New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is Fracking Bad?

Zam-Zam

Senator
Asking for a friend...


Harris also pushed back on scrutiny over her changing policy positions on issues like energy and immigration, insisting in perhaps the interview’s sharpest moment that she had long ago changed her mind on the politically sensitive topic of a fracking ban.

Despite supporting a ban in 2019, Harris said Thursday that she had reversed herself the next year and would never again support an end to the practice.

“I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking, as vice president I did not ban fracking, as president I will not ban fracking,” she said. “I’m very clear about where I stand.”



Kamala Harris goes all in on fracking in testy interview exchange - POLITICO


Or maybe it was just bad in 2019, but it's all good now.
 
Drill baby drill - you asked if Fracking is bad so......Fracking is good as long as it isn't near me - amiright?

Fracking has negative environmental impacts, including:

Leaking millions of tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Airborne hydrocarbons causing health and respiratory issues.

Large water consumption, leading to contamination and affecting local groundwater.

Pollution of surface water and impairment of wild landscapes.

Threats to wildlife.




Fracking fluid is a mix of water, chemicals, and solid particles used to penetrate and fracture underground rock. The EPA has identified over a thousand different chemicals that have been used in fracking fluid, and many are considered harmful to human health. Other ingredients are considered trade secrets and are not revealed to the public.


Fracking and Water Quality
Fracking uses large amounts of water and releases toxic chemicals into the surrounding water table. Each well consumes a median of 1.5 million gallons, according to the EPA, adding up to billions of gallons nationwide every year.

Not only does this reduce the amount of water available for drinking and irrigation, but it also threatens to pollute local sources with contaminated wastewater.

Fracking has also been blamed for seismic activity. Following the boom of hydraulic fracturing, the number of tremors has risen dramatically, especially in areas with frequent drilling. Following the completion of drilling operations, the resultant waste fluids are often disposed by injecting them into deep wells, at pressures high enough to cause damaging earthquakes. The largest earthquake attributed to wastewater disposal was an M5.8 Earthquake near Pawnee, Oklahoma.
11
US Geological Survey. "Does the Production of Oil and Gas from Shales Cause Earthquakes? If so, How Are the Earthquakes Related to These Operations?"
 
Drill baby drill - you asked if Fracking is bad so......Fracking is good as long as it isn't near me - amiright?

Fracking has negative environmental impacts, including:

Leaking millions of tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Airborne hydrocarbons causing health and respiratory issues.

Large water consumption, leading to contamination and affecting local groundwater.

Pollution of surface water and impairment of wild landscapes.

Threats to wildlife.




Fracking fluid is a mix of water, chemicals, and solid particles used to penetrate and fracture underground rock. The EPA has identified over a thousand different chemicals that have been used in fracking fluid, and many are considered harmful to human health. Other ingredients are considered trade secrets and are not revealed to the public.


Fracking and Water Quality
Fracking uses large amounts of water and releases toxic chemicals into the surrounding water table. Each well consumes a median of 1.5 million gallons, according to the EPA, adding up to billions of gallons nationwide every year.

Not only does this reduce the amount of water available for drinking and irrigation, but it also threatens to pollute local sources with contaminated wastewater.

Fracking has also been blamed for seismic activity. Following the boom of hydraulic fracturing, the number of tremors has risen dramatically, especially in areas with frequent drilling. Following the completion of drilling operations, the resultant waste fluids are often disposed by injecting them into deep wells, at pressures high enough to cause damaging earthquakes. The largest earthquake attributed to wastewater disposal was an M5.8 Earthquake near Pawnee, Oklahoma.
11
US Geological Survey. "Does the Production of Oil and Gas from Shales Cause Earthquakes? If so, How Are the Earthquakes Related to These Operations?"

So fracking is bad, in your opinion, no?

But Kamala supports fracking.

You okay with that?
 
Drill baby drill - you asked if Fracking is bad so......Fracking is good as long as it isn't near me - amiright?

Fracking has negative environmental impacts, including:

Leaking millions of tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Airborne hydrocarbons causing health and respiratory issues.

Large water consumption, leading to contamination and affecting local groundwater.

Pollution of surface water and impairment of wild landscapes.

Threats to wildlife.




Fracking fluid is a mix of water, chemicals, and solid particles used to penetrate and fracture underground rock. The EPA has identified over a thousand different chemicals that have been used in fracking fluid, and many are considered harmful to human health. Other ingredients are considered trade secrets and are not revealed to the public.


Fracking and Water Quality
Fracking uses large amounts of water and releases toxic chemicals into the surrounding water table. Each well consumes a median of 1.5 million gallons, according to the EPA, adding up to billions of gallons nationwide every year.

