Fracking

[Evelyn Tentions]

http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/mining-protesters-face-seven-years-jail-under-baird-government-csg-plans-20160310-gnfdi8.html

 

A proposed Baird government crackdown on anti-mining protests could expose anti-CSG protesters across NSW to criminal penalties and up to seven years' jail.

It has previously been reported the government's proposed anti-mining interference bill would expand police powers to search protesters intent on attaching themselves to mining equipment, seize their materials and levy heavy fines greater than $5000 upon them.

But the bill also potentially exposes a wave of anti-coal seam gas protesters across NSW to criminal penalties and a maximum custodial sentence of seven years' jail.

The bill would amend the state's Crimes Act to extend the crime of "interfering with a mine site" - including hindering a mine's equipment - to CSG extraction and exploration sites instead of an existing focus on coal mines.

"We could see people like [Australian rugby player] David Pocock locked up for seven years; he locked onto an excavator in the Leard State Forest," said Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham.

"Or the Knitting Nanas, 70-year-old activists who are peacefully locking on but doing no damage to equipment. Is that what we want?"

[Hades]

Here in NSW in sunny Australia, the Liberal/National Party, right wing cunts through and through, looked like losing some very safe seats in last years state election purely due to opposition to Coal Seam Gas issues. This prompted them to leap upon the anti CSG bus just for long enough to win the election.

Now safely in power they have reduced penalties for breaches by mining companies from >$100,000 to $5000 while enacting laws preventing peaceful protests - to the point where farmers locking the miners out of their property (THEIR property for the tories and other slow learners amongst you) now face up to 7 years imprisonment.

Government of the people by the corporates for the corporates.

Stop bullying hard-working mining companies.

[Anubis]

 

 

 

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94f6faa4-e62a-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39.html#ixzz435lPDmVA

 

 

Letters

 

March 13, 2016 11:57 pm

 

We stand by our conclusions on methane emissions and fracking

 

Sir, Dr Euan Nisbet (Letters, March 7) takes issue with Dr Robin Russell-Jones (Letters, March 4) over the sources of increasing atmospheric methane. Dr Russell-Jones pointed to a review paper which he and I recently presented to the Committee on Climate Change, which shows that fracking in the US has produced such high emissions of methane that natural gas is a worse source of climate-changing gases than coal. Dr Nisbet briefly points to recent research by the US Environmental Defense Fund showing lower emissions in one oil and gasfield in the US, the Barnett Shale, as evidence that our estimate is too high, and goes on to stress the importance of “natural” emissions from tropical sources such as wetlands in Africa.

 

In fact, both fossil and natural methane emissions have an important bearing on Earth’s future.

 

Concerning fossil methane, the Barnett Shale region does indeed emit less methane than most other unconventional oil and gas producing regions, probably because it is a mature field with a much lower rate of well completions (fracking) than in many other regions. Still, we believe the Environmental Defense Fund paper underestimates Barnett Shale emissions by about 40 per cent owing to its neglect of infrequent emission events of magnitude greater than about 1 tonne per hour, which, because they are rare, could only be picked up by long-term measurements beyond the timeframe of the Fund’s study. The importance of such events is underscored by the recent Aliso Canyon accident in California which emitted methane at the rate of 60 tonnes per hour, equivalent to emissions from an entire gasfield, for a period of several months. Taking into account the best oil and gas methane data currently available, and data from coal production, we concluded that methane emissions from the fracking industry are high enough to reverse the supposed benefit of natural gas over coal, and we stand by that conclusion.

 

This is an absolutely key point for decision makers contemplating the future of energy generation in the UK.

 

Concerning natural methane sources, it is clear from satellite data that there has been a rise in atmospheric methane emissions at latitudes that intersect the Sahel region of Africa. Industrial activities such as hydroelectric projects, as well as human induced climate change, are damaging the wetland ecosystems of the Niger delta and this is clearly another significant climate threat. I entirely concur with Dr Nisbet on the critical importance of continuous atmospheric monitoring during a period of rapid climate change, and on the value of isotopic measurements. Data, modelling, understanding, and well-informed decision-making are all now vital to our future.

 

Prof Nick Cowern

Oswaldkirk, N Yorks, UK

[setreal]

Stop bullying hard-working mining companies.

 

Y'all wanna hear a nice feel-good mining story?

