RSS

Tag Archives: fracking

What is the Halliburton Loophole

What is the Halliburton Loophole

http://www.globalfundexchange.com/blog/2013/03/02/what-is-the-halliburton-loophole-2/

Greetings from Doha, Qatar from Anric Blatt.
A significant special concern of the side effects of fracking, is the environmental and health impact of many of the unidentified chemicals used in the process. Some of these are known to contain carcinogenic and toxic ingredients. Increasing the likelihood of unwanted environmental effects is the so called “Halliburton loophole”, named after the company that patented an early version of hydraulic fracturing. Passed during the Bush Cheyne Administration, the loophole exempts the oil and gas industry from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. What’s more, manufacturers and operators are not required to even disclose all of their ingredients, on the principle that trade secrets might be revealed. As ‘fracking’ is “regulated” on a state by state basis, it lacks clear federal regulation, guidelines and transparency standards, leaving the highly necessary and rapidly growing industry open to abuse and mismanagement, all at the risk of our health and environment (again)

20130302-093956.jpg

by Anric

Advertisements
 

Tags: , ,

What is the Halliburton Loophole

What is the Halliburton Loophole

http://www.globalfundexchange.com/blog/2013/03/02/what-is-the-halliburton-loophole/

A significant special concern of the side effects of fracking, is the environmental and health impact of many of the unidentified chemicals used in the process. Some of these are known to contain carcinogenic and toxic ingredients. Increasing the likelihood of unwanted environmental effects is the so called “Halliburton loophole”, named after the company that patented an early version of hydraulic fracturing. Passed during the Bush Cheyne Administration, the loophole exempts the oil and gas industry from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. What’s more, manufacturers and operators are not required to even disclose all of their ingredients, on the principle that trade secrets might be revealed. As ‘fracking’ is “regulated” on a state by state basis, it lacks clear federal regulation, guidelines and transparency standards, leaving the highly necessary and rapidly growing industry open to abuse and mismanagement, all at the risk of our health and environment (again)

20130302-093956.jpg

by Anric

 

Tags: , ,

Fracking seen as No 2 source of green house gases

http://www.globalfundexchange.com/blog/2013/02/06/fracking-seen-as-no-2-source-of-green-house-gases/

Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, the government said, emboldening environmentalists who say tighter measures are needed to curb the emissions from hydraulic fracturing.

In its second-annual accounting of emissions that cause global warming from stationary sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time included oil and natural- gas production. Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount.

Gas and oil production “is an area where we have technological answers to our problems,” Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said in an interview. “We know how to fix many of these problems; we just need to make the decision to do it.”

The EPA yesterday released on its website details of emissions from about 8,000 factories, power plants and refineries. Two coal-fired power facilities owned by Atlanta- based Southern Co. topped the list, followed by one owned by Energy Future Holdings Corp. of Dallas.

In total, power plants emitted 2,221 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2011, down 4.5 percent from 2010, according to the agency. The EPA report showed the benefits of fracking, as it attributed the reduction to cuts in coal use and increased use of gas as fuel by electricity generators. There was also an increased use of power from renewable sources such as solar and wind, the agency said.

Top Emitters
“This report confirms that major carbon reductions from power plants wouldn’t be possible without a reliable and affordable supply of domestically produced natural gas,” Simon Lomax, research director at Energy in Depth, an industry group, said in an e-mail.

The EPA report on oil and gas looked at emissions from basins, or large production areas, not individual wells. Among the top emitters were ConocoPhillips’ operations in the San Juan basin in New Mexico, and Apache Corp.’s operations in the Permian basin in Texas. Both companies are based in Houston.

Proposed Regulations
The EPA has already proposed regulations to curb emissions from new power plants, setting a standard that would preclude the construction of new coal-fired facilities that don’t capture and sink underground the carbon coming from their smokestacks. Once those rules are finished in the coming weeks, the EPA must move to establish similar rules for existing power plants.

Environmental groups have asked the agency to establish standards to prevent methane leakages from the drilling, fracking and transport of oil and gas. The boom in that production in states such as Pennsylvania and North Dakota means that those rules are necessary, according to environmental groups.
Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, but it’s more efficient at trapping radiation, making its short-term impact 20-times greater than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.

“Reducing fugitive methane emissions is a top priority because they are so powerful” a force for global warming, said Mark Brownstein, managing director of the Environmental Defense Fund in New York. “You want to make sure the goose is laying what approximates golden eggs.”

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/index.html

by Anric

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 6, 2013 in Climate Change, Gas

 

Tags: ,

Water vs Energy vs Agriculture – a growing concern

WATER FOR OIL, and the loser is ….. AGRICULTURE

It takes a good deal of water to drill a Niobrara oil well. Water is required to make the drilling fluid, or mud, that controls downhole pressure, and it is used to flush cuttings to the surface.

But the biggest consumptive use of water in the process is hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” In this process a mixture of water, sand and some chemicals is pumped into the wellbore under high pressure to crack open the oil–bearing shale or chalk and stimulate the flow of hydrocarbons.

Farmers in Wyoming have recently caught on to the fact that it is far more profitable to sell water from their existing water rights to the oil industry drillers exploring wells into the Niobrara oil formation. Selling the water for 35 cents a barrel is 10-times what a farmer could earn off his water when he uses it for irrigation.

Despite the state’s insistence that the diversion of irrigation water for oil drilling is a zero-sum game, it might not necessarily work out that way. If the oil industry continues buying, an irrigator may actually sell more than he would have pulled from the aquifer during a normal year.

This outstanding article highlights the growing “water vs energy” debate with dire consequences on our already strapped water resources as well as long term effects on agricultural outputs.

Click here to read the entire article

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 14, 2010 in Agriculture, Oil, Wind

 

Tags: , , ,

"Fracking" Fuels Environmental Concerns – Video

Gas drilling is linked to contamination in people’s drinking water and it’s dividing rural landowners. Armen Keteyian reports.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 14, 2010 in Oil, Policy, Videos

 

Tags: , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: