Comment

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on May 1, 2010 at 3:34am

Bummy,
I generally try to reason with people and it's always good to avoid name calling. Every now and then it takes more force to get their attention. Not that I expect new information to flow in that direction anyway.
It appears that normal give and take won't work on this issue. Too polarizing, unfortunately.

Comment by William Ladd on April 30, 2010 at 1:16pm

I have a couple comments to make.

It is really not necessary to infer that someone is gullible or paranoid is it? Or make other derisive comments to folks who are trying to understand what this marcellus shale is going to mean to this country. All that does is to create anger and hard feelings. It does nothing to solve the problem of pollution wherever it appears.

In past years, byproducts were often thrown away as being useless. Research was done and consequently found that these "useless byproducts" were in deed very valuble.

Instead of being at each other's throats, maybe it would be a good thing to insist that more effort be done to find ways to reclaim these byproducts from the coal burning powerplants and USE THEM instead of just dumping them whevever.

Sure it will take money for research! If these wall street big Monkety Monks would invest in education instead of lining their pockets, every one including themselves could have a much better standard of living.

Our natural resources are being used up or more likely being wasted faster and faster in the name of making another dollar. Look at the oil rig fire in the gulf of Mexico and what is is going to cost. Seems like the priorities are all out of perspective.

Many Government people do not want any checking or overseeing of what industry is doing. Industry loves this thought as they can do as they please regardless of safety or health issues. These people dont want better education because their bank accounts will not be quite as overstuffed if they have to fork over a few extra dollars for better schools or less well off financially students, but just as bright or maybe even better qualified as far as intelligence goes.

Bill L.
aka Bummy

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 30, 2010 at 9:00am

CJK-
Here is a quote from your post:
"By the way Dimock has not been the first contamination it has happened more often than it should have out west and in fact in the western part of the state what about the Monongahela River? Also the fact is that many of the problems go unreported and settled by the gas companies to avoid bad press."

This one sentence bothered me for three different reasons. And the fact that you wrote and believe this is unsettling, because it means that either you are gullible or paranoid (but I hope neither is true). Here is why:

1. Dimock. Good Lord, it has been proven by everyone involved that naturally occurring methane gas is in the water there. It may have come up when underground pressure was changed, but it was certainly NOT caused by fracing. Ask a geologist why it happened and get the scientific answer.

2. Monongahela River was contaminated by gas drilling? And you have proven this how? Please read this article in the NY TImes which explains how the river became polluted most recently. The short version is that coal burning power plants were putting out air pollution, people complained, the plants had to install scrubbers to clean the air and it worked, but the scrubbers dump the pollution into the river instead now. How quickly people forget when they are looking for someone to blame. Here is the link to the article. I think you would be interested anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1

3. This brought to mind the phrase, "judge, jury and executioner". The last sentence I quote from you regarding the FACT that gas companies are constantly causing problems which go unreported and get swept under the rug. It made me think of those people who think the government is watching them with black helecopters. WHERE IN THE WORLD DID THAT FACT COME FROM? Please, I'm dying to hear the source.

Comment by Eberhard Brendan Carroll on April 30, 2010 at 7:18am

Bummy, thank you for serving our country.

CJK, the easiest measure of the resources used in the extraction of a commodity is it's price. Coal is cheaper than gas, gas is cheaper than oil, oil is cheaper than bottled water, bottled water is cheaper than gold, etc. Of course their are exceptions on account of price fixing, marketing etc. Now keep in mind when we talk about cheap coal extraction, this usually involves strip mining. Most individuals who oppose gas drilling oppose strip mining as well. Again, the energy has to come from somewhere.

Eberhard

Comment by William Ladd on April 30, 2010 at 7:04am

Speaking of air pollution.

About 1960 when I was station TDY at Ft Bucanan, Puerto Rice, tracking the very early rockets There was two very bad sources of air Pollutions. One was an oil refinery. At times the wind would blow a heavy black and very acrid smoke over the Ft. Buchanan area. But even worse, there was a cement manufacturing plant right next to the fence around the military area. The dust and dirt from grinding or pulverizing very often would settle right on the road inside the fence. You could not see or even breathe as it was so thick.

Bill L.
aka Bummy

Comment by CJK on April 30, 2010 at 5:49am

Do you think I am that ignorant? I am aware that the stork does not bring coal.But do they emit as much pollutants in the process? The hydrofracing process seems to use alot from what I have witnessed so far. all I am asking is has anyone compared the two in the extraction process? I would be curious to see those statistics.

Comment by John Reed on April 30, 2010 at 5:43am

So har does coal get to market ? Osmosis ?

Comment by CJK on April 30, 2010 at 4:57am

John- you need to take in all of the aspects of gas extraction to make the comparison- gas extraction has alot of equipment, especially water trucks that no one has figured into those statistics what they are contributing, their statistics are just based upon usage not all that is involved in the extaction.

Comment by John Reed on April 30, 2010 at 4:48am

Eberhard, nobody is discrediting coal. The point being made is that methane has a much lower half life than CO2. Engelders comments explain this in detail. Howarth claims of natural gas being 72 times more likley to contribute to global warming is yet another half truth and can be easily used as a scare tactic. Engelders explaination is therefore very relevant. CO2 remains stable in our atmosphere for a much longer time period than methane.


Is global warming real? I think it is. Is it man made ? I think to a degree. Basically my belief is that natural gas is a logical choice for us as a nation to be used as a transition stepping stone. It's advantages to us as a nation far outweigh the negatvies.

BTW, global warming doesn't necessarily mean that we will not have extremely cold winters. As a matter of fact, if the polar ice caps melt at a steady pace we in this region are more likely to experience colder weather patterns. As the cold fresh water at the caps melt, it actually will cause currents such as the gulf stream to migrate in a southern direction. The US norhteast is very reliant upon the gulf stream to warm this area as is Western Europe. Yes, this is off topic but interesting none the less.

Comment by CJK on April 30, 2010 at 4:11am

Carol- yes lime is used in farming but not to the extent and quantity that was placed in the air at one time. There are also different types of lime, do not know what used by gas company. Certainly I am careful not to put the amount of lime in the air at one time as did the gas company. The point here Carol is that when used in this circumstance in this fashion it caused irreparable damage to humans and animals.

As far as the reference to Mon River- yes it was the gas industry that caused the contamination at the levels it had never been before. Your excuse for it never being clean does not justify compromising it more. Just because there are industries that have polluted in the past does not justify continuing to allow more industries to pollute.

John-My "industry" might pollute but I have chosen not to. No pesticides, streambank buffers, NMP, Conservation Plan, Ag Security. My farm pollutes less than the average household does, what do you pour down your drains and use for cleaning? You and other households are polluting more than my farm is, so please do not attempt to discredit me with that misinformation.
My passion is directed at the gas industry the same as it has been towards the agricultural industry. I have worked hard to improve things in my agricultural practices and I think the gas industry should be required to do the same. There are many ways in which they could greatly improve their practices as I have discussed before but because they are expensive they are choosing not to. Plus they should be asked to slow down so that we can contain the mistakes that are inevitably going to happen.

Attached is a watershed plan for a town in Colorado. http://www.dola.state.co.us/osg/docs/PalisadeWatershedPlan.pdf
Please take you attention to pages 4-7. I would like to know why something like this cannot be done by the gas industry in this state to help to protect the people, why is PA allowing the gas industry to basically self monitor their operations. Once again I will say my position is that we should not rush into this gas business without doing it properly. There is no need to rush, which is what we are doing now.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page