Should Voters in PA Ban Fracking?

Hell yes!!!!!!

Fracking pollutes the water table and causes earthquakes!!!

We don't need the gas or the oil for the next 100 years!

I didn't say Oklahoma

I can't wait to vote tomorrow. I might write in Lyn's name...

Press hard so that even the blind fracking politicians can read it!

Beware those fracking "chads" (wink,wink)!

This is a decision that must be made by Pennsylvania residents, a ban would be a tremendous economic blow to an already suffering economy.....

http://www.sbnonline.com/article/2016-looks-strong-and-steady-for-pennsylvanias-economy/

The Bakken boom in North Dakota has gone real well for them. It now is in decline, the state is in budget cutting mode, and the roads in western ND were busted up by overweight traffic at high volumes.

It did help their economy for a very short time, which now will take years to recover from. The previous oil boom pre fracking, where they never sealed the holes with concrete, has left the water table with hydrogen sulfide gas, so the water is undrinkable.

My sister and BIL live near Watford city. So my info is second hand.

It's lucky the citizens are in control to vote this. But I bet the propaganda paints many lies.... both ways.

Yes but it's still operating, imagine if it stopped cold....Maybe TCM will weigh in on this...

Actually, we not in as much of a decline as everyone thinks.

Although drilling and fracking have slowed down to a crawl the behind the scenes infrastructure work has never slowed down one bit.

Pipeline installation and related systems from well to shipping center or out of state pipeline are running at maximum capability ,rural water system too, and have been since day one. Same with road improvements.

On the national news we may look like nothing going on but as someone who live here I see all the truckloads and trainloads of materials for this stuff coming in every time I am in town.

The largely unseen intent we are pushing for is that when the time comes to start pumping again all we have to do is turn on the pumps and open the valves to be running at near 100% capacity on a much-improved and capable infrastructure system that unlike in the first round, this time will be far more capable and up to handling the load.

So when they turn the pumps on, and the next morning Pookipsiee vanishes into a giant sinkhole that becomes a lake as the fracking fluids seep up into it, the oil companies will be able to pat themselves on the back for all their 'efficiency improvements' during the downtime?

(Nothing personal TCM, it's just that we're getting a lot of evidence that fracking is NOT good for the area being fracked up, the short-term local benefits dry up quickly, and only the oil companies see any long-term benefits.)

What evidence? I keep asking for solid verifiable accounts of real proof that links any legally and lawfully done by code frack work to anything and so far I keep getting nothing but misdirected and irrelevant links to thing that do not have any actual direct relation to any actually proven anything.

Lyn says a rich oil guy want to shut down fracking because it's wrong. Nope turns out he want to keep a water tower and it's related traffic away from his rich man's house.

Then he says that they are responsible for a ground water contamination that turns out came from something that was done 35 years before fracking was invented that happened at a source location where there is not even an oil well at.

Then I am told there are links between things yet I see the EPA themselves can't even correlate anything between legal by code frack work and groundwater contamination.

What has been established is that disposal wells can and do trigger some seismic activity yet no one is willing to acknowledge that disposal wells were in place and in use decades before fracking was invented and that even if fracking is outlawed they will still be there disposing of the waste water that comes from whatever type of oil wells or industrial process there are in the area.

Simply put secondary/tertiary/etc system failure and accidents are not the same as primary focus of subject system failure.

Oh yea and fracking does not make sinkholes. It puts material into the ground not takes it out!

To fix an ailing economy, you need sustainable solutions that stand the test of time and provide a foundation to build future growth on.

Trust me... after many years of managing capital investment projects building up manufacturing infrastructure in the Oil and Gas Sector - it created a ton of jobs... until the downturn. Now tons of new hotels, restaurants, and manufacturing facilities are damn-near empty. Those with marketable skills that transcend industry have left for work elsewhere... everyone else... suffering. Why? Because the jobs were Upstream Jobs (E&P), as soon as the drilling stops - Upstream jobs are gone, in an instant.

