Self-Analysis

Let’s go back to a year ago: my knowledge of the internet was free music, facebook, Google, and random funny websites (p.s. those three links are random funny websites). I thought blogging was for people who didn’t have anyone to express their thoughts to except the people who endless surf the web—I was wrong. Speaking in strictly general blogging terms, I have grown to become much more open and accepting of others’ views, opinions, and practices.

Speaking in terms of the growth I have made in knowledge and understanding of Onshore Drilling, I have also come along way. In my first post I praised GasLand for its ohhh so perfect and complete portrayal of the onshore drilling world—I was wrong again. While GasLand does open the eyes of many Americans and relatively portray the world of onshore drilling correctly, it has many mistakes. Most of the mistakes come out of completely biased opinions: everyone they interview and see are excruciatingly biased in the way they think. Ninety percent of Josh Fox’s interviews are with people who have strong opinions and have contaminated water; the other interviews are cut so they make it seem so obvious that the gas companies are lying. Bias is the area in which most of my improvement has come from.

I have researched and read through numerous websites and articles that deal with fracking. Almost every site shows some sort of bias; however, through this blogging I have become pretty keen at spotting the bias. Sites such as ProPublica and 7Bends show large amounts of bias in favor of the environmentalists; they claim to be giving the truth that other news sites don’t. Other sites, such as, Colorado Independent and the National Journal, as well as, energy company sites like Chesapeake Energy, all show bias towards the gas drilling companies; they stress the importance of oil and keeping as many jobs as possible.

In addition to the bias many places show, I have learned how complex this issue really is. We have a need for jobs and Halliburton and other oil companies are providing many jobs. We also need as much gas as we can get; whether we like it or not America needs high quantities of gas to function. So while the environmentalists advocate to end onshore drilling (something I think would be good as well), there is simply no way to—we depend on these companies that many have come to hate. Through this blogging I have learned the true debate going on in the political and environmental sphere of the world, while simultaneously becoming more keen to bias.

Los Liiiiiiiinks!

 Affirming GasLand
This is by far the most used link in my archive. The Natural Gas drilling companies attacked the documentary GasLand online and trying to debunk the facts throughout the movie. This link is a 30 page comeback, from Josh Fox of GasLand, which provided hundreds of other links and facts about the harmful effects of fracking. While it is biased the information is relatively correct and persuasive.

7Bends

7Bends and especially the article linked to provide lots of information and news stories about hydraulic fracturing and the effects of it.

Vanity Fair
This article from Vanity Fair and the video attached do a great job of explaining what fracking is and the debate behind its use and lack of regulation.

Scientific America
Scientific America has numerous articles about fracking and the scientific evidence that pinpoints fracking as harmful. This article specifically talks about the pollution to water that fracking is causing.

ProPublica
Like Scientific America, ProPublica has a vast amount of articles and information on fracking and its effects. This article is also on the pollution that fracking is possibly adding to our drinking water.

Congress Launches Investigation
This is another story from ProPublica talking about Congress investigating the drilling practices of the energy companies.
Chemicals Found in Drinking Water
This article by ProPublica is about the EPA finding chemicals used in fracking in people’s drinking water in Wyoming.

Hydraulic Fracturing | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA
This is a link to the EPA’s description of hydraulic fracturing. It is an unbiased source that gives the basic description of what fracking is.

Hydraulic Fracturing Facts
This is a site set up by the Chesapeake Energy Company and they go into a lot of detail about what fracking is and where it is occurring. They also provide many .pdf files that show the usage facts.

Number of Wells
This link shows graphs and charts that showcase the number of natural gas wells and the trends of growth or decay of these wells.

YouTube Videos
There are numerous videos on YouTube that show the contamination of water and other things about gas drilling. Although they could be extremely biased, they do provide a good viewpoint of the people.

Government List of Chemicals and Procedure
This is a list of some of the chemicals pumped into the ground and the procedures that are used in the process of fracking and natural gas drilling.

Company Exemptions
This site provides many facts about the exemptions that the drilling companies have from many of the government policies protecting the environment.

New York Times
The Times has a couple good articles on Onshore Drilling and this one talks about two companies who admit using diesel fuel during fracking to pressurize and crack the ground, which is against the law.

