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."

13 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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 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.

    5. 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.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    6. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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....