Representative Lois Capps and 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr — who, like their constituents, were shaken by the recent discovery that Venoco Inc. is “fracking” on a Los Alamos drilling lease — held a forum last week to discuss the divisive oil-and-gas extraction method and what’s being done to patch the ratty tapestry of legal framework now in place to regulate it.
Their concern, echoed by many of the invited panelists and the attendees who packed the Museum of Natural History’s auditorium, centers on what impacts fracking may have on the health of the North County community’s aquifers, ecosystems, and people. Fracking — short for hydraulic fracturing — is the process by which energy companies inject a pressurized chemical fluid into an existing wellbore, cracking the surrounding rock to harvest as much oil or natural gas from the site as possible. It’s a technique used since the 1940s, and 90 percent of the country’s current wells have been fracked at least once.
But panelist Brian Segee, Environmental Defense Center staff attorney, noted that the chemical concoctions employed today are much different compared to those used in decades past, and fracking technology overall is now an entirely different beast. Because of how current regulatory legislation is crafted, he went on, energy companies are not required to disclose what ingredients they use in their fracking fluid.
In a bid to make companies divulge what’s in their brews, Capps recently cosponsored a bill called the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness Chemicals Act (FRAC Act) that would take away hydraulic fracturing’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Accusing the Bush administration of “coddling” the energy industry to an improper degree, she explained the bill would close the “Halliburton loophole,” so named because it was inserted into a 2005 energy bill at the direction of former vice president Dick Cheney, a onetime chief executive of Halliburton, which invented hydraulic fracturing.
Tupper Hull with the Western States Petroleum Association said the energy companies he represents are all for disclosure as long as it doesn’t expose trade secrets. Western States even supported a state bill that increases California’s regulatory power, he explained, lamenting it’s since been stalled in committee, but claiming there is already “robust” oversight in place.
It’s important to retain a level of competition among companies, which could be compromised if the chemicals they use and in what amounts are made public, Tupper said. As for fracking overall, he stated, there is a lot of confusion and misinformation surrounding the drilling method, calling it a “breathtaking improvement toward a more energy-independent future.”
In response, Bob Field, president of the Santa Ynez Rancho Estate Mutual Water Company, said he doesn’t need to know how much of each chemical is being used when he conducts water tests, but simply what chemicals may be floating in the drinking supply he watches. Condemning the fracking practice in its entirety, Field struck out at what he sees as a deplorable lack of supervision. “If it’s not lawful for a chemical to be in the groundwater, why is it lawful to inject it into the ground?” he asked. Field also took issue with a defense commonly employed by energy companies that only one percent of fracking fluid contains chemicals, the rest being water.
When each Los Alamos hydraulic fracture uses 100,000 gallons of water (there’s been only one frack conducted, said Segee), that’s still 1,000 gallons of chemicals, said Fields. One gallon of contaminated fluid is enough to ruin hundreds of thousands of gallons of drinking water, he explained. Lastly, he noted that all of the water used for the Los Alamos frack came from the area’s aquifer, the only source of drinking water for the town. If the aquifer is compromised, said panelist and Los Alamos resident Chris Wrather, that’d be “game over” for area residents.
Paul Wellman
DOGGR’s Marni Weber (right) sits next to Brian Segee with the Environmental Defense Center
State’s Marni Weber with the Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) said her agency has the authority to regulate fracking, but lacks the necessary funding and resources to do so. She explained there is a way for companies to voluntarily reveal where they’re fracking (fracfocus.org), but the avenue has seen limited participation. A search of the Web site shows no matches for Santa Barbara County.
Addressing how Santa Barbara is moving forward to ensure drilling leases aren’t fracked again without anyone knowing, Doug Anthony, deputy director of the county’s Energy Division, said a new application process is in the works that would require energy companies looking to frack to go through a public hearing, environmental review, and get approval from the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors would hear an appeal if one is made.
On September 20, the supervisors will revisit a potential moratorium on fracking until more definitive regulations can be hammered out. If they do go ahead with a suspension, the county will be the first in the state to do so.