Bureau of Land Management-Utah
This site is for the BLM of Utah and it provides figures about the amount of land given to companies for natural gas drilling

Theo Colborn’s Site
This is the world famous environmentalist’s, Theo Colborn’s, website. It talks about facking in general and provides a list of about 695 chemicals she has found in fracking fluids.

Senator Inhofe Speaks Out for Fracking
This is a link of a republican Senator named James Inhofe; he is pro-Onshore drilling and gives many reasons why fracking is positive for the economy and America.

            Video of Inhofe
            This is a video of his speech

Colorado Speaks Out Against EPA
The EPA asked nine major energy companies for the list of chemicals they use in their drilling process. Colorado politicians spoke out against the EPA and backed up the Gas Companies; this is the article about their position.

Good Neighbor Blogs

Algae: Powering the Future
This is one blog that everyone should check out; Humanmachine’s blog reveals an innovative alternative to the harsh practice of onshore drilling: algae. He researches and delves into the pros and cons of algae used as an alternative fuel; such as, the amount of space needed for algae to grow and the time it would take to produce a substantial amount. If you are interested in stopping oil drilling, check out this blog.

America was in a recession, but then they got high
Lacey LaPlant does an immaculate job with her blog, “America was in a recession, but then they got high.” She probes into the world of legalizing marijuana. She explains the pros and cons of legalization if it were to happen; but most importantly she enlightens us the positive effect legalization of cannabis would have on our economy. She also keeps us up to date on the current laws and bills that a trying to get passed, such as Proposition 19. If you want to know what that is—read her blog!

Rights for All and Same-Sex Marriage
Both of these blogs deal with the chiefly the same issue: rights of homosexuals. In “Rights for All” Elaine digs into the multitude of issues dealing with Gay Rights, such as, marriage and the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” Policy emplaced by the Clinton administration. “Same-Sex Marriage,” by Sparky McDolspienker, deals with specially the issue of marriage in the LGBT world. He discusses the pros and cons of the issue and ways to solve it, like secular marriage. I think both of these blogs are great reads and inform us of the controversial debate quite well; so read them!

Immediate Fracking Problems

Throughout the life of my blog, I have explored the future or potential problems caused by hydraulic fracturing and natural gas drilling. Now it’s time to show you some immediate problems:

These two photos showcase some of the immediate dangers of natural gas drilling and fracking. There are stories all over the internet of natural gas wells exploding, injuring, and killing people. The photograph to the top is in Texas, from a well going into the Barnett Shale; the photo on the left is another explosion in Pennsylvania. This article is about an explosion in Indiana that killed 2 people; the strangest thing I found in that article is that the company from Houston, Texas that came up to cap off the burning well was called, “Wild Well Control.” If an entire company can be based off contained “wild wells” I don’t think it is a good idea to have thousands of wells in people’s backyards; but maybe it’s just me. The fact that a team from Texas had to fly all the way to Indiana to stop the fire because no one else could also illustrates the lack of safety precautions set up around these wells. It is almost like the Deepwater Horizons oil spill; after the explosion it took far too long for someone to figure out how to stop the flaming gas from spewing out.

These explosions are happening all over the nation: here in West Virginia, here is another from West Virginia, here is a huge explosion in Texas, many more. Not only explosions are happening due to gas drilling; there are thousands of incidents around the country that have occurred. “Accidents are not uncommon in unconventional natural gas mining. In Pennsylvania, 1,435 violations by Marcellus shale drilling/mining companies were documented in two and a half years between January 2008 and June 2010. In Colorado, the Denver Post reported over 5 million gallons of drilling liquid and oil spilled in almost 1,000 accidents over a similar time period. A Marcellus Shale gas well exploded June 3 in Clearfield County, Pa., spewing natural gas and toxic wastewater for 16 hours before it could be capped.”

Even if you don’t consider the potential long-term effects of natural gas drilling and fracking, it is easy to see the immediate danger that these practices pose to our environment and workers.  

Give Your Mind a Fracking Break

If you have been thinking about fracking too much lately, so have I so here's a site to get your mind off of it.

http://www.foodporndaily.com/

(site does not contain fracking or nudity)

Should Companies Disclose the Fracking Chemicals?