 

It is a bit older, but still heartwarming.

 

[setreal]

 

Fracking’s Total Environmental Impact Is Staggering, Report Finds

BY SAMANTHA PAGE APR 14, 2016 8:20 AM

 

A new report details the sheer amount of fracking in the United States.

 

The body of evidence is growing that fracking is not only bad for the global climate, it is also dangerous for local communities.

And affected communities are growing in number. A new report, released Thursday, details the sheer amount of water contamination, air pollution, climate impacts, and chemical use in fracking in the United States.

“For the past decade, fracking has been a nightmare for our drinking water, our open spaces, and our climate,” Rachel Richardson, a co-author of the paper from Environment America, told ThinkProgress.

Fracking, a form of extraction that injects large volumes of chemical-laced water into shale, releasing pockets of oil and gas, has been on the rise in the United States for the past decade, and the sheer numbers are staggering. Environment America reports that at least 239 billion gallons of water — an average of three million gallons per well — has been used for fracking. In 2014 alone, fracking created 15 billion gallons of wastewater. This water generally cannot be reused, and is often toxic. Fracking operators reinject the water underground, where it can leach into drinking water sources. The chemicals can include formaldehyde, benzene, and hydrochloric acid.

Fracking is also bad news for the climate. Natural gas is 80 percent methane, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than CO2 over a 20-year period. Newly fracked wells released 2.4 million metric tons of methane in 2014 — equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 22 coal-fired power plants.

cars-in-the-road

“Whether you are already on the front lines of fracking or are simply worried about your children having a safe future, the numbers don’t lie,” Richardson said.

At this point, more than a thousand square miles of the country have been disturbed by fracking activity, the report says, with 137,000 fracking wells drilled or permitted across more than 20 states.

“I think the report paints a frightening picture of fracking’s harms,” Richardson said. “A lot of these harms are things that people living on fracking’s front lines are experiencing first hand.”

It’s not just humans who are being impacted. In one area of Wyoming, the mule deer population has fallen by 40 percent in the past 15 years — coinciding, the report says, with a fracking boom in the Pinedale Mesa region.

The detrimental results of fracking are borne up by a slew of stories and lawsuits documenting the practice’s impact on local communities.

Two families in Pennsylvania were awarded more than $4 million in March — ending a seven-year legal battle against a fracking company they said contaminated local water sources. Last summer, a Texas man was severely burned after methane, allegedly from nearby fracking, caused an explosion in his well shed. Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, earthquakes are on the rise, and at least one woman is suing a local oil and gas company for damages from injuries incurred during an allegedly fracking-related earthquake.

Last summer, scientists in Texas found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in one of the state’s major fracking regions.

Moreover, fracking just one part of a growing phenomenon that is putting Americans at risk: our entire natural gas system. Fracking is just the first step. Natural gas transportation — largely through an extensive pipeline system — also poses serious risks and environmental degradation. In Pennsylvania, a group of farmers is fighting eminent domain claims that have allowed a pipeline construction company to come onto their property and cut down trees to run a liquified natural gas (LNG) pipeline that will ultimately connect with export terminals along the east coast. Natural gas storage is an issue: The nation’s largest-ever natural gas leak occurred this past winter, when a Southern California storage facility released more than 97,000 metric tons of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — into the atmosphere.

Related Post

 

Methane Leaks Erase Climate Benefit Of Fracked Gas, Countless Studies Find

On the distribution side, there are dangers, too. In 2010, an LNG pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California, killing eight people, injuring dozens more, and destroying homes in the Bay Area suburb. The Environmental Defense Fund and Google teamed up on a series of studies of methane leaks and found that older cities, such as Boston, are riddled with leaky pipes.

President Obama recently announced that the EPA will begin a rule-making process for limiting methane from existing oil and gas facilities.

Some states are also fighting back against fracking. New York State has banned fracking, while Maryland has put a moratorium on the practice, pending further investigation into its risks. On Wednesday, a Maryland county became the first in the state to ban fracking outright.

The report's authors are hoping that putting all this data together can help convince policymakers and communities to take the threat of fracking seriously -- and to do something about it.

