The number of social, political and economic problems we're facing today are nothing short of daunting. With the momentum of privatization of otherwise public works, and even subordinating elected officials to the whim of corporate profiteers as in Benton Harbor, MI, gives some indication of how powerful the corporatization of these United States of America is. On last week's front cover, Time Magazine pictured the Constitution with its ends being frayed with the query "Does it Matter?"
One is thrown to ask, what is becoming of the American Psyche? Has this robust nation been subterfuged by the torpedoes of reality TV and the myopia of texting? Are fast food, micro-waved cooking and the fast-paced, cell phone, SUV culture with nary a care in the world grinding to a half, coming home to roost empty-handed?
Thoughtful individuals who really care about our country and its values are giving all of this a lot of thought. And so interestingly, is one of the most hyped and fast-paced, money-at-any-expense industries in our nation: the natural gas industry.
It wasn't long ago that natural gas was fairly simple and not costly to extract. It's not a sustainable technology but wasn't unreasonably considered a transition fuel while the more intelligent countries starting fueling, that is funding, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geo-thermal.
However, over the last number of years, the easier gas layers have been extracted, leaving only deeper layers, much harder to access, and can only be accomplished through the use of exceedingly toxic chemical injected into the shale, toxifying the water table, liberating otherwise dormant methane, said to be the most injurious of all gases to exacerbate climate change, and polluting the air. Reports from academic institutions such as Duke University and many others have proven that the process called "hydro-fracking" is highly injurious to the regions it is employed, so much so that the water can often become lit on fire. This was demonstrated in many a youtube video and in director Josh Fox's film Gasland, nominated for an academy award for best documentary.
The gas industry, through its lobbying organizations, has sought to downplay the toxicity of the process, yet perhaps millions of people at this point -- or likely soon -- across the 34 states currently suffering from this extreme process of chemical extraction, can no longer drink their own well water. Gas industry experts and executives won't touch it, let alone drink it, all the while claiming that "it's fine".
Then why don't they drink it themselves and serve it up to the members of their families? And why doesn't this question ever get directly answered? We probably know why.
Constituents of many states are completely up in arms about fracking and a major movement in NY, PA and NJ has been mounted to counter what is considered the gas industry's propaganda and monetary control over the respective legislatures of these states.
New York State Senator Tony Avella has reviewed the data and came to the resolute conclusion that fracking could jeopardize the drinking water for NYC residents as well as NYS, and drafted legislation to not just extend a moratorium currently in place, or at least it was until last week, but to actually ban fracking, unless it could be proven to not be harmful and toxic. It doesn't get fairer than that. Avella has been receiving increasing support for this legislation.
What's interesting however, is that facts and common sense get people close to nowhere when money is being spread among politician's campaign coffers. It's like heroin -- apparently very hard to resist once addicted. So despite the science that clearly shows the dangers of the process, politicians, with a few exceptions such as Tony Avella, Brian Kavanagh, Scott Stringer, and a handful of others, bend to the whims of the gas industry.
But what's most interesting is that the industry itself is facing increasing criticism internally from those who are coming forward to say that the process of fracking is so expensive that the bottom line is nothing very interesting at all, is highly speculative and other industry experts are actually suggesting that promises made of big returns simply cannot be met, giving the industry the look of a big Ponzi scheme.
A series of New York Times articles have been suggesting this and led to this notion that the gas industry is "fracking itself," fracturing from within, no longer able to withstand the pressure heaped upon it by strong community groups getting stronger, some politicians who cannot be bought and the science that continues to show how potentially deleterious fracking can be to our water supply. Add to this the suggestion that it's not mildly, but highly speculative and associated with Ponzi scheme-style business activity, it's a wonder that Governor Andrew Cuomo just voted to lift the moratorium put into place by former Governor Paterson.
So while much is yet to be discovered about the full effect of the fracking process relative to air and water contamination, what is known to date scientifically would suggest that the gas industry would want to really take a good look at developing a long-term investment strategy of renewable resources, quickly.
As for Governor Cuomo, his constituency who put him into office was surely not expecting him to side with the gas industry -- quite the contrary -- and the industry's own internal fracturing should give him plenty of good reason, a good 'out' so to speak, to endorse Senator Avella's ban on the process "unless or until proven safe" immediately. Perhaps we need to help the governor make the right decision. More information on how can be found at the Participatory Democracy link at www.abetterworld.net.
Follow Mitchell J. Rabin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/abetterworldweb
Hassan Arif: Controversy Over Shale Gas Fracking Hits New Brunswick
So these fans of green energy are lashing out at gas. Not because they have some rational argument against gas in and of itself (as you can see here with an article by someone who clearly has no training or understanding of science) but because cheap gas is destroying the market for wind and solar.
