Penn Land Owners

Daniel, Carolyn's note is rife with inaccuracies and you say that she has "encapsulated the issue". Typical Cohen pablum. Industry is unregulated on the Federal level? Wrong. The chemicals are hazardous waste? Wrong, unless we keep hazardous waste in our houses -- it becomes waste once used and hazardous wastes have specific requirements for disposal far greater thsn fraccing requirements. 5200 permits in "my area"? That is a number of permits expected to be issued in all of Pa this year.

Lack of research by writers and then others saying that the bad information "encapsulates" anything besides fearful inaccuracies does not help the discussion.

Dear Gasman,
Your last response is clearly at odds with the facts. Are you contending that the chemicals used are not hazardous to one's health? Are you serious about thinking that the Gas/oil Industry is regulated so that consumers are well protected?

You have a voice, and I'm sure that others heed what you say. That carries a responsibility- one you are not discharging well if you maintain the above stated positions. You may mean well, but you are in serious error here.

Dan

Dan, read what I said. The natural gas industry is not "unregulated at the federal level" as Carolyn said -- that is a serious error.

"Hazardous Waste" is defined by the Federal government. I grew up on dairy farm, the waste there was hazardous, but it was not "Hazardous Waste" as defined by the Feds or understood by the public.

I think that you modify what others say to fit your own purposes and then say they are in error. I'm not even sure that you mean well.

Marie,
Who is exempt from everything? The gas and drilling companies? I don't think so.
Maybe you and Dan Cohen can move to NY.

Dear duh!!:

As just one example, the section of the "Clean Water Act", where you say the "Halliburton Loophole" exists, regulates other aspects of drilling (e.g. deep well injections, fraccing fluids on the surface). There are others, but why bother explaining?

Marie, excuse me?

BuckinghamGasMan; You can dance around all you want to with regards to the exemption of fraccing to the Safe Drinking Water Act, but the fact remains that they are dumping tons of questionable materials into each fraccing. Last I heard only 15% of the fraccing fluids come back up, every time I talk to an industry official they change this figure and since there is no cradle to grave records being kept and reviewed by anyone they can continue to tell me different stories because it is conceivable that they do not even know the facts. That means 85% of the fluids remain in the ground. Do you really think that there is no chance of these fluids finding their way to the surface? It is not a question of whether they will but when will it happen?
As far as your discussion of no proof that is not so, there have been cases but they have not been documented as such because the people did not take the appropriate precautionary measures. I have a dear friend in NW Pa that had their spring, which supplied two houses, damaged both in quantity and quality. The chemicals from the fraccing fluid came up in her water. In her case it was the position of the drill site and the fact that the casing was not adequate that damaged her water. Her case was not documented by DEP and EPA because she did not have her water tested with a chain of custody. There are others I am sure but it is very difficult to prove and the gas companies have more money than most to fight their litigation.

John: Yes the gas companies are worried about spending too much money. Bottom line more money less profit. I have asked many industry spokesperson’s as to whether or not their compressor stations have all current green practices incorporated in them. I then have listed some of them specifically. Many of the industry respond that they are not doing that because it is too expensive. For example not all gas companies are enclosing their compressor units. Some of you may not mind airplanes, trains, factory humming, etc, but I moved to the country from the city and I do not want to listen to those types of noises and be subjected to their fumes 24/7.

As far as your inference that gas exploration is no more risky than many of the things we face daily, I respectfully disagree. I work hard on a daily basis to ensure that the water and soil on my farm is healthy for my family, livestock and the food that it produces for us. If a company comes along and sells me a lie that this is so safe and nothing will ever go wrong and it does you best believe I am going to be prepared for a fight. The problem rests in the fact that until one “proves” it you are out of water. Yes they generally provide those affected with water but it is bottled and treated, something I do not want to bathe, cook and drink daily. I have always felt blessed with the clean, abundant water that my land has provided me with.

As far as thinking globally goes I do, but I am not willing for my land to potentially be ruined in the name of cheap efficient energy. After the gas is gone my land will still be here and who will be able to use it. The gas industry can and should be required to be more responsible. No if and buts about it.

