Fracking and Global Warming

[Dänk 42Ø]

Fracking and Global Warming
By Dänk 42Ø
19 May 2013

I was just watching what looks like a paid informercial for Halliburton,
the "Fareed Zakaria GPS" show on CNN. Fareed Zakaria starts of talking
about global warming, then argues that the best solution is for the USA
to help China master hydraulic fracturing aka "fracking" technology.

Hydraulic fracturing is a fairly new technology that allows access to
deposits of natural gas deep underground which were previously
inaccessible. As a result the USA now has a surplus of natural gas.
Naturally, our capitalist system wants to export it for profit, providing
little or no benefit to the American people.

Unfortunately, fracking has been known to pollute the underground water
table with toxic hydrocarbons like benzene. Energy companies alternately
deny this ever occurred or that the problem has been fixed. Still, there
is no guarantee that the cement plugs they use to prevent gas from
leaking out will hold over the centuries.

Natural gas is a darling of neo-environmentalists because it emits far
less CO2 than coal when burned, and almost no soot. China is the world's
largest user of coal, and the annual rise in that country's carbon
emissions will soon eclipse America's TOTAL emissions. So Zakaria argues
that it is in America's interest to share fracking technology with China,
so they can replace their dirty coal use with "cleaner" methane.

This idea makes some sense. But then consider that there is a sort of
free market limit on the use of coal: Even if the supply of coal is
unlimited, there is a demand for breathable air, thus limiting the amount
that can be burned. Now replace dirty coal with an almost unlimited
supply of cheap, clean-burning methane, and the demand for energy will
increase dramatically.

Here in the USA, demand for natural-gas vehicles has been increasing, the
slightly higher cost compensated for by fuel that costs the equivalent of
a dollar a gallon gasoline. People will drive more, and they will buy
bigger vehicles.

Using made-up numbers, replace the current amount of energy consumption
generated by coal with methane and CO2 emissions are cut in half. But
methane is so clean and cheap that demand for energy triples, producing
more CO2 than before!

I predict this fracking technology will come back to haunt us in the near
future. Cheap methane will increase energy use and total global carbon
emissions, and the drilling will contaminate water, poisoning the natural
and human food chain. Energy company executives and their workers will
continue to drink purified bottled water that doesn't catch fire, but
every other organism on earth is screwed.

[Joe Cooper]

Dänk 42Ø <da...@420.org> wrote in
news:iqKdnV8yzfnNigTM...@earthlink.com:

> Unfortunately, fracking has been known to pollute the underground water
> table with toxic hydrocarbons like benzene.

There is no credible evidence this is true, even though some studies have
made that claim, as the GAO report explained:

* In 2011, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania analyzed water samples taken
from 48 private water wells located within about 2,500 feet of a shale
gas well in the Marcellus Shale.

* In 2011, researchers from Duke University studied shale gas drilling
and hydraulic fracturing and the potential effects on shallow groundwater
systems near the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and the Utica Shale in
New York. Sixty drinking water samples were collected in Pennsylvania and
New York from bedrock aquifers that The analysis compared predrilling
samples to postdrilling samples to identify any changes to water quality.
The analysis showed that there were no statistically significant
increases in pollutants prominent in drilling waste fluids—such as total
dissolved solids, chloride, sodium, sulfate, barium, and strontium—and no
statistically significant increases in methane. The study concluded that
gas well drilling had not had a significant effect on the water quality
of nearby drinking water wells.

The study found that methane concentrations were detected generally in 51
drinking water wells across the region - regardless of whether shale gas
drilling occurred in the area—but that concentrations of methane were
substantially higher closer to shale gas wells. However, the researchers
reported that a source of the contamination could not be determined.
Further, the researchers reported that they found no evidence of
fracturing fluid in any of the samples.

• In 2011, the Ground Water Protection Council evaluated state agency
groundwater investigation findings in Texas and categorized the
determinations regarding causes of groundwater contamination resulting
from the oil and gas industry. During the study period—from 1993 through
2008—multistaged hydraulic fracturing stimulations were performed in over
16,000 horizontal shale gas wells. The evaluation of the state
investigations found that there were no incidents of groundwater
contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing.