I would be sympathetic if the "Green" movement were instead to push for some alliance of gas and renewab;les. Perhaps they could get back to arguing for a carbon tax, which would naturally fall most heavily on coal. But instead, they simply beat up on natural gas, as if it were the most harmful of the fossil fuels, instead of the least. Sad really, and yet more reason why the environmental movement is criticised as a "secular religion" instead of coalition of publically minded scientists.
This is a link to the Duke Study. It CLEARLY states, in ENGLISH, on the FIRST PAGE, in BOLD LETTERS, that of all the wells that were tested for the study, NONE were contaminated with "frac fluid or brine". The MIT study showed a similar outcome. As has EVERY STUDY and LEGAL FINDING to date. I posted below on this subject, and got a few replies telling me to read the study again. Well I did, and it still says it, no matter how many times I read and then re-read it...
On the outside, there have been perhaps a hundred groundwater wells that experienced containimation from shale gas wells (from the well casings or wastewater spillage, not from the frac). And the author is talking about millions of people drinking from bad wells?
If someone is off by a factor of 10, then they are close enough to reality to talk to them. If they are off by a factor of 100,000, then they are simply mad.
On the other hand, let's think: I'm injecting known carcinogens with toxic compounds into the ground to shatter the shale with millions of gallons of water. I do this in both not densely, but also densely populated areas. What is going to happen to the quality of the surrounding water table? Is it safe or in danger? If further harm is caused by well casings and wastewater spillage, that adds to the damage. Whether I'm off by a factor of 10 or that cubed, the principle of physics remains in tact: water seeks water. There is one hydrologic cycle. Inject toxic water in Buffalo and it will seep into the groundwater which will eventually reach Rochester, Albany and NYC. It isn't rocket science but common sense.
That is my 'common-sense' reality and that of millions of people in fracked counties and states across the country. And then there's the question: why hunt down natural gas anyway when there are excellent alternatives that don't even nearly jeopardize the water table....how about that question, rather than defending a dinosaur-like, been-there, done-that practice?
Fracking ALSO requires massive amounts of water, which, in many places, we don't have. It combines the water with toxins (like fracking fluid and brine) and makes it unusable. And hard to dispose of.
So yay, it doesn't directly contaminate wells with fluid. Nobody ever thought it did, I know the authors of the study weren't expecting to find that it did. But it DOES damage drinking wells, and that is the problem that must be dealt with.
"Massive amounts" of water is also a misnomer. The average golf course requires far more water than a shale gas well, and the average farm results in huge amounts of fertilizer run off.
Looking out for water usage and watershed pollution makes sense. But banning facing, while farmers and golf courses remain undisturbed, is penny wise and pound foolish.
-Will eventually run out, just like oil (we've been here before)
-No where near 200 years of gas supply (anyone who tells you that is a liar)
-WE SHOULD SAVE IT FOR WHEN WE ACTUALLY NEED IT (why does China get to hoard?)
-Just because you can profit from it doesn't pre-qualify it as an intelligent investment (almost criminal ie halliburton loophole)
-Financial long term effects need to be considered as well! After health and environment....would be nice if it were in that order in the US but not reality :(
-Negligent leadership in the US. Why aren't more people mad as hell?
http://opensourcecleantech.blogspot.com/
Did you mention leadership? I remember that word, but haven't heard it used in a while accurately. Does leadership exist any longer around controversial issues by anyone in political office? Not except Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul just about!
Thanks for your comments.
In the absence of an adversarial relationship between regulators and the industry, the industry will do anything that it wants.
And yes, lying about the dangers of a business practice to maximize profits is something that is punishable by law...which law was created because...businessmen lied about what they were doing, and had to be punished.
Thanks for your comments!
Thanks for the blog.
This is a normal cost of business and there are reserves set aside for this.
Taxpayers? Hell no!
FWIW, a lot of this natural gas can be used at the well site to general electricity via gas turbines or fuel cells. Both are clean, proven technologies.
Thanks for your comments!
Thanks for your comments---I agree!
Well we had a period of slaves then we became serfs I guess we can become share croppers.
I don't hardly like this idea!
(Almost) all cars use gasoline. But I see a big difference between a Hummer, an Escalade, a Corolla, and a Prius. Just like I see a big difference between cyanide leaching, mountaintop removal coal mining, and gas fracing.
My problem with this industry is the huge amount of fresh water they use instead of using what they (the industry) admits are abundant sources of gray water available for the process. None of the post fracking water can be used and only adds to fresh water supplies degradation.