"You have a weak economy, here is a short-term solution that in the long-term will destroy the countryside, and the very economy it helps at first."

When the patient dying of slow blood loss, you don't treat it with an injection of cyanide.

I think PA residents should learn the facts about what is being done below their feet before they go and make any decisions about what is or is not a danger to them.

PA oil shale info.

Simple fact all of their water tables that are and ever will be used are within the first 1000 feet of depth whereas the Marcellus oil shale formations they are fracking in are over 4000 to 7000+ feet down and on top of that there are multiple layers of impermeable formations between the oil shale and the deepest water tables.

That said if they want t shut down fracking heck yea go for it! It will push the industry back up to my state and I can go back to making my 6 digit income for doing something I really enjoy!

Big deal! They will still pump every gallon and cubic meter of oil and gas up THROUGH all those aquifers.

"Turst us, It'll be fine" won't clean up the groundwater after a casing or 50 are breached.

WE DON'T NEED THE FRACKING OIL!

Big oil doesn't need the fracking money.

They still can make improvements without banning operations all together....others have...

https://barryonenergy.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/texas-railroad-commission-approves-new-standards-for-well-construction/

SE post was Texas. This is Pa.

No, I've never fracked a fracking well, never intend to.

There's two side to every legal situation and lawyers will profit, no matter who is right.

Just because you were paid by a fracking company, you may not have gotten the whole story. You were too far down the food chain to need to know the real truth.

The company I worked for had districts in both places and every action and procedure we used was industry standard. Canada, North Dakot, Pennsylvania, Texas, colorado wherever. The same rules and requirement on how a well was drilled and how it was developed and monitored were the same.

To be honest, when things were going good here our district was stealing every spare piece of equipment that we could pull from PA and TX and the only changes we had to make was updating the individual rigs IP addresses so that their equipment would be able to talk to our district's systems. (well, that and fix all the broken crap they sent us.)

At least in the company I worked for and those who we cooperated with on crossover jobs.

As far as where I was in the food chain how much more do I need to be if I was sitting in on every onsite meeting that occurred over any malfunction or procedural change that happened and when the big wigs were not there I had full backing that if I ever saw something out of compliance I could call for a full well site shut down to deal with it.

If something happened on our site I and everyone else there was informed about it. It was a standard rule. If the inner most work string burst through to the annulus I knew it before the company men did. If something leaked that wasn't supposed to leak on purpose I not only knew it I was probably standing in the puddle with 10 other guys working on finding the cause and the fix.

Yes and they typically drill the first few hundred to several thousand feet past the deepest potable water reserves using nothing but fresh water drilling just like a water well driller uses then grout that outer casing in tight just like a water well driller does before ever putting a drop of actual oil well drilling fluids or chemicals down the hole.

Before I did frack work I ran on a super vac truck crew for a few months of which I spent most of my days on drilling rigs doing clean up so while I was there I asked a lot of questions about the how and why of what goes into making that hole in the ground.

So in all honesty until they have long past the depth of the deepest usable water reserve and grout sealed that outer casing in tight that oil well hole is nothing more than a really big really deep water well hole without the perforations in the casings to let water in.

Just as SE's diagrams show.

And don't forget that those of us who have any experience in the actual industry are all paid to go around lying to everyone about the what and hows of what our jobs entail.

Does anyone believe that a guy like me could have made a 6 figure income doing actual work? Come on!?!

You are free to believe what you want.

Exxon Mobil CEO Sues to Keep Fracking Project Away From

Just don't try to tell me fracking is harmless and good for me.

I did read it when it was fresh. In its entirety. From more than one source.

Fracking is fracking. Why would a fracking oil CEO try to kill a fracking support operation if he's all for fracking? He's a fracking hypocrite, that's why.

Your zealous defense of an indefensible position is typical of those who want desperately to believe the unbelievable.

Thanks for the reminder. I found these three little beggars PLAYING in my front yard!