Related Links
- Agencies Called in to Help Supes Wrangle with Controversial Drilling Technique [ August 3, 2011 ]
- Officials and Public Take Hard Look at Controversial Drilling Method [ June 9, 2011 ]
- County Curious About Venoco’s Oil-Extraction Techniques [ May 5, 2011 ]



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Just tell us what those chemicals are so we know what to test for, and admit that accidents do happen, and aquifers have been ruined. That would be a good start. We all know their are risks to energy production, but if they hide facts from us they will only strenghten the anit-fracking groups.
Riceman (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2011 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
of course we all know they won't reveal the chemicals. It's just like the tobacco industry telling us there's no harm in smoking. The fact that they were given a "pass" from the Safe Water Drinking Act under the Bush admin smells really, really rotten.
triplej (anonymous profile)
September 8, 2011 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
riceman,
Instead of "admitting that "aquifers have been ruined," let's first demonstrate that they have been.
Here is an extract of what Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, had to say on May 24, 2011:
"The head of the Environmental Protection Agency told a House committee Tuesday that she favored natural gas production and said she didn't know of any “proven case” in which hydraulic fracturing had affected drinking water."
http://www.newsok.com/article/3571012...
People need to be aware that companies have every incentive NOT to damage aquifers, because
1) they would rather produce and sell the oil than spill it into the environment;
2) they don't want to pay the fines, lawsuits, and cleanup costs associated with such an event;
3) they don't want to lose their license to operate in an area they pollute through negligence;
4) they'd prefer not to have the glaring negative publicity that would be associated with serious aquifer damage;
5) fracturing is very expensive, and the objective is to fracture the (already naturally polluted) oil bearing rock: it makes no sense to willfully damage non-oil bearing rock;
6) and finally, believe it or not, these are real people, and they don't want to needlessly damage the environment around them, the local drinking water, and livelihoods of those in the community in which they operate.
This is a highly technical issue, involving geology, rock physics, chemistry, mechanical engineering, and fluid flow in porous media. Many journalists and bloggers reduce it to junk science. Not knowing the first thing about the risks or the people involved, they reshape the debate into an ideological one.
How about looking at real data, and making a sober assessment of costs, risks, and benefits, rather than reducing it to an argument about good guys and bad guys? If aquifers have in fact been damaged, let's learn how it happened and how, and if, it can be prevented in the future. Maybe the damage is due to something unrelated to fracturing. Let's find out. Let's not use junk science to shape our energy policy.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
swimmer, companies have damaged water supplies and had to pay out for it.
There has been scientific research showing this as well.
http://www.propublica.org/article/sci...
I'm really not a fan of government regulation, I think that property rights is a better method of ensuring a clean environment. These companies need to be held responsible for damaging other's property and water if they are doing so, none of this government mandated limited liability stuff. They would then be responsible for a catastrophe or damage to a water supply so they would have to buy insurance for vast sums of money. Those insurance companies would help make sure that the concrete wells are sealed and they would detect for early warning signs of contamination so they could head the problem off at the pass and avoid or reduce the pay outs.
However constitutionally the states can make local environmental regulation, I don't know that it is always helpful. In this case however, I think that knowing what they are using so it can be tested for is a reasonable request. There is a lot of controversy about fracking out there, and so you would think of the industry is doing a good job they would voluntarily provide the information to clear their name.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 1:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
loonpt,
I'm aware of this often quoted study. I'm sure the EPA and DOE is as well, and both are on record as saying they are not aware of clear cut cases of aquifer contamination due to fracking. I don't think that this study is the smoking gun that those who cite it assume it to be. Three reasons:
1) From your link: "The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents."
The study found abnormally high levels of methane. What if this is found in all or most areas where gas is produced? What if it has little or no relationship to fracking? I don't know the answer to that one.
2) The researchers did not know the underground trajectories of the wells in their study area. As I understood it in reading the report, the wells are mostly highly deviated to horizontal. If fracking itself caused the methane levels to increase, and contaminants are migrating vertically through fractures to the aquifer, then the methane should have correlated to the surface projected locations of the sections of the wellbores where they intersected the gas reservoir. Instead, the methane correlated to the wellbore surface locations. These surface locations could be thousands of feet away, and thousands of feet above, the gas reservoir (which by the way is polluted by nature). This suggests that the problem could be due to poor well design or inadequate cement, not necessarily to the process of hydraulic fracturing itself.
