Discussion:
Another Enemy
(too old to reply)
High Miles
2013-01-17 19:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Associated Press | January 16, 2013

WEATHERFORD, Texas ~ When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his family's drinking water had begun bubbling like champagne, the federal government sounded an alarm: A company may have tainted their wells while drilling for natural gas.

At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with flammable methane.

More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.

Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing.

Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination.

For Steve Lipsky, the EPA decision seemed to ignore the dangers to his family. His water supply contains so much methane that the gas in water flowing from a pipe connected to the well can be ignited.

"I just can't believe that an agency that knows the truth about something like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn't use it," said Lipsky, who fears he will have to abandon his dream home in an upscale neighborhood of Weatherford.

The case isn't the first in which the EPA initially linked a hydraulic fracturing operation to water contamination and then softened its position after the industry protested.[...]

Hydraulic fracturing ~ often called "fracking" ~ allows drillers to tap into oil and gas reserves that were once considered out of reach because they were locked in deep layers of rock.
The method has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling nationwide, but environmental activists and some scientists believe it can contaminate groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.

Range Resources, a leading independent player in the natural gas boom, has hundreds of gas wells throughout Texas, Pennsylvania and other mineral-rich areas of the United States.

Among them is a production site ~ now owned by Legend Natural Gas ~ in a wooded area about a mile from Lipsky's home in Weatherford, about a half-hour drive west of Fort Worth.

State agencies usually regulate water and air pollution, so the EPA's involvement in the Texas matter was unusual from the start.

The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December 2010, because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of bubbling water.

Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were in danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range Resources to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners with safe water.

The company stopped doing that after state regulators declared in March 2011 that Range Resources was not responsible. The dispute between the EPA and the company then moved into federal court.

Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken from 32 water wells.

In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources' nearby drilling operation.

Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a national study into hydraulic fracturing.

Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency continued to pursue a "scientifically baseless" action against the company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David Poole.

In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court battle and set aside Thyne's report showing that the gas in Lipsky's water was nearly identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company was producing. [...]

The EPA offered no public explanation for its change in thinking, and Lipsky said he and his family learned about it from a reporter.

The agency refused to answer questions about the decision, instead issuing a statement by email that said resolving the Range Resources matter allowed the EPA to shift its "focus in this case away from litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction."

After the agency dropped its action, the company offered scientists access to a site in southwestern Pennsylvania. But the EPA has not yet accepted the offer.

Rob Jackson, chairman of global environmental change at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, reviewed Thyne's report and the raw data upon which it was based.

He agreed the gas in Lipsky's well could have originated in a rock formation known as the Barnett shale, the same area where Range Resources was extracting gas.

Jackson said it was "premature" to withdraw the order and said the EPA "dropped the ball in dropping their investigation."

Two of the wells included in Thyne's report had water containing more than the 10 milligrams per liter of methane, or enough to be deemed hazardous by the EPA.

One had 35 milligrams per liter, which Jackson called "particularly high" and an amount that federal regulators say is more than what requires immediate action.[...]

Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources, now pays about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife and three children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off.

Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay in the large stone house or move. "This has been total hell," Lipsky said. "It's been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life."

The confidential report relied on a type of testing known as isotopic analysis, which produces a unique chemical fingerprint that sometimes allows researchers to trace the origin of gas or oil.

Jackson, who studies hydraulic fracturing and specializes in isotopic analysis, acknowledged that more data is needed to determine for certain where the gas came from.

But even if the gas came from elsewhere, Range Resources' drilling could have contributed to the problem in Lipsky's water because gas migrates, he added.

The company insists the gas in Lipsky's water is from natural migration and not drilling. [...]

A Range Resources spokesman also dismissed Thyne and Jackson as anti-industry.

Range Resources has not shared its data with the EPA or the Railroad Commission.

Poole said the data is proprietary and could only be seen by Houston-based Weatherford Laboratories, where it originated. [...]

At another home with dangerously high methane levels in the water, the company insisted the gas had been there since the well was first dug many years ago.

The homeowner was not aware of anything wrong until Range Resources began drilling in 2009.

Jackson said it was "unrealistic" to suggest that people could have tainted water and not notice. [...]

Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Dallas, Allen Breed in Raleigh, N.C., and Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., contributed to this report.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130116/us-gas-drilling-water-contamination/
Joel Olson
2013-01-18 12:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by High Miles
Associated Press | January 16, 2013
WEATHERFORD, Texas ~ When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his family's
drinking water had begun bubbling like champagne, the federal government
sounded an alarm: A company may have tainted their wells while drilling for
natural gas.
At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so
serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at least
two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with flammable
methane.
More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with
company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the
driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not
to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called
hydraulic fracturing.
Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been
to blame for the contamination.
For Steve Lipsky, the EPA decision seemed to ignore the dangers to his family.
His water supply contains so much methane that the gas in water flowing from a
pipe connected to the well can be ignited.
"I just can't believe that an agency that knows the truth about something like
that, or has evidence like this, wouldn't use it," said Lipsky, who fears he
will have to abandon his dream home in an upscale neighborhood of Weatherford.
The case isn't the first in which the EPA initially linked a hydraulic
fracturing operation to water contamination and then softened its position
after the industry protested.[...]
Hydraulic fracturing ~ often called "fracking" ~ allows drillers to tap into
oil and gas reserves that were once considered out of reach because they were
locked in deep layers of rock.
The method has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling nationwide, but
environmental activists and some scientists believe it can contaminate
groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.
Range Resources, a leading independent player in the natural gas boom, has
hundreds of gas wells throughout Texas, Pennsylvania and other mineral-rich
areas of the United States.
Among them is a production site ~ now owned by Legend Natural Gas ~ in a
wooded area about a mile from Lipsky's home in Weatherford, about a half-hour
drive west of Fort Worth.
State agencies usually regulate water and air pollution, so the EPA's
involvement in the Texas matter was unusual from the start.
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December 2010,
because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas
drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were in
danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range Resources to
take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners with
safe water.
The company stopped doing that after state regulators declared in March 2011
that Range Resources was not responsible. The dispute between the EPA and the
company then moved into federal court.
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked an
independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken from
32 water wells.
In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that
the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources'
nearby drilling operation.
Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a national
study into hydraulic fracturing.
Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency
continued to pursue a "scientifically baseless" action against the company in
Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow
government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David
Poole.
In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court battle
and set aside Thyne's report showing that the gas in Lipsky's water was nearly
identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company was producing. [...]
The EPA offered no public explanation for its change in thinking, and Lipsky
said he and his family learned about it from a reporter.
The agency refused to answer questions about the decision, instead issuing a
statement by email that said resolving the Range Resources matter allowed the
EPA to shift its "focus in this case away from litigation and toward a joint
effort on the science and safety of energy extraction."
After the agency dropped its action, the company offered scientists access to
a site in southwestern Pennsylvania. But the EPA has not yet accepted the
offer.
Rob Jackson, chairman of global environmental change at Duke University's
Nicholas School of the Environment, reviewed Thyne's report and the raw data
upon which it was based.
He agreed the gas in Lipsky's well could have originated in a rock formation
known as the Barnett shale, the same area where Range Resources was extracting
gas.
Jackson said it was "premature" to withdraw the order and said the EPA
"dropped the ball in dropping their investigation."
Two of the wells included in Thyne's report had water containing more than the
10 milligrams per liter of methane, or enough to be deemed hazardous by the
EPA.
One had 35 milligrams per liter, which Jackson called "particularly high" and
an amount that federal regulators say is more than what requires immediate
action.[...]
Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources, now pays
about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife and three
children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off.
Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay in the
large stone house or move. "This has been total hell," Lipsky said. "It's been
taking a huge toll on my family and on our life."
The confidential report relied on a type of testing known as isotopic
analysis, which produces a unique chemical fingerprint that sometimes allows
researchers to trace the origin of gas or oil.
Jackson, who studies hydraulic fracturing and specializes in isotopic
analysis, acknowledged that more data is needed to determine for certain where
the gas came from.
