 found it safe for drinking but previous tests by state regulators determined that the aquifer had indeed been contaminated with methane by Cabot. I've read but can't find it..it was later found out that the EPA test results that day didn't include the tests for several hard, carcinogenic metals related to fracking that ARE present in some of the water sources in Dimock.

Other than federal lands & some Indian reservations, everything got shunted back to the individual states..I don't think EPA was ever required to do a tally because of that. All that about Bush not creating loopholes in Fracknation isn't true. Gasland wasn't done with the best of integrity. Fracknation was done with even less.

Neither movie changes how much water is taken out of the water cycle or the chemicals being pumped into the ground or the end result in the atmosphere. Read that review the industry did of itself. They admit it ruins land & lives. And suggest paying that off long before court or the EPA gets involved.

Phelim McAleer the producer of Fracknation is no prize either. Here he is being harassed by activists & people that found mistakes in his movie. This probibly doesn't add much but a good laugh for both sides of the argument..be forewarned there is mild cursing & name calling in this.
skye,


Thanks

The drama from both sides is making my hair hurt.

2014 can't come soon enough.

:)


Skyepony, you're indeed in an alarming situation, thank you for your post. I would urge everyone who thinks that natural gas is any kind of bridge to clean renewable energy to research further, because it is not, it is a gangplank. Current studies are finding that because methane is a greenhouse gas at least 22 times more detrimental than CO2, that natural gas may in fact be far worse than coal as a contributor to climate disruption. One must measure the life cycle contributions of each fuel, from extraction to burning, and then do the comparison. Some of the best information on these very difficult questions comes from Dr. Tony Ingraffea, the Dwight C Baum Professor in Engineering at the Civil and Environmental Engineer Dept at Cornell. His bio: http://www.cee.cornell.edu/people/profile.cfm?neti d=ari1

See his videos here: Dr. Anthony Ingraffea youtube collection

The best way to fight climate disruption is to leave all fossil fuels in the ground, and to spend our time and resources on beefing up our clean renewable energy, and making our use of any energy source as efficient as possible, instead of fracking our communities and our future. Best of luck to you, Skyepony. You're on my prayer list.
In Huge Win On Mountaintop Removal With Big Implications, Court Upholds EPA Authority To Protect Clean Water

"An important court decision yesterday on mountaintop removal mining for coal has significant ramifications for future decisions.

Yesterday’s ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean water from coal mine and other destructive waste. As one attorney working on the case put it:


'[The] decision upholds essential protection for all Americans granted by the Clean Water Act. Communities in Appalachia can finally breathe a sigh of relief knowing that EPA always has the final say to stop devastating permits for mountaintop removal mining. Now, we just need EPA to take action to protect more communities and mountain streams before they are gone for good.'"
28. kwgm
Skyepony,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings. I live in Colorado, where so-called fracking has been in use for a long time without incident.

However, over a long skeptical life, I've learned that 1) the only answer to anxiety over any issue beyond my control is to learn more about that issue and 2) depend on researching sources from the left, right, and center. Somewhere within the mixture of all points of view lies the truth.

I encourage you to keep seeking your own answers and talking over your ideas with the community. Best wishes.
John~ Like that win against mountaintop removal & for clean water.. Thanks for bring that:)

Great to see some lurkers:)

Waterwunder~ You make some compelling points about how this is not bridge from coal & oil to renewable energy. The whole process is wracked with waste.

kwgm~ You really nailed why I did this blog. Not so much my anxiety since it's out of my hands & not my decision, I didn't grow up on this land but elders... They were looking really anxious about having to deal & decide on this anytime soon & had a lot of questions. The 2 year delay seemed to bring some relief. I will try & dig a little deeper over the weekend & leave it here for future reference. Thanks for encouraging that & the all direction approach.. Look at this from a mineral rights owner has opened up a whole other world of info on this..


Found this.. It's find a well (it looks world wide). You can look up frack wells & see most of what they are using including how much water.

This is a frac well from one of the three counties they started fracking in MS..Horseshoe Hill Well located in Wilkenson County. This doesn't jive with some local MS news I read saying fresh water, salt water & sand was all they were going to use in MS..

Questions regarding the content of the MSDS should be directed to the supplier who provided it. The Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) regulations govern the criteria for the disclosure of this information. Please note that Federal Law protects 'proprietary', 'trade secret', and 'confidential business information' and the criteria for how this information is reported on an MSDS is subject to 29 CFR 1910.1200(i) and Appendix D.

Purpose/Name Supplier/Ingredient/Service Number (CAS #)/Maximum Ingredient Concentration in Additive (% by mass)**/Concentration in HF Fluid(% by mass)**

SP BREAKER Halliburton Breaker Sodium persulfate 7775-27-1 100.00% 0.00088%
WG-36 GELLING Halliburton Gelling Agent Guar gum 9000-30-0 100.00% 0.20909%
AGENT Terpenes and Terpenoids, sweet orange-oil 68647-72-3 5.00% 0.00239%
GasPerm 1100 Halliburton Non-ionic Surfactant Ethanol 64-17-5 60.00% 0.02871%
FR-66 Halliburton Friction Reducer Hydrotreated light petroleum distillate 64742-47-8 30.00% 0.02330%
Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 30.00% 0.01342%
VICON NF Halliburton Breaker Chlorous acid, sodium salt 7758-19-2 10.00% 0.00447%
BREAKER Potassium metaborate 13709-94-9 60.00% 0.01323%
CL-31 Halliburton Crosslinker Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 5.00% 0.00110%
CROSSLINKER MO-67 Halliburton Buffer Sodium hydroxide 1310-73-2 30.00% 0.00758%
Confidential Business Information 60.00% 0.02563%
Borate salts CL-28M Halliburton Crosslinker Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 5.00% 0.00214%
CROSSLINKER SAND - PREMIUM Halliburton Proppant Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 100.00% 1.19297%
WHITE SAND - PREMIUM Halliburton Proppant Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 100.00% 8.85137%
BROWN SAND - COMMON Halliburton Proppant Crystalline silica, quartz 14808-60-7 100.00% 1.07290%
WHITE Brine (NaCl) Operator 100.00% 3.74404% Density = 9.980
Fresh Water Operator 100.00% 84.66851% Density = 8.350
Maximum Comments

Total Water Volume (gal)*: 6,430,629
True Vertical Depth (TVD): 13,138
Production Type: Oil
Long/Lat Projection: WGS84
Latitude: 31.058183
Longitude: -91.245167
Well Name and Number: Horseshoe Hill 10H-1
Operator Name: Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
API Number: 2315722027
County: Wilkinson
State: Mississippi
Fracture Date: 3/6/2012
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Product Component Information Disclosure

** Information is based on the maximum potential for concentration and thus the total may be over 100%
* Total Water Volume sources may include fresh water, produced water, and/or recycled water
Quoting JohnLonergan:
In Huge Win On Mountaintop Removal With Big Implications, Court Upholds EPA Authority To Protect Clean Water

"An important court decision yesterday on mountaintop removal mining for coal has significant ramifications for future decisions.

Yesterday’s ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect clean water from coal mine and other destructive waste. As one attorney working on the case put it:


'[The] decision upholds essential protection for all Americans granted by the Clean Water Act. Communities in Appalachia can finally breathe a sigh of relief knowing that EPA always has the final say to stop devastating permits for mountaintop removal mining. Now, we just need EPA to take action to protect more communities and mountain streams before they are gone for good.'"


Huge win for the EPA ..
Quoting whitewabit:


Huge win for the EPA ..


Ditto

:)

Hello, Ms. Fritz,

I like and respect your blogs. However, I must point out an erroneous statement you made recently: You said that the only way to extract the oil and gas from those areas is through fracking. I wonder if you could help spread the word that there is a new technology through which oil and gas is extracted from superficial fields, that does not involve old-fashioned and extremely harmful hydrofracting. Here is the word on the new method:

HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Chimera Energy Corp (CHMR) disclosed that Company management arrives in Mexico City this morning for their direct meetings with PEMEX to collaborate on utilizing CHMR’s revolutionary exothermic Non-Hydraulic Extraction system throughout Latin America. The initial deal between the two companies was publicly announced last week. The Non-Hydraulic Extraction system is a revolutionary Shale Oil extraction technology designed to safely and economically replace hydraulic fracturing (AKA fracking and fracing) without negative environmental impacts. The new process uses no water. Under the initial deal, the parties agreed that PEMEX will provide the first location for utilizing the new system in the Western Hemisphere.
PEMEX is the largest company in both Mexico and all of Latin America. Some of the largest concentrations of Shale Oil in the world are located throughout Latin America.
Non-Hydraulic Extraction has recently emerged to be asserted as a cheaper and more effective extraction method that does not affect groundwater at all. Chimera Energy Corp is in the process of reengineering this new method for mass production, relicensing and sales. For a description of how Non-Hydraulic Extraction works, high-speed broadband users may visit www.zerowaterfracking.com.
Or you may alternatively visit www.chimeraenergyusa.com/investors.html.

I find this exciting and would like more people to start using it, but I don't know how? Maybe you could help in this regard,

Thank you,
Wendy Smith, CEO
markonepublications.com
Thanks for the personal story, but an anecdote and lengthy blog post is does not qualify one as an expert in fracking.

There is so much incorrect, it's hard to know where to begin. But let's start with a few:

You said that gas and oil from shale formations is low quality, and the link you provided asserted the same. Theirs was in the context of a lower ratio of energy expended to energy recovered. To which any person in the oil industry would reply "DUH!". Yes, of course oil and gas is harder to obtain now than in 1900 when the oil was just naturally oozing out of the ground in some places. But as far as being lower quality - I think perhaps your source implied that it was thicker - that is completely without any basis whatsoever. Hydrocarbons from shale run the gamut from thick oil to normal API-gravity oil to wet gas (gas with lots of light condensate) to extremely dry gas (no oil or condensate at all) which requires almost no processing (save the addition of mercaptan) before it can be used in a residence. Yours (and the source's) seems to be a misunderstanding based on a confusion between two different environmental issues: so called "tar sands" and fracking.

Second, the penultimate paragraph implies that oil and gas companies don't already compensate land owners for damages and surface use. Oil companies MUST compensate the owner annually for using the land - either for a drilling pad, a production facility, storage site, etc. - because this is land that the landowner can't use for farming, ranching, growing trees, hunting leases, or any other use the landowner has in mind. Similarly, for any land they
damage - such as with a spill - they must compensate the landowner. This is one of the most fundamental things regarding property rights and written contracts. Sure, it gets a bunch of people angry and agitated to call it "buy[ing] silence", but the truth is that this is pretty ho-hum stuff and it already happens every day as a matter of course.
Third, the conventional oil industry DOES inject water deep underground and has been doing so for decades. Since at least the NPDES came into effect in 1972, the overwhelming majority of produced water has been reinjected underground into reservoirs isolated from drinking water aquifers. I can guarantee you that the chemicals in this produced water are almost NEVER measured by GC-MS or other laboratory method, much less disclosed to the public. And the impacts to this practice are extremely minimal. You know how I know that? Because no one here (and probably countless other environmental blogs) are even aware that it happens, much less knowing about impacts. There is no grand conspiracy to allow oil and gas industries which frack an exemption to the Clean Water Act. Oil and gas companies do not inject water (produced or fracking) into surface water sources or drinking water aquifers; therefore, there is no exemption that is even needed.

Fourth, I mean no disrespect to your family business, but why is it that you think tree farming has no impacts on the environment? Don't get me wrong, I love that most of the South is forested and think we should responsibly harvest the resources, but the monoculture and clear-cutting (even if rotated by area) doesn't exactly leave a diverse environment. Sure, the environmental awareness and caring varies in every industry, but I think it's shortsighted and unfair to portray one industry as the victim and others as the villains. In my experience, THE best-remediated site I've ever seen was a former coal mine in Texas. It had more diversity of plant and animal species (all native species that I saw) than within 40 miles in any direction. Combined.

Why not push for concessions here and there from oil and gas companies or have targeted changes added to state law? That way, you guys will actually remain relevant...

Think that O&G companies get away with not compensating landowners enough for damages? Focus on that and strengthen the existing laws.

Think there is too much water use? Force them to use produced water. It is abundunt in the U.S. Though about 3.5 billion barrels of oil are produced in the U.S. every year, 21 billion barrels of produced water are produced each year http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/intropw /, with nearly all of it currently injected underground.

Pick your battles. Pushing the state legislature in the poorest and most conservative state in the country to ban fracking outright will get you absolutely nowhere.
htszp~ Thanks for bringing your knowledge. I guess that could have been more clear. It has a mix of liquid natural gas which would fetch more on the market right now than the more cheaper dry that is more prevalent in the nation.. It has some oil as well, that needs separating out. There is already wells out there, seen the documents of what they contain..no confusion on the difference between tar sands & fracking.

I understand land owners are well compensated, just saying there is little choice not to get fracked, atleast across the community because of the laws.

As for the water..that well I posted about the other day..that's 6 1/2 million gallons of surface water that becomes water removed from the water cycle. Overall it consumes alot.. I plan on looking into the type of waterless fracking OneMark brought up..

We practice select cutting. The only reason it looked clear cut in that picture is because Katrina clear cut a section. It used to be pasture & crop, so it's capturing more carbon than it used to. There is a section of untouched forest.

Totally agree that the state legislature will be no help. I think they are holding off on these other counties til the laws pass, so that the oil companies & hopefully the mineral rights owners will profit more.
Quoting htszp:
Sure, it gets a bunch of people angry and agitated to call it "buy[ing] silence", but the truth is that this is pretty ho-hum stuff and it already happens every day as a matter of course.

