The EPA administrator admits that fracking is not a threat to groundwater.
I think that natural gas is going to get very cheap, and here in California, I expect electricity prices to continue to go crazy, particularly with the batshit new carbon law. Probably time to invest in a gas heater for the spa. I think it would pay for itself in a year. In fact, I might look into a gas generator, and not just for emergencies. I’ll probably have to hide it from the carbon police, though.
This will not keep BHO from trying to restrict it, anything to drive fossil fuel prices through the roof…
I have no interest, but I talk to some of their employees at the office “neighborhood” bar (McMenamins CPR)-
http://www.clearedgepower.com/
Gas powered fuel cell tech
I looked into a natural gas generator too a while back, for the same reason. Turns out that with reasonable piston-engine and generator efficiencies, you could generate your own electricty for about 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, give or take – IF you could buy the gas at wholesale, which seems to have settled down at around $4 per mcf.
Alas, at the as-delivered utility price here in Phoenix, it’d be about 40 cents per kwh. Oops. Nice markup you got there, Southwest Gas…
As long as:
(a) install the well casing and grouting correctly so as NOT to contaminate the groundwater
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110517/NEWS11/110517027/Updated-Pa-DEP-fines-Chesapeake-1M
(b) install proper containment facilities at wellheads when drilling in case of a blowout
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110125/NEWS01/101250370/Pa-fracking-blowout-spews-fluid-onto-state-forest-lands
(c) install appropriate equipment to clean water when wells are contaminated
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20101216/NEWS01/12160411/Dimock-water-settlement-leaves-town-divided
Oh, and no Gas for any state that doesn’t allow drilling for oil/gas in their area – Let’s see those wells go up off the costs of California and Florida!
There is a difference between the statement “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,”” and the paraphrase “fracking is not a threat to groundwater”.
Consider the difference between “I’m not aware of any proven case of a tsunami leading to radioactive contamination” and “nuclear reactors sited where they are vulnerable to tsunamis do not present a risk of radioactive contamination.”
The first statement is perfectly true if issued far enough in the past, but the second does not follow from the first.
They did turn Dunkard Creek brackish and basically kill it by improperly disposing of brine water a couple of years ago but that is not the fault of fracking, it is the fault of piss-poor planning for brine disposal.
Dunkard Creek & Monongahela River
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09277/1002919-113.stm
What apparently tipped the balance, however, was the drilling wastewater that nine sewage plants were discharging into the river. Only one of those plants had a permit amendment to accept drilling wastewater.
Crooked politicians & sewer plant operators looking the other way?
I really doubt that any amount of fracking would be worse than normal surface operations. Here in Kentucky it’s pretty common to find out that a bulldozer operator at a surface mine decided to drain all his old hydraulic fluid directly into a town’s water reservoir.
I doubt it was greed, I simply doubt the plant operators had a clue what they were doing when they took it. I have a very, very good understanding how a WWTP operates and basically all you can do with brine water is dilute it. The bacteria that break down and partially gassify solids do nothing to chlorides in the water.
The Sewage Plants were the cause of the high conductivity in the Mon. It was unpermitted underground injection into voids in coal mines (too shallow for this purpose, hydraulically connected to the surface in places) that caused the fish kill in Dunkard creek, IIRC.
Now, they are recycling brine water on site and deep well injecting the rest well below the fresh water table at a handfull of wells across the region.
I am more concerned about stomwater management I.E. sediment control and slope stability issues in the pad area and access roads myself than groundwater contamination.
I simply doubt the plant operators had a clue what they were doing when they took it.
Only one of those plants had a permit amendment to accept drilling wastewater.
Ignorance is no excuse. They didn’t even even have a permit to accept the loads. So you’re saying that they didn’t know what was in the 53′ tanker trailer when it arrived at the plant? If they’re that stupid they shouldn’t even be operating the plant.
Plant operators are required to get a plethora of permits in the Commonwealth with DEP crawling all over them if they don’t fill them all out. They KNOW they are not to accept anything w/o being permitted for it. Treatment plants complain when a honeysucker shows up with a high greywater to blackwater ratio load with a out-of-spec pH.
So using “ignorance” as a defense is just horse-hockey.
Henry: Turns out that with reasonable piston-engine and generator efficiencies,
It looks like the Clearedge systems use a fuel cell. Fuel cells can operate at much higher efficiencies than piston engines because they are not heat engines and they are not limited by the Carnot cycle efficiency. According to this table, 70% efficiencies are common. My questions would relate to what the upfront costs are, and what the ongoing maintenance costs are. But I haven’t run any numbers….
