Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

AG: XTO Polluted Well Site

Kane: Dumped more than 50,000 gallons of toxic chemicals

September 14, 2013

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane believes Exxon Mobil’s natural gas division dumped “more than 50,000 gallons of toxic wastewater” at a Marcellus Shale well, so she is charging the compan......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(15)

TrollSlayer

Sep-15-13 2:42 PM

You go, GEO. I hope you succeed in your waste to snake oil business. Just as long as you don't use my tax dollars, or borrowed Chinese dollars, or Government mandates and restrictions, to do it.

Me? I'll always bet on the laws of physics over perpetual motion machines. Unless they're Government-subsidized perpetual motion machines, which do seem to thrive perpetually.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-15-13 2:16 PM

Troll, you, and the purveyors of our news, apparently, are just in a mode of total denial. One company is already using environmental energy to harvest exhaust gas CO2 and then convert it into Methanol, which is being blended into Gasoline and profitably sold in service stations in several Scandinavian nations. Carbon Recycling International, CRI, about which there is an article in the Wikipedia, have adapted technology devised originally by a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the U. of Southern California to effect the conversion. And, they've developed their own tech to convert CO2 into Gasoline, as confirmed by our own government in: "US Patent 8,506,910 - Process and System for Producing Liquid Fuel from Carbon Dioxide and Water; August 13, 2013; Assignee: CRI Ehf, Iceland; Abstract: A process and system for producing high octane fuel from carbon dioxide and water is disclosed".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-15-13 1:12 PM

The Navy is one very unique sensible application of your scam. When you’re in the middle of the ocean, far from resupply and far from a power grid, with a nuclear reactor generating essentially limitless power that you CAN’T put on a power grid, you may as well use that excess energy generation capacity to produce fuel.

But if you’re putting a windmill farm or a solar farm next to a coal-fired power plant, and using that environmental energy to turn coal-derived CO2 back into fuel rather than putting that environmental energy on the power grid to reduce the amount of coal you’re burning in the first place, you're wasting energy, wasting profit, and selling snake oil.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-15-13 12:56 PM

Troll: It's the US Navy, among others, who're saying we can productively collect CO2 and convert it into hydrocarbons. So, take your mindless derision, your uninformed comments, your irrelevant Baloney Sandwiches, and sell 'em to the Marines.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-15-13 12:45 PM

GEO “But, if you're utilizing otherwise unused environmental energy to accomplish it, so what?”

If you’re putting that environmental energy into converting waste to fuel instead of putting it directly onto the power grid, BIG what. That roundabout process WASTES energy, so it WASTES profit. Plus, you could have simply burned less fuel and created less CO2 in the first place. So it's not "green," either.

Your CO2 to fuel plans are simply scams, created to make coal look “green,” or to make the companies demonstrating those scams look “green.” You’re promoting snake oil, GEO. LOL

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-15-13 12:17 PM

Troll: It's clear you don't understand the Second Law. Did you know that it is, in essence, the foundation of a petro/gas industry concept known most usually as "EROI", or, or, more properly, "EROEI" - energy returned on energy invested; and, that, individual shale gas well production can in some cases be so low, or decline so quickly, that their EROI is negative? Sure, it takes energy to collect CO2 and convert it into hydrocarbons. But, if you're utilizing otherwise unused environmental energy to accomplish it, so what? In yet another example of the US Navy's CO2-recycling technology, see: "United States Patent Application 20130206605 - Extraction of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen from Seawater and Hydrocarbon Production Therefrom; August 15, 2013; Assignee: The Government of the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy". We need liquid hydrocarbon fuels; if we can use environmental energy to make them from CO2, why wouldn't we

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Shepstone

Sep-15-13 11:17 AM

See this post for the full story:

*******naturalgasnow****/kane-goes-political-against-xto/

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-15-13 10:23 AM

GEO, don’t you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Yes, you certainly can turn CO2 to methane. No argument with you. And Audi and Panasonic may have demonstration plants doing that. But the laws of physics demand that it would be more efficient, and therefore cheaper, to put that wind- and solar-generated power onto the power grid and simply burn less fuel for the same total power generated.

Either you can’t understand the science, or you refuse to acknowledge it because it blows away your coal-is-clean-gas-is-bad disinformation campaign. When those processes are being done commercially, unsubsidized, large scale, in significant quantities, at a profit, get back to us.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-15-13 9:47 AM

Troll: Everything we say can be documented, is founded on established and reported fact; and, we most often cite our specific sources. If this restrictive site would allow us to post links to sources, we would. Your comments seem empty and emotional expositions, more than anything else. Here's another one for you: In a news release from the Volkswagen Group: "Audi's New e-gas Plant Comes Online", June 25, 2013, it was announced that Audi is now, at a new factory in Germany, capturing industrial exhaust Carbon Dioxide, and, using wind-generated power to drive the process, is converting that CO2 into substitute natural gas Methane. Think you're going to have an export market for shale gas? Think again. Panasonic has a similar, CO2-to-Methane, pilot operation underway in Japan, driven by sunlight.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-14-13 11:58 PM

Earth to Marcy, Earth to Marcy. Fracking fluid is NOT drinking water. And it won’t be dumped in the river so it’s not effluent, either. So comparing it to drinking water standards or effluent standards is irrelevant. Ignorant. Idiotic. You too, GEO. When you have no real evidence, I guess you have to babble disinformation. Bring relevant facts and a real argument next time. LOL

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-14-13 4:00 PM

Marcellus: Thanks for the well-summarized stats and examples. This is, we insist, we think everyone should insist, a genuine and very significant hazard, that, for the sake of future generations cannot be brushed off or ignored. To do so would be the height of social irresponsibility.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcellus

Sep-14-13 1:43 PM

Radium in one sample of Marcellus shale wastewater that PA officials collected in 2009 was 3,609 times more radioactive than a federal safety limit for drinking water. It was 300 times higher than a NRC limit for industrial discharges to water.

The December 2011 study by the USGS also found that the median levels of radium in brine from Marcellus shale wells was more than 3 times higher than brine collected from conventional oil & gas wells.

The USGS examined 52 samples of Marcellus shale brine collected from wells in NY & PA from 2009-2011. In 37 of the samples, radioactivity from radium-226 and radium-228 was at least 242 times higher than the drinking-water standard and at least 20 times higher than the industrial standard.

That included a sample collected Dec 21, 2009, in Tioga County Pa., that was 3,609 times higher than the drinking water standard and 300 times higher than the industrial.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-14-13 10:48 AM

From the article “the spill did not cause significant environmental harm, emphasizing the well site has been fully remediated”

Waiting for the anti-gas loons to name any individual who was harmed in this incident. To specify damage that wasn’t remediated.

Waiting... Waiting...

Waiting...

Well, better luck next time, loons. LOL

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Sep-14-13 10:08 AM

all of the well sites are contaminated.DEP just needs to look.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-14-13 8:42 AM

"XTO produced fracking wastewater containing chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum while working at the Marquardt site." Did they test for Radium? That seems a far greater danger to us. The "barium" and "strontium" could be radioactive, as well; but, for one example, there are others, the United States Geologic Survey, in: "Radium Content of Oil- and Gas-Field Produced Waters in the Northern Appalachian Basin (USA)—Summary and Discussion of Data: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5135", discloses that Radium can be present in shale gas drilling and fracking wastes in amounts well above those allowed in industrial effluent. Radium's great danger lies in the fact that it will, even in the tiniest amounts, bio-accumulate in your bones, where it will, by damaging genetic material, inflict injury on your children and grandchildren. Doesn't our press have an obligation to publicly address that issue, to ask appropriate q

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 15 of 15 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: