Overcast
Overcast
64.4 °F
September 02, 2014
River Reporter Facebook pageTRR TwitterRSS Search Login

Don’t let them create an industrial zone

June 9, 2011

I am a small businessman with property in Pennsylvania and New York. To allow the gas companies to create an industrial zone here will work against what has been successful for decades: recreation, second homes and farms. Property values are dependent on a good, clean environment, especially here close to major metropolitan areas.

I can’t match the gas companies dollar for dollar but I can continue the American ideal of insisting that an individual has rights. This is my home and no one should be able to just swoop in from who knows where and take it away. I’m offering three suggestions to preserve our area.

Step one: Refute the lies from the oil and gas companies and some politicians, such as “Gas is the transition fuel,” and “Solar and wind are off in the future.” Step two: The subsidies currently given to the gas and oil companies should be put into renewables. Step three: Mandate that all industries, including gas companies, be subject to the Clean Air, Clean Water, Clean Drinking Water and Superfund Acts.

When these steps are taken, everything else will fall into place and the United States will become energy independent.

Richard J. Kreznar
Callicoon Center, NY

Wow

T
h
i
s
t
h
r
e
a
d
l
o
o
k
s
l
i
k
e
a
n
N
W
P
O
A
e
m
a
i
l
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
i
a
n
t
o
h
e
r
s
h
e
e
p
i
s
h
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p.

Can anyone deny the genius

that is James Barth?

More background

Just a few more facts that the pro-drillers think they can make go away simply by denying their existence:

- as stated by PA DEP Secretary John Hanger in a letter to residents in Dimock who have been affected: “Cabot is responsible for the gas migration that has caused families to be without permanent water supply for nearly two years, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will seek court orders to make Cabot pay for all costs.”

- JUne 2010, per PA DEP: an EOG Resources Inc. well blowout went out of control for 16 hours and sent polluted drilling water into at least two nearby creeks.

- Of roughly 6 million barrels of well liquids produced in a 12-month period examined by The AP, the state of PA couldn’t account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels, about a fifth of the total, because of a weakness in its reporting system and incomplete filings by some energy companies.

- (AP) Some public water utilities in PA that sit downstream from gas wastewater treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for contaminants known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if swallowed over a long period.

- (AP)Regulations that should have kept drilling wastewater out of the important Delaware River Basin, the water supply for 15 million people in four states, were circumvented for many months.

-(AP) In 2009 and part of 2010, energy company Cabot Oil & Gas, which has operations in Susquehanna County , trucked more than 44,000 barrels of well wastewater to a treatment facility in Hatfield Township, a Philadelphia suburb. Those liquids ultimately were discharged into a creek that provides drinking water to 17 municipalities with more than 300,000 residents. Cabot acknowledged it should not have happened. People in those communities had been told repeatedly that the watershed was free of gas waste.

- (Feb. 2011) PA state Department of Environmental Protection is continuing to investigate a large hydraulic fracturing fluid spill at an XTO Energy natural gas well pad in Penn Township, Lycoming County, which was first discovered last week. “This spill was initially estimated at more than 13,000 gallons by the company and has polluted an unnamed tributary to Sugar Run and a spring,” said DEP Northcentral Regional Director Nels Taber. “There are also two private drinking water wells in the vicinity that will be sampled for possible impacts.” A DEP inspector discovered the spill while inspecting the well pad. The inspector found the bottom valve on a 21,000-gallon fracking fluid tank was open and discharging fluid off the well pad. No one else was present at the pad, which has one producing Marcellus Shale well. The DEP inspector was able to close the valve and XTO Energy officials were immediately contacted about the spill. The company has not provided any explanation for the open valve. DEP inspectors have collected samples of nearby soil and surface water. Initial field meter readings showed elevated levels of conductivity and salinity in the spring and unnamed tributary. Conductivity measures water’s ability to carry an electric current, while salinity measures the dissolved salt content in water. Elevated levels of both are indications that spilled fracking fluid is present.

- Drilling wastewater often contains bromide, which reacts with the chlorine used to purify drinking water to create trihalomethanes. Per US EPA, people who drink water with elevated levels of trihalomethanes for many years have an increased risk of cancer and could also develop liver, kidney or central nervous system problems.

-(APril 2009) Sixteen cattle dropped dead in a northwestern Louisiana field this week after apparently drinking from a mysterious fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig, according to Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality

-Just in case anyone hasn't seen what gas drilling actually looks like:

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/gas_well_photos.htm

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/MARCELLUS-AIR.htm

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/MARCELLUS-AIR-WV.htm

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/MARCELLUS-AIR-III.htm

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/MARCELLUS-AIR-II.htm

-Chemicals identified by PA DEP in fracking fluid:

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-12-04/fracking.pdf

Have a nice, safe day.

Try to get your head around the fact

that spills and accidents are not the same as fracturing. You want to ban every industry that ever has had an accident? You try to describe all sorts of mayhem, but it was not the result of hydraulic fracturing. You keep wandering around the subject, but never come to grips with it. Industry has accidents. Sandvik, above Clarks Summit, contaminated over two hundred wells recently, yet you demonstrate no outrage. A few wells with methane is the end of the world for you. Fracturing did not contaminate any wells and it is even questionable if any water was polluted by your described accidents, spills and water processing. You make it sound bad, but what is the body count? What are the actual problems, other than fear running rampant? These incidents are not major and are simply the price of doing business and happens in every industry, even making marshmallows. Your hysteria far exceeds the possible negative ramifications of a few procedures not followed properly. It happens in all industries, but often with more serious consequences.

I am done with

your useless ignorant self. You must seriously have a mental disability. I will not post again in response to this simple-minded deranged drivel and fantasy that simply denying the facts makes them untrue.

I know I keep saying that, but the depth of your mental handicap and/or pathology just drops my jaw with every stupider and stupider response. This time I will not respond to any more sick mania, sheer lack of intellect, deranged twisting of relaity to fit you needs, or pathological denial. Not from your equally deranged friend Hick either.

THESE ARE NOT ACCIDENTS! THESE ARE NOT SPILLS! THESE ARE KNOWN CASES OF WATER CONTAMINATION DUE TO -tada!- HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. THIS IS WHERE THE FLUID (that portion of which that is ever even recovered and doesn't stay in teh ground to migrate elsewhere and contaminated further) ENDS UP. THEY OCCUR DUE TO THE STANDARD REGULAR PRACTICES OF THE INDUSTRY COUPLED WITH A LACK OF OVERSIGHT OR REGULATION. THEY ARE NOT ISOLATED. THEY ARE NOT RARE. THIS IS HOW THE GAS DRILLING INDUTRY OPERATES EVERY DAY. Saying this is not a result of hydraulic fracturing is like saying 9/11 happened because of an airplane that crashed into a building, and not because of terrosists. Trying to focus on one particular tree and then denying the existence of the forest will not make the forest go away. You cannot travel back in time and make them go away and then say that these things never happened.

1.28 MILLION 55-gallon drums of haz waste unaccounted for by ANYONE. 44,000 55-gallon drums of haz waste discharged into surface water that serves as the public drinking water supply for 17 municipalities. These are not 'accidents" or "Spills". This is where teh gas industry dumps it's haz waste byproduct. Do you even comprehend how many barrels 44 THOUSAND is (never mind 1.28 MILLION)?? It's 2 1/2 MILLION gallons of contaminated water discharged into public potable water supply sourcess! Is that really OK with you? NOt cause for concern? Acceptable? What if that was YOUR drinking water supply?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD HOW CAN YOU CONTINUE TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THESE FACTS WHEN THEY ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU?

No, I don't condone Sandvik, but Sandvik is an isolated case of a particular problem, NOT A CONTINUING, RECURRING, WIDESPREAD, REGULAR, INEHERENT PART OF STANDARD ONGOING PRACTICES OF A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY. Likweise, there are laws to punish Sandvik for what they have done and hold them responsible for the cleanup. Thanks to Dick Cheney, Tom "the bought-off gas man" Corbett and others, the gas drilling industry largely walks away with no fines, no reparations, no regualtions, and no accountability.

So one more time, for clarity:

You said "it is even questionable if any water was polluted by your described accidents, spills and water processing".

Now let's review:

- “Cabot is responsible for the gas migration that has caused families to be without permanent WATER supply for nearly two years, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will seek court orders to make Cabot pay for all costs.”

- JUne 2010, per PA DEP: an EOG Resources Inc. well blowout went out of control for 16 hours and sent POLLUTED drilling water into at least two nearby creeks (creeks are comprised of WATER).

