5 fracking pages

[Edited on March 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2013 6:29:09 PM

near cup-a-joe there is a bumper sticker on a sign that says "STOP FRACKING"

I'm going to add "CYLONS" underneath it

3/20/2013 7:38:12 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/fracking-doesn-t-cause-significant-quakes-university-study-says.html

4/17/2013 8:29:24 PM

That's a pretty misleading headline, IMO

First of all they are defining a "significant" earthquake as less than a 5.0 (I think). That is fracking is unlikely to create an earthquake greater than a 5.0 - so it can still trigger earthquakes, just smaller ones (at least for now). From the article:

Quote :

"The Durham study of hundreds of thousands of fracking operations since 1929 found the process has the potential to reactivate dormant faults, the university said. “We cannot see every fault underground and therefore cannot completely discount the possibility of the process causing a small felt earthquake,” Davies said. “But there are ways to further mitigate against the possibility; the oil and gas industry can avoid faults that are critically stressed and already near breaking point.” "

It's also not clear if they are including waste disposal wells when they say "fracking wells." My understanding is that waste disposal wells have a much stronger link to earthquakes than fracking wells (ie. the recent tremor in Oklahoma that made headlines was due to waste disposal well not fracking). Unfortunately both these wells kinda go hand in hand (depending on the state)

4/18/2013 8:57:03 AM

oh lawd

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/02/2866836/fracking-giant-halliburton-nixes.html#storylink=cpy

Quote :

"After more than six months of congenial meetings, the N.C. Mining & Energy Commission was set to approve its first fracking rule Friday, perhaps the most important of all the safety rules the commission will write to protect the public and safeguard the environment. The standard spells out which chemicals fracking operators have to publicly disclose when drilling natural gas wells in North Carolina. But commissioners learned Thursday the proposal they had approved in committee in March is on ice. The problem: Fracking giant Halliburton has told North Carolina’s environmental regulators the rule goes too far. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is working to get the rule changed. The developments raise questions about the independence and integrity of the Mining & Energy Commission, a panel created by the state legislature last year to create safety rules for shale gas exploration."

5/3/2013 10:23:21 AM

haha, wow. such horseshit.

and "which" chemicals? it should be all chemicals.

or just no fracking at all. that would work.

[Edited on May 3, 2013 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

5/3/2013 10:32:27 AM

Quote :

"Fracking giant Halliburton has told North Carolina’s environmental regulators the rule goes too far. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is working to get the rule changed."

awesome.

5/3/2013 10:37:57 AM

I"m afraid that with the new governor, and the GA, and the appointed heads of DENR, they're going to have to change their name. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is going to be somewhat of a misnomer.

5/3/2013 11:36:56 AM

Department of Helping Land Developers and Mineral Rights Holders, DHLDMRH

needs some work

5/3/2013 11:45:46 AM

HEY GUYS THIS MURDER LAW GOES TO FAR, I CAN'T KILL WHO I WANT TO KILL. LET'S GET THIS CHANGED PLEASE.

5/3/2013 11:49:32 AM

What could possibly go wrong?

You can thank everyone who voted these assholes into the NCGA for putting the state on a dangerous path. This proves there is no real oversight.

5/3/2013 1:44:45 PM

Just got through watching gas land part two

Why anyone would want this in their state baffles me. People are fucking retarded though

7/11/2013 9:53:55 PM

Where did you come across that? I would be highly interested in seeing it.

Hydraulic Fracturing in NC makes little sense at this time other than it's a way for office holders to reward their oil and gas buddies before meaningful, national standards and regulations are made.

7/11/2013 10:19:37 PM

^it's on HBO right now

^^well you could start with it not being very factual...