Dear CJK,
Others may be louder, but you speak truth.Let no one shut you up.Thanks for being a voice for safe practices. We all benefit from that.
Dan

CJK. You live on a working farm ? Do you know that the farming industry is 100% proven much more detrimental to the environment than natural gas drilling ? Did you know you are being hipocritical by your admission that you have livestock and a working farm ? As far as you thinking globally you don't. If you did you would recognize that if you are farming, using pesticides in farming, allowing your cows to defacate all over the place and not clean it up you are adding to the pollution problem that exists. By the way, I really find nothing wrong with working a farm, I just find it amusing that you do not recognzie your own contributions to pollution. Furthermore, if you use any household cleansers, cleaners, detergents and many food products you are just as guilty as gas companies who hydro-frack. Oh, by the way, do you wear make-up ? If you do you are guilty as charged. That goes for you too Marie. These chemicals are the same. The dangerous stuff is what they bring back to the surface that naturally exists at great depths. Stuff that is undisturbed, but can migrate to the surface with or without hydro-fracking. It happens every day. Go see a geyser or an active volcano. This is the low level radio active material and heavy metals. Before you get so darn hung up on fracking chemicals do your homework !!!!!!!!

Oh, and worth mentioning again.... The amount of salt/brine used on our roadways to treat ice and snow in Pa every year is equal to the amount of flow back water and chemicals/brine that 31.000 hydro-fracked natural gas wells will produce. I don't hear you complaining about the chemicals we use to treat our roads. Again, another case of being misinformed and hipocritical.

I've met several rocks and even a few trees that are smarter than a few of the people that post here. I say we have a public debate that is televised. That would be fun. Marie you up for it ? Better do some homework first.

City says fluid had nothing startling
WELL FLOWBACK: Plant performance not affected by waste
By ROBERT BRAUCHLE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010
ARTICLE OPTIONS
A A A

The 35,000 gallons of flowback fluid treated in January at the Watertown sewage treatment plant had little or negligible effects on the plant and the Black River, according to documents about the testing process made available by the city Friday.

"There is nothing in that fluid that this plant was not designed to treat," plant Supervisor Michael J. Sligar said.

The city received permission from the state Department of Environmental Conservation in late December to accept the flowback fluid from the Ross No. 1 well drilled in the town of Maryland. The vertical well, operated by Gastem Inc., Quebec, uses the controversial hydro-fracking process to extract natural gas from the Utica Shale rock formation.

While vertical wells produce far less wastewater than horizontal wells also using the hydro-fracking process, drillers are hampered by the limited options to treat the fluid. Companies can either ship it to municipally owned treatment plants, store it underground or find a way to reuse it.

ADVERTISEMENT


"The sampling results presented in this report show that the loading indicated was not significant as compared with routine daily loadings at the sewage treatment plant and that the plant's performances were not impacted in any manner by them," Mr. Sligar wrote in a memo to the City Council.

"Further, the relevant conclusion of the toxicity testing is that nomortalities or effects were noted in any ofthe treatments testsfor either the vertebrate species or the invertebrate species."

Environmental protection groups have said that large quantities of flowback fluid introduced in sewage treatment plants can kill the organisms used to digest waste. The groups also have stated that municipal treatment plants are not equipped to treat the fluid, which has a high salt content.

"The question never was what is in the fluid. We knew that before we accepted it," Mr. Sligar said. "The question was how much is in it?"

Mr. Sligar said DEC asked him to monitor whether the chlorides and toluene, which is commercially used as a solvent, in the fluid affected the plant's digestion.

"There was such a small amount of this stuff that it didn't even realize it was there," Mr. Sligar said, referring to the flowback fluid.

The plant treats an average of 12 million gallons of sewage each day and is rated to treat 16 million gallons. Any criticism that the plant is not equipped to treat salts is disingenuous, Mr. Sligar said, because the plant uses about 700 pounds of chlorides each day to treat phosphorus found in household sewage.

The plant typically treats about 25,000 pounds of chlorides daily, according to information provided to the Times.

The tankers hauling the fluid pumped 2,294 pounds of chlorides into the system over a two-day period, meaning the flowback fluid increased the amount of chlorides in the plant by 4.8 percent.

The city also tested for the nuclear content of the fluid, which Mr. Sligar said was below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's threshold for drinking water.

"It's incumbent on these plant operators to not allow this fluid to overwhelm their processes," Mr. Sligar said. "I am aware of the threshold that this plant can deal with and what it's designed to do."

