4 ms·

It's funny you mention this. In 2005 they got an exemption from the Clean Water Act. Good luck proving they are the source of your contamination you have an e

It's funny you mention this. In 2005 they got an exemption from the Clean Water Act. Good luck proving they are the source of your contamination you have an exemption like this: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfr...

protomyth 14y ago
They are injecting the water 6,000 and 10,000 feet and aquifers are about 500 feet down. They had to get the exception according to current law even if they were somehow injecting directly into the earth's core. The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer.
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer. Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. > They had to get the exception according to current law Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    > Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology. > Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA. The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996. The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      > The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. The EPA rules are inconvenient because they don't want anyone to know the proprietary methods used for fracking, not because EPA rules prevent it. That's actually the best part. It's declared safe because the people with the vested interest to make billions of dollars say so. > You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations. You mean like coal waste runoff into waterways? The rules don't fit those kinds of situations on purpose.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        When your referring to "proprietary methods", I'm not sure what the heck you mean. It is well researched in public with different vendors.
        darkarmani 14y ago
        I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm naturally suspicious when money + regulators + special concessions collide. These are two arbitrary links I found from a quick search: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/frack-freely-but-disclose-chemicals-put-into-the-ground.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/frack-freely-but-di... "The disclosure requirements in several states allow energy companies wide latitude to claim “trade secret” status for the chemical makeup of their fracking fluids. And at least two states place unreasonable restrictions on doctors and other health officials who learn about any of these “proprietary” ingredients. " http://www.propublica.org/article/critics-find-gaps-in-state-laws-to-disclose-hydrofracking-chemicals http://www.propublica.org/article/critics-find-gaps-in-state... "“While we support disclosing our ingredients, it is critical to our business that we protect our recipe,” Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil and gas service companies, told ProPublica in an email." It's hard to model the risk from fracking, if protecting the business is more important than our health and the environment's health. I don't think we can just take their word that they are being safe.
        14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

They are injecting the water 6,000 and 10,000 feet and aquifers are about 500 feet down. They had to get the exception according to current law even if they were somehow injecting directly into the earth's core. The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer.

darkarmani 14y ago
> The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer. Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. > They had to get the exception according to current law Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
- protomyth 14y ago
  > Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology. > Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA. The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996. The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. The EPA rules are inconvenient because they don't want anyone to know the proprietary methods used for fracking, not because EPA rules prevent it. That's actually the best part. It's declared safe because the people with the vested interest to make billions of dollars say so. > You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations. You mean like coal waste runoff into waterways? The rules don't fit those kinds of situations on purpose.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      When your referring to "proprietary methods", I'm not sure what the heck you mean. It is well researched in public with different vendors.
      - darkarmani 14y ago
        I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm naturally suspicious when money + regulators + special concessions collide. These are two arbitrary links I found from a quick search: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/frack-freely-but-disclose-chemicals-put-into-the-ground.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/frack-freely-but-di... "The disclosure requirements in several states allow energy companies wide latitude to claim “trade secret” status for the chemical makeup of their fracking fluids. And at least two states place unreasonable restrictions on doctors and other health officials who learn about any of these “proprietary” ingredients. " http://www.propublica.org/article/critics-find-gaps-in-state-laws-to-disclose-hydrofracking-chemicals http://www.propublica.org/article/critics-find-gaps-in-state... "“While we support disclosing our ingredients, it is critical to our business that we protect our recipe,” Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil and gas service companies, told ProPublica in an email." It's hard to model the risk from fracking, if protecting the business is more important than our health and the environment's health. I don't think we can just take their word that they are being safe.
        14y ago