I took the picture just for you.

I'd yell at them and run them off, but one of them lives here and the other two are over all the time. I even let them swim in the pool.

Of course he doesn't want the sweaty laborers driving their noisy trucks next to his $5 million dollar estate.

That's my point. "I'm rich and I don't want any dust or noise. Put it down the road where the field hands live."

Fracking is bad. 40 years from now, we'll be dead and the water pollution and earthquakes will still be happening if not strictly regulated and controlled.

We all know that money buys politicians, and politicians don't care about field hands, or you, or me, or water quality.

I'm tired of this and have to go drown children in the back yard.

What part of it exactly is bad? So far there have been no proven links between fracking and water contamination that I have ever heard of that didn't come from illegal operations and procedures.

I live in frack land USA and no one here has ever had any earthquakes from it nor has anyone ever been able to link any type of ground water contamination to a modern legal and lawfully done fracking or oil well job of any kind.

If you say its so bad I want proof of what make you see it that way.Noanecdotalal, second, third hand and or media repodted nonsene that has no documented validity such as you last link the guy who you said didn't want fracking near his land.

The story makes itself pretty obvious and clear that he doesn't want the water tower and the related trafic and noise but has no say in that so he is trying to shut down the industry that would be using it to prevent its construction.

Now as far as earthquakes go even the majority of that is being questioned due to the simple fact that the more powerful and most potentially damaging ones in locations that are doing frack work are occurring thousands of feet to miles deeper than any of the frack work is being done at.

Here's what the USGS itself says about the link.

USGS report on Fracking VS earthquake link.

And

USGS ongoing research

So far the overall findings are that the link between the two is very weak at best and only appears to be of any marked notation in a few very specific locations. Anomalies plausibly correlating to fracking not standard reactions.

Can fracking cause earthquakes? Well in very specific conditions and instances yes it can. How bad? Well not significant.

Can fracking contaminate ground water? If the well was constructed against code or done entirely illegally then yes but in a properly done and legally maintained and serviced well no it has not ever happened. Potential for disaster is not proof of impending disaster.

To be honest even the nit pickers at the EPA have yet to be able to directly link any legally done to code fracking job to any specific probable groundwater contamination anywhere. Simply put they know exactly what went down the wells and have yet to ever find any traces of such chemicals that would suggest a physical path connecting the oil/natural gas formation to the above groundwater tables in any well that was built and operated to code.

EPA study of fracking and ground water.

Really?

Fracking doesn't cause earthquakes?

Fine! Injection wells do. Where does the water come from?

The Stork brings it. Let's see, it contains "A variety of chemicals-among them methanol, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide".

Injection wells, water towers? All direct products of fracking. No fracking, no water towers and far, far, far fewer injection wells and earthquakes.

Oh, and if I had enough time, I'd dig up some of the legislation passed to kill oversight of pollution caused by F******g. But, that's propaganda put out by tree huggers.

Tell it to the people who lived in Hinkley, California.

Big oil and our politicians don't give a damn about you or me or our children.

And how exactly do you equate a hexavalent chromium groundwater contamination from an improperly designed evaporation pond system built back in the early 1950's with the practice of fracking that didn't exist until the mid-1980's, some ~35 years later to something in a different state another ~30 years after that?

Seriously are you just tossing up random links to justify your stance?

To me your stance is very similar to those around here who own land but no mineral rights to that land (because years ago they sold their mineral rights to their 'worthless land' for easy money and those other fools at the time didn't) who now have an oil well in their area making everyone around them rich but them.

reminds me of a scene from my only favorite tv show "The Big Bang theory"

Where Howard and Sheldon try to stump each other on if Howard is smart enough.... I think its Season 8 Episode 2

Simple.

There's management and there's workers.

Management knows the real truth.

Workers know what management wants them to know.

Only a fool would believe that management tells the workers everything they know.

There is a problem with this. Telling the workers what the managers know at times may not be a simple task. A project alone may be only part of a larger project that's still in progress.