3) The study as I recall it (months since I read it) did not delve into into other possible issues. Was it bad cement at the surface in a handful of wells? Was it one operator's poor or negligent practices? Was contamination the result of one or more spills of produced and contaminated water?
In other words, is the fracking process itself at fault, or is it the result of other related factors that can be regulated away or mitigated against? This is an important distinction, not legalese mumbo jumbo. If techniques are available to safely frack and produce these reservoirs (as Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu, head of the DOE, believes), then prohibiting this process will not be good for US jobs, state and federal tax revenues, and energy security. Don't you think an objective evaluation of the process would be better than one based on ideology?
I think the real concern people should have here is not the headline grabbing fracturing, but on the source and disposal of the volumes of water needed. Where will it come from, and is there enough, and is this the best use of the state's water supply?
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(cont.)
The EPA conducted a study of hydraulic fracturing in 2004, picking an area with unusually shallow reservoirs in attempt to understand the impact on aquifers. (Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs: EPA 816-R-04-003 )
Here's what the study concluded:
"EPA also reviewed incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing and found no confirmed cases that are linked to fracturing fluid injection into coalbed methane wells or subsequent underground movement of fracturing fluids. Although thousands of coalbed methane wells are
fractured annually, EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection into coalbed methane wells."
So I think the jury is still out on this one. The fact that fracking has been done for over 60 years in over a million wells in the US, without widespread incidents of aquifer contamination (even one according to the DOE and EPA) suggests that maybe this isn't as dangerous as most want to believe.
One thing I've noticed in this debate: those who are the first to condemn junk science in the name of climate change (and rightly so) are among the first to embrace it when it comes to the oil industry.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
putting water at risk of more contamination is not an option for us animals. Gasland shows a lot of evidence, unless you believe it is a fiction with paid actors. Fracking is a sloppy process, done without any study of what this is actually doing to our planet. How would you feel, some little bug drilling down into your skin 1 inch and extracting fluids or gases while depositing hundreds of chemicals, poisons? At this point in our country's history, we'd be fools to put our faith in anything the government says about oil companies (the wealthiest among us) without verifying it independently (kinda what gasland does)... I have seen enough exxon comercials (valdez) and propaganda about 'clean, natural gas' and how we need to still produce this dirty energy to meet our 'needs'. If we took our oil company subsidies as well as natural gas, maybe we could invest in some real change in how we power ourselves. Much more clean energy, no commercials.
spacey (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"putting water at risk of more contamination is not an option for us animals."
Isn't this a scientific question? You are putting lives at risk when you allow airplanes to carry passengers. The real question is, what is the risk, and what are the benefits? You don't know enough about either to comment in any useful way.
"Gasland shows a lot of evidence, unless you believe it is a fiction with paid actors."
Gasland has been widely refuted by the EPA, the DOE, and state environmental officials from Pennsylvania and Colorado. The director, Josh Fox, has no expertise, no experience, and no relevant technical training. It's simple. You accept things at face value if they agree with your ideology. You reject things if they don't. Why should anyone accept anything at face value? Do the science. Gasland is junk science.
"Fracking is a sloppy process, done without any study of what this is actually doing to our planet."
What do you know about the process? Please post your years of experience, how many wells you've fracked, and your relevant university degree. Or do you think experience is unnecessary in making a scientific judgment?
"How would you feel, some little bug drilling down into your skin 1 inch and extracting fluids or gases while depositing hundreds of chemicals, poisons?"
Touching, but irrelevant. A more appropriate analogy would be a bug that extracts toxins from your body (oil and gas) and replaces them with something less toxic.
The fracture fluid is not injected into aquifers.
"At this point in our country's history, we'd be fools to put our faith in anything the government says about oil companies (the wealthiest among us) without verifying it independently (kinda what gasland does)... "
Sure, as I said, take nothing for granted. Not even Gasland,,, which you have complete faith in. Right?
"I have seen enough exxon comercials (valdez) and propaganda about 'clean, natural gas' and how we need to still produce this dirty energy to meet our 'needs'."
Unfortunately, we do. Natural gas supplies 20% of US electrical energy. That's the reality.
"If we took our oil company subsidies as well as natural gas,"
I hear this line daily. Please tell me, how much does the industry get in subsidies? What does that work out to per company? What are some of the specifics? Name me a few specific subsidy programs.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(cont,)
"maybe we could invest in some real change in how we power ourselves. Much more clean energy, no commercials."
