jeff
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 279
Heh! that's gone too!
Heh! that's gone too!
jeff
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 279
I am impressed and I commend you for volunteering.! I have some business associates who have done that in the past. You don't get food stamps and welfare from the United Way though. We are talking about two different things. The people who utilize the United Way are for the most part inclined to dig themselves out of whatever hole they're in, not to try and manipulate the system to freeload.
Sorry for the highjack bikerfish.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Agreed, no UW money goes towards those types of programs, and agreed that those who use it are inclined to dig themselves out. However, UW sponsored agencies do indeed refer people to various agencies for help, including SNAP (aka food stamps), HUD, etc. Obviously, I was more on the campaign end of things, but we certainly got our share of exposure, and did some work on the other side of things as well.
From memory, the basic requirements for general welfare (TANF program) were:
1. U.S. citizen
2. all non-essential possessions worth less than a total of $1000
3. if claiming a child, you have to be taking care of that child
4. You can only get welfare for a total of 5 years in your entire life.
#1 is checked by the state, it'd be pretty tough for someone local to sneak by that one. #2 I'm sure there's some wiggle room on what is essential, but I'd bet its pretty common for case workers to cheat a bit on certain things, nomatter what city you're in. #3 is determined by public agencies, which may vary per area I suppose, though I have my doubts if they need to cheat here very often. #4 This might be where there's some wiggle room if you have corrupt case workers. It can be waived (or more accurately you're put in general assistance program) for a variety of reasons, including young children, disabilities, undergoing drug treatment, etc.
P.S. It was the best thing I ever did. Great people!
Gone4Day
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 300
Currently, the price of natural gas in the US is about half what it is on the global market. Based on energy content, its less then 1/3 the price of oil. Its cheaper then coal for electricity generation. Increased production will only drive prices lower. For this reason I predict the drilling will taper off over the next few years. Right now what is sustaining it, is most leases have a "used it or loose it" clause. Typically, if a company doesn't produce the lease in a specified time, usually in 3-7 years, they loose the lease. So once they get them locked in, the drilling will drop to a more leisurely pace.
Like previous booms, by the time the general public knows about them, they're over. What remains is the consolidation phase where all the smaller players are systematically bought out or merged into a dozen or so major ones. Besides the usual suspects like Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron, there's a couple surprises in there as well, like Rosneft and CNOC. I can imagine the uproar when somebody finds out the russian government has controlling interest in the local gas company. The conspiracy crowd will go nuts.
Where are the jobs? Well, the PA unemployment rate is less then the national average so it could be argued there is a measurable effect from the drilling. Usually during recessions PA unemployment is higher then the national average. For anecdotal evidence, a friend of mine works at a mill that was all but shut down a couple years ago and moved to china. But a mill is a very energy intensive industry and the price of natural gas is about 4 time higher in china. So it made economic sense to revive the US mill where cheap energy prices offset higher labor costs, making production in the US just as cheap. They have since hired back all their laid off workers and are now running full tilt.
Although I'm happy for my friend in that he'll probably make it to retirement, my longer term concern is the cheap NG prices will make PA attractive to other energy intensive industries. At a minimum, somebody is going to build a few gas fired power plants. But at least its putting the coal industry out of business.
Like previous booms, by the time the general public knows about them, they're over. What remains is the consolidation phase where all the smaller players are systematically bought out or merged into a dozen or so major ones. Besides the usual suspects like Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron, there's a couple surprises in there as well, like Rosneft and CNOC. I can imagine the uproar when somebody finds out the russian government has controlling interest in the local gas company. The conspiracy crowd will go nuts.
Where are the jobs? Well, the PA unemployment rate is less then the national average so it could be argued there is a measurable effect from the drilling. Usually during recessions PA unemployment is higher then the national average. For anecdotal evidence, a friend of mine works at a mill that was all but shut down a couple years ago and moved to china. But a mill is a very energy intensive industry and the price of natural gas is about 4 time higher in china. So it made economic sense to revive the US mill where cheap energy prices offset higher labor costs, making production in the US just as cheap. They have since hired back all their laid off workers and are now running full tilt.
