Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/18/2011 4:57:21 PM PST by Dysart
The shale gas boom has been a rare bright spot in the U.S. economy, so much of the country let out a shudder two weeks ago when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a "draft" report that the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing may have contaminated ground water in Pavillion, Wyoming. The good news is that the study is neither definitive nor applicable to the rest of the country.
"When considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracking," said the EPA report, referring to the drilling process that blasts water and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and natural gas. The news caused elation among environmentalists and many in the media who want to shut down fracking.
More than one-third of all natural gas drilling now uses fracking, and that percentage is rising. If the EPA Wyoming study holds up under scrutiny, an industry that employs tens of thousands could be in peril.
But does it stand up? This is the first major study to have detected linkage between fracking and ground-water pollution, and the EPA draft hasn't been peer reviewed by independent scientific analysts. Critics are already picking apart the study, which Wyoming Governor Matt Mead called "scientifically questionable."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Read the list at the link, and decide for yourself whether the EPA study can be relied upon and its findings applied nationwide. I've found it wanting and think it's up to each state to make their own determination independently.
We need to Frack the EPA.
The EPA is a risk to human life.
Merry Christmas
Ground water has more problems than fracking can cause.
Leaf mold and barnyard feces get into ground water. Rotting squirrels and other “natural” decay. Stormwater runoff from streets and highways, also. Lots of stuff you just don’t want to drink. That’s why cities have purification plants, especially if they draw from a river.
On the other hand, aquifers are buried under miles of limestone and usually impervious to groundwater seepage.
Most wells are least down around 10k'---it's almsot if the EPA cherry picked this site in order to obtain a certain outcome favorable to their political agenda. I'll alert the media to suspicions.
ping
The EPA is being political and not scientific, the EPA needs to be closed down.bye bye
Considering the environmental wacko direction of the EPA over the past few years, I’d be suspicious of ANYTHING from the agency, in the absence of very solid science.
Lots of calls for independent testing.
I am not a big Newt fan, but if he would get in and with a conservative super majority in the House and Senate, do much more than decimate (maybe 95%) that expensive waste of spending and hindrance to economic growth, he would be a hero in my eyes.
As Biden would say, “It’s a big fracken deal” :)
It really is. Fracking for oil and gas is a big game-changer in the Geo-political power structure. There is so much of the stuff with today’s extraction tech, not to mention future upgrades, that many places are open for extraction.
http://www.energyindustryphotos.com/shale_gas_map_shale_basins.htm
Much longer report
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/oilshale/HeavyOilLowRes.pdf
There is a new fracking procedure being introduced that uses a gel-like substance made of propane. Once extraction is complete, the substance converts to a gas and is extracted for future use.
http://transloading.org/tag/propane-fracking/
This from Newt.org might be of interest. Click on SOLUTIONS, and then click on Newt’s American Energy Plan, and check out especially Item 6, below.:
1.Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States; offshore and on land.
2.End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.
3.Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.
4.Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser pays laws to force the losers in an environmental lawsuit to pay all legal costs for the other side.
5.Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.
6.Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.
Thanks for that. Not the Cal will warm up to #2, and he knows it but it’s bold and right.
“On the other hand, aquifers are buried under miles of limestone and usually impervious to groundwater seepage”
You really need to do a bit of reading on “aquifers”.
These will get you started.
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/aquiferbasics/
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwaquifer.html
Fracking is done below the water table I believe. So how would it remotely effect the water?
Here are a couple of links you may find interesting on pro fracing.
http://www.patexia.com/feed/1719
http://www.gasfrac.com/fracforward.pdf
Thanks Dysart.
Were the well(s) tested prior to the fracking operation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.