So what are you going to do, tell the worker about a project, that does not make sense because its only a part of a larger project, again leaving the workers bewildered with the attitude management don't tell us chi#. Or do you go on to explain what the next level of project, not always but may still not make a lot of sense ,... because its also a part of even a larger project that's still being developed.

Now there are skilled people out there, that concentrate on their work, because they know they can accomplish their work at hand with the information given without knowing the "BIG' picture, (At times it may help but at times the information just easy there, and why tell them information that may change and confused them even more.

There comes a time, that the work has to get done.

I worked for over 20 years in an environment where if you didn't have, "the need to know" you weren't told.

That was because we dealt with national and military projects that were secret and we knew, up front, that we would work in compartmented worlds.

I'm talking about withholding information, or providing false information because it is know to be a hazard somehow and if the workers knew the real truth the company might be sued. Like PG&E was.

Like I said, management knows and the workers know what management wants them to know.

There was a time that I also worked for a defense contractor.

What I'm talking about is working at an OEM in private industry on a new process line implementing new technologies.

Even though we have the goal set, and a loosely assembled plan to achieved those goals. (loosely means, anywhere along the way, I would at the very least have a plan 'B' if the original did work out) And that was difficult.

When this happens, we or I should say 'I' would talk to the fabricated on the goals and only approx. path how the goals can be achieved. Letting them know I can't go into details because of the unknowns.

There are those that think that's unacceptable. my reasoning behind it, is on the path to achieve the goals we have to develop the process along the way in steps. Also the project is being engineered concurrently or slightly ahead (sometimes behind fabrication, with verbal instructions, No blueprints or schematics. )

It all depends on if the stage we are at, what we designed will perform if it does, we move on to the following stage, if it doesn't perform we look at what we did, improve on it, or sometimes start over (plan 'B', or 'C',...).

At times, face to face communication was key.

It may appear to not be the best way, but with the customer that has the big check book with deep pockets and an seemingly unreasonable schedule to keep (the deep pockets offsets it), it actually is the best method.

As the engineering manager, it wasn't uncommon for me to arrive at work at 5:00 am, and leave at anywhere between 9:00 pm to 2:30 AM. until we have a secured the process that will perform.

Fortunately, I had a great set of designers and engineers working for me and a shop floor fabrication crew working for the over all good. Because they realize people are going to make a mistake, when it happens, we contain it, handle it and correct it before the becomes a problem that draws the attention of bean counters (or the owners nephews).

Because everyone knows, your could be the next guy that fouls up. There's a confidence level established, that there are people that will support you and correct it. The feeling is, or was, they did not want to let their co-worker down. It was a great feeling... and that why, at least my hours were long and hard.

This is just what I experience, it doesn't always happen that way, but it does happen

And to think, I thought it was politicians that go around BS'in

Oh yah.... Well,... you're a GA hog on this thread.... Be gone!... :P

in the end, it will be up to the voters of PA,... or anywhere else fracking is done.

I would vote to ban it..

So this isn't even a vote to ban fracking, just a referendum only on the Democrat ballot?

This is kind a pointless discussion then. The article implies it's not even a statewide referendum.

The 'up side' or fracking is that natural gas produces less CO2 than other fossil fuels. The increase in available natural gas has dramatically lowered fuel costs in general and for home heating in particular. Lower energy costs meaning lower prices for shipping and the production of goods, which in terms means lower prices for consumers of all goods (or at least, a reduced rate of price increase). Lower prices means the operating costs for most companies is lowered, decreasing the likelihood of layoffs. And for many areas that have been economically depressed for a long time, fracking has added thousands of jobs and taken people off the welfare rolls.

The 'down side' of fracking is a small increase in the numbers of (mostly) very low level earthquakes, and the pollution of groundwater. Both the USGS and the EPA have conducted studies of these problems and will continue to do so. The EPA did a long-term study that showed ground-water pollution has occurred in a few areas but is manageable and not a widespread problem. The USGS continues to study the earthquake problem, but has concentrated it's concern to Oklahoma and Texas.

