Should land owners be responsible?

[Future Fanatic]

The EPA contradicts it own findings That FF posted

What happened to :
"I am very cynical when it comes to Government Data"?

But ANYWAY, this is the ONE instance that they have found where Fracking is responsible for some contamination. I myself mentioned this in THIS thread, post 28.

In the original study released in 2004 they found NO evidence of harm, so they decided to keep the ORIGINAL policy of NOT regulating hydraulic fracturing. IF they had found this 2010 evidence back in 2004 would they have altered their policy of not regulating of fracking? I do not know.

Gas and Oil drilling has been going on in Wyoming a long time. There are some who believe that "legacy wells" may be to blame, done before modern regulations. Others believe it may be diesel fuel used before the EPA made that illegal. Still others believe some of the chemicals found are from common cleaners that had made their way into the earth. More testing is being done.

But assume it is true. Why here and no where else?

One reason that is brought up by the EPA is faulty well casings. They found evidence that the cementing jobs on some wells did not seal the well from the water table. Better regulation and testing before fracking would be the solution.

Another reason might be that this type of well is a Coal Bed Methane well. Usually shallow AND drilled through coal deposits that are often not sealed from the water table. Some, and I don't know enough about Pavillion wells to say if this is true of them, the coal deposit that is Fractured is IN the water table.

So?

The Marcellus formation that is being proposed for wells in NY is 3-5000 feet below ground and is capped by multitudes of layers of other shales and sandstones(and I'm sure other types of rock) that exclude the Marcellus from the water table. I believe that in NY, there must be 1000' feet of these impermeable layers between the target formation and the water table.

Given that the Wyoming wells are in an odd geologic area, the regulations governing construction were(are?) lax and the long history of drilling with limited regulation makes this scenario so much different than what one will find in NY.

 

[Kilgour Farms]

The EPA and others concluded that the EPA may have contaminated their own deep wells when they drilled them so they are doing new testing in Pavillion.

UPDATE 1-EPA to retest Wyoming water said tainted by fracking | Reuters

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

In the original study released in 2004 they found NO evidence of harm, so they decided to keep the ORIGINAL policy of NOT regulating hydraulic fracturing. IF they had found this 2010 evidence back in 2004 would they have altered their policy of not regulating of fracking? I do not know.

This is not true - there was no "original policy of not regulating hydraulic fracturing." Before that report, and before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted, hydraulic fracturing was regulated under Federal Law. Relying on the 2004 Study Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which included a series of exemptions for hydraulic fracturing. Thus, the 2004 study touched off a DRAMATIC CHANGE in the way fracking was regulated - very different from how you just categorized it.

The Act exempts hydraulic fracturing from:
- regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
- from the Clean Water Act's requirement to control erosion from construction.
- Environmental Impact Review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) that specifically apply gas drilling operations on federal lands.

There are also loopholes in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (Superfund), and the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act. Which assign liability for clean up of contamination that is left over after the drilling is complete. Also gas exploration and production are not covered by the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act - meaning that companies can withhold information about chemicals released into the environment in the fracking process, even if that information is needed to make informed decisions about protecting public health.


Also, about that 2004 Study.....

That study was conducted in response to a petition from Alabama by people who claimed that their drinking water had been contaminated by Hydraulic Fracturing. It was roundly criticized by some of EPA's own staff and from which the agency later backtracked - it is now conducting another study, with an initial report on the results due out at the end of 2012.

One EPA scientist went so far as to say of the 2004 study that:

EPA's conclusions are unsupportable. EPA has conducted limited research reaching the unsupported conclusion that this industry practice needs no further study at this time. EPA decisions were supported by a Peer Review Panel; however five of the seven members of this panel appear to have conflicts-of-interest and may benefit from EPA's decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.
​

About those conflicts of interest: the "peer review" 5 out of 7 members of the panel were involved in the oil & gas industry – 3 current employees, 2 former industry employees (5 of 70. One of them was a Halliburton employee at the time (Halliburton performs approximately 67% of the hydraulic fracturing in the country). ​

The body of the report found a number of disturbing things: fracking fluids may contain diesel fuel, biocides, boric acid, MTBE, benzene, toluene, xylene and a whole host of other substances that the EPA identified as carrying significant health risks for humans at concentrations that exceeded permissible concentrations under applicable federal law. The report found that a significant percentage (up to 40% if my memory serves) of the injected fluids were never recovered in the process.