We refuse to acknowledge the precious commodity clean water is enough to really get serious about the problems. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and we're getting close to that when.
The Ripple Effect by Prud'homme is an excellent read on these issues.
People are funny creatures!
I agree wholly about water, which is NOT a commodity--it's the basis of Life Itself.
Thanks for your comments.
Activist: one who takes action
Better activism that couchpotatoism
The comments here have been wonderful. One or two couch potatoes who think with no more than half their brain, but the average is delightfully thoughtful and thinking with their hearts.
Thanks for weighing in!
The author must have read a different Duke University Report than I did... The report I read said, in bold faced letters, that NO CONTAMINATION from frac fluids or brine was found in any of the test wells. Who were the "many other" universities that did studies? MIT, maybe, the preeminent engineering and physics school on the planet? They found it to be a safe process also. I stopped reading after that bald-faced lie - the rest of his statement is utter drivel. Did I miss anything good?...
People can have different legitimate opinions concerning fracking but Mr. Rabin crossed the line.
Maybe he should limit his opinions to things like the Casey Anthony case.
I'm not particularly skilled in reading engineering technical papers, it's true. But I don't need a technical paper on my side to have a sound opinion about the dangers of fracking. Who drew that line that I crossed, you? You make it sound like there is only one sound opinion here, and that is of those that agree that the fracking process isn't dangerous. Tell that to those who have gotten ill from drinking the water in fracked areas.
Those who rely on technical papers only have evidently left the domain of common sense and are only using a limited part of their ability to think, if you don't mind my observing.
Have you analyzed, Mr. Hensley, the chemicals in fracking fluid? Would you want to drink the water they're being carried in? Or your children? Or water that can catch on fire? I think not. Do you need a report from MIT to convince you of that? I think not again.
But, if you want the names of some scientists and others who have studied the subject thoroughly, and who have a similar opinion as I do, review these:
Al Appleton, municipal water consultant, former DEP commissioner
Brian Brock, geologist
Ron Bishop, PhD chemistry
Bob Howarth, environmental science, Cornell University
Tony Ingraffea, rock fracture specialist, Cornell University
Jilda Rush, cement inspector
I hope this proves to be helpful. I don't truck in Casey Anthony-style cases.
Despite our differing opinions,I appreciate your weighing in here.
You missed the part in the Duke report that fracking disturbs the otherwise dormant methane, which then seeps into groundwater.
You see, there are certain processes in life for which you don't need university studies. When you put toxic chemicals into the ground, do you need a scientist to tell you what happens to them? The pre-eminent engineering school in the country still doesn't understand the technology of Nicoli Tesla....why should we all be so impressed? They're good at some things, excellent at others. But we don't need an academic report to tell us that toxins go in, and toxins come out. Do they disappear into thin air?
Why is it that the executives at every single gas co. don't want to drink the water from the areas where they have fracked? Coincidence? What happened to common sense?!!!
I cited Duke for others--not for those who can figure out that when I put toxic chemicals into the earth, they're going to eventually find their way into the water table. This is not rocket science my friend!
Thanks for weighing in.
I'll let the rest of your reply speak for itself. You people are truly amazing, really - you'll list 10,000 studies that show that Climate Change is happening, but when EVERY study shows that fraccing is NOT the cause of contamination, you disbelieve it, dismiss it out of hand, because it doesn't fit into what you WANT the answer to be, with little regard for the truth. Did you really just, not in so many words, say that MIT is incompetent? Really? Do you expect people to take you seriously after this?
To a Liberal, the truth is only what they WANT it to be, not what it really is...
Then there’s the question about how cement holds up under multiple hydro-fracks. Re-fracking is a real concern, says Ingraffea, because “each time you re-pressurize the wellbore for a frack job, it puts the cement at risk.” And, he says, the industry already knows that cement that has been stressed frequently has a higher failure rate.
Ingraffea also wants EPA to get better data on the cumulative impact of intensive drilling on neighboring wells. Pennsylvania drillers estimate that they’ll be putting in 8 to 12 wells on a pad, with the vertical wellbores spaced about 20 feet apart. “What happens to the first well when the second is drilled?” asks Ingraffea. “Do the vibrations damage the cement?”"
So again, YOUR expert, Ingraffea, is asking the SAME questions I've been asking - "What about the cement in other wells?". THAT is the cause of contamination - THE CEMENT! Or, to be more accurate, poor cement. Fraccing just increases production. if it has an effect on cement, then we need better cement - THAT should be the focus.