"Buying Halal Certified" - Peter Broelman, Australia
Showing posts with label gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gas. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2015
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Climate-sceptic US senator given funds by BP PAC
I know it's no secret that climate-skeptic senators, congressmen, & ministers are financially supported by oil & gas companies, but what I am trying to show with this article is that this is the level of honesty, in the government leaders, in the so-called democratic Western hemisphere. The general public doesn't know how many millions are spent from top federal to municipal levels by lobbyists to change viewpoints & get their points across. I consider lobby money as "bribe". Whoever can give the biggest bribe gets the biggest piece of action.
How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?
On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?
Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.
Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).
Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.
Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”
The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.
Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”
Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.
While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.
Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.
This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.
BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.
In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.
“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”
It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”
PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.
Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.
But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.
Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”
Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”
According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.
BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.
There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.
When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”
“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.
Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.
The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.
How can these leaders, & esp. this senator, who is the environmental committee, while being a climate-skeptic & getting paid by BP (British Petroleum), do anything useful, climate-wise, for the public?
On top of that, BP is also trying to show to the public that they are working tirelessly towards alternative energy & a green planet. Corruption & lies at the government & business levels. Where is Transparency International now?
Shouldn't this be happening in the authoritarian & corrupt regimes in the Eastern hemisphere of the world? That's why, I always say that democracy in the West is only on its face; inside, it's no different from any authoritarian & corrupt regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of America’s most powerful & outspoken opponents of climate change regulation received election campaign contributions that can be traced back to senior BP staff, including chief executive Bob Dudley.
Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax & challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s Political Action Committee (PAC).
Following his re-election, Inhofe became chair of the Senate’s environment & public works committee in January, & then a month later featured in news bulletins throwing a snowball across the Senate floor.
Before tossing it, the senator said: “In case we have forgotten – because we keep hearing that 2014 is the warmest year on record – it is very, very cold outside. Very unseasonal.”
The BP PAC is funded by contributions from senior US executives & company staffers who sent in contributions to the PAC totalling more than $1m between 2010 & 2014. Over the same period the committee paid out $655,000 to candidates, with more than 40 incumbent senators benefiting.
Yet, BP & Dudley have long called for world leaders to intervene & impose tough regulatory measures on the fossil fuel industry. Publishing its 98-page research paper, Energy Outlook 2035, last month, BP warned: “To abate carbon emissions further will require additional significant steps by policymakers beyond the steps already assumed.”
Dudley has personally given $19,000 since June 2011 to the BP PAC – very close to the $5,000-a-year maximum allowable by law. Although Dudley is resident in Britain, he is eligible to give via the BP PAC because he is a US national.
While the sums channelled to Inhofe’s campaign represent only a small proportion of the BP PAC’s election spending & the senator’s own campaign funds, they show how unafraid the committee has been to spread its donations to the most controversial candidates. According to the BP PAC website, it financially supports election candidates “whose views and/or voting records reflect the interests of BP employees”.
Records suggest Inhofe’s 2014 campaign was a funding priority for the BP PAC, ranking as one of the top recipients of committee funds when compared with disbursements to other serving senators.
This was despite Inhofe’s senate battle not being a close one. His opponent, Matt Silverstein, who Inhofe beat comfortably in last November’s midterms, had a tiny campaign war chest by comparison.
BP was asked whether it was appropriate for the PAC to make campaign contributions to such a vocal opponent of action on climate change, or for Dudley to be contributing towards such payments.
In a statement BP replied: “Voluntary donations [by staff] to the BP employees’ political action committee in the US are used to support a variety of candidates across the political spectrum & in many US geographies where we operate.
“These candidates have one thing in common: they are important advocates for the energy industry in the broadest sense.”
It added: “BP’s position on climate change is well known & is long-established. We believe that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action.”
PACs exist in the US where companies & trade unions cannot give directly to the campaigns of those running for office. Instead funds are pooled from staff – often senior executives – into a PAC, & disbursed by a committee board, often in a manner sympathetic to the company’s lobby & other interests.
Other US oil industry leaders, including Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, make contributions to their own corporate PACs – money which in many cases can then be traced to Inhofe & other climate-sceptic politicians.
But Tillerson & other peers have not been as outspoken as BP & Dudley in calling for state intervention to tackle climate change, making the BP boss’s links to Inhofe campaign finance more controversial.
Last week Obama said it was “disturbing” that Inhofe had been made chair of the senate environment committee. In broader criticism of unnamed political opponents, he then went on to say: “In some cases you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry. And there is a lot of money involved.”