It also found that geological features, such as cracks and fissures in the shale formations could lead to migration of these chemicals into water supplies. Yet somehow determined at

There is even some evidence that members of Congress are aware that the EPA Report was flawed. In October 2002 Rep. Waxman initiated correspondence from the House Committee on Government Reform with then Administrator Christine Todd Whitman pointing out that EPA staff testified before the committee that their initial findings were changed “’based on feedback’ from unidentified ‘industry sources’”.http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/#_edn1

The EPA’s one act regulating hydraulic fracturing, if it can really be called a regulation, was a voluntary Memorandum of Agreement with the three largest firms engaged in hydraulic fracturing.http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/#_edn1 Being voluntary, the MOA is totally unenforceable on its face. When asked to support his testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that the EPA was ensuring that the parties to the agreement were no longer using diesel fuel as an additive, Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at the EPA, produced only informal, conclusory emails from the companies to that effect.[ii] Staff from the committee also commented that there was evidence to the contrary, that these companies had continued to use diesel fuel, at least to a limited extent.[iii]

---

http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/#_ednref1 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Elimination of Diesel Fuel Injected into Underground Sources of Drinking Water During Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Wells.” Memorandum of Agreement. December 12, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/moa_uic_hyd-fract.pdf

[ii] Henry Waxman. United States Sentate. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Letter to Hon. Benjamin H. Grumbles, Nov. 26, 2007. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071126122611.pdf

[iii] Bette Hileman. “Diesel Fuel in Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Aquifers.” Chemical and Engineering News, Feb. 11, 2008. Chemical & Engineering News: Government & Policy - Diesel Fuel In Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Aquifers

---

http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/#_ednref1 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05418.pdf

[ii] Reference to categorical exclusions from NEPA review

[iii] Government Accountability Office. “Increased Permitting Activity Has Lessened BLM’s Ability to Meet its Environmental Review Responsibilities.” Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. June 2005. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05418.pdf

---

http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBulletin/#_ednref1 Henry Waxman. “Letter to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.” House Committee on Government Reform, 107[SUP]th[/SUP] Congress. October 1, 2002. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040827104747-13515.pdf

 

[Future Fanatic]

This is not true - there was no "original policy of not regulating hydraulic fracturing." Before that report, and before the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was enacted, hydraulic fracturing was regulated under Federal Law. Relying on the 2004 Study Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which included a series of exemptions for hydraulic fracturing. Thus, the 2004 study touched off a DRAMATIC CHANGE in the way fracking was regulated - very different from how you just categorized it.

I'd like to ask, if the highlighted is true, what was the action of the Eleventh Circuit Court on August 7, 1997 about?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

That case was about the Agency's interpretation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Alabama had a federally approved program for regulating undergound injections under the statute and people whose drinking water was allegedly contaminated by hydraulic fracturing asked the EPA to revoke its approval of the program (among other things).

EPA refused, on the basis that Hydraulic Fracturing was not considered an "Underground Injection" for purposes of the statute. People sued, and that 11th Circuit disagreed with the EPA. "In sum, we conclude that hydraulic fracturing activities constitute "underground injection" under Part C of the SDWA. EPA's contrary interpretation cannot be squared with the plain language of the statute and thus must fall

Here is what the 11th Circuit said (this is just the first paragraph of the opinion if you want to read the whole thing go here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956501.OPA.pdf):

The issue in this petition for review is whether the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is legally required to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a production enhancement
technique used by the oil and gas industry, under the underground injection control ("UIC")
programs established pursuant to Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
300h to 300h-8. EPA determined that hydraulic fracturing does not fall within the statutory or
regulatory definition of "underground injection." Because we find EPA's interpretation inconsistent
with the language of the statute, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

 

[Future Fanatic]

That case was about the Agency's interpretation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA felt that Hydraulic Fracturing was not considered an "Underground Injection" for purposes of the statute. People sued, and that 11th Circuit disagreed with the EPA. -

Here is what the 11th Circuit said (this is just the first paragraph of the opinion if you want to read the whole thing go here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956501.OPA.pdf):

The issue in this petition for review is whether the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") is legally required to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a production enhancement
technique used by the oil and gas industry, under the underground injection control ("UIC")
programs established pursuant to Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. §§
300h to 300h-8. EPA determined that hydraulic fracturing does not fall within the statutory or
regulatory definition of "underground injection." Because we find EPA's interpretation inconsistent
with the language of the statute, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

So was there an "original policy of not regulating hydraulic fracturing"?

