the nation propaganda
the article starts off with an allegory by a local Dimock activist and disgruntled gas lessor without setting an objective stage. The activist's comment "no rules, no regs, just rigs" could only be accepted as accurate by the most biased and self-delusional of readers. Quotes such as "After a stray drill bit banged four wells...weird things started happening to people's water...." There is no specific description of what constitutes 'weird' or context given for the "stray bit" nor what constitues banging. Was this something that happened at the surface or in the subsurface? Citing an objective source, preferably one with legal authority would be nice.
The activist claims she never would have signed her lease if she'd known hydrofracing would be involved yet she also notes she had never heard of hydrofracing. How could any credulous person accept this sort of writing as intelligent.
The article claims damage to several water wells without citation to any authoritative source. All hearsay from the activist and 'other residents'. The only documented contamination seems to be due to careless handling of liquids at the surface. That sort of thing could happen in any type of oil and gas drilling and many industrial processes. It is not a 'feature' specific to hydrofracing. As for the explodiing well: it never is made clear whether the well was a gas well or water well. It does appear to be documented because at the end of the story (no surprise) there is a comment that the PA DEP determined that the well's "improper casing" was to blame. As go seek as related from Louisiana: water wells in gas producing areas sometimes experience natural gas excursions and gas wells in those areas don't necessarily use fracturing of any variety. That doesn't make it desirable but if folks want to put water wells in places where gas and oil exist in the subsurface, then they may get some of the gas and oil along with the water. It's not like wishing the gas away will actually work.
Your highlighted part about "A string of recent disasters..." is another priceless gem of illogic. Liability lawyers will be first to tell you that they are the vultures that keep bad actors in line. BTW I like vultures so nobody should read that as a disparaging comment. Vultures and liability lawyers serve a useful purpose. Regulation can not prevent accidents and government employees generally do not have the expertise to act as an effective second line of oversight (management) to prevent accidents.
The bit about the 'Halliburton loophole' is obviously thrown in to gather support from the lingering 'anything anti-Bush-Cheney' crowd. Truly lame and their attempt to connect the fracturing techniques developed in the 1940s to those used in gas shales is a stretch. Of course, the vast majority of lay people have no idea what the writer is attempting to describe but it sounds authoritative so many people tend to accept it. I call that style of writing propaganda.
Your highlighted sentence "Drilling is now regulated entirely at the state level..." is another example of the propagandist style of writing. The alleged problems have yet to be proven to be due to drilling which is the part which is regulated by the states. The proven contamination of surface water by surface activities related to the drillers is something that is covered by state and federal governments. The fact that at least one company, e.g. Cabot, has been penalized for failure to properly contain their chemicals and wastes demonstrates the falsity of the premise of "no rules, no regs, just rigs" as well as the implication that the states are incapable of enforcing environmental protection regulations.
Then the writer throws in the guaranteed to scare the crap out of everybody bit about radioactivity: "the Marcellus, which is naturally radioactive, must find a way to dispose of thousands of gallons of water, toxic chemicals, brine and radium." This is the same sort of BS that spawned the Radon detecting business back in the 1990s. I hate to tell these people but if it were not for the "naturally radioactive" rock in the Earth, then there would not be life as we know it on Earth. I'd like to see documentation of the radium concentration in the fluids flowed back to the surface. I'd bet they're very similar to the concentrations in streams flowing through the same types of rocks. Of course, I'd want the analyses of both the well fluids and surface waters to be done in the same labs so the contamination levels from the hot lab would be the same.
on and on and on....
"[Switzer] says that companies dump waste into creeks and ponds, or into pits lined with thin plastic." Well, yeah, sort of. Thin is qualitative. And oh, by the way, the pits lined with plastic are legal and required. The sentence is literally a logical one where the good, legal, and required part is placed after the 'or' but the bad and illegal and almost certainly non-intentionally practiced part is placed first. More propagandist writing.
so i'll quit since i think i've sufficiently made the point that the article is a piece of crap. I don't read The Nation but after reading this article i wouldn't ever go out of my way to start.
regards,
Charlie
