Agency to Reconsider Natural Gas Drilling Stoppage

Source : Associated Press

WEST TRENTON, N.J. — The Delaware River Basin Commission agreed Wednesday to hold hearings in northeast Pennsylvania on whether to strengthen or weaken its moratorium on natural gas drilling deep below the river basin.marc

At issue is the quality and quantity of water in the Delaware River watershed, a mile beneath which lies the vast and natural gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation, most of it in New York and Pennsylvania. The gas is extracted by hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” a horizontal drilling process using millions of gallons of water mixed with chemicals and sand — with the potential, critics say, to pollute and deplete the region’s water resources.

Read more >>

Random Posts

. . .

16 thoughts on “Agency to Reconsider Natural Gas Drilling Stoppage

  1. Jeff Pritt

    This article contains one interesting point, and notes another significant development. First, the following quote:

    “State environmental regulators, as well as industry officials, say they know of no examples of fracking chemicals poisoning underground drinking water sources in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. However, environmental advocates contend that not enough research has been done to come to that conclusion.”

    It appears from this quote that at the current time there is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process itself has poisoned any water source. (If you have read about the issues with some wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania, the problem there appears to be the natural gas itself escaping into the water system, and the operator in that case, Cabot, was ordered to plug the gas wells to correct the situation.)

    Secondly, this article notes the important development this week whereby Range Resources announced that it was going to voluntarily disclose the chemicals used in its fracking process. During a public conference call with the Monroe County Commission that same day, Russell Gordy of Gordy Oil Company (the operator for our area), announced that he supported disclosing such information. (He also noted that at this point it was not known whether they would use primarily water or a gel for the fracking process if they do decide to go forward with production in our area.)

    Reply
  2. myles Post author

    Jeff – there are thousands of as-of-yet unconfirmed reports of contamination following hydraulic fracture. Where there is smoke, there is likely fire. To say “they know of no examples…” is pure political spin.

    Keep it simple. For this example, call it 5 million gallons of frack fluid per well (some take more, some take less). Latest reports put the toxins at 0.04% – although we may come to find the concentrations are higher following current and upcoming studies and continued disclosure by the drilling outfits. Reports vary, most saying that about half of the frack fluid comes back – and can be processed (which has its own set of problems). The rest?

    Stays in the ground. So with 5 million gallons x 0.04% poison – that’s 20 thousand gallons of toxins. And only half comes back. So 10 thousand gallons of that deathly elixir left in the ground PER WELL.

    We need to wake up! Seems to me the burden of proof should be on the drilling operations, not vice versa – you’re putting 10K gallons of poison into the ground? Prove that it is NOT contaminating the environment!

    Secondly – Cabot did not CORRECT any situation. They just stopped the gas from spewing 75 feet into the air after 15 or so hours. They stopped the bleeding, but they did not reverse the damage – nor will they ever – so that doesn’t qualify as a correction.

    Just as BP’s gazillion dollar effort to correct their travesty – while we’re all glad the oil has stopped spraying into the eco-system at thousands of barrels a day – nothing has been “corrected” – the damage to the environment has been done and is irreversible.

    And finally, speaking to the concept of “voluntary disclosure” – what a joke. The industry has taken great care to keep the formula concealed for years. The only reason the process could come to fruition as it has was by granting oil & gas companies exemptions from the Clean Water Act (2005 Energy bill).

    Only just weeks ago, after facing major pressure from whistle-blowers, environmental groups (like ours), various commissions, and finally state and federal agencies – ONLY THEN was the toxic mix revealed. Obviously to go on the record and refuse to disclose the chemicals now would be a bad PR move.

    And furthermore – these companies I’m sure feel confident in their position. The campaign is already full swing, and the government has so far let the process go largely unchecked. With exemptions from the Clean Water & Clean Air Acts, the EPA (until recently) asleep at the wheel, the DEP’s code and workforce being wholly inadequate to monitor and regulate, along with the promise of massive economic stimulation, not to mention the subsidizing of our dependence on foreign oil – how could they possibly be shut down?

    Accordingly, SO WHAT that they will disclose the formula? Just because the system is so lost that financial and political agendas outweigh environmental ones – that just illustrates how desperate the system and legislature is for reform.