Given the 11th courts ruling, what "mechanism" allows the EPA to legally NOT regulate it?

Do you have an opinion on if the EPA DID regulate it, how their regulations would be "different" than what states like NY are proposing to do in terms of regulations?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

You're asking if the EPA's illegal interpretation of the SDWA constitutes a generalized policy of non-regulation? I don't know the answer to that. It only deals with one section of one statute. As I mentioned above the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created loopholes in several statutes/regulations that would otherwise be applied to fracking.

I don't know that the EPA regulations would be different in substance, but there are a number of advantages to having federal regulation.

For one, it makes things more consistent. Typically where the states and feds regulate the same thing federal regulations form the "floor" and the state regs form the "ceiling." This means that Federal Regulations account for the minimum standard, and the states are not allowed to enact less restrictive standards.

Also, it helps to have more resources directed at ensuring compliance - especially where you have well-documented instances of the inability of State Regulators to keep up with the number of permits and inspections that are required. I think having federal regulators involved would help find things like faulty casings before they contaminate the area and prevent spills from occurring, sedimentation of headwaters streams and other associated impacts that need to be mitigated and/or prevented.

Having the Feds involved would also prevent the kinds of threats that companies like Halliburton threaten when faced with one state that might be stricter than another. When Colorado was trying to pass legislation to force disclosure of chemicals used in fracking, Halliburton threatened to cease all activity in Colorado and deprive the state of significant tax revenues. Having Federal regulations as a base line prevents these kinds of threats/abuses of influence.

I am sure there are other benefits as well but I need to spend some time on billable hours If you want more info I would be happy to send you a retainer agreement

 

[Future Fanatic]

You're asking if the EPA's illegal interpretation of the SDWA constitutes a generalized policy of non-regulation? I don't know the answer to that. It only deals with one section of one statute. As I mentioned above the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created loopholes in several statutes/regulations that would otherwise be applied to fracking.

I looked here:
42 USC Part C - Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water | LII / Legal Information Institute
and found this:
"(d) “Underground injection” defined; underground injection endangerment of drinking water sources
For purposes of this part:
(1) Underground injection.— The term “underground injection”—
(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
(B) excludes—
(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities. "

It seems that the law was meant to regulate underground injection wells that permenantly dispose of municipal and industrial wastes of ALL kinds.

 

[golden beetle]

This is NEFF at its best.

A couple of eggheads arguing the law...

Tue rest of NEFF?

Reading posts by the Beetle.

 

[Future Fanatic]

This is NEFF at its best.

A couple of eggheads arguing the law...

Tue rest of NEFF?

Reading posts by the Beetle.

I don't presume to be able to argue law with the good DR.
But, I'll pick his brain and ask stupid questions for sure.

 

[dcabarle]

I don't presume to be able to argue law with the good DR.
But, I'll pick his brain and ask stupid questions for sure.

Looks like he wants to be paid. Fork over some of that fracking money to him.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Looks like he wants to be paid. Fork over some of that fracking money to him.

Jeez... it's always about money...

EVERY time he's asked for alpaca raising tips I've overflowed with GREAT advice... Pro bono publico...

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

It seems that the law was meant to regulate underground injection wells that permenantly dispose of municipal and industrial wastes of ALL kinds.

Now you're getting into the fun part. I'm not an expert in the SDWA (in fact I've never done any work with it other than researching the hydraulic fracturing exemptions as part of a research paper) so take this with a grain of salt.

The law was meant to safeguard underground drinking water sources by regulating underground injections that could contaminated drinkwater aquifers. The statutory definition of "underground injection" is: "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Such term does not include the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage." 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(1).