7/12/2013 9:44:31 AM

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-production-causes-big-us-earthquakes-1.13372

Quote :

"Natural-gas extraction, geothermal-energy production and other activities that inject fluid underground have caused numerous earthquakes in the United States, scientists report today in a trio of papers in Science1–3. Most of these quakes have been small, but some have exceeded magnitude 5.0. They include a magnitude-5.6 event that hit Oklahoma on 6 November 2011, damaging 14 homes and injuring two people, says William Ellsworth, a seismologist at the US Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, and the author of one of the papers1. He says that the annual number of earthquakes record at magnitude 3.0 or higher in the central and eastern United States has increased almost tenfold in the past decade — from an average of 21 per year between 1967 and 2000 to a maximum of 188 in 2011. A second study2, led by Nicholas van der Elst, a seismologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, finds that at least half of the magnitude-4.5 or larger earthquakes that have struck the interior United States in the past decade have occurred near injection-well sites. Previous research has linked hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, at such wells to nearby quakes. But Ellsworth says that the controversial technique — which uses high-pressure fluids to shatter rocks and release trapped natural gas — has never produced an earthquake larger than magnitude 3.6. He believes that it is not fracking itself, but the disposal of waste water from the process by reinjecting it into adjacent rock that has driven the increase in the number of bigger quakes. Ground truth Only a fraction of the more than 30,000 such disposal wells in the United States seems to be a problem. One way to work out which areas might be at risk, says van der Elst, is to watch what happens after large earthquakes — magnitude 8.0 and higher — around the world, such as those that have afflicted Japan, Chile and Sumatra in recent years. Such events send waves rippling along the entire surface of the planet. At most well sites, these have little effect, but in a few cases they produce swarms of small tremors that are followed, months later, by larger, locally generated earthquakes. Van der Elst says that this type of seismic swarm might serve as a warning that an injection-well zone is on the verge of overloading its nearby faults, potentially producing a damaging earthquake. It is not a foolproof method. Ivan Wong, a seismologist and vice-president of URS Corporation, a consulting firm in Oakland, California, says that van der Elst's study is groundbreaking. But in some cases, he notes, well activity has induced large earthquakes without any warning swarms. Stephen Horton, a seismologist at the University of Memphis, Tennessee, says that suggests that injection wells may spawn earthquakes in at least two different ways. In another study published today3, earthquake physicist Emily Brodsky of the University of California, Santa Cruz, looked at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field, where water is injected into the southern end of California's San Andreas Fault, to be turned into steam by Earth's heat and used to drive electricity-generating turbines. Brodsky found that the rate at which water is lost during power generation is well correlated with earthquake incidence. Ultimately, such site-specific data will prove crucial in guiding decisions by well operators and regulators seeking to limit seismic risk, she says. "Without that, we’re stuck with vague generalities.”"

7/12/2013 10:15:44 AM

Oh hey, it's noted fossil-fuel-industry-waterboy TKE

7/12/2013 3:47:09 PM

What information specifically is TKE-Teg saying is incorrect in the film?

7/12/2013 11:15:28 PM

I'll be honest I haven't seen the second one. But my comments apply to the first one. Is the second way more factual?

7/15/2013 4:24:03 PM

^
any comments on the article i posted?

7/15/2013 4:30:07 PM

Quote :

"Only a fraction of the more than 30,000 such disposal wells in the United States seems to be a problem"

What's not to like about this?

Meanwhile, thanks to the natural gas (from fracing) boom the US is on the verge of being a net exporter of natural gas. Additionally we have the lowest natural gas prices in the world (or close to it) and that helps everyone, especially the poor and unfortunate, afford to keep their house warm in the winter.

Looking forward, it would be fantastic if we could take a step forward to convert (or have the option at least) to fuel cars in the US with natural gas. It is definitely feasible and would go a very long way towards energy independence and reliance on undesirable and unstable regions of the world.

[Edited on July 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM. Reason : clarification]

7/15/2013 4:41:24 PM

Start by getting states like South Dakota to stop wasting gratuitous amounts of natural gas then due to flaring.

7/15/2013 4:52:44 PM

^

7/15/2013 4:54:25 PM

Yeah whats up with that? Is there a specific legitimate reason for them to do that?