But even if the gas came from elsewhere, Range Resources' drilling could have
contributed to the problem in Lipsky's water because gas migrates, he added.
The company insists the gas in Lipsky's water is from natural migration and
not drilling. [...]
A Range Resources spokesman also dismissed Thyne and Jackson as anti-industry.
Range Resources has not shared its data with the EPA or the Railroad Commission.
Poole said the data is proprietary and could only be seen by Houston-based
Weatherford Laboratories, where it originated. [...]
At another home with dangerously high methane levels in the water, the company
insisted the gas had been there since the well was first dug many years ago.
The homeowner was not aware of anything wrong until Range Resources began drilling in 2009.
Jackson said it was "unrealistic" to suggest that people could have tainted
water and not notice. [...]
Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Dallas, Allen Breed in Raleigh,
N.C., and Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., contributed to this report.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130116/us-gas-drilling-water-contamination/
There have been other studies, of small earthquakes (we had another,
just the other night), that found them linked to the storage wells used
for the contaminated water pulled out after the fracking. And then, the
amount of water needed is becoming a problem as well (no pun in ten
did). Both OKC and Norman are now on restricted, alternate day, water usage. OKC
is contemplating tapping their reserve lake, which itself is 7 feet below
normal. The recreation area around that lake are in fear of their livelihoods if
the lake is reduced to a mud flat and the dead fish stink up the place.
tim
2013-01-18 13:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Olson
Post by High Miles
Associated Press | January 16, 2013
WEATHERFORD, Texas ~ When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his
family's drinking water had begun bubbling like champagne, the federal
government sounded an alarm: A company may have tainted their wells while
drilling for natural gas.
At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was
so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said
at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated
with flammable methane.
More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews
with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence
against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the
company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common
form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing.
Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have
been to blame for the contamination.
For Steve Lipsky, the EPA decision seemed to ignore the dangers to his
family. His water supply contains so much methane that the gas in water
flowing from a pipe connected to the well can be ignited.
"I just can't believe that an agency that knows the truth about something
like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn't use it," said Lipsky, who
fears he will have to abandon his dream home in an upscale neighborhood
of Weatherford.
The case isn't the first in which the EPA initially linked a hydraulic
fracturing operation to water contamination and then softened its
position after the industry protested.[...]
Hydraulic fracturing ~ often called "fracking" ~ allows drillers to tap
into oil and gas reserves that were once considered out of reach because
they were locked in deep layers of rock.
The method has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling nationwide,
but environmental activists and some scientists believe it can
contaminate groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.
Range Resources, a leading independent player in the natural gas boom,
has hundreds of gas wells throughout Texas, Pennsylvania and other
mineral-rich areas of the United States.
Among them is a production site ~ now owned by Legend Natural Gas ~ in a
wooded area about a mile from Lipsky's home in Weatherford, about a
half-hour drive west of Fort Worth.
State agencies usually regulate water and air pollution, so the EPA's
involvement in the Texas matter was unusual from the start.
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December
2010, because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil
and gas drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of
bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were
in danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range
Resources to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected
homeowners with safe water.
The company stopped doing that after state regulators declared in March
2011 that Range Resources was not responsible. The dispute between the
EPA and the company then moved into federal court.
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked
an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples
taken from 32 water wells.
In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing
that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range
Resources' nearby drilling operation.
Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a
national study into hydraulic fracturing.
Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the
agency continued to pursue a "scientifically baseless" action against the
company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not
allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company
attorney David Poole.
In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court
battle and set aside Thyne's report showing that the gas in Lipsky's
water was nearly identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company
was producing. [...]
The EPA offered no public explanation for its change in thinking, and
Lipsky said he and his family learned about it from a reporter.
The agency refused to answer questions about the decision, instead
issuing a statement by email that said resolving the Range Resources
matter allowed the EPA to shift its "focus in this case away from
litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy
extraction."
After the agency dropped its action, the company offered scientists
