It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources temporarily shut down as of July 18lth, several oil and gas wastewater injection wells over concerns about contamination of the state’s aquifers.
But, back to the origin of the story, allegedly, somebody is polluting California’s aquifers, and that “somebody” appears to be oil & gas fracking, but the matter is still under investigation. So, nobody really knows for sure just yet, but the big pointy finger is gravitating in the direction of drilling fluids.
Here’s the issue in a nutshell: Over the years, oil and gas drillers have had carte blanche access to at least 100 of the state’s aquifers, which aquifers were presumed, by the state of California, to be useless because of poor water quality and/or depth of the water, too deep, too costly to drill (editorial: Except for when water is running out, like now.) These “useless” underground pools of water have served as a dumping ground for oil and gas drilling wastes, probably toxic, almost assuredly, and not suitable for drinking or for irrigation. As it happens, those aquifers are “exempt” from regulations by state water authorities (remember, Bam Bam exempted the federal EPA from interfering in these matters.)
That fact alone leads to one inescapable conclusion: Will humanity ever break away from the darkness of Dick Cheney (the subtext to this article)?
As it happened, because of Darth Vader Cheney’s tricky maneuvers a decade ago whilst serving as VP of the United States of America, today the “Halliburton Loophole” is haunting California’s tenuous water situation.
The Halliburton Loophole is a reference to the 2005 Federal Energy Bill, which stripped the EPA of its authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, invented by Halliburton, where Dick “Boom Boom” Cheney served as CEO before he became W’s “guide dog.”
But, however, and furthermore…this recent indecent incident, whether eventually found to be factual or not, tells a tale, a sad tale of insensitivity and stupidity all the way up to the top, of how America’s flirtation with the rawest elements of neoliberal capitalism has transformed an entire country into a loathsome basket case that is tainted by nauseating political favoritism and distasteful, repugnant, stomach-turning individuals who live for personal ego and power, measured, as far as they care, by the putrid odor of money that is rotten to the core. That is not nation building; repeating, that is not nation building; it is self-aggrandizement, self-serving exploitation at its shameless, detestable worst.
Chlordane
(General Fact Sheet)
Please refer to the
Technical Fact Sheet
for more technical information.
What is chlordane?
Chlordane is a pesticide first registered in the United States in
1948
(1)
. In 1988, all chlordane uses, except its use for
fire ant control in power transformers, were voluntarily canceled in the United States
(2)
.
Chlordane was used against insects on food and non
-
food agricultural crops, resid
ential lawns and gardens, and in
buildings. It was particularly used against termites in a variety of buildings, including homes
(2, 3)
.
Chlordane is a mixture of over 50 closely related chemicals. Variations in the makeup of
chlordane can result in
differences in toxicity
(2, 4)
. It is a thick clear to amber liquid. It may be odorless or exhibit a mildly irritating odor
(2)
.
Chlordane still can be legally manufactured
in the United States, but it can only be sold to or used by foreign
countries. Although chlordane can be used to control fire ants in the United States, no products are currently
registered for this use
(5, 6)
.
Why were uses of
chlordane canceled?
Chlordane uses were canceled based on concerns regarding its potential to cause cancer and its slow break down in
the environment
(2, 5)
.
Former employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Health were ordered by supervisors to ignore complaints about fracking-related health issues and follow a host of other rules to keep the dangers of drilling under wraps — even at the expense of people's health.
The department confirmed the "buzzword list" on Wednesday, stating it was meant to be used as a guideline. As of 2012, the Bureau of Health Planning and Assessment was still passing the list around to staff members and asking them to send health complaints to the Bureau of Epidemiology, which was meant to follow up on the issues separately.
Marshall P. Deasy, a 20-year veteran of the department, said that drilling was the only issue he could remember being censored by supervisors.edit on 23-7-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates regulation of underground injection activities in order to protect groundwater resources. SDWA Sec. 1421, 42 U.S.C. § 300h. However, in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, Congress amended the definition of “underground injection” under the SDWA to specifically exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.”
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect and improve water quality in the nation’s rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands. One of the major mechanisms it uses to achieve this goal is by requiring permits for all discharges of pollutants to those waters. The law, however, exempts stormwater discharges (surface water runoff resulting from rain or snow) from oil and gas drilling and production activities from this permitting requirement. In addition, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, in addition to the SDWA exemption, broadened this exemption to include stormwater discharge from oil and gas construction activities. Although EPA’s rule to implement this provision was declared unlawful and vacated in NRDC v. EPA, 526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008), and the agency has not yet promulgated a replacement rule, the underlying statutory exemption remains in effect.”