The most common accusations against shale exploration - and yes, ANSWERS
It seems as though these days people just aren't willing to do any unbiased investigating concerning the issue of natural gas drilling before jumping on the "stop drilling - natural gas companies are evil" bandwagon. It may not seem like it from all the news articles you come across, but the overwhelming majority of people are actually pro-drilling. However, the majority of non-industry people (regular citizens) who are actually voicing their opinions are the anti-drilling groups.
If you google Marcellus drilling, you will get 100's of pages of the fears of fracking, pollution, companies raping the land like coal companies, etc.. The problem is that the industry is painted as not caring about the environment, and going by its own rules. Here are the most common accusations against natural gas drilling. Again, take my comments with a grain of salt and do some real research on your own before believing anything. And by research, I dont mean newspapers, or extreme websites... I mean peer reviewed science literature. Here we go:
Q: Why dont companies tell us what chemicals are in frack fluids?!?
A. This is a claim found everywhere and it's such a misleading question. It's posed as if these companies are hiding something. The chemicals used have never been a secret to the public. I don't understand why this keeps coming up when the info is right there. Example: Go to Chesapeake's website. They put a large link to the "frac facts" right on their homepage. Yes, their homepage. It lists every chemical in a frac fluid. You may not agree with the chemicals involved, but don't say that they're not telling you. Next question.
Q. Why don't companies release how much of each chemical is in their frac fluid?
A. Is that really the question you're looking to get an answer to? If Haliburton said they were putting .0001 ounces of biocide per 100,000 gallons instead of .0002 ounces per 100,000 gallons... Would that change your view of fracking? This question is asked (like the specific chemicals used in frac fluids question) in order to make the industry appear as if it has a dirty little secret. Let's be logical, that small difference is not going to change your opinion, but it gives you the argument they're hiding something.
The exact formulas to the T are not known, but the general amounts are known (down to a hundreth of one percent). That's pretty damn good. Like the specific chemicals involved, this question has an answer - again it's plastered on Chesapeake's home page.
Q. We need to hold companies responsible for the wastewater! We can't let them dump it wherever they want!
A. There are actually incredibly strict sets of regulations for companies to abide by when dealing with their water. If you don't abide by them, you are gone - see ya, no drilling permits are issued. When I hear these claims I say to myself "Yes, you're right, we should be holding them accountable...We do. There should be regulations... and there are". It's like a person saying "We can't let police officers wear neon green dresses to work!"... Well, I don't think anybody is arguing against that. And they don't.
The industry IS held responsible. People need to understand that companies can not drill if they don't get every permit approved by the DEP. If the DEP approves it, then why is the "blame" (used loosely) on the companies? I expect the typical "because the DEP is in the pockets of the industry".. leads me to my next false statement.
Q. The DEP is in the pocket of the industry, that's why there are no regulations!
A. Well, we've discussed the regulations already as being some of the strictest regulations in the country. Now as to the DEP being corrupt. That's a pretty bold statement to make considering nobody has any information as to why they say that (funny word I call "data"). I'm not going to say show me the data because that's a defensive statement. I can say, however, that for every dollar lobbyists bring in for natural gas drilling, 100 are brought in by coal or oil. 1000 for renewables (biomass especially). To say natural gas has a stranglehold is... well.. just wrong. Do you wonder why the US has the most natural gas in the world, yet relies on it the least for electricity and fuel (generally speaking)? Even if lobbyists do get some more support for natural gas drilling - are you against switching from gasoline to a cleaner natural gas fueled vehicle? Are you against America being able to finally use it's own energy source and stop funding foreign corrupt countries?
There are literally hundreds of questions/claims just like this that have answers. I know, it is tough to be able to tell what is factual and what is propoganda when you are new to this industry. Even this post here, don't believe a word I say until you actually do a little digging from both sides. Yes, go check out some of the problems involved with drilling, then check out how companies are addressing it. Let's see if the extremists environmentalists have that type of comment ever (e.g. "go check out Exxon's safety record and come back to me"). They won't ever say that, because they know the truth is there which refutes their argument. I am pro-natural gas, a proud American. Go Marcellus.
Views: 1564
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by drillman on
-
Well it is obvious to me that no matter what report you read, you will make every attempt to shoot holes through it. So I won't waste my time. However, the next logical question would be how to you suppose we should go about addressing the need to produce energy in our own country that adequately supplies the current infrastructure and usage requirements? Please don't respond with "alternative energy" such as wind, solar, bio, etc. as these sources provide only a fractional percentage of our current energy needs. I believe it is a forgone conclusion that to consider so called "alternative" energies as a hydrocarbon replacement is impractical at best. And secondly, how do you justify your own consumption and dependency on hydrocarbons while being opposed to current recovery methods? Lastly, are you in the least bit concerned with all the other industrial pollution that occurs outside of the drilling industry and if so, what are you doing about it?
-
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on
-
Lets just stick to the subject, Drill. Your diversion tactics won't work here.
-
-
This is precisely the subject and your response is typical and what I expected. Your refusal to address this side of the issue reveals your hypocritical nature. Sadly, you're not alone. You want to enjoy all the benefits of a much needed resource but you are unwilling to compromise your lifestyle to do so. By taking that stance, you force others to compromise for your own selfish benefit.
