Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vermont Bans Fracking

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-more-gas-for-you dept.

eldavojohn writes "Vermont is the first state to ban fracking (hydraulic fracturing), a process that was to revolutionize the United States' position into a major producer of natural gas. New York currently has a moratorium on fracking but it is not yet a statewide ban. Video of the signing indicates the concern over drinking water as the motivation for Vermont's measures (PDF draft of legislation). Slashdot has frequently encountered news debating the safety of such practices."

34 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. That settles it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're moving to Vermont!

    1. Re:That settles it... by AG+the+other · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cue the lawyers.
      You know if the oil companies think that there is recoverable gas or oil in Vermont the oil companies will try to go after it.

      --
      Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    2. Re:That settles it... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Vermont is small enough that they can just slant drill under it from neighboring states.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:That settles it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Neo-Luddism is alive and well in Vermont.

    4. Re:That settles it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you suggesting they drink Vermont's milkshake?

    5. Re:That settles it... by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure, but I don't think Vermont even has the right kind of geology for gas or oil. The Green Mountains are very old, I believe metamorphic rock, and I thought natural gas and oil are generally in sedimentary deposits - sandstone with a limestone cap, or some such.

      I suspect the ban is a symbolic gesture, already knowing that nothing is really at risk.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    6. Re:That settles it... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, according to the latest laws in Vermont:

      WHEREAS Vermont's milkshake has been proven to bring all the boys to that yard

      WHEREAS Vermont asserts that damn right, it's better than yours

      WHEREAS Vermont acknowledges the possibility of educating others on its milkshake as long as financial remuneration is achieved

      WHEREAS Hydraulic fracking has been shown to endanger said milkshake

      BE IT RESOLVED that Vermont hereby bans hydraulic fracking in all forms.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    7. Re:That settles it... by Lanteran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the result of fracking in your backyard is making your drinking water flammable, they're damn right to not want it there.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    8. Re:That settles it... by Vancorps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly someone that doesn't know anyone from Vermont. You know how frustrating it was for me to move to AZ back in 2001? I had DSL in Vermont since 1996. They were one of the first states to deploy it state-wide to assist with telecommuting. Our governor at the time, Howard Dean, even pumped state funds to help the more rural areas get it which was a direct benefit to myself.

      No, Vermonters are not afraid of progress or technology, hell IBM is a huge part of their tax payer base. You also wanna know where the two safest places are in terms of natural disasters? Yep, Arizona and Vermont! That's why people like to build data-centers there. I imagine they want to keep their drinking water and maintain steady ground beneath their feet. They actually care about their natural resources.

      Also, Vermonters are big producers of biodiesel so again I say, you probably shouldn't attack something you clearly know little to nothing about.

      With all the evidence against fracking and the banning of it in Europe, I'm concerned that people still haven't seen the writing on the wall with it.

    9. Re:That settles it... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the result of fracking in your backyard is making your drinking water flammable, they're damn right to not want it there.

      Well, since the only instance of this "flammable drinking water" that I know of existed *before* any fracking took place, you don't have much of a factual/logical leg to stand on here.

      Another NIMBY/Luddite fairy tale, spread to frighten the uninformed masses into knee-jerk reactions.

      Like yours.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:That settles it... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not neo-luddism. Vermont has no natural gas, so this has no effect. It's just good old-fashioned political cynicism. Throw a bone to appease anyone who cares but doesn't care enough to actually check.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:That settles it... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regardless of whether fracking results in the near-permanent contamination of rural water supplies nearby it, it is a rather dreadful noisy and destructive process. I've spoken with someone who got lumped into a settlement and is watching the process unfold around him. Roads being destroyed by heavy machinery, and a 24-hour cacophony of noise. And that is without the potential contamination of the water supply due to concrete breaking down over time or unknown geological variables that result in the leaking of said chemicals somewhere along the line. Perhaps as a result of negligence or economic short-cutting to make more profit as the price of natural-gas plummets thus resulting in a desire to extract it with as little "investment" as possible. Yeah truly a luddite fairy tale, or is it really more of a real-life nightmare.

      OK, this is what I don't understand about how the environmental movement in general thinks about petroleum as an energy source, fracking, and domestic oil exploration and drilling. They say they'd like to see these activities and the use of petroleum as a primary energy source reduced or eliminated.

      Fair enough. We still, despite any practical reductions achievable through conservation in the next few decades, will need more energy than alternatives are able to supply or in the manner/form necessary.

      It seems to me that it would provide a much greater incentive for the US to reduce it's petroleum usage if the US kept more of the "externalities", like geological and environmental dangers of petroleum exploration, drilling, & refining within the domestic US instead of allowing those negative externalities to be exported to other regions.

