• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Gasland’ Director Confronted on NPR Show

OMG....someone who supposedly has PhD in gas well drilling...is claiming that the FEDERAL laws covering gas fracking....ARE THE SAME FOR OIL AND WATER WELLS!

It is as if the Halliburton Loophole....is something that does not exist!

WOW!

Thats right. A well is a well is a well.
 
In September, the Environmental Protection Agency requested that natural gas drillers hand over information about the substances they are using in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method that uses a high-pressure blast of chemical compounds, sand, and water to fracture rock and access natural gas reserves. The EPA asked nicely in its letter to nine companies, but said they were prepared to be less polite: "EPA expects the companies to cooperate," the letter said. If they don't, "EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."

Well, eight of the companies have complied, leaving just one—Halliburton, the oil field services giant that everyone loves to hate—that has not turned over its fracking data. Yesterday, the EPA followed through on its threat to subpoena the companies data. Halliburton, the EPA said Tuesday, "has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study."

Halliburton said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that they are "disappointed" by the EPA's decision:

Halliburton has been working in good faith in an effort to respond to EPA's September 2010 request for information on our hydraulic fracturing operations over a five-year period. Because the agency's request was so broad, potentially requiring the company to prepare approximately 50,000 spreadsheets, we have met with the agency and had several additional discussions with EPA personnel in order to help narrow the focus of their unreasonable demands so that we could provide the agency what it needs to complete its study of hydraulic fracturing. We have turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents as recently as last Friday, Nov. 5, 2010. We are disappointed by the EPA’s decision today. Halliburton welcomes any federal court’s examination of our good faith efforts with the EPA to date.
Halliburton's reticence is perhaps related to the fact that, according to data released earlier this year, the company admitted to using 807,000 gallons of diesel-based chemicals in its fracking fluids, in violation of an agreement drillers had with the EPA.​

The industry successfully lobbied to have fracking fluids exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, meaning they aren't required to disclose the chemicals they use. But Congress asked the EPA to conduct a through review of the potential impacts of the fluids on drinking water, which the EPA is supposed to complete by the end of 2012.
Fracking Halliburton | Mother Jones
 
No it is not, since you are not fracking in shale for water or conventional oil wells.

Again, stop denying the existence of the Halliburton Loophole. This is getting really silly.

Drilling a well, is drilling a well.

And, yes, they do frac oilwells, as well. You swear you're right and you don't know that?
 
In September, the Environmental Protection Agency requested that natural gas drillers hand over information about the substances they are using in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method that uses a high-pressure blast of chemical compounds, sand, and water to fracture rock and access natural gas reserves. The EPA asked nicely in its letter to nine companies, but said they were prepared to be less polite: "EPA expects the companies to cooperate," the letter said. If they don't, "EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."

Well, eight of the companies have complied, leaving just one—Halliburton, the oil field services giant that everyone loves to hate—that has not turned over its fracking data. Yesterday, the EPA followed through on its threat to subpoena the companies data. Halliburton, the EPA said Tuesday, "has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study."

Halliburton said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that they are "disappointed" by the EPA's decision:

Halliburton has been working in good faith in an effort to respond to EPA's September 2010 request for information on our hydraulic fracturing operations over a five-year period. Because the agency's request was so broad, potentially requiring the company to prepare approximately 50,000 spreadsheets, we have met with the agency and had several additional discussions with EPA personnel in order to help narrow the focus of their unreasonable demands so that we could provide the agency what it needs to complete its study of hydraulic fracturing. We have turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents as recently as last Friday, Nov. 5, 2010. We are disappointed by the EPA’s decision today. Halliburton welcomes any federal court’s examination of our good faith efforts with the EPA to date.
Halliburton's reticence is perhaps related to the fact that, according to data released earlier this year, the company admitted to using 807,000 gallons of diesel-based chemicals in its fracking fluids, in violation of an agreement drillers had with the EPA.​

The industry successfully lobbied to have fracking fluids exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, meaning they aren't required to disclose the chemicals they use. But Congress asked the EPA to conduct a through review of the potential impacts of the fluids on drinking water, which the EPA is supposed to complete by the end of 2012.
Fracking Halliburton | Mother Jones

Stop reading Libbo propaganda and start thinking for yourself.


What Chemicals Are Used | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry
 
Stop reading Libbo propaganda and start thinking for yourself.


What Chemicals Are Used | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry
The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.

Again, the Halliburton Loophole exempted gas well frackers from having to fully disclose chemicals used, it has only been through an act of Congress that the EPA forced a complete accounting of chemicals and materials used to be released.

If you have a PhD in this, you should know this.
 
