Are we sure closed loop systems should be called a “best practice”? I think we need a different category that is a level above “horrifying practices” but not nearly a “best practice” and I think closed loop systems belong in that category. I resent closed loop systems and here’s why:
Closed loop systems are all the rage in municipalities now. “Oh, we don’t allow pits!” they say with great superiority and pride. “We require closed loop systems.” This enables them to perceive natural gas as a “clean energy” because they don’t see or smell the waste. It’s like when I played peek-a-boo with my babies. I would cover my eyes and they would say, “Mama gone-gone.” In an infant’s world, if you don’t see it then it doesn’t exist. People in municipal areas never see or smell the nasty, toxic goo that is created during natural gas extraction so, in their world, it doesn’t exist. In their world it’s “all clean”.
In reality, the toxic goo in those tanks is transported to rural areas and spread on farmland, ranch land and on watershed areas. You know, the places were we grow food and the food our food eats. The places from which our surface water flows.
So, explain to me how that is a best practice.
I propose we lose the term “best practice” because there is no such thing in regards to natural gas production. I think a better term would be “least destructive practice”.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5116)
Worse yet what about when they evaporate the waste water in an urban area without scrubbers and then incinerate the leftovers? Yep only in Ft Worth-however Arlington is very cable to follow blindly-I'm such a pest to them…
You should leave urban out of your arguments. All people deserve the same protections.
All people desesrve the drillers drill right regardless of where they live. It's just so wrong for drilling in urban areas because people live in the city and never expected royal checks. They live in the city knowing they are gonna get car pollution. Urban people live in the country and expect some type of industry and it's risks. Urban gas drilling doubles our risk and many, many more people are affected especialy those renters in multifamily housing that I'm fighting for near the Cowboy Stadium.
It's no more wrong in urban than in rural. We made great sacrifices to move our family out to the country where they would have clean air and water and we could enjoy the quite country life. We have NO protections! We have no setback or noise abatement! We have NOTHING. And this has been happening out here for a long time.
You can rationalize it all you want but you are no more important than my children and all my many neighbors and their children. People live in the country too, many, many people.
When we talk about gas drilling we never say that we have born the burden for too long so it's time for city folks to get a taste. We never say that! We support you and do not make the distinction between one kind of people and another. Only you city people do that. It's dividing us! STOP IT!
I agree, Anon! A long time ago, I explained it to my dear, dear friend Don Young and he got it the first time. He never again divided us that way. We have both been doing this a long time and we have seen a lot of people come and go.
People in the urban areas get moratoriums and write stronger drilling ordinances which just drives the drillers out to the unincorporated areas. Then the people in the city take a break and no longer have to worry about any of it.
Tim Ruggiero says
We moved out to the 'country' 6 years ago to get away from traffic, pollution, congestion and everything else that comes with urban or suburban living. Now we're more polluted than ever before.
I initially wanted and requested from the operator a 'closed loop' system, but Aruba said they were gonna do it with a pit.
Now having lived through it, I don't think one is really any better than they other. Pits overflow, leak and often remain for years while the hydrocarbons burn off, the liner deteriorates and the contents then seep into the ground. Waste pit removal is an expense for the operator, so they aren't exactly hurting themselves on removing them. Then they have to get either the 'farmers' permission to dump-land-farm it, or apply for a permit, both are more expenses. If you take a drive out to the 'country', I'll be happy to show you where they land-farmed, and nothing but a few hardy weeds grow.
Closed loop systems still produce the same waste, but the people living near it obviously don't have a pit to deal with-but not seeing it, smelling it or having leak all over where they live doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree with Sharon- closed loop is not a best practice, it's just a better bad.
Runner Susan says
I agree with Sharon and Tim, closed loop is not a best practice, it's just a better bad. Personally, my philosophy is say NO to to ALL drilling. Forever and ever everywhere – but I don't think there are enough dead bodies in Texas to ever make that happen.
Thank you, all. Urban/Rural, we're all affected by it. And connected to it one way or the other.