-
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on -
Dear Dee,
You are a pistol!! Excellent stuff-right on target. I am truly impressed.
Dan -
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on
-
Dear Roy,
I'd appreciate you checking out the following site:
http://www.gomarcellusshale.com/profiles/blog/list?user=3mp5e7xj14uno
Your comments would be welcomed.
Dan
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on
-
Perhaps I should know better than to dip my toe in these roiling waters, yet there is one thing Daniel said that makes me curious:
You wrote: " You ignore the fact that as a country, we have a desperate need for clean energy and your posts clearly define which side of the debate you are on." How would you know how I feel about the broad topic of energy independence, since I haven't commented upon it anywhere? The rest of your sentence makes no sense, since I have not posted any position.
Daniel, would you care to make it clear how you do feel about energy independence? The reason I ask is that I've personally come to the conclusion that the need for energy independence simply trumps any environmental issues. In other words, we have no alternative but to develop these resources, so we'd better learn quickly how to do so in the most environmentally responsible way possible, yet develop them we must. Comments? --Tom
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on
-
Dear Tom,
We are basically in agreement here, and as you say "so we'd better learn quickly how to do so in the most environmentally responsible way possible".
We have a difference about this statement"the need for energy independence simply trumps any environmental issues."
From my perspective, it can't be an 'either/or" scenario. The proper melding of the concerns is the goal to shoot for. The need to protect as well as develop is the key.
Thanks for asking.
Dan
-
-
Tom: It is my opinion, formed after attempting to have a rational discussion with people like Dan, that they don't really want to state a position, not clearly anyway. They tend to talk in circles and fein "learning" or getting an "education" when this really boils down to code-speak for no drilling, anytime, anywhere. I've encountered this type before. When you corner them and ask how they would survive without energy or ask specific questions on their use of fossil fuels, nearly every single time they dodge those questions or they claim to support "alternative energy" (wind and solar). Except that even wind and solar relies on fossil fuels to design, develop, construct, deliver, deploy and maintain this equipment. And frankly, if you want to build one in their backyard, well you probably know the how that part of the story ends.
The entire civilized world relies heavily on hydrocarbons every single day (and will continue to do so for the duration of my life and probably those of my children), but people some people experience such an enormous amount of shame and guilt associated with there own use of hydrocarbons that they can't bring themselves to honestly answer these types of questions. It never fails - I've yet to have any one serious respond in a manner that isn't utterly hypocritical. They get out of it by blaming folks like me for "name calling, finger-pointing and labeling." Somehow that elevates their sense of self esteem. Yet if you read Dan's posts, you'll see he does exactly what he blames others for doing. Unfortunately, he doesn't see that himself.
If Dan would care to elaborate on his responses to some of my other questions regarding his own reliance on hydrocarbons, (which he has thus far dodged), I would be interested to know how he sees his role as a consumer of this product in our society and how he expects to move forward if we don't develop this resource. Dan also claims to support drilling as long as it is done responsibly and safely. My question is simple: At what point in the process, whether it's the GEIS, regulations, or new laws, will he feel that there is enough protections in place to proceed. The answer is always the same: No one can define that which again means they'll never be satisfied enough to support drilling.
Please Dan, don't just go on the defense - answer some of these questions and set the record straight. I want to help you to understand. I challenge you to respond with gut level honesty.
Additionally, Dan claims to want the facts but appears to cling to the negative aspects of energy exploration rather than the positive. I'm willing to bet that he doesn't stop to think about huge oil tankers breaking apart on the pristine shores of the Alaskan wilderness every time he fills his vehicle with fuel. He probably doesn't ask the clerk if there has ever been a spill at that gas station and he most certainly doesn't require proof that there maintenance of underground tanks is current and adequate. He simply fills up just like the rest of us.
Anyway, Dan: if you really are against drilling, just come out and say so. I'd respect that a lot more if you did.
BTW: 150 years of drilling statistics don't lie: The industry has an exemplary (not perfect) tract record. You can choose to focus on the positives or the negatives. Your choice to make.
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on
-
Dear Drillman,
Although I agreed with Janice a while ago that perhaps our conversation was bringing forth heat rather than light, how can I not respond to your more or less "questions"? Not to do so would leave an aroma that would be inaccurate.
You seem to make a series of calculated assumptions about me and/or my attitudes. Wouldn't it be more direct just to pose them to me? Your attempts at lay analysis for my motivations are risky at best, and awfully wrong at worst. Please ask whatever you wish, and if I can I'll try to give you an exact answer. Your general question about how do I see my role as a consumer is both off topic and too general- but if that is really something of importance to you just ask it.
(Sorry Janice- it needed a response.)
Dan
-
Permalink Reply by terry hazlett on
-
To Dan & Dee, do you live in the delaware watershed? and if you do is it your permanent residence, or your vacation home and you live in NYC? JUST CURIOUS.
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on
-
Dear Terry,
We're in Bradford County Penn. I'm not sure if it's part of the Delaware water system.We've been there for 40+ years or so, early on as a vacation home, then after retirement as our permanent home. Why do you ask?
Dan
-
-
Gee.....was I writing with a New York accent? LOL! I'm curious. If I live in the country rather than the city, does what I say carry more merit? Am I sniffing some prejudice?
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