Although I'm happy for my friend in that he'll probably make it to retirement, my longer term concern is the cheap NG prices will make PA attractive to other energy intensive industries. At a minimum, somebody is going to build a few gas fired power plants. But at least its putting the coal industry out of business.
jeff
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 279
Man your previous post had some good points. But you lost me on this one. Pretty naive IMO. The DHMO scare was a hoax. The possible environmental effects from MS drilling is real in a perfect world. We all know we don't live in a perfect world. The end of the world no..... But maybe the end of your favorite class A waters or worse.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Well, personally, I do certainly believe there are important environmental concerns related to Marcellus. But I do think much of the public has largely misunderstood the dangers, focused on the wrong things, and exaggerated.
The dihydride monoxide thing is an example of chemophobia. While, in this case, there are some chemical dangers, they're being exaggerated due to chemophobia.
A
AndyP
Active member
Pcray - You have many interesting viewpoints that, as with most conversations, I agree and disagree with. I just would like to hear your view on some type of tax on the Marcellus Gas Industry. I am for a tax or fee of some sort and strongly oppose it going into the General Fund. I think some monies need to be set aside for enviromental cleanup and maybe even infrastructure repairs (roads and bridges) It is silly to think this Industry will be curtailed but I hope we can have some level of fair and effective regulation to protect the water. My biggest fear is for the water and our streams.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I've stated my viewpoints on this before.
Basically, I would support a tax to cover the road/infrastructure repairs for the localities affected. Unfortunately, the tax structure, as it stands now, does extract money from the gas industry, but it doesn't always go to the right places. Some should go directly to PennDOT, and some to the townships and municipalities whose roads are seeing the most traffic from that company. I essentially see the road and traffic issues as an unavoidable cost of gas drilling.
Beyond that, though, no, I do not support an automatic tax. Primarily, because I see most other environmental concerns as avoidable, and I want a strong incentive in place for companies to try to avoid those issues. If and when a company does cause damage, they should be fully responsible for cleanup, and they should pay a quite hefty fine on top of that. The fine can be used for monitoring the drilling operations as well as monitoring any cleanups which may occur, and if some is left over, then it can lower the local tax burden on the residents most affected.
Like you, I strongly oppose anything going directly to the state's general fund, even from fines. That creates a situation where the money can be used for something else, and it would be used for something else. I also don't want to create an incentive for our politicians to go overboard (if they haven't already), and encourage excess drilling by lowering regulations, etc. Giving our politicians money to spend for each new well would do exactly that.
Basically, I would support a tax to cover the road/infrastructure repairs for the localities affected. Unfortunately, the tax structure, as it stands now, does extract money from the gas industry, but it doesn't always go to the right places. Some should go directly to PennDOT, and some to the townships and municipalities whose roads are seeing the most traffic from that company. I essentially see the road and traffic issues as an unavoidable cost of gas drilling.
Beyond that, though, no, I do not support an automatic tax. Primarily, because I see most other environmental concerns as avoidable, and I want a strong incentive in place for companies to try to avoid those issues. If and when a company does cause damage, they should be fully responsible for cleanup, and they should pay a quite hefty fine on top of that. The fine can be used for monitoring the drilling operations as well as monitoring any cleanups which may occur, and if some is left over, then it can lower the local tax burden on the residents most affected.
Like you, I strongly oppose anything going directly to the state's general fund, even from fines. That creates a situation where the money can be used for something else, and it would be used for something else. I also don't want to create an incentive for our politicians to go overboard (if they haven't already), and encourage excess drilling by lowering regulations, etc. Giving our politicians money to spend for each new well would do exactly that.
Acristickid
Well-known member
From Post Gazette's site:
Scope of job creation a matter of conjecture
Some people debate whether Marcellus Shale development is really creating all the jobs its backers claim it is -- as many as 100,000 last year, by the industry's count.
Not James Ladlee. Not when it comes to direct jobs. He has seen them, surveyed them, counted them.
"I think companies are hiring more and more," said Mr. Ladlee, director of Penn State Cooperative Extension's Clinton County office. "And it's not just on drilling rigs or fracking crews, steel hauling and cutting down trees."
Over the last two years, he and a colleague, Larry Michael, executive director of workforce and economic development at Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, studied the creation of Marcellus Shale jobs.
They concede that calculating the spinoff jobs created by the multiplier effect of, say, so many Marcellus Shale rig workers buying lunch at a local diner, requiring the diner to hire more employees, is hard to gauge.
But they don't quibble when it comes to the number of direct jobs in the field.