Inhofe is unabashed about election campaign financing he receives from the industry. In his 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, he wrote: “Whenever the media asked me how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, my unapologetic answer was ‘not enough’.”
According to data compiled from public filings by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), Inhofe’s campaign raised $4.84m between 2009 & 2014, with $1.77m coming from PACs, many of them sponsored by fossil fuel companies.
BP’s PAC was more active in the US 2014 election cycle than any other for more than a decade. Despite insisting it is non-partisan, 69% of contributions to federal election candidates in recent years have been to Republican politicians. This is a stronger bias than most other corporate PACs, according to the CRP.
There are, however, other leading recipients who have attracted criticism from climate change campaigners, including Republican House speaker John Boehner & fellow Republican, Sen Mike Enzi from Wyoming.
When asked his views on climate change in January, Boehner said: “We’ve had changes in our climate, although scientists debate the sources, in their opinion, of that change. But I think the real question is that every proposal out of this administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs.”
“I don’t see [Obama] as trying to control pollution. I see him trying to put business out of business,” Enzi said last year.
Campaign contributions is just one aspect of US political engagement linked to BP & its staff. Filings show the oil & gas group spends millions on lobbying efforts.
The CRP classifies BP as a “heavy hitter”, ranking it among the top 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since 1988. Its PAC ranks as the six largest such body with a sponsor company that is ultimately part of a non-US multinational.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Fracking wastewater in California full of harmful chemicals
Now, imagine what will or, perhaps, currently happening to public's health when they are directly or indirectly drinking this chemical-laden water or food grown through the use of this water.
If you are thinking that municipalities all over North America have very efficient & effective filtration systems & water agencies to clean all this water for drinking purposes, then you are sorely mistaken. Those water agencies / filtration plants were never built to clean thousands of new chemicals ground water is currently filled with.
Coupling this article with the BBC article about chemicals in our food & consumer products adversely affecting our hormones, you can imagine how many chemicals we are constantly ingesting on a daily basis. In a 2012 documentary, "Last Call at the Oasis," it was told that about 80,000 different kinds of chemicals go into our water system, through ground water, aquifers, pesticides, fertilizers, drugs & pills flushed in our toilets, industrial & domestic chemical products flushed from our industries & homes etc.
Now, if you say that well, let's all start drinking bottled water, then it raises 1 very important question:
What will happen to the poor of our society?
As clean, drinking water keep increasing in demand, its price will also increase. Rich won't have any problem buying those clean spring water but what will happen to the poor of our society.
I put up a picture with the Andy Garcia's line from the movie, "A Dark Truth," a few weeks back on this blog that today we are selling water & tomorrow we will be selling air. Where will poor go? Eventually, they will rebel against the society. Right now, their health is deteriorating much faster than rich folks, due to both their food & water being contaminated, & it's costing billions to our healthcare systems, besides the unnecessary strain it puts on the system. Eventually, governments will give up, since their coffers are empty, & hand it over to private healthcare systems to take care of all these people. They obviously won't, since it's not their mandate or objective. End result: a very serious social upheaval.
Another revelation was made in the documentary I mentioned above that almost 50% of bottled water being sold in the market is actually mere tap water.
On top of that, bottled water causes a lot of environmental damage with plastic bottles in our environment & making that plastic bottle itself requires a lot of water, too.
Further to all these problems, another 2011 documentary, "Pink Ribbons, Inc." explored the marketing of breast cancer. Experts & doctors continuously said in the documentary that we are still "slashing & burning" (surgery & chemotherapy) the breast cancer, like we used to do decades ago. Billions have been donated to this cause over the decades, but still no "eureka" moment where we'd know why breast cancer, or, in fact, any type of cancer, happen. Documentary did point out one research about one pesticide but I'd say all these cancers (there are so many of them) are happening because of all these contaminants in our food & water.
It seems like that the developed world is slowly, but surely, regressing back to that "uncivilized" & "barbaric" developing world. Bottled water is a big thing in Pakistan & India, for instance. I have seen in Pakistan, with my own eyes, how poor is drinking the dirty water, whereas, the rich is buying Nestle's water bottles by the gallons.
One last point to make here is that which is more dangerous to an American; a terrorist threatening to kill a few hundred Americans, at most, or millions of Americans, all over US, slowly killing themselves by ingesting harmful, cancerous chemicals, on a daily basis? Which death is more painful & agonizing, not only for the individual but also for the whole family & the community; getting killed by a terrorist in an instant or suffering from cancers for years?