- Of roughly 6 million barrels of well liquids (also known as Haz Waste, i.e., CONTAMINANTS) the state of PA couldn’t account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels, about a fifth of the total, because of a weakness in its reporting system and incomplete filings by some energy companies.

- (AP) Some public WATER utilities in PA that sit downstream (i.e,, WATER) from gas wastewater (CONTAMINANT) treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for CONTAMINANTS known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if swallowed over a long period.

- Drilling wastewater often contains bromide, which reacts with the chlorine used to purify drinking WATER to create trihalomethanes. Per US EPA, people who drink WATER with elevated levels of trihalomethanes for many years have an increased risk of cancer and could also develop liver, kidney or central nervous system problems.

- (AP)Regulations that should have kept drilling wastewater (CONTAMINANTS) out of the important Delaware River Basin (WATER WATER WATER), the WATER supply for 15 million people in four states, were circumvented for many months.

-(AP) In 2009 and part of 2010, energy company Cabot Oil & Gas, which has operations in Susquehanna County , trucked more than 44,000 barrels of well wastewater (CONTAMINANTS) to a treatment facility in Hatfield Township, a Philadelphia suburb. Those liquids ultimately were discharged into a creek (again, CREEK = WATER) that provides drinking WATER to 17 municipalities with more than 300,000 residents. Cabot acknowledged it should not have happened. People in those communities had been told repeatedly that the WATERshed was free of gas waste.

- (Feb. 2011) PA state Department of Environmental Protection is continuing to investigate a large hydraulic fracturing fluid spill at an XTO Energy natural gas well pad in Penn Township, Lycoming County, which was first discovered last week. “This spill was initially estimated at more than 13,000 gallons by the company and has polluted an unnamed tributary (WATER) to Sugar Run and a spring (GROUNDWATER),” said DEP Northcentral Regional Director Nels Taber.

-(APril 2009) Sixteen cattle dropped dead in a northwestern Louisiana field this week after apparently drinking from a mysterious fluid (something in the WATER) adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig, according to Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality

WHAT PART OF THIS CAN YOU NOT WRAP YOUR LIMITED-CAPACITY CRANIUM AROUND?

PLEASE GIVE THE COMPUTER BACK TO YOU PARENTS NOW. THEY DO NOT LIKE YOU SURFING THE WEB WHEN THEY'RE NOT HOME. At least have some facts. You seriously sound like a little kid trying to have an argument.

If you truly are unable to comprehend things such as these, I am truly sorry. But you should not be trying argue a case for which you are incapable of understanding the subject matter in question. In trying to argue your case with such limited understanding of the subject, you simply serve to hurt your cause- and by association make all pro-drilling folks look similarly incompetent, ignorant, unintelligent, fanatical, uninformed, or uneducated as you sound.

How do you really feel?

Let's recap.
- 0 body count
- 0 fish kill
- 0 wells contaminated as a direct result of hydraulic fracturind which means frack fluids have not migrated up from 7000 feet below ground to contaminate an aquifer.
- With out baseline testing in Dimmok it is impossible to know whether they had methane as many residents insist they did prior to drilling.
- mysterious dead cows in Louisiana? Really? That's what you're going with?
- Lawsuits, investigations, and complaints don't equal proof.
- Municipal waste water gets recylcled into drinking water in urban areas all the time and contains all sorts of pharmeceuticals which are much more dangerous than trace amounts of bromide. Honestly I don't know how urban people don't die of cancer by the time they are 30.
- The alternative to drilling is housing development which will put far greater quanitites of sewage over a much greater time period in your precious watershed which will be far harder to monitor.
- blanket statements such as some treatment facilities that sit down stream struggle to stay under federal requirements are ridiculus attempts to tie all the problems of those facilities to drilling which is disingenuous if not just plain dishonest. What facility exactly. Quote the science that backs up this claim.

Your argument is weak, thus the little temper tantrum. Fear is all you have.

The Truth is out there

Ok, since for the first time in any single one of you or Natural's posts there is a small amount of logic or thought involved, although obviously still oversimplified, uninformed, or simply intended to try to confuse, I'll humor you with a response to refute your false lies and disingenious questioning:

"- 0 body count" (this is complex science here; we may be decades away from being able to accurately and fully assess this; the effects of current exposures can take years to even surface; and you guys oppose ANY scientific efforts to move in the direction of establishing if there is, is not, or could be a body count- you say "there is none" when the truth is, you do not want to know the answer to that question, "just in case" it might ruin your dreams of a lavish future)

- "0 fish kill" (nobody likes a LIAR. Check with PA DEP. I already cited examples of known fish and other wildlife kills, please READ first before responding)

- 0 wells contaminated as a direct result of hydraulic fracturind which means frack fluids have not migrated up from 7000 feet below ground to contaminate an aquifer. (of COURSE frack fluids move back up- where does the 20-30% of fluids that are recocered go? recovered, by definition, means returned to the surface. It is not hard for ANYTHING to move a mile back up to the surface when under pressures up to 13,000 PSI. If this were not true, and teh subsurface fluids or gas simply remained deep in the ground within the well, they would not need well casings and seals. Sixteen domestic water wells were contaminated in Bradford CO. last year, leading to a $1 million fine levied on Chesapeake by Pennsylvania regulators, due to well casing failures.)

- "With out baseline testing in Dimmok it is impossible to know whether they had methane as many residents insist they did prior to drilling." (PA DEP Head blames the drillers. While maybe not perfect, I'd trust his and the Department's science over some third-party heckler's blanket claims or questioning)

- "mysterious dead cows in Louisiana? Really? That's what you're going with?" (not mysterious dead cows. Clearly dead cows, along with numerous chicekns, cats, and other animals, dead from exposure to drilling fluids in an open pit at a drilling site)

- "Lawsuits, investigations, and complaints don't equal proof."( No, but investigation and chemical analytical sampling by PA DEP and EPA and others is teh closest thing to proof anyone has in this world. You argue from a position that denies the accuracy or relevance of the science after you repeatedly as "where's the science?", and say that nothing can prove anything and therefore everyone else must be wrong and you (who does not even try to support your claims with ANYTHING) therefore must be right, even though the science, which is the best thing we humans have got, says otherwise. Do you really think God will come and speak to us in the form of a burning gas well flare and tell us that despite what we know, it really is alright? I'll take their word that scientific methods indicate contamiantion over your or the polluter's completely unsupported and unsupportable claim that somehow they don't)

- "Municipal waste water gets recylcled into drinking water in urban areas all the time and contains all sorts of pharmeceuticals which are much more dangerous than trace amounts of bromide. Honestly I don't know how urban people don't die of cancer by the time they are 30." (For sure drilling wastes are not the only issue or pressure on water treament facilities and public water supplies. This does not make it ok for the drilling industry to freely and indiscrimanantly add to that problem at taxpayer expense or at the expense of the health of the downstream water consumers. You show your true colors with this one)

-" The alternative to drilling is housing development which will put far greater quanitites of sewage over a much greater time period in your precious watershed which will be far harder to monitor." (WHO IS THE FEAR MONGERER NOW? Housing development? For whom? I thought you said there would be no jobs for anyone in this area without drilling? Sewage? Sewage is easily treated and monitored and is in fact done in most places all the time. Furthermore, in teh event of a sewage discharge, the effects are very accute and once the discharge stops, the problem goes away quickly. With toxic water pollutants, parts-per-million levels can cause major problems for years )

- "blanket statements such as some treatment facilities that sit down stream struggle to stay under federal requirements are ridiculus attempts to tie all the problems of those facilities to drilling which is disingenuous if not just plain dishonest. What facility exactly. Quote the science that backs up this claim."

(if you want the facility names I'm sure PA DEP can supply them to anyone who asks. For sure the plants themselves are required to make this information available. I personally don't care which specific plants, since I'm not a PA resident, and do not drink municipal water, but anyone who does can easily find out. I have no reason to believe PA DEP would lie about this. And when it is known that the pollutants in question are common in drilling waste, and that drilling waste has been discharged into or above the treatment plant, and that the drinking water standard in question is related to a chemical compound forming as a result of those particular pollutants reacting with the materials used in water treatment, at the very LEAST it says that the current practices should not continue until the issue is evaluated (but you oppose this), the problem addressed satisafctorily in accordance with all applicable laws and regulation (but you do not want the gas industry to operate within the law), and that sufficeint oversight is in place (which by PA DEP's own statement it is not) to ensure adequate protection and enforcement (which you do not want).

Do we need all these insults?

Obie, take a deep breath and relax. Read what we are writing and respond accordingly. Who has come to harm? What water has the process of hyfrofracturing actually ruined? Who says it is ruined? It is already against the law to dump anything illegally, so that is covered. Your fear is tangible, but unfounded. Have a smoke, drink a few beers, sniff a few of the household cleaners under your kitchen sink. That will be far more dangerous than the fracking fluid streaming through the rivers of your mind.