About a month ago the EPA requested the fracking chemicals from 9 Natural Gas drilling companies. These chemicals are a secret concoction that these companies pump into the wells that are going dry; the chemical cocktails contain hundreds of chemicals that are unknown to the public and could be seriously endangering the environment. Gas drilling companies strive to keep these chemicals a secret because they are specially designed to create the right balance of pressure underground and gain the highest amount of gas; if they make this information public any other company can steal their hard work. However, the risk that these chemicals pose to the environment is severe and the Environmental Protection Agency is finally stepping in to try and regulate these companies.

Many companies are furious that the EPA is asking for the chemical list; but one is looking on the bright side. By disclosing the chemicals used in fracking, Ranger Resources Corp. hopes that they will please the EPA and the public and prevent even more regulations on their practices. The public view on hydraulic fracturing is extremely negative and this has a great deal of influence on the government and EPA’s push for regulation. I believe that if these companies are telling the truth and their chemicals are one-hundred percent safe to the environment, they should follow in Ranger Resource Corp.’s footstep and tell the public what they use. It would improve the public view on the practice and the EPA would allow them as much freedom as they once had a few years ago.

Implications of These Fracking Practices

Through the analysis posting, we can see the seriousness of the natural gas and fracking issue throughout the United States. There are indeed ways to solve this issue; new biofuel like algae is a possibility (which we explored in the Theory post two days ago). However, what if natural gas drilling and the employment of fracking doesn't subside or harsher regulations weren't implemented? The EPA is requesting a list of fracking chemicals from each of the major gas drilling companies; however, the companies are putting up quite a fight. If the big gas companies end up winning the standoff with the EPA and evade regulations by the government it could result in many negative impacts. The environment is the first factor that would be harmed; in the Midwest the land is extremely venerable to contamination and desertification due to these chemicals. If the government can't properly test and regulate these practices and we blindly put all of our trust into these companies, the environment could be harmed beyond repair before we know what we’re doing wrong. Without regulation, our environment is in a great deal of harm and potential destruction. Not only could our land become infertile, much our drinking water could become contaminated and undrinkable as well. This is already happening in many areas of the Midwest and with drilling beginning on the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast there is a possibility more drinking water could be contaminated. Overall, if these practices aren’t regulated or stopped all together the consequences could be destructive.

Theory and Fracking

The debate brewing across the nation over hydraulic fracturing has much of its roots and future in theory. There is no undoubtedly reliable proof that hydro-fracking is specifically harmful to the environment; no one can tell where the toxic water used in the process ends up. The environmentalists suggest that fracking is the only way people’s drinking water is getting contaminated; they find it unlikely that the simultaneous occurrence of gas drilling and water pollution is coincidence. The gas industry relies on the environmentalists’ inability to prove this incidence.

While the past is partly based on theory; the future is purely speculation. How will this debate come to an end? Will the end of the debate come with the end of fracking? Maybe a new renewable source of energy will be created? Personally, I believe the future of the argument will be shorter than many think; the world of renewable energy and biofuel is closer than imagined. I think as long as fracking and natural gas drilling is going on, there will be people who despise it. Moreover, both sides of the argument understand that the world will run out of oil and natural gas very soon. The only viable way to draw a conclusion to this debate is the invention of a new source of energy.  One possibility I have been contemplating recently is Algae. It seems that the future without reliance on oil and gas is closer than we have imagined and algae are a very real possibility for change. The use of algae as fuel has no negative environmental impacts as far as I can tell; it is renewable and can be grown in massive numbers in small areas. While all of this is theory I believe some sort of renewable energy is the only way to draw an end to this debate.

Analysis of Natural Gas Drilling in America

To analyze this argument you first have to look at its roots; where this debate spurred from. Natural Gas has been taken out of our lands since the late 1800s. Hydraulic fracturing was invented in the early 1900s and first commercially employed by Halliburton over 60 years ago. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a method used by oil companies to elongate the life of a natural gas well. In hydraulic fracturing, these companies pump anywhere from 600,000 to 5 million gallons of water, sand, and chemical additives into the oil wells which creates an immense amount of pressure. This pressure causes cracks or “fractures” along the inside of oil well which in turn allows more oil from around a mile radius to pour into the well. Then somewhere between 15 and 80 percent of the sand, water, and chemicals pumped in will be recovered and disposed of. This process allows a well to produce much more oil and have greater productivity. About ninety percent of all oil wells in America today use Hydraulic Fracturing.