7/16/2013 8:34:38 AM

Because the shale oil currently holds a higher market value than the accompanying natural gas combined with South Dakota's "wild west" style of non-regulation. Companies are not required to capture the natural gas, so they just waste it all. Lovers of a free free market rejoice!!!!!1

7/16/2013 9:06:10 AM

facts like how the EPA lied when it said that fracking had never caused underground water pollution?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html?_r=0#document/p150/a28000

Quote :

"This is a 1987 report to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency that deals with waste from the exploration, development and production of oil, natural gas and geothermal energy. It states that hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, can cause groundwater contamination. It cites as an example a case in which hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminated a water well in West Virginia. The report also describes the difficulties that sealed court settlements created for investigators. "

or facts like how fracking can, indeed, cause biogenic methane to pollute underground water

http://general.mtstars.com/343759.html

Quote :

"Anthony Ingraffea, the D. C. Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University, whose research for more than 30 years has involved structural mechanics, finite element methods, and fracture mechanics: "Can drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing liberate biogenic natural gas into a fresh water aquifer?" His reply: "Yes, definitely. The drilling process itself can induce migration of biogenic gas by disturbance of previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults, or by puncturing pressurized biogenic gas pockets and allowing migration through an as-yet un-cemented annulus, or though a faulty cement job. The hydraulic fracturing process is less likely to cause migration of biogenic gas; however, the cumulative effect of many, closely spaced, relatively shallow laterals, each fracked (and possibly re-fracked) numerous times, could very well create rock mass disturbances that could, as noted above, open previously blocked migration paths through joint sets or faults.""

Dr. Ingraffea is highly regarded expert in fracking and generally thought of as an authority on the subject. In 2011, TIME Magazine named him one of its “People Who Mattered.”

there are half truths on both side but anyone with a brain can see how this can be bad for the environment. HOW can it be good? How can dumping all those chemicals into the ground be a good thing? please, prove that to me.

7/16/2013 10:21:51 AM

In regards to the second item, the EPA knows that too but the Obama administration didn't care

7/16/2013 10:29:46 AM

Quote :

"Because the shale oil currently holds a higher market value than the accompanying natural gas combined with South Dakota's "wild west" style of non-regulation. Companies are not required to capture the natural gas, so they just waste it all. Lovers of a free free market rejoice!!!!!1"

Well that's fucking retarded! Throwing money away, wtf

7/16/2013 1:19:14 PM

traditional oil drilling produces natural gas "waste" too... it's more economical to burn it off than to capture it because so little is produced compared to the oil the well produces.

I would think though that if they can separate it out well enough to burn it off, it wouldn't be a huge step to store it, or at least use that burning natural gas to produce electricity or something.

7/16/2013 3:35:57 PM

Oddly enough, Texas doesn't allow flaring. It seems like those poor, little, defenseless oil and gas companies still manage to compete somehow.

7/16/2013 4:52:23 PM

it's never made much sense to me to waste this stuff... but i don't even know if it would be feasible to collect/store the natural gas.

I'm guessing though that greenhouse gas-wise, it does make sense to burn it instead of just letting it out into the atmosphere? (since methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2?)

[Edited on July 16, 2013 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2013 5:49:39 PM

Quote :

"it's never made much sense to me to waste this stuff"

if you're familiar with economics, it makes perfect sense

7/17/2013 9:44:25 AM

The Gasland guy was on DemocracyNow the other day talking about gasland part II and he mentioned that methane (released by fracking) is a much worse in terms of greenhouse emissions than CO2.

For those who haven't seen part II yet, including myself, he mentioned that it would focus more on the industry's lobbying influence in government to further their agenda.

7/17/2013 1:19:53 PM

^^of course it's cheaper in some cases to burn it off. that's not what i meant. i understand why they do it. i meant from a natural resources perspective i don't understandlike that they do it.

7/17/2013 2:16:25 PM

Quote :

"The Gasland guy was on DemocracyNow the other day talking about gasland part II and he mentioned that methane (released by fracking) is a much worse in terms of greenhouse emissions than CO2."

the whole point of fracking is to get the methane (aka natural gas) out

7/17/2013 9:27:20 PM

lol

7/17/2013 10:50:29 PM

Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, but makes up a comparatively small percentage of the atmosphere. The greatest greenhouse gas, of course, is water vapor.

7/18/2013 9:41:16 AM

You don't want to go down that road.

