"It was like the science didn’t matter,”

[pscot]

Carla Greathouse, the author of the study, said in a recent interview. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?bl

, the (EPA) had planned to call last year for a moratorium on the gas-drilling technique known as hydrofracking in the New York City watershed, according to internal documents, but the advice was removed from the publicly released letter sent to New York.

Now some scientists and lawyers at the E.P.A. are wondering whether history is about to repeat itself as the agency undertakes a broad new study of natural gas drilling and its potential risks, with preliminary results scheduled to be delivered next year.

[RKP5637]

1. I don't know about other areas but here they are running and running ads on TV about

how great the gas industry is. To start with, we don't have much of a choice here as to which utility we use, gas is it for most heat. This reminds of the the glowing ads BP used to run.

IMO the gas industry is working very hard in this area with their glowing campaign spot ads on how great the gas industry is... we're all choir boys.

[damntexdem]

2. Big, big problem in North Texas.

Fracking is widespread in the DFW Metroplex, and at least one city is suing to try to stop it.

[txlibdem]

6. Yup, it's on the news all the time

Citizens in the area of the drilling rigs are complaining about their drinking water catching on fire. You heard that right: you can light your water on fire as it comes out of the tap at your kitchen sink.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=water+catches+fire&aq=0

[loudsue]

3. Fracking DESTROYS the ground water in every area where it is practiced.

For hundreds of square miles, the water is poisoned. And dangerous. Gas comes out through your fawcet and creates a fire hazard.

The EPA is nothing but a tool of big oil....just like the rest of Washington DC.

[pscot]

4. Wow! Free gas coming out of your faucet

Nice feature if you have to sell.

[DCKit]

7. Try to use it for cooking/heating, and they'll charge you for it. nt

[Lorien]

5. Kick. nt

[CRH]

8. The science vs. economy, trumped by the Energy Lobby.

Oil and Natural Gas fracking

primer of the problem, links below

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?bl
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

From the Society of Environmental Journalists - with good links

http://copenblog.sej.org/publications/tipsheet/oil-fracking-poses-similar-concerns-gas-fracking
~~
The EPA study (in progress) - with links to organizations preparing advisory drafts.

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

The study format is here, (lengthy 126 pages in all).
Highlights -- the executive summary is on pp. Vll and Vlll; Appendix D - Chemicals Identified in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Flowback is on pp. 83-98; Appendix F - Stakeholder Nominated Case Studies is on pp. 102-109. This lists different sites of concern by formation name, location, suspected types of contamination or other complaints, ... ( pdf link below)

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HFStudyPlanDraft_SAB_020711.pdf

~~
So why is all this important?

- it directly effects the drinking water and food chain for millions of people

- in more than one of the above links it has been wondered how much the final outcome of this study will be influenced by industry lobbyists, how much politics will shape the EPA's conclusion, watering down or even excluding areas of needed regulation.

- Setting aside environmental concerns, this study will shape future regulations of natural gas and oil exploitation, within the US borders and territorial waters. Without fracking, many observers of hydrocarbon depletion, believe the US natural gas supply had peaked near 2001. Only with fracking have we been able to maintain/expand availability. In consequence, the overall depletion curve of peak oil takes on a different decline curve, if unconventional oil and natural gas are withdrawn from International Energy Agency (IEA) projections, for environmental reasons.

So it seems our drinking water quality is likely to be a measured balance with our need for activity, production and mobility. Throw in the energy lobby, and in many areas, you can probably throw out your water quality.

[txlibdem]

9. I didn't even need to read your post to know it was Republicans at work

Funny how just a mention of the word "fraud" or "collusion," "conspirators," "stolen," "thieves," "ass-hats," or "flunkies for the rich" make you immediately think of the freepers and RW stooges. :-)

[CRH]

10. You couldn't be farther off the mark, ...

Perhaps you should take the time to read the post before you rant. The post acknowledges the ecological devastation, the political lobbying that will try to screw the people out of decent drinking water, and the sad corner into which citizens have been backed, a choice between lax environmental laws and sufficient power for economy and health. The last paragraph is not republican, it is reality.

Sorry to disillusion you, but I am likely farther left than you, and have been far left for 45 years.

[CRH]

11. More information on the peak of North American natural gas, ...

Conventional natural gas peaked in the US and Canada near 2000

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

~~ snip ~~

Natural gas production in the U.S. reached its peak in 1973, and went over a secondary, but lower peak, in 2001. This was also the date for North American peak production of natural gas. Production, both in the U.S. and Canada, is now in terminal decline. United States imports about 17% if its natural gas; 14% from Canada (which is one half of Canada's production) and 3% as liquefied natural gas, mainly from Trinidad.

~~ lower in same article ~~

The depletion rates for natural gas in the U.S. are larger than for oil. Fields put into production in 1990 were down 17% after the first year, those put into production today deplete more than 30% during their first year of operation.

Natural gas consumption in the U.S. divides in the various sectors of the economy in the following way. Industrial use is 33%, electricity production accounts for 31%, residential demand is 22%, and the commercial sector uses 14%. The total consumption is 20 trillion cubic feet a year. Owing to the high prices of natural gas over the last ten years, industrial demand has dropped 22% during this period. The chemical industry has been particularly vulnerable and of the 80 new chemical plants being planned in the world today, none will be built in the U.S.

~~ end excerpt ~~

Conventional natural gas production for all of North America peaked in 2001. The new study commissioned by National Petroleum Council in 2002 confirmed this peak. Though fracking had been around prior to this time, it was not widely used, for later to become obvious, reasons. Suddenly, it was being called a 'new' technology. Its wide spread use started just after the natural gas markets went from $3 to $10 per thousand cu/ft between April and December of 2000.

Though I have never seen it stated, through inference of the facts, it is fair to conclude that the fracking technology is being used for extended supply of North American natural gas in lieu of other more expensive solutions.

IMHO, this relation of supply vs the economic dependence upon natural gas for industrial use, electricity, and residential demand for heating, needs to be included in any discussion of future regulation of natural gas exploitation.

In juxtaposition to fracking is another limited but required resource, potable water. There is not an obvious solution to this dilemma, the two are not compatible. The political, economic, and environmental tug of war is just beginning, with no winners likely.