You get what you ask for

You guys are the ones who don't read anything, get presented with fact after fact and then say "where are the facts", and continually deny the existence of that which I have just given a documented case of.

I think the problem is either simply ignorance or a lack of awareness, or a fanatical conscious attempt to deceptively use the lack of awareness by others to gain support for your position, based on the following:

You say "It is already against the law to dump anything illegally, so that is covered."

Ignorance MUST be bliss. It is against the law so therefore it doesn't happen? Really? So nobody ever illegally dumps anything when nobody is looking? And, What law? The gas drilling industry was EXEMPTED in 2005 from almost all laws regarding handling, treatment, and disposal of waste, among other things. The states hands are tied due to the federal loopholes of Bush/Cheney/et al, and even though they want to regulate they don't even know what regs to have in place or how to enforce them because the drilling is new and has come so fast in so many places they freely admit they can't keep up, don't have the manpower, and do not know enough about it to know what is or isn't a problem and hwo to create appropriate regulations in teh first place. The issue at hand at this point is that no one yet even has the answers to these problems on a case by case basis, never mind being able to rationally approach a widespread, systematic, huge industry on a multi-state scale.

You guys think (or perhaps know better, but try to convince everyone else) the industry is subject to and follows the laws and regulations that apply to everyone else, and that the States and EPA already have seen this all before and know how to regulate and are capable of regulating it. WIth that mindset, it would be easy to naiively believe that those charged with protecting us are doing a fine job and we have nothing to worry about. PErhaps naiivete, ignorance, etc. are simply the problem. OR perhaps people like you try to throw this mentality around, well aware of the truth, because a lot of people, without knowing any better, actually do think that everything is under control and the gas industry already has laws to follow and follows them and that those laws are duly enforced when they don't. It would be an easy sell to convince soemeone who thinks drilling is regulated and scientifically unerstood like everything else that there is no reason not to drill (and frankly, since it is so inconscienable that the laws and regulations that apply to everyone and everything else do NOT apply to gas drilling, it is not even totally the fault of those who are unaware of this- if you didn't know, you would probably think it's not possible). But the truth is, the regulation does not exist, the states as yet are unable to enforce it even if they wanted to, and the impacts, chemicals, processes, and byproducts are not well enough understood to effectively be regulated anyway.

And this is only talking about the fracking fluid itself. Never mind the massive water consumption, to be drawn from local streams, creeks, rivers, ponds, etc; huge amounts of truck traffic; wildlife habit disruption and fragmentation; development and industrialization of rural and even semi-wild areas; impacts to local economies- agriculture, tourism/outdoors, home values; qualty of life issues for local residents (noise, dust, lights, etc.).

If Walmart were going to build three superstores within every town in SUllivan COunty, would you guys be half as supportive?

Yet the fanatics say "why should any of that get in the way of our money?"

Look it up!

Have you noticed lately that when someone makes statements they can't prove they just holler "Look it up!". Fox News does it all the time. I called PA DEP and they don't know what in hell you are talking about which makes about 3 of us. I skipped your tedious tirade as it bored me but did catch the "massive water use" lie. It's right up there with the "lower home value" lie and the "gubment don't know what's in frack fluid" lie. Fracking a well uses about the same amount of water as a typical golf course in a year only without all that pesky fertilizer runoff. The water pipes that pilfer Delaware water and deliver it to the pristine yet strangely undrinkable Hudson River and NYC leak millions of gallons daily. It is whispered that the water pressure is the only thing keeping them from collapsing. Look it up!

Please

don't go as far as to lie that PA DEP doesn't have records of these things when it is their records being cited. I can almost gurantee you have never called PA DEP in your life. If you did, they said something to th eeffect of "you need to talk to ____" or "you need to _____" or you spoke to one individual who said "I don't personally have that information" and you twist that into saying "PAD DEP don't know what in hell." You lie blatantly. The data exists, they have it, do a better job next time.

Plus, for all of your (still!) saying "give us facts" despite fact after fact with SOURCES being presented, in all of your pro-drilling arguments you still have yet to cite ONE, JUST ONE, FACT to support your claim! Never mind a SOURCE. You call my fact-based, source-cited argument "weak", yet you have not one single figure or source to back any single aspect of your argument whatsoever. You just use blanket statements, falsehoods, twisting of words, smoke and mirros deflection, and obtuse, unscientific "comparisons" to further your case that drilling is entirely benign, has "never" caused "any" harm to "anything" "anywhere", and that since there are other bad things in this world and other industries occasioanlly have a spill or accident, we should therefore just invite another idnustry, with almsot none of the regulation or oversight that applies to all other industries in place, to run rampant.

And once again you obtusely oversimplify by comparing pulling millions of gallons in a matter of days, PER WELL BEING FRACKED, to the water withdrawal over the course of a year by a golf course. First of all, in areas with active MArcellus drilling, there are a lot more wells in a couple of square miles than there are Golf courses in all of SUllivan, Wayne, and Pike counties combined. Second, that is like comparing the results of an entire year's worth of rainfall falling on the Delaware Valley in a week vs. over the course of a year. The fact that no harm comes from a samll handful of withdrawals over the course of the year does not therefore translate to hundreds of withdrawals of the same total volume but in a period of days or weeks!

And as far as NYC DEP's water supply goes, I don't like it either but "relative morality" will not justify your cause. Just because one environmental mess is ongoing doesn't mean we need or want or should have another. And for all of the hatred you show towards the people of NYC taking "our" water, just where pray tell will "our" gas be piped off to?

Taking water, buying gas.

See the difference? There are no records of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water sources. Cannot show all the places it did not happen, but there were millions. NYC and Jersey and Delaware have all sorts of industries and chemical plants, but want to keep us rural for their benefit? Sounds selfish as all hell. What claim did anyone make that requires a fact? You seem stressed and dumbfounded. (Never again end a sentence with "piped off to", please.)

whatever

Other than all the documented cases of contamination of water sources, you may keep on telling yourself it has never happened if it makes you happy. You are not even arguing anything, you are just repeating something to yourself over and over despite numerous facts and documents and sources to the contrary.

As for the rest of your comments, what the hell does any of it have to do with gas drilling? Their benefit? They (NYC/NJ/etc.) would be the ones benefitting from industrialization of our rural area for the energy they want. You seem to be confused as to whether they want to keep "us" rural "for their benefit" or industrialize "us" "for their benefit". Which is it?

As for claims that anyone made that required a fact- first off, what is the point of debating ANYTHING if there are no facts involved one way or the other? Most of us got past he said/she said in Kindergarten- you won't claim your gas rights simply by being the loudest screamer on the playground. And, since you're the one who keeps ASKING for facts, and being given then, umm? Yeah. Please try to make some sense before wasting TRR's bandwith. And the relevance or truth of facts and documents isn't subject to your liking of them.

The only thing I'm dumbfounded by is your previosuly noted ignorance, incoherance, and/or pathological denial of the reality the rest of the world lives in (i.e., things like STILL insisting hydraulic fracturing has never once been responsible for contaminating anything, despite all the documentation of cases it has and specific facts about volumes involved etc.). You will also probably deny until your blue in the face that the lack of regulation and the fact that PA DEP is hopelessly understaffed (again, by their own statement) to keep up with gas drilling to date means the documentation available will be limited. Just imagine what might really be out there if gas drilling were regualted, inspected, and had as clear of a code of regulations (and therefore, violations and enforecement actions) as the rest of the world (i.e., you me, and every other industry other than gas and oil)? If anything, the fact that there are not even more documented cases probably has more to do with "it can't be documented if nobody saw it" than being a matter of "every case is well documented". Frankly the documented cases are probably only a fraction of the reality. It's kind of like saying if there were no police and no laws against DUI, "nobody drinks and drives" simply because there is no documentation of it. If there is no law to violate and nobody out there enforcing it, nobody would even be keeping records. Yet even with that being the case, we DO have records!

But, if it makes you happy, go on telling yourself that I, PA DEP, WV DEP, NYSDEC, USEPA, NY's state representatives, the water treatment plant operators, President Obama, etc. etc. are all completely wrong and have all used voodoo science in their documentation of contamination due to hydraulic fracking and resulting concerns thereof. We obviously should all just listen to you, even though you never have used one bit of fact, documentation, or a single reference or source in ANY of your arguments. And, um, you are ....????

And I'll end my sentences however I please.

No need for insults.

Hydraulic fracturing has never been the cause of a contaminated water well. That is according to the EPA and DEP. End of story.

