06 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by stevemccTaking your statement at face value it's difficult to know what to believe.
So Obama's EPA issues a report saying there's no 'systemic' damage caused by fracking. Does everybody believe them?
I don't know why the EPA wouldn't want to back all of Obamas efforts to limit US exploration and drilling (or fracking), as well as preventing the building of new refineries. But the political climate in Washington is already starting to change because everyone knows the leadership will change, and no one can know with 100% certainty that a democrat will be the next president.
So it could be that the EPA may simply want to distance themselves from Obama, because they've been feeling some of the heat generated over negative public opinion (of Obama and his policies). Hillary obvious intends to distance herself from him, even though she was instrumental in helping him cover up some rather big boo boos.
Most or all of the fracking is done on privately owned land, and the federal government is not able to exercise as much control as they can (and do) with federally 'owned' land. So it wouldn't make sense for anyone over at the EPA to not tell the truth about fracking. Obama won't punish them for contradicting him because he will soon be out of office. But even if we had Obama for another 8 years he couldn't do much to discourage fracking, because the EPA doesn't have the same level of control over privately owned land as they do with public (federally controlled).
edit: If you're only wondering why the EPA says no 'systematic' damage, I'd have to know what you mean by systematic damage. Active volcanoes and earthquakes can cause unsightly cracks and wrinkles, and I suspect fracking can also cause changes in the landscape... because oil is replaced with water*.
* I'll need to double check if oil is replaced by water... I think they need to first break up the rock to isolate the oil, and then pump in water to provide pressure for getting the oil out.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
06 Jun 15
edit: If you're only wondering why the EPA says no 'systematic' damage, I'd have to know what you mean by systematic damage.The disruptive process that brings gas to the surface can also bring heavy metals and organic and radioactive materials such as radium-226, which decays into radon. Most indoor radon exposure has been linked to the diffusion of gas from soil. It is also found in well water, natural gas and ambient air.
The above quote is from a report referenced in my blog of the same name in the science forum. (Not by me)
What I was hoping to discus in this forum was:
Given that the natural gas under american land is thought to make us virtually energy-independent, and given that this is a enormous prize for any president of any party - frees us from the oil in the mid-east, counterbalances the russian oil weapon etc. - is there any reason to think that the government's scientists (here the EPA) are sufficiently free of political concerns to be believed when they issue this 'pro=fracking' report.
06 Jun 15
3 edits
Originally posted by stevemccNatural gas is also given off when drilling for oil so I don't see the difference, unless oil released from rock gives off more of the harmful gasses than drilling. Natural gas alone is not enough to provide independence from oil unless we also want to be independent of all useful byproducts of oil.
The disruptive process that brings gas to the surface can also bring heavy metals and organic and radioactive materials such as radium-226, which decays into radon. Most indoor radon exposure has been linked to the diffusion of gas from soil. It is also found in well water, natural gas and ambient air.
The above quote is from a report referenced in my bl ...[text shortened]... fficiently free of political concerns to be believed when they issue this 'pro=fracking' report.
There can be (and usually is) a natural progression from one source of energy to another over time as we learn how to efficiently (and safely) utilize other sources of energy. I can see a problem with that process slowing down or stopping altogether, but I can also understand problems arising when trying to artificially hurry that process along.
I have no idea what government scientists concerns might be or what political concerns they might have, because they are primarily scientists working for the government. If however they are primarily 'politicians' who just happen to be scientists, then your point is well taken because the dynamics of politics necessarily comes into play...
But we're talking about the EPA here, right? Environmental Protection Agency. 'Who' or 'what' it is they are trying to protect is often a question on my mind, but 'who' is usually in control of what the EPA actually does is not such a big mystery.
edit: If the EPAs' position is that there's no systemic damage caused by drilling, then it's not inconsistent for them to come out with the same position on fracking... I say 'if' because I don't know the EPAs' position on drilling. As far as I know Obama hasn't tried exercising influence over the EPA the way he did with the IRS and the Justice Dept, so I assume that whatever the EPA has done or is doing is okay with him. But none of this probably matters to Obama now, because he can look forward to earning big bucks making speeches soon after he steps down as president.
07 Jun 15
Originally posted by stevemccI agree the fracking process is more disruptive than drilling, but perhaps the EPA doesn't consider the level of heavy metals and organic(?) and radioactive materials significantly high enough to be dangerous. The problem associated with indoor radon exposure is because it is "indoor" exposure. Indoor exposure to carbon monoxide is also dangerous, but we never hear about the dangers of "outdoor" exposure to either one of those gasses.
The disruptive process that brings gas to the surface can also bring heavy metals and organic and radioactive materials such as radium-226, which decays into radon. Most indoor radon exposure has been linked to the diffusion of gas from soil. It is also found in well water, natural gas and ambient air.
The above quote is from a report referenced in my bl ...[text shortened]... fficiently free of political concerns to be believed when they issue this 'pro=fracking' report.
07 Jun 15
Originally posted by stevemccNot only is water recyclable it recycles itself, so I think the concern is not so much with water but with the waste. If sewer water can be recycled into clean drinking water then I don't know why any other waste water couldn't be recycled.
And a great deal of 'waste water' is generated. Is that water recyclable or not?
A quick google search shows me that the EPA has been on top of this issue, and has issued at least one fine against a company when some waste oozed out of an injection well due to too much underground pressure. Some other reports link injection wells with earthquakes, which was my first guess when you said 'systematic' damage. Any sort of toxic waste is always a concern, but It seems to me replacing oil with something that can evaporate and easily disperse would also be a concern.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by lemon lime...earthquakes, which was my first guess when you said 'systematic' damage.
Not only is water recyclable it recycles itself, so I think the concern is not so much with water but with the waste. If sewer water can be recycled into clean drinking water then I don't know why any other waste water couldn't be recycled.
A quick google search shows me that the EPA has been on top of this issue, and has issued at least one fine again ...[text shortened]... me replacing oil with something that can evaporate and easily disperse would also be a concern.
I wasn't actually thinking of "earthquakes", I was thinking of how the structure of the ground (or underground) itself could be affected, perhaps resulting in gigantic sinkholes. I was very surprised to see earthquakes being attributed to injection wells.
The ground moving, yes... I can see that happening. But earthquakes?