      It seems it would be a double-win for the environmentalists, as those policies would not only accelerate alternative energy development and deployment, and would also keep more of the nation's wealth that was sent to the Middle East and elsewhere stimulating the US economy and creating jobs and opportunity here for everyone.

      They could be heroes if they weren't so short-sighted and unable to see a larger picture.

      But then, it may not be simple short-sightedness with many environmental activists and groups, but instead, a deliberate.use of the environmental agenda as camouflage. I get the feeling that many are more concerned with attacking Capitalism and promoting class-warfare and collectivism than protecting the environment.

      It's known as "Eco-Socialism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

      Not that all environmental groups belong to this group. However, it's largely due to these types that those individuals and groups truly concerned with the environment and ready to work on actual, practical solutions get painted negatively in the public's perceptions.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Better reported as by Radtastic · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Vermont Says, "No Fracking Fracking!"

    --
    You stereotypers are all the same...
  3. About time.. by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A common sense idea made law that goes against the big oil and gas industries? Maybe there is hope after all!
    Its a little old, but here is a good PBS report on the subject fot the lesser informed:
    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/613/index.html

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:About time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I cant believe localized earthquakes in places that never have earthquakes isn't enough to sound any sort of alarm.........

    2. Re:About time.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't science.

      This is engineering implemented by human actors who are both Not rational and Not accountable for their actions due to deregulation of fracking and its exemption from the Clean Water Act.

      Linking anti-fracking with anti-science is dishonest and manipulative of the discussion.

    3. Re:About time.. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WE need scientific evidence, and the people flooding the water table with cocktails of industrial grade chemicals don't?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:About time.. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm in PA, which is not hostile to fracking.

      In general I am "pro" fracking - even given some health and environmental effects, you have to weigh it against the effects of coal mining and oil drilling.

      My main concern is that the fracking chemicals are considered a trade secret and so are not disclosed. The broader scientific community has no good way of evaluating the chemicals that are frequently used, and I think that does a disservice to everyone involved.

      My other problem is a political one - our state does not make any money when the gas is extracted. I think a fee should be charged and that the money should go to a contingency fund (in case this fracking thing needs cleanup afterall...) that after, say, 30 years could dump into the state treasury. Other money should go into an infrastructure fund - the state should benefit in the long-term from resources extracted inside of it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:About time.. by phrostie · · Score: 4, Informative

      you're closer than most, thank you.

      rather than taking the Luddism approach they should first educate the people about the difference between fracking and disposal wells. they are not the same.
      the media never got it right, and they passed that ignorance on to the alarmist, who ran with it.

      when problems happen it's not the fracking, but the completion of the well that was done wrong. that's when you cement the steel casing(pipe) to isolate your production zone from the other formations your drilled thru. they should be passing laws to require more strict control durring this phase.
      they should be hiring and training more inspectors.
      that they aren't paying attention until several steps later tells me this probably isn't regulated at all in these states.

    6. Re:About time.. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think most of the complaints are with natural gas ending up in drinking water. It's hard to judge, though, because the places where natural gas is plentiful already had a lot of gas in the drinking water.

      The other concern is the unknown chemicals used in the frack water. Apparently the exact mix is considered a trade secret and so it goes largely untested by the scientific community.

      There is the earthquake issue with the disposal, but these tremors are tiny little things. I have no idea if they could "trigger" a destructive earthquake, but it seems unlikely IMUHO (uninformed humble opinion) :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:About time.. by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then the fracking is doing you a favor. They're not pumping with enough energy to actually run an earthquake, so the only plausible mechanism is that the tracking fluid is acting as a lubricant and allowing the geology to relieve some accumulated stress.

      In other words, fracking is actually preventing "the big one."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:About time.. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

      I call Bullshit on your Bullshit. Many folks have sued for the information and not been able to obtain it. Not something the companies would deny providing if it were publically available.

    9. Re:About time.. by Genda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly you haven't studied the effects of lubricating geological strata. Their having the same problem up around Calistoga, CA where they've been enhancing geothermal systems by injecting water to increase the steam but also as a side effect lubricating strata, and causing earthquakes from sub 1.0 to nearly 5.0 on the Richter Scale. In the case of Fracking, these are places where there was little or no movement in the ground and you created movement first by creating an artificial fault network (the Fracking itself) and then by applying a lubricant to help the gas migrate to the surface. All of that said, there are a host of ways to manage and mitigate these problems, and we need to be looking at how we can best balance the interest of the many with the well being of those impacted.