Does it buy silence? Just wondering if accepting the money comes with strings. I honestly don't know, just noting the possibility.

Also "pretty ho-hum" is being forced to go into arbitration with an arbitrator hired by the company you have a disagreement with. Just because something is common practice does not mean it is right.

Quoting htszp:
Thanks for the personal story, but an anecdote and lengthy blog post is does not qualify one as an expert in fracking.


I don't think Skye ever portrayed herself as an expert on fracking. Apparently you do think of yourself as an expert (you cite no sources to back up your statements), but I have no idea what your credentials are.

Quoting htszp:
I think perhaps your source implied that it was thicker - that is completely without any basis whatsoever. Hydrocarbons from shale run the gamut from thick oil to normal API-gravity oil to wet gas (gas with lots of light condensate) to extremely dry gas (no oil or condensate at all) which requires almost no processing (save the addition of mercaptan) before it can be used in a residence. Yours (and the source's) seems to be a misunderstanding based on a confusion between two different environmental issues: so called "tar sands" and fracking.


This part of your post puts you into the category of mind reader. You know what the person talking to Skye was thinking ... and you don't even know who that was?

Commenting about her family's business? How is that relevant?
Quoting Skyepony:
I plan on looking into the type of waterless fracking OneMark brought up...
Don't bother. Or at least don't bother with the one written of in comment #32. The technology may (or may not) be viable, but the company behind that press release is just another energy scammer. There's pretty scathing write-up here. Also here. Heck, just go to Google and type in "chimera energy scam".

Oh, and don't bother going to Chimera's website; it's no longer available...

Like fracking itself, Chimera promised something safe, but failed to deliver anything at all.
Quoting bappit:


Also "pretty ho-hum" is being forced to go into arbitration with an arbitrator hired by the company you have a disagreement with. Just because something is common practice does not mean it is right.


It's usually ho-hum because most people get along with other people. Who wants to go to court or be in arbitration? Most mentally healthy people don't want to fight unless they feel they have no other options (which is sometimes the case, but not usually). And that includes people working for oil and gas companies. You think O&G companies like legal battles?!?

Different interests can coexist on the same land. There are usually at least three simultaneous uses for land wherever oil and gas operates because they don't use much land themselves. Common in the Texas Panhandle: cotton farming, residence, oil, wind farm all in the same area. South Texas: hunting, ranching, gas. Louisiana and East Texas: Tree farming, hunting, oil and gas. California: solar and oil. Wyoming: Oil/gas, wind, ranching. Fights are rare. This is the rule, not the exception.



Quoting bappit:

This part of your post puts you into the category of mind reader. You know what the person talking to Skye was thinking ... and you don't even know who that was?

Who WHO was? The source equates shale gas to bitumen. Yes, shale gas to bitumen. So they are equating tar sands to shale gas. No mind-reading necessary. The source goes on to say that shale gas (and shale oil) take a lot of energy to extract and "upgrade". On what planet?
There are only two possibilities here: 1. Jane Dale Owen doesn't understand the issues she's writing about (difference between different types of oil and gas) or 2. She is purposely muddying the waters so that her readers don't understand. Assuming good faith, let's go with #1.
Angela might have been more critical before linking to that paragraph of the article, but she didn't write those words and she demonstrates that she knows the difference. I would never expect Jane to offer a retraction in any shape or form because it's not a real news source by any stretch of the imagination.
Skyepony,

As Neapolitan ... sort of alluded to, I think there's more promise in reuse of produced water for fracking water. Sure, most produced water is salty and it might cause acceleration of corrosion to the casing, but I would think this could be minimized by some corrosion inhibitors. In addition, some produced water is not salty. And it can't be that far from reality, since I know some people who were considering using their own produced water (from other operations) and trucking it to their own fracking sites during the drought of 2011 when water was scarce. Rules and incentivizing this could go a long way.

I would also encourage you to work on petitioning for a regulation which clarifies that existing residences, existing farming, and existing ranching interests have priority over water wherever there is a specific conflict - that is, if there isn't such a regulation already. I think a special task force was set up in Texas in 2011 during the awful drought there to ensure ranchers in South Texas had enough water for their herds' survival rather than for wells that could be delayed. Mississippi has much more water than South Texas, but if you think it's likely to become an issue, pursue this.

However, regarding "being fracked" it's not a landowner's decision nor should it ever be how a well is drilled, completed, or produced as long as the driller/producer follows all laws. It is - in the most literal sense of the phrase - none of the landowner's business. Back to the tree farming analogy, I am quite sure that your family would not appreciate an oil and gas company or private citizen or whoever dictating how you should run your business - because I assume that you already follow all rules and regulations and even go above and beyond this.

"...so that the oil companies & hopefully the mineral rights owners will profit more."
Do you think that kind of language is constructive? When people insist that there is a cabal between politicians and X industry, they likely never move beyond that level of understanding. There is truly a lot that can be done, with good-intentioned people on both sides. The extremes will not be helpful in solving this.
Quoting htszp:

So you still don't cite any sources, have not understood Skye's clarification of what you misinterpreted (psychic you are not) and you have not apologized for the personal attack you insinuated previously. If you are just an industry flack, go ahead and say it. Let's get honest.
New Study: Hydraulic Fracturing Faces Growing Competition for Water Supplies in Water-Stressed Regions

Nearly half of 25,450 oil and gas wells evaluated in U.S. are in water basins with high and extremely high water stress; industry’s future growth depends on accelerating solutions such as more water recycling, better water management planning.

"A new Ceres research paper on water use in hydraulic fracturing operations shows that a significant portion of this activity is happening in water stressed regions of the United States, most prominently Texas and Colorado, which are both in the midst of prolonged drought conditions. It concludes that industry efforts underway, such as expanded use of recycled water and non-freshwater resources, need to be scaled up along with better water management planning if shale energy production is to grow as projected.

The report, announced today, is based on well drilling and water use data from FracFocus.org and water stress indicator maps developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI). The research shows that nearly 47 percent of the wells were developed in water basins with high or extremely high water stress. The research was based on FracFocus data collected on 25,450 wells in operation from January 2011 through September 2012.

“These findings highlight emerging tensions in many U.S. regions between growing hydraulic fracturing activity and localized water supply needs,” said Ceres president Mindy Lubber, in announcing the report, Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water, at Ceres’ annual conference in San Francisco".

Note the report,"Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water" requires a sbscription to download.

Read on
Hi Angela!
There is several bills & such people can act, protest & sign against this week involving our dwindling rights to none polluting food. Top of the list is the EPA is about to okay another known bee killing pesticide. There is also a petition for kill Monsanto act & to keep farmers from having to id every animal in TX. This animal id thing is another way to kill the small farmer. Bottom of this gets into fracking..

Must see..



Don’t Let Lawmakers Strip Texas Communities of their Right to Regulate Fracking. Tell your Legislators to Stop HB 1496.

Texas lawmakers want to take away the power of your local community to keep fracking wells away from homes and schools, and hand over that power to the state.

HB 1496 (Van Taylor, R-Plano) proposes to strip municipalities of the power to pass zoning regulations and local ordinances to regulate oil and gas drilling in their own backyards. Unless we stop this Bill, the oil and gas industry will be able to place fracking wells within 200 ft. of homes, schools, churches, nursing homes, parks, hospitals and shopping malls. And your community will have no way to stop them.

Please sign the letter below urging your state legislators to stop HB 1496 and protect your community’s right to local control!

Imagine the devastation that would occur if there were an explosion or other emergency at a fracking well near a school or nursing home. Not to mention the quality of life issues everyone would suffer from if localities were stripped of the right to control oil and gas drilling.

Texas communities that have experienced the horrors of fracking first-hand have used the democratic process to enact sensible regulations in an attempt to bring self-described "frackers" under control – a process that will be taken away under HB 1496.

One of those communities is Flower Mound, Texas. Citizens there made national news when they ousted pro-drilling mayor, Jody Smith, and ushered in a slate of candidates willing to protect public health. Under new leadership, Flower Mound was able to enact common sense regulations on fracking, including a 1,500-foot buffer between gas drilling sites and homes, churches, schools and other protected places.

Here’s what the residents of Flower Mound have to say about a laws like the proposed HB 1496, which would take away their right to local control of their land:

Taking away local control means that we would be impotent to stop any addition to our communities, no matter how vulgar or dangerous it may be.

Five years or more from now, if our children and/or grandchildren were to develop leukemia, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders, or a number of other potential maladies caused by those fracking chemicals leaching into our aquifers, where would those gas companies be? They’d be in another city or town, planting sickness for other generations to endure, while they counted their profits.

That’s because they’re in business to make profit, not to safeguard the health and safety of the areas in which they ply their trade. That’s precisely why they need to be regulated by those who will be most affected by the poisonous potions they inject into our water and air.

—Bob Weir, a long-time resident of Flower Mound making the case against HB 1496 in his opinion piece, "Robbing Power From the People"
Please stand up for the most basic right of self-government, local control, by using the form below to send a message to your state legislators urging them to stop HB 1496.

You can also encourage your local elected officials to pass a resolution opposing HB 1496, like the one the Flower Mound Town Council is considering.

All that about North Dakota is true.. I've got a friend that went to ND a few months ago with her kids. The husband went out to be a fracker around the first of the year...with the slashing of the space industry & such around here they were hungry. I was surprised to see such an environmentalist do a 180..hungry kids & offers of lots of easy money sure can change some. It's so booming in ND that finding a place for everyone to sleep was a challenge.
You Luddite environmentalists always find a reason why we can't do something. No matter what it is, it's bad for the environment. Well, guess what? Stopping fracking is bad for the economy, bad for the US, and bad for our lives. The environment gets blasted with hurricanes, volcanoes, continental drift, earthquakes, and so many forces that make fracking look like nothing.

The environment can survive, but our modern way of life cannot survive those of you who who hate progress. No energy extraction is going to be perfectly clean, but you environmentalists never like to show the devastation that will happen if we don't move forward: more poverty, more unemployment, more disease, and more people living petty, simple, controlled lives. No fuel or money for vacations, no economy that creates medicines or technology. You stopped DDT without any evidence that it made bird eggs weak, and millions died in Africa from malaria. Your disregard for human welfare is far more appalling than anything fracking could ever produce.
This has everything to do with human welfare, fracking is making people sick. Lets look past the polluted water a minute & concentrate on a very well known & recognized lung disease suddenly affecting people in the residential areas where fracking is occurring, as well as the workers. Silica can sicken & kill on the wind 20 miles downwind from fracking.


Silica dust clouds from delivery trucks loading into sand movers.
Photo credit: NIOSH

Health Hazards of Silica

Hydraulic fracturing sand contains up to 99% silica. Breathing silica can cause silicosis. Silicosis is a lung disease where lung tissue around trapped silica particles reacts, causing inflammation and scarring and reducing the lungs' ability to take in oxygen.ii Workers who breathe silica day after day are at greater risk of developing silicosis. Silica can also cause lung cancer and has been linked to other diseases, such as tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney and autoimmune disease.iii



Real progress would be taking a lead in switching to renewable & efficiency like Germany. For six years now they have exported more energy than they imported, even while in the last few years they shut off 8 older nuclear plants. They are having huge grid technological advances because of their efforts to move forward away from dangerous, unhealthy energy sources.

Progress


Fracking is not progress. It uses valuable resources in a wasteful manner to unbury what should stay buried... Even if they got every last bit out of the TMS play, it's only enough to power the country for one year. It's not worth the cost. Especially since they plan on exporting much of it anyways.. We will be bearing the health & environmental impacts while corporations sell the gas to other countries.
WOW,Skye! This is an incredibly insightful and informative read.
Quoting AdamSmith76:
You Luddite environmentalists always find a reason why we can't do something. No matter what it is, it's bad for the environment. Well, guess what? Stopping fracking is bad for the economy, bad for the US, and bad for our lives. The environment gets blasted with hurricanes, volcanoes, continental drift, earthquakes, and so many forces that make fracking look like nothing.

The environment can survive, but our modern way of life cannot survive those of you who who hate progress. No energy extraction is going to be perfectly clean, but you environmentalists never like to show the devastation that will happen if we don't move forward: more poverty, more unemployment, more disease, and more people living petty, simple, controlled lives. No fuel or money for vacations, no economy that creates medicines or technology. You stopped DDT without any evidence that it made bird eggs weak, and millions died in Africa from malaria. Your disregard for human welfare is far more appalling than anything fracking could ever produce.
As a Luddite is by definition someone who is opposed to new technology, I'd say those who refuse to let go of the old fossil fuel-only paradigm are far better candidates for that insulting name. Wouldn't you agree?

At any rate, the only reason you and yours aren't currently breathing smog-clouded air and drinking oil-befouled water and eating disease-ridden food while wandering around in a gray, sooty, treeless world is because of the efforts of us "Luddite environmentalists". And we're not worried that you find us reprehensible; your grandchildren will surely thank us... ;-)
Nearly three dozen got arrested in two different protests in Winona, Minnesota, about a week ago. They were trying to stop frac sand mined there from going to Mississippi.
That bill passed...


MCCOMB -- Legislation to lower the Mississippi severance tax on hydraulically fractured oil wells from 6 percent to 1.25 percent for first 30 months of well production has been signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant.

House Bill 1698 also will allow counties where fracking is occurring to keep a larger share of tax proceeds. The law takes effect July 1.


Read more here:
Here's a different one with more details of the law & how some Harvard people think that frac reporting that 11 states including MS is using isn't effective. More here.