Here is some help. This from a story about Wyoming and POSSIBLE water well contamination found for the first time in over a million wells, and this is from the much reviled Propublica, the obstructionists' best friend:

"Scientists in Wyoming will continue testing this fall to determine the level of chemicals in the water and exactly where they came from. If they find that the contamination did result from drilling, the placid plains arching up to the Wind River Range would become the first site where fracturing fluids have been scientifically linked to groundwater contamination."

http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-chemicals-found-in-wyo.-drinking-w...

Well...

then that really is interesting that PA DEP states otehrwise isn't it.

And if it hasn't been proven yet by complete absolute scientific fact that a potable water has been contaminated by hydrofracking, that doesn't dismiss all the other drinking water sources and surface water bodies and groundwater that have. OK, so you might have some slight wiggle room to argue the plausible deniability of your case if you narrow the discussion down to potable wells only. That doesn't prove your case. It just means it either hasn't made it's way to someone's well yet, there is still scientific question over whether an impacted well is due to hydrofracking or not, OR that since there are very fews laws and regulations and even less inspection and enforcement due to the oil and gas industry exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, etc. that they haven't been found yet. Frankly, there is very little testing or inspection being done due to the almost total lcak of regulations. The only way any testing of wells would even take place would be in cases of such gross contamination that a prblem were detected by sight, taste or smell. Contamination at SDWA levels, or groundwater quality standards, accounts for chronic exposure (this, after all, is how all but the most toxic materials work) which is usually at levels so law for most pollutants that short of chemical anlaytical testing of your well water, you'd never know what it was contaminated with. And if you don't know there's a porblem, and the EPA and DEP don't or can't check- how would anyone know? A simple lack of data does not postively prove your hypothesis! In fact it proves nothing one way or the other. And regardless, PA DEP has stated otherwise publicly. I tend to believe them over you.

If I've never seen an Eagle catch a fish, does that prove that Eagles do not eat fish?? If the police don't keep track of how many people in Ford trucks have accidents, does that mean Ford trucks never have accidents?

Congrats on actually backing up a small portion of your argument for the first time though . Unfortunately there is no supporting data to prove or corroborate your story (i.e., no absolute concrete data- {PA DEP statements aside for the sake of argument}- to prove that wells HAVE been contaminated does not equal data supporting the statement that "in fact NO wells have been contaminated") and you are only showing that there is questionibility when it comes to one potential of ONE singular example of the many receptors or exposure pathways of contamination due to hydrofracking. That doesn't prove anything else, and the data out there on everything else is actually pretty solid to teh contrary of your argument.

In the meantime, you must be trembling in your boots waiting for this latest case in wyoming to unfold. What would you do if beyond a shadow of a scientific doubt this contamination were atributed to hydrofracking?

And if you so want to scientifically prove your case so that we all "know" it is safe, why do you so oppose the very studies that would ever even make it possible even if your hypothesis were correct (which it isn't)? You people still have never addressed that one. If you're so sure of your case, why do you oppose the opportunity to have data to prove it (however unlikely that might be)?

Study till the cows come home.

No one cares. Just don't expect the world to stop so that you may be convinced of something, and you will not be convinced unless the results are what you want. If hydrofracturing did cause contamination in Wyoming, it would still make the odds over a million to one, which are pretty comfortable. Spills and illegal dumping still do not constitute contamination. You feel they do. Valves have been left open and accidents have occurred, but the actual contamination you seek has not happened, except in your desires and dreams. There has been methane migration in Places in Bradford, but not caused by fracturing. Will you stop using natural gas and oil products until you decide fracturing is safe? No? So you do want it to continue? No? So you want gasoline and natural gas, knowing they are derived by fracturing, but you want fracturing to stop? How do you propose to meet your personal energy needs, as well as your friends and neighbors, and NYC and North Jersey if you don't use gas and oil derived from drilling and often from fracturing? You have been shown that fracturing has not been proven to have contaminated a single water well, but you still refuse to believe it. Fear is a very strong emotion.

Powerful?

Greed and money are powerful. Calling everything else fear is just a convenient excuse.

Working professionally with these things all the time, I suppose it is a lot to ask a layperson to understand, but let's be clear about two things:

1. The only person talking about spills and accidents is you. The majority of what I have been talking about is systemic, inherent, recurring, ongoing issues and the resulting contamination. There is a HUGE difference between spills and accidents, and the everyday practices of an entire industry. An accident is a valve malfunction that sends afew hundred gallons of contamination into a creek. It is not an accident that however many trucks it takes to haul 44,000 55-gallon drums of drilling waste (that was never characterized for disposal through chemical analysis) took it to a place that is not capable of properly treating the waste and then discharged it into a public drinking water supply. Those trucks did not all roll over and crash into the river after hitting an icy patch once morning. The industry sent then there because that is what they do, and because with the regulatory loopholes it is unclear that what they did was technically illegal, even though if those drums were generated by any industry besides oil and gas there is no question on the legality and everyone involved would, at the very least, have been subject to the cost of any remediation and massive fines would have been levied as well as most probably other corrective and punitive actions taken in such a case of gross negligence.

But even if we were talking about spills and accidents, which we are NOT, you say "Spills and illegal dumping still do not constitute contamination. You feel they do." No, I don't feel ANYTHING. The fact is, contamination is contamination- unlike the distinction of murder vs. manslaughter, contamination does NOT hinge upon the presence of intent. If it happened, it is contamination. There is no gray area. If chemical contaminants generated by the gas industry are present in groundwater, surface water, or soil, it IS contamination. Those chemicals do not get negated or cancelled out even if they DID get there accidentally (and the majority are no accident). Contamination is contamination. The only variable is the degree- and if in excess of groundwater, surface water, soil, or drinking water quality standards, remediation IS required and penalties WILL be assessed (except for oil and gas which Bush/Cheney exempted from the law in '05). Check with your regulatory agency of choice on this one, but do not go spouting things like that. It makes you sound dumb and/or incompetent to be discussing these subjects. Again.

2. The science is NOT out there, does NOT exist, to make any claims even remotely approaching "If hydrofracturing did cause contamination in Wyoming, it would still make the odds over a million to one". WE simply do not know. The data does not exist. I just explained this as a professional in my last post. You may choose to ignore the facts, the science, the data, or the scientific process, but that does not make you correct. There is no place where your claim that it has never happened would hold up as a factual statement- not in court, not in a peer-reviewed paper, not in an environmental report, not in front of a regulatory agency. You then say "You have been shown that fracturing has not been proven to have contaminated a single water well, but you still refuse to believe it. " All that has been shown is that yes, the POSSIBILITY MAY EXIST that TO DATE fracking has not been PROVEN to have contaminated a single well. If you do not understand or cannot make the distinction or do not understand the science, you should not post again until you do because once again, you are trying to argue with facts and science while not actually demonstrating any understanding of how they actually work. Which again reflects poorly on your competence to try to discuss any of this. A lack of evidence alone does not constitute data supporting your claim. And I previously explained to you that there is very little data to go on one way or the other at this point in time due to the lack of inspections, regulation, and oversight. We are not talking about a large pool of data to even be able suggest a trend or hypothesis- there simply isn't much data to go by when it comes to potential gas industry impacts to potable wells. Of course you once again twist the lack of information into a non-existent case for you cause, but once again it does not reflect well on your knowledge or understanding if the subject and certainly doesn't prove anything to anybody one way or the other.

And, as has been explained before, your claim that because I use some oil or gas (which, actually, I don't) I should therefore support exctraction of one particlar energy resource in one particular region through one particular means by current standard practices is again a poorly pitched PR campaign. Do you drive? Because if you do, you OBVIOUSLY should drive a Hummer- I mean, you need to drive, right? So what choice do you have but to drive a Hummer? Let's see- there are other places; there are other sources more easily exploited; there are other choices to be made (regarding energy sources, use, and consumption); there are better more efficient ways; there are plenty of questions about shale gas in terms of long-term viability (due to the amount of gas lost in the process, and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions which at least some studies (Cornell) indicate may make shale gas a worse long-term environmental choice than coal); and the current pollution and waste regulation (almost none), characterization (none), and disposal practices (reprehensible) are unacceptable.

There are lots of choices. Unfortunately for you, there is only one choice which would give you a payoff so you continue to try to ram it down everythings throat with false claims, manipualtion, misunderstood science, twisted logic, false claims, blatant lies, and a complete lack of supporting data.

What a turn around

Wow, we went from documented contamination of water sources to the data simply isn't out there. Still, somehow, the idea local people shall profit is offensive and intolerable.