Burgh Diaspora on talent migration
Directory of drillers in Western Pa.
Photo essay: Working on a rig
"Most of the jobs that are out there are in the development of the well pad itself. That is clear," Mr. Michael said.
Several studies, including theirs, have found roughly the same statistic: Statewide, preparing, drilling and beginning the production of a Marcellus Shale well will take the equivalent of 11 to 13 full-time jobs per well.
That's not to say that only a dozen or so people do all the work.
Instead, their study found that, on average, it takes 410 individuals, across 150 different job types -- from roustabout and truck driver, to roughneck and mud logger -- to get a well up and running. But nearly all of the workers are only there for a few days or weeks at a time. Adding up the hours, it's equivalent to 11 to 13 people working on one well site for an entire year.
Multiply that number by the 1,440 wells drilled in the state in 2010, and it comes out to about 15,000 to 17,000 direct jobs from well site development alone. That's roughly double the work on the 795 wells drilled in 2009. There already have been 195 wells drilled in the state this year as of Feb. 11.
Three energy companies of varying size -- Range Resources, CNX Gas, and Rice Energy -- provided figures about developing a well site that paint a portrait of the jobs that are growing in the industry.
The first stage is site construction, which means building the roads that lead to and from the well site and the well pad itself. This is a labor-intensive, heavy-equipment operation that can take up to two months and cost up to $1 million, depending on the terrain, and employing 20 to 50 people from four to 10 subcontractors at any one time.
The second stage is drilling, which starts with a specialized team that moves in to build the "top hole" rigs -- smaller rigs used to drill the vertical hole straight down. It typically takes two weeks to drill each vertical well on a pad, and most companies are trying to drill at least four wells per pad.
These rigs, which the energy companies don't own, can cost about $15,000 a day to rent. It can take eight to 10 subcontractors, employing 30 to 50 people total, to build the rig, drill the hole, and take the rig back down.
The smaller rig drills to the "kickoff point," where a much larger, horizontal rig is brought in to drill the horizontal portion of the hole into the Marcellus Shale. These rigs are so expensive to rent -- about $50,000 a day -- that they are a major controlling factor in well site development across a wide region.
"We drill 365 [days a year] 24/7 because of the cost of the drilling rig," said Tony Gaudlip, who helps oversee drilling operations for Range Resources in Washington County. "You can't afford to have it sitting idle."
Depending on how far out the horizontal line is going to go -- 3,000 feet is typical, but some have been drilling much farther, 6,000 feet or more -- it can take two weeks or more per well. This also can employ eight to 10 subcontractors, with 30 to 50 people on site on any given day.
Overall, the second stage of drilling the well, both vertically and horizontally, can cost $1 million to $3 million per well site.
The third stage -- hydraulic fracturing and completing the well -- is by far the most technically difficult and labor intensive. This is where, after the shale is initially "perforated" with a small explosion, up to 4 million gallons of water, sand and chemicals are injected into each well to further open up and keep open the perforations, freeing up the natural gas contained in the shale.
It can take up to two weeks to prepare a site for fracking, and then three to four days per well to do the fracking itself. During that time, 15 to 25 subcontractors may be on site on any given day, employing 150 to 350 people, costing $2 million to $4 million per well site.
The final, least-expensive stage is production, when "flowback" from the wells is done, allowing the fracturing fluid -- sand, water and chemicals -- to come back out of the well before the gas itself begins to run. This can take another week and involve 10 to 20 employees from two to four companies.
Based on what the energy companies describe, the whole process can take four to eight months. The energy company, primarily through subcontractors, will employ 240 to 450 employees working for 37 to 59 contractors. And depending on how many wells are drilled per pad, it can cost $4 million to $9 million each.
A lingering question that the industry struggles to answer is how many of these jobs and how much of the money stay with Pennsylvanians spending it here.
Every company has a different take -- 40 percent to 90 percent are some estimates. But Mr. Michaels and Mr. Ladlee hope to add some detail to that with a study they're doing now and hope to release in the spring.
For now, Mr. Michaels said, it is still clear that "as we build more wells, they'll employ more people."
Scope of job creation a matter of conjecture
Some people debate whether Marcellus Shale development is really creating all the jobs its backers claim it is -- as many as 100,000 last year, by the industry's count.
Not James Ladlee. Not when it comes to direct jobs. He has seen them, surveyed them, counted them.
