US wants drillers to disclose 'fracking' chemicals used on federal lands

[Eugene]

Source: msnbc.com

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com

Setting up another battleground with the energy industry — as well as Republicans ahead of the presidential election — the Obama administration on Friday proposed requiring that drillers on federal lands publicly list what chemicals they use in a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

"This administration’s energy strategy is an all-out effort to boost American production of every available source of energy," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement. "As we continue to offer millions of acres of America’s public lands for oil and gas development, it is critical that the public have full confidence that the right safety and environmental protections are in place."

The process has led to a boom in new natural gas resources, but has been controversial because it injects water, sand and chemicals deep underground to extract the gas from rock formations. Environmentalists, backed by some homeowners in areas being drilled, fear those chemicals will poison underground water sources.

Industry groups pounced on the proposal as more federal bureaucracy when the issue should be dealt with by states.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/04/11538271-us-wants-drillers-to-disclose-fracking-chemicals-used-on-federal-lands

[AllyCat]

1. But that will hurt business' ability to make money at the expense of everyone else!

When will this socialist administration get a clue that protecting the people is bad for business?

[freshwest]

6. They don't need the message. ALEC and the Koches are framing that and the GOP has said it forever.

Good for our Democratic administration to force the issue.

Oh, and Fuck Ron Paul and the rest of the true believers claiming that 'the free market' and 'the invisible hand,' will magically protect the people and the planet. No, these guys must be regulated until they bleed, or they'll kill us all of us and destroy the planet in the process.

I have a problem with allowing them on public land, but every state is selling off the commons to these greedy bastards. Because the local peasantry fully support them doing that, instead of the Earth that gave them their living to begin with.

Okay, I'll stop now.

[AllyCat]

12. I agree freshwest, but I guess I should have put the little sarcasm smily after my post

I'm sick of these sick f*cks getting to wreck the world and the health of every living being so they can make some more cash.

[freshwest]

13. We are cool, didn't mean to sound like that was directed at you.

Was trying to agree, but it may not have sounded that way.

[think]

2. With all the talk about too much regulation you'd think

that this was already something the feds kept track of....

[Politicalboi]

3. How about forgetting Fracking

This shit is worse than oil. At least you can see the oil for a time. They're not going to tell us shit about chemicals, or leaking gas. They're going to ruin our drinking water. No drinkable water, the land is useless. This just might be a way to take over cities and states. After seeing the gusher in the Gulf, it's easy to see that even our own government doesn't care about the environment. No real good clean up clauses, they risk NOTHING. We need wind and solar, not natural gas and fracking.

[crazylikafox]

4. But not in people's back yards?

[KansDem]

5. Could this be the reason for the so-called "Sagebush Rebellion?"

Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

In Arizona, for example--

Arizona lawmakers push to take over federal land

Another "sagebrush rebellion" is spreading through legislatures in Arizona and other Western states with a series of formal demands that the federal government hand over title to tens of millions of acres of forests, ranges and other public lands.

Arizona could claim as much as 25 million acres -- all federal land in the state except military bases, Indian reservations, national parks and some wilderness areas. If the federal government fails to comply by the end of 2014, the states say they will begin sending property-tax bills to Washington, D.C.

While the original sagebrush rebellion grew out of conflicts over management of federal lands, often as specific as keeping a forest road open, the new takeover movement owes more to "tea party" politics, with a strong focus on reducing the scope of federal influence and opening land to more users.

Supporters say federal agencies have mismanaged the land and blocked access to natural resources, depriving the states of jobs and revenue from businesses ready to develop those resources. With the state in control, the backers say, loggers could return to forests where endangered species halted work decades ago and miners could regain access to ore outside the Grand Canyon.

"In the last 30 years, the radical environmental policies of these federal agencies have ground those industries to a halt -- right into the ground -- and almost killed them," said state Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, the sponsor of the land-takeover measure, Senate Bill 1332.

--more--
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/03/23/20120323arizona-federal-land-takeover.html

Why have the Feds "mismanage" the land and its natural resources when we can have private capitalists do it? And it won't cost us a cent!!

[SCantiGOP]

7. EPA rules amended early in the Bush/Vader administration

said that anything which could potentially get into the ground water, meaning anything that is put on or in the ground, has to have a full chemical analysis submitted to the EPA
EXCEPT
those chemicals used by the oil and gas extraction industry. Give 'em credit, those industries got their money's worth when they helped buy the 2000 election.

[mwdem]

8. And Halliburton is supplying those chemicals.

I've seen more than one Halliburton tanker truck around the gas well close to my neighborhood.

[Wilms]

9. "However, the rule lacks a handful of basic public right-to-know measures."

It would require natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals being used after the fracking has taken place, not beforehand. This makes baseline testing of water quality nearly impossible, as local communities will be unable to know what exactly to test for.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/

[Earth_First]

10. How about EVERYWHERE...?!

[PufPuf23]

11. If not for exceptions for the gas industry, the disclosure would be SOP

under National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and other long existing laws established before fracking became a practice.

[arikara]

14. Vermont is prohibiting it

http://vtdigger.org/2012/05/04/vermont-legislature-passes-prohibition-on-fracking/

Thats what all the states and the provinces in Canada need to do.

[burrowowl]

15. Vermont is right!

France also banned fraking.

[proverbialwisdom]

16. NJ Rep. Rush Holt: "Do Coloradans react differently to water pollution?"

Link from: http://bluejersey.net

http://www.htrnews.com/usatoday/article/39194977?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

Congressional hearing in Denver tackles fracking

8:28 PM, May. 2, 2012

DENVER (WTW) — Western state officials took turns bashing the federal government Wednesday at a congressional field hearing on proposed nationwide drilling rules on hydraulic fracturing.

The field hearing by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources was called in response to last month's announcement by the Obama administration that it would seek coordinated federal oversight of natural gas production. The Interior Department, meanwhile, is expected to issue new rules in the next few weeks on natural gas drilling on public lands

The federal oversight was denounced by officials from Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, all of which rely heavily on oil and gas production.

<...>

"This administration's anti-energy policies continuously hinder rather than help job creation and energy production," Lamborn said.

But the Washington-bashing session veered off script when two Democrats on the panel, and a citizen fracking opponent called to testify, blasted suggestions that there's no need for national health and safety regulation.

"Do Coloradans react differently to water pollution?" asked a skeptical Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who attended the field hearing and questioned the state officials who argued against national safety regulation. After Clarke testified that Utah saw no water contamination in 50 years, Holt said that perhaps that was because the state wasn't looking.

The subcommittee also heard from a Colorado mom who has tried unsuccessfully to block a gas drill planned within 600 yards of her daughter's elementary school.

<...>