Under the law, a county in which a horizontal oil well is located would get all the tax proceeds rather than sharing them with the state.

The law gives the tax break on a specific well for up to 30 months or until the well’s costs have been recovered, whichever comes first. The law also gives a five-year tax break for oil exploration efforts.

Under current tax law, the state gets 6 percent in severance taxes and gives the counties 33 1/3 percent of the first $600,000, 20 percent of the next $600,000 and 15 percent thereafter.

In a separate but related item, new report raises serious concerns about the online database used by 11 states, including Mississippi, to track the chemicals used in fracking.

The Harvard Law School report says FracFocus, a reporting site formed by industry groups and intergovernmental agencies in 2011, has loose reporting standards, makes it too difficult for states to track whether companies submit chemical disclosures on time and allows for inconsistency in declaring chemicals trade secrets.

The 11 states that require companies to divulge fracking chemicals through FracFocus: Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.
Skyepony, thanks for posting the amazing "Vera Video."
I could only stand to watch half of it. If that's her idea of "exchange of ideas, conversation or free speech," I'm very sorry for her.

BTW, Fortune Magazine, April 29, 2013, page102+ "Fracking comes to China." Their deposits of frackable shale dwarfs that of the US.

Go, Vera, learn Mandarin and go get in THEIR faces...

"Such a polite, unbiased view" she has.... NOT.
Makes me, as an engineer with a lot of science background sick to my stomach.
Quoting Skyepony:
Nearly three dozen got arrested in two different protests in Winona, Minnesota, about a week ago. They were trying to stop frac sand mined there from going to Mississippi.

Mining the sand used in fracking was also in the news for Illinois and Missouri. For instance, here and here.

The pic of interest here is the Columbia Glacier Retreat.

I do not know how to post Animated GIF's.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-picture- of-earth-through-time.htmlLink

A picture of Earth through time
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013
Tweet
Today, we're making it possible for you to go back in time and get a stunning historical perspective on the changes to the Earth’s surface over time. Working with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NASA and TIME, we're releasing more than a quarter-century of images of Earth taken from space, compiled for the first time into an interactive time-lapse experience. We believe this is the most comprehensive picture of our changing planet ever made available to the public.
We are privileged to live in a country where we can enjoy personal freedom. Take this blog and the many comments that are debating the pros and cons of fracking. There are places on this planet where this freedom does not exist. So it puzzles me how some people think it is okay for local governments to impose unfair and punitive moratoriums against fracing that deprives property owners their personal right to allow this process to occur. Especially when it has not been proven to cause all of the harm that others tout in the last 60 years of its use.


As my handle implies, I am a fracker (I should point out that only non-fracers spell frac - which is short for fracture - with a "K" but it does seem to make sense to spell it that way) and I have personally executed hundreds of hydraulic fracture treatments over the past 15 years in WV and PA. Yes, the process consumes a considerable amount of water, but that amount pales in comparison to other legal uses of the precious resource. For instance, in CO a study found that fracturing there was using 0.6% of available freshwater. Compared to the ~70% that the agriculture industry uses it seems negligible. Especially when you examine the life cycle of water used in agriculture. That water is mostly used to irrigate fields that are also being treated with pesticides and fertilizers. The water then carries those contaminants into the underlying aquifers. So while the water isn't being removed from the natural cycle, it is surely polluting the groundwater. But no one seems to care about this since we all have to eat. Well, we all need energy too. And as others have pointed out, it is more preferable to have a domestic supply of energy and be less dependent on foreign sources.

I admit my feathers get ruffled a bit whenever I read or hear negative comments about the fracturing process that are not backed up by facts or common science. There are some that would have you believe that fracturing and groundwater contamination are synonymous when it rarely occurs. And in cases like the one in Dimock, PA it was not the fracturing process that caused the contamination. It was improper well construction that allowed gas from a relatively shallow gas zone migrate into the aquifer. In fact, there are years of documentation that this was occurring in that area naturally due the the karsted surface geology. To my knowledge, the EPA has not yet found evidence where fracture fluids and the gas in the fracture treated zones have migrated into the groundwater. And believe me, they have been trying.

I could go on and on but this is getting pretty lengthy. I welcome any comments and healthy debate this may spur on. We have a motto in WV, "Mountaineers are always free", and so are we also free to our own opinions in this great country.

Quoting SafeFracker:
We are privileged to live in a country where we can enjoy personal freedom. Take this blog and the many comments that are debating the pros and cons of fracking. There are places on this planet where this freedom does not exist. So it puzzles me how some people think it is okay for local governments to impose unfair and punitive moratoriums against fracing that deprives property owners their personal right to allow this process to occur. Especially when it has not been proven to cause all of the harm that others tout in the last 60 years of its use.


As my handle implies, I am a fracker (I should point out that only non-fracers spell frac - which is short for fracture - with a "K" but it does seem to make sense to spell it that way) and I have personally executed hundreds of hydraulic fracture treatments over the past 15 years in WV and PA. Yes, the process consumes a considerable amount of water, but that amount pales in comparison to other legal uses of the precious resource. For instance, in CO a study found that fracturing there was using 0.6% of available freshwater. Compared to the ~70% that the agriculture industry uses it seems negligible. Especially when you examine the life cycle of water used in agriculture. That water is mostly used to irrigate fields that are also being treated with pesticides and fertilizers. The water then carries those contaminants into the underlying aquifers. So while the water isn't being removed from the natural cycle, it is surely polluting the groundwater. But no one seems to care about this since we all have to eat. Well, we all need energy too. And as others have pointed out, it is more preferable to have a domestic supply of energy and be less dependent on foreign sources.

I admit my feathers get ruffled a bit whenever I read or hear negative comments about the fracturing process that are not backed up by facts or common science. There are some that would have you believe that fracturing and groundwater contamination are synonymous when it rarely occurs. And in cases like the one in Dimock, PA it was not the fracturing process that caused the contamination. It was improper well construction that allowed gas from a relatively shallow gas zone migrate into the aquifer. In fact, there are years of documentation that this was occurring in that area naturally due the the karsted surface geology. To my knowledge, the EPA has not yet found evidence where fracture fluids and the gas in the fracture treated zones have migrated into the groundwater. And believe me, they have been trying.

I could go on and on but this is getting pretty lengthy. I welcome any comments and healthy debate this may spur on. We have a motto in WV, "Mountaineers are always free", and so are we also free to our own opinions in this great country.



You state this issue in terms of personal freedom. Haven't I the right to be free from pollution, etc? I agree that anyone has the right to do what they want... as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others.

Your key phrase was "Especially when it has not been proven to cause all of the harm that others tout in the last 60 years of its use." I would suggest the opposite, especially in this America where money speaks louder than ethics or responsibility: you have to prove your activities won't hurt others.

I understand that is a difficult thing to do, there is no theoretical way to prove a negative. However, within reasonable limits there are practical methods. Safety in this issue seems to come down to decisions like "$100,000 campaign contribution for whomever votes for this, versus consequences that won't affect me once I leave office."



Angela, this is an example of a constructive step that you could take towards regulating fracing. It is being proposed in Texas, a very oil friendly state, so there is no reason this couldn't become law in another locality.

Remember that constructive steps can work. Expecting a nationwide ban on fracing or something of the sort is tilting at windmils.

"Proposed Senate Bill 873
Proposed Senate Bill 873, authored by Senator Hegar, concerns the permitting authority of a groundwater conservation district for the drilling or operation of water wells used to supply water for drilling, exploration, or production of oil or gas. The proposed legislation applies to water wells that are to be used solely to supply water for an activity associated with the drilling, exploration, or production of oil or gas.

The proposed legislation would require an applicant for a permit, permit amendment, or permit renewal for a water well to submit a sworn application containing the information required by the district for permit applications and a filing fee, if applicable, to the district in which the well is to be located. The district will determine if the application is administratively complete; however, if no determination of administrative completeness is made within six days of the application, the application will then be automatically considered to be administratively complete. The proposed legislation requires that the district provide the applicant with interim authorization to drill, equip, operate, complete, or otherwise use a water well no later than the fifth business day after the date the district finds that an application is administratively complete. The proposed legislation would require the district to process and make a final determination on an application in the same manner that the district processes and makes a final determination on a water well used for any other purpose.

On May 6, 2013, proposed SB 873 was referred to the Natural Resources Committee of the House of Representative. "
Quoting greentortuloni:
You state this issue in terms of personal freedom. Haven't I the right to be free from pollution, etc? I agree that anyone has the right to do what they want... as long as it doesn't impact the freedom of others.

You don't have the right to be free from something just because you think it is bad. Without evidence that this activity by its very nature causes pollution, you simply want the government to protect you from something that you think is scary and bad.


Quoting greentortuloni:
Your key phrase was "Especially when it has not been proven to cause all of the harm that others tout in the last 60 years of its use." I would suggest the opposite, especially in this America where money speaks louder than ethics or responsibility: you have to prove your activities won't hurt others.

Not sure what you're trying to imply by "especially America". If you've ever seen how business works in the third world or even in many European countries, you'll appreciate all of the protections and rights you are afforded in the U.S. Oh, and the predictability of regulation too.

The countries that have so far banned fracking: Bulgaria, France, and Tunisia. All are consistently ranked as more corrupt than the United States. Meanwhile, the following countries are among the least corrupt countries in the world (ranked by CPI) and allow fracking: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and New Zealand.

Also, if you think the standard for allowing any activity in the U.S. is for the party proposing the activity to PROVE that the activity is 100% safe, I think you grossly misunderstand our legal system and environmental regulation. On occasion, the EPA or other agencies also misunderstand and get their asses handed to them in court. There is a rulemaking process that the EPA (and other federal agencies such as OSHA) must adhere to and if they don't, the regulation will be scuttled. Here's an example from OSHA: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-s-flame-r esistant-clothing-memo-deemed-improper-rulemaking. OSHA protects people when it follows the rulemaking process. People in Texas died (of heat exhaustion) because OSHA did not properly follow the process.



Quoting greentortuloni:
I understand that is a difficult thing to do, there is no theoretical way to prove a negative. However, within reasonable limits there are practical methods. Safety in this issue seems to come down to decisions like "$100,000 campaign contribution for whomever votes for this, versus consequences that won't affect me once I leave office."

This is not Hollywood. There is no person in a suit with a hook nose, acne scars, and a weight problem reeking of cigars handing a suitcase of money to a politician in a dark alley.

Practical methods have been employed and are employed with the application of every single well permit in the oil and gas industry as well as for every surface facility. They occur every day, I assure you.
In reference to the Harvard study of the FracFocus website. Here is a quote from Stan Belieu, President of the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC):

%u201CI am not aware of any state regulatory program that has been contacted by Harvard University to make inquiry of its capabilities. I do not understand how, without direct contact, this study can draw the conclusions it has.%u201D

The GWPC was one of the agencies involved in creating FracFocus.

Further, there is a new version of the FracFocus website being launched in June that addresses many of the criticisms in the Harvard report. Had the researchers actually performed research and reached out to the agencies that are running the website they would have known this. But let's face it, the Harvard report was never intended to be unbiased or truly informative. It was politically motivated. For instance, the lead author also serves as a director on the staff of a US Senator who has introduced legislation that would put EPA in full control of regulating hydraulic fracturing.

Does hydraulic fracturing need regulatied? Absolutely it does. And it is. Each state has its own set of regulations that account for circumstances that are unique to each locale. In Texas and Colorado there are provisions in the regulatory framework to deal with water usage due to the competition for the resource with agricultural interests. In WV, where surface water is abundant, there are still regulations regarding the withdrawal of surface water. These include the reporting of where the withdrawal occurs and how much is withdrawn. There are even restrictions on withdrawals during dry periods.

Ask any state regulator and they will tell you they are opposed to the EPA taking the lead in the regulatory process. The EPA already have de facto oversight of the process by enforcing the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. If there are violations occurring because of the process, they have all of the authority they need.


"Especially when it has not been proven to cause all of the harm that others tout in the last 60 years of its use."

Fracking 60years ago is nothing like the very recent change to a more modern method. This new method is why those wells are not considered dry anymore. How about a little fracking history?

According to a 2010 fracking history by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), the idea of non-explosive alternatives to nitroglycerin took root in the 1930s. Experiments through the next decade paved the way for the first industrial-scale commercial uses of the modern patented “Hydrafrac” process in1949, with Halliburton holding an exclusive license in the early years. SPE recounts that 332 wells were fracked in the first year alone, with up to 75 percent production increases recorded. By the mid-1950s, fracking hit a pace of about 3,000 wells a month.

A typical early fracture took 750 gallons of fluid (water, gelled crude oil, or gelled kerosene) and 400 lbm of sand. By contrast, modern methods can use up to 8 million gallons of water and 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of sand. Fracking fluids can take the form of foams, gels, or slickwater combinations and often include benzene, hydrochloric acid, friction reducers, guar gum, biocides, and diesel fuel. Likewise, the hydraulic horsepower (hhp) needed to pump fracking material has risen from an average of about 75 hhp in the early days to an average of more than 1,500 hhp today, with big jobs requiring more than 10,000 hhp.
Fracking: Laws and Loopholes
Fracking is exempt from key federal environmental regulations.

The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a provision that has come to be known as the "Halliburton Loophole," an exemption for gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Other exemptions are also present in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

A recent Congressional investigation has found that 32 million gallons of diesel fuel have been illegally injected into the ground as a fracking chemical in 19 different states from 2005 to 2009. Diesel fuel is believed to be particularly damaging to water supplies, and because of this, remains the only fracking chemical still regulated under the UIC program of the SDWA.
Despite their claims that the chemicals used in the fracking process is safe, some drilling companies have consistently refused to provide a comprehensive list of the chemical additives used in fracking fluid.