access to a site in southwestern Pennsylvania. But the EPA has not yet
accepted the offer.
Rob Jackson, chairman of global environmental change at Duke University's
Nicholas School of the Environment, reviewed Thyne's report and the raw
data upon which it was based.
He agreed the gas in Lipsky's well could have originated in a rock
formation known as the Barnett shale, the same area where Range Resources
was extracting gas.
Jackson said it was "premature" to withdraw the order and said the EPA
"dropped the ball in dropping their investigation."
Two of the wells included in Thyne's report had water containing more
than the 10 milligrams per liter of methane, or enough to be deemed
hazardous by the EPA.
One had 35 milligrams per liter, which Jackson called "particularly high"
and an amount that federal regulators say is more than what requires
immediate action.[...]
Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources, now
pays about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife and
three children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off.
Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay in
the large stone house or move. "This has been total hell," Lipsky said.
"It's been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life."
The confidential report relied on a type of testing known as isotopic
analysis, which produces a unique chemical fingerprint that sometimes
allows researchers to trace the origin of gas or oil.
Jackson, who studies hydraulic fracturing and specializes in isotopic
analysis, acknowledged that more data is needed to determine for certain
where the gas came from.
But even if the gas came from elsewhere, Range Resources' drilling could
have contributed to the problem in Lipsky's water because gas migrates,
he added.
The company insists the gas in Lipsky's water is from natural migration
and not drilling. [...]
A Range Resources spokesman also dismissed Thyne and Jackson as anti-industry.
Range Resources has not shared its data with the EPA or the Railroad Commission.
Poole said the data is proprietary and could only be seen by
Houston-based Weatherford Laboratories, where it originated. [...]
At another home with dangerously high methane levels in the water, the
company insisted the gas had been there since the well was first dug many
years ago.
The homeowner was not aware of anything wrong until Range Resources began
drilling in 2009.
Jackson said it was "unrealistic" to suggest that people could have
tainted water and not notice. [...]
Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Dallas, Allen Breed in
Raleigh, N.C., and Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., contributed to
this report.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130116/us-gas-drilling-water-contamination/
There have been other studies, of small earthquakes (we had another,
just the other night), that found them linked to the storage wells used
for the contaminated water pulled out after the fracking. And then, the
amount of water needed is becoming a problem as well (no pun in ten
did). Both OKC and Norman are now on restricted, alternate day, water
usage. OKC is contemplating tapping their reserve lake, which itself is 7
feet below normal. The recreation area around that lake are in fear of
their livelihoods if the lake is reduced to a mud flat and the dead fish
stink up the place.
The asshole who owns Whole Foods calls President Obama a "socialist" and a
"fascist" (?) despite the fact his company's profits have risen 171% since
Obama came to office 4 years ago. These quaint folk may be leaders in
commerce and industry, but they are still morons. You don't store waste
poisons in aquifers if you don't want the aquifers to be poisoned. I can't
wait for the good citizens of Oklahoma (and rural Michigan) to start feeling
sorry for themselves for these self-injuries and beg for aid and assistance
and tax breaks. Morons.
Joel Olson
2013-01-24 07:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim
Post by Joel Olson
Post by High Miles
Associated Press | January 16, 2013
WEATHERFORD, Texas ~ When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his family's
drinking water had begun bubbling like champagne, the federal government
sounded an alarm: A company may have tainted their wells while drilling for
natural gas.
At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so
serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at
least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with
flammable methane.
More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews
with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence
against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company
threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of
drilling called hydraulic fracturing.
Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been
to blame for the contamination.
For Steve Lipsky, the EPA decision seemed to ignore the dangers to his
family. His water supply contains so much methane that the gas in water
flowing from a pipe connected to the well can be ignited.
"I just can't believe that an agency that knows the truth about something
like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn't use it," said Lipsky, who
fears he will have to abandon his dream home in an upscale neighborhood of
Weatherford.
The case isn't the first in which the EPA initially linked a hydraulic
fracturing operation to water contamination and then softened its position
after the industry protested.[...]
Hydraulic fracturing ~ often called "fracking" ~ allows drillers to tap into
oil and gas reserves that were once considered out of reach because they
were locked in deep layers of rock.
The method has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling nationwide,
but environmental activists and some scientists believe it can contaminate
groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.
Range Resources, a leading independent player in the natural gas boom, has
hundreds of gas wells throughout Texas, Pennsylvania and other mineral-rich
areas of the United States.
Among them is a production site ~ now owned by Legend Natural Gas ~ in a
wooded area about a mile from Lipsky's home in Weatherford, about a
