Rep. Koch’s HB 1085 passed the house, 95-0.
The Natural Resource Commission is assigned the task of adopting rules for the reporting and disclosure of information regarding hydraulic fracturing treatment, including:
(1) the volume and source of base fluid used;
(2) a description of each additive product used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment;
(3) the volume of each additive product used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment expressed as a maximum percentage of the total fracturing fluid volume;
(4) the maximum surface treating pressure and injection treating pressure; and
(5) any other information the commission considers necessary.
This appears weaker than Rep. Moses’ HB 1085 which I discussed in an earlier post. That bill does not seem to have gotten a hearing.
#5 is the kind of regulation that can kill an industry.
#1 through 4 could be satisfied with a MSDS sheet for the fluid, so that’s probably no big deal.
The old Lima old field in NE Indiana/ NW Ohio is a good area to try fracking. We could have an entirely new industry in Indiana if we play our cards right. But first and foremost, we need to make sure that these regulations don’t strangle the industry before it even develops.
Color me old fashioned and all that, but the impact of the use of technology such as fracking is simply unkown in any environmental situation but definitely has big questions for some areas. I hope there is a strong and serious requirement for research on this issue. Same thoughts on the pipeline through very sensitive areas—it can not be just about some temporary construction jobs, it has to be about the potential for damages to the environment that could have major and very long lasting impact. Until the experts are absolutely sure that every effort (by every effort, not just saying there is ONLY such and such percentage chance of disaster) to ensure the environment (also meaning people) are not endangered unnecessarily. Do I trust companies? Unfortunately based on many observations, I do not trust the “bean counters” to be truthful when great profits are at stake and I am a firm believer in free enterprise, but totally opposed to actions that benefit a few at the expense of the many (can you say–mortgage crisis, gulf spill, concern presented today on eastern community, etc. etc…)
The only states that have had any job growth under Obama are the ones that have energy resources to develop. Indiana has them, yet to be exploited, as long as we don’t screw it up with thoughtless regulation based on fear.
Is it still thoughtless when it’s your kid who has cancer? Is that cost okay?
Sometimes one’s answer may depend upon what they have experienced. Here in south central Indiana we have many acres of land that may be 100s of years before it can be used for anything due to a company’s disregard of the environment and dumped in many locations. After millions spent on clean up (which the company did not fund) some areas have been reclaimed years later but with reservations. Sorry, but will not buy into profits or jobs beat out requiring strict oversight over businesses–the mortgage brokers made a fortune over the suffering of innocent people.
I suppose it would depend on the size of the benefit vs. the size of the cost. I find that skeptics like you and Doug just don’t understand the magnitude of the revolution that is shale gas.
For example, at the Indiana steel mills, you have the demand for pipe and casing on the one side, and the drastically lower costs for energy on the other being the only thing keeping the mills in business. Without those two things, both intimately related to fracking and shale gas, the biggest industry in Indiana would be wiped out.
No offense, but I think that is worth some unusable farmland in “south central Indiana”.
Okay, I give. There is no viable retort to some of the positions put forth. By the way, the “waste land” created by the company mentioned was not all unusable farmland but inside a city and several blocks square.
Okay, that sounds like you had a manufactured gas plant in the neighborhood. Before electricity, they made “illuminating gas” by heating coal in a oxygen deficient atmosphere. They were left with coal tar when they were done, which was generally just dumped behind the facility.
There’s sites like that all over the country, slowly being cleaned up.
Interestingly enough, the technology is not dead. “Gasification” of coal was going to be a very hot technology (no pun intended) before fracking took off and drove the price of natural gas down to unprecedented levels.
In fact, ever single one of us Hoosiers will be paying for a gasification plant that one of Mitch’s cronies got built. Thanks to fracking, that plant is never going to be profitable, and we will all pay as a result.
Actually it was PCB
The question is who will bear the risk of the externalized costs? Absent regulations, it’s the people who live near the fracking operations less whatever they can manage to recoup through the legal process.
Whether that’s a big deal or not depends on what those costs are. At the moment, we don’t have a good handle on it. Historically, the tendency has been to allow fledgling industries to externalize quite a lot; then internalizing or subsidizing the costs in one way or another as the industry became more established and better understood.
As a societal matter, that’s probably a winning strategy; sacrificing a few for the overall good. But, that was probably cold comfort for the folks who got electrocuted by the new electric industry or killed by death trap cars or black lung from coal or whatever.
The problem is that, while that sounds very reasonable and is quite popular, especially amongst the ladies (who are more risk averse in general), the fact of the matter is that it is a recipe for stagnation. You can’t know all the risks ahead of time, and if the standard is that development can’t move forward until they are known, well, there won’t be any.
Let’s just put it in your backyard, and you can take the risk for all of us. Then we’ll know. Watch the documentary Gasland by Josh Fox. When you can’t drink your own water because it’s flammable and your home value plummets to nothing so you can’t even move, will you be okay with that?
I have a sister with a million dollar dream home that she can’t sell because the frackers took up residence practically in her backyard, her dog got cancer, and they have to haul in their own water because theirs registers toxins that do not naturally occur in the environment. It’s scary shit, man.
I have a 12″ diameter petroleum product pipeline in my backyard, about 25 feet from my back deck. So it is not like I’m not unfamiliar with the industry coming through and tearing things up occasionally.
She should talk to a water treatment contractor. There isn’t much that reverse osmosis can’t get out of water. A settling tank is very effective at removing methane from water. This is a very solvable problem from an engineering perspective.
I’ll vote for Amy.
Buzz loses. Amy wins. Only fools practice the philosophy of “Ready, Fire, Aim!”
As of this moment, the companies are yet to even disclose all of the compounds in their fracking fluids, and you can sure as hell bet there’s a reason why they won’t do so.
And the elephant in the room that the oil and gas companies want everybody to ignore is the fact that, through new (and expensive) technological advances, including airplane and satellite thermal imaging, it’s possible to identify natural fracture points where injection is either not necessary, or possible via injection of solely water. But they’d rather pump dangerous chemicals into random holes and damn the consequences than spend the money to identify the best locations that afford minimal disturbance.
But there are already opportunities out there for companies that want to work in a market completely free of regulation. They can move their operations to places like Somalia or Uganda where not only will the government let them pretty much do what they want, but also for a little money under the table they’ll “relocate” pesky villagers. Of course the government might also be overthrown at any given moment, and bandits pretty much have free reign, but that’s the price of a regulation-free environment. Otherwise, they need to get with the program and do the necessary homework before they’re allowed to rampage through the countryside.
Indiana has really complex hydrology due to porous limestone. Underwater rivers (protected) and a vast aquifer, fracking would literally frack that up completely, it would be like running a jackhammer in nature’s china shop.
Fracking is performed so far underground that there are no “underground rivers” or aquifer. We’re talking 5000+ feet underground.
Natural gas occurs in places where crude oil used to lie, but the heat of the earth is so great that everything other than the methane has cooked off. This only occurs at great depths.
So I assume none of y’all heat your homes with natural gas. You use candles for light? Bike everywhere?
I encourage everyone to watch the Pennsylvania based, Oscar winning documentary called “Gasland”. In Colorado, we are suffering immense damage to our water supply due to fracking. I wish your state better luck.