Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (106188)	12/21/2011 12:00:05 PM
From: zeta1961	Respond to of 149317

SS: re comment on KXL....excellent, incisive. This is a critical juncture for our generation regarding our environment(and many other issues). TR and his army of activists left us with the National Parks, for example. What will Obama and we leave for those who come after us? Do we want to be proud of our legacy when we're in our 80s? Or do we want to have deep regrets when witnessing the deleterious effects of policy we _could_have_influenced to block? Did some of us put profits by owning Valero, Exxon et. al. for ourselves before doing what is right when scientific evidence and plain old common sense told us otherwise?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (106188)	12/29/2011 8:21:11 PM
From: zeta1961	Respond to of 149317

Fracking Cracks the Public Consciousness in 2011 It's a good "year in review" with helpful links. t(Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica) by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, Dec. 29, 2011, 9:37 a.m. This is part of our year-end series, looking at where things stand in each of our major investigations. This was the year that "fracking" became a household word. Drilling Regulatory Staffing in Your State Search for how many wells have been drilled and how many gas regulators are in your state. Graphics What is Hydraulic Fracturing? Anatomy of a Gas Well Slideshows A Reporter’s Journey The Faces of Dimock Video Fracking: The Music Video It wasn't just that environmental concerns about the underground drilling process finally struck a mainstream chord -- after three years of reporting and more than 125 stories. For the first time, independent scientific investigations linked the drilling technique with water pollution, and a variety of federal and state agencies responded to the growing apprehension about water contamination with more studies and more regulation. The most important development -- and perhaps a crucial turning point -- was in December. In a landmark finding, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that hydraulic fracturing was the likely culprit in a spate of groundwater contamination that had forced residents to stop using their water in dozens of homes in central Wyoming. The agency had been investigating since 2008. Earlier in the year, a study published through the National Academy of Sciences determined that in Pennsylvania, private water wells in close proximity to fracked gas wells were 17 times more likely to be contaminated with methane gas. Those studies are separate from a national research project the EPA has undertaken to assess the risks fracking poses to water resources. The agency is examining five case studies across the country and is now estimating that some of its report will be complete by the original 2012 deadline and the rest will continue into 2014. The study is meant to help Congress and regulators determine whether fracking should be regulated like other similar processes under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies that frack should be forced to disclose the details about the chemicals they use. Last winter, the Obama administration -- which has repeatedly referred to natural gas as a bridge fuel and encouraged its development -- urged the Department of Energy to conduct its own assessment of fracking's safety on a quicker timeline than the EPA. In a matter of months, a DOE panel determined that the environmental risks were substantial and needed to be addressed in order to safely develop more natural gas resources. The panel raised concerns that pollution could have serious health consequences for those who live close to drilling operations. Indeed, a report published by ProPublica in September found that residents in drilling areas across the country complained of serious health symptoms ranging from skin lesions to tumors, and that health and science organizations had yet to develop any comprehensive system for studying such problems. While water pollution is one concern, many of the health effects reported are believed to be related to air pollution and emissions released in the natural gas development and drilling process. Earlier in the year, a ProPublica investigation found that the EPA had grossly underestimated the amount of methane that seeps out of pipelines and drill rigs as gas is produced, and reported that the agency was doubling its calculations. Our analysis of the new emissions levels showed that they threaten to offset the relative advantages presented by cleaner-burning natural gas over oil and carbon in combating climate change and reducing carbon emissions. In some cases, government officials didn't just debate fracking and call for additional study. They enacted real changes in how drilling is overseen. The EPA announced that the drilling industry would have to comply with tough new industrial emissions standards. Then it said that it would issue new rules governing how wastewater from fracking is disposed of; this addressed concerns first raised by ProPublica in 2009 that in eastern drilling areas, which cannot inject waste into underground wells the way the industry does in the west, chemical-laden waste is winding up in river systems, and then drinking water. In December, Colorado implemented the toughest law yet requiring comprehensive disclosure of frack fluids, following similar but weaker laws in Texas and Wyoming. This was also the year fracking went global. While France banned fracking outright and South Africa enacted a temporary moratorium, multi-national energy companies began exploring shale reserves in Poland, Argentina and China. Closer to home, New York state officials continued to inch closer to allowing drilling to take place in the coveted Marcellus Shale. After a multi-year process and its own temporary moratorium on some fracking activity, New York finished up the latest version of its environmental review and has signaled that it intends to begin permitting more drilling early next year. According to the state's environmental assessment, no fracking will be allowed on state lands, and the process will be severely limited within the New York City watershed. Still, the state's chief environmental regulator, Joe Martens, told ProPublica he is confident the drilling can proceed safely, and that he does not expect there will be much to learn from the EPA's research into the issue. New York's draft plan is in its final stage of public review, and is expected to be completed on Jan. 11, 2012. Staff reporter Nicholas Kusnetz contributed to this report.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (106188)	1/2/2012 6:57:47 PM
From: zeta1961	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 149317

