Well, as a chemical engineer, I already have experience in this field. I have yet to receive a cogent argument as to why why have to use a chemical brew to frack, when there are safer working alternatives I will again go back to the point I raised about how diesel fuel was at one time used as a working fluid. Around 14 years ago site monitoring and remediation was carried out in the Hot Creek Valley area of Nevada, which is NE of the Nevada Test Site The actual site was Project Faultless, which was a 1 MT nuclear detonation around a mile underground. There was a lot of drilling done in the area leading up to the test, not only for the original emplacement hole but also for the much smaller monitoring shafts The area used to stage the drilling had extensive contamination with DRO or Diesel Range Organics, and PAH or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The working fluid/mud used back then had high concentrations of diesel fuel Diesel was very cheap back then, and was very convenient to transport and store onsite Now, decades after the test, the results still linger.
Much like the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. That was also approved by regulators. It's comforting to know that we have experts in place guarding our safety. Tom
I think it's necessary now due to our economic problems. Hopefully, within two years this will change and enormous amounts of pressure to come up with an energy policy, which we still do not have, is exerted upon the next administration. I say we go in steps, tiny walking steps at first, then learn how to run. :thumb:
Here is the list from Pennsylvania that I posted with my previous reply. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/depu...rms/marcellus/Reports/Frac list 6-30-2010.pdf I think at a minimum there is an MSDS for every component that may be in the fracking fluid. The companies do not make this easy for individuals, but the state agencies can make it easy. The above list is from the state of Pennsylvania and includes things like sugar and vitamin c to versus toxic chemicals.
Question is,,, how far do you know? I certainly don't and I suspect you (and most others) don't either If it were only so simple, then we wouldn't have the controversy! My comment was: The big issue with fracking as I see it, is that the chemical stew they use to push into the rock, the chemical composition of which is unknown (proprietary trade information) both to the public in general, and regulatory agencies. These chemicals are exempt from scurtiny, and exempt from the clean air and clean water acts. This came out of an decision that came out of the Bush Whitehouse, under the direction of Dick Cheney. The principal beneficiary,,,Halliburton! TREBs question was: "Please provide evidence of this because as far as I know FRACING has been going on since the 70's when I did a stint in the oil fields." Chosen from literally dozens if not hundreds of google entries on the subject, chose your source! EPA Subpoenas Halliburton, Seeking Fracking Secrets | Common Dreams There has been "enormous" pressure to come up with a cogent energy policy for 40 years! It just doesn't have the political (and economic) clout that the oil and gas industry has over our elected leaders, both democratic and republican. You rail against "green energy" and yet if we had made real investments across the board that benefited the broader population instead of putting the vast majority of our resources and dare I say, subsidy in conventional energy, we would be much further ahead today. The core of the problem as I see it, is that nearly everyone is concerned about the costs today, and are not willing to realize that slightly higher costs today (by investing in alternatives) would very likely begin to bend the curve, and have a net benefit to the long term economy. Icarus
Btw, has anyone seen the documentary Gasland? It was nominated for an Oscar this year. I only saw the trailer,
I did not look at halliburton and there seems to be a problem there. From you article, you can see that 8 companies complied. It is not a mystery. Halliburton seems to be violating the law. Hopefully they will comply soon. So many in government seem to think halliburton is above the law. This needs to change Halliburton Announces Ecofriendly Fracking Fluid, More Disclosure - NYTimes.com That is completely bogus. The oil and gas companies must provide lists to emergency responders. Releasing individual well chemical formulas might be verboten, but a complete list of possible chemicals is not. The other 8 companies are providing this information and halliburton needs to also. But outside halliburton, I think the issue is really with people wanting public discloser versus regulatory disclosure. This is where I think I began. There is intelectual property involved in the actual formulas and I think the companies ought to be able to keep this secret. Regulators should be able to say which chemicals are allowed and at what concentration. IMHO, a complete list of possible chemicals is the only thing that should be mandated to the public.
AG, one issue is how these chemicals react w/one another and what sort of daughter compounds might be produced. TCE, the class aquifer contaminant degrades to Vinyl Chloride, if memory serves, and the later is nastier than the former... Imangine a nile monitor transforming into a honey badger... in your drinking water no less!!