The EPA has 6 "Classes" of injection wells. See here: Classes of Wells | Underground Injection Control | US EPA

The types of wells you describe, "wells that permanently dispose of municipal and industrial wastes of ALL kinds" are "Class I Wells."

Fracking would have fit under the Class II, which is what the 11th Circuit found based on its reading of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR for short). Note that the relevant sections of the CFR are put out by the EPA.

Class II Wells are defined as "[w]ells which inject fluids: (1) [w]hich are brought to the surface in connection with ... conventional oil or natural gas production ...; (2) [f]or enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; and (3) [f]or storage of hydrocarbons." 40 CFR § 144.6(b)."

This is what the 11th Circuit case was all about. The EPA interpreted the SDWA to apply only to wells whose "principal function" was to inject fluids into the ground and that since hydraulic fracturing's function was to extract gas and oil from underground deposits, it could not be regulated under the SDWA. The Court invalidated this interpretation, saying that it was clearly at odds with the CFR and the Statute - and that hydraulic fracturing was clearly a type II well.

This also explains why it needed an explicit exemption from the SDWA in 2005. The language you quoted above reflects the exemption after the enactment of the loophole.

One interesting thing I noticed from the 11th Circuit Decision was that as far back as 1990 the environmental risks associated with Coalbed Methane Extraction were on the EPA's radar. The court cites to a study by the G. H. W. Bush EPA entitled - United States Environmental Protection Agency,Ground Water Study Committee: Report G11—Study Well Contamination Problems; Particularly
Problems Related to Coal Bed Methane 1 (1990)

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Looks like he wants to be paid. Fork over some of that fracking money to him.

I am about to invoice him and NEFF for all this legal work

 

[Future Fanatic]

Now you're getting into the fun part. I'm not an expert in the SDWA (in fact I've never done any work with it other than researching the hydraulic fracturing exemptions as part of a research paper) so take this with a grain of salt.

The law was meant to safeguard underground drinking water sources by regulating underground injections that could contaminated drinkwater aquifers. The statutory definition of "underground injection" is: "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Such term does not include the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage." 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(1).

The EPA has 6 "Classes" of injection wells. See here: Classes of Wells | Underground Injection Control | US EPA

The types of wells you describe, "wells that permanently dispose of municipal and industrial wastes of ALL kinds" are "Class I Wells."

Fracking would have fit under the Class II, which is what the 11th Circuit found based on its reading of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR for short). Note that the relevant sections of the CFR are put out by the EPA.

Class II Wells are defined as "[w]ells which inject fluids: (1) [w]hich are brought to the surface in connection with ... conventional oil or natural gas production ...; (2) [f]or enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; and (3) [f]or storage of hydrocarbons." 40 CFR § 144.6(b)."

This is what the 11th Circuit case was all about. The EPA interpreted the SDWA to apply only to wells whose "principal function" was to inject fluids into the ground and that since hydraulic fracturing's function was to extract gas and oil from underground deposits, it could not be regulated under the SDWA. The Court invalidated this interpretation, saying that it was clearly at odds with the CFR and the Statute - and that hydraulic fracturing was clearly a type II well.

This also explains why it needed an explicit exemption from the SDWA in 2005. The language you quoted above reflects the exemption after the enactment of the loophole.

One interesting thing I noticed from the 11th Circuit Decision was that as far back as 1990 the environmental risks associated with Coalbed Methane Extraction were on the EPA's radar. The court cites to a study by the G. H. W. Bush EPA entitled - United States Environmental Protection Agency,Ground Water Study Committee: Report G11—Study Well Contamination Problems; Particularly
Problems Related to Coal Bed Methane 1 (1990)

WAIT A SECOND, DOC!