The location of the oil drilling is the second part of the issue that arises; drilling is happening in 32 states as we speak and is only growing. There are four major oil shales in the United States that are currently being drilled on: the Marcellus Shale under New York and Pennsylvania; and the Fayetteville, Barnett, and Haynesville Shales that are under many Midwest states, such as, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and many others. The most debated is the Marcellus Shale because it the most recently discovered and only just recently have companies been drilling on it. Besides the location of the oil drilling the actual land rights are highly controversial because the drilling takes place on public land that was constitutionally suppose to be protected and untouched. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulates what goes  on in the these lands and they are leasing millions upon millions of acres to big gas companies to drill; which on one side the government gains a lot of revenue but on the other side this land is protected and drilling is destroying much of its natural beauty.

So now that you know what and where fracking is and is happening, we can delve into the heart of the debate. I am focusing on two opposing sides to this argument: the Oil Companies and the Environmentalists. The aim of the Oil Companies is full disclosure of the chemicals and procedures used in drilling. “’Halliburton's proprietary fluids are the result of years of extensive research, development testing,’ said Diana Gabriel. ‘We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we are able to protect the fruits of the company's research….  We could lose our competitive advantage.’” “’It is like Coke protecting its syrup formula for many of these service companies,’ said Scott Rotruck, vice president of corporate development at Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s largest gas driller, which has been asked by New York State regulators to disclose the chemicals it uses.” It is unlawful in the eyes of the oil companies that the government can force them tell everyone the secret concoction they have been brewing for years. The general public just has to trust in the big oil companies’ judgment on whether the chemical additives are safe for the environment or not. However, there are many facts that the public does have access to. We know for certain around 20 of the chemicals used because OSHA and the government have released those; however, there are debates on exact number of chemicals (will go deeper into this later). Another fact that the oil companies tell us is that 99% of what is pumped into the wells during fracking is just water and sand. So only about 1 percent of the liquid pumped down underground is chemicals. Also the natural gas that is drilled out burns much cleaner than crude oil drilled in the ocean; when it comes down to it we need gas and the most efficient way to get it is on-shore drilling. So the basic argument of the gas companies is: natural gas burns cleaner than oil, 99% of the liquid is water or sand, and the 1% of chemicals is well studied and safe.

The basic goals of the environmentalists are getting an official list of the chemicals used in fracking and the exact procedures that go on in fracking so they can properly study what effects the drilling of natural gas has on the environment. One of the most prominent environmentalist against natural gas drilling, especially fracking, is Theo Colborn. She has studied and tracked down immense amounts of information that she has provided the public with; such as, a list of over 600 chemicals that she has found in wells and drilling sites. This number is quite a bit larger than the one the gas companies provided us with. What do many environmentalists believe about this; the gas companies are just flat out lying to us. Another example of these lies is that two of the major gas drilling companies just admitted lying to the government about using diesel in drilling (which was specifically outlawed). No one would know if they were adding chemicals they weren’t suppose to because they are legally not obligated to tell us.

It started with the EPA’s study in 2004 on the effects of hydro-fracturing; due to political pressure the administrator of the EPA said fracking was not harmful. This study is primarily what led to the exemption of hydraulic fracturing from the 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act; this exemption is what gives them the right of complete disclosure. Recently the EPA has acknowledged their mistake and is completing a full test of the process of hydraulic fracturing; Congress has also begun to realize that fracking could have negative side effects and has ordered their own tests to be done. So no one besides the companies drilling knows what they are putting into our ground but they have told us that at least 1% are chemicals and they pump in up to 5 million gallons of fluid into the ground; therefore, that would still be about 500,000 gallons of toxic chemicals. They also said that anywhere from 15 to 80 percent of this water is pumped out; so 20 to 85 percent of this toxic water is left underground. How is there not some sort of government regulation?

