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.

 

Vermont Becomes First State to Ban Fracking

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Vermont Becomes First State In The Nation To Ban Hydraulic Fracking


Hydraulic fracking is the process by which natural gas companies extract gas from shale through the use of chemicals under high pressure. These chemicals contaminate water to the point where people can literally set their water on fire while it is running through the faucet. The chemicals threaten natural water supplies such as aquifers, waterways, and lakes. The drilling and pressure have been linked to earthquake activity in several states such as in Ohio. On Wednesday, Vermont became the first state in the country to ban fracking.

Governor Peter Shumlin (D) signed the legislation known as H464 in on Wednesday afternoon. Shumlin noted that “This bill will ensure we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


How bad is pollution from fracking?





Big Money, Big Oil, Lobbyists and Corrupt Politicians are poisoning us, and all we Americans are doing is watching American Idol.




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Vermont Becomes First State In The Nation To Ban Hydraulic Fracking

Big Money, Big Oil, Lobbyists and Corrupt Politicians are poisoning us, and all we Americans are doing is watching American Idol.


Same here in britain to busy drooling over pop idol than open their eyes to this kinda thing



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
What the frak are they going to do now? Flood indonesia again?

Oh yes I did!



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Remember than when you scream bloody murder in the Middle East everything has a price and everything has a consequence.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
This is a double edged sword because natural gas is much cleaner then oil.and the US has a lot of it. problem is that it doesn't form in resoivors like oil, but in small pockets that are harder to extract.

Some smaller companies have made a fortune off of this, but it is not cost effective enough for oil companies to take notice.

but if there is a way to extract it without more environmental damage, our energy use would be much better off.

I wonder if banning frackign basically ends the natural gas industry.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Might be cleaner burning but the extraction process is literally poisoning the water well.

Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing

The chemicals contaminating ground water from fracking are:

  • Acetaldehyde
  • Acetophenone
  • Acrylamide
  • Benzene
  • Benzyl chloride
  • Copper
  • Cumene
  • Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
  • Diesel
  • Diethanolamine
  • Dimethyl formamide
  • Ethylbenzene
  • Ethylene glycol
  • Ethylene oxide
  • Formaldehyde
  • Hydrochloric acid
  • Hydrofluoric acid
  • Lead
  • Methanol
  • Naphthalene
  • Nitrilotriacetic acid
  • p-Xylene
  • Phenol
  • Phthalic anhydride
  • Propylene oxide
  • Sulfuric acid
  • Thiourea
  • Toluene
  • Xylene


More on their effects HERE.

Some of these are neuro-toxins, and the real damage may not be evident for another generation. Then again there are studies documenting the rise in Autism, Cerebral Palsy, and genetic disorders. we can only make the environment so toxic before the effects begin to take their toll on humans.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
You know, of course, that Vermont is not a source for oil or natural gas, there is no fracking going on there, and none is contemplated. It's like banning cars that lay eggs.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


You would think that if you had alot natural gas you wouldn't need to frack, I guess it's cheaper than drilling new wells.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Not quite true, from the American Petroleum Association:


Natural gas deposits exist mainly in the northwestern Vermont. The large Utica shale formation begins across the border in Canada, and extends south along Lake Champlain.


Natural Gas Potential in Vermont:
Northern Vermont Southern Quebec: Utica Shale Equivalents, Stratigraphic and Structural Relations
(PDF file)

There's a strong potential for natural gas extraction via fracking in Vermont, which is probably what prompted the Vermont legislature to adopt this ban. (BTW the Utica shale is what all the mid to northeastern state's fracking operations are extracting from - from W. Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NY, and Quebec, as well as Vermont.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Hmmmmm..........

Not that I don't believe this Black,but questioning the video...........





Sorry for not embedding last video........
edit on 19-5-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Dear Blackmarketeer,

Thanks very much for clearing things up as you have. There may be some confusion between shale and shale oil. When I went to the .pdf you mentioned, I noticed shale but not oil or natural gas. Of course I was curious so I "asked" a couple of other sources. www.anr.state.vt.us... the state website, told me

Earth Resources -Oil and Gas

Oil and Gas Wells Drilled in Vermont (There have been no producing wells in Vermont)
Click on well name to view pdf report of depth and material.
I also checked in with Reuters, which had an intriguing article www.naturalgasamericas.com... which said:

Vermont will be the first state to outlaw a controversial oil and gas drilling method known as fracking when Governor Peter Shumlin signs a bill banning the practice, a largely symbolic move given the state's apparent lack of energy reserves.

It is a largely token gesture, given that Vermont does not have any natural gas reserves to speak of, sitting just outside the boundaries of the vast Marcellus shale formation.

The Marcellus formation has been aggressively drilled in other states such as Pennsylvania. Vermont did not produce a drop of oil or natural gas between 1960 and 2009, and consumes the smallest amount of energy of all U.S. states, according to the Energy Information Administration.

I don't have the expertise to discuss potential reserves, so perhaps I should just say that the ban will not affect any existing or planned wells. Perhaps we can agree that it was an election year gesture?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
From what I've seen (in the PDF and the other source listed above, as well as general sites on the web) Vermont's portion of the utica shale and deposits of natural gas lies under the northwestern portion of the state (which covers a vast territory, extending all the way up into Quebec). Ohio only just started fracking operations even though it sits on a large deposit of natural utica and marcellus shale gas, and I would hazard a guess these companies are going after the Ohio and Pennsylvania regions first since they are richer. Vermont does have deposits of natural gas they are just untapped.

Don't Frack Vermont

Hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking") for natural gas is not currently taking place in Vermont, but has already threatened public health and natural resources in other states. Vermont does have natural gas deposits and we need to prevent the devastating environmental and public health effects of fracking for gas before it starts.


Vermont Natural Resources Council

VNRC supports a ban on fracking in Vermont. There are natural gas deposits in the northwestern region of the state, and VNRC and our partners want to protect our natural resources and communities by banning the practice here before it starts.


I look at it this way, Vermont set a precedent against fracking, even if it isn't a state rich in natural gas resources. I see a lot of Web sites/bloggers sharing the sentiment "Vermont has no natural gas so this has no effect", and I disagree with that, for the above reason - Vermont banning fracking sets a precedent that will hopefully encourage other states to review their fracking operations. Even if they don't ban them, at least make them operate in a safer manner. Right now, those fracking chemicals are being dumped everywhere and seriously harming the environment and water supply. You think having fluoride in your water is bad, try a little toulene, benzine, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) as well as n-hexane and VOC - to name a few.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
. Even if they don't ban them, at least make them operate in a safer manner.


Star for you!

I do agree with that 100%



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You obviously missed the point.

We're trying to set a precedent for the rest of the states to move to either ban or increase regulation of fracking.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I'm glad that fracking is a no-go and I'll tell you why: It's a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to the peak-oil theory.

We're so desperate to hang onto our way of life that we (literally) destroy the mountains, etc just to keep it going!



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join