Fracking is exempt from state water use regulations.

Michigan recently joined other Great Lakes states in passing the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement limiting large water withdrawals. Despite the fact that each fracking well can use up to five million gallons of locally-sourced water, the practice is exempt from regulation under the legislation implementing the Compact.
Released by: Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center
Release date: Thursday, September 20, 2012

Fracking damages the environment, threatens public health, and affects communities in ways that can impose a multitude of costs:



Drinking water contamination – Fracking brings with it the potential for spills, blowouts and well failures that contaminate groundwater supplies.

Health problems – Toxic substances in fracking fluid and wastewater—as well as air pollution from trucks, equipment and the wells themselves—have been linked to a variety of negative health effects.

Natural resources impacts – Fracking converts rural and natural areas into industrial zones, replacing forest and farm land with well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure, and damaging precious natural resources.

Impacts on public infrastructure and services – Fracking strains infrastructure and public services and imposes cleanup costs that can fall on taxpayers.

Broader economic impacts – Fracking can undercut the long-term economic prospects of areas where it takes place. A 2008 study found that Western counties that have relied on fossil fuel extraction are doing worse economically compared with peer communities and are less well-prepared for growth in the future.
Quoting AdamSmith76:
You stopped DDT without any evidence that it made bird eggs weak, and millions died in Africa from malaria.


there is so much fail in that sentence i don't even know where to start.
Quoting plusaf:
Skyepony, thanks for posting the amazing "Vera Video."
I could only stand to watch half of it. If that's her idea of "exchange of ideas, conversation or free speech," I'm very sorry for her.

BTW, Fortune Magazine, April 29, 2013, page102+ "Fracking comes to China." Their deposits of frackable shale dwarfs that of the US.

Go, Vera, learn Mandarin and go get in THEIR faces...

"Such a polite, unbiased view" she has.... NOT.
Makes me, as an engineer with a lot of science background sick to my stomach.

The point seems to have escaped you. Vera was doing to the producer of Fracknation what the opening scene in Fracknation was but in reverse...Fracnation producer hired a guy to go harass Gasland producer in the same way, they recorded that & it was the opening for the movie Fracknation. It was ugly on both sides. Though I'll agree screaming Vera came off more crazy than the slick suit they used the other way around.
Check out this map of "fraccidents" across the United States. There's even been some in the TMS play that the farm is on. Here's a few..

Desoto Parish, LA
A Chesapeake Energy blowout killed one, injured another, caused neighborhoods within a two mile radius to be evacuated and sent at least six Desoto Parish fire fighters to a nearby hospital. This particular blowout spewed methane into the air for around 30 minutes, officials say.
The explosion occurred while contractors performed maintenance on the well site, and was so loud that residents thought it was a bomb explosion or a plane crash. The gas well was capped the following day.

Source: “Gas well blowout in DeSoto Parish.” Ben Wolf. KSLA News. November 18, 2009.





Caddo Parish, LA

In 2009, 16 cattle were found dead at a natural gas well site after apparently drinking a mysterious fluid near a drilling rig.

At least one worker said the fluids were used in the hydraulic fracturing process.

More recently, in April 2010, hundreds of people were evacuated from their homes after a natural gas well blowout contaminated a drinking water aquifer.

It was not clear what contaminants were in the water, but residents were told not to drink it or even wash their clothes in it.

Source: "Louisiana Well Blowout Forces Hundreds From Homes." Abrahm Lustgarten. ProPublica. April 20, 2010.
Quoting AdamSmith76:
You stopped DDT without any evidence that it made bird eggs weak, and millions died in Africa from malaria



Quoting AdamSmith76:
You stopped DDT without any evidence that it made bird eggs weak, and millions died in Africa from malaria.
There's empirical proof--lots of it--that DDT is extremely harmful. The problem is, the amount of money shooting from the DDT fountain all but ensured there'd be a huge mis/disinformation campaign in support of the chemical--a campaign funded, of course, by the very same people who manufactured and sold it and profited enormously from it.

Awesome.

The same people who once earned healthy livings declaring DDT safe are the same ones who declared tobacco harmless, the same ones who declared that ozone depletion wasn't caused by fluorocarbons, the same ones who declared that acid rain was caused only by volcanoes, and--it almost goes without saying--the same ones who continue to declare against all logic that the 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 we humans pump into the atmosphere every hour of every day can't possibly be having any effect on the environment. So forgive some of us for being skeptical about the alleged "wonders" of fracking--especially when it's again the very same group of people promoting it as the end-all and be-all of energy production.

Free-Marketers--aka, the profit-uber-alles crowd--would have us all believe that if something makes money for some people, there should be no regulation of it. Ever. And the more money there is to be made, the more urgently they demand less regulation.

But who knows: perhaps fracking really is the panacea that will cure all our ills; perhaps it's not really unsafe. But that then begs the question: why was Cheney's task force to allow it so many exemptions closed to all but Big Energy execs? And why the crazy legal fight to keep the contents of fracking fluid a secret?

I smell a rat here. Anyone who doesn't needs to have their nose examined...
there's plenty of proof that DDT is harmful to birds.

secondly, the US banned its use here, which had no effect on malaria as that disease is not endemic in the US.

we didn't ban it around the world though. the rest of the world got together and decided, for the most part, that overuse of DDT was going to breed resistant mosquitos. so they voluntarily banned its wholsale application to crops and reserved its use against disease vectors, in a rotating scheme with other chemicals to avoid resistance building up. a far more effective scheme against malaria than the previous system.

so obviously the tree-hugging hippies did not cause millions of deaths by malaria. countries where the disease is endemic are not only allowed to use the stuff, they currently do it. they always have.

in short, his statement is so far from the truth it isn't even wrong. every word is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.

Quoting Neapolitan:
There's empirical proof--lots of it--that DDT is extremely harmful. The problem is, the amount of money shooting from the DDT fountain all but ensured there'd be a huge mis/disinformation campaign in support of the chemical--a campaign funded, of course, by the very same people who manufactured and sold it and profited enormously from it.

Awesome.

The same people who once earned healthy livings declaring DDT safe are the same ones who declared tobacco harmless, the same ones who declared that ozone depletion wasn't caused by fluorocarbons, the same ones who declared that acid rain was caused only by volcanoes, and--it almost goes without saying--the same ones who continue to declare against all logic that the 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 we humans pump into the atmosphere every hour of every day can't possibly be having any effect on the environment. So forgive some of us for being skeptical about the alleged "wonders" of fracking--especially when it's again the very same group of people promoting it as the end-all and be-all of energy production.

Free-Marketers--aka, the profit-uber-alles crowd--would have us all believe that if something makes money for some people, there should be no regulation of it. Ever. And the more money there is to be made, the more urgently they demand less regulation.

But who knows: perhaps fracking really is the panacea that will cure all our ills; perhaps it's not really unsafe. But that then begs the question: why was Cheney's task force to allow it so many exemptions closed to all but Big Energy execs? And why the crazy legal fight to keep the contents of fracking fluid a secret?

I smell a rat here. Anyone who doesn't needs to have their nose examined...
A terrible misconception that has risen is that if one is a skeptic of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then they want to pollute the environment, or support the usage of fossil fuels. None of those are true. Some skeptics may not care about the environment, but there are also some skeptics that do care about the environment. Policymakers should encourage lawmakers to switch to Renewable Energy as quickly as possible. The environmental impacts that Coal has with polluting Mercury into the atmosphere, and producing Acid Rain with Nitrous and Sulfuric Dioxides should not be tolerated, no matter what side of the debate you stand on.
Quoting Snowlover123 **"A terrible misconception that has risen is that if one is a skeptic of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then they want to pollute the environment, or support the usage of fossil fuels"**

Sorry if I have trouble understanding your kind of skepticism, but you do realize that the CO2 level you question is caused by burning fossil fuels? If one does support the use of fossil fuels (as you suggest) then one would have a hard time convincing anyone they don't want to pollute the environment with CO2- one goes with the other.
Quoting goosegirl1:
Quoting Snowlover123 **"A terrible misconception that has risen is that if one is a skeptic of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then they want to pollute the environment, or support the usage of fossil fuels"**

Sorry if I have trouble understanding your kind of skepticism, but you do realize that the CO2 level you question is caused by burning fossil fuels? If one does support the use of fossil fuels (as you suggest) then one would have a hard time convincing anyone they don't want to pollute the environment with CO2- one goes with the other.


Right, I advocate the reduction in Human emissions all together, because there are several negative aspects with Fossil Fuels, such as Acid Rain, Ocean Acidification, Fracking etc.

My main skepticism stems from the role of the sun in Global Warming.

There are still massive uncertainties with regard to the indirect solar forcing on climate. While the direct solar forcing is pretty well quantified with TSI variations, the indirect solar forcing consists of Atmospheric Circulation changes, El Nino responses, Volcanic Eruptions, Cloud Cover changes etc. The indirect solar forcing is largely unknown, and has likely had a significant influence on Global Warming during the 20th Century. If Low cloud cover decreased by even 1-2% over the course of the 20th Century, in response to increased solar activity, as is observed over the course of a Solar Cycle, that would equate to a radiative forcing of 0.8-1.7 w/m^2, highly comparable to the anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

Claims that the science is settled with Global Warming are really not based off of science, since massive uncertainties still exist with attribution to Extreme Weather, decadal scale modulation of the long term temperature trend, and the ultimate causes.
Quoting Snowlover123:
A terrible misconception that has risen is that if one is a skeptic of Anthropogenic Climate Change, then they want to pollute the environment, or support the usage of fossil fuels. None of those are true.
I don't believe that every AGW "skeptic"--whatever that is; I've never met one--wants to destroy the environment. And I've not seen anyone say that. But there is a definite profit-driven thread running the full length of the products-vs.-environment continuum--and many of the hands clinging so tightly to that thread are the same ones that always have been. Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer and all the others, including the current generation of pushers of the lie that the free-market trumps everything else, have their greedy fingerprints on every manufactured "debate" of the past four decades, whether that's tobacco, DDT, acid rain, deep sea drilling, fracking, or climate change. So while modern denialists may claim to care about the environment, they're known by the company they keep--and Seitz & Singer, et al., is some pretty bad company...
Quoting Snowlover123:


The indirect solar forcing is largely unknown, and has likely had a significant influence on Global Warming during the 20th Century.


the first half of that sentence does not lead to the second half.

Quoting schwankmoe:


the first half of that sentence does not lead to the second half.



Agree.

However, even though the forcing is unknown, there are other methods to qualify whether solar activity has had a significant effect on climate change over the 20th Century or not.

One interesting relationship documented by several papers is that there is a cycle in animal populations that can be linked back to the solar cycle.

With Klvana et al. 2004 They found a link between the 11/22 year solar cycle and Porcupine Population changes. This indicates that solar activity qualitatively has had a significant influence on the ecology through climate change, even if the actual radiative forcing is unknown.
Quoting Neapolitan:
I don't believe that every AGW "skeptic"--whatever that is; I've never met one--wants to destroy the environment. And I've not seen anyone say that. But there is a definite profit-driven thread running the full length of the products-vs.-environment continuum--and many of the hands clinging so tightly to that thread are the same ones that always have been. Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer and all the others, including the current generation of pushers of the lie that the free-market trumps everything else, have their greedy fingerprints on every manufactured "debate" of the past four decades, whether that's tobacco, DDT, acid rain, deep sea drilling, fracking, or climate change. So while modern denialists may claim to care about the environment, they're known by the company they keep--and Seitz & Singer, et al., is some pretty bad company...


Money is a bias on both sides of the debate, not exclusively with the skeptics.

From the link:

"According to the report, conservative think-tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations raised some US$907 million during 2009, and spent a total of $787 million on their activities, with $259 million of that devoted specifically to climate and energy policy issues. Over the same period, national environmental groups had revenues of $1.7 billion and spent $1.4 billion on their programmes, which included $394 million devoted to climate and energy issues."
Quoting Snowlover123:


Agree.

However, even though the forcing is unknown, there are other methods to qualify whether solar activity has had a significant effect on climate change over the 20th Century or not.

One interesting relationship documented by several papers is that there is a cycle in animal populations that can be linked back to the solar cycle.

With Klvana et al. 2004 They found a link between the 11/22 year solar cycle and Porcupine Population changes. This indicates that solar activity qualitatively has had a significant influence on the ecology through climate change, even if the actual radiative forcing is unknown.


look at it this way. over the last 35 years or so (climate), we can point to exact satellite data of both surface temperature and solar activity. over that period, solar activity has been constant; that is, three solar cycles have gone by and they were all very similar. no increase or decrease in insolation.

over that same time period, surface temperatures have increased .5C. there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between solar activity and the increase in surface temperatures during this period for which we have exact measurements (instead of proxies), direct- or indirect.

if you wish to show a correlation between the indirect effects of changes in solar activity on the climate, it's kind of hard when there haven't even been changes in direct solar activity.
Quoting schwankmoe:


look at it this way. over the last 35 years or so (climate), we can point to exact satellite data of both surface temperature and solar activity. over that period, solar activity has been constant; that is, three solar cycles have gone by and they were all very similar. no increase or decrease in insolation.

over that same time period, surface temperatures have increased .5C. there appears to be no correlation whatsoever between solar activity and the increase in surface temperatures during this period for which we have exact measurements (instead of proxies), direct- or indirect.

if you wish to show a correlation between the indirect effects of changes in solar activity on the climate, it's kind of hard when there haven't even been changes in direct solar activity.


It's not as simple as that.