IMHO, the up side greatly outweighs the down side, at least for Pennsylvania. I have family in PA but none has mentioned any concern about fracking. But, to each his own.

This being an issue only on the Dem side, I'd guess the Berniebots and many of the Hillarybots - who have nothing to gain or lose from a fracking ban - will vote in favor of referendum to ban.

I think its been a boon for America

made a game changer in the middle east.

We don't need the oil.

Big oil doesn't need the money.

Adapt or perish.

Your comment of.

We don't need the oil.

The extra oil supply I agree we don't need it, but fracking created this extra supply as well as give the US leverage against OPEC. Things may be different if the supply is gone, but the demand is still there.

The oil is now a liability, not an asset.

Billions of dollars were invested that will now go into default because wildcatters were spening like drunken sailors buying new rigs and leases, shippers put on extra capacity that now sits idle, the feeding frenzy that spawned new businesses and building will all fail and fall into ruin.

No Fredski, this was/is a bad deal for us.

People are whining because they can't pay for that new truck/boat/quad/house because the boom has gone bust!

The oil is now a liability, not an asset.

I agree,... there are a lot of machinery assets being sold..... I just wonder whose buying.

My brother worked the oilpatch during the last big boom.

Then, the boom went away.

He (and many, many others) adopted a new uniform:

The promise goes unfulfilled.

You talk like oil is going out of demand for good.....I don't think so....

Thank your lucky stars for this brief respite from high oil prices, it won't last forever...enjoy it while you can....

Never said that. Can you say glut?

I think ethanol development was just a response so we'd have 'something' like a second choice.

It seems that ethanol production from switch grass in south America not only looks to be a good fit but production itself is pretty efficient.

the farm lobby has extorted millions from us saps

the farm lobby and its subsidies they lobby for, that's a tough one.

Milk prices have been good for the dairy farmers the past few years @20.00+ /cwt, but now the EU put up 900 million (dollars or euro's???) to subsidize EU dairy farmers... I heard it on the radio on my drive into work a few weeks ago. I have to find a reference link

Now, prices will be dropping below 15.00/cwt with no sight of it rising. This is nothing new for the dairy farmer.

back in the 80's they received $9. and some change / cwt.... same price they receive back in the 70's.

I wonder how many complainers are willing to work for what they receive 20 years prior for the same amount of work. My guess is,... not many.

We don't get a choice in the ethanol debate. It's part of the Tier 3 and Tier 4 emissions bills and related EPA designed regulations package.

The farmers just happen to be the ones who can supply the source material for making the ethanol at this point and their primary drive is the same as everyone else's. They plant what guarantees to pay them the most.

If it takes from the food supply, Most of Americans including myself, could lose some weight.

Damned liberals! Don't you realize that big oil needs the fracking money this would have made them!

DEC rejects Constitution Pipeline

Yes, progressives don't want progress.

Don't worry, if the TPP gets signed by the US, then Big Oil can just sue the US in a private, corporation-friendly tribunal for all the money they expected to make from the pipeline.

That's even better for Big Oil's bottom line, they get their profits (and their legal fees paid for) without having to spend the money on materials, infrastructure, or labor. Wand a billion dollars? Don't build a pipeline through Lake Michigan, just draft up and publish the plans, and then sue all the states that complain about it. BAM! you get your money and don't even need to hire a pipefitter.

At my parents' house in New Hampshire they had to frack their 400 ft well to get water. They don't call it the Granite State for nuttin'. That was 30 something years ago.

and now all the oil wells in the area are contaminated with water..... right?

Cripes how deep, hard and wide did they frack those water wells? We have water issues oil wells all the way out here in ND!

In fact, I dare say that for every 3 - 4 million gallons of water we put down a well to frack it we get almost double that back in its working lifetime.

