Fracked Trout Habitat
- This topic has 41 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated Oct 15, 2010 at 3:51 am by
.
-
Posts
-
1. As a PA resident, angler, and one who has loose professional ties to alot of the agencies involved, I am extremely worried about the future of this issue in the commonwealth.
Tim –
This thread wasn’t started by me, first of all.
Secondly, there is a place for politics and activism in fly fishing. Generally speaking I do not believe that place should include this board – politics naturally become divisive over time. However I felt it would be hypocritical of me to write a national magazine article about an arguably political issue and then deny this board’s community the chance to comment about what I said. So, this particular thread gets a pass. I would not have started it myself, but as it was created by a user, I’m leaving it.
I do my best to weigh these things and come up with a rational decision for how to run the site. But, ultimately, there may be some inconsistencies from time to time which arise from me doing my best to be fair.
I stand corrected…in fact you did not start this thread.
Grant –
Sixty-five pages is a lot of information, but reading the intro is not making me regret my article one bit.
“A draft [of the FRAC Act] that surfaced mandates disclosure of fracing chemicals under the SDWA. Industry stalwarts strongly oppose this, warning EPA could stick its nose further in the tent and exert control on drilling. This rift could get ugly.”
I understand that the EPA is a bogeyman to much of the heavy extraction industry, but in many cases that’s simply because it’s doing its job: preventing expensive environmental disasters (aka Superfund sites) by asking industry to clean and protect as it goes. See “Anaconda Mine” etc. This is why we have the EPA.
This is what it boils down to: “If Congress does mandate EPA oversight of fracing, the industry predicts further costs of $125,000 to $250,000 per well. We think costs could be less than that, given changes companies are making voluntarily.” This is compared against costs which already run “$2.5 to 10 million” per well. They don’t print profitability figures but I can do the math for you: that’s only 2.5% to 5% more per well to ensure a BP-style disaster doesn’t happen.
I am all for the companies acting on their own to make regulation unnecessary. This report makes crystal clear that this is just a bottom line decision; it’s not “Are we going to be able to turn a profit mining shale deposits this way,” but instead it’s “How much of a profit are we going to make?”
Zach — I agree. I work on the E&P investment side, not the operating side, but agree that regualtion is needed to protect the enviornment and our natural resources.
And you are correct, as others have established above — Bottom line in most businesses, especially those publicly traded, is profitability (and maybe more so, predictability). The low gas prices are putting a major dent in the ROR/ROI of these companies….so as with every other sector, they fight regulation that decreases profit.
I’ve worked in many states, and PA guys please don’t take any offense to this, but the state of PA is clueless. I could go on and on, but the current lack of regulations/laws/rules in the state are actually hurting the state, it’s residents, and their natural resources. The state lacks a managment system and development guidelines/rules that TX, LA, NM, OK, etc have in place.
TPH is the best E&P analyst shop around, and their write-ups are geared towards E&P investors, not the general public. I had forgotten that I had the report and found it today when I was digging through some things. I just thought they had some good information…wasn’t trying to ruffle any feathers.
While not a fan of “more gov’t”, I agree with Zach that the EPA and PADEP have a role here, and a valuable one at that.
This issue is complex on so many levels I am not sure anyone can understand it all.
And Dave…Spendell is the worst.
Dan,
It all depends on where you live and what the regulations are. Here in N Texas at first we were getting the leaking ponds for contaminated frac water, but now that it isn’t the case. Instead, it is disposed of in “disposal wells” located in specific areas. While this is a good thing, the bad thing is the large number of tank trucks we now have on our roads carrying the frac water from wells to these disposal sites.
There are viable options, but as others have said getting the regulations caught up with the pace of discovery and drilling is the real issue.
Brian
I realize that this is focused on as a mostly environmental issue, but it seems like not disclosing the contents of the fracking fluid would be a clear cut safety violation.
Any workplace using chemicals is required to have an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) on file and easily accessible to employees. The MSDS is required to list any hazardous ingredients. So isn’t not listing those a violation since the workers pumping them wouldn’t have that list? I also have to believe that tank trucks must be regulated in some similar manner.
I work in the food industry and know for a fact that if more than 5 gals of vegetable oil were to be spilled to storm water, we are required to report it. So how can these toxic chemicals be INJECTED to aquifers and that not be a violation. This is incomprehensible to me.
Dave….this is terrible.
And the timing of things couldnt be worse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.