Comment

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on March 6, 2010 at 8:35am

Among the most insane comments (with no logic or proof) are these:

"The government is going to take your land...because they can"
"Hydrofracking will kill everyone with toxic chemicals"
"Halliburton this and Halliburton that..."
"It will happen, you will see..."

Don't waste your breath on me, I am way ahead of you with this. There is absolutely NOTHING you could say that would make me believe you know what you are talking about. I have seen and heard too many just like you and they also had no facts or proof. Just lots of emotional screaming that we are supposed to listen to.

No thank you.

Comment by John Reed on March 6, 2010 at 8:33am

And they also fail to realize that the faster we transition from foriegn oil dependence to utilizing our own natural resources the better off we wil be as a nation. It will boost the economy, put people to work and financially cripple terrorists nations that we currently fund by purchasing their oil. I agree with them that we should explore solar, water and wind as energy sources, however natural gas is the perfect stepping stone.

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on March 6, 2010 at 8:28am

I see we are being invaded by some hysterical groupies.
The only lashing out I see is being done by Sk and Marie.
However you only talk, talk talk but never listen. Typical for your type.
You pronounce doom and gloom but give no proof.
Want to know why? You have no proof.

Comment by John Reed on March 6, 2010 at 8:23am

It absolutely can happen and I agree. However, to say that the chemicals used in the process are killing people and devestating the environment any more than a thousand other things is just plain absurd. I am confident I can list at least 100 things that companies do that are proven far more dangerous to humans and the environment. The industry should be monitered yes. Nobody here is denying that. But the over the top fanatic posts of SK Miller that you tend to agree with are just plain crazy and unwarranted. What about the fact that natural gas carbon emissions are 50% less than that of coal and 30% less than oil ? With all the power plants, automobiles etc... spewing out these emissions don't you think we should be far more concerned about the air we currently breath ? Again, let's look at the big picture.

Comment by John Reed on March 6, 2010 at 8:09am

The key to the post below is the following statement: Bill Kappel, a U.S. Geological Survey official, said contamination of water supplies is more likely to happen as companies process the waste water from hydrofracking. In some instances, municipal water systems that treat the water have reported higher levels of heavy metals and radioactivity. Also, please note that the heavy metals and radio activity is not a result of the chemicals used in the process, but rather recovery of natural elements that exist at extreme depths below the surface of the earth. As you recover the fracking water you also recover radio active material and other elements that naturally exist at these depths.

Everyone here is so concerned about recovering the frack water, even though it resides well below any water tables a landowner will utilize. My well is very deep at 560 feet, but still over 5000 feet shallower than the Marcellus.

Comment by John Reed on March 6, 2010 at 8:02am

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- State regulators are doing a good job overseeing a key natural gas production technique called hydrofracking and there's no evidence the process causes water contamination, a senior federal environment official said Monday.

Environmentalists and some lawmakers are pressing to give the Environmental Protection Agency federal oversight of the process, concerned that the drilling technique is contaminating water suppliers.

State regulators and the natural gas industry have been fighting against federal regulation, saying it could prevent or delay development of trillions of cubic feet of new resources.

The process, which injects water, sand and a small amount of chemicals into natural gas reservoirs under high pressure, has opened new deposits to development, dramatically expanding estimates for domestic production.

"I have no information that states aren't doing a good job already," Steve Heare, director of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division said on the sidelines of a state regulators conference here. He also said despite claims by environmental organizations, he hadn't seen any documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies.

In its 2011 budget, the EPA is seeking to spend $4 million to study the environmental impacts of the process.

Bill Kappel, a U.S. Geological Survey official, said contamination of water supplies is more likely to happen as companies process the waste water from hydrofracking. In some instances, municipal water systems that treat the water have reported higher levels of heavy metals and radioactivity.

"Treatment of the [waste] water hasn't caught up with the hydro-fracking technology," Kappel said.

But both re-injection of that waste water and water treatment at the surface is already regulated by the federal government under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts.

Although legislation in the House and Senate to bring greater federal oversight of the hydro-fracking process hasn't gained momentum, Heare said even if such proposals are approved, it wouldn't likely have a dramatic affect on regulation. States would still have the right under the Safe Drinking Water Act to use their own regulatory standards.

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners has pushed to maintain state's primacy in oversight of oil and gas activities.

Contrary to some press reports, Heare also noted that the EPA wasn't conducting any current investigations linking hydrofracking to water contaminations.

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on March 6, 2010 at 7:04am

The information everyone needs is already out there, posted by the companies who use the chemicals. The information is available from the DEP and also from each state where drilling has taken place.

However, the information I refer to is FACT. Not stories made up by crazy film makers like Josh Fox, or lies created by extremist obstructionist groups.

Every land owner who is interested in protecting their land has the ability to do so already. Right now. No more legislation is needed. No government interference is wanted. The only necessary element is using your brains. BEFORE you lease.

Thousands of us landowners in several states have been working at this for the last few years. Our job has been to separate fact from fiction, to learn all we can about how drilling happens and what we need to know. We have accomplished a lot and continue to learn every day.

The most important fact we learned regarding the environment is that the disaster stories are false and drilling has a very good record of safety.

Comment by John Reed on March 6, 2010 at 6:05am

SK, please share with us the number of fracing accidents, spills or anything else that directly resulted in the death or serious injury to someone other than a gas company employee. Then let's compare that number to the number of gas wells (horizontally drilled) that utilize hydrofracing and come up with a percentage. This percentage will be so small that it will completely discredit the points that you are trying to make. Give us substance not just words. I think you watch Planet Green too much. You need to see both sides of the story. Have you talked to any water testing companies to determine just how dangerous they feel hydro fracing fluids are ? I have. I am in a lan owner coalition and care very much about the saftey of my family and my neighbors. I suggest you do a little more research before you go spouting your ignorance.

Comment by SK Miller on March 6, 2010 at 4:43am

You always have those such as BuckinghamGasMan who puts blinders on citizens as they are led to the gas leasing post of sugar coated lies. Surf the subsurface after fracturing chemicals have been injected exposes you to more danger than the net. I'll take surfing the net where who have fracturing chemical proof, the fracturing chemicals pollute. Who are you trying to take down with you? I am not going there until all current fracturing chemicals are banned and replaced with safer technology. The fossil fuel isn't going anywhere but pollution remains.

Comment by BuckinghamGasMan on March 6, 2010 at 4:34am

Surfing the net is just as dangerous as talking to a neighbor who doe not know what he is talking about. You get the same bad information, but more of it and faster.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 41
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• Next ›
• Page