Marcellus Shale: An Environmental Disaster In The Making

[redhawk]

How about if some of the requiremenst for obtaing a permit to do fracking included.

1. A Substantial bond against any pollution or damage done?

2. With the exception of highly skiiled engineering ppositions, all labor would have to be from the local area.

3. A requirement that all energy obtained be used locally wherever impossible, and never exported?

4. Full disclosure on the names and the amounts of all chemicals used in the fracking process?

[Glen]

Originally Posted by redhawk

How about if some of the requiremenst for obtaing a permit to do fracking included.

1. A Substantial bond against any pollution or damage done?

2. With the exception of highly skiiled engineering ppositions, all labor would have to be from the local area.

3. A requirement that all energy obtained be used locally wherever impossible, and never exported?

4. Full disclosure on the names and the amounts of all chemicals used in the fracking process?

Hawk,

These are all good ideas which would eliminate most of the opposition. Unfortunately, it makes too much sense.

As far as what side to believe, there is an old saying along the lines of "Never ask a man his opinion if his job depends on the answer."

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Like a Doctor or a Judge, right? The only people that intimately know the process are the drillers. I have to think there are some honest folks in the lot that would blow the whistle. I don't have faith in the DECs skill set in this area that is for sure.

I agree with the 4 point plan too, hopefully Texas and Canada don't adopt it though New York would be screwed.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD

Like a Doctor or a Judge, right? The only people that intimately know the process are the drillers. I have to think there are some honest folks in the lot that would blow the whistle. I don't have faith in the DECs skill set in this area that is for sure.

I agree with the 4 point plan too, hopefully Texas and Canada don't adopt it though New York would be screwed.

Pumpkin,

Doctors and Judge's jobs do not depend on their decision/prognosis. It is what it is. Nobody fires them if you don't like what you hear.

I wouldn't count on too many whistleblowers in this economy. How many were there on Wall Street during that orgy?

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I would have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion. I think their jobs most certainly depend on their judgements and opinions.

Why doesn't the DEC hire some of these drilling experts and create a legitimate regulator and not an organization critics can call a rubberstamp. Why don't the feds do that?

On the same token the SEC or whatever institution follows that one should hire Wall Street people and be a proper regulator.

If the SEC listened, Bernie Madoff would've been caught years prior. There were whistleblowers prior to the financial meltdown, unfortunately noone cared. There also was a Lehman whistleblower and everyone with a pulse knew Fannie and Freddie were toxic. Nobody cared. Maybe that's the case with the fracking drillers and noone is listening, but if there are crimes being committed those drillers know it and someone will talk.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/356060...-would-listen/

[daxs]

Royal Dutch Shell owns alot of the leases in Tioga County PA. Some of the issues with hiring local have been that the locals do not have the necessary drilling experience. Some locals do get hired. Local business, motels, hotels, restaurants, etc are doing well. I think local construction has been helped. There are several new hotels in Mansfield PA and another one is getting built.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Certainly a big tax revenue increase in a depressed area.

I'm not sure how much we can trust these guys opinion

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...lth-study.html

[chairrock]

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/79850.html

NYS goes after Pa. drillers

[Glen]

So much for letting the industry professionals self regulate:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...edomain=usnews

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Glen

So much for letting the industry professionals self regulate:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...edomain=usnews

The study was by the Energy Institute, whose members are "energy professionals" (meaning energy companies and their employees or students getting into the energy field). It's conducted at the University of texas, a state that is pretty much energy driven for it's economy.

So, you can decide just how unbiased the report is for yourself.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by redhawk

The study was by the Energy Institute, whose members are "energy professionals" (meaning energy companies and their employees or students getting into the energy field). It's conducted at the University of texas, a state that is pretty much energy driven for it's economy.

So, you can decide just how unbiased the report is for yourself.

Hawk,

I posted this as some previous posts alluded to the fact that the only ones familiar enough with how to regulate the industry were the drillers themselves. This report kind of refutes that, probably unintentionally.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I dont see how a regulator full of people unfamiliar with the process could properly regulate. But it would be typical of government to create a bloated regulator that couldn't possibly complete it's mission.

But then again the government will just blame evil corporations when it all goes wrong anyway.