    I mean, the list of chemicals includes compounds associated with neurological problems, cancer and other serious health effects. One would assume that would be evidence enough to shut the process down completely…

    Reply
    1. Jeff Pritt

      Myles — saying that “there are thousands of as-of-yet unconfirmed reports of contamination following hydraulic fracture[,]” is mere speculation and conjecture which is not the type of information upon which decisions regarding this process should be based. As a concerned landowner who wishes to utilize the resources of my property in a manner which is neither harmful to myself or my neighbors, I am more interested in facts.

      Our County Commission sponsored a fact-finding mission to Pennsylvania. Those persons who went reported back that although there were these types of “unconfirmed” reports in the areas they visited, no one had any firsthand knowledge about them. People had heard of such reports, but no one knew of an actual instance involving a property or people they knew. The overall tone of the report delivered to our County Commission was a positive one.

      As for the Dimock incident, it apparently affects a total of 14 families, and involves the migration of gas. The Pennsylvania DEP press release states:

      “Under the consent order and agreement, Cabot must plug three wells within 40 days that are believed to be the source of migrating gas that has contaminated groundwater and the drinking water supplies of 14 homes in the region. It must also install permanent treatment systems in those homes within 30 days.”

      The full text of the release is here: http://hydrofracking.virginiajournal.org/?p=80

      My understanding of the Dimock incident is that it relates to a failure of the casing/cementing on these wells. Once the wells are plugged that will eliminate the gas migration. I assume, but do not know for a fact, that once the gas migration is stopped then the groundwater will ultimately clear up. I have no idea how long that process may take.

      During the public conference call last week, Mr. Gordy indicated that they would use one type of protective barrier for the first 60 feet of any well that is drilled in our area. In addition, the well would then be double-cased and cemented down to 1,600 feet if I understood correctly. I do not have knowledge of any water wells extending below this depth in our area. While there is always the chance that our best technological efforts may fail, these seem like reasonable precautions to me.

      Furthermore, as for fracking fluids which remain in the well, it appears that over time some percentage of those fluids will be removed as condensate from the producing well. The remaining fluids will be located at an approximate depth of 5,000 feet where they entered and fractured the shale formation. I am certainly no geologist, but it appears any remaining fluids will be some 4,000 feet below our current water well levels, and separated from those levels by various stratigraphic layers which will keep the fluids isolated.

      To be sure, this is an industrial process. It is certainly not 100% risk free, but I have been unable to discover evidence of any widespread provable problems resulting from it (although there are certainly temporary ones including noise, dust, traffic and possible well turbidity). It appears that if the operator is a responsible party then these types of wells can be completed without causing permanent damage to our environment, and can provide a much needed economic boost while also providing a cleaner source of domestic energy.

      I hope you and all other concerned parties will be able to attend the public meeting tomorrow night so you can ask the important questions you have, and gauge the company’s responses for yourself. There are many different perspectives on this issue, and each is important. Obviously, it can only help for all of us to become better informed. Also, as Mr. Gordy explained the other day, please note that the first well will only be a vertical test well. If the test results are good will there be further development in our area, but if not then this may all be a moot issue.

      Reply
  3. myles Post author

    “Myles — saying that “there are thousands of as-of-yet unconfirmed reports of contamination following hydraulic fracture[,]” is mere speculation and conjecture which is not the type of information upon which decisions regarding this process should be based. As a concerned landowner who wishes to utilize the resources of my property in a manner which is neither harmful to myself or my neighbors, I am more interested in facts.”

    Actually, that “there are thousands of as-of-yet unconfirmed reports of contamination following hydraulic fracture” IS A FACT. Again, the reports are “as-of-yet unconfirmed” – and that is a result of a thin body of study surrounding the issue. The industry has and will deny there is any connection between spraying poison into the ground and groundwater being contaminated until they are backed in a corner by mountains of studies confirming the relationship. Furthermore, hydro-fracking in Karst country is like the great unknown – we have limited studies, limited data to support or deny claims concerning this region. However, geologists and environmentalists are concerned that this type of aquifer, due to its massive web of interconnected caves, waterways, sinkholes, cracks and crevices, would be especially susceptible to mass contamination in the event of a leak or spill.

    “As for the Dimock incident, it apparently affects a total of 14 families, and involves the migration of gas.”

    So far. And how many families would it have affected in Karst country?

    “The overall tone of the report delivered to our County Commission was a positive one.”

    Pennsylvania is in an uproar over hydro-fracking. It is unimaginable to me how a group traveling there could bring back a positive report. That is, unless it was prepared by industry representatives. How can we get our hands on a copy of that report?