So, why spend billions on wars, on foreign lands, which also has its own long-term, adverse consequences, when millions of American lives are in grave danger from their food & water? Wouldn't those billion $$$ help tremendously, at home, by reducing the effects of poverty or subsidizing organic foods for the poor? Billions in healthcare costs will be saved, too. As an added bonus, it will also greatly help in reducing radicalization of the populace of those foreign lands & them threatening to kill Americans.
It's like resolving multiple problems, instantly. Heck, it may even make US a utopian society where people have jobs in a thriving green economy, where, everyone is healthy & government is saving billions, too. Ironically, this dream is not so far-fetched or even figment of an active imagination. It is definitely achievable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosures in California revealed this week that a bevy of toxic, cancer-linked chemicals in fracking wastewater are routinely injected back into the ground. State regulators of the oil & gas industry, meanwhile, admitted to substandard oversight.
More than a year after California’s unprecedented law requiring transparency over contents of hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- wastewater, a new report by the Environmental Working Group showed that the state has allowed a variety of carcinogenic chemicals to be pumped back into the ground after use, thereby freeing oil & gas deposits.
The group said that “more than a dozen hazardous chemicals & metals as well as radiation were detected in the wastewater, some at average levels that are hundreds or thousands of times higher than the state’s drinking water standards or public health goals.”
The report – ‘Toxic Stew: What’s in Fracking Wastewater’ – stemmed from the state’s 2013 disclosure law which mandates the comprehensive testing & public release of the chemicals in drilling wastewater. The oil & gas industry has fought hard – with cover from government regulators like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & California’s own Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – to obfuscate & conceal what it injects into the Earth.
“Petroleum chemicals, heavy metals & radioactive elements, plus high levels of dissolved solids, are among the pollutants found in fracking wastewater samples tested under the new disclosure program,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
“They include benzene, chromium-6, lead & arsenic – all listed under California’s Proposition 65 as causes of cancer or reproductive harm. Nearly every one of the 293 samples tested contained benzene at levels ranging from twice to more than 7,000 times the state drinking water standard. The wastewater also carried, on average, thousands of times more radioactive radium than the state’s public health goals consider safe, as well as elevated levels of potentially harmful ions such as nitrate & chloride.”
State officials have said there is “no evidence to date that California aquifers currently used for drinking water have been contaminated by fracking chemicals,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
Yet, in October, the state found that the oil & gas industry had illegally injected about 3 billion gallons of fracking wastewater into central California drinking water & farm irrigation aquifers.
Last week, the state ordered a halt to drilling at 12 wastewater injection wells in California’s Central Valley "out of an abundance of caution for public health,” said Steve Bohlen, head of the state Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources. The state has shut down 23 of the hundreds of injection wells located in aquifers that are not approved for wastewater, the Los Angeles Times reported.
To unleash oil or natural gas from shale or other areas, the fracking process requires blasting large volumes of highly pressurized water, sand, & other chemicals into layers of rock.
Once used, toxic fracking wastewater is then either stored in deep underground wells, disposed of in open pits for evaporation, sprayed into waste fields, or used over again.
Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination, heightened earthquake activity, exacerbation of drought conditions, & a variety of health concerns for humans & the local environment.
Oil & gas companies are under increasingly intense pressure nationwide to respond over increased transparency of chemicals used in the fracking process. As RT has reported, industry has avoided divulging -- often under the cover of official regulatory agencies -- just what chemicals are involved in their toxic injection fluids. Yet drillers insist the chemicals do not endanger human health, contradicting findings by scientists & environmentalists.
Critics -- including the US Government Accountability Office -- have long contended that the EPA has been soft on the industry because they believe the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model amid the oil & gas boom in North America.
"There has been a serious imbalance between the role regulating the oil & gas industry & the role of protecting the public," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Officials from the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) admitted that the agency had for years allowed for the breaking of federal law when companies injected fracking & other wastewater into hundreds of disposal wells within protected aquifers.
The DOGGR officials blamed past errors on inconsistent record-keeping & outdated data collection.
In its new report, the Environmental Working Group noted that “the mandated [fracking chemical] disclosure data on the state’s website is still incomplete & confusing,” & that “California allows drillers to request permission to keep the exact recipe of their fracking fluid off the publicly accessible website.”
Last month, it was reported that California officials permitted oil & gas companies to dispose of waste & other fluids into aquifers containing drinking & irrigation water more than 2,500 times. Significantly, 46% of these permits were authorized within the last 4 years – the same timeframe during which the EPA warned California that regulators were not sufficiently protecting underground water reserves in the drought-stricken state.
