I have been around the oil paatch all my life. I know every now and then something goes wrong in a formation and water gets poluted, but a friend of mine saw a documenary tht is up for an Emmy that makes us look like we are out there tearing everything apart. Here is my quuestion.


Is anyone aware of wide spread gas or oil being in farmers drinking water or fumes making people sick. This friend said an expert has become a whisle blowere and the oil companies have been able to keep this quite since the 70's. She understood that the Barnett shalle is eally bad about doing this. I was raised around wells and have lived around them as an adult. Thus far my drinking water has been good, noo horns growing out my forehead, and no illness from polution. Is this really a problem and I just don't know about it?

Views: 146

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have not seen it, but I will now find it and see what it is saying.

Thank you for keeping me informed.

Gasland likely will get the award for best documentary.  The pro shale side needs to do as well in a documentary.  Haynesville is about the economic boom in an area while Gasland highlights the environmental issues.


The industry has been SLOW to respond to Gasland.  I am now seeing a few pro-shale ads on the news, but between the water quality fears and explosions promoting "safe, clean, natural gas" is not easy.  I live in an area where most of the electric power comes from hydroelectric dams on rivers. No one in my state wants anything to do with natural gas. Very few new housing developments have ng lines to them, just electric wires.


I've been getting po'd as the anti-ng voices have ruled the dialog. The lobbyists & PR people really blew this one.  I get money from ng, but I am not a Pollyanna about it.  There are risks with rewards and much of the general public outside of O&G areas is very afraid of NG explosions and groundwater pollution.  We have to effectively answer that if we want NG prices to rise. People do have free choice about fuel, and right now they are choosing to run away from NG.




I live in an area where most of the electric power comes from hydroelectric dams on rivers.


Those same dams played havoc on the fish returning up river.  Great battles were fought and a lot of people wanted them torn out and the rivers restored.  Did they?  No.  They engineered a way for the fish to bypass the dam.  Your cost of electricity went up because of this. 


Did the lights go out from high electrical cost?  No.  What changed the public's mind?

"The oil and gas industry SHOULD be better regulated."


Absolutely.  Unfortunately, "better regulated" does not equate to "more regulation." 


Bureaucracy can stop people from using newer, better and safer technology, because it's not as "proven" as an older technology that's well understood, but is less safe and cause more damage to the environment.  Bureaucracy tends to concentrate on "politically correct" regulation, not what's actually best for the people and the environment.


Don't forget, when the lights go out or people can't fill their gas tanks, environmental concerns go out the window.

"Need to Know", a PBS hourly program had a update on a previous segment about fracking contaminating water supplies. According to the documentary, in 2005 Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger agreed to not use diesel in certain situations. Halliburton and BJ Services have now admitted to the EPA to using Diesel in their fracking. The EPA has a mandate to regulate diesel as it contains benzene. They have informed the companies they intend to regulate their fracking operations. The companies have said EPA cannot do so until it has filed the proposed regulations and asked for comments. The pro-publico representation explaining all this says the companies have a point and it is now up to the EPA. Also he said the EPA has tested 33 wells in a small town in Wyoming and 11 of the wells were contaminated. Encana is now supplying that town with drinking water. The town is pronounced as if it were spelled Pallatin, but I am not sure that is the correct spelling.

Not true, Polly Ann.  Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger agreed not to use diesel only in the fracking of COAL BED METHANE operations, not the fracking of gas shales such as the Haynesville and Marcellus.  This is a big difference, as coal bed methane is commomly found much shallower than gas shales and sometimes coal bed methane is actually found within drinking water aquifers.  The Haynesville Shale formation is found over TWO MILES below any fresh water located in the Haynesville Shale area of Northwest Louisiana. No diesel from fracking gas shale has ever been reported in fresh water aquifers of Louisiana, according to the Regulatory Agency in Louisiana.   Also, EPA has taken NO ACTION regarding regulating diesel in the hydraulic fracturing of gas shales such as the Haynesville.  EPA has also found no evidence that fracking has caused any contamination of fresh waterquifers.  EPA may never regulate diesel for this reason.   

In the few instances where methane has been found in drinking water aquifers, it has been determined to be "biogenic" methane, which is formed 100% by vegetation decomposition.  (Also known as naturally occuring methane).  The type of methane that has its origin in petroleum reservoirs is called "thermogenic" methane.  Thermogenic methane has not been found to be associated with any gas shale fracking operations.  The movie, Gasland, is hell-bent in blaming fracking operations for causing aquifer contamination for nothing but political reasons.  Science does not back up Gasland's theory.  Shame on you, Gasland! 
The above is a link to a New York Times article on Natural Gas's Toxic Wastes. Hope the link works

well at least gasland didn't win an oscar, i guess it's just not up to the sterling standard of "an inconvenient truth"




© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service