    “I assume, but do not know for a fact, that once the gas migration is stopped then the groundwater will ultimately clear up. I have no idea how long that process may take.”

    That’s a big assumption. And “ultimately” is not a timeline with which we are comfortable. Will be interested in some current studies to provide some numbers on the topic.

    “I am certainly no geologist, but it appears any remaining fluids will be some 4,000 feet below our current water well levels, and separated from those levels by various stratigraphic layers which will keep the fluids isolated.”

    Nor am I a geologist. However, there are geologists very interested in the issue – who will show that water TRAVELS UP AND DOWN. This is especially true in Karst country. Figuring the poison (that is designed to seep and crack and fracture the matter around it) will lay there in the ground (at any depth) without adverse effects on the environment sounds like a BIG GAMBLE to me.

    “To be sure, this is an industrial process. It is certainly not 100% risk free, but I have been unable to discover evidence of any widespread provable problems resulting from it (although there are certainly temporary ones including noise, dust, traffic and possible well turbidity). It appears that if the operator is a responsible party then these types of wells can be completed without causing permanent damage to our environment, and can provide a much needed economic boost while also providing a cleaner source of domestic energy.”

    It is not 10% risk free. As a matter of fact, based alone on the noise, dust, traffic and well turbidity – I would say it is 100% risk. And that’s before we get to the contamination of the interconnected water table. While a fly-by-night operation obviously would present the opportunity for MORE disaster – the process itself is vile enough that no guarantee could be made that permanent damage would not occur. Counting on the company to bend reality is not a good strategy. Enter BP from stage left.

    “I hope you and all other concerned parties will be able to attend the public meeting tomorrow night so you can ask the important questions you have, and gauge the company’s responses for yourself.”

    We’ll be there.

    “Also, as Mr. Gordy explained the other day, please note that the first well will only be a vertical test well. If the test results are good will there be further development in our area, but if not then this may all be a moot issue.”

    I desperately hope it does become a moot issue. Because the counterpoint is they do strike gold – in which case they are coming in full force. And every item of caution that is being considered for the installment of ONE well, will then have to be considered times the number of wells they plan. 30K wells in total, in Marcellus Shale, by 2020. What’s the chance we escape unscathed?

    Reply
  4. laurine yates

    This discussion is so essential to this issue. Where does the truth lie?? It seems to me that the concern of EPA and the DEP, newspaper articles in the Charleston Gazette, a picture of gas exploding in a sink, a video of burning gas from a smoke stack and a testimonial about having cancer and a report (like that from people in Wetzel County WV) tells the whole story. Why would we take any chances on the possibility of such horrors happening to our beautiful, natural , healthy and pristine area with award winning water??? I’m not willing to believe that everything will be OK. Are you??

    Reply
  5. Kelly McDonald

    I am appalled that the documentary “Gasland” has not reached the masses, even though it just came out in July, I am equally appalled that there is a bill in the House? Senate? that is just sitting there that could actually clean-up the horribly contaminated ground water from those hydro fracturing (fracking) fluids that have been injected into the ground water all over this beautiful country of ours.

    Reply
  6. Jeff Pritt

    Apparently the “documentary” Gasland is not quite as fact-based as the filmmaker wants you to believe. The document below which was recently released by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission debunks much of what was reported in that film about the wells supposedly contaminated by “fracking” in that state:

    http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

    As noted therein, the source of methane contamination in two of the three wells specifically discussed in that film was biogenic as opposed to thermogenic. (Biogenic meaning methane produced by bacteria rather than by oil and gas production.) Furthermore, the source of the contamination of the one well which did contain thermogenic compounds was not conclusively linked to any one particular source, nor were other water wells within the same vicinity found to be contaminated. Accordingly, the contamination was localized as opposed to being widespread, and was mitigated by the installation of a filtration system.

    Furthermore, this document also points out that of the two Colorado gas seeps identified in that movie only one of them actually relates to oil and gas production. That seep was the result of faulty cementing rather than anything related to “fracking”. The other seep, which was prominently displayed in the movie, was caused by biogenic methane and has nothing to do with oil and gas production.

    The bottom line with Gasland is that it is more of a propaganda vehicle than a factual account of problems stemming from oil and gas production. It is not in any real sense a true documentary as the narrative contained therein is both inaccurate and unscientific. Films such as it do a disservice by exaggerating false claims. Quite frankly, I am relieved that this film has not reached the masses since it is untruthful.

    Reply
  7. myles Post author

    Jeff, do not allude to speaking frankly – your type rarely does that.