"I think companies are hiring more and more," said Mr. Ladlee, director of Penn State Cooperative Extension's Clinton County office. "And it's not just on drilling rigs or fracking crews, steel hauling and cutting down trees."
Over the last two years, he and a colleague, Larry Michael, executive director of workforce and economic development at Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, studied the creation of Marcellus Shale jobs.
They concede that calculating the spinoff jobs created by the multiplier effect of, say, so many Marcellus Shale rig workers buying lunch at a local diner, requiring the diner to hire more employees, is hard to gauge.
But they don't quibble when it comes to the number of direct jobs in the field.
Burgh Diaspora on talent migration
Directory of drillers in Western Pa.
Photo essay: Working on a rig
"Most of the jobs that are out there are in the development of the well pad itself. That is clear," Mr. Michael said.
Several studies, including theirs, have found roughly the same statistic: Statewide, preparing, drilling and beginning the production of a Marcellus Shale well will take the equivalent of 11 to 13 full-time jobs per well.
That's not to say that only a dozen or so people do all the work.
Instead, their study found that, on average, it takes 410 individuals, across 150 different job types -- from roustabout and truck driver, to roughneck and mud logger -- to get a well up and running. But nearly all of the workers are only there for a few days or weeks at a time. Adding up the hours, it's equivalent to 11 to 13 people working on one well site for an entire year.
Multiply that number by the 1,440 wells drilled in the state in 2010, and it comes out to about 15,000 to 17,000 direct jobs from well site development alone. That's roughly double the work on the 795 wells drilled in 2009. There already have been 195 wells drilled in the state this year as of Feb. 11.
Three energy companies of varying size -- Range Resources, CNX Gas, and Rice Energy -- provided figures about developing a well site that paint a portrait of the jobs that are growing in the industry.
The first stage is site construction, which means building the roads that lead to and from the well site and the well pad itself. This is a labor-intensive, heavy-equipment operation that can take up to two months and cost up to $1 million, depending on the terrain, and employing 20 to 50 people from four to 10 subcontractors at any one time.
The second stage is drilling, which starts with a specialized team that moves in to build the "top hole" rigs -- smaller rigs used to drill the vertical hole straight down. It typically takes two weeks to drill each vertical well on a pad, and most companies are trying to drill at least four wells per pad.
These rigs, which the energy companies don't own, can cost about $15,000 a day to rent. It can take eight to 10 subcontractors, employing 30 to 50 people total, to build the rig, drill the hole, and take the rig back down.
The smaller rig drills to the "kickoff point," where a much larger, horizontal rig is brought in to drill the horizontal portion of the hole into the Marcellus Shale. These rigs are so expensive to rent -- about $50,000 a day -- that they are a major controlling factor in well site development across a wide region.
"We drill 365 [days a year] 24/7 because of the cost of the drilling rig," said Tony Gaudlip, who helps oversee drilling operations for Range Resources in Washington County. "You can't afford to have it sitting idle."
Depending on how far out the horizontal line is going to go -- 3,000 feet is typical, but some have been drilling much farther, 6,000 feet or more -- it can take two weeks or more per well. This also can employ eight to 10 subcontractors, with 30 to 50 people on site on any given day.
Overall, the second stage of drilling the well, both vertically and horizontally, can cost $1 million to $3 million per well site.
The third stage -- hydraulic fracturing and completing the well -- is by far the most technically difficult and labor intensive. This is where, after the shale is initially "perforated" with a small explosion, up to 4 million gallons of water, sand and chemicals are injected into each well to further open up and keep open the perforations, freeing up the natural gas contained in the shale.
It can take up to two weeks to prepare a site for fracking, and then three to four days per well to do the fracking itself. During that time, 15 to 25 subcontractors may be on site on any given day, employing 150 to 350 people, costing $2 million to $4 million per well site.
The final, least-expensive stage is production, when "flowback" from the wells is done, allowing the fracturing fluid -- sand, water and chemicals -- to come back out of the well before the gas itself begins to run. This can take another week and involve 10 to 20 employees from two to four companies.
Based on what the energy companies describe, the whole process can take four to eight months. The energy company, primarily through subcontractors, will employ 240 to 450 employees working for 37 to 59 contractors. And depending on how many wells are drilled per pad, it can cost $4 million to $9 million each.