Not only does this reduce the amount of water available for drinking and irrigation, but it also threatens to pollute local sources with contaminated wastewater.

Fracking has also been blamed for seismic activity. Following the boom of hydraulic fracturing, the number of tremors has risen dramatically, especially in areas with frequent drilling. Following the completion of drilling operations, the resultant waste fluids are often disposed by injecting them into deep wells, at pressures high enough to cause damaging earthquakes. The largest earthquake attributed to wastewater disposal was an M5.8 Earthquake near Pawnee, Oklahoma.
11
US Geological Survey. "Does the Production of Oil and Gas from Shales Cause Earthquakes? If so, How Are the Earthquakes Related to These Operations?"

The new rules proposed would sure make difference according to the read on your link.
_______________________
The proposal builds on the work of leading companies that are using the latest cost-effective technology to reduce methane emissions in the field and leverages lessons from the work of some major oil- and gas- producing states that require, or are proposing to require, oil and gas operations to reduce methane emissions. EPA analyzed the proposed rule’s impact on natural gas and oil prices from 2023 to 2035 and estimates that changes would be small – pennies per barrel of oil or thousand cubic feet of gas.

The proposed rule would reduce 41 million tons of methane emissions from 2023 to 2035, the equivalent of 920 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s more than the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from all U.S. passenger cars and commercial aircraft in 2019. In 2030 alone, the rule would reduce methane emissions from sources covered in the proposal by 74 percent compared to 2005.

Pollution from oil and gas activities can occur in or near communities where people live, work and go to school – including minority and low-income communities, which are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Based on an analysis of populations exposed to oil and gas pollution, EPA believes the proposed rule is likely to reduce these harmful effects.

EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates the value of cumulative net climate benefits from the proposed rule, after taking into account the costs of compliance as well as savings from recovered natural gas, is $48 to $49 billion from 2023 to 2035 - the equivalent of about $4.5 billion a year. The climate benefits are estimated using the social cost of greenhouse gases and represent the monetary value of avoided climate damages associated with a decrease in emissions of a greenhouse gas. In addition to these benefits, EPA estimates that from 2023 to 2035, the proposal would reduce VOC emissions by 12 million tons and hazardous air pollution by 480,000 tons.

It would accomplish this through 1) updated and broadened methane and VOC emission reduction requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas sources, including standards that limit emissions from additional types of sources (such as intermittent vent pneumatic controllers, associated gas, and well liquids unloading) for the first time under the Clean Air Act; and 2) requirements that states develop plans to limit methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing sources nationwide, along with presumptive standards for existing sources to assist in the planning process.

Key features of the proposed rule include:

  • a comprehensive monitoring program for new and existing well sites and compressor stations;
  • a compliance option that allows owners and operators the flexibility to use advanced technology that can find major leaks more rapidly and at lower cost than ever before;
  • a zero-emissions standard for new and existing pneumatic controllers (with a limited alternative standard for sites in Alaska), certain types of which account for approximately 30 percent of current methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector;
  • standards to eliminate venting of associated gas, and require capture and sale of gas where a sales line is available, at new and existing oil wells;
  • proposed performance standards and presumptive standards for other new and existing sources, including storage tanks, pneumatic pumps, and compressors; and
  • a requirement that states meaningfully engage with overburdened and underserved communities, among other stakeholders, in developing state plans.
EPA also is requesting information on additional sources of methane for the Agency to consider in developing a supplemental proposal to reduce emissions even further. In addition, EPA is taking comment on how to structure a community monitoring program that would empower the public to detect and report large emission events for appropriate follow-up by owners and operators for possible further development in a supplemental proposal. EPA intends to issue the supplemental proposal in 2022, and to issue a final rule before the end of 2022.
 
Asking for a friend...


Harris also pushed back on scrutiny over her changing policy positions on issues like energy and immigration, insisting in perhaps the interview’s sharpest moment that she had long ago changed her mind on the politically sensitive topic of a fracking ban.

Despite supporting a ban in 2019, Harris said Thursday that she had reversed herself the next year and would never again support an end to the practice.

“I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking, as vice president I did not ban fracking, as president I will not ban fracking,” she said. “I’m very clear about where I stand.”



Kamala Harris goes all in on fracking in testy interview exchange - POLITICO


Or maybe it was just bad in 2019, but it's all good now.
fracking is good or bad, depending who's trying to win an election.

let's add the following topics to Kamala's mix.

- oil drilling in the gulf of mexico
- exporting US oil and liquified natural gas to asia
- shipping oil by train, because the administration doesn't like pipelines, and trains create union jobs.
 