State regulators subsequently offered the EPA a new plan that detailed how California would change its permit approval process. The plan also addresses how the state would confront contamination risks. Steve Bohlen, the head of DOGGR, said last month that 140 of the affected injection sites were actively pumping waste into aquifers holding good quality water.
Despite popular support, a moratorium on fracking in the state was killed in the California Senate last May. The oil industry spent nearly US $1.5 million in 3 months fighting the bill.
California is the third-largest oil producing state in the US, but it’s also in its fourth year of a severe drought, highlighting the need to keep its water reserves safe.
If you are thinking that municipalities all over North America have very efficient & effective filtration systems & water agencies to clean all this water for drinking purposes, then you are sorely mistaken. Those water agencies / filtration plants were never built to clean thousands of new chemicals ground water is currently filled with.
Coupling this article with the BBC article about chemicals in our food & consumer products adversely affecting our hormones, you can imagine how many chemicals we are constantly ingesting on a daily basis. In a 2012 documentary, "Last Call at the Oasis," it was told that about 80,000 different kinds of chemicals go into our water system, through ground water, aquifers, pesticides, fertilizers, drugs & pills flushed in our toilets, industrial & domestic chemical products flushed from our industries & homes etc.
Now, if you say that well, let's all start drinking bottled water, then it raises 1 very important question:
What will happen to the poor of our society?
As clean, drinking water keep increasing in demand, its price will also increase. Rich won't have any problem buying those clean spring water but what will happen to the poor of our society.
I put up a picture with the Andy Garcia's line from the movie, "A Dark Truth," a few weeks back on this blog that today we are selling water & tomorrow we will be selling air. Where will poor go? Eventually, they will rebel against the society. Right now, their health is deteriorating much faster than rich folks, due to both their food & water being contaminated, & it's costing billions to our healthcare systems, besides the unnecessary strain it puts on the system. Eventually, governments will give up, since their coffers are empty, & hand it over to private healthcare systems to take care of all these people. They obviously won't, since it's not their mandate or objective. End result: a very serious social upheaval.
Another revelation was made in the documentary I mentioned above that almost 50% of bottled water being sold in the market is actually mere tap water.
On top of that, bottled water causes a lot of environmental damage with plastic bottles in our environment & making that plastic bottle itself requires a lot of water, too.
Further to all these problems, another 2011 documentary, "Pink Ribbons, Inc." explored the marketing of breast cancer. Experts & doctors continuously said in the documentary that we are still "slashing & burning" (surgery & chemotherapy) the breast cancer, like we used to do decades ago. Billions have been donated to this cause over the decades, but still no "eureka" moment where we'd know why breast cancer, or, in fact, any type of cancer, happen. Documentary did point out one research about one pesticide but I'd say all these cancers (there are so many of them) are happening because of all these contaminants in our food & water.
It seems like that the developed world is slowly, but surely, regressing back to that "uncivilized" & "barbaric" developing world. Bottled water is a big thing in Pakistan & India, for instance. I have seen in Pakistan, with my own eyes, how poor is drinking the dirty water, whereas, the rich is buying Nestle's water bottles by the gallons.
One last point to make here is that which is more dangerous to an American; a terrorist threatening to kill a few hundred Americans, at most, or millions of Americans, all over US, slowly killing themselves by ingesting harmful, cancerous chemicals, on a daily basis? Which death is more painful & agonizing, not only for the individual but also for the whole family & the community; getting killed by a terrorist in an instant or suffering from cancers for years?
So, why spend billions on wars, on foreign lands, which also has its own long-term, adverse consequences, when millions of American lives are in grave danger from their food & water? Wouldn't those billion $$$ help tremendously, at home, by reducing the effects of poverty or subsidizing organic foods for the poor? Billions in healthcare costs will be saved, too. As an added bonus, it will also greatly help in reducing radicalization of the populace of those foreign lands & them threatening to kill Americans.
It's like resolving multiple problems, instantly. Heck, it may even make US a utopian society where people have jobs in a thriving green economy, where, everyone is healthy & government is saving billions, too. Ironically, this dream is not so far-fetched or even figment of an active imagination. It is definitely achievable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosures in California revealed this week that a bevy of toxic, cancer-linked chemicals in fracking wastewater are routinely injected back into the ground. State regulators of the oil & gas industry, meanwhile, admitted to substandard oversight.
More than a year after California’s unprecedented law requiring transparency over contents of hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- wastewater, a new report by the Environmental Working Group showed that the state has allowed a variety of carcinogenic chemicals to be pumped back into the ground after use, thereby freeing oil & gas deposits.