Yes- but sorry, no turnaround; nice try (again)

That is correct. The data to even begin to make a case for drilling and extraction of deep shale gas using horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and fracking fluids being "safe" does not exist. There is however, plenty of data that contamination has occurred on a significant scale and that at the very least, better regulation and inspection is needed. Likewise, there is plenty of data to raise eyebrows that there are many known issues with the processes and materials and, and potentially additional serious issues, that need to be further evaluated before letting these activties continue or expand unchecked.

You think you are so creative and smart because you can rephrase what others say to make it sound like you "got" them. That must've served you well in grade school reports. But in the real world, anyone with half a brain sees right through it. The data and documentation is out there that water sources have been contaminated. I've presented numerous examples and could present many more. You must think everyone else out there is pretty stupid if they think that by simply rephrasing and twisting words and saying "we went from documented contamination of water sources to the data simply isn't out there" will somehow confuse everyone and make them think that " there is data showing it to be safe", or that there "isn't data showing it to be unsafe". But the reality is, the only question is whether, TO DATE, with 100% SCIENTIFIC PROOF, CONTAMINATION OF A DRINKING WATER WATER SOURCE with the FRACKING MATERIAL ITSELF DUE TO THE DIRECT ACT OF FRACKING HAS OCCURRED. There is absolute, concrete data in spades that fracking has caused methane contamination of drinking water soruces, and that fracking fluid has contaminated groundwater, surface water, and drinking water sources via other means on a large scale. You pat yourself on the back, when really you have just pointed out that given all we already know about all the ways fracking does contaminate, there is still the POSSIBILITY that ONE source of contamination via ONE exposure pathway may not yet be proven. Big deal. That doesn't say much when it occurs via numerous other methods and exposure pathways. That's like saying it's safe to drink and drive because a whiskey bottle has never killed anyone. Except it's not, because we do know that a whiseky bottle in and of itself can't kill someone- we don't have data that actually shows that no drinking water well has ever been contaminated by fracking fluid, and in fact it is looking quite likely at this point that it in fact has.

You also will not succeed in your campaign to paint the problems of gas drilling as one of the rest of the world having an agenda to keep "local people" down. It's a nice attempt at a diversion, a catchy rallying cry- but it's totally irrelevent to the discussion. "Local people" could also profit by taking money from chemical waste producers to quiety dispose of their waste by dumping it in the Delaware by moonlight. Opposition to that wouldn't have a damn thing to do with whether you're a local or from Long Island or Texas or wherever. You clamor about being hard working- yet, you complain because this one way of making an easy living may never happen for you. That's interesting, I thought hard-working people (including local people) profit from doing a JOB. And while the local economy may not be the strongest, if it is truly holding you back or you aren't happy here, you've been free to head to NJ or Manhattan or wherever anytime you'd like. You will not gain support for destruction of our environment and the way of life the rest of us like simply by telling us your sob story (unless you are in fact a farmer, in which case yes you've been held hostage by an out-of-touch pricing system; but even at that, destroying your land and our quality of life is still only a financial out for you, not a sustainable long-term solution to a nationwide problem- it's not that anyone wants farmers to live in poverty, it's that this isn't the solution even though it has undeniable short-term appeal). And it is insulting that you think everyone around you is such a simpleton as to believe you when you twist protecting a way of life and being socially and environmentally responsible and try to portay it as being a deliberate campaign against "local people". I see plenty of local people talking about what's wrong with gas drilling and why they don't want their quality of life taken away simply for your benefit. Some of them are even farmers! I know that must be hard for you to imagine.

The only thing intolerable would be you and the gas companies profiting from the loss of our environment, everyone else's health and/or quality of life (noise 24/7, heavy truck traffic 24/7, lights 24/7, industrialization and sprawl, dust, odors, presence of a large temporary migrant workforce, etc.) or the ability of the REST OF US to continue to PROFIT if loss of property values, tourism, natural attractions, outdoor recreation, full-time population, quality agricultural land, etc. are permitted to occur. You wouldn't care because you'd have your monthly gas check and likely would move out of the area. Those of us who stayed would still need JOBS. Those farmers intending to stay farming would still need productive land. And regardless, your profit would not trump everyone (or anyone) else's right to quality of life.

Rock and roll ain't noise pollution

And methane migration isn't contamination. Methane is colorless odorless non toxic gas naturally occurring in the ground near aquifers and is found in many water wells. It merely needs venting.

I'll keep that in mind

if your house blows up.

Remember, my house is my property. If I don't want methane gas in it, you can go screw yourself.

What say you now, he who wants to do anything he pleases on his proerpty and denies the existence of second- or third-party impacts to any other property????

Hmmm???

We're all waiting....

Oh, and methane buildup where it doesn't belong IS contamination. The ability to make something go away does not make it "not contamiantion". And despite your arrogance, what you think doesn't mean a damn in terms of whether something is or isn't contamination. You are not a scientist, a regulator, or anything else. What you say doesn't matter. Everyone else considers it contamination, because it is. Furthermore, the health impacts of methane in drinking water etc. have not yet even been studied, so all else aside, other than an explosion hazard, we don't know how big of an issue it is or isn't. But one way or the other it does not belong in drinking water or in someone's basement, and is an explosion hazard. Therefore, it is contamination. Again, check with your favorite regulatory agency to see whether or not they regard it as such.

Boom Poom Pow

I see five house a week blowing up in Bradford. Hey, your fear matters. Nothing else. Look out! Behind You! It's your shadow!

At least

you've made it clear for everyone by your weakening argument which now has nothing left but some unclever catchy phrases.

You have no leg to stand on. And your money actually DOESN'T matter. At least not compared with everything else that gas drilling would bring if it were allowed free reign. If you made the same money doing something legitimate I'd congratulate you though.

Unclever catchy?

Unclever catchy doesn't sound very clever. By legitimate you mean running drugs? You make this too easy.

Right about a couple things.

Solar and wind are not off in the future. They will never be viable energy sources. The population increases faster that any needed improvements on solar and wind can be made. Need will always grow faster that solar and wind energy production. Natural gas, coal and oil, and even nuclear will be used far into the future simply because there will be no viable alternative. Gas is our future and not a bridge. It is the highway upon which this nation will travel. It will be extracted and used. Extraction will not pollute the waterways and you will use the products derived from fracturing for gas and oil. It will keep you warm and comfortable as you type on your keyboard about how much you dislike it. You will not be swayed and will not connect your use of the fuel with its extraction. You will not accept that you are paying Exxon and Hess and CHK to fracture for gas and oil. You will maintain plausible stupidity and claim you don't use the stuff, don't like the stuff, and don't want the stuff. But will you sit in the cold and dark waiting for solar and wind energy to keep you warm and cozy? Probably not.

Status Quo

You have property in New York and Pennsylvania, good for you. You apparently have chosen not to lease your gas rights and it is your right not to do so. You state that recreation, farming and second homes are successful. Farms are no longer successful here. Recreation was never meant to be and never will be the backbone of our economy. Second homes are the symptoms of the failure of the local economy and not the cure. You have far more to fear from extra sewage from said homes than you do drilling. You argue that property values are dependent on a clean environment and while I enjoy a clean environment as much as the next guy, this is a false statement. What is an acre going for in Manhattan? Is that a clean environment?

You say you can't match the gas companies dollar for dollar and in the same sentence say that an individual has rights. Which is it? Do we have the right to sell our gas rights or are we to be hog tied by someone who can't match dollar for dollar? The next statement that no one should be able to swoop in from who knows where and take away your home or rights or whatever begs the question: Where the hell did you swoop in from?

Gas is the transition fuel. Wind and solar are not ready yet not that you probably wouldn't put up one hell of a fight if a 150 foot windmill was planned for your neighborhood Kennedy style. The only lies that need refuting are those of Josh Fox who recently sued to have damning evidence of his lies taken down from Youtube. My understanding is that there is much more bad news coming for our snake oil salesman.

Correct me if I am wrong but these are the conclusions I draw from your letter, sir.

1. You are or were a second home owner / tourist / vacationer in the area.
2. You are financially secure.
3. You are comfortable with the current status quo.

These are some of the classic hallmarks of obstructionism and are not in my mind valid arguments against drilling.

rights?

So TheHick's response has just proven the attitude that an individual's rights are directly propoprtional to his wealth or lack thereof, and that the right to make money trumps the right to a quality of life and environment, safe drinking water, etc. etc. TheHick is certainly outspoken when it comes to his own rights, however! He must be quite rich to be able to assert such a notion upon the rest of us.

