I would have for the US bourgeoise opec is a gem and so is a global economy dependent on oil... So imperial control of oil territory is more relevant to the US econmoy than producing common household goods...
Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: >NY Times Op-ed April 15, 2011 >About My Support for Natural Gas >By JOE NOCERA > >Oh, puh-leeze! > >Some readers of The New York Times are unimpressed with the idea of >substituting natural gas for imported oil, even though such a move would >help wean the country from its dependence on OPEC. Or so it appears >after I made that argument in my column on Tuesday, noting that natural >gas is a fossil fuel we have in abundance and is cleaner than oil to boot. > >After that column was published, I was buried under an avalanche of >angry e-mails and comments, most of them complaining that I had ignored >the environmental dangers of drilling for gas, particularly the use of >hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique that involves shooting >water and chemicals into shale formations deep underground. > >“No mention of the disastrous consequences of fracking?” read one >e-mail. Many readers pointed to a study by a Cornell scientist — >reported in The Times the same day my column appeared — claiming that >methane gas emissions posed a bigger threat to the environment than >dirty coal. Another reader called my column “a disgrace.” > >Really? Let’s take a closer look. To begin with, fracking is hardly new. >In Texas and Oklahoma, it has been used for decades, with nobody >complaining much about environmental degradation. It must be a >coincidence that these worries surfaced when a natural gas field called >the Marcellus Shale was discovered in the Northeast, primarily under >Pennsylvania and New York. Surely, East Coast residents wouldn’t object >to having the country use more natural gas just because it’s going to be >drilled in their own backyard instead of, say, downtown Fort Worth. >Would they? > >(clip) > >===== > >NY Times April 16, 2011 >Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says >By IAN URBINA > >WASHINGTON — Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of >gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than >13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by >Congressional Democrats. > >The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as >hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure >injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock >formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap >into large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in >the rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas. > >Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and >environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used >during the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking water. > >“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are >compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic >fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by >Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of >Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado. > >The report, which is to be released on Monday, also faulted companies >for at times “injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves >cannot identify.” > >The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy >and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that >14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 >million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. >More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or >possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, >or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said. > >A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute about the >report received no reply. > >Some of the ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were >common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were >unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many >of the ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known >human carcinogen, and lead. > >Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals including >11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or >carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and >ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing >one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas. > >The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the >same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids >containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because >it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking >by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the >drinking water act. > >A 2010 report by Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy >organization, found that benzene levels in other hydrofracking >ingredients were as much as 93 times higher than those found in diesel. > >The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators >and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way >out of a well bore — either because of above-ground spills, underground >failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock — and into >nearby sources of drinking water. > >These contaminants also remain in the fluid that returns to the surface >after a well is hydrofracked. A recent investigation by The New York >Times found high levels of contaminants, including benzene and >radioactive materials, in wastewater that is being sent to treatment >plants not designed to fully treat the waste before it is discharged >into rivers. At one plant in Pennsylvania, documents from the >Environmental Protection Agency revealed levels of benzene roughly 28 >times the federal drinking water standard in wastewater as it was >discharged, after treatment, into the Allegheny River in May 2008. > >The E.P.A. is conducting a national study on the drinking water risks >associated with hydrofracking, but assessing these risks has been made >more difficult by companies’ unwillingness to publicly disclose which >chemicals and in what concentrations they are used, according to >internal e-mails and draft notes of the study plan. > >Some companies are moving toward more disclosure, and the industry will >soon start a public database of these chemicals. But the Congressional >report said that reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, that >disclosure will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as >proprietary, and that there is no way to determine if companies are >accurately reporting information for all wells. In Pennsylvania, the >lack of disclosure of drilling ingredients has also incited a heated >debate among E.P.A. lawyers about the threat and legality of treatment >plants accepting the wastewater and discharging it into rivers. > >Ms. Degette, and Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New >York, recently reintroduced the FRAC Act, a bill that would require >chemical disclosure from all drilling companies, including a provision >that companies release proprietary information to health professionals >if it is needed for treatment. The FRAC Act would also create an online >registry of chemicals on a well-by-well basis, but it would require >drillers to disclose what they plan to use before they fracture a well, >as well as a post-fracturing report. >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