Billions are being invested in alternatives. Google "renewable energy subsidies" and see for yourself.
Why do you frame it as an either-or question? No rational person will advise that we can get off fossil fuels tomorrow. It's going to take a long time, not just a few years. What do you recommend in the meantime? How do you propose to get to work, fly, stay warm, use plastics, buy food (harvested, processed, and delivered to your market via fossil fuels) without fossil fuels in the meantime?
Wishful thinking and ideology such as you display are not going to solve the problem. In fact, such uninformed thinking has a negative impact on energy policy. To eventually reach the worthy goal of replacing fossil fuels, it's going to take lots of effort, tons of capital, and especially expertise in renewable energy technologies.
What do you think of folks who trot out "science" to deny global warming? Don't like it? Then why do you advocate junk science in this case?
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Swimmer since you seem so informed and rather cool on investigation do tell, who do you work for and what is your horse in the race.
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2011 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What kind of a question is that? If a crime is committed, do you first ask what the color of the suspect's skin is? Do you think a person's background is more important than the hard facts read out in a courtroom?
Forget about who I am, and forget about ad hominem attacks and implied conspiracies. Stick with the evidence. The molecules moving about in the ground that we're trying to understand could care less about who I am or who you are.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2011 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Swimmer is a breath of fresh air, posing cogent questions in the face of political hysteria and the usual environazi obstructionalism. As usual in such cases, no one attempts to debate with swimmer, preferring to assault virtue and being critical of corporations.
Keep it up, swimmer!
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2011 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tupper appears to be saying "missed it by THAT much".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2011 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Swimmer, your are truly stoned if you think there is no evidence of drinking water aquifers being ruined by fracking activities. Have you seen the movie Gasland? It is not a lie, these are real people who have seen their life long high quality drinking water wells ruined, they also show several instances where the homeowner can actually light their kitchen tap on fire due to all the gas that had seeped into their water well. Oh and what is that red Halliburton truck doing over there in the distance? Duuhhh. Now their well tests positive for heavy metals, biocides, and all kinds of nasties. The facts are there. I'm all for fracking but let's not distort the facts.
Riceman (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2011 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Riceman,
I'll repeat. Both the head of the EPA and the head of the DOE (a Nobel prize winning physicist) are on record as saying they know of no documented incidents of aquifer contamination by fracking. The are aware of Gasland. You might wonder what they know or understand that you don't.
Everyone keeps citing all of these "cases" of contamination, and claims that fracking is destroying the earth as we know it, but we strangely never hear of any convincing documentation. At least the EPA and DOE under Obama haven't. Most critics, one must assume, don't think a case needs to be supported by solid evidence: hearsay and ideological motivations are sufficient.
Why do you accept Gasland so readily? One scene, for example, where gas was shown to catch fire from a faucet in Colorado? Colorado's environmental agency has refuted that. The gas in that case was naturally occurring biogenic gas. There are other examples but I won't go into it. Gasland has been widely refuted by many, and its producer has zero experience. And yet people embrace it without a second thought. Why is that? Why do they not demand the same scrutiny of Gasland's claims as they do for Acme Oil's claims? I think the answer to that is obvious.
Even if all of the incidents shown in Gasland were true, I don't understand why you so readily accept that it means all fracking is dangerous, everywhere, and no matter who does it. If Gasland's inexperienced producer followed airline crashes all over the world, would we conclude all airlines are careless and dangerous? Suppose he made it his business to document plagiarism. He found several examples from around the world. Do you conclude that journalists and novelists are dishonest everywhere? Are all newspapers and publishers subversive and incompetent?
This rush to judgment is really quite remarkable. If a minority youth were convicted with the same casual lack of attention to facts, the public would be rightly outraged. But when the de facto defendant is politically incorrect or unpopular, the standards of justice fall to those of the Salem witchcraft days. We accept an inexperienced (and obviously biased) movie producer's word at face value, no further questions your honor.
And by the way, a Halliburton truck is evidence of what, exactly? Be specific.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2011 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(cont.)
Notice that I haven't said that contamination is not possible. I'm just saying:
1) show me a compelling technical case where an aquifer has been contaminated by fracking; and
2) demonstrate for me what the risk of contamination is, and then what the benefits are.