7/18/2013 12:40:21 PM

hahahaha

7/18/2013 1:13:30 PM

http://www.wral.com/ap-study-finds-fracking-chemicals-didn-t-spread/12679986/

Quote :

"DEP to AP: Study: Fracking chemicals didn't spread Share 3 3 Twitter 0 0 print friendly By KEVIN BEGOS, Associated Press PITTSBURGH — A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press. After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said. Although the results are preliminary — the study is still ongoing — they are a boost to a natural gas industry that has fought complaints from environmental groups and property owners who call fracking dangerous. Drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected more than 8,000 feet below the surface, but were not detected in a monitoring zone 3,000 feet higher. That means the potentially dangerous substances stayed about a mile away from drinking water supplies. "This is good news," said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, who was not involved with the study. He called it a "useful and important approach" to monitoring fracking, but cautioned that the single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation. The boom in gas drilling has led to tens of thousands of new wells being drilled in recent years, many in the Marcellus Shale formation that lies under parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia. That's led to major economic benefits but also fears that the chemicals used in the drilling process could spread to water supplies. The mix of chemicals varies by company and region, and while some are openly listed the industry has complained that disclosing special formulas could violate trade secrets. Some of the chemicals are toxic and could cause health problems in significant doses, so the lack of full transparency has worried landowners and public health experts. The study done by the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh marked the first time that a drilling company let government scientists inject special tracers into the fracking fluid and then continue regular monitoring to see whether it spread toward drinking water sources. The research is being done at a drilling site in Greene County, which is southwest of Pittsburgh and adjacent to West Virginia. Eight new Marcellus Shale horizontal wells were monitored seismically and one was injected with four different man-made tracers at different stages of the fracking process, which involves setting off small explosions to break the rock apart. The scientists also monitored a separate series of older gas wells that are about 3,000 feet above the Marcellus to see if the fracking fluid reached up to them. The industry and many state and federal regulators have long contended that fracking itself won't contaminate surface drinking water because of the extreme depth of the gas wells. Most are more than a mile underground, while drinking water aquifers are usually within 500 to 1000 feet of the surface. Kathryn Klaber, the CEO of the industry-led Marcellus Shale Coalition, called the study "great news." "It's important that we continue to seek partnerships that can study these issues, and inform the public of the findings," Klaber said. While the lack of contamination is encouraging, Jackson said he wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched. He also noted that other aspects of the drilling process can cause pollution, such as poor well construction, surface spills of chemicals, and wastewater. Jackson and his colleagues at Duke have done numerous studies over the last few years that looked at whether gas drilling is contaminating nearby drinking water, with mixed results. None of them have found chemical contamination but they did find evidence that natural gas escaped from some wells near the surface and polluted drinking water in northeastern Pennsylvania. Scott Anderson, a drilling expert with the Environment Defense Fund, said the results sound very interesting. "Very few people think that fracking at significant depths routinely leads to water contamination. But the jury is still out on what the odds are that this might happen in special situations," Anderson said. One finding surprised the researchers: Seismic monitoring determined one hydraulic fracture traveled 1,800 feet out from the well bore; most traveled just a few hundred feet. That's significant because some environmental groups have questioned whether the fractures could go all the way to the surface. The researchers believe that fracture may have hit naturally occurring faults, and that's something both industry and regulators don't want. "We would like to be able to predict those areas" with natural faults and avoid them, Hammack said. Jackson said the 1,800-foot fracture was very interesting, but also noted it is still a mile from the surface. The DOE team will start to publish full results of the tests over the next few months, said Hammack, who called the large amount of field data from the study "the real deal." "People probably will be looking at the data for years to come," he said. ___ Follow Kevin Begos at https://twitter.com/kbegos"

7/19/2013 6:14:38 PM

DP

[Edited on July 19, 2013 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2013 6:17:34 PM

can I ask the stupid question of why they use chemicals in the first place as opposed to good ol' fashioned dihydrogen monoxide?

7/19/2013 7:47:09 PM

not a stupid question... most of it IS water and sand. There are other chemicals added (a very small amount) to help with an assortment of things...

Quote :

" Acids—hydrochloric acid (usually 28%-5%), or acetic acid is used in the pre-fracturing stage for cleaning the perforations and initiating fissure in the near-wellbore rock.[59] Sodium chloride (salt)—delays breakdown of the gel polymer chains.[59] Polyacrylamide and other friction reducers—minimizes the friction between fluid and pipe, thus allowing the pumps to pump at a higher rate without having greater pressure on the surface.[59] Ethylene glycol—prevents formation of scale deposits in the pipe.[59] Borate salts—used for maintaining fluid viscosity during the temperature increase.[59] Sodium and potassium carbonates—used for maintaining effectiveness of crosslinkers.[59] Glutaraldehyde—used as disinfectant of the water (bacteria elimination).[59] Guar gum and other water-soluble gelling agents—increases viscosity of the fracturing fluid to deliver more efficiently the proppant into the formation.[56][59] Citric acid—used for corrosion prevention. Isopropanol—increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid.[59]"

7/19/2013 7:59:31 PM

How many wells was that study based on? On paper its absolutely fine, the issue is that there is almost no oversight in regards to well construction so the danger is wells not built to specification or concrete failing. If everything is done correctly, it should be fine, bit its a bog problem of it isn't.