    Having problems with the statements made by the film? Fine. Turn the volume off. Watch the entire film with no sound, no facts, no statements whatsoever. The film still offers a harrowing portrayal of the hydrofracking experience and aftermath.

    As for reaching the masses, you may be mistaken. The film continues to tour the nation and for a film of its type has reached a massive audience – an audience which grows every day.

    As for your specific claim that the faucet-catching-fire was caused by methane X instead of methane Y – rather than even try to argue the science, let’s just assume that in that particular case, you/they are right.

    It doesn’t mean everything else reported by the film on the topic is fictional. You might be familiar with a clause called Severability – likely you include such a clause in every contract you write for a client.

    Something like: If any part or parts of this Agreement shall be held unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

    So just because ONE or even THREE statements made are not fully scientifically qualified or are even flat wrong – it does not mean the balance is by default also wrong.

    And in closing, since we are having a quasi-legal discussion, I offer for your consideration the Precautionary Principle. You, like everyone else, must ask yourself, in your heart of hearts – based on the evidence TO DATE, do I believe this could be harmful? And if you don’t believe it might be harmful, you’re reading the wrong briefs.

    (http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html) All statements of the Precautionary Principle contain a version of this formula: When the health of humans and the environment is at stake, it may not be necessary to wait for scientific certainty to take protective action.

    Q. Is there some special meaning for “precaution”?

    A. It’s the common sense idea behind many adages: “Be careful.” “Better safe than sorry.” “Look before you leap.” “First do no harm.”

    “Precautionary principle” is a translation of the German Vorsorgeprinzip. Vorsorge means, literally, “forecaring.” It carries the sense of foresight and preparation—not merely “caution.”

    The principle applies to human health and the environment. The ethical assumption behind the precautionary principle is that humans are responsible to protect, preserve, and restore the global ecosystems on which all life, including our own, depends.

    Q. Why should we take action before science tells us what is harmful or what is causing harm?

    A. Sometimes if we wait for certainty it is too late. Scientific standards for demonstrating cause and effect are very high. For example, smoking was strongly suspected of causing lung cancer long before the link was demonstrated conclusively. By then, many smokers had died of lung cancer. But many other people had already quit smoking because of the growing evidence that smoking was linked to lung cancer. These people were wisely exercising precaution despite some scientific uncertainty.

    When evidence gives us good reason to believe that an activity, technology, or substance may be harmful, we should act to prevent harm. If we always wait for scientific certainty, people may suffer and die and the natural world may suffer irreversible damage.

    Reply
  8. roseanna

    Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen, I have come to realize that several generations of Americans have been taught to be over-dependent on science. Science has become the Authority. It has more power than God, intuition or common sense.

    What we call science is fundamentally a systematic and unbiased study of the nature and behavior of the physical universe based on observation, data gathering, measurement and experiment. Conducted independently of material gain, it has yielded an unparalleled ordering and understanding of our universe.

    Unfortunately, in more recent years, the money to fund scientific research has often come from industry which has a vested interest in gathering scientific facts to uphold and validate their activity. This biased point of departure deeply affects the findings yielded by the research. The adjective “scientific” remains but the findings are anything but.

    A case in point was brought to light by a simple question asked by the public during the recent Jefferson High School meeting sponsored by the Monroe County Planning Commission and WVU Extension on November 22nd. One of the speakers, Dr. Paul Ziemklewicz, Director of the WVU Water Research Institute was going over a list of chemicals and the amounts thereof found in returned frack water which was projected on a screen. The conclusion was that most were harmless but a few were potentially dangerous. One of the spectators stood up and asked if there were any chemicals that could be in frack water that weren’t on that list and Dr. Ziemklewicz answered: “We can only test for chemicals that we get the funding to research. We get in the tens of thousands of dollars to do the testing and this is a million dollar problem.”

    Reply
  9. Jeff Pritt

    Myles, you start out your response above by stating: “Jeff, do not allude to speaking frankly – your type rarely does that.” I am not really sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to my being a lawyer? Or is this some type of personal attack on my character? I will choose to take the high road and go with the former, and thereby assume that your comment is directed towards lawyers in general and not to me in particular.

    Although I disagree with your general statement directed towards lawyers, I am going to ignore it because I am not posting here as a lawyer. I am instead posting on this website as a citizen and owner of land in Monroe County. In fact, my roots go very deep in this county. I am a direct descendant of the pioneering families of this county. My family members have died defending this county and this land. And, me and my family members still own and live on 1,000+ acres of land at Pickaway which has been in our family for over 200 years.