The following is a list of the chemicals used most often.

Again, the Halliburton Loophole exempted gas well frackers from having to fully disclose chemicals used, it has only been through an act of Congress that the EPA forced a complete accounting of chemicals and materials used to be released.

If you have a PhD in this, you should know this.

You claimed no one knew what materials are being used. I proved otherwise. Sorry for ya.
 
You claimed no one knew what materials are being used. I proved otherwise. Sorry for ya.
No, I did not, and this adds to doubts about advanced degree claims.
 
In the late 60s, they tried fracking with a low yield nuclear bomb. Worked great, except for that the newly irradiated gas couldn't be used.

The process used today is essentially the same as it was 50 years ago.
 
You claimed no one knew what materials are being used. I proved otherwise. Sorry for ya.

No he didn't, you distorted that. Besides the manufacturers of these TRADE SECRET fracking fluids, no one knew. You didn't prove otherwise, you failed to read and understand your own linked material. Your misunderstanding of what you linked to has been quoted back to you from your own source twice now.

The list you linked to only contains the materials used most commonly in fracking formulas.
 
No he didn't, you distorted that. Besides the manufacturers of these TRADE SECRET fracking fluids, no one knew. You didn't prove otherwise, you failed to read and understand your own linked material. Your misunderstanding of what you linked to has been quoted back to you from your own source twice now.

The list you linked to only contains the materials used most commonly in fracking formulas.

You're contradicting yourself.

But, anyway. How about this?

List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania | Marcellus Drilling News
 

No, I am not. This is the public list, or part of it (read your own link it states at the very beginning it isn't totally accurate) of ONE manufacturer's formula for fracking fluid [EDIT: Actually this list is a compilaton of the chemicals that were reported (they're not required to report them all) from fracking fluid used in the state]. AND this is just the part of the formula the manufacturer is required to submit to the EPA. AS has been previously noted, gas frackers are exempted from significant portions of the EPA mandate on reporting.

Also note from your link:

4.One last thing to keep in mind: No driller uses all of these chemicals. In fact, Range Resources has openly discussed what they use in their fracking fluid:
Range Resources, which uses contractor Frac Tech for its fracing work, says its frac fluid additives are chosen from a list of only nine compounds — hydrochloric acid, methanol propargyl, polyacrylamide, glutaraldehyde, ethanol, ethylene glycol, alcohol and sodium hydroxide.*
 
Last edited:
Don't hurt yourself doing all that dodging.
This is funny, this is coming from the person claiming to have a PhD, who can't tell the difference between "no one knew" and "they were exempt from disclosure". This is the guy telling me to ignore another PhD who for decades was researching how to maximize fracking, who trained engineers on how to maximize results, who knows the process inside and out.....simply because some of the source material was coming from a site that was objectionable.......while ignoring the counterclaims. Instead the game has been a semantic exercise of who knew what.....not what has happened.

The fact is that casements leak, fracking is done while drilling is done in parallel to drilling, that slicker fluid does migrate between the drillings causing contamination of ground water, that the imperfect casements do leak causing ground water contamination of both fracking fluids and methane. This has been document for years, and your denials are only defended with what ifs and semantic nonsense.

I understand your argument, why you have to make a defense of questioning the evidence and diverting, it is what you spent your life doing, you don't want the industry tarnished. It is hard to accept that the industry you worked within is not perfect and has actors who do not operate in the public's best interest, but that doesn't give license to produce dishonest argument.
 
No, I am not. This is the public list, or part of it (read your own link it states at the very beginning it isn't totally accurate) of ONE manufacturer's formula for fracking fluid. AND this is just the part of the formula the manufacturer is required to submit to the EPA.

It's not totally accurate, because there are agents on the list that aren't pumped downhole. Did you read that part?

AS has been previously noted, gas frackers are exempted from significant portions of the EPA mandate on reporting.

Link, please?
 
This is funny, this is coming from the person claiming to have a PhD, who can't tell the difference between "no one knew" and "they were exempt from disclosure". This is the guy telling me to ignore another PhD who for decades was researching how to maximize fracking, who trained engineers on how to maximize results, who knows the process inside and out.....simply because some of the source material was coming from a site that was objectionable.......while ignoring the counterclaims. Instead the game has been a semantic exercise of who knew what.....not what has happened.

The fact is that casements leak, fracking is done while drilling is done in parallel to drilling, that slicker fluid does migrate between the drillings causing contamination of ground water, that the imperfect casements do leak causing ground water contamination of both fracking fluids and methane. This has been document for years, and your denials are only defended with what ifs and semantic nonsense.

