Add a Comment

Comment by Dion Warr, CPL on February 23, 2009 at 12:28

TX Sharon:

Do you not already keep a blog of some repute?

If you are going to take on another one, would you at least have the consideration of not cutting and pasting from your other one, or stop constantly linking to your other blogspot?

As far as the proposed bill being characterized as a reinstatement of basic federal standards for hydraulic fracturing, under the 1974 USDW Act, the text originally stated the inclusion of subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection, and was silent as to hydro frac process (which includes injection and subsequent withdrawal of injected fluids. The 2005 amendment cleaned up the statute by addressing the issue of hydraulic fracturing insofar as same was related to oil, gas, or geothermal activities was excluded, but did not mitigate the injection of diesel fuels, and did not interfere with the general proviso against "underground injection [which] endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.

I realize that this interferes with your logic that 'no one can define the risk or find a significant environmental impact, therefore, the practice should not be allowed', fueled by a presupposition that 'fracing is bad', but generally legislation and regulation grows out of society recognizing and quantifying a problem, not the mere presupposition of an anticipated or possible problem.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page