It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Frack First, Disclose Chemicals Later Under U.S. Rule

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Oil and natural gas companies won’t be forced to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing until work is completed, under a proposed U.S. rule issued today that drew opposition from environmental groups.

The proposal lets gas producers exclude trade secrets and confidential information, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today on a conference call. It would add about $11,833 in costs per well in 2013, according the Interior Department.


Source: Bloomberg

So basically that is it. They can poison you all and not have to tell about it until later. How can something that is touted as being so innocuous, as they say about frac fluid, possibly be such a trade secret and just how exactly does this legislation add $11,833 per well - which is a paltry amount in relation to the cost of the total operation - when they could just list the chemicals on a web site virtually for free?


President Barack Obama has pledged to increase gas production without harming the environment.


Well that is good news. How exactly is he going to increase production and not harm the environment then? Wave a magic wand perhaps. What a completely stupid ridiculous statement for anyone to make, let alone a President.


The administration set a “high bar” for companies to invoke the exemption that would exempt reporting trade secrets or other proprietary information, Salazar said on the call.


Just exactly how daft is this Salazar person if he does not think that they will all qualify. He is expecting the gas company to monitor itself in essence, and that just won't happen. Past experience has taught us that.

Ignorant greedy politicians having rings run round them by uncaring oil and gas men all in the name of profit.

It is about time you got rid of the lobbying system. It will kill you all in the end.


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Well, Mitt Romney said in a speech today that he would remove all Federal oversight and regulations from the fracking and nuclear power industries.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Well, Mitt Romney said in a speech today that he would remove all Federal oversight and regulations from the fracking and nuclear power industries.

Aint Capitalism Grand.

Make dollars first, suffer the consequences later.

USA , USA



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I hope you use natural gas or oil in your house and feel really stupid after reading this.....

As a matter a fact, you do use oil....Unless you walk everywhere!

Right now, we need this service....But it needs to be done right!! If the fracking companies do their casing jobs correctly, then none of the fracking fluids will go into the ground.....

But as usual with you Puterman, I am beating a dead horse.....So nevermind....



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
And I'm sure when they pollute and poison an aquifer, and harm thousands or even millions of people, the government will give them retroactive immunity from prosecution. Corporations own our government. The people, or 'consumers,' are merely pawns to be sacrificed upon the altar of profit.

You see this same sort of mentality with most pharmaceuticals and with GMOs, where we're supposed to get them out into the market as soon as possible for the sake of a corporation's bottom line.

Until there is popular awareness and popular outcry, there will be little change, as the politicians feel no obligation to protect the people they represent when money is on the line.
edit on 4-5-2012 by windowpane because: (added opinion)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Maybe you would like some Mutant Shrimp from the Gulf Coast.

BP liability was capped at 50 billion, another shoot first, investigate later situation.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



I hope you use natural gas or oil in your house and feel really stupid after reading this.....

As a matter a fact, you do use oil....Unless you walk everywhere!


Tell me now, why is it that whenever this subject comes up some person seems to think that the 'opposition' is trying to shut production down? Why not read rather than assume. This is about disclosure.

Your argument is completely irrelevant. I am not saying production should be halted or that anyone should stop using gas or oil. Your point of view also seems to show a complete lack of concern for other human beings. We are talking about health here and the simple requirement for control. There is absolutely no reason why these chemicals should not be divulged just as every other industrial chemical has to be.


Right now, we need this service....But it needs to be done right!! If the fracking companies do their casing jobs correctly, then none of the fracking fluids will go into the ground.....

But as usual with you Puterman, I am beating a dead horse.....So nevermind....


So you say, and you right, but there is a balance between production and environment that needs to be met. You know full well that the gas and oil companies do NOT do the casings right, otherwise there would be no BP fiasco for starters.

In what way are you beating a dead horse? For certain you will not ever get me to agree that these chemicals should be kept secret.


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan

Great minds think alike, I made this post before I even saw your thread here PM.


 


reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


If the fracking companies do their casing jobs correctly, then none of the fracking fluids will go into the ground.....


If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets...

And how many times is it acceptable for incorrect casing procedures to be implemented before something should be done? Just how many free passes do the oil companies get?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


The reason being, it is a trade secret, not a conspiracy!

