Oil Rigs Dumping Billions Of Gallons Of Fracking Waste Off California Coast With OK From Feds

[WillyT]

Oil rigs dumping billions of gallons of fracking waste off California coast with OK from feds
By Travis Gettys - RawStory
Friday, February 28, 2014 12:23 EST



<snip>

Wastewater from offshore drilling is being dumped into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California, and it’s apparently legal.

Oil rig operators have federal permits to dump 9 billion gallons of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, waste into the ocean each year – enough to fill more than 100 football stadiums.

Federal regulators signed off on minor revisions to permits that allowed the oil company DCOR to begin fracking off the coast without completing any environmental reviews, according to a TruthOut report: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19340-more-details-on-ocean-fracking-revealed-as-environmentalists-challenge-federal-regulators

At least 12 rigs off the California coast inject potentially dangerous chemical into undersea rock formations to break them up and more easily extract crude oil, reported KCET-TV.

About half of the fluid pumped into those wells during hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is pumped back out again as wastewater.

At least half of the state’s offshore rigs pump some of that water into the Santa Barbara Channel, according to the public TV station.

<snip>

More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/28/oil-rigs-dumping-billion-of-gallons-of-fracking-waste-off-california-coast-with-ok-from-feds/

[truedelphi]

1. Patience my friend -

Just wait until Obama gets that third term, and then he can really be the true Democrat he has always wanted to be!

The mid-level EPA personnel who were told to no longer scientifically investigate any fracking fluids the citizenry provided them with will be given the A-okay to come out of the lunch rooms and lounges. They will once again roll up their sleeves and go back to work, connecting the frackers to the harm being done to our water, air and soil. (And the harm being done to people's and animals' bodies, as well.)

[Kelvin Mace]

9. I keep asking folks

how many times does this administration have to bugger us with the presidential seal before they admit that the administration doesn't work for us, they work for Wall Street?

I am told that I need to stop being a "purist" and be "pragmatic".

In my 53 years on this planet I have learned one thing with absolute certainty: "Pragmatism" is the altar upon which life, liberty and justice are routinely sacrificed.

[mindwalker_i]

15. There's a group of people here

who defend Obama no matter what the issue. It's almost exactly the same a people who have faith in a church and will make excuses and defend that church regardless of how many kinds get abused or whatever the church does. Yeah, Obama has done some very good things, but that doesn't mean one should ignore the bad things that he's doing, like promoting this fossil fuel boom at the expense of the environment, or promoting the TPP. You can sum those people up with a simple BASIC program:

10 PRINT "OBAMA, GOOD"
20 GOTO 10

Note this program doesn't take or respond to any input or data.

What we really need is not a centrist, pragmatic democrat, but one who actually will fight for democratic principles. The country has moved too far right, where business interests trump the interests, and often even the survival, or citizens. the only jobs program left is mass funding of military contractors. Although that does keep some jobs going, it often doesn't produce anything useful - I'm thinking of the Daily Show segment on tanks ("Tanks, tanks, tanks" by Al Madrigal), and missile defense systems - and lines the pockets of the CEOs of the contracting companies more than it creates jobs. We need a government that is willing to actually look at these things, decide they're fucked up, and actually try to fix them rather than perpetuating them.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

17. here's a link

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/epa-require-calif-offshore-fracking-reports

It is possible to point out the excesses the various industries will try to get away with and not constantly lay it at the feet of Obama as though he and his administration are trying to poison the earth.

Life is far more nuanced than most people on politically passionate websites want to make it.

[mindwalker_i]

26. Yes, it's complicated

But that doesn't mean one can't look at the overall situation, specifically that we have a massive fracking and coal bubble, and assign some blame to the current president and the rest of government. That would be like saying that climate is complicated and therefore we can't say whether human activity had anything to do with it. When people rush to defend Obama no matter what the issue, they are no longer processing or analyzing data, or making their decisions based on reality. They are merely worshipers. I don't know whether they worship the person or the "D" after his name, but it really doesn't matter.

He deserves credit for the good things he's done, and he deserves our anger for the things that he has or is doing wrong. In spite of Krugman's most recent article (the TPP doesn't make much difference either way), it does make a difference and should be opposed. It definitely won't help! When Obama says that the NSA spying is useful, even though knowledgeable people have directly contradicted that assessment, we have to ask why Obama wants it to continue. It may be as simple as he doesn't want a terrorist attack to happen and get blamed for not doing everything to prevent it. It may be a lot worse. But we have to ask.