"The best way to protect our health from fracking is to ban this practice and keep these dirty fuels in the ground," Richardson said.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/04/14/3768993/environment-america-fracking-report/

 

http://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Fracking%20by%20the%20Numbers%20vUS.pdf

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Who would have thought that Fracking would be bad eh, as long as certain people make huge profits who gives a shit about the environmental problems it causes. 

[Strontium]

Well, they've been fracking in Germany since 1975, in which case you probably have more knowledge of the associated environmental problems than most?

[Rico1304]

If there's evidence that the way we'd like to frack is dangerous then it shouldn't be done. Simple, any other answer is stupid.

 

But do we have leaky infrastructure and the need for the pipelines carrying gas huge distances as mentioned in the article. Give me apples and apples and then it's possible to make a decision.

[cloggypop]

The Netherlands has the largest natural gas reserve in Europe. It banned fracking last year due to the increase in earthquakes and the damage to housing. It will be reviewed again in 2020.

[Rico1304]

Although once again the loss of the mines is often lamented on here, now that was dangerous, upset water tables and caused hundreds of earthquakes.

[Spy Bee]

All fracking should be suspended until some bonafide independent scientific studies can be completed. Lots of noise now that the impact is worse than burning coal.

 

But this isn't about environmental considerations, it's about not being dependent on oil producing states for fuel. It's the world we live in, but you'd think a long term plan on renewables would be the obvious answer.

[Rico1304]

Renewables are the ideal, but the tech isn't there yet. We need a decent battery.

[moof]

The technology is there, it's the infrastructure that's lacking.

[Rico1304]

The technology is there, it's the infrastructure that's lacking.

Infrastructure needs a massive overhaul but the tech isn't there. The battery could be the tipping point.

[Strontium]

Although once again the loss of the mines is often lamented on here, now that was dangerous, upset water tables and caused hundreds of earthquakes.

I wonder how many people know that coal powered stations actually release more radiation into the environment than nuclear powered.

[A Red]

I wonder how many people know that coal powered stations actually release more radiation into the environment than nuclear powered.

Me! ME!! I knew that!!

 

ok, I didnt.

[Spy Bee]

Nuclear seems sensible, until you consider Chernobyl, Fukushima and the fact that you can't dispose of radioactive waste easily.

[Rico1304]

Nuclear seems sensible, until you consider Chernobyl, Fukushima and the fact that you can't dispose of radioactive waste easily.

Don't ever drive because there have been car accidents. Oh, and Fukushima was the equivalent of losing a wing mirror.

[Spy Bee]

Don't ever drive because there have been car accidents. Oh, and Fukushima was the equivalent of losing a wing mirror.

A brilliantly insightful and considered analogy.

[Rico1304]

A brilliantly insightful and considered analogy.

Thanks. Chernobyl was 30 yrs ago too.

 

Listen to Sue Ion on My Life Scientific.

[Mathewbet1]

im a fraccer

[Spy Bee]

It doesn't really deserve a considered response, but I'll go a little further.

 

Around the globe there are about 145,000 tonnes of dangerous nuclear waste requiring safe storage for 100,000 years. That's a lot of years for no natural disasters, no accidents, no breaches of protocol. Each breach has a huge potential to do damage to the planet and everything alive on it. We do currently only have one planet, so forgive me for being a little precious about it.

 

In terms of Fukushima which was the equivalent of knocking the mirror off your car, it had a fallout/evacuation zone of over 300 square miles. Nobody will be returning to that area for the next 300 years at a minimum. Contamination has been found in food as far as 200 miles away. Never before has so much radioactive waste been discharged into the ocean - we just don't know what the long term impact of this is going to be yet.

 

This has been underplayed by the media and governments of the world. A month after the disaster Japan changed it's safe radiation exposure levels by 20 fold. 20 times higher than what they were before, and 20 times higher than what the US considers a safe exposure level. The US has 232 reactors with the same design as Fukushima.

 

It is a means to an end, but for me it needs to be seen as something that is very much short term and we need to invest in new technologies to provide clean energy for generations to come.

[setreal]

Thanks. Chernobyl was 30 yrs ago too.

 

Listen to Sue Ion on My Life Scientific.

 

Why should we listen to lobbyists?

[Rico1304]

Why should we listen to lobbyists?

Jesus.

[moof]

Why should we listen to lobbyists?

Another member of the regressive left, I see. Why would a nuclear power 'evangelist' ever seek to mislead you about their favourite technology?