Each company uses different chemicals to pull the gas from the ground, so if a competitor finds out the secret, then your company no longer has the upper hand......Sorry if you don't understand this but maybe another trade secret recipe you have heard of before is Kentucky Fried Chicken.....Everyone wanted to know what was in it and they wouldn't say.....It's the same reason fracking companies don't want this information out there!

You know there are chemical engineers and lab technicians that work for these companies that test the water supplies and chemicals to ensure this crap doesn't happen? The EPA gets reports from these companies....

I am sorry, but this is the way it will be until there is a better way of energy found.....If people stop worrying about the chemicals and more about the casing, this would all go away....probably not with most that don't understand....

The cement casing that BP used was AUTHORIZED only by BP....That is why they are liable.....They are not in business of pulling oil / gas from the ground, and they gave the orders they wanted!

Halliburton told BP not to do it this way and BP pushed the long arm of the law with Halliburton and forced them to do it that way! That is why BP is responsible for the lawsuit and BP alone! You want someone to blame, blame the idiots who came up with the shotty design in the first place, not the company doing what the customer requires!!



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that so many people that know so little have such strong opinions.
I am only familiar with North Dakota fracking in the Bakken, but the environmental risk is
so minimal that you can equate it with requiring everyone who drives a car to wear a crash helmet
and mouth guards, just in case the air bag malfunctions.
You people need to be able to evaluate risk vs reward better.
...my apologies to those of you that actually do wear helmets when you drive a car.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Not to mention that this would only affect fracking on federal and Indian lands:


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday issued a proposed rule governing hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands that will for the first time require disclosure of the chemicals used in the process.

...

The majority of the 13,000 wells drilled each year by fracking are on private lands and thus fall primarily under state regulation, as they have for 60 years. Although rules and the rigor of enforcement vary from state to state, there have been efforts in recent years to standardize reporting under such government and industry bodies as the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Commission.
(quotes in above excerpt formatted for ATS forum code to include links)

New U.S. Proposal on Fracking Gives Ground to Industry



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



The reason being, it is a trade secret, not a conspiracy!

Each company uses different chemicals to pull the gas from the ground, so if a competitor finds out the secret, then your company no longer has the upper hand......Sorry if you don't understand this but maybe another trade secret recipe you have heard of before is Kentucky Fried Chicken.....Everyone wanted to know what was in it and they wouldn't say.....It's the same reason fracking companies don't want this information out there!


ROFLMAO! You think I don't understand? You seriously think there is any comparison between frac fluid and Kentucky Fried chicken coating? When they start pumping KFC coating down into the ground and it starts contaminating peoples drinking water then I guess people WILL want to know the formula.

I think you have also missed the point that these companies say frac fluid is harmless, yet it is patently obvious that it is not. Are you prepared to take the word of the company? (and don't put too much faith in 'report' going to the EPA)


.....If people stop worrying about the chemicals and more about the casing, this would all go away....probably not with most that don't understand....


Am I getting the feeling you work in the industry? People have a RIGHT to know what is going on when it affects their health. Think Erin Brockovich.


A new study has raised fresh concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted.


Source

So what price your dismissal of the fears then.


The cement casing that BP used was AUTHORIZED only by BP....That is why they are liable.....They are not in business of pulling oil / gas from the ground, and they gave the orders they wanted!

Halliburton told BP not to do it this way and BP pushed the long arm of the law with Halliburton and forced them to do it that way! That is why BP is responsible for the lawsuit and BP alone! You want someone to blame, blame the idiots who came up with the shotty design in the first place, not the company doing what the customer requires!!


Why thank you. Just exactly my point - the companies CANNOT be trusted, especially if profits are at stake.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 



You people need to be able to evaluate risk vs reward better.


What ever it is that you are familiar with it obviously is not reading, neither is it concern, in addition to which your example only proves the point otherwise seat belts would not be compulsory.

Of course there is an element of risk, and of course there are rewards but that does not mean that people should take unnecessary risk, neither does it mean they should be kept in the dark. So I take it from your statement that you would have no desire to find out what was being used if your well was bubbling with gas and frac fluid?


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Well, what about the words of someone who's job it is to protect the water supply?


High-volume slick-water hydraulic fracturing represents an especially serious threat to freshwater systems (Entrekin et al. 2011). Large volumes of fresh water are injected into wells (5 million gallons per well); this fresh water is amended with hazardous chemicals to enhance rock penetration and retard microbial growth (167 tons per well); and large volumes of water contaminated with fracking chemicals and radioactive material (including an estimated 20% of fracking fluid) return to the surface from flowback and production water. New York State does not currently have the means to cleanse or dispose of wastewater.