In addition, regulatory officials we met with from eight states—Arkansas,
Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
Texas—told us that, based on state investigations, the hydraulic
fracturing process has not been identified as a cause of groundwater
contamination within their states.

A number of studies discuss the potential contamination of water from the
hydraulic fracturing process in shale formations. However, according
toseveral studies we reviewed, there are insufficient data for
predevelopment (or baseline) conditions for groundwater. Without data to
compare predrilling conditions to postdrilling conditions, it is
difficult to determine if adverse effects were the result of oil and gas
development, natural occurrences, or other activities.

The GAO report is extensive, and very well documented. It seems (to me) a
far cry from the hysteria emanating from the rabid environmental crowd,
and certainly well worth the time it takes to read it.

http://kenmcvay.com/fracking/


--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Leftists think and act like protofascists. Control is the key. And
control through fear, threat of force, and rhetorical intimidation
is the modus operandi. (Ben Shapro, "Bullies")

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:13:15 +0000, Joe Cooper wrote:

> A number of studies discuss the potential contamination of water from
> the hydraulic fracturing process in shale formations. However, according
> toseveral studies we reviewed, there are insufficient data for
> predevelopment (or baseline) conditions for groundwater. Without data to
> compare predrilling conditions to postdrilling conditions, it is
> difficult to determine if adverse effects were the result of oil and gas
> development, natural occurrences, or other activities.

Given that hydraulic fracturing is such a new technology, there hasn't
been enough time to study the long-term effects. Even if groundwater
isn't being contaminated right now, how can the energy companies
guarantee the hydrocarbons in the shale rock they tore up won't leak out
decades or centuries from now?

The energy companies don't care about potential future pollution because
they earn the profits now, and let future generations pay to clean up
their mess. A century from now today's flock of energy companies will
have merged and split and re-merged so much that holding them legally
liable for cleanup costs will be impossible.

A perfect example is the EPA "Superfund" which cleans up toxic waste
sites, made toxic by private companies in the last century who increased
their profits by not disposing of their chemical waste properly.
American taxpayers in this century who had nothing to do with it must
pay. Same with asbestos and lead paint -- the companies who sold these
products do not have to pay for the expensive cleanup.

This is a fundamental problem with capitalism: Revenues minus expenses
equals profits, but the expenses don't include the cost of fixing the
environmental damage caused by a company's products.

Electricity would not be so cheap if the CO2 produced by its generation
had to be captured instead of vented into the atmosphere. Food and
beverages would not be so profitable if the companies that produce them
had to pay to recycle the plastic containers they come in; instead they
transfer this cost to local governments who operate the landfills. The
booming fluorescent lighting industry profits from passing the cost of
mercury contamination to the future (because nobody recycles CFLs, they
just toss them in the trash).

This is not to say that capitalism should be abolished, it just has some
flaws that need to be fixed -- namely figuring out a way to make private
enterprises include the full cost of manufacture in their profits. This
is a libertarian position, since the philosophy holds that the role of
government is to provide a level playing field for the free market.
Competing by passing certain expenses like pollution cleanup to future
governments is cheating, and amounts to a corporate subsidy.

[Unclefred]

Joe Cooper wrote:

> D�nk 42� <da...@420.org> wrote in

> news:iqKdnV8yzfnNigTM...@earthlink.com:
>
>> Unfortunately, fracking has been known to pollute the underground
>> water table with toxic hydrocarbons like benzene.
>
> There is no credible evidence this is true, even though some studies
> have made that claim, as the GAO report explained:
>

Oh yes there is. The only people sayingthat there isn't are
either shills for the gas companies or people who believed them. The
other thing is that for areas where there is Uranium in the ground,
the fracking process free up the radon to come to the surface. Also
radium is water soluable and that makes the frack water radioactive
waste as well.

> * In 2011, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania analyzed water samples
> taken from 48 private water wells located within about 2,500 feet of
> a shale gas well in the Marcellus Shale.
>

No doubt ignoring all the ones that were likely to be
contaminated. How many wells *didn't* they take samples from?


--
Regards,
Fred Williams