You can make a compelling case that airline crashes kill people. But you're aware of the risks and benefits. So, armed with that understanding, neither you nor anyone else is going to say that air travel should be banned. Can't airline accidents be mitigated? Can't new procedures be put in place to reduce crash risk? Can't FAA oversight be stricter?
Given all that's at stake, I fail to see why fracking doesn't warrant the same objective assessment. If that objective assessment reveals that fracking is indeed harmful at a high rate of probability, regardless of any possible mitigating steps, then I think it should be banned. But if the assessment shows that the risk of contamination is vanishingly small (possibly contingent on additional safeguards or procedures), which I suspect would be the case, then I don't think we should object.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2011 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I simply can't wait to so the new hybrid eighteen wheelers, the new wind powered trains, and the new solar powered jumbo jets. They're gonna be so green!!!
waz (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good one, waz.
Just think, the hybrid 18 wheelers can carry their own ethanol stills and generate fuel as they go!
And the wind powered trains can generate their own wind just by their forward motion. Perpetual motion at last!
And wow, the solar powered jets? The closer to the sun, the faster they can fly - Icarus taught us that!
And my green Ferrari? Solar cells on the rear deck, man...zoom zoom.
Can I have my official greenie card now?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Back in the old days before comment posting on news websites folks used to write letters to the editor, and put their name on their opinions. Nowadays we have anonymous profiles writing profusely and eloquently, who are you? Who do you work for? Depending on the opinion expressed I can only assume you are a paid staffer at an energy PR company spinning the company line, or working on the conservation side. Step up and behind your opinion if it's so worth expressing.
I know longer live in the county, but based on the rather sordid history of enegy extraction in the North County my own opinion is that I don't have a lot of faith in what energy companies have to say about how safe their activities might be.
If an energy company wants to mix toxic chemicals with water and inject the mixture into the ground then the burden of proof of demonstrating that it is safe is on them. Groundwater is a public resource and needs to be protected, any contamination that might result would be difficult and expensive to remove. Stating that there is no evidence that it's not safe is not proof, bring on the research that prooves it's safe. Joel Groberg, former Santa Barbara resident.
jgroberg (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Depending on the opinion expressed I can only assume you are a paid staffer at an energy PR company spinning the company line, or working on the conservation side."
- jgroberg
Wow! You're even nuttier than the other 2 dozen or so people who keep saying we're hiding our opinions under the cloak of anonymity! Yes. You got me. I'm a shill for the energy companies. God knows, that's the only way I can possibly come out with an opinion against these idiotic "green" initiatives. Blood for oil!
- Carlos Wazny
waz (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Undoubtedly there are some covert operatives herein, potentially talking for the SEIU and overcompensated government employees, as well as for oil companies and other members of various evil empires.
You can assume whatever you like, but I suggest you consider the content of the post and not just the potential identity of the poster.
But some posters prefer to remain anonymous because, believe it or not, there are people who will boycott a business owner, conduct a personal vendetta, abandon longtime friends, etc. based on one's political views. Just ask Rob Egenoff, local attorney. Why do you think we have secret ballots? (BTW, the Left is very much in favor of eliminating secret balloting in union elections - that's what so-called 'card check' voting is all about - thereby exposing members to intimidation just like from the robber baron employers in the bad old days).
So, reading this,
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I can only assume you are a paid staffer at an energy PR company spinning the company line"
The predictable comment. You can almost hear him.. "What? Do you expect me to debate the issue on a technical basis? Let's go for the personal attack."
Who I am is irrelevant. But I can tell you I'm not being paid to write. "Spinning the company line" indeed. As if no opinions that counter yours can be legitimate. As if any statement by any defendant should be dismissed out of hand.
"I know longer live in the county, but based on the rather sordid history of enegy extraction in the North County..."
The "sordid history" you speak of can largely be ascribed to one company out of about 400 operating in California, and out of about 14,000 operating in the US.
"my own opinion is that I don't have a lot of faith in what energy companies have to say about how safe their activities might be."
Prejudice (it's not just a racial phenomenon). See my previous statement. Now in your phrase above replace "energy companies" with a minority of your choice, and replace "how safe their activities might be" with "how innocent they are". Get the picture? You glibly dismiss around 2 million people working in the industry as unsavory characters at best. Somehow, you're better than all these people who deliver your energy to you?
