Comments on: Fracking: A Tale of Two Countries

By: Carol Zuber Pittore

Carol Zuber Pittore — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:17:33 +0000

I am a graduate of Middlebury College and I find their support of the fracking pipeline to be the ultimate hypocrisy. I live in PA. Come see the fracking mess. My family has lived in Vermont since 1972 and we have all seen the real Vermont. Middlebury College is not real Vermont. Vermonters depend on tourism and the beauty of our state should be nourished and cherished.

By: Regina

Regina — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:51:21 +0000

No, BP’s spill wasn’t due to fracking, and I didn’t assert it was–rather, it was due to slipshod practices based on profit (the rig BP rented for that drilling disaster, the Deepwater Horizon, cost $1 million/day and they were running over budget and schedule).

If you’d like more information on how the rush to drill for gas pushes past what science knows about the limits of what aquifers and rock formations can handle, and how known limits are often ignored, I suggest Scientific American’s June 2012 cautionary story: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-fracking-wastewater-wells-poisoning-ground-beneath-our-feeth&page=5. A sample:
Regulators say redundant layers of protection usually prevent waste from getting that far, but EPA data shows that in the three years analyzed by ProPublica, more than

7,500 well test failures involved what federal water protection regulations describe as “fluid migration” and “significant leaks.”

Also, about chemical signatures of methane from drilling rather than any ambient sources:
*Finally, let’s not forget the 2011 Duke University study proving that drinking water wells near fracking sites have 17 times more methane than wells not located near fracking, and that this extra methane has a chemical fingerprint which shows it’s coming from deep drilling. Fracking operations have generated billions of gallons of radiation-laced toxic wastewater that weren’t managed properly and fracking has forced families to abandon their homes after they were poisoned by dangerous levels of arsenic, benzene and toluene.
More such information from January of this year: http://purewatergazette.net/blog/evidence-of-environmental-damage-caused-by-fracking-is-massive-january-13-2013/

As for natural oil seeps, yes, they can be significant in marine environments, due to natural releases. All the more reason not to add to them with the kind produced by inevitable human error.

View Less

By: Kristiaan Joseph

Kristiaan Joseph — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:02:47 +0000

Also, BP’s spill wasn’t due to fracking. I was referring to the method of drilling used to enhance recovery and I’m pretty sure BP’s intent wasn’t to lose their HC’s. Once again, while that was a terrible and unfortunate and hopefully-never-ever-repeated event, it’s not relevant to the question I laid out.

The 1.3 million gallon estimate: What’s the estimate for naturally-occurring seeps per year? And what were those effects and what did anyone do or report about it?

If fracking is bad, it’s bad. If it’s okay, then it’s okay. I am only interested in an accurate path to either conclusion.

By: Kristiaan Joseph

Kristiaan Joseph — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:43:24 +0000

As long as there’s proof that dead sheep weren’t a comparative occurrence before and there’s a direct link between cause of death to the chemical signature of the associated fracking material. These studies haven’t been conducted.Maybe someone should. Would be very compelling proof. Facts first, assumptions later.

By: Regina

Regina — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:45:25 +0000

“Also of further puzzlement, why would an oil/gas company want their precious hydrocarbon to escape to the surface?”

Maybe we could ask BP. Plenty of their precious hydrocarbons escaped to the surface because of slipshod practices in extreme environments. Why do any of the other numerous spills happen (1.3 million gallons annually from pipelines alone, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and that’s just routine spills, not major ones)?

Frankly. a farmer with dead sheep has a lot more credibility than any of the oil and gas PR flacks who make their livings denying the damages of fracking.

By: Kristiaan Joseph

Kristiaan Joseph — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0000

I work down in Houston now in oil and gas (I can already feel the disappointment from the Midd community). I get to hear both- often extreme- sides of the story, with fracking being a common subject. It is pretty exhausting and now I just ask for the facts that would make a complicated argument a lot more simplified.

For instance, what is the methane’s carbon signature pre and post drilling? What are the microseismic monitoring trend values for the area pre and post drilling? What are the water radioactivity readings pre and post drilling? Has the air been tested for methane? Why would methane just stop at the water table and skip the last few 100 meters to the

surface if it’s made it’s way all the way up from the very deep subsurface? Are faulty well casings just limited to hydrocarbon exploration wells only and not the thousands of water wells across the US?

Also of further puzzlement, why would an oil/gas company want their precious hydrocarbon to escape to the surface? The practice is to drill perpendicular to fracture direction to create a pressure differential for flow TOWARDS the well. Why are only methane and toxic chemicals making their way to the surface then?

Most importantly, what’s the geology of the area?

There are observations made but they are not scientifically linked to fracking. If these questions were answered, I’m happy to concede but not to something that has echoes of “Gasland”.

I will admit we do a terrible job at educating the community with the facts that we have on hand. However, there are open sources of geology and geophysics literature readily available for anyone wanting further edification on the issue.
(Feb. 2012, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development” by Charles G. Groat, Ph.D., Principal Investigator. Also see: http://fracknation.com/)

View Less

By: Jeff Noordsy

Jeff Noordsy — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:50:57 +0000

While it is true that Vermont has banned fracking the current governor (along with business interests including Middlebury College) apparently have no problem supporting fracked Canadian gas running through Vermont on its way to International Paper in New York. The small communinities of Monkton, Ferrisburgh, Cornwall and Shore face irrevocable changes in their landscape and identity while being offered NO access to the gas as it makes its way to IP. Historic homes, public trees and overall public safety are greatly endangered as VT Gas (a subsidiary of Canadian owned Gaz Metro) runs roughshod over Vermont taxpayers. It has been proposed that these transmission lines (carrying fracked Canadian gas) could run within SEVERAL FEET of homes, making

them inherently worthless. The ban on fracking within the state is a move to be applauded but Vermonters still face the ugly pressures of having fracked Canadian gas threatening their health and homes.

View Less