He said he has talked with Gastem's president, Orville R. Cole, to treat any further fluid produced at the Otsego County site.

"They're permitted for five wells there," Mr. Sligar said. "So, yeah, I think it's a foregone conclusion."

Any additional fluid treated at the Watertown plant must be approved by DEC.

SHOW COMMENTS (0)
MORE JEFFERSON COUNTY NEWS
■Barclay declines race for 23rd District
■City says fluid had nothing startling
■City braces for Reserve unit move to post
■Zumba workout raises $1,500 for Heart Association
■Upset at error, Orleans rejects Bernier, Carr for 2nd project
■Oswego County joins fight against turbines
■Skiing areas experience 'decent' winter season
■Attorneys paid big bucks for PILOT
■LeRay water project hits snag
■25th annual festival packs in the crowds
■Clayton seeks proposals for ex-Frink site
■Police cite five people with drunken driving
■Family takes possession of house
■Statewide ban on burning brush takes effect Monday
■Man gets year for thefts and probation violation
■District accepting petitions for seats on school board
■Watertown airport awarded $3,904,500
■Former fire chief indicted, allegedly stole money
■Indian River gets grant for wind-power study
■Special ed needs aired at forum
You may use this copy for your personal, non-commercial use only. Redistribution or repurposing without express written permission of the Watertown Daily Times is strictly prohibited.Copyright. Watertown Daily Times, Inc., Watertown, NY. All rights reserved.ADVERTISEMENTS

Dear John,
You play a no-win game with your comments. Clearly you know better than most the dangers involved, the need for proper regulations and the need for the landowners to be extremely cautious for their own and their neighbors best interests.

Yet you choose to poke fun at those trying to address the situations and suggest remedies to try to correct the inequities.

Word games are fun in the proper place and at the proper time-but this is neither.You do no one any good with name calling and finger pointing. Perhaps the saddest point is that you are using your good intellect in such a poor way.

Marie, Carolyn & CJK are trying to be both realistic and positive in how best to proceed, and all you can do is to poke fun? You can do much better.

Dan

They are being nothing but ignorant and refuse to budge. They are fanatics with 0 common sense as I see it. They speak 1/2 truths at best. We don't need 1/2 truths.

Marie,
It would make no difference to you at all if we could prove without a doubt that gas drilling is not to blame for all the problems you think it causes.

So why do you bother?

I do think that those of you who are so anti-everything should move. Moving is a viable option at this point and (assuming you own property) would net you a very nice sum of money to settle somewhere and start a commune.

Marie,
You don't seem to think people should make up their own minds - you keep writing about the same thing over and over. You haven't given any stronger evidence against drilling than others have given in support of it. I don't think you are going to change anyone's opinion.
There are many people on this site because they support drilling. I am one of those people. There are responsible companies out there.
I joined this website for information, but now I'm just reading it for entertainment.
There are risks involved with many things but there are so many potential benefits to drilling.

John: I had to go away for awhile so this is a response to an earlier post. Your response regarding to agriculture and their contribution to pollution just shows your ignorance. I am not proud of the some of the things that the agricultural industry has and continues to use. My family has chosen not to, we have an organic farm, but farming although it has been the scapegoat for pollution for many years, that blame is far from the truth. Percentage wise and population density wise people in general pollute far more than agriculture does. More people put roundup in their backyards, use household chemicals and on and on, than the average farmer uses on per acre, per person basis. If you think that my cows and livestock are causing irresponsible pollution by defecating on my fields I do not, what they leave behind is biodegradable and if handled appropriately will not damage the environment. Our farm has a conservation plan, nutrient management plan, and an organic plan. My farm is more highly regulated than the gas industry.

Your comparison to volcanoes and geysers is not logical because they are not something you can prevent, that is natural. The fact that low level radio active metals come up with them is not necessarily a good thing but do you really want to unnecessarily add more pollutants to our environment when there are better ways to do handle it?

There are practices that we could require the gas companies follow that would decrease the risks inherent in the drilling process. There are methods and chemicals that are safer to use than those being used presently. It is also possible to treat the fracking fluid back to drinking water standards, it may be expensive but it can be done. The gas companies should also be required to do extensive baseline testing of both quality and quantity of water in the regions in which they are drilling. Not just 1000 feet from the drill site. These and other Best Practices should be required for the gas industry to follow. Let's have some preventive measures instead of having to worry about clean up measures.

