Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2015 at 5:23

I fear that the misinformation and partisan passions have moved the issue beyond fact based debate and firmly into the political realm.  Those opposed to fracking who use the term as a rallying cry against all hydrocarbon extraction and use will not be dissuaded by this EPA report, or any report or study for that matter.  Their claim to the moral high ground looks increasingly far fetched and unsustainable however we can be sure they will be pressuring politicians to oppose fracking and anything they attempt to associate with it.

What they will never grasp or accept is the fact that many people who support strongly regulated hydrocarbon extraction also are concerned about the environment.  And will not stand for operations that pollute the air, water or land.  At the risk of being too repetitive I will state again that the assertion or assumption that people living in close proximity to Haynesville Shale operations in Texas and Louisiana are ignoring pollution because they want to receive that royalty check is patently false.  I takes a leap beyond reason to think that wide populations in any state would ignore serious problems caused by fracking or any other industry operation.

The national tragedy is that there are real issues that are ignored but could be addressed with logical and reasonable measures to improve safety and limit possibilities of pollution.  Here's a few examples:  there is no good reason to allow a pipeline to operate without automatic shut off ability; there is no reason to not aggressively address the state of orphan wells which pose a real danger to ground water contamination; and there is no reason not to require stiffer regulations as to the amount of natural gas that escapes from extraction, transport and treatment operations.  Members may feel free to add to that list.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 9, 2015 at 11:52

To expand on the transportation issue, when the US was in its hydrocarbon production decline phase we allowed a lot of our hydrocarbon transportation infrastructure to decline and become less than first rate.  Now with the ramping up of production the weak leaks in our hydrocarbon transportation system are showing.  Getting our hydrocarbon transportation infrastructure updated would stop a lot of pollution and some very dangerous situations. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2yddy2rsrm3o2 on June 9, 2015 at 8:40

Skip - well written and I agree with you
Scott

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 10, 2015 at 2:01

Surprise, Surprise a pro fracking FOX host, except if it is on his land.  If all the talking heads and politicians actually had to live by what they endorse many of their "views" would change.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2158814/stuart-varney-fox-host-goes-ballis...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 2:50

Fracking has little if any impact on quiet enjoyment by adjacent land owners.  The major complaints come from the drilling part of the operation - noise, dust, traffic and damaged roads - that can last for 2 to 3 months.  The completion ops only last around a week.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on June 10, 2015 at 3:18

Unless they put NG compressor stations on the land and then forgot about a quiet life.  This is an area that has very little consistent regulation, in PA noise regulations can vary by county, but there’s currently no statewide sound standard.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 10, 2015 at 3:34

Although states rightfully regulate sub-surface activities counties and municipalities should have some authority IMO regarding surface operations.  As long as local ordinances are not designed to effectively prohibit all reasonable surface ops I think they are the best protector of rights of quiet enjoyment.  Compressor stations should have adequate set back rules regarding inhabited dwellings and where appropriate sound walls. 

• ▶ Reply