half-hour drive west of Fort Worth.
State agencies usually regulate water and air pollution, so the EPA's
involvement in the Texas matter was unusual from the start.
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December 2010,
because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas
drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys, were in
danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered Range Resources
to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners
with safe water.
The company stopped doing that after state regulators declared in March 2011
that Range Resources was not responsible. The dispute between the EPA and
the company then moved into federal court.
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked an
independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken
from 32 water wells.
In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that
the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources'
nearby drilling operation.
Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a national
study into hydraulic fracturing.
Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency
continued to pursue a "scientifically baseless" action against the company
in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow
government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David
Poole.
In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court
battle and set aside Thyne's report showing that the gas in Lipsky's water
was nearly identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company was
producing. [...]
The EPA offered no public explanation for its change in thinking, and Lipsky
said he and his family learned about it from a reporter.
The agency refused to answer questions about the decision, instead issuing a
statement by email that said resolving the Range Resources matter allowed
the EPA to shift its "focus in this case away from litigation and toward a
joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction."
After the agency dropped its action, the company offered scientists access
to a site in southwestern Pennsylvania. But the EPA has not yet accepted the
offer.
Rob Jackson, chairman of global environmental change at Duke University's
Nicholas School of the Environment, reviewed Thyne's report and the raw data
upon which it was based.
He agreed the gas in Lipsky's well could have originated in a rock formation
known as the Barnett shale, the same area where Range Resources was
extracting gas.
Jackson said it was "premature" to withdraw the order and said the EPA
"dropped the ball in dropping their investigation."
Two of the wells included in Thyne's report had water containing more than
the 10 milligrams per liter of methane, or enough to be deemed hazardous by
the EPA.
One had 35 milligrams per liter, which Jackson called "particularly high"
and an amount that federal regulators say is more than what requires
immediate action.[...]
Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources, now
pays about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife and three
children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off.
Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay in
the large stone house or move. "This has been total hell," Lipsky said.
"It's been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life."
The confidential report relied on a type of testing known as isotopic
analysis, which produces a unique chemical fingerprint that sometimes allows
researchers to trace the origin of gas or oil.
Jackson, who studies hydraulic fracturing and specializes in isotopic
analysis, acknowledged that more data is needed to determine for certain
where the gas came from.
But even if the gas came from elsewhere, Range Resources' drilling could
have contributed to the problem in Lipsky's water because gas migrates, he
added.
The company insists the gas in Lipsky's water is from natural migration and
not drilling. [...]
A Range Resources spokesman also dismissed Thyne and Jackson as anti-industry.
Range Resources has not shared its data with the EPA or the Railroad Commission.
Poole said the data is proprietary and could only be seen by Houston-based
Weatherford Laboratories, where it originated. [...]
At another home with dangerously high methane levels in the water, the
company insisted the gas had been there since the well was first dug many
years ago.
The homeowner was not aware of anything wrong until Range Resources began
drilling in 2009.
Jackson said it was "unrealistic" to suggest that people could have tainted
water and not notice. [...]
Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Dallas, Allen Breed in Raleigh,
N.C., and Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., contributed to this report.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130116/us-gas-drilling-water-contamination/
There have been other studies, of small earthquakes (we had another,
just the other night), that found them linked to the storage wells used
for the contaminated water pulled out after the fracking. And then, the
amount of water needed is becoming a problem as well (no pun in ten
did). Both OKC and Norman are now on restricted, alternate day, water usage.
OKC is contemplating tapping their reserve lake, which itself is 7 feet below
normal. The recreation area around that lake are in fear of their livelihoods
if the lake is reduced to a mud flat and the dead fish stink up the place.
The asshole who owns Whole Foods calls President Obama a "socialist" and a
"fascist" (?) despite the fact his company's profits have risen 171% since
Obama came to office 4 years ago. These quaint folk may be leaders in
commerce and industry, but they are still morons. You don't store waste
poisons in aquifers if you don't want the aquifers to be poisoned. I can't
wait for the good citizens of Oklahoma (and rural Michigan) to start feeling
sorry for themselves for these self-injuries and beg for aid and assistance
and tax breaks. Morons.
Finally (after numerous breaks to quote passages on FB) finished
reading _Whole Earth Discipline_ by Stewart Brand. A much needed
book - he corrects some areas where the liberal/environmentalists
have gone wrong (mainly by ignoring the science)