You left a bit out.
A more expanded definition of TYPE II wells is here:

Class II Wells - Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells (Class II) | Class II | US EPA

What is a Class II well?
Class II wells inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production. Most of the injected fluid is salt water (brine), which is brought to the surface in the process of producing (extracting) oil and gas. In addition, brine and other fluids are injected to enhance (improve) oil and gas production. The approximately 144,000 Class II wells in operation in the United States inject over 2 billion gallons of brine every day. Most oil and gas injection wells are in Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

What are the types of Class II wells?
Three types of Class II injection wells are associated with oil and natural gas production.
1.Enhanced Recovery Wells inject brine, water, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil and—in some limited applications—natural gas. This is also known as secondary or tertiary recovery. The injected fluid thins (decreases the viscosity) or displaces small amounts of extractable oil and gas, which is then available for recovery. In a typical configuration, a single injection well is surrounded by multiple production wells. Production wells bring oil and gas to the surface; the UIC Program does not regulate wells that are soley used for production. However, EPA does have authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing when diesel fuels are used in fluids or propping agents. During hydraulic fracturing, another enhanced recovery process, a viscous fluid is injected under high pressure until the desired fracturing is achieved, followed by a proppant such as sand. The pressure is then released and the proppant holding the fractures open allows fluid to return to the well. Enhanced recovery wells are the most numerous type of Class II wells, representing as much as 80 percent of the approximately 151,000 Class II wells.
2.Disposal Wells inject brines and other fluids associated with the production of oil and natural gas or natural gas storage operations. When oil and gas are produced, brine is also brought to the surface. The brine is segregated from the oil and is then injected into the same underground formation or a similar formation. Class II disposal wells can only be used to dispose of fluids associated with oil and gas production. Disposal wells represent about 20 percent of Class II wells.
3.Hydrocarbon Storage Wells inject liquid hydrocarbons in underground formations (such as salt caverns) where they are stored, generally, as part of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There are over 100 liquid hydrocarbon storage wells in operation.


None of these are a run of the mill natural gas well. An Enhanced Recovery Well that you "bolded" is a whole different animal also. It describes a well down which is forced fluids that "push" (in essence) gas or oil to surrounding production wells. None of those three types of Class II wells describe fracking. It DOES describe the disposal of retrieved fracking fluids and produced water in Undergroud Injection wells.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I didn't leave anything out. I am quoting from the case. I already said I'm not an expert in this area so please don't try to play "gotcha" with me.

Besides, it says that hydraulic fracturing is an enhanced recovery process right there in the section you quoted that enhanced recovery wells....of course its a process that is now specifically exempted from the statute.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I didn't leave anything out. I am quoting from the case. I already said I'm not an expert in this area so please don't try to play "gotcha" with me.

Besides, it says that hydraulic fracturing is an enhanced recovery process right there in the section you quoted that enhanced recovery wells....of course its a process that is now specifically exempted from the statute.

You are right...
But isn't this section:

Enhanced Recovery Wells inject brine, water, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil and—in some limited applications—natural gas. This is also known as secondary or tertiary recovery. The injected fluid thins (decreases the viscosity) or displaces small amounts of extractable oil and gas, which is then available for recovery. In a typical configuration, a single injection well is surrounded by multiple production wellsProduction wells bring oil and gas to the surface; the UIC Program does not regulate wells that are soley used for production. However, EPA does have authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing when diesel fuels are used in fluids or propping agents. During hydraulic fracturing, another enhanced recovery process, a viscous fluid is injected under high pressure until the desired fracturing is achieved, followed by a proppant such as sand. The pressure is then released and the proppant holding the fractures open allows fluid to return to the well.

very ambiguous?

Enhanced recovery wells inject brine, water, steam, polymers, or carbon dioxide into oil-bearing formations to recover residual oil and—in some limited applications—natural gas... a new Marcellus well is not recovering RESIDUAL gas...

A marcellus well is a production well... not regulated...

EPA can regulate hydraulic fracturing if diesel is used.... diesel is not used anymore...

Hydraulic fracturing is an "enhanced recovery "process"... ?

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

A marcellus well is a production well... not regulated...

This is precisely my point. Production wells are not regulated because they are exempted by the amendments to the SDWA contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The ruling of the Court was that the definition of the underground injection was not ambiguous, and the language referring to enhanced recovery meant that hydraulic fracturing was covered under the act.

 

[Future Fanatic]

This is precisely my point. Production wells are not regulated because they are exempted by the amendments to the SDWA contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The ruling of the Court was that the definition of the underground injection was not ambiguous, and the language referring to enhanced recovery meant that hydraulic fracturing was covered under the act.

