EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer

Intuitively, there is no real surprise there IMHO.

You put nasty chemicals in the ground, where would you expect them to go? Away? Not!

 

Agreed, no surprise. But at least it's being documented, which will hopefully result in regulatory changes and enforcement. Right now it's a free-for-all, and the usual suspects are doing their usual raping and pillaging, and calling it money.

 

let's hope this helps put an end to all the 'natural gas is the solution to all our energy needs' talk.

 

^Don't count on it!

Icarus

 

Well, thank God that's happening in Wyoming and not in my backyard.

Wait just a minute! They're fraking in Pennsylvania:

"The real shock that Dimock has undergone, however, is in the
aquifer that residents rely on for their fresh water. Dimock is now
known as the place where, over the past two years, people’s water
started turning brown and making them sick, one woman’s water well
spontaneously combusted, and horses and pets mysteriously began to
lose their hair."
A Colossal Fracking Mess | Business | Vanity Fair

And the western parts of Maryland are at risk too.
Sitting atop huge gas reserve, Maryland debates drilling practice known as fracking - The Washington Post

Hey! That is in my backyard.

 

Just another reason why we don't need EPA anymore; they are "job terrorists" who are "strangling America."

 

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Greenpeace put out a poster showing the captain of the ship, looking very disreputable, and a caption that read: "This man's driving did not cause the oil spill. Yours did!"

The point being that as long as we demand fossil fuels, the spills and pollution will continue. The polluters will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Only when we stop buying fossil fuels will the spills and pollution end.

I try to use less energy, but I still use energy. That makes me part of the problem. If you put gasoline in your car, or heat your home or your water with natural gas, or draw electricity produced by coal or nuclear from the grid, you are part of the problem, too. Let's not forget if you buy products produced with fossil fuel (including anything from coal-powered China) or shipped to you by diesel trucks or ships.

Yep. I'm part of the problem. I'm sure glad I don't believe in a just god, because we'd all wind up in hell for our part in turning this green Earth into a polluted garbage dump.

 

And Governor Cuomo's trying to fast-track it in New York State. Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy

Did we mention the earthquakes? Massive number of earthquakes in Oklahoma.

 

Wait a minute...

A nice man in a television commercial that worked for one of those energy companies told me that they drill throusand of feet below the water table and the well is protected by multiple layers of concrete and steel and that nothing kuld go rong.

 

Just a little more information

EPA Finds Fracking Compound in Wyoming Aquifer: Scientific American

This will be the second time the field has been sold because of pollution. It seems unlikely that fracking procedures are the only bad practices being done, and I would like to see the full report. This is different than the fracking study. EPA definitely should have been involved with the poluted water reports for a decade. This does not mean fracking is bad, but some practices are bad and regulation has obviously been missing here. Not to say it would not have happened with some oversight, the EPA seems happy to allow burning of hazardous waste with poor pollution controls.


EPA Regulations Give Kilns Permission To Pollute : NPR

 

"In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called "Halliburton loophole" to clean water protections in federal law to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process, despite serious concerns that were raised about the chemicals used in the process and its demonstrated spoiling and contamination of drinking water."
Fracking - SourceWatch

 

In this case, that law does not apply, this was certainly within the EPA's charter. The EPA under clean water act is required to investigate poluted water. Since this field was sold in 2004 because of allegations of water polution, it is sad that the investigation did not start until 2008.

The law you are talking about is about regulating fo potential pollution. This was given to the states and the federal government kept hands off. It is very sad that texas with an anti-environmental environmental board seems to be doing more than Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wyoming.

There is an EPA fracking study underway, and this along with the wyoming bad water may bring federal standards. I actually think federal standards would now help the gas industry by getting rid of some bad actors, but I would hope the regulations would be better than that kiln example I posted allowing burning of poor polution control of hazardous wastes being locked into the epa regulations.

 

will bring standards??? will?
its freeking 2011 almost 2012 and these things need to be standards for like.. the beginning...

 

Didn't the EPA recently take over some of Texas' environmental protection because Texas wasn't complying?

 

There are state standards, but from the looks of Wyoming the the standard is anything goes. The pollution in this field of my link was bad enough in 2004 that it was sold to get rid of continued liability. Note this was during the time the EPA and the state were not restricted by any cheany law, but left it to the new owner to investigate. That owner has been supplying residents with drinking water not contaminated for years which to me is a strong sign they thought there were problems.

The state of texas sued the federal government about regulation of green house gases. The EPA until the lawsuit goes through ruled that nothing can be built that is affected. There seems to be a number of idiots on the TCEQ and the EPA. Inorder to not prove the TCEQs point the EPA now is going to regulate ghg in texas. They just issued the first permit to a local plant, one that is replacing old equipment to be more efficient and less polluting. Now the govenor and the TCEQ are idiots for fighting the ghg regulation, but really do we need a beurocrat from the federal government to require paperwork when someone is making something more efficient? TCEQ approved the modifications in september. There will be projects that do increase ghg and this perhaps should be regulated, but I would rather have the EPA look at this old poluted well water and hazzardous waste burning emmissions than spend a lot of time in a political battle about their right to regulate some of these no brainer improvements.

 

Under the law the EPA must take over for a state program if it is inadequate.

Replacement of equipment always requires new source review. That is also the law. If the equipment is more efficient it shouldn't be a problem at all to net out of psd.

 

The EPA. yea. there a great bunch

American Rivers : Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing and Our Rivers

Ya gotta love the fed's.




.

 

A couple of questions:
1, Are these compounds getting through municipal water systems and into tap water, or is it only affecting well water?
2, Are these compounds removed by additional filtering like a Brita?

 

I think you misunderstood my point, I was responding to a point that EPA had to step in on texas, assuming this new step in was to actually reduce polution. That is far from the case in this matter.

There is a political battle between jackson and the epa versus perry and tceq. Perry and TCEQ seem to constantly side against clean air and clean water, but with in the EPA rules. That isn't what this is all about.

In this matter TCEQ refused to comply with EPA new rules on ghg. I think both perry and jackson want this to be a political issue. The main difference is TCEQ doesn't want to regulate ghg, but if they do they want to be able to do it for the state as a whole and not by individual sites. EPA rules goes down to individual sites, which may prevent or add heavy costs to things like refineries making gasoline out of oil sands instead of oil.

TCEQ has been issuing permits based on polution, and in this case reduction of NO2 and monitoring of methane and CO2 from the modified facility. All of these would skate through either ghg provission, but TCEQ wants the EPA to create beurocratic delays. EPA has approved one of these now and there are 10 other permits that have been approved for dangerous polutants by TCEQ that are on the EPAs table. The epa is not really reducing any polution by stepping in now, but they want to be able to in the future. Nasty political fight that hurts Texans, but may help jackson and perry politically.

None of this is about clean air or water, so lets get back on that topic.