One of those areas is GMO, or rather, in his terminology, genetic
engineering. He doesn't actually sneer at the "organic" crowd, but
comes fairly close. He's not big on monoculture farming. :-)

"The three broad strategies for dealing with climate change are mitigation,
adaptation, and amelioration. Mitigation, cutting back on greenhouse gas
emissions, has been called avoiding the unmanageable. Adaptation, then, is
managing the unavoidable -- moving coastal populations to higher ground,
developing drought-tolerant agriculture, preparing for masses of climate
refugees, and keeping resource warfare localized. And amelioration is adjusting
the nature of the planet itself through large-scale geoengineering." - Stewart
Brand

So where in that sequence do you think we are?

"Realization 1. The stupendous cost, disruption, and time required to build a
low-carbon energy infrastructure -- Saul Griffith's Renewistan -- is sinking in.
We will contemplate the price, over twenty-five years, of 30,000 square miles of
solar electric cells, 15,000 square miles of solar thermal collectors, 1.5
million square miles of algae farms for biofuel, 2.6 million wind turbines and
the space they take up (about 100,000 square miles), 27,400 geothermal steam
turbines, and 3,900 1-gigwatt nuclear reactors -- not to mention the cost and
disruption of shutting down the coal, oil, and gas infrastructure that all that
Green technology is supposed to replace, nor the environmental burden of
covering the natural landscape with a continent's worth of hardware. - Stewart
Brand

Realization 2. It will become painfully apparent that mitigation is not going to
succeed. The whirlwind is coming anyway. Curretly imaginable efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions do not level off at the desired 450 parts per million
(ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor at 550 ppm, and probably not even at 650
ppm. Increasingly vivid knowledge of how lethal a 650-ppm world would be will
motivate a frantic search for alternative paths. - Stewart Brand

Realization 3. Minds change with events, though usually it takes several in
succession. The war in Darfur has not been seen as the drought-driven resource
crisis it is. The death of 35,000 in Europe's heat wave of 2003 was considered
an anomaly rather than a window on the future. But more such events will pile
up. Cyclone Nargis ... another climate derived cyclone making landfall slightly
farther west would simply drown Bangladesh. As the Tibetan Plateau dries up, the
reduced flow in the many rivers it feeds will set downstream nations at war with
those upstream. ... Nuclear-armed India might cut off the flow of the Indus
River into nuclear-armed Pakistan, ... Climate change will kill some people
directly, but most will die at the hands of other people made desperate by
climate change. When that happens, there will be demand for action on climate
that shows immediate results.

Realization 4. News from field climatologists will keep getting worse. When one
positive feedback -- such as a "gigaburp" of methane released from melting
permafrost -- takes off conspicuously, a sense of public emergency will take off
with it. Already temperatures in the Arctic have gone up over 4 degrees C since
1950. The suddenness of a self-accelerating phenomenon invites proportionally
immediate response.

Realization 5. Some forms of geoengineering, expensive as they are, may be a
hundred to a thousand times cheaper than building Renewistan, and some of them
would have an instantaneous effect on climate rather than one delayed by
decades. As soon as climatic conditions become frightening and urgent,
geoengineering schemes will suddenly jump from "plausible but dangerous" to
"dangerous but we have no choice." The cost is low enough that a single nation
or even a wealthy individual could set in motion a geoengineering project that
would affect everyone on Earth. (A growing number of workshops are addressing
the specter of unilateral geoengineering.)