7/19/2013 10:07:22 PM

^^ You should also list the plethora of toxic chemicals that companies have gone to great lengths to keep secret citing intellectual property...oh wait...

7/19/2013 10:38:44 PM

http://www.wral.com/biggest-potential-change-to-fracking-law-not-in-fracking-bill/12682559/

Quote :

"Biggest potential change to 'fracking' law not in bill By Mark Binker and Laura Leslie Posted: 4:26 p.m. yesterday Updated: 5:36 p.m. yesterday Tags: Fracking RALEIGH, N.C. — House and Senate lawmakers have worked out their differences over a bill that will make dozens of changes to the state laws governing natural gas drilling. That bill abandons several provisions that had troubled environmental watchdogs, but it does not include the most controversial drilling law the legislature is likely to pass this session. Senate Bill 76, dubbed the Domestic Energy Jobs Act, makes dozens of tweaks to how the Mining and Energy Commission and Department of Environment and Natural Resources will regulate natural gas drilling. It no longer contains language that would have cleared the way for disposing of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling processes – better known as "fracking" – by injecting them into the ground elsewhere. That had drawn objections from lawmakers representing the coastal plains of the state, where residents feared they would become a dumping ground for waste generated by drilling rigs in the Piedmont. The bill also maintains the current timeline for issuing drilling permits. Current law requires that the Mining and Energy Commission finish drafting rules to govern the fracking process and that the legislature vote on the rules before permits are issued. Earlier drafts of the bill would have removed the requirement for a legislative vote and allowed for a pre-permitting process. Elizabeth Ouzts, state director for Environment North Carolina, said the bill still "focuses on dirty energy sources of the past – oil and gas – which will threaten our drinking water, our rivers and lakes." But, she said, the new bill is better than it predecessors from an environmental advocate's perspective. "Our biggest critique and concern about the previous version of the bill was that it lifted our moratorium on hydro-fracking," Ouzts said. "This version appears to leave the moratorium in place. That's a tremendous improvement, and I think we have the House leadership and (Rep. Mike Stone, R-Lee) to thank for that." Other environmental groups sounded a similar note. "On balance, we're encouraged," said Molly Diggins, state director for the Sierra Club. Still, there are a few specifics in the bill with which that she and other environmentalists are unhappy. "It’s disappointing that the public’s right to know what the price tag of an oil and gas program is has been hampered," Diggins said, referring to a provision that exempts the bill from the normal cost analysis that measures requiring spending undergo. Disclosure provision is part of another bill However, Diggins and others say the most important provision dealing with fracking is nowhere to be found in Senate Bill 76. Rather, a new law that would limit what the public can find out about the chemicals used in the fracking process has hopscotched through a series of "regulatory reform" bills, the latest version of which, House Bill 74 cleared the Senate on Friday. In a fracking operation, companies drill into shale rock where gas is lodged, and a mix of chemicals, water and sand are forced into the well to crack the rock and access the gas. The specifics of that chemical mixture, which companies consider to be a trade secret, is the focus of the disclosure provisions. House Bill 74, which now goes to the House for a potential final vote next week, says that drilling companies must at least temporarily disclose their specific chemical mixtures to DENR and the Mining and Energy Commission – but not to the public. Rather, the industry will be able to post the chemical "families" of some of the ingredients for their fracking recipe but won't have to post the specific chemicals if they are deemed a trade secret. That lack of public disclosure did not sit well with Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, during debate on the measure. "Certainly, we can craft something which would allow them to have those chemicals disclosed in a way that does not jeopardize the trade secrets but protects my constituents," Kinnaird said. "I’m not satisfied, nor are my constituents, that this is a safeguard." Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, advocated for the measure. "We don’t really need to know the formula. We don’t know the secret formula for Coca-Cola, even though a lot of people drink it," Newton said. "It isn't important that we know what’s in it." Diggins said that analogy doesn't hold. "Using the Senate's Coca-Cola analogy, if the use of high fructose corn syrup is a trade secret, the public might only know that a sweetener is used," she said. Newton told his colleagues that Jim Womack, the chairman of the Mining and Energy Commission, is comfortable that the bill as written would allow the commission to write effective rules. "The fear-mongering and the 'sky is falling' mentality of the radical environmentalists on this point is simply not founded," Newton said. Reviewing trade secrets Womack said Newton was mostly right when he said that the commission did not have a problem with the language in the bill. Prior versions of the disclosure language "really tied our hands," Womack said. Those earlier bills would have prevented the commission or environmental regulators from demanding any disclosure of chemical mixtures drilling companies deemed to be trade secrets. The provision in House Bill 74, which allows the commission to continue writing rules for disclosure and review the chemicals being used, is better that prior versions of the bill, he said. "We should have some general latitude for the commission to review what is being claimed as a trade secret," Womack said. The language in House Bill 74 would say the commission could not "take possession" of the trade secret information but could review it. "What we cannot abide is that we cannot see what is a trade secret at all," he said. That's because environmental regulators need to know what chemicals companies use in case a problem is discovered down the road or a chemical used in the process is later determined to be dangerous to human health. "You don't know what you don't know about the environment," Womack said. If the state doesn't "take possession" of the specific chemical mixes used in the fracking process, how will regulators track down those responsible for problems later? "We'll work that out," he said. "We will have a way to regenerate what was approved by the commission. ... This bill will give us enough discretion to write the rules so that we can ensure the public safety." Diggins and others are not so sure. Those rules make it impossible for outside watchdog groups to track the industry, she said. She pointed to a blog post by Robin Smith, an environmental lawyer and former DENR assistant secretary. Smith writes that having only the temporary ability to review chemicals does not allow regulators to act in case of some future problem. "While that approach may make the industry more comfortable, it will make it very difficult for DENR staff to have the information needed to provide adequate oversight for drilling operations – a problem that would be compounded over time by staff turnover," Smith wrote. "Allowing a DENR staff person to see the list of fracking chemicals when fracking begins does not ensure the availability of that information to staff five years later.""