"If an energy company wants to mix toxic chemicals with water and inject the mixture into the ground then the burden of proof of demonstrating that it is safe is on them."
Agreed. But the trial by the media has already been decided, wouldn't you agree?
You're aware, aren't you, that the chemicals naturally occurring in the earth (oil and gas) are already toxic. And you're aware that these chemicals are being injected into this already polluted rock thousands of feet below the fresh water aquifer?
"Groundwater is a public resource and needs to be protected, any contamination that might result would be difficult and expensive to remove."
Agreed. Can we do the science and find out what that risk is? Can we let those who understand geology and petroleum engineering determine the risks (doesn't have to be eneryg industry people)? Or should we just leave to inexperienced journalists?
"Stating that there is no evidence that it's not safe is not proof, bring on the research that prooves it's safe."
There is plenty of evidence. Over the past 60 years, over a million wells have been fracked. For example, repeating the reference above: Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs: EPA 816-R-04-003.
Can you prove that air travel is 100% safe? No one will ever be able to prove fracking is 100% safe. Human error is always a factor, in any industry, including yours. But as a society we should not let a frantic, uninformed, and biased media make our decisions on energy policy. We need to balance risks versus benefits. Would you agree?
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2011 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not taking any particular position other than the obvious one of wanting to make sure the process is safe and well regulated before it is approved. However one of the arguments the oil and gas companies makes seems rather bogus to me. They claim that they don't want to give away trade secrets so they can't reveal the contents of their secret fracking fluids. However, they can only frac wells that they already own the rights to so how will revelations of their secreet formula make a difference. In additon I seriously doubt with all the industrial spying that is going on that they are really capable of keeping their formulas completely secret. Or maybe they are using Coca-Cola; thats pretty secret and we all drink it.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
September 16, 2011 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noletaman,
When you say, "However, they can only frac wells that they already own the rights to so how will revelations of their secreet formula make a difference," you misunderstand who's trying to protect the formulas.
Oil companies don't own the formulas, the oil field service companies do. They compete by selling these fluids to the oil companies. The service company with the most effective frac fluid will win out, and if the formula goes public, then that company loses its competitive advantage, and all of the investment it made developing the formula is effectively wasted.
"I seriously doubt with all the industrial spying that is going on that they are really capable of keeping their formulas completely secret."
Perhaps not. But if the formula goes public, companies can be certain that it won't be kept secret. And you just mentioned a case where the secret CAN be kept. So why not frac fluids?
It seems to me that governments and communities should have a right to know what's being injected into their properties. There should be some solution to this that can satisfy both parties.
swimmer (anonymous profile)
September 16, 2011 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Chemicals used in fracking are deadly, cancerous, and non removable. The fuel gained in the fracking process is not worth the cost to the environment to extract it. We need laws that do not allow for energy companies to foist their cost of doing business, their ecological damage, or damage of any kind on the taxpayers. They should be fully insured by a state bonded insurance company. Likewise for nuclear energy sites. It's high time the people quit paying for the platform upon which corporations grow rich.... and leave the people behind.
Here is a good list of some of the fracking chemicals:
http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/0...
Another consideration people in California should look at are the possibility of slip zones/strike & slip faults being loosened by fracking and causing earthquakes. This is a real problem with fracking. Here is another site unrelated to the first other than subject matter, that talks about the fracking process, and listing chemicals also:
http://www.earthworksaction.org/Fraci...
Let's put a stop to this dangerous method of earth destruction, and let's put a stop to strip mining also. Perhaps if they all had to mitigate their damage on a semi-annual basis, with permit and inspection involved?
Of course, the liability insurance privately funded by the companies themselves should be a standing prerequisite too.
This way the clean up after an earthquake caused by fracking, or the contamination and loss of groundwater, and associated medical bills can be born by their insurers also, and not the people.
Ultimately we need to correct the composition of the Supreme Court and reverse the recent law that allows for permitting heavy infrastructure changes to override the local communities, allowing the Federal Government to foist unwanted heavy industry on local communities. We have got to put an end to this. We all have the right to defend our living areas from industrial pollution. If we don't do this we will look like the pillaged Soviet Union after the fall.
Yellowbird (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)