Interestingly enough, the laws of this nation and state say otherwise. BUT,unfortunately, his attitude is in part correct: the de facto practice is that those who have the money can do as they please, while those with more modest means must either accept the terms, make do, or move elsewhere. We see this time and again where land developers, wealthy individuals, and large corporations run roughshod over this country's land and residents (this also includes the dairy industry in cahoots with the government to hold it's producers hostage to pitiful payments while sipping lattes in their downtown office suite and throwing wads of cash into their advertising and marketing cronies' pockets) while the supposed lawmakers and leadership build in loopholes to accomodate this, or simply look the other way.

Perhaps we should just change the name from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to the UNITED SUBJECT COLONIES OF EXXON-MOBIL/CABOT/BRITISH PETROLEUM/CHINA/MANHATTAN/HONDA/TOLL BROTHERS/K. HOVNANIAN etc. to better reflect reality?

Flawed Logic

Your entire anti drilling argument hinges upon clinging to the notion that natural gas extraction is going to cause imminent damage to the environment in some way without any proof whatsoever. Scream "Dimmok!" as loud as you can and you still don't have concrete evidence. This is flawed logic at best and you would use it to damn the local populace to economic death. Throw in a token lament for the farmers while you are at it and you are morally covered. Your rights to live in fear of the boogyman don't trump our right to profit from our land no matter how you spin it.

Rights?

You have NO right to profit from your land if it destroy's everyone else's drinking water and economic well being or the ecology of the region which the towns, states and federal government have worked long and hard to protect, preserve, and repair from previous damages (remember DDT and chlordane and the near-loss of the bald eagle and other large birds of prey? or unrestricted ridgetop development?). And as of right now, we don't know whether you can profit from your land, or to the extent you might wish to, without irreparable harm to the rest of us or the environment. So until then, you will not find many sympathizers beyond those other large landholders in the region who also seek to benefit economically.

I'm sick of hearing about your "right" to do whatever when the science isn't even out there yet to claim any "right" to anything when it comes to the subject of hydraulic fracturing. Your entire pro-drilling argument hinges upon clinging to the hope that natural gas extraction can be forced down everyone else's throat without any proof whatsoever that it will be environmentally safe, benign to human health, undetrimental to the local economy, etc.- or at least before the science that says otherwise is out there. Scream "economy" as loud as you can and you still don't have concrete evidence that anyone in the region would benefit economically from drilling besides yourself and other owners of large land tracts and the gas companies. This is flawed logic at it's worst and you will use it to damn the local populace to economic death as long as you can profit from it (is there anyone still out there who thinks gas drilling will lead to local jobs? The gas company has it's own employees and contractors who will be brought in, temporarily put up in local lodging, and then leave as soon as teh work is done, with perhaps a token maintenance/inspection crew left behind who may or may not be local hires. Local jobs? I'd be surprised if full unrestricted industrial gas fields in the region would directly produce more than a couple dozen long-term, full-time jobs for current residents of Sullivan, Wayne, and Pike Counties combined- perhaps even less; the operation and periodic inspection and maintenance of a pipeline network simply isn't a labor-intensive operation). Throw in a token claim to be a hard working local resident and you are morally covered. Your rights to use your land to earn income don't trump our right to live safely in our homes on the land we live and pay taxes on no matter how you spin it. If you want to control and impact our land and water you will need more than money. You simply cannot deny that at the very least you need scientific evidence for you claims that it can be done safely without spoiling the environment or wrecking our fragile local economy before staking any claim that you have any "right" to forge ahead. Until you have something to back up your claims, you have no claims one way or the other. The fact is, you oppose even taking the time and money to investigate and try to find these answers, and you oppose the OBLIGATION of the States and Federal government to enforce their existing laws and regulations or to formulate appropriate laws and regulations to apply to this new technology and industry (perhaps because Pennsylvania just said "yeah, sure, whatever" and chose not to regulate or evalaute one way or the other, you have a false sense that everyone else will or should do the same? Even Pennsylvania now seems to be questioning the wisdom of it's previous blase approach!).

Rights!

Thus far no one's drinking water has been destroyed by hydro fracking and no ecology has been destroyed. You have no right to push your fear on me. The only sympathizers I need are Gov. Corbett and the Pennsylvania assembly. So far, so good. You have no proof it is unsafe. All you have is your fear and stall tactics. They are wearing paper thin. Feel free to spend all the time and money you wish. The rest of us are moving on.

LIES

"Thus far no one's drinking water has been destroyed by hydro fracking and no ecology has been destroyed. "

These sir are blatant, flagrant, obvious, undeniable lies. You are not even trying here, you are just saying what you want to hear and thinking someone actually beleives you.

We can argue all you wish about the degree or severity of specific instances, but you cannot claim that no ecology is destroyed when habitat impacts are obvious to the naked eye or that no one's drinking water has been destroyed when there are numerous documented cases of groundwater impacts. You should check in with your beloved PA state gov't and its agencies more often if you actually think there are not documented cases of groundwater contamination!

A federal congressional study has shown that 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel were injected into wells in 19 states from 2005 to 2009. Diesel fuel conains benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes among other chemical contituents which are known to cause cancer. Millions if not billions of dollars have been spent in this country remediating discharges of these very same BTEX compounds at everything from huge industrial sites to corner gas stations to residential heating oil tanks. Why does anyone think it is ok to purposefully inject them into our groundwater?? OH, THAT'S RIGHT- drilling fluids are exempted(!) from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which applies to anyone and anything else, from private citizens to fuel dealers to chemical plants, due to a certain loophole in the law(thank you Haliburton). I have personally remediated spills and discharges of these same compounds (remedation is required by law), yet the gas industry is allowed to freely and deliberately and openly pump them into the ground (and groundwater).

Not only do you not want to know the facts and try to stall any effort to obtain them, you flat out lie about them in a floundering last-ditch effort to promote your personal profit agenda at all costs. You deny facts that you yourself -must- know (even I credit you with not possibly being so ignorant or uninformed as to not know these things) simply because you wish you didn't and know they threaten your ability to make money from the gas industry.

Ugh

There is not one documented case of water well contamination as a result of hydrofracking. Please specify exactly where the death and destruction is occurring. Diesel is another word for home heating oil of which my guess is you will be burning plenty. Where does all that benzene go, anyway?

TheHick seems to be

handling the fear and loathing tactics of the obstructionists quite well. There is no evidence of hydro fracking ruining a water supply after 50 years and over a million wells. Do more studies? Million to one odds, or more like over a million to zero odds, is pretty damn good. Obie is using the fear factor simply because the science and odds do not support his claims.

Just Fox was in Washington, Pa yesterday to film his legacy for his library as he fabricated into the mike. He is a hoot.

Science

I'm the only one here using any science! You guys are just too ignorant or money-grubbing to be able to handle it.

Even when the facts are put right in front of you, you act as if they don't exist and then merrily spout your own agenda over and over like a broken record.

You say I'm an obstructionist when we don't even know yet what we're talking about. Obstructionism would be fighting against something where there is no evidence or cause for concern based on a solid body of evidence, or as in the case of the greedy here, arguing that THEY should be paid before the rest of us have ANSWERS. The only obstructinism here is the pro-drillers hoping to hell they can start drilling before anyone digs any further into the truth because the truth is likely to stand in the way of their profits. They know this, hence they fear it and fight it, spouting the same broken-record blanket statements and bold-faced lies hoping someone other than their ilk and the gas company still believes them and denying that their ship is starting to take on water.

As for that Hick's question, I'm quite sure the diesel (dyed, of course) in my heating oil tank gets burned, not poured down his well!! I'm sure if Hick wants to come over and drink some he can be my guest though. Maybe pour some over his pancakes, or fill his swimming pool with it and then do a cannonball into it. Seriously. If he doesn't see the difference between storing a hazardous material in a safe vessel and using it for it's intended purpose, versus pumping into into the ground at will, he certainly has no basis to make commentary on the safety or appropriateness of the discharge of these materials. If what he alleges about the safety of diesel were true, it wouldn't be a regulated hazardous material requiring remediation of discharges, its chemical compounds wouldn't be on priority pollutant lists, and the storage tanks for it wouldn't require automated electronic leak detection (for underground tanks) or secondary spill containment (for above ground tanks). And diesel is only one of the list of chemical constituents thus far identified in fracking fluids.

You guys are just too much, you should do a comedy show. Because the rest of us, other than the fact that you threaten us becuase big money (i.e., corporate america) is on your side (this is the only reason we're even worried, because we all know what money does), are laughing at you making fools of yourselves over and over with your ignorance.

I'm sure if somebody just wrote out these guys a check, the blathering about contaminated water that exists and is documented, but yet doesn't in their minds, would stop in a hurry!