Any one of those realizations is sufficient; in combination they are
overwhelming. Geoengineering schemes will be in high demand shortly, ... " -
Stewart Brand
tim
2013-01-24 17:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joel Olson
Post by tim
Post by Joel Olson
Post by High Miles
Associated Press | January 16, 2013
WEATHERFORD, Texas ~ When a man in a Fort Worth suburb reported his
family's drinking water had begun bubbling like champagne, the federal
government sounded an alarm: A company may have tainted their wells
while drilling for natural gas.
At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation
was so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that
said at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well
saturated with flammable methane.
More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.
Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and
interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had
scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed
course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national
study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing.
Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have
been to blame for the contamination.
For Steve Lipsky, the EPA decision seemed to ignore the dangers to his
family. His water supply contains so much methane that the gas in water
flowing from a pipe connected to the well can be ignited.
"I just can't believe that an agency that knows the truth about
something like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn't use it," said
Lipsky, who fears he will have to abandon his dream home in an upscale
neighborhood of Weatherford.
The case isn't the first in which the EPA initially linked a hydraulic
fracturing operation to water contamination and then softened its
position after the industry protested.[...]
Hydraulic fracturing ~ often called "fracking" ~ allows drillers to tap
into oil and gas reserves that were once considered out of reach
because they were locked in deep layers of rock.
The method has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling
nationwide, but environmental activists and some scientists believe it
can contaminate groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.
Range Resources, a leading independent player in the natural gas boom,
has hundreds of gas wells throughout Texas, Pennsylvania and other
mineral-rich areas of the United States.
Among them is a production site ~ now owned by Legend Natural Gas ~ in
a wooded area about a mile from Lipsky's home in Weatherford, about a
half-hour drive west of Fort Worth.
State agencies usually regulate water and air pollution, so the EPA's
involvement in the Texas matter was unusual from the start.
The EPA began investigating complaints about the methane in December
2010, because it said the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil
and gas drilling, had not responded quickly enough to the reports of
bubbling water.
Government scientists believed two families, including the Lipskys,
were in danger from methane and cancer-causing benzene and ordered
Range Resources to take steps to clean their water wells and provide
affected homeowners with safe water.
The company stopped doing that after state regulators declared in March
2011 that Range Resources was not responsible. The dispute between the
EPA and the company then moved into federal court.
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the EPA asked
an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples
taken from 32 water wells.
In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing
that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range
Resources' nearby drilling operation.
Meanwhile, the EPA was seeking industry leaders to participate in a
national study into hydraulic fracturing.
Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the
agency continued to pursue a "scientifically baseless" action against
the company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and
would not allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said
company attorney David Poole.
In March 2012, the EPA retracted its emergency order, halted the court
battle and set aside Thyne's report showing that the gas in Lipsky's
water was nearly identical to the gases the Plano, Texas-based company
was producing. [...]
The EPA offered no public explanation for its change in thinking, and
Lipsky said he and his family learned about it from a reporter.
The agency refused to answer questions about the decision, instead
issuing a statement by email that said resolving the Range Resources
matter allowed the EPA to shift its "focus in this case away from
litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of
energy extraction."
After the agency dropped its action, the company offered scientists
access to a site in southwestern Pennsylvania. But the EPA has not yet
accepted the offer.
Rob Jackson, chairman of global environmental change at Duke
University's Nicholas School of the Environment, reviewed Thyne's
report and the raw data upon which it was based.
He agreed the gas in Lipsky's well could have originated in a rock
formation known as the Barnett shale, the same area where Range
Resources was extracting gas.
Jackson said it was "premature" to withdraw the order and said the EPA
"dropped the ball in dropping their investigation."
Two of the wells included in Thyne's report had water containing more
than the 10 milligrams per liter of methane, or enough to be deemed
hazardous by the EPA.
One had 35 milligrams per liter, which Jackson called "particularly
high" and an amount that federal regulators say is more than what
requires immediate action.[...]
Lipsky, who is still tied up in a legal battle with Range Resources,
now pays about $1,000 a month to haul water to his home. He, his wife
and three children become unnerved when their methane detectors go off.
Sometime soon, he said, the family will have to decide whether to stay
in the large stone house or move. "This has been total hell," Lipsky
said. "It's been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life."
The confidential report relied on a type of testing known as isotopic
analysis, which produces a unique chemical fingerprint that sometimes
allows researchers to trace the origin of gas or oil.
Jackson, who studies hydraulic fracturing and specializes in isotopic
analysis, acknowledged that more data is needed to determine for
certain where the gas came from.
But even if the gas came from elsewhere, Range Resources' drilling
could have contributed to the problem in Lipsky's water because gas
