I just came across an interesting discussion that has me questioning my recent decision to join the ranks of the protesters of fracking. Some very interesting statements are made, such as
"fracking fluids are more than 99.5 percent water and sand. The additives used amount to less than one half of one percent – many of which can be found under your kitchen sink. These additives are used for several reasons; to prevent pipe corrosion, kill bacteria and to assist in forcing the water and sand down-hole to fracture the targeted formation."
Read the rest here.
This discussion makes me wonder... are people overreacting? I think not, but I also think that fracking has the potential to go smoothly, if all of the proper precautions are followed thoroughly.
Two key words from your blog Jess: Potential, and If. And I only say that because I agree.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest complaint I've seen about fracking is always "This is going to potentially damage water supplies to communities in which fracking occurs, and that doesn't account for the unknown..."
I've also heard that it should concern us because if allowed, mother frackers would use areas close enough to us, like pieces of PA, that we in NY would feel direct effects, not to mention the people who live in those areas.
But couldn't it be done safely?
Probably, but as soon as money becomes involved, and statistics that say it's benefitting us economically in times of depression surface, would safety and "proper precautions" lose the limelight?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Similarly, if a philosopher shits in the woods and there is no one around to catch a whiff, does it still stink?
ReplyDeleteMy humble opinion is "shit yeah" but over the centuries and in slightly less offensive context, this has been debated by greater minds to no resolve. So I say, "why not install a stinkometer?"
In the fracking framework, this simple concept is urgent. Measurement and monitoring must be third party. It must be irrefutable. The industry and the state and federal regulators must step up and step up quickly to ensure the health and safety of communities too easily swayed given the tough economic climate and the lure of quick profit.
Last time I was in Cortland I saw a new gas well on south main, about 2.5 miles from downtown on the west side of the road...maybe you should pay the adjacent homeowners visit and check their stinkometer....
My son is one of those folks working in Northern and Central PA for a "seismic" company that maps areas and obtains mineral rights from landowners. From conversations with him I learned that the companies that do the fracking do not need to tell the general public what is being added to the water used to accomplish the process. Why?
ReplyDeleteJust recently, my wife and I met a couple from Central PA. They mentioned a couple of problems that landowners have faced AFTER fracking started on or near their properties: one family's water came out of the tap colored brown; another family's water supply came out of the tap laced with methane! Are these problems a result of the fracking? I'm not sure, but the fact that the problems arose AFTER the fracking would certainly raise a red flag or two and make me wonder. Most landowners think that selling the mineral rights will make them big money. Unfortunately, most of the time they receive just a few hundred dollars whether or not oil or gas is found. Not sure a couple hundred bucks is worth undrinkable dirty brown, methane laced water.
I thinks its possible for fracking to be done safely. I agree with Barry that the process should be monitored by an entity other than the company doing the drilling.
Like Al, I had also read that hydrofracking companies are not required to release a list of chemicals used throughout the process because it interferes with "intellectual property rights," aka copyright issues. There was a bill being passed in 2009 called the FRAC Act of 2009 that would require federal regulations of all drilling, but I do not know if it is effective yet.
ReplyDeleteIn Dimock Township, PA, over ten families became severely ill from contamination in their well water. Allegedly, it was from the local drill sites, which had not monitored the escaping of gas from the drilling thereby causing the contamination in the underground water.
This business is all about money; this could potentially lead to shortcuts being taken, and consequences not considered until something happens. The other problem that I have with hydrofracking involves the possible "clients." I know quite a few people from Binghamton that have been offered the opportunity once it is approved in NYS, and they are desperate for money. With the economic downturn, these people think that the money earned would be a godsend. The hydrofracking business actually reminds me of Wal-Mart, but this is for another discussion.
very interesting insight from Al regarding activity in PA and the notion that the drillers aren't required to disclose. The reasons for this appear to be a function of Dick Cheney's influence on environmental policy that appears to have been designed to secure profit for Haliburton with callous disregard for the environmental health of impacted communities.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't already, I would highly recommend seeing the "Gasland" documentary by Josh Fox:
http://gaslandthemovie.com/about-the-film/
Barry -- I haven't been out South Main in ages, so I will certainly go for a ride and check that out sometime soon. I can't guarantee interviews, but I might snap a photograph or two. Of all the testimonials I've read, there have been zero positive responses from homeowners to local drilling (of course, if one didn't suffer side-effects, what would there be to write about?)I haven't seen Gasland (when the film played locally (Hancock area), I was foolishly uninterested), although the trailer seems to be quite efficient at summing things up. I plan on renting it when it is available on DVD (December 14). Thank you for taking such an interest in my blog, Barry!
ReplyDeleteAl, thank you for commenting. I, too, read that many homeowners are coming face to face with contaminated drinking water following the onset of fracking. With the same story coming from many sources, it is hard to dispute the evidence (whether "contaminated" = toxic, I don't know, though I'm sure I wouldn't want to drink excess methane!)
ReplyDeleteReally? Only a couple hundred buck? I've heard people back home (I live on the Pennsylvania border) talking about the thousands of dollars they plan on raking in for simply leasing out their acreage or allowing the companies to access water sources (sucking up fresh water with which to blast into the sites, I would assume). Despite my beliefs, I don't know how I would respond to large monetary offers...
Erica -- even when the potential consequences are known, do people, in poverty and looking for any possible out, really have much of a say in the matter? It is only logical that people will submit to drilling if it would save them from financial ruin.
ReplyDeleteI truly find it ridiculous that the residents of this state do not have the right to know what chemicals are used in a process that we are expected to submit to. They can claim that these chemicals are harmless, but why should we believe it when we can not, as of yet, see it for ourselves?
Watch the documentary Gasland. DO IT.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I find it? Is it available online or do I have to wait until it is released on DVD?
ReplyDelete