"The researchers did not conclude that gas and fluids were migrating directly from the deep pockets of gas the industry was extracting. In fact, they said it was more likely that the gas originated from a weakness somewhere along the well's structure."
That is a direct quote from the article. The only other reference I could find was about how a "spill" of fracking fluid from a surface tank had contaminated streams around Dimock. So fracking was indirectly the cause of that contamination, because the fluid was sitting in the tank to be used in fracking operations, but the contamination wasn't caused by the fracking process itself.”
“Seems the only way to price that into the market is through a tax on natural gas. No single operator is going to raise their natural gas price in order to pay for future environmental cleanup. If they do, then consumers will buy their gas elsewhere. If regulations required extra expenditure on a per well or per developemtn basis for future environmental cleanup, I imagine it would make most if not all shale gas operations marginal to uneconomic and the companies would go away to do something more profitable somewhere else. Every other country on earth seems to be scrambling now to identify potential shale gas deposits that they can tap, so I wouldn't be surprised to see companies pick up and go away if our governement decides to add extra cost to the cost of drilling and extracting shale gas in the US.”
“The bore hole is not sealed? I'm pretty sure EVERY state requires aquifers to be sealed behind at least one layer of casing before any completion of oil/gas reservoirs of any kind takes place in the wellbore. Please show me regulations that allow drillers in PA to NOT case off fresh water aquifers.”
“How are natural gas prices "artificially" low? Are there price supports for natural gas? I thought supply and demand, or at least the perception of both, were the major drivers on commodity prices?”
abbienormal on Apr 26, 2011 at 21:32:30
“The EPA can regulate and impose fines and penalties for violations. More importantly, it can refuse permits.”
abbienormal on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:01:03
“Well, that is the point. The costs of extraction may exceed the benefits of having the additional gas. That is the discussion that we need to have within our states and our country. But, the only way that we can have that discussion is to fully load the cost of extraction. That is the purpose of the EPA. They do cost/benefit analyses but sometimes way, way too late.”
abbienormal on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:44:53
“Because the gas companies do not have to pay for the environmental damage that they do. Their legal departments combined with our weak regulations make sure that is the case.
Externalities such as these are not priced in the market appropriately.”
"Among major gas-producing states, Pennsylvania is the only one that allowed the bulk of its well brine to be treated and dumped in rivers and streams. Other states required it to be injected into deep underground shafts"
Apart from the obvious error regarding "deep underground shafts" (as if Ohio has extensive mining shafts 10,000 feet below the surface), the article clearly states that the practice in question is allowed by PA regulations. If it is breaking federal law, why aren't the feds investigating and/or prosecuting?”
“I have seen Gasland, and it was a well-made and thought provoking movie. And it does present issues that need to be addressed by industry and regulatory bodies. But it also presents as "fact" a number of cases that have been proven to be unrelated to shale gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. While I commend the film makers on bringing the issues to the forefront of peoples minds, I do not ever consider a movie that is made primarily to generate revenue as a scientific report. Movies can present anything as fact and are not required to fact-check or be peer reviewed. Interviews with landowners tell the landowners story as the landowner wants it presented, and the landowner has an agenda just as much as anyone.
"There's methane in my drinking water, and there is a hydraulically fractured gas well nearby, so hydraulic fracturing must be the cause of the methane in my drinking water." That's an easy claim to make, but a real "report" would attempt to ascertain through chemical analyses whether the methane could have come from the well or wells in question. Reports should contain data and analysis of those data, not just accusations and interviews.”
“Gasland is a fact based documentary. The testimonials are from the actual victims of damages. The photographs are verified. There are interviews with landowners. The credits show references. Have you seen it? Do you deny that the damages in Pennsylvania are real?”
“I don't know whether it is true or not, that's exactly my point. Order me up a glass and I will send it off for testing of against a sample of frac fluid used in nearby wells, and then when I have analyzed the results I will be able to make up my own mind based on actual data whether or not hydraulic fracturing may have had anything to do with it. And if its clean, I'll drink it.”
Thomas Earl on Apr 18, 2011 at 20:16:50
“Careful Droog - you are asking for facts and data before drawing conclusions and it would appear as anathema to many posters. The very first sentence in the article states POTENTIALLY yet these people have children erupting in boils and dying in mass graves. Check the ground water - if the compounds ARE dangerous AND are present in the ground water then the company needs to be shut down until they can devise a method that does not contaminate the ground water.
It is similar to an event that happened in the US Navy many years ago when the man in charge of it, Admiral Hyman Rickover was challenged regarding the safety of the secondary coolant in a Navy reactor. To demonstrate he drank a glass.....”
“Testy eh? Admitted? I'm posting online, not being deposed.
And I don't consider a documentary film, i.e. something made for entertainment purposes and to make money, as a reputable source of information, but rather a source of entertainment. Especially since some of the claims made in the film have turned out to be bogus. While I agree the film is well-done and thought provoking, I believe it is naive to take as truth something that is presented in a film.
I am not a paid poster, and I do work peripherally in the oil and gas industry. And I'm not arguing "only bad things happened when there were poor regulations" because I know there are casing leaks in many wells that have been drilled recently. My argument is that alarm bells are going off all over the place and people are marching against "fracking" when nobody has yet investigated and reported its adverse effects, if indeed there are any. I tend to make decisions about what I support or oppose after I have examined actual evidence from reputable sources, not movies.”