      However, the real problem surrounding fracking is that ex-VP Cheney ramrodded legislation through for his good friends at Halliburton and its subsidiaries allowing them to claim the contents of their fracking fluid as a "Trade Secret", and virtually excusing them from all clean water law. The result is that a few greedy, nasty, bad men, did really sorry things to a few people's drinking water and used a number of small rural communities as their toilets. There is worrisome evidence that a few people have died. There is significant evidence that a number of people have been exposed to toxic levels of benzene, heavy metals, and a whole raft of other known carcinogens and neurotoxins. The culprits are folks who are well connected, have friends all the way to the Supreme Court and the chance they'll even receive even a wrist slap is vanishingly small. At best, those who have been assaulted and abused (or their grandchildren... if any survive) may in distant decades collect some small monetary recompense for their suffering and almost certainly shortened life spans. This is not an indictment on the industry. I believe its possible to "Frack" safely and with clear consideration for the environment and the people that live in said environment. It is, as with so many other things, a situation where a few really disgusting self serving two legged vermin, have paved the entire scenery with their personal manifest destinies and left all including responsible business men and women holding a bag full of their rancid social excrement.

      A just system would punish the guilty and reward the innocent. We are sadly in a longing search for a just system. We need to come up with a better game than simple "Monetary Profit", because this game is killing us all.

    10. Re:About time.. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      His point is that there is no evidences that any of t is getting into the water table

      If it can't possibly affect the water table, why do drilling companies end up shipping water to people such as Mr. Ira Haire, who live near their fracking sites?

      Why are the horses and pets in Dimock, PA, losing their hair?

      Why is the EPA detecting fracking chemicals in the aquifers of Pavillion, Wyoming?

      How about this Oklahoma Geological Survey report (PDF) that suggests the recent uptick in earthquakes were caused by fracking?

      What about waste treatment plants that fail to successfully reduce the levels of contaminants before discharging the water into a river?

      How about the President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition admitting that fracking has contaminated the drinking water in PA?

      And what happens to the chemicals *after* they're pulled out of the ground? Sometimes they just dump it, like the case of Josh Foster.

      Fracking can be done right. But it's expensive and requires the cooperation of many disparate companies and enforcement of regulations (or any regulations at all; I'm looking at you, Halliburton Loophole). And expensive is not profitable.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    11. Re:About time.. by Frangible · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry, but the burden of proof is on he who is fracking things up. And a lack of data does not indicate safety, either.

      Before fracking as we know it today was commercially viable, under the "Plowshares" program, nuclear bombs were detonated to stimulate the release of natural gas. They included Project Rio Blanco and Project Rusilon in Colorado, and Project Gasbuggy in New Mexico.

      For the most part, this was not a successful venture. Rio Blanco, a test which used three bombs in close proximity, failed entirely. Rusilon and Gasbuggy succeeded -- Rusilon especially -- but as you probably correctly guessed already, the gas was radioactive and unmarketable.

      But, all the plans required careful designs for preventing the release of contamination to a degree no one has to live up to with modern fracking.

      Now, pull up Google Earth and look at 39.405278, -107.948528 . This is the where the Rusilon device was detonated in Colorado. Now start zooming out and panning around. You will note a great deal of little patches of concrete and dirt in the area. These are natural gas wells. The DOE is still accountable for making sure no radioactive contamination from Rusilon ever gets out.

      So what you see here is someone taking advantage of mysterious, conveniently rich and abundant quantities of natural gas suddenly found in this region in the last 40 years. But none of it's directly contaminated by the Rusilon test. Either the isotopes have decayed or secondary effects from the blast unrelated to contamination resulted in long-term changes to the region. The water quality in the Rusilon area has been extensively monitored, so at least that was not affected here.

      But the point is, I can state things definitely here because the DOE has spent millions watching these sites like a hawk. And even the most minute traces of radioactive contamination can be detected, because it is its own radioactive tracer.

      Can anyone say the same about modern fracking? Who's going to be watching modern fracking sites in 40 years? Who's making sure the secondary long-term effects upon region geology don't negatively impact others?

      I'm not arguing for detonating nukes for natural gas production, I think it's a dumb idea, but these tests have shown long-term effects upon area geology caused by the blast effects alone, which while not negative in these three cases, certainly have the potential to be, no matter what force of nature you're relying on to frack things up for you.

      And then there's the contamination. And you have to use a lot more fracking stuff to stimulate the same amount of natural gas production as a couple kilograms of plutonium. That equates to injecting a lot of fracking crap in the ground. No monitoring, no testing, changes to area geology, no half-life that it will decay in... do you think every fracking site out there is going to sequester things away forever?

  4. What the Frack? by Lavithas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hope I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of Battlestar Galactica.