Injection wells should not even be considered, especially since there is technology available that could treat the fracking water to a safe drinking state and then reintroduced into our aquifer.

Pennsylvania has a large amount of private wells serving their population. All of these wells are at risk. The springs used as the only water source for some is at even a greater risk. Not only can they be damaged in quality but there is a high risk of their flow being totally cut off or reduced due to seismic testing, drilling, etc. A small shift in the earth could cause some to lose their water source. How is a person to prove that? Who do you think has a better chance of winning in a court of law, if the person is even able to afford to take it to the courts?

Dear CJK,
You speak well, truthfully and to the point. Your suggestions for best practices are certainly in the direction we should all strive for. How would you suggest we try to implement them or to bring them about?
Dan

You know what's funny. I just looked at the pictures this site has to offer. Some really nice stuff. Drilling pads, equipment, ariel views of well pads that look nice and neat. Then I see one of a dead cow. I didn't even need to read the name associated with the picture. I knew right away.... Yep, you guessed it, Marie. That shows me with certainty she has one agenda...

Marie what's up with your profile ? Are you in disguise or something ? Your listed as a male from Schenectady NY ?

marie cullison
■Male
■Schenectady, NY
■United States

So I know. You have not said a single word about the positives of drilling. It has been all negative. You offer no input on how to improve things. Your main focus is to sway people into buying into your scare tactics.

Dear John,
I would have thought that by now scare tactics from either side of the issue isn't the point anymore. There is serious need for the focus to be on how best to protect us all-the landowner, the companies involved, the aquifer and the land itself. Let's use our best intellect to craft guidelines, and then to determine how best to implement. In the past you John have listed many good points to consider- your latest conflab with Marie is not of the same caliber, and rather beneath who you are. We can all do better-we must do better.

Marie and others speak with heart and passion- for that we need to be grateful, to heed their words, and to craft effective ways to protect all. We have yet to move into that stage and we do need to go there.

I know that Marie continues to try to educate herself by attending conferences on the issues- and we can benefit from what she shares, so nit-picking from anyone is way off the mark.

Would putting together a document that states our concerns and outlines possible remedies be of value?

Dan

Dan:

That is the difficult part. I am finding more and more people that are responsible for that type of change have become the cheerleaders for the gas industry, That is they are either getting direct contributions from the gas industry or they are sold that the industry will bring a big economic boom to the area, so they do not want to do anything that would ruin that. John and all other pro gas folks please do not take this in the wrong way. I do believe that this industry will be an economic boom to the area, long deserved and surely needed. I wish the powers that be would have paid a little more attention to saving small farms because I think that was a big mistake. It is a crying shame that farmers and and owners can make more money off of one gas lease now than they probably did working 24/7 all their lives. Sad reality. But on the other hand we need to be responsible so the clean up does not become the financial and emotional burden of the landowners and the local municipalities. I believe that the legislature, DEP, EPA and the industry have to step up the responsibility. We the people, have to demand that they do, most people wil not react until it directly involves them. Most people are by and large reactive and not proactive.
This morning in my local paper is another report of a methane leak in a home. Talisman is not claiming responsibility, they are smart. But they are helping out with water. They are doing this very strategically in preparation for the possible lawsuits to follow. Once again guys, I am not against the industry, I am against the methods they are chosing to use when others are available.

Dear CJK,
Agreed. All that you say is very accurate. Are we ready yet to try to put together a group to address these concerns? Should we exchange email addresses and seek to craft a document apart from this site, or should we try to put one together right here? I'm game for anything that can bring us all to a win-win situation. John, your intellect could help greatly here, along with so many others, some still not yet heard from.

So guys, are we at the point to take the next, more difficult, step and concretize our thoughts?
Dan

Dan:
Like the support. Right now I am in the process of drafting a "Letter of Concerns wth regard to Responsible Gas Exploration" with others in my area. Please email me privately I would like to discuss particulars. This discussion would only unnecessarily bog up this site. my email is cjk18850@yahoo.com. It would be great to have another set of ideas in all of this.

Carolyn,
Regarding your post about the properties on Carter Road, I have seen the place and don't think the fact that they have (and no doubt always had) methane in the water would matter much.
It's not exactly the most enticing road in town if you know what I mean.