When people blindly support Obama or anyone, it's like religious people who won't question anything that contradicts their beliefs even with, or in spite of, evidence. Like the religious nutjob who debated Bill Nye, nothing was going to change his mind. Ignoring reality has a funny way of leading people to make decisions that don't lead to where they want to get, however. And just like faith in a religion, faith in a person, politician, or even a political group is an off switch for the brain.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

29. you are unclear on what is happening. when right minded people see Obama being unjustly attacked

they are going to spend their time defending them. We don't have a shortage of Obama bashers on this site which is pretty damn clear now. There are some who may well blindly support Obama. I can't speak for each and every poster. But what I know is I do have problems with our lack of progress on addressing climate change, inequities in our economy, and a host of other things that I'd like to see Obama spend a LOT more energy not only loudly discussing via his bully pulpit of the presidency but also by enacting every executive order possible and by holding DEMS feet to the fire as well as explaining to the American people in Republican districts what exactly the GOP are doing to sell out our interests to business.

If people were more like you trying to discuss these questions and concerns with a bit more calm and even temper, others like me might be able to focus on engaging with the issue on its merits. As it is, any time I try to discuss anything with someone who labels Obama a corporatist, neo-liberal, 3rd way, company man, etc. it doesn't get very far because they have already built up their religious belief system as well.

Some posting here have an unhealthy relationship with the very idea of government so it is very difficult to discuss rationally what might change when they have a default position of refusing to trust that ANY good might come from this or any other administration.

[mindwalker_i]

37. I agree that there are people who have gone too far the other way

Calling Obama a corporatist and continually bashing him is just as faith-based as those blindly supporting him. The correct approach is to take each issue separately and respond to each.

I get the sense that so much is going very wrong in this country, from the way money is spent on military to the way we fund, or don't fund, schools. We could make a really great society. We could put money and effort into people, give everyone good schooling, and do, if not everything, at least something to help them reach their maximum potential. Maybe we could actually tackle the long-term problems facing the world, like global climate change. Maybe we could actually try not to kill ourselves. Republicans are a joke. But when too many democrats treat Republicans like they're not a joke, and try not to offend them, then we're refusing to even acknowledge the big problems, let alone address them.

So in short, faith is bad. Because of people's faith, we end up arguing about stupid shit, like whether Snowden is a hero or asshole, when we should be discussing how to stop the spying that is killing democracy. We should support the ideals, not the people who don't share those ideals.

[truedelphi]

67. Fracking ought to be the perfect issue for an environmentally

Minded President to go and assume his place at the bully pulpit.

For years, some of us believed that maybe Obama did not know that pulpit existed. But then, last summer, he took to said pulpit with mush enthusiasm to ask the public to encourage Congress to get us actively into a war over in Syria.

And remember, he even stated that despite budget concerns, he could find money for that war.

How come the man can't step forward and ask the public to inundate Congress with their calls, emails and faxes on the matter of fracking? We as a nation cannot afford to take on this issue community by community, county by county,state by state. Instead, we need a clear directive given by the person at the head of his branch of government, and who is willing to take a stand. After all, the guy has two daughters, who will continue to need clean air and clean water for some decades to come.

[cui bono]

73. But they don't defend his policies/actions, just ridicule the people making the criticisms.

There's about a dozen people who don't offer up any policy discussion, they simply make immature snide comments, deflect, sputter nonsense and post lots of emoticons. It's pathetic.

And they are not "right minded". Well maybe, if we're talking about the political spectrum, since they defend policies worse than BushCo's.

Interestingly, when it's not about Obama they can write very thoughtful posts (I've been shocked this past week by several of them). But if one dares criticize Obama they just can't deal with it and refuse to look at the policy.

[SunSeeker]

44. Thanks for the link. nt

[Autumn]

66. " must report chemicals discharged into the ocean under a new rule"

must report chemicals discharged into the ocean that's some damn fine fucking nuance.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Once money is spent on a weapon system

it is almost impossible to stop it, unless you are replacing it with another, yet more expensive, system.

Can you imagine what the military would look like if it were under the constant pressure to gut its budget that food stamps and social security are subject to?

[mindwalker_i]

39. That's the inertia of stupidity

I've come to the conclusion that things like the F35 are projects that create jobs but produce no useful output other than that. And hardly even that. What could we do instead? Food stamps and education sound great.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Last time I looked

we can have a single F35, or 7 F15s.