Our concerns are heightened by the thousand-plus cases of contamination of groundwater (e.g., Lustgarten 2008), serious adverse health effects in humans and livestock (Bishop 2011, Colborn et al. 2011, Lustgarten 2008), and the emerging science indicating systematic contamination of groundwater with methane and fracking chemicals (DiGiulio et al. 2011, Osborn et al. 2011).
emphasis mine

RE: Comments on the Revised Draft SGEIS on Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing, and the High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Proposed Regulations (117 KB .pdf)

And just where does that wastewater end up?

Places like Oklahoma, in injection wells.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 



Not to mention that this would only affect fracking on federal and Indian lands:


Yes I did note that. Not being American I am not sure if that makes it a good thing or a bad thing.

Either way I still maintain that the chemicals should be disclosed. I have seen some examples of what is in this and you would not want to give it to your children or your pets to drink so in what way can be make sense to pump it into the ground, running the risk of contamination, and yet not have any data available should contamination occur?

Answer, it does not. I just wish the people here who think it is all OK in the name of self sufficiency and profit could step back one step and see that controls and disclosure ARE needed where potential pollutants are being used.


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
But it needs to be done right!! If the fracking companies do their casing jobs correctly, then none of the fracking fluids will go into the ground.....


Utter rubbish. Fracking is a process where they intentionally inject water and a slurry of chemicals at high pressure DIRECTLY INTO THE GROUND to release hydrocarbons. Fracking fluids are made to go into the ground. Casing has nothing to do with it.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


True, there are areas where 'fracking' has a lower risk to pollute water sources, relative to the geological integrity of the rock, the proximity of nearby water sources, population density, etc...

There are also areas where 'fracking' has the potential to contaminate aquifers which supply water to large metropolitan areas, such as in the Marcellus shale area which runs through upstate New York.

I don't think companies have a right to conceal the chemical composition of their 'fracking' fluid when there is potential for large-scale environmental contamination.

Comparing 'fracking' fluid to the KFC formula (or Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc...) is a little disingenuous as the KFC formula is intended for direct human consumption.

I also do not trust the EPA enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. This is the same EPA that raised the acceptable radiation contamination levels after Fukushima, after previous limits on the west coast were exceeded.




The EPA is at it again, they now want to change the "safe" limits of exposure to humans. The EPA wants to raise "Protective Action Guides" (PAG's) to levels vastly higher than those at which they are currently set allowing for more radioactive contamination of the environment and the general public. "According to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would drastically raise the levels of radiation allowed in food, water, air, and the general environment. PEER, a national organization of local, state, and federal employees who had access to internal EPA emails, claims that the new standards will result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63? in drinking water. This information, as well as the emails themselves were published by Collapsenet on March 24.


www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

It had nothing to do with new research suggesting that the human body could tolerate higher levels. They only raised the limit to avoid having to declare soil, water, and produce contaminated, and probably (in their minds) to avoid 'panic.'

Would it be a stretch to say that they don't want to disclose the composition of 'fracking' fluids because of the economic implications, or because doing so would cause 'panic' as 'fracking' is already so widespread?
edit on 4-5-2012 by windowpane because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Not to mention that this would only affect fracking on federal and Indian lands:





Because the EPA would have little to no authority to regulate privately owned and state owned land. (This is one of those things the Libertarians think would just sort itself out without the EPA.)
edit on 4-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



Because the EPA would have little to no authority to regulate privately owned and state owned land.


Really
Over here our EPA regulates ALL land private and public.

Are you saying that private lands are unregulated, or are they covered by State regulation?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan


Are you saying that private lands are unregulated, or are they covered by State regulation?


I'm not saying they are unregulated. I'm just saying the EPA, in its present form, likely doesn't have the will to enforce such regulations on private or state land. So they are going for the low-hanging fruit by suggesting regulation on federal land. The EPA is basically gutted and has no teeth to enforce much if its jurisdiction is contested by someone as powerful as the natural gas industry.

America wants cheap fuel. The present admin knows they cant regulate TOO MUCH or energy prices will skyrocket, and people will vote them out of office.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join