Although the environmentalists cannot prove that chemicals are coming specifically from hydro-fracking, there are hundreds of signs leading to that conclusion, many of which are actual stories of people’s homes and water becoming contaminated. Fracking has gone on in the Midwest for a few decades now and effects are seen by the inhabitants of this area. Many YouTube videos show the contamination of drinking water directly after companies began drilling. Also documentaries and other videos, such as, GasLand and this journalist’s video in Vanity Fair, show us first hand many of the harmful effects of fracking. So until the EPA completes their official testing we have to make our own beliefs on which side to believe; however, the EPA is beginning to believe that there are some serious problems.

When it comes to the political sphere of the debate, most politicians agree with one side or the other. Some politicians, like Henry A. Waxmen, believe that there needs to be some sort of regulation or at least knowledge of the chemicals and they are pushing for these laws. However, there are other politicians, such as James Inhofe, who believe in the gas companies one-hundred percent. Inhofe and others believe that if laws are passed regulating these companies it will hurt our economy. If we continue to drill out of the shales, they will produce enough oil to last 100 years and this drilling is making us less dependent on foreign nations, according to Inhofe. This is a big debate for President Obama because Former President Bush passed laws that extend the land rights even further to Oil Companies right before he left office. Obama is now forced to either keep Bush’s laws in place or change them until more information is found. The fate of our land rests in the hands of government.

Environmentalist Theo Colborn on Fracking

I just posted a video of Senator James Inhofe and his statements on the pro-drilling side of the debate; this video of Theo Colborn is almost a rebuttal of many of Inhofe’s points.

Once again for those of you who don’t like videos longer than 5 minutes I’ll sum it up:

·    Theo Colborn is an renown environmentalist who was pretty much the first person to delve into the harmful effects of hydraulic fracturing and onshore drilling

·    If you are fracking in the New York watershed area you will be using 3 to 8 million tons of water during the process that could be toxically contaminated

·    “Beauty” of fracking is that there aren’t as many perforations on the surface.

·    Westin Wilson works at the EPA and openly questioned the EPA study that declared fracking “to be little or no threat to drinking water” (this is the document Sen. Inhofe cited)

·    Wilson said that the administrator if the EPA was being pressured by many politicians to exempt fracking

·    A few months later Congress exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act which doesn’t require the oil companies to release specifics about chemicals and methods used to drill and frack.

·    Colborn created a list a 944 chemicals that have been found to be used by oil companies

·    Colborn emphasizes that 30 to 70% of the produced toxic water comes back up and we just don’t know at all where much of it goes

The main point of Theo Colborn’s argument is that we have proof that many harmful toxic chemicals are used during drilling but no proof that it is all being cleaned properly.

Sen. Inhofe for Pro-Drilling

Yes this video is 26 minutes long and this is only part one but I feel that this is a good video to showcase the pro-onshore drilling side of the argument. To sum it up for the people don’t want to watch the whole video, U.S. Senator James Inhofe makes many points backing onshore drilling and the use of Hydraulic Fracturing:

·         Hydraulic Fracturing has been used of half a century and no negative side effects have been   proved.

·         The EPA has conducted a test on the use of fracking and stated that there was no provable contamination of ground water due to drilling and fracking and never finished their testing.

·         They also state that fracking includes taking out the contaminated water left over.

·         Onshore drilling has many pros:

o   Less dependence on foreign nations

o   Make money

o   Produce jobs

o   America has enough oil under the surface to last us 100 years (he really stressed this point). Just in the oil shale in Pennsylvania and New York there is enough to last 35 years.

The main argument made by Senator Inhofe was that the claims made by the other side were not provable and “just completely false Mr. President.” To me this is not close to a reason of why we should even risk endangering our environment forever. Just because things haven’t been proved by the EPA, many acclaimed environmentalists have proved themselves; the EPA hasn’t even completed a full test (they are currently in the process).

