Blog Post #7- Ryan Barrett
New Legislation in the Hydraulic Fracturing Industry
Picture:
This diagram shows the process of pumping in a dangerous substance consisting of water, sand, and chemicals through a pipe into the ground to crack open shale and release natural gas. Environmental organizations are afraid that this is contaminating their water supply.
Summary:
Currently, there is much debate on the topic of Hydraulic Fracturing regulations, and whether or not any legislative activity will take place. Mark Stone, member of the Natural Resources Committee in California, is the author of a bill that would require all companies to reveal how much water is used in the production of their oil and natural gas, where they are getting their water from, and they have to get their means of the water disposal approved by state regulators. Oil companies and producers are trying to fight back against the newly proposed bill. In defend his argument, Stone said "Fracking potentially exposes
Californians' water supply to toxic chemicals. Currently, there's little
governmental oversight to ensure that our groundwater supply doesn't
get contaminated by the large volume of toxic wastewater fracking
produces." With an overwhelming 6 to 3 vote, the bill passed its first test for approval. Instead of focusing on California, most of the media fracking highlights are about North Dakota, despite California being the fourth largest oil producing state in the country. And now, concerned citizens are crying out against the injection of dangerous water into the ground. According to the Western States Petroleum Association, over 120 billion gallons of water has been pumped in and taken out of California soil. The Department of Oil, Gas and Natural Resources assures the people that all of the procedures are looked over and that no one has to worry about potential contamination, and that all of the chemicals used have been regulated and disclosed.
Opinion/Reflection:
What really surprised me about this article, is that it said that there are currently no state regulations for water use, nor a known source of the water or approved means of disposal. I'd expect all of these things to be taken care of right when the company was first started. The fact that these things aren't dealt with sooner is bewildering, and especially that oil companies are fighting against the bill. The argument for the bill would be more appealing and influencing if the Natural Resources Committee interviewed citizens of the area, and asked them how they feel about the topic. If I were asked to vote yay or nay to the passing of the bill, I would be in favor of it. Even if I was assured that the fracking posed no threat to the water supply, it is always better to be informed.
Questions:
1.) Why don't people try to gather supporters and conduct interviews to strengthen their point? Wouldn't it make for a better argument with more followers?
2.) Why would oil companies fight against the new policies? In what way would they benefit form not having these regulations?
3.) If the chemical water got into the aquifer and polluted the water supply, what would happen to the company responsible and the people that drink it.
Article Information---
Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_23039934/california-bill-would-target-fracking-industrys-water-use
Author: Jason Hoppin
Publication: Santa Cruz Sentinel
Date: 4/16/2013
The professional i chose to invite to comment on the blog was Mark Stone. He was mentioned in this article, and he is the man who proposed the bill to investigate some of the hydraulic fracturing plants. He is on the board of supervisors in Santa Cruz and knows a lot about the topic of "fracking". I believe he could give us insight on how it works and the effects it has on the environment. I also believe he could tell us exactly what his bill would accomplish and why it's important. Finally, i think he could give us a bit of info on all of the politics of this situation.
ReplyDeleteThe email i sent: Hello, My name is Ian and I'm part of a student-run blog group for my environmental science class. Recently, an article was written about hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the bill you proposed. I think it is very interesting that you wish to keep the water clean for the citizens near areas where fracking occurs, and we would be honored if you visited our blog post and informed us a little bit more about the bill. We would also like to learn about some of the effects that fracking has on the surrounding water sources. If you wish to visit the blog, here is the link: http://grass-heads.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-legislation-in-hydraulic-fracturing.html
-Thanks!
http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
ReplyDeleteThis is a website created by the EPA that gives more information on hydraulic fracturing, as well as the potential risks, such as contamination and pollution. It also explains the regulations that are currently in place and those which have been preposed and may also be implemented to protect people from those dangers. In addition, the website describes a study which is currently taking place to examine the effects of hydraulic fracturing on our water.
This article surprised me. I was never aware that hydraulic fracturing could contaminate water supplies. Knowing that natural gas is flammable, it could be a very bad problem if large amounts of it got into our water supply, especially since water is heated in sinks, showers, and radiators to produce heat. However, my question is what contaminants would get into the water because the main reason natural gas is flammable is because it contains large amounts of methane, a non-toxic chemical that does not easily dissolve in water.
ReplyDeleteQuestions
1)If not the natural gas itself, what contaminants are making their way into water supplies? Would we even need to worry about these substances infiltrating our water supplies?
2)If companies know that hydraulic fracturing can leak contaminants into water supplies, why would they still do it? Do the legal risks outweigh the possible rewards?
3)Would you drink your tap water if you knew that contaminants from hydraulic fracturing could be leaking into your water supplies? Why or why not?
2.) Why would oil companies fight against the new policies? In what way would they benefit form not having these regulations?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that either the companies opposing this are either a)shady companies who do release toxins and are completely aware of the fact that where they're getting their supplies from is unsafe, or b)the companies are already making sure that they aren't using too much water or supplies when they make oil. In this case, I'm leaning more towards Theory A. Oil companies that are striking back are more than likely doing so in an effort to conceal the truth behind their oil production. They've probably been fine and dandy with destroying the country's water supply for a long time without regulations, but now that they're starting to buckle down? It seems as if they're realizing that they can't keep abusing the supply forever. Not only would they regulations cast a bad light on companies' methods, but also destroy their buyers and probably their business as well.
3.) If the chemical water got into the aquifer and polluted the water supply, what would happen to the company responsible and the people that drink it.
As said above, it would definitely destroy their business. Outright putting oil into the water systems is contaminating the water that is brought into people's homes to drink, bathe and shower in, and cook with. Having toxins in this water, like oil, would most definitely have a big affect on the people using it. Though I'm not completely sure, the affects could range from deformities to dangerous chemicals entering the bloodstream and affecting one's health. As well, drinking water with traces of oil in it could probably kill some or most people.
2)If companies know that hydraulic fracturing can leak contaminants into water supplies, why would they still do it? Do the legal risks outweigh the possible rewards?
Companies probably ignore the risks because of all the money they're making. Oil is most often a hot commodity...that's why it sells for so much. So no oil company in their right mind is going to look at all the money they're making compared to the tiny bit of oil leaking into the water supply and say, "You know what? I'm a terrible person. I'm going to give up all this money for something that hasn't even caused widespread damage yet." That would be plain stupid from a business standpoint for anyone to say. If this bill passes, then these companies that have been skirting along for so long will have to face what they've been trying to avoid: and it won't be fun, both economically nor socially.