An obstructionist

You defined it fairly well. You are an obstructionist. Gas extraction is done safely. It does not contaminate wells. You have a lot of trouble with that fact. You want others to believe it contaminates wells, but over a million fractured and no contamination is a very good record. They ate fracturing for oil as well. You use the gasoline derived from this process. How can you continue to use something you feel is destroying the environment in its extraction? The answer is you want to stop gas extraction in your area as you feel it would inconvenience you, but you still want cheap energy. You simply want it to come from someplace, anyplace, else.

Denial- it isn't just for rivers anymore

You really think anyone believes you when, confronted by facts about groundwater contamination being widespread, you deny it's mere existence? Millions of gallons of groundwater contamination in 19 states, yet you spout back with comments like "it does not contaminate wells". Millions of gallons and 19 states worth of facts that it does occur were just stated plainly right in front of you, and the only thing you can come back with is a blanket statement that implies the precedent statement by me simply did not exist.

You drilling fanatics spout the word "obstructionist" repeatedly every time you hear something you don't like. We could study it to death and have reams of facts that it is an environmental holocaust, yet you would still yammer on about it being safe and "not causing any contamination". But yet, you are the ones who have obstructed anything and everything that might get in the way of your profits. You clamor for "science" or "facts", then when they are put in front of you you deny them and say "where are the facts" like some sick Chatty Cathy doll, or perhaps Pee Wee Herman (" I know you are, but what am I?"). You then response with false blanket statements that are supported by absolutely nothing, and indeed can't be supported because the facts saying otherwise have just been stated plainly.

Similarly, you clamor for "facts" and "science" and simultaneously fight tooth and nail against any effort, by anyone, to gather more facts or conduct some real science about this. You obviously can't have it both ways, so please choose one or the other- you either want facts and science, or you fear facts and science. Obviously since you are fighting so hard to obstruct any efforts in the direction of facts and science (and in fact fall back on the "science" of two centuries ago at times to attempt to support your arguments), and deny or ignore facts that are put right in front of you, the answer is you are very afraid of the facts and science that you either already know but deny, or of any additional facts which most likely can only hurt your cause of self-gain.

YOu then try to justify you self-important cause by arguing that since the rest of us, even those who oppose gas drilling, use energy sources- therefore, we MUST continue and expand our persuit of ONE particular energy source (natural gas, locked in shale formations, which the energy industry now has the technology to extract and therefore profit from lest any fossil fuel reserves on the planet go unprofited from) in this ONE particular area, exploiting some of the most difficult to obtain fossil fuel reserves we have left.

That is like McDonalds saying "since you all need to eat, obviously you should be eating 3 meals a day of our greasy trans-fat laden hamburgers and french fries and spending money only at our establishment" as if there is not an entire menu, restaurant selection, supermarket, farm stand, or garden full of (mostly better) food choices and an endless range of dietary factors and choices to be considered. ALternative energy sources? Higher efficiency? Energy Conservation? Better energy policy? Government that is not in big oil's (or gas) back pocket? Naw, let's just keep on burnin' the fossil fuel elixir like we always have! Anyone for some "Kool-Aid"? There's lots being spouted here.

You guys are kidding yourselves.

Furthermore, it's not you we're concerned about, it's the dollars the fossil fuel industry waves in front of our politicians and government agencies in their efforts to control them and be exempted from the law, and to prevent the development of more efficient or alternative energy source technologies, for their own financial gains. If it weren't for the power of the almighty dollar, we'd have nothing to worry about. Least of all not from some landowners who want to act as if they live in California in 1849, with virtually no laws and plenty of gold to go around.

Fear and loathing, but

where are the facts...the science. Where has hydrofracturing been proven to contaminate drinking water sources? You seem very concerned about money others may make and are determined to prevent it, but you use the products derived from hydrofracturing and you offer no alternative. You rant that it is unsafe and cannot prove it with fact. That seems to make you an obstructionist, consumed with envy, and a fear monger of the first order. Ignore science and spread fear. It is the only thing you can cling to at this point.

Thank you

for just proving my point. I just presented facts about groundwater contamination (just as a refresher, 32 million gallons of diesel and other fluids in 19 states- that is to say, so there is no question, 32 million gallons of contaminated fluids discharged into the subsurface and groundwater- also known as "groundwater contamination"), and the only reply you can come up with is to once again utter "where are the facts... the science". Good to see the record player hasn't broken yet! And I 've only talked about diesel contituents thus far- nevermind the release of radiation in spent fracking fluids as radium and other naturally occurring materials from deep in the subsurface are brought up with the pressurized fluid and may contain levels of radiation 1000x over EPA safe levels. If you don't believe me, just check with PA and WV where such discharges are (once again!) documented.

Then when I present numerous alternatives to continued reliance on products derived from hydrofracking and continuation of the fossil fuel industry running our nation, you reflexively utter "you offer no alternative" as if what I've just said has completely evaded you. Perhaps it simply has? Perhaps I gave the pro-gas contingent too much credit, and the facts do indeed simply evade them. Regardless, at least some of you seem to struggle with basic communication skills at times.

Once again, you say I ignore science, when I'm the only one here citing any. You say I ignore science, when I am the only one that has brought any science into this whole thread of comments. You spew forth the same buzz words and labels over and over ("safe", "obstructionist", "where are the facts" etc. etc. ad nauseum), then demand that I give facts -almost seemingly in spite of those I just gave. It's really not my problem if you simply don't like the facts I give. The validity of facts or science do not hinge upon your approval.

You then turn around and return to the subject of "what about the money to be made", just like you do every time. At least you wear your hearts on your $leeve$.

here's a few more facts

for the real obstructionists to chew on (and you don't have to take my word, PLEASE feel free to check with the PA DEP):

Over 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by Pennsylvania wells over the past three years,and most was sent to treatment plants not equipped to remove many of the toxic materials in drilling waste. (who will pay for EPA and DEC-compliant treatment of this wastewater?)

At least 12 sewage treatment plants in three states have accepted gas industry wastewater and discharged waste that was only partly treated into rivers, lakes and streams (have the gas companies stepped up to offer cleanup, mitigation, or reparation?)

Of more than 179 wells producing wastewater with high levels of radiation in PA and WV, at least 116 had reported levels of radium and/or other radioactive materials 100 times the federal drinking-water standards. At least 15 wells produced wastewater with radioactive material exceeding 1,000 times the EPA standards. (who will ensure that thsi does not continue? what will be done to protect the community, workers, and ecological receptors from such high levels of radiation? who will pay?)

It's also worth keeping in mind that by their own admission, regulators and inspectors in PA and elsehwere have not been able to keep up with the drillers. So the above only reflects KNOWN occurrences.

And going back to those 32 million gallons of diesel and other fracking fluid constituents pumped into the ground, since only about 20-30% is usually recovered, where do you suppose the rest of that contaminated fluid ends up? Mars?

I learned something new

It turns out diesel's intended purpose is to be burned to heat homes and not as a lubricant. Who knew? I guess only obi and God.

Yup

throw facts at them and the best they can do is try to distract with irrelevant random comments about diesel fuel and what it can be used for. Lubricant, heating oil, motor fuel- who cares? I'm quite sure everyone knows what diesel is used for Hick! The point is it doesn't belong in our groundwater or rivers. And diesel is one of only a list of compounds in fracking fluids.

I get paid to clean this %$#! up- decades of science says it's bad to leave it laying around in the ground so by law it has to be checked for and remediated if it's found. That doesn't mean I want to have it all over, even though money-wise that could be very lucrative for me (above and beyond what I could reap from leasing to the gas goons).

Fear and worry

You still do not tell us about the contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. If you spill the chemicals used in making marshmallows you can pollute, but it does not mean that making marshmallows pollutes. You are mongering again, with what ifs and maybes and dropping terms like radioactive. Diesel fuel is common and spilled often. Where is the actual pollution caused by fracturing? The EPA and DEP want to know.

THE EPA AND DEP

already KNOW! Those are PA DEP data I just cited!! Including the data on radioactivity in drilling wastewater! Diesel fuel in groundwater and radioactivty in surface water and drinking water sources IS CONTAMINATION!!! aka POLLUTION!!! If you don't understand that, you are simply an idiot.

These are not "what ifs" and "maybes". These are documented cases, known to the EPA and DEP, of actual pollution and contamination that has occurred/is occuring, directly attributable to gas drilling and fracking- in the State of Pennsylvania no less!

Once again, I state the facts and you just spout back "where are the facts?" or "you are mongering again". No, I'm not mongering- I just gave you more facts. You simply cannot handle them. And you, yet again, have proven my point. Still that same broken record playing over and over. I think I could type anything here and each response from you guys would read the same. I probably wouldn't even have to use words, just type random letters, and the responses would read exactly the same.

