Republican rules changes, loosening regulations, Clear Skies, ect, ect, ect.

Exemption Likely to Drilling Rules


# Fracturing, used by energy firms to extract oil and gas, is set to get a House panel's OK despite concerns that it imperils drinking water.


By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Despite rising complaints that a common oil and gas drilling technique threatens drinking water supplies, the House Energy Committee appeared poised Wednesday to approve legislation exempting the practice from future regulation.

The technique, developed by Halliburton Co., involves injecting pressurized fluids deep underground to encourage oil and gas to rise to the surface. For years, Halliburton and other energy firms have been fighting efforts to regulate the practice under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The practice, known as hydraulic fracturing, is generally considered safe. But there has been growing concern as its use has proliferated in coal bed methane fields around the country and in some of the geologically fragile oil and gas repositories in the West.

On Tuesday, the House Energy Committee rejected proposals by Democrats to modify the proposed exemption. The first, by Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, would require a scientific study of the practice before the exemption took effect. The second, by Rep. Hilda L. Solis of El Monte, would prohibit use of diesel fuel in underground injection.

Both amendments were defeated on party-line votes. Republican Reps. Heather Wilson of New Mexico and John Sullivan of Oklahoma argued that fracturing was safe and showed no evidence of problems.

Oil companies and their backers point out that the nation's three leading fracturing firms: Halliburton, Schlumber- ger Technology Corp. and BJ Services Co. have signed an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency promising not to inject diesel fuel in future fracturing operations. Further, they note that an EPA study of fracturing in coal bed methane wells concluded last year that the technique "poses little or no threat" to drinking water.

Despite such reassurance, environmental activists, several landowners and an EPA whistle-blower held a conference call with reporters Wednesday to argue that hydraulic fracturing might be causing problems around the country. The call was sponsored by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project of Durango, Colo.

The whistle-blower, Weston Wilson, a 32-year veteran of the EPA, said that a recent agency review of the safety of the drilling technique did not use established agency standards and relied on a peer review panel dominated by energy industry personnel.

His claims, first reported by the Los Angeles Times in October, are now under review by the EPA's inspector general.

The conference call included residents of Colorado and Alabama who claimed that their water and, in some cases, their health had been damaged by fracturing on their property.

Fracturing generates $1.5 billion a year for Halliburton, about one fifth of its energy-related revenue. The Houston firm was formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing became a concern for the industry in the late 1990s, when Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive. A group of Alabama residents went to court seeking to force regulation of the practice, claiming that their drinking water had been fouled by fracturing fluid used to extract methane from coal beds.

In 1997, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that fracturing should be regulated under federal drinking water law. That decision, which requires permits and special oversight, stands today, although it hasn't been applied outside the 11th Circuit. Energy companies argue that the decision is mistaken and that Congress should effectively overrule it.

Halliburton argued in a legal brief at the time that regulation "could have significant adverse effects on its business."

The energy task force that Cheney led in 2001 praised fracturing but did not mention the exemption request or the safety concerns then under review by the EPA.

A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute said Wednesday the organization was gratified that the energy legislation was moving forward with the fracturing exemption intact. He said that fracturing had proven safe for years and that it was subject to other forms of federal regulation even if it was exempt from drinking-water laws.

Then why is it exempt? What bozo exempts anything from drinking-water laws?

Solis said she would continue to push for a legislative prohibition on the use of diesel fuel and noted that her district in California had been plagued with environmental problems affecting water supplies.

Nonetheless, House staffers predicted the exemption language would be included when the House voted on the long-delayed energy bill this year.

In the Senate, James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent, has expressed concern about potential danger from the practice and said he would raise the issue in the Senate Environment and Public Works panel, where he is a ranking member.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation

Not sure exactly where this article is going. Is it about Halliburton, diesel, water supplies, drilling, or just a general complaint about mean old Bush?

I heard about using water to extract oil many years ago. Never saw anything in newspapers though.

The post and the article is about fracturing. I have heard of it and it can ruin a water supply.

Bottom line. Safe drinking water.

Ok, so we just get used to gas and $3 a gallon. Tell Pelosi so she quits bitching. I can live with it because I only drive a few miles a week and use my bike and bus for most long trips.

If you don't know what fracturing does to family farms and even small town's water supply why don't you do just a minimal amount of reading before jumping in about $3 a gallon gas?

