If fracking fluids are found to be the cause of the illnesses at LeRoy High School, would you change your position on fracking?
http://holisticremediesnews.com/2144/le-roy-mystery-disease-update-...
The symptoms the children at LeRoy High School in LeRoy New York are suffering from are very similar to the neurological symptoms shown in the movie "Split Estate". The movie documents what citizens in Rocky Mountain States have been living with for years, primarily in the towns of Dish Texas and Denton Texas.
Views: 11702
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on -
Hey, I don't like Carol either, but I don't like ignorance. This has been out for weeks.
Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time
-
Permalink Reply by Linda A on
-
Would seriously question anything the Feds report as there is always an ulterior motive. Remember "Man-Made Global Warming" a multi-billion dollar scheme by Al Gore et all...
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
Hi Joe try looking here if you will. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387...
Mind you the EPA study has no peer review of its findings, there is no data present to give any indication of what the EPA had found in quantity as to a pollutant as well in the EPA study.
Let me give you a prime example of a EPA study that was crucified by a federal judge which by the way is still a corner stone of the anti smoking cartel.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm JUNK SCIENCE
-
Permalink Reply by Sherry on
-
The EPA report on Pavillion has yet to be peer-reviewed and the investigators have already been chastised by a US House Representatives subcommittee for their agenda-based 'scientific' investigations. For one thing, they relied heavily on John Fenton, a vocal drilling opponent, to assist in selecting sites to perform testing (his services are acknowledged in such section at the beginning of the report). This would be akin to letting Switzers or Sautners pick the places to test in Dimock. For more information on this reprimand, see here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/....
Here is an especially important quote from the above report: "The day after this report was released, the Governor of Delaware announced that it was the validation for his decision to vote against the development of natural gas in the Delaware River Basin. This illustrates the power of EPA's "press release science" to drive public opinion and even critical decisions by policy makers."
Just last week the Texas Railroad Commission (which oversees oil and gas drilling activity in the state) issued an statement of their own on Pavillion. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/forms/letters/Jackson_EPA_020712.pdf outlining their concerns. Why would Texas be so interested in EPA's involvement in Wyoming? Maybe because they were the victim of the EPA's search for a smoking gun on hydraulic fracturing. They alleged Range had been behind the contamination of water. However, independent investigations performed by Range Resources and I believe, the Commission itself, revealed the fault did not lie with Range. EPA never even showed for its day in court http://www.votedavidporter.com/content/index.cfm/e/blog/title/State.... However, again, information was released to public prematurely, adding fuel to the HF argument.
Energy in Depth has some concerns with the way the investigation was handled and does ask some pertinent questions, of which other states have echoed. http://www.energyindepth.org/six-questions-for-epa-on-pavillion/
Last, but certainly not least, EPA is now involving itself in the Dimock case. Living not far from this town, I am knowledgeable of the facts and the allegations surrounding this small farming community. The remaining people who allege their water was effected by drilling and/or fracking have not complied with the Consent Order and Settlement Agreement. Cabot was mandated to install methane mitigation and water treatment systems, however, the litigants have not allowed these to be installed. We wonder why the EPA is choosing to ignore this fact. We have concerns they will find naturally occurring "contaminants" in an area that has always suffered from questionable water quality, but choose to release its findings with the headlines "Fracing could have caused_".
The EPA, make no mistake about it, wants to federally control hydraulic fracturing and they mean to find the means to do so, even if it means publishing reports of questionable scientific objectivity. I am a firm believer of the oversight of hydraulic fracturing remain in the individual states' hands.
-
Permalink Reply by mbc on
-
I posted this under Ohio Landowners, but it seems it may be worth re-posting here.
If we, they, don't get it right here, then we all lose, even the oft' misguided, misinformed, Fractivist.
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) today sent a letter to Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget, urging the Administration to ensure that EPA complies with legal standards of scientific integrity as it finalizes a new report on ground water contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. OIRA is responsible for policing the quality of agency science.
...Because the results of the study could have major implications on the natural gas industry and on state and federal regulations, the Senators are calling on OIRA to designate EPA’s report as a “highly influential scientific assessment” which will require a more thorough and transparent peer review process. “A false-positive link between fracturing and groundwater contamination could form the basis for costly new regulation that will do little to protect human health,” they said.
The article and letter can be found here...
http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=e5...