the part I bolded seems like a positive... from what i've read that was the worst contamination danger in the process.

7/20/2013 3:37:23 PM

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/11/texas-tragedy-ample-oil-no-water

Beverly McGuire saw the warning signs before the town well went dry: sand in the toilet bowl, the sputter of air in the tap, a pump working overtime to no effect. But it still did not prepare her for the night last month when she turned on the tap and discovered the tiny town where she had made her home for 35 years was out of water.

"The day that we ran out of water I turned on my faucet and nothing was there and at that moment I knew the whole of Barnhart was down the tubes," she said, blinking back tears. "I went: 'dear God help us. That was the first thought that came to mind."

Across the south-west, residents of small communities like Barnhart are confronting the reality that something as basic as running water, as unthinking as turning on a tap, can no longer be taken for granted.

Three years of drought, decades of overuse and now the oil industry's outsize demands on water for fracking are running down reservoirs and underground aquifers. And climate change is making things worse.

In Texas alone, about 30 communities could run out of water by the end of the year, according to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

8/12/2013 6:49:34 PM

The LoneSnark types don't care about that reality because they will contend that the oil is more marketable than fresh water despite the unassailable fact that water=life.

8/12/2013 7:44:49 PM

i just dont get how anyone would want this in their state.

its not fucking safe no matter what kind of spin you put on it.

i will not live in an area that looks like this:


here is your water









so pretty, right?

8/12/2013 8:09:08 PM

http://ecowatch.com/2013/colbert-fracking-gag-order-children/
Watch the video at the bottom of the page after clicking the link.

8/17/2013 9:56:06 AM

Forced pooling getting a lot of scrutiny here in NC (thank god). Looks like the commission is using some common sense about it, one of the benefits of taking the crafting of fracking regulations slowly.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/27/3142165/compulsory-pooling-on-table-for.html

8/28/2013 10:42:48 AM