migrates, he added.
The company insists the gas in Lipsky's water is from natural migration
and not drilling. [...]
A Range Resources spokesman also dismissed Thyne and Jackson as anti-industry.
Range Resources has not shared its data with the EPA or the Railroad Commission.
Poole said the data is proprietary and could only be seen by
Houston-based Weatherford Laboratories, where it originated. [...]
At another home with dangerously high methane levels in the water, the
company insisted the gas had been there since the well was first dug
many years ago.
The homeowner was not aware of anything wrong until Range Resources
began drilling in 2009.
Jackson said it was "unrealistic" to suggest that people could have
tainted water and not notice. [...]
Associated Press writers Nomaan Merchant in Dallas, Allen Breed in
Raleigh, N.C., and Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pa., contributed to
this report.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130116/us-gas-drilling-water-contamination/
There have been other studies, of small earthquakes (we had another,
just the other night), that found them linked to the storage wells used
for the contaminated water pulled out after the fracking. And then, the
amount of water needed is becoming a problem as well (no pun in ten
did). Both OKC and Norman are now on restricted, alternate day, water
usage. OKC is contemplating tapping their reserve lake, which itself is
7 feet below normal. The recreation area around that lake are in fear of
their livelihoods if the lake is reduced to a mud flat and the dead fish
stink up the place.
The asshole who owns Whole Foods calls President Obama a "socialist" and
a "fascist" (?) despite the fact his company's profits have risen 171%
since Obama came to office 4 years ago. These quaint folk may be leaders
in commerce and industry, but they are still morons. You don't store
waste poisons in aquifers if you don't want the aquifers to be poisoned.
I can't wait for the good citizens of Oklahoma (and rural Michigan) to
start feeling sorry for themselves for these self-injuries and beg for
aid and assistance and tax breaks. Morons.
Finally (after numerous breaks to quote passages on FB) finished
reading _Whole Earth Discipline_ by Stewart Brand. A much needed
book - he corrects some areas where the liberal/environmentalists
have gone wrong (mainly by ignoring the science)
One of those areas is GMO, or rather, in his terminology, genetic
engineering. He doesn't actually sneer at the "organic" crowd, but
comes fairly close. He's not big on monoculture farming. :-)
"The three broad strategies for dealing with climate change are
mitigation, adaptation, and amelioration. Mitigation, cutting back on
greenhouse gas emissions, has been called avoiding the unmanageable.
Adaptation, then, is managing the unavoidable -- moving coastal
populations to higher ground, developing drought-tolerant agriculture,
preparing for masses of climate refugees, and keeping resource warfare
localized. And amelioration is adjusting the nature of the planet itself
through large-scale geoengineering." - Stewart Brand
So where in that sequence do you think we are?
"Realization 1. The stupendous cost, disruption, and time required to
build a low-carbon energy infrastructure -- Saul Griffith's Renewistan --
is sinking in. We will contemplate the price, over twenty-five years, of
30,000 square miles of solar electric cells, 15,000 square miles of solar
thermal collectors, 1.5 million square miles of algae farms for biofuel,
2.6 million wind turbines and the space they take up (about 100,000 square
miles), 27,400 geothermal steam turbines, and 3,900 1-gigwatt nuclear
reactors -- not to mention the cost and disruption of shutting down the
coal, oil, and gas infrastructure that all that Green technology is
supposed to replace, nor the environmental burden of covering the natural
landscape with a continent's worth of hardware. - Stewart Brand
Realization 2. It will become painfully apparent that mitigation is not
going to succeed. The whirlwind is coming anyway. Curretly imaginable
efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions do not level off at the desired
450 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor at 550 ppm, and
probably not even at 650 ppm. Increasingly vivid knowledge of how lethal a
650-ppm world would be will motivate a frantic search for alternative
paths. - Stewart Brand
Realization 3. Minds change with events, though usually it takes several
in succession. The war in Darfur has not been seen as the drought-driven
resource crisis it is. The death of 35,000 in Europe's heat wave of 2003
was considered an anomaly rather than a window on the future. But more
such events will pile up. Cyclone Nargis ... another climate derived
cyclone making landfall slightly farther west would simply drown
Bangladesh. As the Tibetan Plateau dries up, the reduced flow in the many
rivers it feeds will set downstream nations at war with those upstream.
... Nuclear-armed India might cut off the flow of the Indus River into
nuclear-armed Pakistan, ... Climate change will kill some people directly,
but most will die at the hands of other people made desperate by climate
change. When that happens, there will be demand for action on climate that
shows immediate results.
Realization 4. News from field climatologists will keep getting worse.
When one positive feedback -- such as a "gigaburp" of methane released
from melting permafrost -- takes off conspicuously, a sense of public
emergency will take off with it. Already temperatures in the Arctic have
gone up over 4 degrees C since 1950. The suddenness of a self-accelerating
phenomenon invites proportionally immediate response.
Realization 5. Some forms of geoengineering, expensive as they are, may be
a hundred to a thousand times cheaper than building Renewistan, and some
of them would have an instantaneous effect on climate rather than one
delayed by decades. As soon as climatic conditions become frightening and
urgent, geoengineering schemes will suddenly jump from "plausible but
dangerous" to "dangerous but we have no choice." The cost is low enough
that a single nation or even a wealthy individual could set in motion a
geoengineering project that would affect everyone on Earth. (A growing
number of workshops are addressing the specter of unilateral
geoengineering.)
Any one of those realizations is sufficient; in combination they are
overwhelming. Geoengineering schemes will be in high demand shortly, ...
" - Stewart Brand
Grim. We are doomed. We react instead of think ahead. Lemmings and
cliffs...

Loading...