> Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up.
The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology.
> Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996.
The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.
> The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception.
The EPA rules are inconvenient because they don't want anyone to know the proprietary methods used for fracking, not because EPA rules prevent it. That's actually the best part. It's declared safe because the people with the vested interest to make billions of dollars say so.
> You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.
You mean like coal waste runoff into waterways? The rules don't fit those kinds of situations on purpose.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I'm naturally suspicious when money + regulators + special concessions collide. These are two arbitrary links I found from a quick search:
"The disclosure requirements in several states allow energy companies wide latitude to claim “trade secret” status for the chemical makeup of their fracking fluids. And at least two states place unreasonable restrictions on doctors and other health officials who learn about any of these “proprietary” ingredients. "
"“While we support disclosing our ingredients, it is critical to our business that we protect our recipe,” Tara Mullee Agard, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oil and gas service companies, told ProPublica in an email."
It's hard to model the risk from fracking, if protecting the business is more important than our health and the environment's health. I don't think we can just take their word that they are being safe.
You've got the ingredient and there are several companies who sell their own version. There are universities that do the research also.
Look, they are doing stuff several miles of stone under any aquifer extract natural gas and oil that would have seeped into the water supply if it could (much like the methane in PA). [deleted section on edit since it was supposed to go on the other thread]
Well, I can certainly imagine that there may be a difference between a mile of solid rock that's been there for millenia; and a mile of solid rock with holes drilled through it to apply fracking technology that's intentionally designed to break down barriers of solid rock.
Maybe the tech doesn't leak stuff to the aquifer - then the exemption isn't needed, since aquifier is undamaged.
Maybe the tech does leak stuff to the aquifer, say, if you do the drilling sloppily or whatever - then the exemption isn't needed, since you should pay for damages.
Look, research how fracking is done and what how it actually works. I'll start you off with the first step, they are not drilling straight down. The number and size of these new holes is pretty much a non-issue.
The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology.
> Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996.
The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.