Does anyone have any idea how much perfectly good ground water is being wasted by it seeping down into oil wells?

lol...

Well, you know how they say you can't squeeze blood from a stone? Pretty much the same thing with water in NH granite. I don't think they had to frack it very wide, just enough to pull water for a 3 bedroom house. I think they went that far down into the rock to give it plenty of 'reserve'. Their house was up on the side of hill so I'm sure some of that 400 ft. distance was just to get down to the water table. Sparsely populated neighborhood. Minimum lot size was 4 acres per town zoning.

The oil industry can always go back to the old way, what they used in the middle of the 20th century - a good charge of nitro glycerin. Would that make everyone feel better. Oh - this stuff was transported across public highways to the well site in glass jars in an old pick up truck. Like that method a little better anti-frackers?????

After some more minimal digging I found this.

PA water disposal well development history..

Apparently up until around 1985 the standard procedure for Pennsylvania oil well drilling and following related work was to simply dump all their excess waste water and whatever else, drilling brine and chemicals, that came out of the well into the nearest waterway.

My guess would be that this is where the vast majority of their ground water contaminations from oil wells came from to begin with.

I would further venture that being the implementation and installation of disposal wells and the startup of earthquakes coinciding with the first wide use of fracking for oil all happening in the same basic timeframe is how one got blamed for the other.

We know disposal wells can and do cause earthquakes.

We know that fracking has not yet shown any direct correlation with earthquakes.

We also know that there are oil production based contaminants in the ground water.

We know that up until ~1985 the standard operation procedure for oil well work was to simply dump everything in the nearest body of water or hole available.

We have yet to find any of the same chemical makeups of what fracking ever did nor presently uses in said groundwater.

Maybe it's just me but I see a definite correlation to fracking not being the primary let alone likely cause of the probelms.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

You can hide a lot down hole.

Yes, and I think you own land that has oil under it that being pumped but no mineral rights to any of it.

Nope. I own the mineral rights to all the land I own.

None of it is for sale.

Thought I'd just leave this here:

http://www.chemeurope.com/en/news/157835/contamination-in-north-dakota-linked-to-fracking-spills.html?WT.mc_id=ca0262

Ah, yes, but some much needed regulation by the state's environmental group would cure that problem. Note that the contamination was from spills of transported fracking water. As one who lives right where fracking occurs regularly, I know how they do this - they put down some cheap massive rolls of PVC tubing and run it right along the single lane dirt roads leading into the site and to the holding pond on top of the ground. They can go for several miles literally right on the road berm. The amount of truck traffic is over whelming when they are fracking. A run over PVC tube is bound to happen, and quite often. They need regulations to require some protection of this tube, or require metal piping. Either one would eliminate this problem. IT IS CONTROLLABLE RIGHT NOW.

We have polluted aquifers here, and not from fracking - from general industry. THIS IS NOT CONTROLLABLE NOW Creeks are a minor problem compared to large aquifers. The pollution will pass from the creeks eventually. The aquifer is pretty much done for many many years once solvents leech into it. Note that aquifers get polluted from above, not from below as many anti-fracking fanatics think. Above an aquifer is very permeable soil, below is much less permeable rock formations. Don't single out one problem if you ignore larger ones. The big problem with the pollution of aquifers from industry, is it has already happened and now we can do nothing to stop it. The solvents are in the ground from many years of no regulations and can not be controlled anymore. Fracking water can be controlled now, before it gets to the ground, without stopping a vital source of energy in the near future. Check out Hoosick Falls, NY and a large section of WVa and Ohio near Dupont plants in the Parkersburg area. Now that is a large problem. That is not controllable now. That is not able to be remediated. Our aquifers here have TCE in them from many companies. That's not coming out for centuries. Ask for sensible simple regulations to stop the fracking water spills - but don't try to shut things down.

Yes. Our Condamine river is alight from gas bubbling up out of the river bed. Not to mention the poor health and worse. Queensland Australia. Land of droughts and flooding rain.