The group said that “more than a dozen hazardous chemicals & metals as well as radiation were detected in the wastewater, some at average levels that are hundreds or thousands of times higher than the state’s drinking water standards or public health goals.”
The report – ‘Toxic Stew: What’s in Fracking Wastewater’ – stemmed from the state’s 2013 disclosure law which mandates the comprehensive testing & public release of the chemicals in drilling wastewater. The oil & gas industry has fought hard – with cover from government regulators like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) & California’s own Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – to obfuscate & conceal what it injects into the Earth.
“Petroleum chemicals, heavy metals & radioactive elements, plus high levels of dissolved solids, are among the pollutants found in fracking wastewater samples tested under the new disclosure program,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
“They include benzene, chromium-6, lead & arsenic – all listed under California’s Proposition 65 as causes of cancer or reproductive harm. Nearly every one of the 293 samples tested contained benzene at levels ranging from twice to more than 7,000 times the state drinking water standard. The wastewater also carried, on average, thousands of times more radioactive radium than the state’s public health goals consider safe, as well as elevated levels of potentially harmful ions such as nitrate & chloride.”
State officials have said there is “no evidence to date that California aquifers currently used for drinking water have been contaminated by fracking chemicals,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
Yet, in October, the state found that the oil & gas industry had illegally injected about 3 billion gallons of fracking wastewater into central California drinking water & farm irrigation aquifers.
Last week, the state ordered a halt to drilling at 12 wastewater injection wells in California’s Central Valley "out of an abundance of caution for public health,” said Steve Bohlen, head of the state Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources. The state has shut down 23 of the hundreds of injection wells located in aquifers that are not approved for wastewater, the Los Angeles Times reported.
To unleash oil or natural gas from shale or other areas, the fracking process requires blasting large volumes of highly pressurized water, sand, & other chemicals into layers of rock.
Once used, toxic fracking wastewater is then either stored in deep underground wells, disposed of in open pits for evaporation, sprayed into waste fields, or used over again.
Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination, heightened earthquake activity, exacerbation of drought conditions, & a variety of health concerns for humans & the local environment.
Oil & gas companies are under increasingly intense pressure nationwide to respond over increased transparency of chemicals used in the fracking process. As RT has reported, industry has avoided divulging -- often under the cover of official regulatory agencies -- just what chemicals are involved in their toxic injection fluids. Yet drillers insist the chemicals do not endanger human health, contradicting findings by scientists & environmentalists.
Critics -- including the US Government Accountability Office -- have long contended that the EPA has been soft on the industry because they believe the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model amid the oil & gas boom in North America.
"There has been a serious imbalance between the role regulating the oil & gas industry & the role of protecting the public," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Officials from the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) admitted that the agency had for years allowed for the breaking of federal law when companies injected fracking & other wastewater into hundreds of disposal wells within protected aquifers.
The DOGGR officials blamed past errors on inconsistent record-keeping & outdated data collection.
In its new report, the Environmental Working Group noted that “the mandated [fracking chemical] disclosure data on the state’s website is still incomplete & confusing,” & that “California allows drillers to request permission to keep the exact recipe of their fracking fluid off the publicly accessible website.”
Last month, it was reported that California officials permitted oil & gas companies to dispose of waste & other fluids into aquifers containing drinking & irrigation water more than 2,500 times. Significantly, 46% of these permits were authorized within the last 4 years – the same timeframe during which the EPA warned California that regulators were not sufficiently protecting underground water reserves in the drought-stricken state.
State regulators subsequently offered the EPA a new plan that detailed how California would change its permit approval process. The plan also addresses how the state would confront contamination risks. Steve Bohlen, the head of DOGGR, said last month that 140 of the affected injection sites were actively pumping waste into aquifers holding good quality water.
Despite popular support, a moratorium on fracking in the state was killed in the California Senate last May. The oil industry spent nearly US $1.5 million in 3 months fighting the bill.
California is the third-largest oil producing state in the US, but it’s also in its fourth year of a severe drought, highlighting the need to keep its water reserves safe.
Friday, March 27, 2015
The Lone Ranger (Quote 1)
Although, "The Lone Ranger" was an action / adventure movie, there were still a few interesting lines in it.
--------------------------------------------------
Looking at the condition of our world today, nature is indeed out of balance today ... all done by "modern" humans !!!
--------------------------------------------------
Looking at the condition of our world today, nature is indeed out of balance today ... all done by "modern" humans !!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)