A lingering question that the industry struggles to answer is how many of these jobs and how much of the money stay with Pennsylvanians spending it here.
Every company has a different take -- 40 percent to 90 percent are some estimates. But Mr. Michaels and Mr. Ladlee hope to add some detail to that with a study they're doing now and hope to release in the spring.
For now, Mr. Michaels said, it is still clear that "as we build more wells, they'll employ more people."
osprey
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
The hysteria imo is a good thing , anything that gets folks paying attention who otherwise would have just gone on as usual is a good thing. Getting the issue out in the open and shining a light on it rather than the ol "nothing to see here" is OK with me , we've been lied to so many times that we come to expect to be lied to and seem to get upset when our leaders occasionally tell the truth. Our current Governor needs a wake up call but i don't see folks giving him one. Maybe that will change , the combination of all that's going wrong along with paying elected officials to screw us , might get the attention it deserves , but i doubt it. The voters have short memories. Regular folks just want to get by anymore , i don't see real enthusiasm for anything , very little aspiration for greatness , just getting by seems to be enough for most. It's easy to just write it off as laziness but i think it's more fear i.e. "If you stick your neck out it could get chopped off" "don't rock the boat" so folks just do what they have to to get by and it seems like we're stuck there.
Acristickid
Well-known member
From Pittsburgh Post Gazette:
Gas drillers recycling more water, using fewer chemicals
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Drillers plumbing the Marcellus Shale still use millions of gallons of water per well to bust up the deep subterranean rock strata and release the natural gas it contains, but more and more they're reducing the amount of chemical additives used in hydraulic fracturing and recycling wastewater.
And some are even considering pumping water from abandoned mines to augment their waste or "flowback" water for the next well's fracking job.
Those changes could eventually address some of the risks to water quantity and quality that environmental advocates raise, but they're also driven by drilling economics: Reducing the amounts of water and chemicals may cut the cost of developing one of the biggest unconventional shale gas plays in the world.
Look at the numbers: Each Marcellus Shale well uses 100,000 to 300,000 gallons of water for drilling and an average of 4 million gallons mixed with sand and chemicals to hydraulically fracture the shale and release the gas. Anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of that used fracking fluid, also known as "flowback water," is pushed back to the surface, along with dissolved metals and radiation, with the gas.
While the number of Marcellus wells drilled in the state is expected to climb steeply this year and for many years to come, increasing water use for drilling, Dave Yoxtheimer, hydrogeologist with Penn State University's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, said there's little chance, given the stream-withdrawal regulations in place, that the state will come close to running out of water. And drillers' water use per well is going down.
"The majority of companies are working toward reusing 100 percent of their flowback water for several reasons. Environmentally it makes sense, and economically it makes more sense, even though they have to treat some fairly significant dissolved solids," Mr. Yoxtheimer said.
He said some companies prefer to reuse the briny flowback water because it's "heavier" with dissolved solids, metals and salts and can more effectively fracture the shale.
Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, has studied Marcellus Shale gas extraction technologies and said treatment of the flowback water is a significant cost that is driving drillers -- like Range Resources, one of the state's biggest Marcellus operators -- to reuse wastewater.
According to Mr. Gregory and Range Resources, the company recycled 80 percent of its wastewater in 2009, at least 90 percent in 2010, and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011. Chesapeake Energy and Atlas Energy, other big drilling operators in the state, also are moving in that direction, Mr. Gregory said.
And companies are looking at the potential for using water from abandoned mines if the recycled flowback water needs to be augmented, Mr. Gregory said.
Also much reduced in the Marcellus Shale drilling is the amount of chemical additives -- including biocides, corrosion inhibitors, acids and friction reducers -- mixed with water and sand to create the fracking fluid.
"Chemicals cost money," Mr. Yoxtheimer said. "The less the companies can use without compromising production, the more it would add to their bottom line."
He said companies coming into Pennsylvania from the Barnett Shale play in Texas initially used the same chemical recipe they used there but have since "fine-tuned" the proportions to match the differences in the shales.
Range Resources has reduced both the number and amount of chemicals it uses for fracking. The chemical parts of the fracking fluid dropped from one-half of 1 percent to approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
"In Pennsylvania, you can frack with just about anything," Mr. Gregory said. "Of the 100 or so chemicals available, they were adding just 10 or 20. Now it's down to just four or five."
"Range may be one of the more environmentally sensitive, but at some point it needs to do something with disposal," said Conrad Dan Volz, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Healthy Environments and Communities and an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health.
"It's the soft underbelly of the industry here. There is not adequate treatment to handle all of the wastewater and it raises questions about why the DEP is continuing to hand out [drilling] permits."
But Scott Perry, director of the DEP's Oil & Gas Bureau, said new oil and gas drilling regulations that went into effect in early February will strengthen protections for the state's water resources.
Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11060/1128780-503.stm#ixzz1FMGDpnx9
Gas drillers recycling more water, using fewer chemicals
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Drillers plumbing the Marcellus Shale still use millions of gallons of water per well to bust up the deep subterranean rock strata and release the natural gas it contains, but more and more they're reducing the amount of chemical additives used in hydraulic fracturing and recycling wastewater.
And some are even considering pumping water from abandoned mines to augment their waste or "flowback" water for the next well's fracking job.
Those changes could eventually address some of the risks to water quantity and quality that environmental advocates raise, but they're also driven by drilling economics: Reducing the amounts of water and chemicals may cut the cost of developing one of the biggest unconventional shale gas plays in the world.
Look at the numbers: Each Marcellus Shale well uses 100,000 to 300,000 gallons of water for drilling and an average of 4 million gallons mixed with sand and chemicals to hydraulically fracture the shale and release the gas. Anywhere from 10 to 50 percent of that used fracking fluid, also known as "flowback water," is pushed back to the surface, along with dissolved metals and radiation, with the gas.
While the number of Marcellus wells drilled in the state is expected to climb steeply this year and for many years to come, increasing water use for drilling, Dave Yoxtheimer, hydrogeologist with Penn State University's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, said there's little chance, given the stream-withdrawal regulations in place, that the state will come close to running out of water. And drillers' water use per well is going down.
"The majority of companies are working toward reusing 100 percent of their flowback water for several reasons. Environmentally it makes sense, and economically it makes more sense, even though they have to treat some fairly significant dissolved solids," Mr. Yoxtheimer said.
He said some companies prefer to reuse the briny flowback water because it's "heavier" with dissolved solids, metals and salts and can more effectively fracture the shale.
Kelvin Gregory, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, has studied Marcellus Shale gas extraction technologies and said treatment of the flowback water is a significant cost that is driving drillers -- like Range Resources, one of the state's biggest Marcellus operators -- to reuse wastewater.
According to Mr. Gregory and Range Resources, the company recycled 80 percent of its wastewater in 2009, at least 90 percent in 2010, and has set a goal of 100 percent for 2011. Chesapeake Energy and Atlas Energy, other big drilling operators in the state, also are moving in that direction, Mr. Gregory said.
And companies are looking at the potential for using water from abandoned mines if the recycled flowback water needs to be augmented, Mr. Gregory said.
Also much reduced in the Marcellus Shale drilling is the amount of chemical additives -- including biocides, corrosion inhibitors, acids and friction reducers -- mixed with water and sand to create the fracking fluid.
"Chemicals cost money," Mr. Yoxtheimer said. "The less the companies can use without compromising production, the more it would add to their bottom line."
He said companies coming into Pennsylvania from the Barnett Shale play in Texas initially used the same chemical recipe they used there but have since "fine-tuned" the proportions to match the differences in the shales.
Range Resources has reduced both the number and amount of chemicals it uses for fracking. The chemical parts of the fracking fluid dropped from one-half of 1 percent to approximately one-tenth of 1 percent.
"In Pennsylvania, you can frack with just about anything," Mr. Gregory said. "Of the 100 or so chemicals available, they were adding just 10 or 20. Now it's down to just four or five."
"Range may be one of the more environmentally sensitive, but at some point it needs to do something with disposal," said Conrad Dan Volz, director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Healthy Environments and Communities and an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health.
"It's the soft underbelly of the industry here. There is not adequate treatment to handle all of the wastewater and it raises questions about why the DEP is continuing to hand out [drilling] permits."
But Scott Perry, director of the DEP's Oil & Gas Bureau, said new oil and gas drilling regulations that went into effect in early February will strengthen protections for the state's water resources.
Don Hopey: dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11060/1128780-503.stm#ixzz1FMGDpnx9
Latest posts
-
LJuly/August trout - what central PA streams stay cold?
- Latest: lycoflyfisher
-
-
A
-
