Slashdot Mirror
Fracking Disclosure Rules Approved In CO
ExE122 writes "Colorado has approved new measures taking a tough stance on the disclosure of chemicals used in fracking. The new law is 'requiring companies to disclose the concentrations of chemicals in addition to the chemicals themselves.' Fracking is a controversial method of natural gas extraction that raises concerns about health and safety issues to surrounding communities. This measure is said to be tougher than similar measures passed in Texas earlier this year."
Too bad the chemicals aren't required to be listed if they're trade secrets.
"The solution was a new form requiring a company to attest — under penalty of perjury — that a chemical is proprietary."
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_19542430#ixzz1gWXCPYOi
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Because the water from precipitation is so low in Colorado and we're in a semi-arid climate, there's a lot of concern for the watershed and depriving the people downstream of water. Rainbarrels are technically illegal because that moisture is needed to maintain the natural flow of streams - damming, controlling, or restricting its natural flow can cause problems further down the line, or so it's proposed. But it's scarce enough on a climate level that even the rain is considered necessary.
Hyrdrofracking for gas is an extremely recent development - at least in the form currently used. It was not legally possible to use the current methods of hydrofracking until the Halliburton Loophole exemptions to the Clean Water Act were pased as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Evidence that this is different?
Energy Policy Act of 2005 - specifically the Halliburton Loophole exemptions to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Fracking for gas didn't "take off" until that loophole was passed - so clearly SOMETHING they are doing is different that the loophole enables them to do.
The problem is that the same exemption allows them to hide what they are doing.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Except that wells that have run clean for decades started showing signs of contamination within months of drilling commencing.
Dimock, PA had clean water for decades in their wells - not any more.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Evidences that it's different? NO? I didn't think so.
Evidence? Anyone who has spent 10 minutes caring about this issue knows there are significant differences. Let me save you a few keystrokes on Google and start with much deeper wells, moving from vertical wells to horizontal ones, and greatly increasing the amount of fluids used and waste generated.
Irrelevant i any case, there is no evidence fracking impacts any water supply.
You're a bit behind the times I'm afraid. Again, let me save you a trip to Google:
This information might have been out there for you years ago had Cheney not inserted his Haliburton exemption in his energy bill back in 2005.
My sister owns a water quality lab in Montana. Every town is required to test their water supply regularly for biological and chemical contaminants and for years they have submitted their samples via regular mail to labs like my sister's for testing. Except that the EPA has shortened the window for getting your samples in to a lab from 48 hours to 30 hours, which the Post Office cannot manage with current levels of service. UPS and FedEx don't serve many rural areas, so there is no way for many towns to test their water any more. Add in large, imminent cutbacks at the USPS, and you have a looming public health crisis as it is.
Now with the advent of fracking in the state there is a real possibility thousands of people will be poisoned by ground water contamination, but thanks to the breakdown in the testing it won't be discovered until it's far too late.
Winning more natural gas is a plus for energy independence, but if we're doing that at the cost of putting benzene into our drinking water then perhaps we need to look at other ways to generate power.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I am in my late 30's and grew up hearing the term fracking, because my dad worked in the natural gas business. My uncle ran a workover rig and did frack jobs when I was a kid. So, pumping liquids deep in the ground to cause fissures in the rocks holding the gas pockets has been around for a long long time. Back then it was mostly done to older wells to get them to produce more, and today it is done more often on the front end to reduce the risks associated with re-entering existinig wells.
If you are saying that the technology has developed over the decades and the chemical mix or the exact process has developed then sure. But to say it didnt exist is like saying that because the processor in my PC is faster now that PCs didnt exist before now.
Based on the people I have talked to who have been doing this for decades the percentages of chemicals used has been reduced over the years in favor of a higher percentage of water. So, if what you are saying is they used to pump all kinds of stuff deep in the ground, and now the process is mostly water - then I agree.
There is so much FUD surrounding this issue, and it is obscuring what the real concerns should be. Are there risks associated with gas and oil exploration - yes there are many. Should there be regulations on these industries - no doubt. Do we need to continue to evaluate these regulations and the safety measures as the drilling technologies and the saftey technologies develop - for sure. Are the general public and most news reporters capable of understanding and evaluating the risks vs. the amount of regulations and safety requirements - not from what I can tell.
And the law is so complex that having 1000x the lawyering is an advantage, because...?
Look, if we're going to assume a libertopia hypothetical, assume it all the way.
Actually, the more educated libertarians (not the internet nut/strawmen type) do have better (or at least more developed) solutions to this problem then "take them to court in this system that is completely rigged in favor of the big companies." Mostly involving more highly developed property rights and protections. But it's a bit long to go into in slashdot comment.
It's fairly frustrating. Most of my political conversations, if I want to defend my point at all, risk turning into a lengthy lecture on libertarian theory. Because there *is* more to it than just "government bad", but if you haven't read the economic arguments it doesn't really work...