The new rules proposed would sure make difference according to the read on your link.
_______________________
The proposal builds on the work of leading companies that are using the latest cost-effective technology to reduce methane emissions in the field and leverages lessons from the work of some major oil- and gas- producing states that require, or are proposing to require, oil and gas operations to reduce methane emissions. EPA analyzed the proposed rule’s impact on natural gas and oil prices from 2023 to 2035 and estimates that changes would be small – pennies per barrel of oil or thousand cubic feet of gas.

The proposed rule would reduce 41 million tons of methane emissions from 2023 to 2035, the equivalent of 920 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s more than the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from all U.S. passenger cars and commercial aircraft in 2019. In 2030 alone, the rule would reduce methane emissions from sources covered in the proposal by 74 percent compared to 2005.

Pollution from oil and gas activities can occur in or near communities where people live, work and go to school – including minority and low-income communities, which are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Based on an analysis of populations exposed to oil and gas pollution, EPA believes the proposed rule is likely to reduce these harmful effects.

EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates the value of cumulative net climate benefits from the proposed rule, after taking into account the costs of compliance as well as savings from recovered natural gas, is $48 to $49 billion from 2023 to 2035 - the equivalent of about $4.5 billion a year. The climate benefits are estimated using the social cost of greenhouse gases and represent the monetary value of avoided climate damages associated with a decrease in emissions of a greenhouse gas. In addition to these benefits, EPA estimates that from 2023 to 2035, the proposal would reduce VOC emissions by 12 million tons and hazardous air pollution by 480,000 tons.

It would accomplish this through 1) updated and broadened methane and VOC emission reduction requirements for new, modified, and reconstructed oil and gas sources, including standards that limit emissions from additional types of sources (such as intermittent vent pneumatic controllers, associated gas, and well liquids unloading) for the first time under the Clean Air Act; and 2) requirements that states develop plans to limit methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing sources nationwide, along with presumptive standards for existing sources to assist in the planning process.

Key features of the proposed rule include:

  • a comprehensive monitoring program for new and existing well sites and compressor stations;
  • a compliance option that allows owners and operators the flexibility to use advanced technology that can find major leaks more rapidly and at lower cost than ever before;
  • a zero-emissions standard for new and existing pneumatic controllers (with a limited alternative standard for sites in Alaska), certain types of which account for approximately 30 percent of current methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector;
  • standards to eliminate venting of associated gas, and require capture and sale of gas where a sales line is available, at new and existing oil wells;
  • proposed performance standards and presumptive standards for other new and existing sources, including storage tanks, pneumatic pumps, and compressors; and
  • a requirement that states meaningfully engage with overburdened and underserved communities, among other stakeholders, in developing state plans.
EPA also is requesting information on additional sources of methane for the Agency to consider in developing a supplemental proposal to reduce emissions even further. In addition, EPA is taking comment on how to structure a community monitoring program that would empower the public to detect and report large emission events for appropriate follow-up by owners and operators for possible further development in a supplemental proposal. EPA intends to issue the supplemental proposal in 2022, and to issue a final rule before the end of 2022.

2022?

Ms. Harris's position seems to be evolving:

Bash asked Harris: “In 2019 you said, quote: ‘There is no question. I’m in favor of banning fracking.’ Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do you still want to ban fracking?”

Harris replied: “No. And I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking as vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president I will not ban fracking

Bash pressed the question again: “In 2019, I believe in a town hall, you were asked, would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office and you said: ‘There’s no question. I’m in favor of banning fracking, so yes.’”

Harris repeated that her stance “changed in that campaign in 2020” and that she “made that very clear” – remaining in support of fracking in 2024.

In analysis on Thursday’s NewsNight hours after the interview Dale spoke with host Abby Phillip to tell her that the claim was not correct. He said:

The fact check bottom line is that she did not actually make clear at a 2020 debate that she had changed her previous support for a fracking ban. So let me take you through this kind of saga so here’s what she said at a CNN climate town hall in 2019 on the subject of a fracking ban.
He then ran back a clip of Harris from that time in which she said “there was no question” she was “in favor of banning fracking.” However, Dale wasn’t buying Harris’s claim.


CNN’s Daniel Dale Fact Checks Kamala Harris’s Shifting Position On Fracking (msn.com)
 
So fracking is bad, in your opinion, no?

But Kamala supports fracking.

You okay with that?
I've read that some companies are doing their best to use chemicals that are less harmful...it is a sign of that change that Kamala might just change her stand as well. Other factors that play into the decision are related to OPEC limits on production, intentionally jacking up the price of oil to keep it below demand and raise their profits.
 
2022?

Ms. Harris's position seems to be evolving:

Bash asked Harris: “In 2019 you said, quote: ‘There is no question. I’m in favor of banning fracking.’ Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania. Do you still want to ban fracking?”

