2 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    You've got the ingredient and there are several companies who sell their own version. There are universities that do the research also. Look, they are doing stuff several miles of stone under any aquifer extract natural gas and oil that would have seeped into the water supply if it could (much like the methane in PA). [deleted section on edit since it was supposed to go on the other thread]

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.
- protomyth 14y ago
  You've got the ingredient and there are several companies who sell their own version. There are universities that do the research also. Look, they are doing stuff several miles of stone under any aquifer extract natural gas and oil that would have seeped into the water supply if it could (much like the methane in PA). [deleted section on edit since it was supposed to go on the other thread]