    So please rest assured I am not posting on here as a lawyer. I do not represent anyone but myself. I do not represent Gordy Oil or any entity affiliated with them. (I have been retained by some local landowners in their negotiations with Gordy Oil, but cannot speak for them either.)

    As a Monroe County landowner I voluntarily chose to lease my land for oil and gas development. Consequently, when I read the many unscientific claims which you and other persons are bantering about in an effort to affect the manner in which I may exercise my property rights then I think it is quite fair for me to question those assertions.

    I do not think that you fully comprehend that you are attempting to affect my property rights. Nor do I believe that you fully understand that I, and every other landowner I have spoken with, simply wishes to use our land in a manner to which we are legally entitled, with no injurious effect upon our neighbors. I personally will insist that any operations conducted on my property be done so in a manner which will be as reasonably safe as possible.

    If you want to convince me that I cannot exercise the legal right to extract oil and gas from my property as so many other persons in this state and nation have done over the years, then please just simply show me some scientific evidence backing up your claims. I do not necessarily disagree with the Precautionary Principle (that you cited above) in all of its possible applications, but I simply see no evidence that what may happen here in our county is anymore dangerous than normal oil and gas development. (I would agree that routine oil and gas development does have risks associated with it, but there is virtually no industrial process that is risk-free.)

    It occurs to me that this county has done pretty well over the past couple of hundred years since its formation. During that period of time the land here has been cared for by families like mine. We are not now going to abandon our stewardship of the land for a quick profit unless we are convinced that it can be done in a reasonably safe manner.

    At this time, as based upon all of the evidence I have reviewed, I see no reason to believe that oil and gas cannot be successfully extracted safely here just as it has been done elsewhere. That does not mean there will be zero problems, but I know of no income-producing operations (including agricultural and timbering activities) which have no effect upon the surroundings at all.

    Most importantly, as you are probably unaware, most of our local farmers are struggling financially. Would you rather see their farms divided and sold for house lots? If some of our farmers can realize additional income from their land it might just allow them to stay in business and help retain the overall agricultural characteristics of our county which I think both of us can agree make this a nice place to live. Personally, I would like to see family farms stay together and be passed down through the generations. Perhaps this does not matter to you and those who oppose the proposed operations.

    Anyhow, these are some of the reasons I must ask for hard scientific evidence if you wish for me to change my mind. I just hope that before you and others make additional unscientific and unsupported claims in an effort to frighten people that you think about the possible effect you may be having on the hard-working local farmers who could really use some extra income. If producing oil and gas from this county is going to help us retain our agricultural roots — without significant risk of harm to ourselves or others — then I see no reason to oppose it.

    Reply
  10. Dan @Flirten Lernen

    I am very concerned about the exploitation of our planet…and instead of switching to renewable energy, we are lead to believe that we just have to dig deeper…

    so…what is the actual situation? any updates?

    Thx

    Dan

    Reply
  11. RD Blakeslee

    Dan here’s an update on the actual situation: States affected by the shale gas boom are moving steadily to regulate the industry as the relatively new technology of horizontal drlling develops (contrary to most of the commentary in the blogs, “fracking” is not new. It was first used in hydrocarbon wells in Texas in 1949). The industry has come “out of the shadows” and is now taking its part in the necessary public debate.

    Meanwhile, there are hundreds of new gas wells in the Eastern U.S., mostly in Northern West Virginia, Eastern Ohio and Southwestern Pennsylvania.

    Natural gas is now in plentiful supply (its price has dropped to less than half the price of oil per equvalent energy unit) and efforts are accelerating to promote its use to power vehicles:

    Ford, Chrysler and GM will be selling natural gas-powered pickup trucks this year, Honda has been selling a moderately-priced natural gas-powered sedan in California for several years, GE and Chesapeake have formed a consortium to build natural gas supply infrastructure (including filling apparatus in homes), West Virginia law now gives substantial tax credits to purchasers of natural gas powered vehicles and filling apparatus and President Obama has expressed support for Boon Picken’s plans to build liquified natural gas pipelines to truck stops on the interstate highway system.

    Reply
  12. myles Post author

    Wow. Yes, Dan, pretty much what RD Blakeslee said.

