As far as I know, it is under EPA oversight. They’re exempted from some of the paperwork, applying for individual licences from local administrators for every hole and operation. They’re not exempted from any pollution prevention requirements.

The reason they fought for it is that the mountain of safety paperwork is expensive, and if you have to go through the entire process for every step, most of it almost identical to the previous set, it slows everything down and magnifies costs.

Incidentally, I’m not saying fracking is “safe”. I’m saying that methane in the water is safe to drink, and I haven’t seen anything published yet to indicate a significant danger from water contamination. (I’m not saying anything about any other fracking-related issues.) I’m saying we ought to apply a risk threshold uniformly across all the things we do, that we accept a significant level of risk in everyday life, and we need to understand that some risks from industrial processes have to be accepted if you don’t want to stop it completely.

The new ones don’t end up on that list often. It goes back to when the major superfund monies were allocated to pay for cleanup where nobody was around to collect from. The superfund is the cleanup of last resort. They enacted that the companies had to put up money up front to pay for cleanup in case something happened (or by insurance). Most of these companies don’t want to have that much tied up. Especially when it may be financed by speculation and possibly over-hyped anyway.

The reason oil companies don’t want the EPA involved is that they don’t want to be held liable. Remember, the operating company hires out the drilling, cementing, testing, transportation, and just about every other aspect of the operation. The oil companies are mostly a bunch of accountants and lawyers. They want to maintain plausible deniability. If the EPA is involved, they are then on the hook even if the problem was with one of the contractors because their pockets are deeper.

Not to sound like a broken record, we need to remember that it is the politicians making the rules. There are no accidental loopholes or exemptions. I am just frustrated by the people pointing their fingers at the oil companies when they are just doing what the lawmakers intentionally allowed. We are not going to have any improvement until the lawmakers are cleaned up.

BTW, I am all for people having the right to not have the minerals they own not be developed. That is one of the most fundamental rights we have.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.11/hydrofracked-one-mans-quest-for-answers-about-natural-gas-drilling/article_view?src=feat&b_start:int=0

Remember, this is a Wyoming farmer/rancher, NOT an environmental conspirator.

=====

Incredulous, sorry for the “snow” comment. Actually, should some ppl have the mineral as well as surface rights, they STILL don’t want the money, not at the current “Price,” Incredulous. Think again, please.

And, per my link above, the problems you mention in #54 are NOT nearly all from years ago.

=====

Finally, a rhetorical question to Nullius, above all, and others who claim fracking is safe, or at least not a matter of worry. Why did the big oil and gas companies fight tooth and claw in the safe fracking bill for it NOT to be under EPA oversight? “The guilty flee when no man pursueth.”

While I don’t personally think fracking is a problem, the track records of many of these companies don’t instill a whole lot of confidence. I can fully understand why they would be leery regardless of the assurances of it’s safety.

Take a quick look at the map of EPA superfund sites:

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/agency/epa/speeding-the-pace-of-cleanup-of-hazardous-waste-sites.php

Remember, those are just the big ones. There are many more that were not big enough to qualify for the superfund and many that are under remediation by other funding sources. We are also still finding them as new construction and testing find them.

Most of this was from problems years ago but it will take a long time for these companies and the oversight agencies to earn people’s trust.

“Feelings” over evidence and data … I find your burden of proof rather truthy.

Fair enough. I agree that corporations are amoral. Their one and only reason to exist is to make a profit however they can. The problem is that we elect politicians who make rules that are not in the public’s best interest. These politicians made the rules that the companies don’t have to disclose everything. They also expressly made laws that create the guidelines and handle the enforcement. Attacking the corporations is just a waste of time. Like the many headed hydra in mythology, strike off one head and two more grow back. You would have thought that we would have learned something way back when they had to get the railroads and companies like Standard Oil under control. It is our elected officials that created the problems. The corporations are just a symptom.

The biggest mistake was when we gave individual rights and status to corporations. The next mistake was made was not to make the management personally and financially responsible for the actions of the company. As it is now, if something goes wrong, they just screw the stockholders by declaring bankruptcy, give themselves a golden parachute, and move to the next company and do it again.

48. Incredulous Says:
June 26th, 2011 at 11:47 pm

The fact is, we are dependent on this form of energy.

Correct

As long as there is not an alternative, we are stuck with it.

Correct

At present, none of the competing technologies come close to the safety and economy of oil and gas.

The safety issue aside (something that ruins the climate we depend on can not be called safe), generally correct. Other energy sources can’t drive our current civilization.

It is going to take a big reorganization of our infrastructure and lifestyle.

Correct

There are few aspects of our modern life that don’t revolve around it. Our cities are designed around it. Our entire transportation system runs on it.

Correct

To say that we can just turn around in a flash and walk away from it is just naive.

Correct

I don’t know about you, but I really wouldn’t like to live in a world that resembles a Mad Max movie.

Me neither.

But the reality is that it is a non-renewable resource that is not going to be available in the same quantities as before in the not so distant future. And since we don’t want to live in a Mad Max world, we need to face reality and implement the necessary changes. And those changes, because of everything you listed above, include drastic downsizing of everything we do, simply because we are not going to be able to do it anyway. An orderly retreat is always better than a chaotic one.

That’s the wrong question to ask. The real questions to ask is “What do you think you’re not being told?”

There is a trust issue for industries of all kinds. I believe people don’t think they can make an informed decision because they don’t believe they’re getting all the information they need to make that decision.

And if the public doesn’t feel they have all the information they need, then how can they adequately assess risk?