Over the last 35 years, there have been multiple Irradiance Composites compiled from different satellites. There is the ACRIM TSI dataset, the SARR TSI dataset, and the PMOD TSI dataset. The PMOD dataset is used by people who want to prove that there is no relationship with the sun and climate change over the late-20th Century. However, there is also the SARR and the ACRIM TSI dataset, both show an increasing trend that is often not mentioned when discussing irradiance variations over the late-20th Century.



Figure above from De Wit and Watermann 2010.

The Geomagnetic AA Index over the 20th Century (even the late-20th Century) can explain a large portion of the Sea Surface Temperature change.



The figure above compares the Geomagnetic AA Index with Sea Surface Temperatures. Nearly all of the warming can be explained with simply the sun alone.



The figure above is from Georgieva et al. 2005

The correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.85 over the last 150 years, indicating a large positive relationship.

Also, there is no mechanism for instantaneous equilibrium between solar activity and temperatures. Even if solar activity was flat during the late-20th Century, that means absolutely nothing in terms of attribution.

If you turn a stove on from off to high, the water will continue to warm, long after the change from off to high, because the water has not reached equilibrium with the forcing.
Quoting Snowlover123:


Money is a bias on both sides of the debate, not exclusively with the skeptics.

From the link:

"According to the report, conservative think-tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations raised some US$907 million during 2009, and spent a total of $787 million on their activities, with $259 million of that devoted specifically to climate and energy policy issues. Over the same period, national environmental groups had revenues of $1.7 billion and spent $1.4 billion on their programmes, which included $394 million devoted to climate and energy issues."
There's no equivalence at all here, as you're comparing apples and oranges rutabagas.

First, there's the obvious: even if those numbers were an accurate reflection of the situation (which they're not; see below), there's the simple fact that one one side you have people wanting to do whatever they can to save the environment, and on the other side you have people wanting to do whatever they can to continue reaping huge profits--even if that means destroying that environment.

Second, that report from which you quoted was the discredited one from which Dr. Robert Brulle--a social scientist asked to review that report--withdrew because the author's conclusion's did not match the data. There's an excellent debunking of it here. A small bit of the actual data:

Lie

So far as your comment #79 (and parts of #73), I'll not bother responding, as a) that's climate change stuff which Angela may not welcome in this blog entry about fracking, and b) as has been patiently explained to you in Dr. Rood's blog, it's patently, provably, empirically incorrect.
[...] neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years.

As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

"That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one."


what's the graph look like when the AA index isn't advanced by 6 years? i'd like to see a year-to-year comparison.


Quoting Snowlover123:


It's not as simple as that.

Over the last 35 years, there have been multiple Irradiance Composites compiled from different satellites. There is the ACRIM TSI dataset, the SARR TSI dataset, and the PMOD TSI dataset. The PMOD dataset is used by people who want to prove that there is no relationship with the sun and climate change over the late-20th Century. However, there is also the SARR and the ACRIM TSI dataset, both show an increasing trend that is often not mentioned when discussing irradiance variations over the late-20th Century.



Figure above from De Wit and Watermann 2010.

The Geomagnetic AA Index over the 20th Century (even the late-20th Century) can explain a large portion of the Sea Surface Temperature change.



The figure above compares the Geomagnetic AA Index with Sea Surface Temperatures. Nearly all of the warming can be explained with simply the sun alone.



The figure above is from Georgieva et al. 2005

The correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.85 over the last 150 years, indicating a large positive relationship.

Also, there is no mechanism for instantaneous equilibrium between solar activity and temperatures. Even if solar activity was flat during the late-20th Century, that means absolutely nothing in terms of attribution.

If you turn a stove on from off to high, the water will continue to warm, long after the change from off to high, because the water has not reached equilibrium with the forcing.
Quoting Neapolitan:
I don't believe that every AGW "skeptic"--whatever that is; I've never met one--wants to destroy the environment. And I've not seen anyone say that. But there is a definite profit-driven thread running the full length of the products-vs.-environment continuum--and many of the hands clinging so tightly to that thread are the same ones that always have been. Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer and all the others, including the current generation of pushers of the lie that the free-market trumps everything else, have their greedy fingerprints on every manufactured "debate" of the past four decades, whether that's tobacco, DDT, acid rain, deep sea drilling, fracking, or climate change. So while modern denialists may claim to care about the environment, they're known by the company they keep--and Seitz & Singer, et al., is some pretty bad company...


When you purchase carbon offsets, does that make everything ok?
Quoting schwankmoe:
what's the graph look like when the AA index isn't advanced by 6 years? i'd like to see a year-to-year comparison.




Quoting Neapolitan:
There's no equivalence at all here, as you're comparing apples and oranges rutabagas.

First, there's the obvious: even if those numbers were an accurate reflection of the situation (which they're not; see below), there's the simple fact that one one side you have people wanting to do whatever they can to save the environment, and on the other side you have people wanting to do whatever they can to continue reaping huge profits--even if that means destroying that environment.

Second, that report from which you quoted was the discredited one from which Dr. Robert Brulle--a social scientist asked to review that report--withdrew because the author's conclusion's did not match the data. There's an excellent debunking of it here. A small bit of the actual data:

Lie

So far as your comment #79 (and parts of #73), I'll not bother responding, as a) that's climate change stuff which Angela may not welcome in this blog entry about fracking, and b) as has been patiently explained to you in Dr. Rood's blog, it's patently, provably, empirically incorrect.


One of the categories in Angela's blog post is climate change, so I don't think she would mind at all if we discussed it here.

You really don't think that there's any money involved at all with Environmental Lobby Groups, just skeptics? That doesn't make any sense at all. There's lots of money on both sides of the debate, which has polarized the debate to extreme lengths.
that's a graph of the number of days the index is over 60 for a given year. let's see a graph comparing the aa index to temps. recent, please; the satellite time period, 1979-present that i mentioned before, will do fine.

nothing says 'correlation does not imply causation' like overlaying two datasets and advancing one of them in time without any explanation at all.


Quoting Snowlover123:


Quoting schwankmoe:
that's a graph of the number of days the index is over 60 for a given year. let's see a graph comparing the aa index to temps. recent, please; the satellite time period, 1979-present that i mentioned before, will do fine.

nothing says 'correlation does not imply causation' like overlaying two datasets and advancing one of them in time without any explanation at all.




A higher Geomagnetic AA Index would mean a higher number of Geomagnetic Storms, which would give those values above 60 on the AA Index. Thus, it's an approptiate comparison. The graph above overlaps Global Surface Temperature with the number of days in a year with the AA Index values above 60.

The effects of Geomagnetic Activity on climate have generally been studied over a centennial timeframe, and not over a multidecadal one.

However, we can see a potential relationship between solar activity and temperature over the late-20th Century if we use the ACRIM TSI dataset (in red) for solar activity changes during this timeframe.



From Scafetta and West 2008.

It would be interesting to compare possible Geomagnetic influences to observed satellite based temperature changes, which I don't think has been studied in the scientific literature at all; correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting Snowlover123:


A higher Geomagnetic AA Index would mean a higher number of Geomagnetic Storms, which would give those values above 60 on the AA Index. Thus, it's an approptiate comparison.


sorry, but you're asserting a correspondence between the actual aa geomagnetic index and temperature. let's see the comparison. i'd like to see the correlation for myself, thank you. you can go back before 1979 if you want, sure. but please no unexplained time offsets in the data please.

Quoting Snowlover123:


However, we can see a potential relationship between solar activity and temperature over the late-20th Century if we use the ACRIM TSI dataset (in red) for solar activity changes during this timeframe.



From Scafetta and West 2008.



the black and red lines do not compare temperature and the ACRIM TSI dataset. it compares temperature data that has been smoothed to bring out an 11-year cycle (the authors do not specify their methodology at all) against a created reconstruction based on the ACRIM dataset and another dataset. the ACRIM data you posted earlier and it goes in the opposite direction.
oh, and Scafetta and Wests' methodology here is not very robust.

Obama administration issues draft fracking regulations


John Moore/Getty Images - Environmentalists stage a protest to coincide with a fundraising event by President Barack Obama on May 13 in New York City. Hundreds of demonstrators marched to protest the building of oil pipelines and calling for the end of hydraulic fracking.

The Obama administration drew sharp criticism from environmental and oil industry groups Thursday when it issued a new draft of regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands.

Environmental groups said the new draft provided weaker water protections than a version the Interior Department proposed a year ago, while oil industry groups said they wanted regulation left in the hands of states and were opposed to any federal rules.

In its first update of hydraulic fracturing regulations in three decades, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management would require wider disclosure of chemicals used in drilling. It would also require that companies have a water-management plan for fluids that flow back to the surface and take steps to assure wellbore integrity and prevent toxic fluids from leaking into groundwater.

But environmental groups expressed disappointment that the regulations do not include a ban on the storage of waste fluids in open, lined pits. They also want complete disclosure of chemicals used in fracking, which the regulations would not require.

The regulations would allow companies to disclose the chemicals to FracFocus, an Oklahoma-based Web site that has been criticized for its ties to industry. A Harvard Law School study concluded that FracFocus was not effective and “does not serve the interests of the public.”

Companies could also use affidavits to assert trade-secret protection of certain chemicals, although the BLM would keep the authority to require disclosure “if necessary,” the department said.

“These rules protect industry, not people,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They are riddled with gaping holes that endanger clean, safe drinking water supplies for millions of Americans nationwide.” She added that “this draft is a blueprint for business-as-usual industrialization of our landscapes.” more here
They are really playing up the article about Arkansas not having any water contamination yet from fracking. Checking the map of fracaccidents the area of play or that is available to fracking there is a very small percent of the state. Some shale is more problematic for groundwater contamination. NE overall has had way too many failures.
ROCKFORD, MI – Cannon Township Clerk Bonnie Blackledge said her township’s board is concerned enough about “fracking” to adopt the moratorium on oil and gas wells even though their attorney has told them a moratorium probably can’t be enforced,.

Blackledge and her fellow township board members voted unanimously on Monday, May 13, to impose a six-month moratorium on oil and gas operations while they explore regulations that may not be covered by the Michigan Supervisor of Wells, who has exclusive jurisdiction of oil and gas wells. more here
Quoting Skyepony (#96):
Blackfeet Oil Drilling Fracking the Reservation.wmv
Environmentalists look at those great and magnificent vistas, those vast swaths of open range, and see treasures that should be stewarded for future generations. The greedy-eyed and shortsighted see only the huge piles of money to be made by stripping away that magnificence and pockmarking those vistas with clanking, smoke-belching machinery. They want to scar the land, dig it up, riddle it with pipes, befoul the rivers that run through it, dirty the winds that blow above it, suck it dry, cash in, and move on.

There's enough Indian in me (Plains Cree) to carry tribal papers, so I guess there's enough to share the narrator's sympathies. And I spent a lot of years living hard against the Rockies in Montana and Wyoming and Colorado, so I can appreciate just how little extraction development it takes to ruin a far larger area.

This video makes me sad.

We don't deserve this place. We really don't...
Quoting Neapolitan:
Environmentalists look at those great and magnificent vistas, those vast swaths of open range, and see treasures that should be stewarded for future generations. The greedy-eyed and shortsighted see only the huge piles of money to be made by stripping away that magnificence and pockmarking those vistas with clanking, smoke-belching machinery. They want to scar the land, dig it up, riddle it with pipes, befoul the rivers that run through it, dirty the winds that blow above it, suck it dry, cash in, and move on.

There's enough Indian in me (Plains Cree) to carry tribal papers, so I guess there's enough to share the narrator's sympathies. And I spent a lot of years living hard against the Rockies in Montana and Wyoming and Colorado, so I can appreciate just how little extraction development it takes to ruin a far larger area.

This video makes me sad.

We don't deserve this place. We really don't...

Makes me sad, too. Makes me so sad that I couldn't even plus that comment, even though I felt it was relevant to the discussion Ms. Fritz kindly put forth.

A total blatant disregard for our planet and our natural resources. Sometimes I wonder just how many are on the Greedster's payroll.
It is obvious that this is a polarizing issue. Reminds me of how our Congress is working these days. it's sad because more could be accomplished if the appropriate stakeholders would come together and find common ground instead of lobbing grenades at each other. This country needs energy and it needs to extract it in a manner that protects the environment. I firmly believe this can be accomplished. Including Shale extraction.

More and more these days I see the term Fracking used to describe the entire process of drilling and completing of a new well. It is actually just one part of the overall process. By the time the well is actually fracked, the wellbore has been drilled and multiple casing strings have been installed and cemented in place. The process of fracking itself is simply pumping a fluid through the innermost string of casing into perforations in that casing that permit the fluids to travel into the gas and oil bearing zone. This zone is usually at least 1 mile deeper than any potable water aquifers. And according to comments made by Lisa Jackson, former head of the EPA, the fracking process has never been linked to groundwater contamination.

Contamination of groundwater has occurred during drilling when shallow gas bearing zones are encountered before a casing point is reached, thus allowing migration of the gas up the exposed wellbore into water bearing zones. Or in a few instances, the gas migrates after the casing is set due to poor cement bond between the casing and formation. But in either instance, no frack chemicals are introduced into the water zone because the well has not even drilled to the depth where the fracking will eventually occur.

So I repeat, fracking itself is not contaminating groundwater.

