What's Lacking in Fracking?

I have read the revised Supplemental Generic Impact Statement [SGIS] on high volume hydraulic fracturing [HVHF] for natural gas. It is deficient
I draw attention to Ch 5.4 Fracturing Fluid. It cites 235 products from 15 chemical suppliers of 322 chemicals whose CAS [Chemical Abstract Service #] is known and at least 21 additional ones in which the CAS is not known, listed by the manufactures in what was referred to as MSDS [Medical Safety Data Sheets]. The point to be made is that this list is not complete and the list is misleading. NO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE EVERY CHEMICAL USED and no chemical should be an unknown.
In testimony before the US House of Representatives in 2011 investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, which showed that over a 750 compounds are in hydrofracking products, reference was made to the MSDS as follows: The MSDS is a list of chemical components in the products of chemical manufacturers, and according to OSHA, a manufacturer may withhold information designated as “proprietary” from this sheet. When asked to reveal the proprietary components, most companies participating in the investigation were unable to do so, leading the committee to surmise these “companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment” . Refer to:
Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff. April 2011. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf
Another study in 2011, titled “Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective” and published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal identified 632 chemicals used in natural gas operations. Only 353 of these are well-described in the scientific literature; and of these, more than 75% could affect skin, eyes, respiratory and gastrointestinal systems; roughly 40-50% could affect the brain and nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems and the kidneys; 37% could affect the endocrine system; and 25% were carcinogens and mutagens. The study indicated possible long-term health effects that might not appear immediately. The study recommended full disclosure of all products used, along with extensive air and water monitoring near natural gas operations; it also recommended that fracking's exemption from regulation under the US Safe Drinking Water Act be rescinded.
You may wonder why hydraulic fracturing for the purpose of oil, natural gas, and geothermal production was exempted under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was the result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, also known as the Halliburton Loophole because former Halliburton CDEO Vice President Dick Cheney was involvled in the passing of this exemption.
The revised GEIS statement is further deficient by its own admisision on flowback water:
"Most fracturing fluid components are not included as analytes in standard chemical scans of flowback samples that were provided to the Department, so little information is available to document whether and at what concentrations most fracturing chemicals occur in flowback water." The statement implies that flowback water, which it estimates may be as much as 2.7 million gallons, will be contained in metal, sealed tanks and refers to Chapter 7. Chapter 7 states:
" The volume of flowback water that would require handling and containment on the site is variable and difficult to predict, and data regarding its likely composition are incomplete. Therefore, the Department proposes to require,via permit condition and/or regulation, that flowback water handled at the well pad be directed to and contained in covered watertight steel tanks or covered watertight tanks constructed of another material approved by the Department. Even without this requirement, the pit volume limitation proposed above would necessitate that tank storage be available on site. TheDepartment will also continue to encourage exploration of technologies that promote reuse offlowback water when practical." The statement then goes on to say that, " Fluids would be removed within 45 days of completing drilling and stimulationoperations", but it does not say where to. All this is vague and deficient.
Secondly, there are issues that the revised SGEIS does not address. The State of New York joined as a headwater partner to the Chesapeake Bay program in 2000. About 11% of the state drains into the Bay through the Susquehanna River and its network of tributaries. The part of upstate New York that drain into the Susquehanna River is essentially an overlay of the propopsed hydrofracking area. Yet there is no mention of our partnership obligations to the Chesapeake Bay Program in the SGEIS.
Outside of the criticism of the SGEIS itself is the political implications of the policy statement by Governor Cuomo who supports ending a moratorium on hydrofraking on private land in New York State, but has said the practice should be banned within watersheds serving New York City and Syracuse. Mayor Bloomberg concurs. I sincerely hope the Governor and the Mayor will tell us why their drinking water should be at lest risk than mine. And while we are looking for explanations, perhaps Dick Cheney could tell us where he gets his drinking water in that he has a nice spread on the Easterr Shore of Chesapeake bay.
Finally, I must be noted that in Australia, there is currently a moratorium on hydrofraking in the state of New South Wales, and that their government has banned certain chemicals as additives. In Canada, Nova Scotia is currently reviewing th practice, and that the practice has been suspended in Quebec. In France, hydraulic fracturing was banned in 2011. In South Africa, there is a moratorium in Karoo region despite the efforts of several energy companies.

January 11, 2012 will be the end of public input into the revised Supplimentalhile Generic Eivironmental Impact Statement [SGEIS] on proposed high volume hydraulic fracturing [HVHF] for natural gas in NYS, prepared by the NYS Department of Environmental Convservation [DEC]. This revised SGEIS document is available to all on the internet as a pdf file. Although larbge, 46 Mb in size , it is downloadable and searchable.
In addition, the proposed regulations are in a separage document. http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/77353.html. Read them. Then let your representatives know how you feel. I vote for no one who favors hydrofraking.

Debt Ceiling Proceedings

This weekend preceeds a critical week in the financial situation of the United States. It provides time to think about how the country has accumulated such massive debt and the options we have to curtail further accumulation and direct a course toward a balanced budget--all without impairing the fragile economic recovery we are experiencing following the worst recession since the Great Depression. There are a number of facts, regardless of party affiliation within the body politic, that we can agree upon.
We can all agree that the accumulation of debt has been going on for a long time. In fact, except for 1956 and 1957 during the Eisenhower years, there has not been a federal budget surplus except for the last year of the Clinton administration. We can all agree that the responsibility rests with the Congress and members of all political parties through the years. Congress adopted the debt ceiling in 1917 as a way of insuring presidential accountability. The only other country in the world that has a debt ceiling is Denmark. The debt ceiling has been raised 79 times since the first statuatory limit was raised by Congress with the passage of the Second Liberty Bond Act in 1919 to finance the US entry into WWI. The progression has been for $43 billion that year to 14.294 Trillion in February of 2010.
We can further agree that the the federal debt has been accelerating during the past 12 to 15 years and that the relationship to GDP [gross national product] is a ratio that economists deem the trend to true crisis. We can also note that there is a reason to raise the debt limit. The reason is that it must be raised to pay for spending Congress has already authorized. The President must have the limit raised in order for him to legally spend what has been authorized or face limiting the funding of the federal government, part of which is funding of treasury bond obligations. That is, if the President spend the money without raising the debt ceiling [limit], he will be violating the law.
Finally we can agree that the impending vote on raising the ceiling has brought out the worst example of dysfunctionality in government in our history and in a matter of days this coming week may demonstrate all the flaws of what could become a failed democracy. The solution if there is one? Ah yes, as usual. Follow the money! The great pirate ship of Wall Street will not allow default of the United States. There will be a vote to raise the ceiling and some nonsense language to pledge efforts toward a balanced budget.
What we need and hope we can get, is a 10 to 15 year plan to move in the direction of balance without a serious nick in our fragile economy and while we are at it a 20 year plan to rebuild our country, end our foreign wars and occupation of countries dating back to WWII. Do we have the leadership for all that?

Does the Speaker Speak the Truth?

Today the Speaker of the House of Representatives said, "We are going to do everything we can to cut spending". The truth is that it is not everything. As long as the Pentagon budget is not on the table, then the house is not going to do everything to cut spending. While we spend billions on Iraq, on an endless war in Afghanistan, buy-off Egypt with billions and funds a NASA trip to Mars, I will not allow Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to make me believe that he is doing everything. Cutting teachers income, state workers pensions, and funds for public radio is nickel-diming. The nation is facing bankruptcy and Mr. Boehner and republican allies wants to decide to avoid facing the truth. Does he tell the truth? Hell no Mr. Boehner! You are not doing everything.