Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ironclad
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 19
Oil and Gas Production areas are messy - that is no question, but the "messy part" normally occurs when the well is drilled - or when it is reworked - otherwise is it a pipe sticking out of the ground - that should not be leaking. So - if you want to bitch about the "hazardous chemicals" then pay attention when the initial work is done - and make them clean up the area.
But as in the other letter - the ignorance displayed by the person writing the article is truly sad. You drill a hole in the ground and you put pipe down the hole. When you get to the level of the oil or gas formation - you blow holes through the sides of the pipe to let the natural pressure in the formation push the gas up to the surface. If you have holes in your pipe in other places - you lose pressure and product.
When the "tight" formation noted in the article recloses itself - they fracture - frac the rock by pumping chemicals into the rock to push it apart to let the gas or oil flow again - but that happens at the layer where the oil is - not everywhere along the well. It would have been nice to have had a few facts here too - like if the water was 750 feet deep - how deep was the gas? I am sure it was several thousand - far from the water layer.
Gas and Oil rarely occur near water formations - if they were as close as suggested in this article - then why was the water not already contaminated by the higher pressure hydrocarbons? - remember the benzene natural contamination a few years ago with Perrier water? The only way that you contaminate a formation with chemicals is if the drilling spud cuts through a water layer and you force some of the cutting mud into the rock - but no one loses that much mud when you drill.
I would bet that the most likely situation here is that someone got rid of the drilling mess by pumping it underground in a shallow well - that could contaminate surface water a lot more easily. But that is an enforcement issue - and subject to the laws of the state.
Final thought - Halliburton is one of the main companies in the oil business - they supply a lot of chemicals and crews that do a lot of hard work to supply the oil and gas you use. And they have been doing it for a long time. The cheap shot in this article at them shows the agenda of the author - as cheap as the level of knowledge displayed about the drilling business.
Gloat Gloat - But why?
Apparently someone gets caught doing a very stupid thing - illegal? maybe. Immoral - quite possibily. And then the boss summarily cans his ass. If the man did something illegal - then prosecute him. If he did something immoral - then good riddence. (and leave by resignation to save face)
Lets face it - if Bush had kept him on after finding out the alleged behavior - would you make more noise? When you find a rotten apple - you throw it away. What else do you do?
Q
Muqtada Al-Sadr is a thug - let's be clear. He is a smart thug, since he has the ability to reverse course when he meets resistance and seek and exploit every opportunity that comes his way. But he also understands that power in his country comes from the perception of strength - as well his ability to supply services through a patriarchal network of loyalties. He seems to be the most adept politician currently in Iraq performing this role - but at the cost of total & permanent loyalty to him - or else.
Al-Sadr is mainly in a battle with the other religious power in Iraq - Ayatollah Al-Sistani in Najaf. Whoever wins this struggle wins the allegiance of the Shia in Iraq which translates into control of the religious taxes there. That is the real money side of the issue. The other prize is theological control - but Sadr is much too low a cleric to grab for that yet.
If you understand this - then the other part of the story becomes clear - the Hezbollah comparison. Apt because Al-Sadr, as with Hezbollah in Lebanon, receives much support from their benefactors in Iran - the ones that really pull the strings of both these groups. If you view this struggle as Iran trying to wrest control from Sistani for the Arab part of the Shia soul (loyality to Qum instead of to Najaf), then you get a clearer picture of the situation.
Muqtada Al-Sadr represents the perfect front man for Iran - with an Iraqi nationalist face - as described well in the article. He gets what he wants - power and total control.
And he doesn't mind sacrificing his supporters to get there.
The sad part of this is that he could be doing the same thing - doling out services and helping his people without relying on his militia to do anything other than root out corruption and protect his followers. But maybe when the crunch comes - because sooner or later his militia is going to get silenced by an Iraqi government - he will reverse course again and just be a politician.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