Speaking of the chemicals used in the frack fluid, did you know most of them can be found under your kitchen sink or in your garage? Methanol, used in windshield wiper fluid, isopropanol (glass cleaner), and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) are some of the most widely used chemicals. Makes me wonder how much windshield wiper fluid is dumped into the surface waters every winter. Think about it, in the Northeast alone there have to be tens of millions of gallons of this stuff sprayed onto the windshields of cars and then carried off by the rain onto the road and eventually into a ditch that carries it to the waterway. Just like farming, no one seems to care about that.

By the way, watching Gasland and Gasland2 and using that as the basis of your education about the oil and gas industry is akin to watching MASH and claiming to be an expert on the Korean War. While both are entertaining, they lack in educational value. Josh Fox got his 15 minutes of fame and wanted more. In open public debates he fails to back up most of his outrageous claims with any scientifically proven facts. In one debate, he actually stated "I am comfortable in my ignorance". It's sad that he has attracted such a large following of people who don't, or won't bother to fact check his movies. Try it and you will see that he is a sham. Follow the money and you would probably be very surprised at whose interests he is really serving.

The movie Promised Land was funded in part by a middle eastern country that was poised to be a major supplier of LNG to the US and other countries around the world. Now that we have an abundant supply of gas and are also poised to be an exporter they are trying to tip the playing table. Nice try but Promised Land failed miserably in delivering its anti-energy message. Thank goodness for that.



Quoting SafeFracker:
It is obvious that this is a polarizing issue. Reminds me of how our Congress is working these days. it's sad because more could be accomplished if the appropriate stakeholders would come together and find common ground instead of lobbing grenades at each other. This country needs energy and it needs to extract it in a manner that protects the environment. I firmly believe this can be accomplished. Including Shale extraction.

More and more these days I see the term Fracking used to describe the entire process of drilling and completing of a new well. It is actually just one part of the overall process. By the time the well is actually fracked, the wellbore has been drilled and multiple casing strings have been installed and cemented in place. The process of fracking itself is simply pumping a fluid through the innermost string of casing into perforations in that casing that permit the fluids to travel into the gas and oil bearing zone. This zone is usually at least 1 mile deeper than any potable water aquifers. And according to comments made by Lisa Jackson, former head of the EPA, the fracking process has never been linked to groundwater contamination.

Contamination of groundwater has occurred during drilling when shallow gas bearing zones are encountered before a casing point is reached, thus allowing migration of the gas up the exposed wellbore into water bearing zones. Or in a few instances, the gas migrates after the casing is set due to poor cement bond between the casing and formation. But in either instance, no frack chemicals are introduced into the water zone because the well has not even drilled to the depth where the fracking will eventually occur.

So I repeat, fracking itself is not contaminating groundwater.

Speaking of the chemicals used in the frack fluid, did you know most of them can be found under your kitchen sink or in your garage? Methanol, used in windshield wiper fluid, isopropanol (glass cleaner), and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) are some of the most widely used chemicals. Makes me wonder how much windshield wiper fluid is dumped into the surface waters every winter. Think about it, in the Northeast alone there have to be tens of millions of gallons of this stuff sprayed onto the windshields of cars and then carried off by the rain onto the road and eventually into a ditch that carries it to the waterway. Just like farming, no one seems to care about that.

By the way, watching Gasland and Gasland2 and using that as the basis of your education about the oil and gas industry is akin to watching MASH and claiming to be an expert on the Korean War. While both are entertaining, they lack in educational value. Josh Fox got his 15 minutes of fame and wanted more. In open public debates he fails to back up most of his outrageous claims with any scientifically proven facts. In one debate, he actually stated "I am comfortable in my ignorance". It's sad that he has attracted such a large following of people who don't, or won't bother to fact check his movies. Try it and you will see that he is a sham. Follow the money and you would probably be very surprised at whose interests he is really serving.

The movie Promised Land was funded in part by a middle eastern country that was poised to be a major supplier of LNG to the US and other countries around the world. Now that we have an abundant supply of gas and are also poised to be an exporter they are trying to tip the playing table. Nice try but Promised Land failed miserably in delivering its anti-energy message. Thank goodness for that.



Promised Land was indeed financed in part by Saudi Arabia's Image Nation. The company also financed parts of the The Best Exotoc Marigold Hotel, Contagion, The Crazies, and The Help. You won't see Big Energy bringing its guns to bear on IN's part in those ventures, however; only Promised Land scared them into doing so.

So far as Gasland: it was financed by HBO and Fox's own production company.

But that's almost a moot point. Those in love with fracking--that is, those profiting most from the practice--like to scream and shout about how wrong documentaries and movies about fracking are. But I personally couldn't care less. I want us off of fossil fuels now, and the sooner the better. Those going to great lengths to keep the provably unsustainable dirty enegry paradigm alive are like desperate junkies crawling the gutters looking for one more dirty needle to plunge into their bruised and bloodied arms.

Now, you wrote, "Speaking of the chemicals used in the frack fluid, did you know most of them can be found under your kitchen sink or in your garage? Methanol, used in windshield wiper fluid, isopropanol (glass cleaner), and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) are some of the most widely used chemicals." Great point, that. And how would you feel if someone injected thousands of bottles of each of those poisons into the ground around your home and told you to trust them?
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Scaled-Back U.S. Fracking Rule Draws Qualified Praise


This is the most one sided version I have seen on this issue. It's the same as the thing yesterday comment #93. This did get some praise from the oil industry but they are still upset that federal govt wants any regulations on federal land fracking. Environmentalist were quite displeased.

I plan to do a separate post on the public comment once I really look into the open pit verses a holding tank for the water & chemicals that flow back to the surface during fracking. History shows the open pits can leak poisons & such into the ground water.

SafeFraker~ You seem to know about this stuff. What's the pros & cons to open pits & tanks?

There is alot of open pits in that Native American video I posted... Interesting that ruling was made along with a ruling for the Indian reservations concerning fracking that gets a mention in about all the articles on that ruling but not this version.

The story does have a pro-fraking standpoint. However it is also a news story from a very important business news outlet. The story will be part of the information business and political leaders use to to form their opinions on the subject so I thought I would post it here.


Anyway, while I do take global warming and pollution concerns very seriously I do believe that the Keystone Pipeline should be approved and that fracking, strongly regulated, should be expanded to make the USA energy independent and an energy exporter. I also understand that many people here will disagree with me about that.
Brain~ Oh thanks for posting it.. It's certainly been a subject to view in all lights.

Considering if you could frack it all out of MS & LA to get enough energy for the US for one year..I don't see the pay offs for the risk. Much of this is being & is being planned to be exported too. This isn't going to be used solely here or anything..please look into that..I posted atleast one article on it. Even Keystone...refer to next post.
Skyepony I await the next post.
Research has shown that the pipeline’s major purpose is not to provide oil for the U.S., but to serve as an export pipeline fueling international markets. New
data reveals that a full 60 percent of gasoline produced in 2012 at Texas Gulf Coast refineries was exported. These are the refineries that would process the majority of the tar sands bitumen flowing through the Keystone XL pipeline, if it were built.The changing dynamics of the U.S. oil market strongly suggest that exports would only rise over the lifetime of the pipeline. U.S.production is rising but consumption is declining and the industry willcontinue to maximize its profits through exports.

Table: Production and Export Data for Texas Gulf Coast Refineries



Product

Production
barrels per day

Exports
barrels per day

Percentage of production exported

Finished Motor Gasoline

464,000

278,200

60%

Diesel

1,164,000

485,800

41.7%

Petcoke

196,000

186,800

95.3%

 Using government data for exports from Texas Gulf Coast ports[1] and for Texas Gulf Coast refinery production[2], the data shows that these refineries are now exporting 60 percent of their annual production of ‘Finished Motor Gasoline’. In addition, 42 percent of the diesel produced by these refineries is currently exported, which is an 11 percent increase over 2011 diesel exports from these refineries.Finally, over 95 percent of their production of petcoke – a dirty coal substitute that is a byproduct of refining heavy oil[3]  – is exported.
The new data clarifies a statement made by the State Department in the latest Keystone XL Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS). In the Market Analysis section, State notes the level of
exports coming from the Gulf Coast refining region (known as PADD 3): “…almost half of PADD 3 refined products go to the domestic market.”
In other words, the State Department’s own analysis acknowledges that the majority of refined products produced on the Gulf Coast are already being exported. Those who believe that Keystone XL is necessary for U.S. energy supply might be surprised by this fact.
The rest of the article is here..with the table intact & more graphs & such..

 
Sorry Brian~ I should have just linked it. Rich text can go either way for you:)



This is interesting.. Dow chemical is fighting to keep/stop natural gas from being freely exported because they invested a bunch in plants to convert it to plastic..only profitable if the price stays $3-4, which exporting would raise.

They are all for the XL pipeline since the oil industry could export that & it not cut into their gas to chemical profits.

"The fight is now between Dow and a few other chemical companies versus the oil and gas industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Porter said.

Breaking: Interior Department Bows to Pressure from Oil and Gas Industry, Weakens Fracking Rules
May 16, 2013


“Comparing today’s rule governing fracking on public lands with the one proposed a year earlier, it is clear what happened: the Bureau of Land Management caved to the wealthy and powerful oil and gas industry and left the public to fend for itself,” said Jessica Ennis, legislative representative at Earthjustice.

snip

Among the problems identified in the updated regulations:

• The proposed rules do not require an evaluation of the integrity of cement barriers in individual wells—the critical barrier between toxic fracking chemicals and groundwater—instead allowing oil and gas companies to test one well and allow those results to guide the development of other similar wells.

• The updated proposal does not require fracking companies to disclose chemicals before they are pumped into the ground—a critical measure that would give nearby communities time to test and monitor water supplies for any fracking-related water pollution.
/article

The bolded part is important. Fracking involves drilling thousands of wells. Of which, more than five percent fail brand new. The tests eliminated by the new regs instantly guarantees that those "more than 5% new wells that fail, get put into service anyway.. is everyone confident that the fracking industry is being truthful about YOUR safety and YOUR health?

There are nearly a half million frac wells in the US. If the modest number of 5% is applied, that's 25 THOUSAND leaking wells.. as ALL wells eventually fail, every one of these will someday be allowing VERY harmful toxins to migrate up the failed casing annulus and contaminate PEOPLE.

Do you trust them now? Would they work so hard to HIDE the chemicals they are using if they really were safe?

Shale Gas: How Often Do Fracked Wells Leak?

When industry says hardly ever, that's a myth. It's a documented, chronic problem. Third in a series.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, 9 Jan 2013, TheTyee.ca


One of the boldest claims made by the shale gas industry goes like this: oil and gas companies have drilled and fractured a million oil and gas wells with nary a problem.

In other words fracture fluid or methane leaks are "a rare phenomenon."

But industry data disproves this dubious claim says Cornell University engineer Anthony Ingraffea, the main source for this series, who has studied the non-linear science of rock fractures for three decades.

Moreover industry studies clearly show that five to seven per cent of all new oil and gas wells leak. As wells age, the percentage of leakers can increase to a startling 30 or 50 per cent. But the worst leakers remain "deviated" or horizontal wells commonly used for hydraulic fracturing.

In fact leaking wellbores has been a persistent and chronic problem for decades. Even a 2003 article in Oil Field Review, a publication of Schlumberger, reported that, "Since the earliest gas wells, uncontrolled migration of hydrocarbons to the surface has challenged the oil and gas industry."

click on link for more

15. Christopher C. Burt, Weather Historian
12:06 AM EDT on April 23, 2013

Well, that is a rather harsh assessment. Personally, I think the worst thing about 'fracking' is its name:

/quote

Poor joke Doc...

Where is your historical perspective of industry gone mad? Just like AGW, the evidence is there, all you have to do is seek the truth.




A NY Times article on the midwest drought. Thought it related to fracking somewhat, though if you look at the two maps below, the drought and the area of fracking that needs ground water curiously are not so overlapping.



Since the graphic didn't come through on the image below, the colored bars are not linear. They range from roughly negative 150 on the left (brownish side) to positive 50 on the right (bluish side).



(Note: I am posting here because I refuse to post on Dr Rood's site anymore. It's like trying to talk about love in front of Beavis and Butthead. Apologies to some really great posters there.)
Quoting Skyepony:


This is the most one sided version I have seen on this issue. It's the same as the thing yesterday comment #93. This did get some praise from the oil industry but they are still upset that federal govt wants any regulations on federal land fracking. Environmentalist were quite displeased.

I plan to do a separate post on the public comment once I really look into the open pit verses a holding tank for the water & chemicals that flow back to the surface during fracking. History shows the open pits can leak poisons & such into the ground water.

SafeFraker~ You seem to know about this stuff. What's the pros & cons to open pits & tanks?

There is alot of open pits in that Native American video I posted... Interesting that ruling was made along with a ruling for the Indian reservations concerning fracking that gets a mention in about all the articles on that ruling but not this version.



Having spent 40 years in construction and NPDES Certified, I can answer that question for you, ponygal.

Think about it.

Some things are self evident.

Your welcome.




Quoting greentortuloni:
(Note: I am posting here because I refuse to post on Dr Rood's site anymore. It's like trying to talk about love in front of Beavis and Butthead. Apologies to some really great posters there.)


Dr. Rood seems to more concerned with post count rather than the quality of his blog so I quit posting there too. I wrote him a couple of times but he showed no interest, so I'll try here.

On the drought and fracking. They ARE related insofar as the demand has outstripped the supply, and the frackers can outbid agriculture.. and everyone else too. Colorado, California, and Texas are all having these battles, with a lot more on the horizon.

Here are some links that cover this some;

This is a report for investors and cover the "need" as well as some alternatives that did not look very feasible to me given the copious volumes needed to frack.


Hydraulic Fracturing Faces Growing Competition for Water Supplies in Water-Stressed Regions
May 2, 2013


This is a link for the map in the above article that is interactive.

Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress

This article chronicles the massive water it takes to frack.. and all this water is lost, or polluted beyond use.. The industry allows the number 6 million gallons per well to make the rounds and appease us, the truth can be, and is quite different.


Michigan's 21 Million Gallon Frack Job: A National Record?
February 5, 2013

Good morning all!

This is interesting at the least. Having read about the methane in the water, I know that the chemical composition is not the same for methane coming from different stratum. This identifier is ignored or overlooked in the authors comments.. or maybe I am giving to much value to what I read.. like I said, interesting.

What the frack do we know? Not much, it turns out
By Richard Schiffman


This is one of the best articles I have read so far about fracking. Good description of the process, and worthy coverage of the problems and issues.. as "I" see them.


Why Not Frack?
March 8, 2012
Bill McKibben


This image is from the above link, I post it to point out that the numbers used for the water necessary are woefully understated. "More than a million gallons" although true, is a serious understatement. I refer you back to post 112 and the 21 million gallon story.



There is a rebuttle letter to the above article written by John Deutch, but Bill McKibben addresses it.


Why Frack?
April 26, 2012
John Deutch, reply by Bill McKibben





Not exactly fracing..but the Native Indian Reservations keep coming up. On the fracking issue I'm not sure how much choice they have.

The KeystoneXL line issue is festering...



Elders and chiefs of at least 10 sovereign nations walked out of a meeting with U.S. State Department officials in Rapid City, South Dakota, on Thursday May 16 in which the government was attempting to engage in tribal consultation over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Deeming the meeting “invalid,” leaders of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association—attendees included the Southern Ponca of Oklahoma, Pawnee Nation, Nez Perce Nation, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Ihanktonwan Dakota Yankton Sioux, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Crow Creek Sioux Tribe—said they would meet only with President Barack Obama to discuss the pipeline.

“On this historic day of May 16, 2013, ten sovereign Indigenous nations maintain that the proposed TransCanada/Keystone XL pipeline does not serve the national interest and in fact would be detrimental not only to the collected sovereigns but all future generations on planet earth. This morning the following sovereigns informed the Department of State Tribal Consultation effort at the Hilton Garden Inn in Rapid City, SD, that the gathering was not recognized as a valid consultation on a ‘nation to nation’ level,” they said.

“Eventually all remaining tribal representatives and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers left the meeting at the direct urging of the grassroots organization Owe Aku,” the chiefs said in their statement. “Owe Aku, Moccasins on the Ground, and Protect the Sacred are preparing communities to resist the Keystone XL pipeline through Keystone Blockade Training.”

Read more at..
A spoof on reality & Apocalypse Now..

At the “Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011” conference [in Nov. 2011] in Houston, Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs at Range Resources, revealed in his presentation that Range has hired Army and Marine veterans with combat experience in psychological warfare to influence communities in which Range drills for gas.

object width="420" height="315">
"Gasland 2" Grassroots Premiere in Normal, Illinois Highlights Industry PSYOPS and Ongoing Fracking Fights
Quoting Skyepony:
A spoof on reality & Apocalypse Now..

At the “Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011” conference [in Nov. 2011] in Houston, Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs at Range Resources, revealed in his presentation that Range has hired Army and Marine veterans with combat experience in psychological warfare to influence communities in which Range drills for gas.

object width="420" height="315">
Quoting Skyepony:
A spoof on reality & Apocalypse Now..

At the “Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011” conference [in Nov. 2011] in Houston, Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs at Range Resources, revealed in his presentation that Range has hired Army and Marine veterans with combat experience in psychological warfare to influence communities in which Range drills for gas.

object width="420" height="315">
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
My selection of energy articles for today. My global warming blog is also available as a drama-free zone.

Oil Pipelines to Drive Canada Economy Like 1880s Railroad

EU Urges Energy Market as U.S. Shale Gas Widens Price Gap

Poland Delays Tax to Prevent More Exits by Shale Gas Explorers

Fast Says Keystone Denial Would Irritate Canada-U.S. Ties

China's SUVs to Drive Oil Demand Growth, Bernstein Says

Top-Class Biofuel from the Depths of the Forest
Quoting Skyepony:
A spoof on reality & Apocalypse Now..

At the “Media & Stakeholder Relations: Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative 2011” conference [in Nov. 2011] in Houston, Matt Pitzarella, Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs at Range Resources, revealed in his presentation that Range has hired Army and Marine veterans with combat experience in psychological warfare to influence communities in which Range drills for gas.

object width="420" height="315">

Good video. Thank you for sharing information. it is new and useful to me.
http://www.jugarfriv.org | http://www.kizi-2.org
Saturday 2pm is March against Monsanto day..it's a world wide event..


Why do we march?

- Research studies have shown that Monsanto%u2019s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects.
- In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that%u2019s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-lead research on the long-term effects of GMO products.
- Recently, the U.S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed %u201CMonsanto Protection Act%u201D that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto%u2019s genetically-modified seeds.
- For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world%u2019s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup.
- Monsanto%u2019s GMO seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have caused colony collapse among the world%u2019s bee population.



What are solutions we advocate?

- Voting with your dollar by buying organic and boycotting Monsanto-owned companies that use GMOs in their products.
- Labeling of GMOs so that consumers can make those informed decisions easier.
- Repealing relevant provisions of the US%u2019s %u201CMonsanto Protection Act.%u201D
- Calling for further scientific research on the health effects of GMOs.
- Holding Monsanto executives and Monsanto-supporting politicians accountable through direct communication, grassroots journalism, social media, etc.
- Continuing to inform the public about Monsanto%u2019s secrets.
- Taking to the streets to show the world and Monsanto that we won%u2019t take these injustices quietly.

We will not stand for cronyism. We will not stand for poison.
That%u2019s why we March Against Monsanto.


So far this is an excellent documentary released yesterday. Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's - Full Movie

@Skye

As opposed to forced labels, why can't foods that are GMO free get a certified GMO free label?

I realize it isn't the same thing but wouldn't it have a similar if lesser effect?
123. vis0
The best form of energy and most efficient is the REAL solar power, WIND.
¿How can it be made/used to power EVENTUALLY 60% of the needs for the world's
power grids?

try creating what i call an ml-d (it'son my blog)

Will no longer leave clues on other member's  blogs (getting complaints, even though
my posts are on a new science). Only will post on my blog as to not to waste space
since only a few respond and most from people whom know me from sites i'd post on
many years ago.

AS TO FRACKING:

 One day someone else will discover what i did 30-+ yrs ago and create wind streams
 (what i call man made/man harnessed streams of air, done so by using sound, 90 degree
 centered & ungrounded microwave  tech, and  devices like what i call an ml-d). These
 wind streams will be harnessed to flow over  wind turbines (modern windmills) for short
 period of times per day.  For example i state just 8  wind turbines with 2 floors built around
 them encasing the ml-d, on top of  8 NYC skyscrapers  (4 in Man., 1 in The Bronx (where my
 heart resides), 1 in Queens, 2 in Brklyn, 1 in S.I.. They can fill the needs of 60% of NYC
 power grid needs.
 
 Its obvious to me that those in oil or pollutant generating power generating
 energy companies (NOT that they're bad people, just don't really want to discover something
 really new 'cause they worry they'll lose money/jobs, don't care for real new ideas, even if
 years ago i drew up a plan (100+pgs to an oil company) so no one loses their jobs as they
 are retrained to manage/work in wind turbine
 
 And those that say they want new ideas are like cancer companies whom say they look
 for a cure, but really stall so more funds can be raised as long as baby steps are taken in
 curing no one complains. (worked in major Hospital, saw records its a fact)
 
  i mention the latter as  i read constantly here on WXU how  "global warming" is so bad
  (i agree, but to me its "Global Climates Schizo") the description via the title will  help when Earth
  goes through cooler phases and non believers will say where is the warming,
 When what nature does to balance unnatural pollutants is to seem to go haywire as some man made
 pollutants hold in warmth, others don't allow sun's warm to penetrate and natures has to use
 the light/resonance biorhythms (if i may call it that) of the Universe, Galactic cluster outputs,Galaxies output,
 solar system outputs bathing this area of the universe (solar system) to balance Earth's "biorhythm".
 So, does nature  feed the cold & starve the fever or does the animal with the conscience (Humans)
 try testing new  theories as was done during the discoveries of the greatest  inventions where
 the weirdest ideas where tested many fail but once in a while man comes across a breakthrough,
 so nature can have some of the stress we placed on her relieved by using truly clean energy.
 
 So study how to attract the jet stream by using what is the opposing energy of the planet's mantel
 (that chemical footprint: silicon-like). Study its static and how it creates breezes then figure out a
 math i nicknamed  "invision" whose answers /results are in 3, as its answers explain the ancient example which is the
 Jewish symbol for a sacred light which is used in Star Trek (Spock's gesture)  its the complimentry
 puzzle to the hand gesture used to show the flow of current.
 
 Why my last comment as to my discoveries in clue form on another member's blog.
  i'm beginning to get eMail (persnl eMail) as i  received when i would post on ABC7's weather board
  (2003-2005) & members began to post silly messages or insult me, so moderator
  Bevans on ABC7 asked me to leave even though all i was posting  was on weather and my
  discoveries.  i left as not to become a distraction or sideshow.
NOTHING against WXU, keep up the open board & luv that retired teacher(s) blog,
 They use to call me LLoyd Lindsey Young 'cause  they posted i was as crazy as he. i consider
 that a compliment,peace
In The Guardian this AM,a nice response by the people, we need more of this.

Millions march against GM crops
Organisers celebrate huge global turnout and say they will continue until Monsanto and other GM manufacturers listen


Organisers say that two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto in hundreds of rallies across the US and in more than 50 other countries on Saturday.

"March Against Monsanto" protesters say they wanted to call attention to the dangers posed by genetically modified food and the food giants that produce it. Founder and organiser Tami Canal said protests were held in 436 cities across 52 countries.

Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits, or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment.

The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labelling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.

The "March Against Monsanto" movement began just a few months ago, when Canal created a Facebook page on 28 February calling for a rally against the company's practices. "If I had gotten 3,000 people to join me, I would have considered that a success," she said Saturday. Instead, she said, two million responded to her message.
I stopped by the Monsanto March here in Melbourne. The turn out was impressive..

CA has a bill in the works to slow fracking till they study further. Not only is water an issue there but the strong suspected link with earthquakes. The newer type of fracking could release gas from the 1,750-square-mile geological formation known as the Monterey Shale, which extends roughly from Modesto to Bakersfield. Even though the Monterey Shale is known to be the nation's largest source of recoverable oil, the 15 billion barrels it contains only satisfies the nation's energy wants for three years. Here's an article on it.
I know I keep wrecking this blog with haten on Monsanto..but the horror!


They are just figuring out how it's wrecking our gut microbes & causing tumors among other problems & now the EPA has gone & raised the allowable limits in our food!
Quoting Skyepony:
I know I keep wrecking this blog with haten on Monsanto..but the horror!


They are just figuring out how it's wrecking our gut microbes & causing tumors among other problems & now the EPA has gone & raised the allowable limits in our food!


No you don't. You do concise focused articles that deserve to be read. Keep spreading the word.
Colonel.. where did your avatar go?






photo credit Mark Renz

Global Warming Threatens Polar Gators


By Lola Trackinberg, Glacial Times
Scientists are alarmed that global warming may threaten the remaining 2,000 alligators that congregate on ice packs in the summer Arctic seas. The toothy reptiles depend on tasty penguins and frozen marshmallows from tourists. But as Global Warming politics melt the ice, penguins and gators are abandoning their arctic habitats.

Asked to comment, President Obama said, “It's a mixed up, jumbled up, shook up world, I say Lola.”
I get to meet Bobby Kennedy next week..

Bloomberg Sustainability Page

A comprehensive news source on energy and environmental articles.
Wunder Bump
Never heard of this..in 1980 oil exploration and salt mining most likely crossed in a bad way with unbelievable results..


Are Fracking Wastewater Wells Poisoning the Ground beneath Our Feet?

But in interviews, several key experts acknowledged that the idea that injection is safe rests on science that has not kept pace with reality, and on oversight that doesn't always work.

"In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted," said Mario Salazar, an engineer who worked for 25 years as a technical expert with the EPA's underground injection program in Washington. "A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die."
..many more experts weigh in in that article..
Influence of Grassroots Anti-Fracking Movement Spreads Like Wildfire

The strength of the resistance manifested itself again June 17 when more than 3,000 people of all ages and backgrounds from across New York gathered in Albany to urge Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the legislature to end the threat of fracking and promote a clean energy agenda. Robert Boyle, a long-time environmental activist and founder of Riverkeeper, remarked last year that he has never seen an environmental movement “spread with such wildfire” as the anti-fracking movement.

“It took me 13 or 14 years to get the first Riverkeeper going. Fracking isn’t like that. It’s like lighting a train of powder,” he told journalist Ellen Cantarow.
Thanks to OrangeRoses for this link about the very large Salt Fork Fish Kill in OK. It's a recent fish kill that is very similiar to the one two years ago. Though they are waiting on final tests, it is looking more & more like rain & such rinsing the fracking waste in.
Did you see this article from the BBC ?? Distant quakes 'can trigger waste water site temblors'
wab~ Here's more on that with the ongoing situation in Indonesia.