I’m in the business. We (my company) have NEVER contaminated a water well or reservoir when fracking (yes, that’s how we spell it). That is drilling hundreds of them. I would know.
I used to develop ordnance for fracking, and the “controversy” was just emerging. The depth of these operations is so extreme that contamination of water supplies is almost an inconceivable occurrence. The industry nevertheless takes such risks seriously, and puts a lot of money into R&D to determine risks and mitigation. But it’s one of those things where laymen have no frame of reference, because the fracking occurs in a place no one can see, and few can imagine. Scaremongers can get away with anything…
There is a difference between the statement “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,”” and the paraphrase “fracking is not a threat to groundwater”.
Consider the difference between “I’m not aware of any proven case of a tsunami leading to radioactive contamination” and “nuclear reactors sited where they are vulnerable to tsunamis do not present a risk of radioactive contamination.”
Consider who is saying it. A TEPCO spokesperson say the above would make a much weaker case than an anti-nuke activist saying the same thing. The reason is that we expect certain people to make the best or worst cases of everything. In the case above, when the EPA under Obama can’t demonstrate, despite several years of opportunity, that fracking has contaminated groundwater, then that’s effectively saying that it doesn’t.
Ignorance is no excuse. They didn’t even even have a permit to accept the loads. So you’re saying that they didn’t know what was in the 53′ tanker trailer when it arrived at the plant? If they’re that stupid they shouldn’t even be operating the plant.
Some plants pay so little, they take anybody who meets the minimum qualifications. Almost McDonalds wages to run a sewage plant. You get what you pay for. Pay peanuts, get monkies.
Plant operators are required to get a plethora of permits in the Commonwealth with DEP crawling all over them if they don’t fill them all out. They KNOW they are not to accept anything w/o being permitted for it. Treatment plants complain when a honeysucker shows up with a high greywater to blackwater ratio load with a out-of-spec pH.
So using “ignorance” as a defense is just horse-hockey.
Yep, NOV’s, Compliance and Penalty Orders. Have written many. Ignorance is no excuse but it happens. I don’t give it a pass but it happens. Again, put a guy with mininmal credentials in charge because you won’t pay a competetive wage and this is what happens….
And they tend to understand honeydipper=bad because the previous operator told them it does. They do tend to understand BOD strength and the fact that putting that much anerobic waste into the aerobic biology of the plant at one whack is like going from 50 to reverse in the blink of an eye. Not good.
Larger plants can be real amazing operations but some of the broke municipalities barely retaining thier charter after they have lost 3/4ths of their population in 30 years can be spit, prayer and biling wire. Mostly prayer of those three. Some plants are so old they can’t get spare parts like seals and bearings. I can tell you where a trickling filter sits idle because the bearing pack is no longer made and they can not afford to replace the arm. The plant was designed before Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valenz and the Big Bopper crashed and built before Kennedy delivered his ‘Man on the Moon’ speech.
There is a difference between the statement “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing,”” and the paraphrase “fracking is not a threat to groundwater”.
It would be nice if the burden of proof for environmental damage claims was the same as for criminal justice, that is, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Today, I get the impression that the system works like this:
Environmentalist: “Fracking affects groundwater!!!”
EPA to drilling company: “Prove it doesn’t.”
Drilling company: “How do I prove a negative?”
EPA: “Spend lots of money and take years to show no impact.”
Years later, there is no evidence of impact.
Environmentalist: “Fracking causes birds to die, or something.”
EPA to drilling company: “Prove it doesn’t.”
Lather, rinse, and repeat until money is donated to the enviromentalist outfit and they quit filing complaints.
In a sane world:
Environmentalist group: “Fracking affects groundwater.”
EPA to environmentalist group: “Prove it does.”
Is this another of your predictions I can put with your pronouncements about the oil price being too high back at $48 a barrel?
Thought so.
The thought of Obama until 2016 and the current republican field must be really really winding you up be ause you’re posting more nonsense than usual.
Bye!
Daveon, you are an arrognat and cowardly little prick. Whay not pick a still active thread and run your fecal orafice?
BTW, Rand is 100% right, Nat Gas is going to get way over-supplied and hence cheap in the next few years. I am close enough to the industry to see it.