Harris replied: “No. And I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking as vice president, I did not ban fracking. As president I will not ban fracking

Bash pressed the question again: “In 2019, I believe in a town hall, you were asked, would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office and you said: ‘There’s no question. I’m in favor of banning fracking, so yes.’”

Harris repeated that her stance “changed in that campaign in 2020” and that she “made that very clear” – remaining in support of fracking in 2024.

In analysis on Thursday’s NewsNight hours after the interview Dale spoke with host Abby Phillip to tell her that the claim was not correct. He said:


He then ran back a clip of Harris from that time in which she said “there was no question” she was “in favor of banning fracking.” However, Dale wasn’t buying Harris’s claim.



CNN’s Daniel Dale Fact Checks Kamala Harris’s Shifting Position On Fracking (msn.com)

The link Don showed and the read I posted the excerpts from was in 2021.

U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health



November 2, 2021


"As global leaders convene at this pivotal moment in Glasgow for COP26, it is now abundantly clear that America is back and leading by example in confronting the climate crisis with bold ambition,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “With this historic action, EPA is addressing existing sources from the oil and natural gas industry nationwide, in addition to updating rules for new sources, to ensure robust and lasting cuts in pollution across the country. By building on existing technologies and encouraging innovative new solutions, we are committed to a durable final rule that is anchored in science and the law, that protects communities living near oil and natural gas facilities, and that advances our nation’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement.”
U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health | US EPA
 
fracking is good or bad, depending who's trying to win an election.

let's add the following topics to Kamala's mix.

- oil drilling in the gulf of mexico
- exporting US oil and liquified natural gas to asia
- shipping oil by train, because the administration doesn't like pipelines, and trains create union jobs.
What would you like to know about drilling in the Gulf?

U.S. holds historic oil and gas lease sale in Gulf of Mexico days after climate summit
U.S. holds oil and gas lease sale in Gulf of Mexico after COP26 (cnbc.com)

Do you think the administration should control who the oil companies sell to?
This was in 2015...
Congressional Leaders Agree to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports
Congressional Leaders Agree to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports - WSJ
 
The link Don showed and the read I posted the excerpts from was in 2021.

U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health



November 2, 2021


"As global leaders convene at this pivotal moment in Glasgow for COP26, it is now abundantly clear that America is back and leading by example in confronting the climate crisis with bold ambition,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. “With this historic action, EPA is addressing existing sources from the oil and natural gas industry nationwide, in addition to updating rules for new sources, to ensure robust and lasting cuts in pollution across the country. By building on existing technologies and encouraging innovative new solutions, we are committed to a durable final rule that is anchored in science and the law, that protects communities living near oil and natural gas facilities, and that advances our nation’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement.”
U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health | US EPA

So...fracking is good now?
 
What would you like to know about drilling in the Gulf?

U.S. holds historic oil and gas lease sale in Gulf of Mexico days after climate summit
U.S. holds oil and gas lease sale in Gulf of Mexico after COP26 (cnbc.com)

Do you think the administration should control who the oil companies sell to?
This was in 2015...
Congressional Leaders Agree to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports
Congressional Leaders Agree to Lift 40-Year Ban on Oil Exports - WSJ
Maybe you should have a little bit more information about oil production? Bear in mind there are little if any independents in the gulf producing oil.


1725380305967.png
 
Maybe you should have a little bit more information about oil production? Bear in mind there are little if any independents in the gulf producing oil.


View attachment 79448
Your information is from 2010 and has nothing at all to do with my post. The Biden administration imposed a temporary halt to new lease auctions....by the end of 2021 they had begun new leases in the Gulf.
 
I've read that some companies are doing their best to use chemicals that are less harmful...it is a sign of that change that Kamala might just change her stand as well. Other factors that play into the decision are related to OPEC limits on production, intentionally jacking up the price of oil to keep it below demand and raise their profits.
Well, fracking is done 5000 to 20000 feet underground. So the chemical are largely left far underground. You as a globalist should rely on government to regulate those chemicals as well as they run elections. ha ha

1725380536734.png
 
Your information is from 2010 and has nothing at all to do with my post. The Biden administration imposed a temporary halt to new lease auctions....by the end of 2021 they had begun new leases in the Gulf.
If you can't see the relevance then I'm done talking to you because reasoning is impossible.
 
If you can't see the relevance then I'm done talking to you because reasoning is impossible.

The post I responded to was about leases in the Gulf. I responded to that. Your post about independent producers was not relevant to Biden leases on federal land or in the gulf.

Feel free to explain what you meant.
 
Back
Top