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
Gee, from what your saying then is that we are worse off than what Carol was stating. We now have no protection or credible oversite, since we have an incompetent government agency.
-
-
-
Actually the states have most of the oversight - something the EPA wants it all to fall under their agency.
The supposed Halliburton Loophole gets twisted because it could be said that hydraulic fracturing is not guided by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). However, it never was. What it is covered - throughout all the drilling phases - though by the Clean Water Act (CWA) is oversight of water resource protection, spill prevention and control measures, Superfund sites (which they use as a tool to muscle their way into places they would have no authority otherwise).
Take a look at this chart: http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Federal-Hyd....
In Pennsylvania, as in most states, those "supposed" gaps that aren't covered by US government are covered by:
-The Oil and Gas Act;
-Coal and Gas Resources Coordination Act
-Oil and Gas Conservation Law
-Clean Streams Law
-Dam Safety and Encroachments Law
-Solid Waste Management Act
-Air Pollution Control Act
-Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act
-Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Act
And we just made additions which were signed by our governor on Tuesday.
So Joe, if you have actual concerns here is what I suggest you and others do:
Research your own state's regulations governing natural gas drilling. If there is something you see missing, then petition your state to change something or add an additional regulation.
Read through the threads on sites like this one. Yes, there are plenty of people here, including me, who pound the pro-drilling drum, but the knowledge you can learn from the landowners is second to none. They are the ones in the middle: they not only are the ones who have the most to gain, but also the most to lose if something does go wrong.
-
-
Permalink Reply by mbc on
-
Thanks to all who can refute the hearsay that gets posted. It doesn't take to too long to figure out who's in command of fact and who's in command of fiction.
It seems to me that Carol isn't stating anything. I would call it parroting biased reports. Frankly, I hate to use the word report, as they all appear to be based on what if's and could be's without any actual fact(s).
(And, I have to say, that if we are relying on government agencies to protect us, then we are in deeper doo-doo than Carol and Howard, and the like, can dream up!)
-
-
-
Just to clear this up a little (hopefully) -
PA DEP made it's determination that Cabot had met its obligations under the COSA and that the water in the Consent Order area met federal drinking water standards and water deliveries could stop.
The litigants threw a fit and staff from a EPA branch office were called in review the situation, but they weren't allowed to take actual water samples, only review the results on paper of past tests.
By the way, litigants had not allowed any tests to be performed by the DEP for almost a year. Up until mid-summer, the most recent tests of Switzer and Sautner taken in November previous had shown steadily decreasing methane levels. Denial to PA DEP personnel onto litigants property began soon after that. Thus far, methane migration is the only thing that has been proven although the steady claims of frac fluid contamination continue.
Additional paper tests were provided to the EPA by the litigants' lawyer and the EPA concluded further testing should be done on 60 homes. Up until now, litigants' water wells have been deemed hands-off by their lawyers. That is where we are at now. These additional homes started being tested a couple of weeks ago.
For all of the reasons I stated before, many are concerned the EPA will attempt to use these tests to further their own agenda.
-
Permalink Reply by Frankie Jo on
-
The left wing mouthpiece website you reference is just that - just because it can be written, does not mean it is fact. Reviewing you entire post, I can see you think otherwise. I think its pretty funny how you have decided to focus on salt water and ignore a neurotoxin train car derailment.
The fractivists that you claim are growing in numbers are simply confused individuals you scare into believing the sky is falling.
The question you pose is highly improbable, especially in the area of issue. They are shallow vertical wells in sandstone, so the chemistry you are so concerned about there is much different than what is being used in the deep horizontals.
You are clueless, obviously have little technical training and know nothing of scientific process. In order to conclude you need tangible evidence, until then all is conjecture. Unfortunately it is only clearly evident your a blow hard to those who understand the process or have real technical / engineering background. Please share with us the source of the brine. Do you realize that all wells fracked or unfracked produce brine? I suggest you spend some time getting acquainted with what chemicals are used for fracking so you at least have an idea about what it is you think you know.
And yes, drillers are secretive about what they divulge, they do not fear you, they fear each other. If they have a good technique, they are not so quick to share as it increases their own value. It has nothing to little to do with trying to hide information from you.
More particularly, this fright fest has all to do with the realization that if tons of cheap, clean natural gas is made available, funding to solar / wind power development is going to get very lean.
Good luck trying to scare people into making poor decisions with your baseless rhetoric.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