There is such a thing as being reasonable about safe drinking water. How would you feel if your ranch/farm/community's water supply was ruined by a gas/petro oil company?

Do you think these people who have been wronged will get any satisfaction or even something close to justice or accountability from this energy company/corporate interests friendly administration and congress?

All bullshitt aside, everyone should care about this.

What is this fracturing of which you speak? How does it work? Exactly how does it affect the water supplies? Please, a technical explanation of fracturing, in your own words.

I guess we should have outlawed it during the Gore administration. Sorry, but I find it all TOO convenient when the press happens to bring up old practices as if they were a new problem.

Even I don't expect davis to know much about this as termed. That's why one story isn't enough to get me ranting like some might. Maybe we can discuss this further after some study, as opposed to merely using it to make the same old attacks/defenses.

It ain't new so we probably have some time for study before "fracturing" ends the world as we know it.

OK

Let's see: in re Fracturing

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/cbmstudy/hfracdef.html

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14...40cfr146.62.htm

Weeeeellll, that's I asked to read about it.


I wasn't going to write a thing about it. I know what it is, and I know what it does.

Read a little, you'll see it's not just radical enviromentalists. There are a lot of ranchers and farmers who are conservatives but their water is being ruined and they are mad as hell. It's their livelyhood, their lives, their kids. It's all on the line.

You'd dismiss what I said anyway.

Go to a source you trust. That's all I'd suggest.

OK, I read the: TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)

PART 146--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM: CRITERIA AND STANDARDS

Why should the process be exempt from clean water rules?

Because it can be and it is beneficial to a certain group of citizens and persons, I guess.

Yes, there are rules. Seems to me you make sure they're followed. The news piece was mostly general and didn't seem to point to specific cases, where something of this type ought to be judged. It allows people to rant about Bush, but not actually have any real evidence or point.

If drillers are doing wrong go after them legally. I have no problem with that. Just making statements that "somebody somewhere has been hurt by something bad so we hate Bush" is a little thin.

Thin, but typical.

Of course.

I just wanted to show it wasn't a bunch of enviromentalists who were drawing attention to it.

and you'll claim every single thing that anyone says that is critical of either Bush or Republicans is just Bush-bashing. <shakes head>

Done outside the normal procedures? Hmmmm, that doesn't sound right.

That should raise the red flags and set off a few sirens.

I am sorry Davis, but we just can't consider any of your concerns until Bush is out of office, for fear that you might just be prejudiced against Bush.

Actually I don't believe it is, davis.

See: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/whatis.html

Excerpted therefrom:

"...The Safe Drinking Water Act established the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program to provide these safeguards so that injection wells do not endanger current and future underground sources of drinking water (USDW). The most accessible fresh water is stored in shallow geological formations called aquifers and is the most vulnerable to contamination. These aquifers feed our lakes; provide recharge to our streams and rivers, particularly during dry periods; and serve as resources for 92 percent of public water systems in the United States..."

Looks like a Mexican standoff. As usual. I'll take Weston Wilson into account, but he won't be the last word on anything.

Anything to add outside of the usual Dem sarcasm?

Don't drink the diesel.

We have TCE nearby.

I'm not against action, just against the generalized rant that general articles about generalized problems bring. I read the initial article and it bounced around from this to that without a lot of specifics. I assume there are places drilling should be shut down, but probably not everywhere there's a farmhouse nearby.

How much NIMBYism can we afford? I say some, but there are limits. If there are problems people can be compensated.

Gee, maybe that's why I told you to read something from sources you trust?

C'mon art.

Ahhhh sh*t. figgers. See ya in 4 years.

I believe that we have been using the fracturing process here in Texas for quite some time, since most of our wells are older. As far as I know, it hasn't been a big problem.

Contaminates from aircraft maintenance (TCE and other petro chems) have been our biggest problem locally, resulting in the closure of a couple of wells on Air Bases.

That's about where I started my input on this. Where it is a problem I'm not against doing something. My friends have a not very good well and haul water. Seems to me if there are places that drillers have hurt the water supply illegaly they ought to be responsible for getting water to the harmed, but some places that may be just a few people and thus cost effective to haul water for a few, rather than just shut down a huge drilling operation. (if it's a close call, if it's a big problem just shut down the drilling)

I'm reticent to make a one size fits all defense to go along with the one size fits all attacks on oil drilling. Things have to be analyzed on a case by case basis.

