Hydraulic Fracturing: You are all dumb scardy cats

This from the Houston Chronicle

“It’s not going to help to keep saying we’ve done it for 60 years and no one’s ever proved” there’s a problem, Boling said. “The fact is, the public is concerned. They are fearful of what they don’t know.”

If only we were smarter and less fearful. I have to go through this one almost line by line. It’s just to rich to pass up.

Adversaries try to heal fracture over fracturing
Some activists, some in industry rethinking their antagonism over drilling method
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Both sides hope to gain by working together.

For environmentalists, it’s an opportunity to stiffen standards for a technique that is increasingly used nationwide and could help boost domestic supplies of a cleaner burning power source.

Burning is the only part of natural gas that is slightly cleaner than other fossil fuels, but the extraction and production process is so filthy and damaging that it cancels out anything gained by the slightly cleaner burn. According to a new paper by Cornell Ecology Professor Robert Howarth, fracking is not a cleaner alternative. “

Although natural gas, when burned, produces only about half of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal, that calculation omits greenhouse gas emissions from the well-drilling, water-trucking, pipeline-laying, and forest-felling that are part of the production of hydraulically fractured natural gas, Ecology Professor Robert Howarth argues in a new paper.
Reuter’s article

Back to the Chronicle article

For the industry, it’s a chance to counter a major PR problem that threatens to undermine support for domestic natural gas production through this method and could drive bans on its use.

It’s just a PR problem, folks. All that environmental stuff like burning water and bubbles that ignite is just fear induced hallucinations. All we need is some good old gassy education to help us see things their way.

Mark Boling, executive vice president of Southwestern Energy, said he hatched the idea for the collaboration because the current debate is becoming more polarized, with a fearful public not soothed by industry assurances that hydraulic fracturing has been safely used for decades.

Horizontal, high pressure, slickwater hydraulic fracturing is a very new process that is dramatically different from the vertical hydraulic fracturing that has been used for decades. Industry continues to repeat that lie in the hopes that we will eventually accept it as fact.

‘The public is concerned’

“It’s not going to help to keep saying we’ve done it for 60 years and no one’s ever proved” there’s a problem, Boling said. “The fact is, the public is concerned. They are fearful of what they don’t know.”

See, we just need to be smarter and accept their propaganda.

The broader discussions build on months of negotiations between Boling and Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser for EDF, over what is now a 40-page draft of possible regulations they hope can be a model for state officials.

Hmm, that name, Scott Anderson, rings a bell and that bell is playing the tune: “Loose lips sink ships.” Anderson is the guy who gave the On Point interview: http://www.eenews.net/tv/2010/10/27/

There are two things to note about this interview:

• Scott Anderson: Yeah, the states actually have a lot of knowledge and experience in regulating well construction and operation. We think that the states have every reason to be able to tackle this issue and do it well. We also think that if the states fail in that and the federal government has to take over, then the states will have no one but themselves to blame.

Texas is one of several states that has no specific regulation for hydraulic fracturing. Our regulatory agency was highlighted on Bill Moyers’ Journal for conflicts of interest and corruption. In Texas, we have little hope of ever having adequate state regulation of any drilling process. Leaving regulation up to the states is the same as condemning those of us in states where regulations are slanted toward industry to being left behind. Since drilling is now occurring in 34 states–over half of the nation–it makes sense to have this process regulated by the Federal EPA. It’s our only hope in Texas.

• After Anderson’s rather loose lipped On Point interview, industry grossly misrepresented his statements and twisted them into something completely different than what he intended. “EDF Senior Policy Advisor was utterly dismissive of the concerns about fracking” Now Anderson is asking us to trust and work with these same folks. Does that seem reckless and just downright stupid to anyone else? Isn’t that like the battered, abused woman who keeps going back to the abuser expecting that things will be different?

Back to the Chronicle article

The pair expects that a final proposal – which could be ready next year – will deal with a raft of subsurface issues, from the composition of fracking fluids to the integrity of underground wells.

For instance, the plan could propose that companies disclose more information about the chemical cocktails used in fracturing, force regulators to evaluate the geological formations at proposed wells and mandate better pressure monitoring.

The public must have FULL DISCLOSURE not “more information.” We will accept nothing less that FULL DISCLOSURE and FEDERAL REGULATION.

Anderson stressed that better well construction would prevent problems.

“As far as the underground aspect goes, hydraulic fracturing should be perfectly safe, if people get all the other stuff right,” Anderson said. That means the casing program for the well, the cementing and pressure management all need to be done properly, he added.

And if they don’t get “all the other stuff right” is that like saying rape me less often? It’s a HUGE gamble with our drinking water. I think they have proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to “get all the other stuff right.”

A former industry executive has quite a different opinion about hydraulic fracturing:

Former oil industry executive speaks about hydrofracking

Northrup says that the technique is akin to exploding a bomb underneath the ground and is an all around bad idea.

Back to the Chronicle article

Boling acknowledges the challenge is “formidable,” but notes that by focusing on well integrity issues, the discussions tackle “a familiar area for industry, and one where I think they would agree that as long as you do it right, most everything else takes care of itself.”

…and the other times, the ones where you do it wrong or have big oopsies, it will ruin your drinking water. But hey, no problem: “We’ll just invent some artificial water.” ~Splashdown

For now, both sides have agreed to disagree. Anderson said environmental advocates aren’t giving up their position on the issue, but added that the model regulations could work for regulators in many jurisdictions.

The question I have: Which side is Anderson on?

From the EDF website:

Mr. Anderson spent many years in the oil and gas industry prior to joining Environmental Defense Fund. He is the former Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO). He was the long-time Secretary of the LIAISON Committee of Cooperating Oil and Gas Associations and was previously a member of the governing Council of the State Bar of Texas Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Section.