As for the reasons he provides for expanding and continuing onshore drilling, I just don’t believe they are worth the risk. Yes we will have less dependence on foreign nations but who cares we will always be dependent on others nations like China for example. It would stimulate the economy and create jobs and but is that worth potentially harming the only world we have? And finally his most stressed point: the amount of oil available; maybe 100 years is a lot to him but when it comes to the life of the world, it is a small percent. Even to me that is short, I could possibly live that long myself and one lifetime of oil isn’t much in the grand scheme of things.

All in all, it seems like the argument of Inhofe is deny the claims as “yet to be proved” and throw out supportive facts about money and jobs, which yes they are important but I’m not sure they are important enough.  

Who the frack is BLM?

One of the organizations at the heart of Onshore Drilling in the United States is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM controls and manages our national park system, public lands, and national forests. “The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act authorizes oil and gas leasing on BLM, national forest, and other Federal lands, as well as private lands where the Federal government has retained mineral rights.” So in a quick summary, the government leases out our National Forest lands to Big Oil Companies so they can drill; that just sounds absurd to me. But they don’t lease out that much land do they?

I went to the BLM website to check out what they had to say about it; for each particular state they have information on Onshore Drilling and what is being done where. The first page I stumbled upon was the FAQs page for Utah, a popular destination of skiing and exploring the beautiful landscape. Guess how much land is available for the BLM to lease? “Approximately 17 million acres are available” according to the BLM and the “Utah BLM currently administers over 3,800 oil and gas leases, containing approximately 4.3 million acres of land.” That is 4.3 million acres of land that is already being drilled on in JUST UTAH. How does the BLM justify this? “According to a report by the Utah Energy Office, the drilling of a typical well in the Uintah Basin adds approximately 15 jobs and $360,000 in additional personal income.” So Onshore Drilling is okay because it creates jobs and money and helps out the economy, but is it worth possibly destroying our environment?

What is Fracking?

Fracking is the title of my blog so it must be important, right? Correct, it is the most significant issue in the debate between environmentalists and Oil Companies for many reasons. Hydraulic Fracturing, or “fracking,” is involved in the deep oil well drilling executed by big Oil Companies across America. In the process of drilling oil wells, which are generally about 8,000 feet deep, there is not enough pressure to efficiently extract the oil out of the ground; this is the purpose of fracking. Fracking is the method of pressurizing the well by forcing millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground; therefore, creating fractures in the oil shale 8,000 feet down which allows the majority of the oil to flow into the well. Sounds like an efficient and safe method to get oil, right?

This is where the heart of the debate arises. Yes, fracking is efficient no one argues that; however, many argue that it is nowhere near “safe” for us or the environment. Hydro fracturing has many negative side effects according to environmentalists, pretty much all of which are denied by the Big Oil Companies. The millions of gallons of water pumped into the well during fracking is mixed with the oil and contaminated, they label this “produced water.” This water that is full of chemicals and oil is then left in pits to evaporate and produce harmful VOCs or seep into ground water that is used as drinking water for many people; also about 20-40% of this “produced water” and chemicals is just left in the well underground. This is the basis of the dispute with Big Oil Companies, who deny that any of this occurs.

IntroPost

Over the summer, HBO began airing its 2010 Summer Series of documentaries; one that I found particularly interesting was Gasland, a film by Josh Fox. This was right around the Deepwaters Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the public eye was focused down south; however, this documentary was centered in the Midwest. Josh Fox traveled the United States and dissected the practice and effects of drilling in the Midwest through interviews and information. I've seen the images of oil pumps in the blazing flat-lands of Texas and others states, such as the one at the top of this page; but I had never even heard of the spread of Big Oil Company drilling in the Midwest, the destruction and contamination they cause to the land and water, or the loopholes in government policies that allow this to happen.

My blog will focus on the who, what, where, when, why, and hows of this debate. Who is doing this and who is getting affected? What is small oil drilling and where is it happening? When did it start and why hasn't it stopped? How is the government knowingly allowing these companies to destroy the great American Frontier? I will examine these questions and both sides of the argument: the environmentalists that condemn this act and the corporate businessmen who control and instigate it. Through research, video and news postings, and examples I will dissect the practices of the Big Oil Companies and attempt to determine the correct stance on the issue. I aim to give my readers enough knowledge on the topic to have thier own opinions.

I hope you enjoy reading,
HB