EPA Watchdog to Investigate Drilling Method

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Mar 17, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    Just a small story from the back pages to remind us who's in charge.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-halliburton17mar17,1,300476.story
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Hmmm... I wonder how fair corporations would feel these reports were if six of the seven members of the panel were from the Sierra Club. Would they feel like they were getting a fair shake?

    On a similar note, do we think the right-wing echo-chamber would be echoing profusely if Kerry had won and nominated someone who had made comments about a one-world government as an ambassador to the UN, nominated a Sierra Club lobbyist as head of the EPA, nominated Mr Mfume to head the World Bank, and sent Barbara Lee over to Iraq as our ambassador. Would they be complaining loudly, or would they just let it slide the way the left does with Bush's nominees?
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    I'm not a geologist. I've worked with quite a few, and I ain't iggerant, but IANAG.

    But: Coal bed methane sounds to me like a shallow formation. It's quite possible for such to be near an aquifer. Therefore I see "A sweeping energy bill backed by the Bush administration includes a provision that would exempt hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation." as a bummer.

    From what I know of the process, it's common for oilfield brines from played-out wells to be pumped down-hole in low-producing wells in adjacent areas to repressurize the oil-bearing formation and push some of the remaining oil toward other producing wells. Rough description, of course.

    "The liquids sometimes include hazardous chemicals, some of which remain in the ground."

    This is new to me; looks like a no-no to me. I'd like to know more about what chemicals, for one thing. And, assuming the usual oil/water separation at the field, what's done with the separated stuff? Pumped downhole again?

    Most oil wells today are much deeper than any recoverable-water aquifer. I'm dubious about any water wells deeper than 1,000 to 1,500 feet. Few oil wells are more shallow than 3,000 to 4,000 feet; the shallow stuff has long been discovered and "harvested". Even so, there is some potential for
    problems in some locations--and screwing up drinking water is dumber'n dirt.

    'Rat
     
  4. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #4
    I'll second that. Most people don't realize what the single greatest threat to drinking (well) water is:

    Concrete.

    Large sections of the east coast's aquifers are now so covered by impervious surfaces and erosion-control measures that almost no rain seeps through any more. At the same time more, and deeper wells are being cut which lowers the aquifer further and allows saltwater penetration at the coasts to reach further and further inland. Personally I'd love to see some more attention on the larger issue. We definitely can't be pumping sludge into the ground willy nilly but where's the uproar over short-sighted growth drying up the aquifers?
     

Share This Page