These are not just SPILLS. These are not just accidents. This is how the industry goes about "disposing" of it's wastewater. ALL of it. Or at least, all that they recover and do not leave in the ground (see previous fact cited about the small percentage of fracking fluid that is actually ever recovered to the surface), or that they do not simply illegally dump in the nearest convenient stream (PA DEP has data on fish and other kills due to illegal dumping of wastewater as well, AGAIN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FOLLOW UP WITH PA DEP!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Perhaps you've also heard about the time period, I believe it was in 2008, where the entire City of Pittsburgh could not drink water from the city water supply due to contamination of the Monongahela River attributed at least in part to contamination by drilling fluids.

This does not mean there is necessarily no way to drill safely, they are just the facts that as currently practiced, it is not. All the more reason it needs to be re-evaluated, a thorough assessment done, and our environmental regulatory authorities given time to respond appropriately. The only way you guy's blanket statements about drilling being safe will ever be true is if that is allowed to happen. If you actually wanted drilling to be safe, you too would support this. But you oppose it because you know that "the truth, teh whole truth, and nothing but the truth" might not be in your favor.

I give you direct facts citing instances and figures on real, documemented cases of pollution/contamination that the EPA and PA DEP are well aware of and have on file for you to check at any time you feel like getting off your lazy couch buttocks, and you respond by saying "where is the contamination? where are the facts? why doesn't DEP know?". This is childish! There is contamination, those are the facts, and the DEP knows- they supplied those facts!! If you guys are an example of the density we are dealing with, we need to redouble our efforts to protect ourselves. In the meantime, feel free to continue to plug your ears and loudly say "LA LA LA" to yourself as we rattle off the facts about known cases of pollution due to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing and continue to find out more of the truth that you hate so much.

I am done responding to this senseless childish prattle from ignoramuses who just spout the same nonsense over and over and ask for "the facts" every time facts are put right in front of them, and try to insist that EPA and DEP are unaware when it is EPA or DEP data that I'm citing! Seriously, if you think you're right (or if you're just a reader who's actually made it this far through the blathering of the peanut gallery), do your own research and see what various states' (PA and WV at the least) environmental regulatory agencies have to say.

I won't respond again if you guys can't come up with something intelligent to say- I've presented enough info for anyone who might have actually read all of this, and continuing to try to discuss anything with those who argue on a kindergarten level is not worth the time. In this whole thread, not a single pro-driller has given ONE single fact that actually supports the assertions of "safe" drilling. Not one fact in support of it! They may say the same thing over and over again, but that doesn't make it true no matter how many times they say it. That is about all there is to say on that subject.

Once again.

Spilling something is not the same as contamination by fracturing. Poor handling is not the same. Illegal dumping is not the same. There is always pollution and contamination in industry. Sandvik just contaminated over two hundred wells near Clark Summit. Were they tossed out of town? Hardly. There are no cases of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water supplies. Admit it or show us the science that states that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated water supplies. The DEP and the EPA need to hear about it.

Maybe there should be a law against illegal dumping? Against accidental spills? They do happen, but no more so in gas extraction that in many other industries and with far less serious results. Extracting oil from Iraq has cost us thousands of lives, but we are still there. Yes, it bears repeating. You are a fear mongerer.

Once again

you ignore truth and try to dismiss it. These are NOT spills. These are NOT rare occurrences. This was NOT the result of some freak accident! This DID NOT happen once and then go away and never come back. These are not even up to the minute data- it has undoubtedly happened MORE since the data that I cited. It probably happens every day. For sure it is not an isolated, rare occurrence.

I JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT CASES KNOWN TO THE PA DEP OF THE DRINKING WATER SUPPLY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY OF PITTSBRUGH BEING CONTAMINATED, among others, and you ignorantly, falsely, and completely incomprehensibly state "there are no cases of hydrualic fracturing contaminating water supplies". How many times and in what quantity does it need to happen and be documented before you admit that IT HAS HAPPENED??? THERE IS NO MORE PLAIN WAY TO SAY IT- EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT GAS DRILLING REPEATEDLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY AND REGULARLY CONtAMINATING WATER. THIS IS COMMON, READILY ACCESIBLE DOCUMENTED FACT. It is not hard to find this data. THERE IS NO QUESTION. EPA and the States all know about it. If you don't it's only because you've buried your head in the sand, are simply incapable of intellectually processing it, or have chosen a pathological course of insisting that the rest of the world besides your self are just liars out to get you.

These are KNOWN, DOCUMENT, SYSTEMATIC DISCHARGES OF GAS DRILLING WATSEWATER THAT HAS RESULTED IN KNOWN, DOCUMENTED CASES OF POLLUTION/CONTAMINATION.

I just GAVE you the science. I've repeatedly given you the science. Yet you keep repeating " where is the science". You've never once used science or facts in any of your argument, just false lies and blanket labels. YOU are the mongerer- fear of loss of your economic free ride, fear of the Arabs, whatever. You think that if we fear "those darn towelheads", or those "commie tree hugger hippie types" - or better yet fear ourselves- we will somehow agree that we should give YOU our money. Ironically, by insistence that I give you "facts" and "science" you have repeatedly proven your claims false at every turn. Anyone with basic comprehension skills can understand what is being said here and that fracking fluids pollute! You are a better spokesperson for the anti-drilling position than most who speak out against drilling!!

Your ignorance and stupidity frankly astounds. There simply are not words. If you are an example of the typical pro-driller, it is no surprise they don't understand- apparently, by your example at least, they are just not intellectually capable of understanding. You spout the same unsupported garbage every time. You have no basis for your arguments. You don't even try to support them. You haven't cited a single fact or source in your ENTIRE argument. When confronted with fact after fact, you deny their existence and then ask for more.

Once again- these are FACTS about KNOWN CASES of CONTAMINATION per PA DEP DATA regarding SYSTEMIC, REGULAR DISCHARGES OF POLLUTANTS INTO SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES. YOU CANNOT ARGUE THIS. IF YOU DOUBT IT, CHECK WITH PA DEP YOUR LAZY SELF. I am not responsible for helping those too lazy or feeble-minded to help themselves understand this.

ONCE AGAIN, TALK TO PA DEP IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. PLEASE!!!!!!!!

Please

resist the urge for name calling. Fracking has not polluted a single water source. Admit it.

Denying

over and over the facts that have been presented about pollution of water sources will not make all your dreams come true.

You can scream all you want, it will not change the data DEP and EPA are well aware of regarding cases of water contamination. You have nothing to hide from them because they already have this information, as previously cited.

You say "admit it", but the only one who can't admit anything to themself is YOU. Your denial will not make conatmination that has already happened and continues to happen simply go away and all all records thereof simply be erased. You have a serious psychological issue if you think that you can make that happen.

Despite being given numerous examples of pollution of surfae water, groundwater, and drinking water sources, you say "Fracking has not polluted a single water source." Please, let us know if the reason for this is ignorance, lack of intellect, or simply something clinical/pathological. Or, do you think the PA DEP and EPA are all liars out to get you? Or is this all some perverse game you enjoy where you derive masochistic pleasure from being repeatedly proven wrong and made to look even more so at every turn?

You are so fanatical at this point that you don't even care that you are humiliating yourself. You would scream that your ship isn't sinking until the water was running into your nose. You are a waste of my time not to mention the bandwith of this website. I am done with your ignorance, incomprehension, fanaticisim, and/or pathology.

Hard to read

These comments are getting hard to read and I am not talking about the space confines. It seems if obi just keeps repeating that drilling pollutes without naming a specific site and documented case, then it must be true because he wants it to be. He just wishes a well would blow out here so he could finally have some proof and be done with it. Repititious blanket statements are not examples.

moronic

Yes, I cited several examples of specific cases of document cases of contamination from gas drilling, and you guys in your ignorant bliss keep repeating ignorant false blanket statements. Do you want me to rattle off MORE cases that disprove your point which is already moot? You've never once made one factual statement, never mind so much as cite any source or figure, and yet you call the facts into question, and deny the existence of documented case after documented case.

I keep telling you to check with PA DEP or EPA. HAVE YOU?????
WHY NOT?

You guys are seriously the most deluded, ignorant, pathological, or unintelligent people I have ever tried to communicate with.

CHECK WITH EPA OR PA DEP YOUR LAZY ARSE SELF!!!! Any lazy piece of crap such as yourselves has access to this info. It is public domain. THIS IS NOT HARD PEOPLE.

I'm done with these preschoolers.

But, just to humor your masochistic tendencies and publicly humiliate you one step further, I'll post a few more in a new comment beforee I go.