Here's a whistleblowers account/opinion re: Keystone. He's an engineer who worked for Bechtel who built the Keystone 1... Let's be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn't build pipelines. We just should not build this one. He can't be cast off as a loonie greenie. Mike Klink: Keystone XL pipeline not safe By Mike Klink \| Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:50 pm \| There has been a lot of talk about the safety of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. I am not an environmentalist, but as a civil engineer and an inspector for TransCanada during the construction of the first Keystone pipeline, I've had an uncomfortable front-row seat to the disaster that Keystone XL could bring about all along its pathway. Despite its boosters' advertising, this project is not about jobs or energy security. It is about money. And whenever my former employer Bechtel, working on behalf of TransCanada, had to choose between safety and saving money, they chose to save money. As an inspector, my job was to monitor the construction of the first Keystone pipeline. I oversaw construction at the pump stations that have been such a problem on that line, which has already spilled more than a dozen times. I am coming forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was done and covered up. When I last raised concerns about corners being cut, I lost my job — but people along the Keystone XL pathway have a lot more to lose if this project moves forward with the same shoddy work. What did I see? Cheap foreign steel that cracked when workers tried to weld it, foundations for pump stations that you would never consider using in your own home, fudged safety tests, Bechtel staffers explaining away leaks during pressure tests as "not too bad," shortcuts on the steel and rebar that are essential for safe pipeline operation and siting of facilities on completely inappropriate spots like wetlands. I shared these concerns with my bosses, who communicated them to the bigwigs at TransCanada, but nothing changed. TransCanada didn't appear to care. That is why I was not surprised to hear about the big spill in Ludden, N.D., where a 60-foot plume of crude spewed tens of thousands of gallons of toxic tar sands oil and fouled neighboring fields. TransCanada says that the performance has been OK. Fourteen spills is not so bad. And that the pump stations don't really count. That is all bunk. This thing shouldn't be leaking like a sieve in its first year — what do you think happens decades from now after moving billions of barrels of the most corrosive oil on the planet? Let's be clear — I am an engineer; I am not telling you we shouldn't build pipelines. We just should not build this one. Pipelines can and do stand the test of time, but TransCanada already has shown that they cannot. After working on engineering projects all over the world, I can tell you that a company that cared about safety would not follow these types of practices. If it were a car, the first Keystone would be a lemon. And it would be far worse to double down on a proven loser with Keystone XL. The stories of how TransCanada has bullied landowners in Nebraska rings true to me. I am living it, as well. After repeatedly telling the contractor and TransCanada about my concerns, I lost my job. But I couldn't watch silently as a company put innocent people at risk with a haphazardly built pipeline. I am speaking out on behalf of my children and your children. Oil spills are no joke. We need to do all we can to protect our water and our food. I am glad the Nebraska Legislature stepped up to protect Nebraskans. I can only hope that they stand up to TransCanada. We should all take a hard look at the damage that this pipeline will do. I should know; I've seen it in person. Please do not sell out to foreign oil and foreign suppliers. There is no guarantee the product will stay in the United States, only the toxic waste. God bless the United States and those of us who still believe in the fact that her people matter. Mike Klink of Auburn, Ind.., is seeking whistleblower protection from the U.S. Department of Labor. Read more: journalstar.com