Fracking for natural gas needs to be banned in Michigan and elsewhere
Halliburton has devised a means of extracting natural gas from shale rock called fracking. This fracking process involves drilling deep wells that go far below the underground aquifers, fracturing the shale, and creating great pressure, so that the natural gas can be harvested. One of the problems with fracturing the rock and creating these unnaturally high pressures is that the high pressure gas often leaches up, contaminating aquifers, lakes and rivers.
I have just seen a documentary called “Gas Lands” at the U-M Museum of Art that does a good job of exposing water contamination caused by the fracking process. Many people were interviewed who had good water for many years prior to the fracking for natural gas, and could no longer use it after the process had been done near them. Air quality and public safety issues were also raised.
The state of Michigan is next in line for this type of natural gas extraction on a large scale. In fact, there are already a number of fracking wells in the Lower Peninsula.
As I see it, the fracking process does more harm than good. There has got to be a better way!
We need to keep our priorities straight if we are to survive as a people. Clean air, water, and uncontaminated food are more important than energy production. When a process of extracting or producing energy is shown to pollute the air and the water, and also contaminate the food we eat, it must be halted.
Dan Goebel Howell
Comments
mojo
Mon, Jun 6, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
Gasland has some bad info - ". . . A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring." Gasland states that gas in water situation was from fracking. It was not. There are reports that water could be "lit on fire" as far back as 1936 in that part of the state. His facts are presented to scare the public. Fear is a powerful thing.
monet
Thu, Apr 21, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
The thing about fracking, and I think we Michiganders should be very concerned about this, is that it uses a crazy amount of fresh water to do it. The waste water from the process is heavily tainted with chemicals, the names of which aren't required to be disclosed. Once that water has been used for fracking, it's out of the system. We bury it in the ground in injection wells. We will be using Michigan's most precious natural resource for a non-renewable resource. To me, that's a non-starter.
AAresident
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : noon
Fracking uses significant amounts of cancer causing solvents. In fact, the industry refuses to say what is contained in the mix of of chemicals that are injected in the ground. If you like toxic water, you'll love fracking.
HPD
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.
What I've read about "fracking" has shown it to be an unreliable way to obtain a desired energy source. The instability of the process and its promise of an economic windfall for some needy Michiganders is almost a "perfect storm" for more thoughtless contamination. I'm hopeful that seemingly short term solutions don't dazzle too many of us so as to blind us to their long term costs.
joe.blow
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 2:38 a.m.
You mean I could one day turn on my cold water at home for a nice cold drink and end up using that same water to fill my gas tank? Cool.
Mike
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 12:33 a.m.
Rather than being reactionary and banning fracking due to anecdotal reports of ground water pollution, perhaps it makes more sense to require sufficient insurance that such liabilities are covered or at least compensated for. It is incredibly foolish to create increased barriers to use of natural gas when it is the most green house friendly of the current so-called fossil fuels.
braggslaw
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.
This is all about agendas Certain far left granolas don't want any fossil fuel used at all. Natural gas is the cleanest and most abundant fossil fuel in the U.S. and it will supplant coal in the future. This is the worst fear of the environmental nuts. Thus they will attack the use hoping to force people into "renewable" sources that cost 5- 10 times as much per killowatt/hour. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html" rel='nofollow'>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html</a>
DonBee
Tue, Apr 12, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
Braggslaw - Not in my neighborhood are you going to put a pile of toxic batteries full of lead or other toxic metals. Not in my neighborhood
braggslaw
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
What a simplistic reply. Of course everyone wants those things... clean water and air. What I don't want is every job in the USA shipped overseas where they can use cheaper energy and I don't want a $2000 a month electricity bill. If you would like to pay $2000 a month for electricity feel free to do so.... Install a solar array that will work only 90 days a year and a few windmills that will operate intermittently....pay for a storage shed for a few tons of batteries... knock yourself out.
johnnya2
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
What a horrible agenda of the left to want clean water and air and RENEWABLE energy which actually does not cost 5 times as much. Once it is built, solar and wind can not be bottled, stored or SOLD. The right wing is afraid that if every person had wind and solar the PROFIT would be taken out of killing people with emissions. How much fluctuation in solar and wind supply do you think there would be. A war in Libya would not change the price. Speculators can not drive up the price. I wonder how many right wing nuts would move to a nuclear plant or its waste , or next to an oil well, or next to a coal plant. I can promise you that you NEVER see these things built in Birmingham or Beverly Hills. Why are they always in poor neighborhoods?
L. C. Burgundy
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.
Well, Mr. Goebel, I hope no one takes you seriously. Natural gas is hugely abundant in the US thanks to recent discoveries and prices have decreased considerably over the past few years - in fact, we are basically the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Like it, or lump it. Thankfully, even if you'd like us to sit at home and freeze, Mr. Goebel, while you dream up one objection after another based upon anecdote and perhaps spending the night at a Holiday Inn Express, few others will agree with you. Abundant energy is the SINGLE most important factor to a healthy and vibrant populace. Period.
DonBee
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.
Let me see if I understand it. Fracking is bad, so we should ban it. Off shore drilling is bad so we should ban it. Coal is bad so we should ban it. Nuclear is bad so we should ban it. Windmills are bad so we should ban them. Importing Oil is bad so we should ban imports. Using wood stoves is bad so we should ban them. I guess we better ban winter and night time, so we don't freeze or have to sit in the dark.
Top Cat
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
DonBee, you are at your eloquent best. Nuf Sed-
Ralph
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.
Few know that Dick Cheney and Halliburton lobbied to have fracking exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
RLB
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
I highly recommend the documentary Gasland to anyone interested in learning about fracking.
Useless
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 7:49 p.m.
Do you use Natural Gas to heat your home in the winter? If so, I believe you should either find an alternative heat source for your abode or qualify your comment to say that actively use the resource you want the harvesting banned.
Mick52
Sun, Apr 10, 2011 : 12:18 a.m.
Thanks a lot Useless. Unfortunately for me, we do not have NatGas, we have to use propane, which is horribly expensive now. I will sing praises to the gas company when they put a line in down my street.
John B.
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.
That's a strawman argument, and nonsense. Fracking isn't the only way to get natural gas.
Ignatz
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.
Dan, I fully agree that this stupid way of getting energy should be banned. I'm constantly amazed what people will put up with, or rather what they want others to put up with, in order to have "cheap" energy. I guess some have never had their potable water source ruined.
snoopdog
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.
With all the other things going on in the world find something else to worry about, give me a fracking break ! Good Day
glimmertwin
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.
Something not mentioned is the amount of water that is also used. It is my understanding that combining water with other chemicals it what is used to provide the pressure. As of now, they still don't have a way to treat the enormous amount of water that they use in this process. Again, I'm no expert, but trying to get educated on this process thus far, this is what I have come up with. I'm all for drilling in this country. I think we need to do it. But it must be done is a way that safe for everyone involved. Destroying the water in this state just for the sake of oil and gas is not worth it. At least until they develop a safe way that is proven.
zip the cat
Sat, Apr 9, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
I guess mr goebel has never driven by a oil refinery,that makes the gas for the vehicle he drives and provides the oil for most of everything he/we use every day. Talk about air pollution.Cut out pollution! get your bike dusted off The film I saw on fracking at a drill site in canada showed that 90+% of the recovered gas came back up the 12" drill pipe, and thay were at a depth of 8500 feet far,far below any source of water. They force large volumes of water and fine sand down the drill pipe and the sand lodges in the shale and lets the trapped gas back up the pipe.