• 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!

Vermont first state to ban fracking

Yes, there have been studies, including studies that show serious contamination issues. One such study was done by the University of Texas which can hardly be described as a hotbed of environmentalism or an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Some of the wells are deep, of course. But the thing about wells is ... the go all the way up to the surface.

I'll post the link again as it seems you did't check it out yet. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But, but .... that's Wikipedia! (insert sarcasm gif here)
 
Yes, there have been studies, including studies that show serious contamination issues. One such study was done by the University of Texas which can hardly be described as a hotbed of environmentalism or an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Some of the wells are deep, of course. But the thing about wells is ... the go all the way up to the surface.

I'll post the link again as it seems you did't check it out yet. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand stand there have been issues with certain wells due to errors by the driller. That is why we have regulators to weed out the bad players. This process has been going on for many decades and now we need to study it.

I know we disagree but I think that this administration has found a way to slow down or shut down industries it has a problem with. Rather than legislate change which they can't do both because of republican opposition but also because the public may not agree, they use the rulebook sort of like a union that calls for a slowdown rather than a strike.

I know it is cute and it seems the game is to see who can get away with what, have a plausible story and not break out laughing. Not sure we can continue to be a great power for much longer with this type of gamesmanship.
 
I know for a fact that the ID of chemical additives is not mandated by current federal law, so I question whether your other claims are true.

Obviously there is a lot that isn't known, and that is still being studied. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They must have MSDS's for each chemical additive. That is mandated by current federal law. The ingredients of each additive are required to be in the MSDS unless it can be labeled as a trade secret, at which point the manufacturer must abide by Federal standards on trade secrets. Even then, they would have to provide enough information to track and monitor a spill.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Same rules as everyone else.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Just wondering why you and others are treating this as some type of new process. It is my understanding that drillers have been using drilling for decades. I understand that the practice seems to have expanded and greatly increased our proven reserves especially of natural gas. That being said why the new hysteria?

Because global warming hysteria makes people want to stop the use of any and all fossil fuels.
 
Because global warming hysteria makes people want to stop the use of any and all fossil fuels.


Just wish Obama and the democrats would be honest and say just that. Then let the people decide.

Perhaps the great Obama simply does not trust the great unwashed to come up with the correct (his) answer.
 
I wish there was a way to have these not in my back yard states pay more for affordable energy that is produced in other states that are willing to do what needs to be done.
Don't the costs of moving the stuff get passed on to the folks who order it?
That's par for the course with many other things. The shipping gets added in to the price.
Is it different with natural gas?
 
I understand stand there have been issues with certain wells due to errors by the driller. That is why we have regulators to weed out the bad players. This process has been going on for many decades and now we need to study it.

I know we disagree but I think that this administration has found a way to slow down or shut down industries it has a problem with. Rather than legislate change which they can't do both because of republican opposition but also because the public may not agree, they use the rulebook sort of like a union that calls for a slowdown rather than a strike.

I know it is cute and it seems the game is to see who can get away with what, have a plausible story and not break out laughing. Not sure we can continue to be a great power for much longer with this type of gamesmanship.

AFAIK, "this administration" doesn't have anything to do with the Vermont legislature's actions. In fact there has been explosive growth in fracking during Obama's tenure. So much so that it's caused a collapse in natural gas prices due to oversupply.
 
Yes, there have been studies, including studies that show serious contamination issues. One such study was done by the University of Texas which can hardly be described as a hotbed of environmentalism or an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Some of the wells are deep, of course. But the thing about wells is ... the go all the way up to the surface.

I'll post the link again as it seems you did't check it out yet. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UT doesn't seem to think that frac'ing is too big of a deal. They own a million+ acres in Irion, Crockett and Reagan counties that is having the hell frac'ed out of it.
 
UT doesn't seem to think that frac'ing is too big of a deal. They own a million+ acres in Irion, Crockett and Reagan counties that is having the hell frac'ed out of it.

I suspect that there are different views between whoever is managing their endowment and the scientific faculty and students.

University of Texas Study The UT study found that all steps in the process except the actual injection of the fluid (which proponents artificially separated from the rest of the process and designated "hydraulic fracturing") have resulted in environmental contamination.[28] The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.[28] The other stages or "phases of the shale gas development life cycle"[28] into which hydraulic fracturing has been divided in various reports are (1) drill pad construction and operation, (2) the construction, integrity, and performance of the wellbores, (3) the flowback of the fluid back towards the surface, (4) blowouts and spills, (5) integrity of other pipelines involved and (6) the disposal of the flowback, including waste water and other waste products.[67][68] These stages were all reported to be sources of contamination in the University of Texas study.[28] The study concluded that if hydraulic fracturing is to be conducted in an environmentally safe manner, these issues need to be addressed first.[28] It is to the university's credit that the distortion seemed only to be the focus on the injection stage. There are extensive links between UT and the oil & gas industry, with the giving of fossil-fuel behemoth Royal Dutch Shell to the university currently standing at more than $24.8 million, $4m alone having been handed over for 2012.[69][70] Since 2011, Shell has partnered Texas in a program called Shell-UT Unconventional Research, and the university has a similar research program in place with Exxon Mobil.[71] Halliburton, the largest supplier of fracking services in the United States, has also given millions of dollars to the university.[72] Statoil announced a $5m research agreement (part of which will focus on oil shale) with UT's Bureau of Economic Geology in September 2011, whose program director, Ian Duncan, was the senior contributor for the parts of the Texas study to do with the environmental impacts of shale gas development.[22][28][73]

Cornell Study A 2012 study out of Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine by Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine, and veterinarian Michelle Bamberger, DVM, soon to be published in 'New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy,' suggests that hydraulic fracking is sickening and killing cows, horses, goats, llamas, chickens, dogs, cats, fish and other wildlife, as well as humans. The study covered cases in Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.[74]The case studies include reports of sick animals, stunted growth, and dead animals after exposure to hydraulic fracturing spills from dumping of the fluid into streams and from workers slitting the lining of a wastewater impoundment (evaporation ponds) so that it would drain and be able to accept more waste. The researchers stated that it was difficult to assess health impact because of the industry's strategic lobbying efforts that resulted in legislation allowing them to keep the proprietary chemicals in the fluid secret, protecting them from being held legally responsible for contamination. Bamberger stated that if you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing.[74] The researchers recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, that nondisclosure agreements not be allowed when public health is at risk, testing animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites and animal products (milk, cheese, etc.) from animal raised near hydraulic fracturing sites prior to selling them to market, monitoring of water, soil and air more closely, and testing the air, water, soil and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals thereafter.[74]
 
Back
Top Bottom