Unusual geological event in Indonesia on Tuesday, 23 July, 2013 at 03:19 (03:19 AM) UTC.
Description
Scientists have sparked a fresh debate over what triggered Indonesia's Lusi mud volcano, still spewing truckloads of slime more than seven years after it leapt catastrophically into life. Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, the study strengthens the argument by gas company PT Lapindo Brantas that the disaster was caused by a distant earthquake, not by its drilling crew as some experts contend. Lusi, located in the Sidoarjo district of the island of Java, erupted on May 29, 2006 in the middle of a rice field. It has destroyed 13 villages, dozens of factories and shops and a highway, prompting the government to build dykes 10 metres high to try to contain its spread. Nearly 50,000 people were displaced. The new research, by a team led by Stephen Miller at the University of Bonn in Germany, suggests the eruption was caused by the 6.3-magnitude earthquake that occurred two days earlier near Yogyakarta. Even though the two events were 250 kilometres apart, the rock formation at Sidoarjo has a shape and structure that acted rather like a lens, amplifying and focusing the wave of seismic energy from Yogyakarta, according to their computer model.

The jolt of energy would have liquefied the source of the mud, causing it to be injected into a fault connected with a deep hydrothermal system. This superheated blowout feeds the eruption today, goes their theory. Asked to comment on the study, British geologist Richard Davies pointed to the daily drilling reports from the Lapindo Brantas team at Sidoarjo. It showed their gas exploration was going awry, Davies said. On the day of the eruption, the drillers acknowledged that they were having problems in stabilising pressure in the hole, a routine procedure that uses injected fluids, as they sought to withdrew their drill bit, he said. That, and the lack of protective casing around the hole, "was like pulling the cork out of a champagne bottle," causing a "kick" of high-pressure mud to blow from the hole, Davies, a professor at Durham University, told AFP in a phone interview. "When the Yogyakarta earthquake occurred, nothing happened in the well. The pressure in the well was already many orders of magnitude bigger than the pressure changes due to the Yogyakarta earthquake," Davies.

"They've come up with an elaborate geophysical model but I think they've ignored the more obvious data," said Davies said. Seismologists have widely, but not unanimously, sided with his explanation. Some note that much larger earthquakes had previously occurred closer to Sidoarjo yet not caused any mud volcano. At its peak, Lusi disgorged 180,000 cubic metres of mud a day. The rate has now fallen to between 15,000 and 20,000 cubic m per day, according to the government's Sidoarjo Mudflow Mitigation Agency. This is roughly equivalent to between six and eight Olympic-sized swimming pools of slime per day. Amein Widodo, a geologist from the Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology in nearby Surabaya city, said it was impossible to predict how long the volcano would keep erupting. "The amount of mud has reduced a lot, but having seen other cases in Java, it's possible it could erupt for more than 100 years," said Widodo.
Gasland Part 2 (2012)
Synopsis from IMDB
A documentary that declares the gas industry's portrayal of natural gas as a clean and safe alternative to oil is a myth, and that fracked wells inevitably leak over time, contaminating water and air, hurting families, and endangering the earth's climate with the potent greenhouse gas, and methane.

IMDB Info Link

Download

Edit:
I just finished watching this video.
The conclusion breaks my heart.
Not so much for the loss of the environment,
but for the loss of democracy in America.
Someone brought up Germany... I googled their energy use and found some a really interesting and useful report. Seems like Wind is the big energy producer, and Solar is not still huge as a percentage of production except during the peak months (march-september) when the power is needed during the day for A/C. So it might be only 5% overall but 15% during the sunny part of the day in the summer.

http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisc h/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-f rom-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf

The anti-frackers are still getting carted off left & right.. Beware of this new ear twisting tactic..

Police officers try to break a human chain formed by anti-fracking protesters at Balcombe. Photograph: Tony Kershaw/Rex Features

Sussex police have made 14 arrests at an oil drilling site near the village of Balcombe after local people and anti-fracking activists attempted to block the delivery of machinery for a second day using a human chain and tree trunks.

Activists said police removed people who had blockaded the gates to the rural West Sussex site where the energy company Cuadrilla, headed by the former BP chief Lord Browne, intends to start test drilling for oil next week.

Sussex police said five people were arrested for causing danger to road users, and nine under trade union law for attempting to stop drivers and other workers from accessing the site. Police said the arrests were peaceful, but activists said there were struggles.



move along.. nothing to see.. we aren't here to harm or poison you...



Ashley Williams, who witnessed the arrests, said: "This is a totally disproportionate response. The community are standing up for themselves against a company that is trying to poison them. As soon as regular people put their head above the parapet the state jumps in to defend the interests of a wealthy few."
more
Here is about the alternative flaring. At 1:34 there is awesome tornado caused by the flaring.

Quoting 102. Skyepony:


This is the most one sided version I have seen on this issue.



How ironic; I was thinking the same thing about your blog post. The EPA seems to have a different opinion of fracking, based on it's preliminary report.

EPA Report Gives Pro-Fracking Camp a Win
From the EPA:
The Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report (December 2012)


Here's a link to the pdf:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/docume nts/hf-report20121214.pdf

Most of us are aware that fracking wells are given exemptions from conformance to the Clean Water Drinking Act, and similar air quality law.
Most are not aware that Fracking chemicals/mixtures are protected as trade secrets and the formulas for these mixtures have to be carefully reverse engineered...then the specific results have to be obfuscated to prevent disclosure of the "secret mixtures."

Water well testing and fresh drinking water tests have been going on for many years. What's taking so long to report the results?
Well, part of the answer lies in the very complex administrative review process the reports have to go through. Note that I said administrative review process -not scientific peer review...although there is plenty of that too...
Congress, wants a "fair" review process...fair to industry anyway.
In reading the report (I'm only 50 pages in so far) the first thing that struck me was the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Executive summary:

"Responsible development of America’s oil and gas resources offers important economic, energy
security, and environmental benefits.
"
Which I read as:
"Responsible development of America’s oil and gas resources offers important environmental benefits."

Natural gas produced in North America will be exported as the demand is global, so are the markets and so is the industry.

We're past peak fossil energy production. The easy crude and gas has already been exploited.

Every joule of energy extracted is now much more expensive to produce. In nature there is no such thing as money that our civilization uses as a means of barter. But in reality what civilization actually uses is energy. Energy drives the economy.

I suppose as energy production cost goes up the value of money goes down. Most people in America have to drive to work or to a store to buy food. We know adding carbon taxes as an incentive to conserve precious oil does nothing to move us towards sustainable energy.
What's at stake, the survival of our species, is transparent.
The House, Senate, and Administration have been populated by Larry, Curly and Moe to keep us distracted so that business can continue as usual.
It's amusing and sad.















The Deadly Truth About Oil And Gas Industry Safety Standards

A new report delivers a dire warning to employees in the oil and gas industries: Your job could be the death of you. According to recently released statistics from 2012, on the job deaths in the oil and gas industries spiked by a staggering 23% last year, a larger increase than any other employment sector in the United States.

U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said that the amount of deaths within the industry was “unacceptable.” In 2012, according to labor statistics, there were 138 on the job deaths in the oil and gas industry, which is an increase from the 112 deaths that occurred in the prior year. This is a stark contrast to all industries, as the total number of worker deaths across the board decreased last year.

The trend in oil and gas industry deaths is nothing new. Between 2003 and 2010, the industry had the highest death toll in the United States, beating out all other industries for worker deaths. The majority of these deaths are due to workers being struck by equipment, struck by vehicles, and occasionally a major catastrophic accident, like the BP refinery explosion in Texas in 2005, and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in 2010.

In the case of industrial accidents, many companies have actually done cost analyses and determined that it is actually cheaper for them to pay off the families of killed workers than it is to implement new safety standards. For example, BP’s 2005 refinery explosion uncovered documents that showed exactly how the company does their cost analysis, and determined that the implementation of safety precautions would cut too deeply into the company’s profits.

Your "free market" at its finest.
Your not a liberal are you? LOL



Oil, gas facilities a concern after CO floods
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, talks with Rachel Maddow about concerns over environmental damages caused by the oil and gas facilities in Colorado that were damaged by the deadly, unprecedented flooding across the Front Range.



More spills were revealed
Friday in a Colorado oil field swamped by floodwaters as cleanup efforts remained stalled due to high waters and regulators cautioned that more oil releases were likely to be found in coming days.

The latest spills include 2,400 gallons of oil spilled from a group of storage tanks, about 900 gallons from an oil tank that floated away and at least two others from damaged storage tanks that involved unknown volumes.

That brings the known volume of oil released since massive flooding began last week along Colorado's Front Range to at least an estimated 22,060 gallons. That's about 525 barrels.
Hi Skyepony!
The first link to RM's blog should be
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/53047723 #53047723
Thanks for your post (back to lurking)
-z


Quoting 154. Skyepony:



Oil, gas facilities a concern after CO floods
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, talks with Rachel Maddow about concerns over environmental damages caused by the oil and gas facilities in Colorado that were damaged by the deadly, unprecedented flooding across the Front Range.



More spills were revealed
Friday in a Colorado oil field swamped by floodwaters as cleanup efforts remained stalled due to high waters and regulators cautioned that more oil releases were likely to be found in coming days.

The latest spills include 2,400 gallons of oil spilled from a group of storage tanks, about 900 gallons from an oil tank that floated away and at least two others from damaged storage tanks that involved unknown volumes.

That brings the known volume of oil released since massive flooding began last week along Colorado's Front Range to at least an estimated 22,060 gallons. That's about 525 barrels.
Crude oil in Lac-Mégantic derailment was mislabelled, Transportation Safety Board says

MONTREAL — The crude oil in the runaway train that derailed in Lac-Mégantic was improperly identified as less hazardous and flammable than it actually was, Canada's Transportation Safety Board has announced.

Petroleum crude oil is categorized as a Class 3 Dangerous Good, and can be divided into three packing groups, depending on the level of safety hazard.

The oil on the Lac-Mégantic train was identified for transportation from North Dakota as Packing Group III, the least hazardous in that class, the TSB said Wednesday.

But tests the federal agency did on samples of oil taken from the train found it actually had the characteristics of a PG II product, said TSB chief investigator Donald Ross. Products in PG II have a lower flashpoint — the temperature at which vapours ignite — than products in PG III.

The lower flashpoint partly explains why the oil ignited so quickly in Lac-Mégantic, the TSB said. Oil categorized as PG III doesn't usually ignite, Ross said.

It would have been up to Irving Oil, the company importing the oil to Canada, to ensure it was correctly identified, Ross said.

"It's important that dangerous goods in transport be properly described," Ross said. "There are people that may have to handle that, come into contact with that, and they need to know the hazards they are dealing with."

The July 6 derailment killed 47 people and spilled an estimated 5.6 million litres of crude oil. The cost of cleaning up the town, lake and Chaudière River is expected to be more than $200 million.

The train was operated by the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway. Ross said tests done on samples of crude oil taken from a second MMA oil train parked in Farnham showed it was also incorrectly identified.

The TSB sent safety advisory letters to Transport Canada and the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Wednesday suggesting they review the processes for suppliers and companies transporting dangerous goods to make sure they are "accurately determined and documented for safe transportation."

This is the third safety advisory letter the agency has published since the accident. The first two asked Transport Canada to review regulations requiring trains to be properly secured and that trains carrying dangerous goods are not left unattended.

Federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement Wednesday that she has instructed her department to examine the TSB recommendation as quickly as possible.

"If a company does not properly classify its goods, they can be prosecuted under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act," Raitt said.

In an statement emailed to The Gazette Wednesday, an Irving Oil spokesperson said the company continues to "offer our full support to authorities as this tragedy is investigated." The company has no further comment, the statement said.

Federal NDP transportation critic Olivia Chow said the federal government should order spot checks and safety inspections to ensure the proper labelling of dangerous goods.

Ross said it is too early to say whether the improper classification would have changed the outcome of the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

"It's a possibility that it had no effect, but I'm not there yet," Ross said, adding that the investigation is ongoing.

Under existing regulations, even if the oil had been classified properly, it wouldn't have changed how it was transported, or what kind and how many tanker cars were used, TSB investigator Ed Belkaloul said.

The TSB said the incorrect identification of the oil raises questions about the use of DOT-111 train cars to transport large quantities of flammable liquids with lower flashpoints. Both the TSB and U.S. National Transportation Safety Board have recommended improvements to DOT-111 cars, which have punctured during accidents.

According to the Railway Association of Canada, DOT-111 tanker cars produced since October 2011 to carry crude oil and ethanol have the improved safety features the regulatory agencies have suggested.

The TSB investigation will look at how the tanker cars performed in the accident, as well as the composition of the crude oil they carried, Ross said.

The TSB findings show there are serious gaps in the regulation of shipping oil by rail, Greenpeace Canada said Wednesday. The group has been calling for a ban on shipping oil in older DOT-111 tanker cars.

"We need the federal government to focus more on protecting our communities and our environment, and less on keeping transportation costs low for oil companies," spokesperson Patrick Bonin said.

(Reuters) - The world suffered unprecedented climate extremes in the decade to 2010, from heatwaves in Europe and droughts in Australia to floods in Pakistan, against a backdrop of global warming, a United Nations report said on Wednesday.Link
Fracking Victims Demand EPA Reopen Investigations Into Poisoned Drinking Water

Americans Against Fracking Stop the Frack Attack

Residents personally harmed by gas drilling and fracking held a press conference in front of the White House yesterday and delivered 250,000 petition signatures from concerned citizens across the U.S. to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy at EPA headquarters. The residents—including Ray Kemble from Pennsylvania, Steve Lipsky and Shelly Perdue from Texas and John Fenton from Wyoming—were all part of the EPA fracking investigations in their respective states that the EPA abandoned despite evidence of water contamination. More here..
angelafritz has created a new entry.