Is there anyway to find the original wording in the SDWA?

 

[Trouser Trout]

Gonzo, you are a pretty bright dude, i appreciate you sharing your knowledge. thank you!!

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Is there anyway to find the original wording in the SDWA?

It's all in the 11th Circuit Case, I guess I'll read it for you too

Before 2005 the statute said: "The term "underground injection' means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection. Such term does not include the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage." 42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(1).

Then the 2005 Energy Policy Act came around and changed it to this:


Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows: ``(1) Underground injection.--The term `underground injection'-- ``(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and ``(B) excludes-- ``(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and ``(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.''.</pre>

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

We've fallen pretty far down the rabbit hole here. There are a bunch of exemptions for domestic oil and gas development that remove most, if not all federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing but we've been talking only about the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is plenty more to discuss.

 

[Pete]

..........Having the Feds involved would also prevent the kinds of threats that companies like Halliburton threaten when faced with one state that might be stricter than another. When Colorado was trying to pass legislation to force disclosure of chemicals used in fracking, Halliburton threatened to cease all activity in Colorado and deprive the state of significant tax revenues. Having Federal regulations as a base line prevents these kinds of threats/abuses of influence.......

That won't work unless you can get the whole world on the same page....

When States like New Jersey and California adopted strict environmental laws, we started sending their manufacturing the jobs to states like Tennessee.

When the feds stepped in to level the playing field, we started sending the jobs to Asia.... And apparently still are....

The relative cost of labor was/is also a factor, but it didn't/doesn't involve the huge capital expenses that environmental regs caused/cause.

Disclaimer: I'm sure that NJ & CA weren't the only states with strict regulations, and that TN wasn't the only "business friendly" state. I'm just speaking to my own personal experience.

 

[Kilgour Farms]

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says states doing a good job. “States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.” (Politco, 11/22/12)

States Effectively Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing | | IPAAIPAA

Kinda sums it up!

 

[tomfly]

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says states doing a good job. “States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.” (Politco, 11/22/12)

States Effectively Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing | | IPAAIPAA

Kinda sums it up!

You are a driller posting Industry literature. It is oblivious what side you would be on. The propaganda paper says nothing about the contamination in North Dakota. I don’t see you posting anything about what the industry is doing to rectify the situation with the aquifer that became commentated .And what they are going to do for the individual’s wells who now have no safe drinking water. Or what they are going to change to ensure it will not happen again. Your Propaganda means nothing. I am trying to stay neutral on fracking but the more read on it. To me it just seems anyone connected to it just has Gold Fever and for the most part does not care who or what is affected by it.

 

[Agust]

Getting back on point. Should the landowner or the driller be responsible. I don't believe the question is fair, since both should bear some responsibility. Obviously the driller should bear the brunt of cost, but the landowner has also profited. i think holding the landowner responsible up to all revenue received from the lease seems fair, beyond that the driller and gas purchasers should be held accountable. Neither should be absolved of their responsibility, since both have realized a profit.

 

[MACFLY]

How about the folks that consume the gas for their heating and other needs. Clearly they could have chosen other alternatives to use as fuel.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Getting back on point. Should the landowner or the driller be responsible. I don't believe the question is fair, since both should bear some responsibility. Obviously the driller should bear the brunt of cost, but the landowner has also profited. i think holding the landowner responsible up to all revenue received from the lease seems fair, beyond that the driller and gas purchasers should be held accountable. Neither should be absolved of their responsibility, since both have realized a profit.

Responsibilty is based on profits?

How about the folks that consume the gas for their heating and other needs. Clearly they could have chosen other alternatives to use as fuel.

He said "gas purchasers"...

 

[Pete]

How about the folks that consume the gas for their heating and other needs. Clearly they could have chosen other alternatives to use as fuel.

Gas customers pay for it in the form of gas prices. If remediation and/or fines are needed or imposed, they become part of the cost of doing business, and are passed along to the customers.

 

[MACFLY]

@pete if that were accurate than this discussion would be rendered irrelevant would it not.