  5. Easy to do...when you've no gas reserves by ravenscar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From this wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States, it would appear that VT doesn't have any natural gas reserves to speak of. That makes it easy for them to ban fracking - there isn't any revenue/economy to be built on that effort anyhow. Perhaps Nebraska can outlaw fishing for Chilean Sea Bass. States with large reserves will likely have a harder time taking that leap.

    Note - VT is close to a large reserve so I suppose I could be wrong about how much gas is easily accessible from that location.

    1. Re:Easy to do...when you've no gas reserves by ediron2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not a geologist, but the quantity of slate and shale I saw hiking the green mountains makes me doubt there's nothing there.

      And going at the question another way, the Dakotas were hardly hotbeds of petrol -- natural gas and shale oil projects are huge employers in NoDak right now. Idaho's never been good for coal or petroleum, but gas is interesting enough to someone with deep pockets to cause preliminary drilling near Payette (if memory serves). And Idaho saw LOTS of legislative fury as the state preemptively denied counties/towns any control over fracking. Yep, politicians that never shut up about local control all lined up and voted to completely deny any local control on fracking chemicals or processes.

      Something stinks, and I'm betting it's energy-extractive industry working fast and quiet before revealing their hand.

      Looking forward to those cornfed seabass; YUM.

  6. Idiots by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Informative

    No fracking will be coming here, due to our geology. But don't let that stop grandstanding politicians from doing something to solve a problem, even one that doesn't exist.

    --
    Liberty in your lifetime
  7. What types of fracking? by demonbug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article doesn't go into much detail on what specifically is banned. We sometimes use hydraulic and/or pneumatic fracturing for environmental cleanups; of course, only water (or air/nitrogen) are used - generally pretty shallow and only trying to increase transmissivity of sediments, not break up rock. Just wondering if they actually put some thought into it, or just knee-jerk banned all hydraulic fracturing. The technology does have uses besides breaking up shale to extract natural gas.

  8. Re:The Victory of Fear by EdIII · · Score: 5, Informative

    You would think that right?

    I have experience with fraccing, and have been on several very deep wells with huge fracs (or so I thought).

    Logically, by most definitions of fraccing it is nigh impossible for the water table to be affected by activity thousands of feet below. If it is being affected it is because of shoddy casing (the cement lined straw that goes through all the formations), which has nothing to do with fraccing.

    Shoddy casing is surprisingly more common than I thought. Fraccing puts a lot of strain on casing anyways. A bad casing job will absolutely have problems if it is exposed to the water table.

    Several months ago a poster pointed me to an article about a different method of fraccing that is being used in these wells. For the life of me I wish I had it book marked. It described a fraccing process that I could only say was irresponsible at best. It was *not* a simple one time frac thousands of feet below water tables.

    The method described in this article could easily affect water tables in a short period of time.

    When I first heard about the controversy over fraccing I thought exactly as you did. It was ridiculous. Basic knowledge about fraccing precludes such possibilities.

    I tried looking up the article in Google again... and lo and behold... 4 advertisements. 2 pro, and 2 con. Can't find anything about this method of fraccing anymore. Hmmmm....

  9. No Evidence Whatsoever? by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    His point is that there is no evidences that any of t is getting into the water table.

    Well, there have been cases where the stuff that is taken out does find its way into the drinking water but the common argument is that it was mishandled. The way I see this, in a very unscientific way, is that we're doing something similar to when we dumped mountains of garbage into the Pacific Ocean because, hey let's face it, there's nothing out there and nobody's ever going to be able to find it, right? And now we just sit there and stare at it wondering if anyone's going to do anything about it saying stupid shit like "Well, it doesn't matter if we stop, Japan will keep dumping out there."

    And, you know, this fracking stuff just sounds like more of the same mentality and I feel like it could bite our ass in the future when all of Pennsylvania has pockets of water underneath it that, by themselves pose no risk but added up eventually cause us some discomfort. And yet, all the comments on Slashdot assure me I'm just a fear monger so what are you to do? People seem to get upset when I try to place the burden of proof that this will not harm us in anyway on the companies that are going to make billions of dollars off it and the people that still own mineral rights are telling me to shut the hell up at all costs. These natural gas companies sound like really unsavory types.

    DO you even know what chemicals are in there?

    Now that's a funny question if you're in PA (and I don't mean "ha-ha" funny).

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. Re:yeah sure by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Informative

    Casings crack and leak ALL THE FREAKING TIME. If you think they are some magical seal that always works you are ignoring the reality in the field. Oil/gase companies experiment with new casing techniques all the time because cracking/leaking happens a lot, and they are still looking for solutions to the problem. Claming casings seal off the hole is grand ignorance of reality.

  11. Re:how'bout u first prove beyond doubt that its sa by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Compositions of many of the fluids are freely available because of complaints about the issue.

    Here's one source of information:

    http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used