It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by stanguilles7

Thanks. I am a bit gobsmacked. Here the EPA (ours) has power over ALL private lands. Try lighting a bonfire and see what happens. Try cutting a hedge in the months April to October.

Try having a dodgy cess pit and see what happens. We will have fracking very soon (actually we have I believe) but you can bet they will be controlled.

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

Energy prices skyrocket here and it makes no difference. We just pay up!

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

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

To be clear, I'm not saying they don't have jurisdiction in theory. One can likely cite several examples of them exercising such authority. I'm merely saying no one in the current admin is likely willing to try and push for that level of enforcement because they know the political ramifications might be too steep. Nat. gas prices have plummeted in N.America in the past few years because of fracking, and that keeps voters happy.

Make sense?

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

KFC does not have to release their recipe, but they do have to list the ingredients.

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by PuterMan
and just how exactly does this legislation add $11,833 per well

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.
“The proposal today will allow us to continue powering our economy (oil and gas industry) by developing America’s abundant oil and gas resources,” Salazar said during a conference call. “It is critical that the public has full confidence that effective safety and environmental protections are in place.”

Just wow! So, they don’t have to publish it, and we get to pay them for not publishing it. Nice. I have to admire the tactics – so shrewd!

This legislative activity seems to be still revolving around the previous administration’s efforts to support the oil and gas industry by the loosening of regulations regarding such operations. (ie gives bypass to the Clean Water Act)
Refresher here:NRDC Article

Google: Bush Clean Water Act search

Personally, I think pumping the waste into injection wells is a very sloppy and lazy way of dealing with something that in my opinion, should at least partly be the responsibility of the waste generator.

Just because the government doesn’t have regulations in place whenever a new process, chemical, or other situation arises should not give a bypass to a good moral and ethical decision.

So, the municipal treatment plants aren’t equipped to deal with the fracking wastewater – so let’s just pump it in the ground…great idea. It’s so much cheaper than processing it.

Maybe the oil and gas industry could take some of their fat subsidies and provide funding on studies on how to treat the wastewater. Oh, wait, that would cause prices to ‘skyrocket’, civil unrest, panic and chaos.

BRB, going to check my supply of pitchforks and torches. S&F PuterMan!

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by PuterMan
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)
That I'm sure isn't good enough for you, but it is for me.

and yeah, they don't make you read much in law school... good call.

B (is less than) PL........... familiarize yourself with that equation....hint...who is my avatar?

I also explained that I only understand the fracking in North Dakota.....and it is all I care about.
and seat belts should not be you see people on motorcycles wearing seat belts?
I suppose you want kids to be made to wear helmets when they ride their bikes, or skateboard.
Learn and respect the value of Darwinism!

edit on 7-5-2012 by Res Ipsa because: The stupid "less than" sign wouldn't work.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in