OK. IF, I say IF this is true:







Do you think they will be fair? Do you honestly think the little people will stand a chance?

They want to exempt the process from clean drinking water reviews and rules.

Why?

Do you think Weston Wilson will be fair? I don't think you know any more about this than what you read in one article.

Davis' reaction is pure lockstep kneejerk. That's why I wante him to explain this whole process and what's up with it from his expert point of view.

I see some links, some document titles and a paragraph. Not much to go on there. Need some explanation of how this works, what it does, why it's bad. Perhaps some reasoned explantion for the reactions.

Would be nice. I did read some of Russ' links, but I'm sure they are the be all and end all when it comes to answers.

I'd like to know more about the difference between the EPA rules and clean water rules, and why use one and not the other, or both. It would probably take a couple lawyers and enviros to explain it to me even at the lowest level. One general article ain't gonna do it.

I kinda thought that squeezing the methane out of coal seams might not be such a bad thing.

Sqeezing the methane out of a few lefties might be more profitable.

Global warming.

All the water wells downtown got contaminated by an old dairy farm. The farms gone... farmer is dead....So the taxpayers are paying for municipal water from a nearby city.

Who knew a dairy farm could cause e coli in well water.

Our well is good so far... higher up.



Water will be the next big deal. I've been reading about the groundwater dilemma for a few years now in National Geographic. I also read an opinion that Iraq was valuable not just for it's oil, but for it's water. In China, the biggest problem is lack of fresh, clean water. A contemporary historian (I can't recall his name at the moment) recently put forth a theory that civilizations unable or willing to intelligently manage their natural resources were doomed to fail--think Easter Island...

...Some interesting things to ponder about a resource we all take for granted. It's not taken for granted in much of the world.

Water. Word.

Jared Diamond
Professor, Geography and Physiology
Department of Physiology
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond

Yes,

That's him, he was on NPR.

Did you read his book--or his other?

I read the Guns, Germs and Steel book. I haven't gotten around to reading his latest. I saw him talk about the latter on C-SPAN.

Here's something from him on Easter Island:

Easter Island's End By Jared Diamond, in Discover Magazine August 1995

Here's a really cool advance in lighting.

LED Evolution Could Replace Light Bulbs
Evolution of Versatile LEDs Could One Day Make Thomas Edison's Light Bulb a Thing of the Past

Patrick Durand of Lumileds glows green under LED backlighting at the Lightfair International lighting convention in New York Tuesday, April 12, 2005. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)
By PETER SVENSSON
The Associated PressThe Associated Press

NEW YORK Apr 14, 2005 — If a time traveler from a hundred years ago were to visit a home today, much of the technology would be completely alien. The television, cordless phone and computer would probably leave him flabbergasted.

But on seeing a light bulb, he might say, "Ah! Here's something I recognize. A few of those grace my home, too."

If the visitor comes back in 15 years, the fruit of Thomas Edison's bright idea may be gone. The likely replacement: light-emitting diodes, or LEDs.


<snip>

Current white LEDs will last up to 50,000 hours, about 50 times as long as a 60-watt bulb. That's almost six years if they're on constantly.

That makes them attractive for places where changing bulbs is difficult or expensive like on the outside of buildings or in swimming pools. Osram Sylvania, the lighting subsidiary of German manufacturer Siemens AG, makes 27-foot long strips of flexible, adhesive tape covered in LEDs for such applications.

Hotels are interested in using LEDs in bedside lamps to save them the trouble of replacing burned-out bulbs, said Jim Anderson of Lamina Ceramics, which showed off a 6-watt array of LEDs that produce light equivalent to a 20-watt halogen bulb.

LEDs are also durable. Being solid-state, they can resist the vibrations in aircraft and cars, according to Narendran, who has worked with Boeing Co. on designs for aircraft cabins.

General Electric Co. and smaller iLight Technologies of Evanston, Ill., make glowing LED signs that look like neon.

Neon lighting is a leading cause of fires at restaurants and the signs are vulnerable to vandalism. By contrast, LED signs made of Plexiglas are tough. At the trade show, iLight exhibited an LED sign that still worked after taking a blast from a shotgun.

The limitation: iLight's signs can't be made economically on a one-off basis, as done at small neon-sign shops around the country.