I also think greed enters into it big time.

[mindwalker_i]

46. Yeah, greed is the one true American religion

Unfortunately, it's often combined with stupidity so even if not acting greedy or like an asshole would result in actually making more money, people don't do it.

[jtuck004]

25. Jimmy Carter said "America has no functioning democracy at this moment". That's what happens when

people sell their principles, and sell out their neighbors. to the highest bidder and try to hide behind pragmatism like a cowardly tyrant hides behind a defenseless child.

[Skidmore]

56. America had no functioning government largely

because Congress has spent the last five years throwing sand into the machine (I believe that was how the Teabagger Queen referred to the destruction of governance). Amazingly, many self-styled progressives who come to this forum appear to be comfortable with the existence of a do nothing legislative body.

[jtuck004]

59. Made easier by people who help them by opening doors so they can throw in the sand. n/t

[Skidmore]

60. Vote count, don't they?

[jtuck004]

61. Sorry, a little slow. didn't understand that one. n/t

[truedelphi]

62. Much agree. Unfortunately the motto of the top leadership of both parties

Seems to be "We don't need no stinkin' principles!"

[jwirr]

20. I am hoping that you are right since I have seen other presidents who got the most done in the

third term when they had a good congress. But when I look at his appointees I am not so sure. Too many of the ones working for corporations.

[The Straight Story]

2. k&r(nt)

[johnnyreb]

3. Holy fracking shit!!

Sorry, young'uns. We were here first.

[truebrit71]

4. Bloody hell!!!

[woo me with science]

5. "Federal regulators signed off on minor revisions..."

Federal regulators signed off on minor revisions to permits that allowed the oil company DCOR to begin fracking off the coast without completing any environmental reviews, according to a TruthOut report: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19340-more-details-on-ocean-fracking-revealed-as-environmentalists-challenge-federal-regulators

Is it still just *one* new betrayal every day now?

Seems like a lot more.

[WillyT]

7. Yep...

[arcane1]

27. And they signed off on it in 2013.

Then there's this gem from the Truthout link:

"In July, a Truthout investigation confirmed that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the federal agency that issues offshore oil and gas permits, gave the oil firm DCOR a green light to use fracking technology to stimulate oil production from a well 1,500 feet from a seismic fault under the Santa Barbara Channel. Since then, new documents released to Truthout under the Freedom of Information Act show that, earlier in 2013, BSEE also gave DCOR permission to frack three other wells in the area. The fracking operations are scheduled to take place in early 2014."

Emphasis mine.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. There's close to 200 quintillion gallons of water in Pacific

Ocean. Enough water to fill...the entire Pacific Ocean.

Fracking waste water per year:

9,000,000,000 gallons

Pacific Ocean on any given day:

187,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

So annual waste water mentioned in your link is 0.00000000481% of Pacific Ocean's volume.

[WillyT]

8. You Gotta Be Fucking Kidding, Right ???

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. No, it's math

[cali]

18. wow. talk about removing all doubt

No, it's not math.

Not even close. Not even a little bit. Wrong wrong wrong.

First of all, different chemicals and chemical compounds react differently to being released in the ocean. Tides and currents also come into play.

We don't know what they're dumping because under law, they're permitted to keep that a trade secret.

You have just proved that you don't care at all about policies. For you, it's all about your love for the President.

I think that's, uh, unhealthy.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. look what goes into effect March 1 (tomorrow)

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/epa-require-calif-offshore-fracking-reports

quit acting like the Obama administration is doing everything it can to turn a blind eye to potential industry pollution.

I'm just putting the numbers into context because clearly the 9 Billion was supposed to be a really impressive number but is quite small compared to the body of water it is going into.

I'm well aware that ocean currents, types of chemicals, and many other variables will change the concentration level of toxins heading into the ocean.

But by way of comparison, hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor in the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere spew massive amounts of chemicals and minerals into the ocean each day includig lead, cobalt, sulfur.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_0209/vents.html

http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/hydrothermal-vents

[cali]

21. Sorry, that hardly counters the enormous laxity and leeway the

admin is bestowing on big oil and gas

oh and hydrothermal events on the ocean floor is a ludicrous comparison to dumping toxic chemicals in the Santa Barbara waters.

keep digging. I like watching you.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. no problem. you are like Cheney's special group. find anything to support your bias

reject anything that may confront or challenge your bias.