I understand your argument, why you have to make a defense of questioning the evidence and diverting, it is what you spent your life doing, you don't want the industry tarnished. It is hard to accept that the industry you worked within is not perfect and has actors who do not operate in the public's best interest, but that doesn't give license to produce dishonest argument.

Exempt, huh?

Halliburton - Fluids Disclosure
 
This is funny, this is coming from the person claiming to have a PhD, who can't tell the difference between "no one knew" and "they were exempt from disclosure". This is the guy telling me to ignore another PhD who for decades was researching how to maximize fracking, who trained engineers on how to maximize results, who knows the process inside and out.....simply because some of the source material was coming from a site that was objectionable.......while ignoring the counterclaims. Instead the game has been a semantic exercise of who knew what.....not what has happened.

The fact is that casements leak, fracking is done while drilling is done in parallel to drilling, that slicker fluid does migrate between the drillings causing contamination of ground water, that the imperfect casements do leak causing ground water contamination of both fracking fluids and methane. This has been document for years, and your denials are only defended with what ifs and semantic nonsense.

I understand your argument, why you have to make a defense of questioning the evidence and diverting, it is what you spent your life doing, you don't want the industry tarnished. It is hard to accept that the industry you worked within is not perfect and has actors who do not operate in the public's best interest, but that doesn't give license to produce dishonest argument.

Fracing takes place AFTER drilling is completed. Speaking of being dishonest, or ignorant, rather. Do you understand why it's impossible to frac and drill the same well, simultaneously?

I know you think that your comments are above question, however, most of your comments are erroneous, this being a good example.
 
It's not totally accurate, because there are agents on the list that aren't pumped downhole. Did you read that part?



Link, please?

The links to the law that exempts them have already been posted for you and ignored by you.
 
You are going in circles, we already covered this, they are not disclosing all substances used:


In September, the Environmental Protection Agency requested that natural gas drillers hand over information about the substances they are using in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method that uses a high-pressure blast of chemical compounds, sand, and water to fracture rock and access natural gas reserves. The EPA asked nicely in its letter to nine companies, but said they were prepared to be less polite: "EPA expects the companies to cooperate," the letter said. If they don't, "EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."

Well, eight of the companies have complied, leaving just one—Halliburton, the oil field services giant that everyone loves to hate—that has not turned over its fracking data. Yesterday, the EPA followed through on its threat to subpoena the companies data. Halliburton, the EPA said Tuesday, "has failed to provide EPA the information necessary to move forward with this important study."

Halliburton said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times that they are "disappointed" by the EPA's decision:

Halliburton has been working in good faith in an effort to respond to EPA's September 2010 request for information on our hydraulic fracturing operations over a five-year period. Because the agency's request was so broad, potentially requiring the company to prepare approximately 50,000 spreadsheets, we have met with the agency and had several additional discussions with EPA personnel in order to help narrow the focus of their unreasonable demands so that we could provide the agency what it needs to complete its study of hydraulic fracturing. We have turned over nearly 5,000 pages of documents as recently as last Friday, Nov. 5, 2010. We are disappointed by the EPA’s decision today. Halliburton welcomes any federal court’s examination of our good faith efforts with the EPA to date.
Halliburton's reticence is perhaps related to the fact that, according to data released earlier this year, the company admitted to using 807,000 gallons of diesel-based chemicals in its fracking fluids, in violation of an agreement drillers had with the EPA.​

The industry successfully lobbied to have fracking fluids exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, meaning they aren't required to disclose the chemicals they use. But Congress asked the EPA to conduct a through review of the potential impacts of the fluids on drinking water, which the EPA is supposed to complete by the end of 2012.
Fracking Halliburton | Mother Jones
 
And again, you distract with something else, I'm talking about federal law.....you bring up state legislation....and you can't even link to an analysis of this legislation.

Here is a person having to operate within this knew legislation:
Landowners face big choice on fracking - MariettaTimes.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Ohio, Community Information - The Marietta Times

Oh, so state regulations don't count all of a sudden? You claimed that gas wells are, "different", and I've proved you wrong. Don't hurt your back moving that goal post.
 
Fracing takes place AFTER drilling is completed. Speaking of being dishonest, or ignorant, rather. Do you understand why it's impossible to frac and drill the same well, simultaneously?

I know you think that your comments are above question, however, most of your comments are erroneous, this being a good example.
No fracking is done in parrallel to new drilling within the same area. If you had watched Dr. Igraffea all the way through you would know that this has been documented in British Columbia.


"Gosh darn Professors telling me that casements leak....what does he know......he is just a Professor....humph!"

http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf


 
Back
Top Bottom