    Couple minor revisions:

    States are limping along in an effort to get any meaningful regulations in place, and what’s on the books currently is what industry allowed them to write into law. There are still no inspectors so the regs are irrelevant (12 in WV for 60K wells, maybe upgraded to 17 inspectors). Fracking from 1949 Texas is a wee bit different then the fracking of today. Aside from the addition of horizontal drilling, there’s the toxic brew of chemicals that increase production of the wells. Yes they could be fracking with water and sand – but they are not. Fracking in this form has been legal only since 2005, when the Halliburton loophole exempted Oil & Gas from the Clean Air and Water Acts. So NO, we have not been “fracking” (in the sense that the word refers to the current method of operation) for 60 years.

    And while it’s nice to hear about US automakers getting on the natural gas boom, and that is conceivably a good long term strategy – the current reality is that it is in plentiful supply, and the price is down, and this has relaxed the sprint to get in the ground for many O&G companies because the profits are too low; what supply we do have (and many locations continue to produce) we are SELLING TO CHINA and other locations overseas. We are not attempting to solve an energy crisis, we are trying to solve an economic one.

    Plus, Dan, in fairness, to round out Blakeslee’s take on the situation, this is simultaneously going on:

    Fracking Fluids May Migrate to Aquifers, Researcher Says – http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-03/fracking-fluids-may-migrate-to-aquifers-researcher-says

    Scientists predict groundwater contamination in as little as 10 years, they’re talking about the wastewater seeping up through the limestone from 7000 feet down. So much for that wastewater staying put. What goes down must come up. http://www.marcellusprotest.org/myers_17Apr2012

    Dirty dealings of the industry: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/us-chesapeake-mcclendon-hedge-idUSBRE8410GG20120502

    Dory Hippauf, an absolute champion of the cause, offers: Connecting the Dots: The Marcellus Natural Gas Play Players – http://commonsense2.com/2011/12/naturalgasdrilling/connecting-the-dots-the-marcellus-natural-gas-play-players-part-1/

    One woman’s mystery medical saga, hear her speak – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hB33D105ak&feature=share

    Residents Fed Up with Bad Water Flee Shale Drilling Areas – http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/04/30/residents-fed-up-with-bad-water-flee-shale-drilling-areas/

    Letter to the Editor – Marcellus Issues – So Sure of Permitting they Don’t Bother Following Construction Dates – http://doddridgenews.com/letter-to-the-editor-marcellus-issues/

    Updated Cornell Study Shows Fracking Causes More Global Warming Than Coal – http://inhabitat.com/updated-cornell-study-shows-fracking-causes-more-global-warming-than-coal/

    Frack Waste Causing Fish Cancer? – http://keeptapwatersafe.org/2012/04/17/frack-waste-causing-fish-cancer/

    The untested science of fracking, 16-minute video, worth a look – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEHz8SSfFJs

    The Fracking Frenzy’s Impact on Women – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/04/04-3

    Confirmed, Fracking Tied to Unusual Rise in Earthquakes in U.S. – http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-12/earthquake-outbreak-in-central-u-dot-s-dot-tied-to-drilling-wastewater

    Ignitable Drinking Water in Candor, NY, Above Marcellus Shale – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg

    Doctors Forbidden From Sharing Info With Fracking Victims – http://greenglobaltravel.com/2012/03/27/eco-news-doctors-forbidden-from-sharing-info-with-patients-exposed-to-effects-of-fracking/

    Reply
  13. RD Blakeslee

    We are by nature more fearful of the new “fracking devil” than the devils we know:

    1. Septic sewage disposal systems, which deliberately realease septic tank liquor into the subsoil. When tile fields fail, raw sewage flows on the surface.

    2. Herbicides and pesticides, used by farmers and homeowners alike.

    3. Vehicle emissions.

    4. Fossil fuels used for space heating. Should we ban the dirtier fuels, like wood burned in stoves and fireplaces in Monroe County, as they do in some Western staes?

    The evidence is ovewhelming from EXPERIENCE (not fearful conjecture):
    Thousand of wells have been drilled and fracked worldwide and fracking has rarely had any effect above the fracking zone (about a mile down in WV’s Marcellus shale). While there have been and will contine to be drilling accidents, a situation common to all forms of heavy construction, fracking per se is benign.

    Reply
  14. Cicely Fahner

    American Health Journal is seeking for content based partnerships with blog owners in the medicine genre. AmericanHealthJournal.com is a health content site with over three thousand of high quality medicine videos. We are in need of professionals to write content to our brand. Come message us at our contact form on our site.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>