You want badly to go to war with President Obama and will scan the interwebs high and low to build your case while simultaneously ignoring contradictory data.

It's what true believers do. And despite your protests...that is exactly what you are.

[cali]

34. lol. you are so transparent, pretzy. trying to portray me as Cheny like. Oooh.

and no, I don't want to go to war with President Obama- whatever that means.

There is no argument that the administration supports the expansion of fracking, that it has streamlined the process and opened new public lands for it.

My issues aren't with the President. They are with many of his policies.

You adore President Obama so for you it's a cult of personality thing.

[SunSeeker]

33. Starting March 1, 2014, they have to disclose what they're dumping off Santa Barbara.

There has been fracking going on off So Cal since the early 1990s. Once the EPA gets those disclosures, hopefully that will give them the grounds they apparently seek for yanking the permits altogether, enough to overcome the inevitable lawsuits by oil companies.

EPA will be in lawsuits either way. On October 3, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity notified BSEE and its sister agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), that the group would take legal action if the agencies fail to suspend fracking operations in the Pacific Ocean and review fracking's potential impacts on marine environments.

On February 26, 2014, Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to get the EPA to ban the discharges. I hope CBD succeeds.

[Mojorabbit]

64. !

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[neverforget]

72. Pollution is totally cool because math?

[Kelvin Mace]

11. I am sure that the marine life

in the immediate vicinity of the platform will be impressed with your statistical Kung Fu.

[HereSince1628]

31. Got a stat for how long it would take 9 million gallons to diffuse in ALL the Pacific?

Well, no I don't actually want it, because that stat isn't really the short term issue

The issue of proximate concern seems more like what amounts at what concentrations would be released where for what duration?

I wonder if the assumption that the chemicals would continue to diffuse in sea water may not be correct. Some chemicals bioaccumulate, some adsorb to materials in the water column, some can be adsorbed onto benthic materials, and some might evaporate when exposed to atmosphere at the surface.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. I agree. Which is why I imagine the folks at the EPA have a bit more knowledge than truthout or

other blogs as to how egregious this waste water is to marine life

[HereSince1628]

40. It may be matters of law/regulatory rules as much as matters of science.

Based on history alone, some skepticism around the oil industry is understandable and merited.

[rhett o rick]

53. Let's play, "Guess the Point." I am guessing that you support dumping fracking waste water

into the Pacific.

[Autumn]

69. Only if done during the Obama administration.

After he's out of office then it can be bad again. Unless they love the next Prez.

[rhett o rick]

71. If blind loyalty is put before principles, then they have no principles. Just sayin' nm

[Democracyinkind]

76. You're right!! And since that is the ONLY thing that we dump into the ocean, it's not a problem...

Oh wait...

[grahamhgreen]

78. OK. Just tell us all who you work for, already, lol. Your not on our side, obviously!!!!

[G_j]

10. K&R

[theHandpuppet]

13. Sometimes there are no words

Just disgust and horror.

[Auntie Bush]

14. Maybe that's what's killing the starfish in the Pacific.

[cali]

16. President Obama's big support of Fracking has big ramifications

No, I'm not blaming his for this. Yes, I'm saying that having a president who is such a strong proponent of drilling and expanding fracking, influences departments throughout the administration.

[jsr]

50. People take clues from their boss.

[cali]

51. yes, and they take directives.

[truedelphi]

63. Anyone who takes the time to watch "Gaslands II" realizes that

People inside Obama's EPA have been discouraged from actually doing the research needed to directly link frackers to the contamination and health problems and death that fracking causes.

Initially, The EPA had lots of mid level people who were doing the needed research, but somehow over the last 24 months, those efforts have slowly ground to a halt... Maybe Obama has other things on his mind than keeping the American public safe from the dangers of fracking, but as far as I am concerned, this issue should be one of his number one priorities.

One other scarey part of "Gaslands II" is the map that shows how many places in the USA will be heavily impacted by fracking. In terms of direct and indirect situations, there are very few places where a person would want to live that will escape the harm being allowed.

Upstate New York? Probably to be destroyed. The small towns of Texas? Already destroyed by fracking. Illinois? No, that place wont be safe either.

And on and on and on.

[leftyohiolib]

22. more ocean raping.

[jtuck004]

24. Fukushima on one side, us on the other, of an ocean we need to keep alive. Good luck. n/t

[Sunlei]

28. Has anyone FOI the permits? methanol, benzene, naphthalene, and trimethylbenzene, lead and arsenic

would like to see those permits.