The feature of LEDs likely to propel them into homes is aesthetic, not practical. Arrays that mix red, green and blue LEDs can produce any color of the rainbow. Instead of a dimmer, you might have three sliding knobs that let you mix color.

"On a very hot day you might want blue light to cool it down a bit, or on a winter day you may want to simulate sunlight," said Steve Landau of Lumileds Lighting, an LED-making joint venture of Agilent Technologies Inc. and Philips Lighting.
Top Stories


Qantas Airways Ltd., the Australian airline, recently outfitted its first-class cabin with LED lighting that shines a deep blue when it's time to sleep.

A system like that would be too expensive for most homes, but industry experts believe the price will come down in a few years as the technology develops.

"We are still in a very young research environment," said Norbert Hiller, vice president at Cree Inc. of Durham, N.C., which produces blue and green LEDs. "Our researchers keep surprising us."


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=672292&page=2

Cleaning up TCE's is a particularly nasty bit of business. And I'm afraid the levels of contamination are astronomically greater than we yet know about, or we're yet being told about...and that, boys & girls, is neither exclusive to Republicans, or Democrats...last I checked, persons from both sides of the aisle drank water...

I was reading this,. AV...it seems rather promising, actually:



At a DuPont facility in Kinston, North Carolina, a TCE plume was being treated and contained by a pump-and-treat system for approximately 8 years as an interim measure. Because the system was costly and ineffective at removing the contamination, DuPont decided to review other potential technologies for containment and treatment. In 1999, DuPont installed a permeable treatment wall within the plume, and at the same time attacked the source by using an innovative technology that combines contaminant stabilization with destruction. Since the source area was relatively small (i.e., less than one acre) and well defined, the treatment technology chosen was more cost-effective than the pump-and-treat system and provided the added benefit of reducing long-term liability. Current data indicate: approximately 90% of source area soil sampling points were cleaned up to below detection limits for TCE and daughter products; the treatment wall is degrading TCE that is migrating downgradient; and, plume concentrations between the source area and the treatment wall are decreasing.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/gw-app.htm

Btw, good idea for a thread...although, it seems strangely familiar...

Yupper. The basic stuff.



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/business/15pollute.html?

I wasn't aware they were using MTBE for fracturing now.

This is their so-called culture of life.

Where is the outrage by evangelicals?


Abortion and right to die issues predominate their politics but pollution of all kinds, especially mercury, which causes devastating birth defects, is overlooked because they are bought and paid for by huge campaign contributiors.

Worthless forking hypocrites. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Given the usual "tenor" of these boards, this may be a "dangerous" question, but it has been on my mind of late sparked a bit by my debate with Nomarchy on another thread.

When a government requires that a given product be manufactured or even re-manufactured to meet a specification they create, and it is later found that the unintended consequences of that requirement result in environmental harm - who should "pay" for the clean-up? The company that produced the modified product that met the state (generic in this case state being any governmental body that levied the requirement) order? The distributor of the modified product? The retailer? Or the government that levied the requirement in the first place? Or a combination of any of the above?

I find this situation to be fundamentally different than a case where a company produces a product, that later is found to be environmentally harmful in ways no regulatory agency anticipated, but was not mandated by the government itself. I'm thinking here to use an example, if memory serves, the PCBs used in electronics components and electrical devices, as an efficient insulator material, but now known to be environmentally dangerous.

The initial reaction, it seems to me has been to go for the deep pockets of the producer in either case. I think the question needs to be resolved first as to what impelled the production of the harmful agent in the first place. If that "first cause" is governmental than it seems to me resolution lies at their feet. If the manufacturer - theirs. If an end-user is responsible by either abuse or negligence despite knowing of needed safeguards, then by all means them.

Thoughts?

I brought this up LONG ago on the issue of MTBE. The government says we have to use it, so somebody has to produce it, then when it's found to be dangerous the government ought to take responsibility. (and the environmentalists that wanted to use it in the first place)

I just love the way some people are pretending MTBE was some corporate idea designed to pollute the environment just for laughs.

MTBE is just one thing like this I can think of - there have been others. Same principle might extend to government-mandated works later found to have adverse environmental impact. At play here though is the doctrine of sovereign immunity and how it might shield the government from its own mistakes.

Sticky.

Government mistakes? Shirley you jest.

I never jest.

"And don't call me Shirley." God I loved Airplane!