I think it's crazy there is no federal agency currently monitoring/reviewing or at least recommending to states procedures regarding fracking regulation.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD

I dont see how a regulator full of people unfamiliar with the process could properly regulate. But it would be typical of government to create a bloated regulator that couldn't possibly complete it's mission.

But then again the government will just blame evil corporations when it all goes wrong anyway.

I think it's crazy there is no federal agency currently monitoring/reviewing or at least recommending to states procedures regarding fracking regulation.

I want to comment on the flip side of what I put in bold print. Even worse is having regulators who are tied to the industry that is being regulated. Look at the FDA whose regulators are either past of future members of the drug business, and look at most of the financial regulation which is administrated mostly be bankers or financial brokers. They tend to be self serving, it's like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

Somewhere in between there needs to be a dividing line. I think the best system would be intelligent who are not tied to the industry who would listen to a committee made up of members on both sides of the question and then act accordingly.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

I would have to look into the FDA as I am not familiar but I can tell you the SEC does not have experienced bankers and brokers working for them. Mostly academic types and professional regulators even after everything that went down in 2008.

Its absolutely ludicrous what the SEC missed.

Regulators like the SEC is exactly why I think fracking in particular needs to have some experts that know what's going on, the practices vs policies and can't be easily fooled.

But yes you can't have an effective regulator that has a clear conflict of interest.

[DuctTape]

Regulators are empowered by the regulations, they are also limited by them. No board or committee, even if the people on it are "pure", can do anything about a situation unless it violates a regulation.

The industry is required to disclose the chemicals used in the process except those of a proprietary nature or those which are considered trade secrets. In other words, we will only tell you about the ones that don't matter.

The safe drinking water act, is a regulation supposedly empowered to protect our groundwater, but the oil and gas industry (specifically hydraulic fracturing) is exempt. In other words we have regulations which are supposed to protect our water from contaminants, but the regulation specifically exempt that which may (or already does) contaminate the groundwater.

Question for thought, if this process (hydraulic fracturing) does not contaminate the groundwater, why would the industry need to be exempt from the regulation?

The clean waters act is supposed to protect our surface water from discharge into our rivers, streams, etc... including storm runoff. The oil and gas industry is exempt from this regulation.

One last one is the resource conservation and recovery act which regulates hazardous waste management. Guess which industry is exempt form this one too.

Why would a regulation need to provide an exemption if the entity which is being "exempted" isn't violating the regulation?

The problem is the regulations exempt exactly who they should be worried about. This is like passing a law which prohibits stealing and exempting thieves.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Why did the regulator make the fracking industry exempt?

If it's that serious and the industry is buying them off that is still the regulator and government's fault. They aren't doing their job.

I'm not going to give a pass to regulators for being asleep at the wheel and then expect corporations to go above and beyond.

[DuctTape]

Yes the industry is "buying them off". However the "them" is NOT the regulators. The regulators do not write the regulations. The regulations are legislated by congress, etc... The industry owns the politicians (both sides). I agree that the corporations will not (nor are expected to) go over and beyond. That is the weakness in pure capitalism, which is why regulations (what some call job-killers) are necessary to provide balance (key word).

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by DuctTape

Yes the industry is "buying them off". However the "them" is NOT the regulators. The regulators do not write the regulations. The regulations are legislated by congress, etc... The industry owns the politicians (both sides). I agree that the corporations will not (nor are expected to) go over and beyond. That is the weakness in pure capitalism, which is why regulations (what some call job-killers) are necessary to provide balance (key word).

Actually "Pure Capitalism" as espoused by the man who is credited with it's "origination" (Adam Smith in "The Wealth of nations")clearly stated that there needed to be oversight and regulation or greed would ruin the system.

So in it's "pure" form, Capitalism needs to be regulated.

[Pumpkin QAAD]

Yes that's right, his beef was with free trade/tariffs and the East India company and how the stockholders were found throughout the government and were making policy. Basically the east india company could crush competition because they controlled the government that set tariffs.

Every believer in capitalism knows that there must be regulation to keep the playing field even and regulation should not be so drastic that it does change the competitive environment between market participants. Like if Chesapeake didn't have to disclose chemicals and worry about pollution and the other frackers did.

I'm not so sure he was worried about the environment so much as fair competition but he wrote much about the need for regulation in a free market society.

[chairrock]

http://www.chronicle-express.com/top...ning-authority