[Octafish]

32. Where else they gonna put it, WillyT?

I mean, that doesn't cost 'em money?

[WillyT]

38. I Know EXACTLY Where They Can Put It...

;hi:

[Octafish]

45. LOLOLOLOL! Witch explains.

[whatchamacallit]

36. "But the ACA!"

[jsr]

52. Four years ago.

[bbgrunt]

41. k and r.

[blkmusclmachine]

42. POISON You Can Believe In

[ProSense]

47. These permits were approved

in 2004 and updated recently.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/09/2014-00156/reissuance-of-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-general-permit-for-offshore-oil

http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/pdf/ca/offshore/CAG280000-addendum-factsheet.pdf

Oh, good news:

Los Angeles City Council Bans Fracking
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024581344

[WillyT]

48. Oh... Well Everything Must Be Just Peachy-Keen Then...

[ProSense]

49. If that's what you want to take away, knock yourself out. n/t

[rhett o rick]

54. Thanks for the info, but do you have a point? How do you feel about the OP? nm

[ProSense]

55. Yes, the point is to share the information.

You're welcome.

[rhett o rick]

57. So you dont care one way or the other about dumping contaminated waste-water into the ocean? nm

[ProSense]

58. Yes, I "care one way or the other."

You know, you're free to read the information and make up your own mind, or not.

No need for the lame attempt at gotcha. I mean, the permits were approved in 2004 and revised in 2014. Make up your own mind if you think they are an improvement, still suck or are irrelevant to how you feel about the dumping.

I always prefer the actual information to some reports, which tend to leave out some key details.

[WillyT]

70. What Did They Leave Out ??

[L0oniX]

65. Hmmm ...fracking and continental shelf ...what could go wrong?

[frwrfpos]

68. as long as the 1% is enriched by this all is ok

Obama supports fracking and the Keystone pipeline here in the US.

Anything for a buck.

[sabrina 1]

74. It took a Democratic President to lift the ban on offshore drilling, AFTER slamming McCain

in the debates for wanting to lift it. At lease we knew not to vote for McCain. How do we know, ever again, that what a candidate says during a campaign, will not change, once we elect them?

I know what to expect from Republicans, I used to 'know' what to expect from Democrats, but we've learned the hard way, that campaign promises can be taken with a grain of salt from now on.

I remember the day when Obama made that announcement. He subtly slammed 'environmentalists' inplying they were living in the past, not aware of the new technology that made rigs so much safer, as his 'expert' advisers had informed HIM. They, environmentalists, he assured us, were not aware of the advances since that ban had been put in place. I admit to being speechless.

18 days later, 11 men lost their lives and the Gulf was environmentally destroyed for decades. I don't recall an apology but what good would it do anyhow.

So disgusted it's hard to express. This precious planet is all we have, the Dem Party was our only hope to try to protect our environment, what do we do now?

[ProSense]

77. No,

"It took a Democratic President to lift the ban on offshore drilling, AFTER slamming McCain"

...he was slamming McCain for specific reasons. The ban on offshore drilling was lifted by Bush before it expired in 2008

Bush lifts executive ban on offshore oil drilling
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/

Congress to let offshore drilling ban expire
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/24/us-usa-drilling-banenviro-idUSTRE48N6AF20080924

<...>

The Obama administration’s plan adopts some drilling proposals floated by President George W. Bush near the end of his tenure, including opening much of the Atlantic and Arctic Coasts. Those proposals were challenged in court on environmental grounds and set aside by President Obama shortly after he took office.

Unlike the Bush plan, however, Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangered whales, off limits to oil rigs.

Actual drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years.

Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling. He noted in his State of the Union address in January that weaning the country from imported oil would require “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html

There were changes after the BP spill.

Obama Administration Contempt Ruling in Drill Ban Overturned

A contempt citation against the Obama administration for instituting a second deep-water drilling ban after a lower-court judge rejected an initial moratorium was thrown out by a U.S. appeals court.

<...>

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-28/obama-administration-contempt-ruling-in-drill-ban-overturned

Obama administration bans Shell from Arctic drilling after they ‘screwed up’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/15/obama-administration-bans-shell-from-arctic-drilling-after-they-screwed-up/

[Le Taz Hot]

75. And where the hell is Brown in all of this?

[woo me with science]

79. kick