Dear rfs,
Your past posts have articulated a position with some thought behind it. Your last post does not. It is beneath you, and an insult to the reader. You sadden and disappoint me. The real loser is not your audience as much as yourself. You are capable of much better.
Dan

I have run in to quite a few people that have said that the people complaining in Dimock (is this the location you are discussing?) have always had bad water. What proof of that does anyone have that they can share with us? I cannot imagine a person living in a house that has had water like the water I have seen samples of. I guess no one can prove their side unless their water was tested prior to the drilling, this is critical. Did Cabot test the water as required?

I used to work for a small drilling company--mostly shot holes in the coal strippings. However, we did water wells too in central pa. I personally witnessed NOT one well was drinkable. Most of the water comes off of the coal and generally is VERY hard water. It would turn our drill steels almost black b/c of the water hardness. So those of you that think you drill a well and it's potable water are dreaming. It's just not true.

After drilling a well, it was up to the landowner to have the water tested for safe drinking. Most people didn't have their water tested and didn't drink it anyway. I'm just saying....

Anyone who used their brain before leasing also did one other thing - they had their water tested before drilling began.
By the way, are you aware that all water well results are kept on file at the DEP? When water wells are drilled, the drilling company keeps the information and also files it with the state.

daniel cohen,
After hearing so much about the problems at Carter Road, I bothered to take the time to investigate for myself. I went there and had a look around.
If they are now claiming to have lowered property values due to gas drilling they are kidding themselves.
What you people do not seem to understand is that this whole problem in Dimock is affecting the rest of us too -- those of us who want to lease eventually and who want to see drilling happen in this state. So if there are people using the situation to "make up" for the deficiencies in their properties, then I have a problem with that.
It is quite sad that there are so many who are looking for free money in any shape or form. These claims in Dimock may be making a mountain out of a molehill, and do nothing to advance the REAL issues.

When you speak of DEP files,are you talking about all wells? DId they test for the chemicals that you need to test for now? Or was there test minimal like they do for dairy testing yearly? From what I have seen this original testing is minimal and does not hold up in court against the gas companies.
Are you aware that the type of testing required prior to drilling is very expensive?
Are you currently leased? If so what testing did you have done? By whom, a third party with chain of custody? What chemicals did you get your water tested for?

As I have repeatedly said (though it seems everyone talks at each other but no one listens) I AM NOT LEASED YET. I have been involved in learning about this every day for two years or more, have helped many others get leased but have not signed either my PA or my NY acreage yet myself.
NO, I am not in the gas business and do not get anything from the gas business. I am a disabled landowner trying to make sure I do what is best.
As for the water testing, when we drilled our water well 20 years ago we had it tested (as anyone should do) and will have it tested again when we lease before it is drilled. That language will be incorporated into the lease by the way, as it should be, that the gas company is responsible to PAY for the water testing. (NOT have it done, just pay for it)

Sorry, I was not aware of your situation, thought it would be easier to ask then go through all the posts, I did not think answering it would upset you but apparently I did.
You are wise but there are many landowners that are not, especially the elderly ones that tend to be more trusting. I never suggeted that you got money from the gas company, so what brought up that response?

Will you have your water tested if you do not lease and there is a well in close proximity to you? Obviously this would not be paid for by the gas company unless your well was within 1000 feet of the drilling.

My reference to not being employed by gas companies was not directed at you, but at others who keep insisting we must be getting something because we believe in drilling. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

If a well is being drilled within 1000 feet of us I would think we will be in the unit anyway and therefore be leased and covered for the water testing. But if not, yes I will have the water tested.
We are on a mountain with a well over 600 ft deep and do not have "rotten egg" water (which sometimes indicates methane gas) so it would be very clear if something were different. In addition, we are in contact with the adjoining land owners and have been for years. We are all hoping to lease with the same company and be drilled together, so keeping the lines of communication open also helps things.

Dear Shalers,
With special thanks to Marie, you may wish to check this out:
Subject: Good news for a change:EPA to study water pollution from Marcellus shale drilling

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10077/1043867-113.stm

Dan

I heard a blurb about this on the radio while I was in the barn this morning.I was going to search for it, thanks for saving me some time.

For those that are yet again misinformed... A rotten egg smell is very common in PA wells, especially those drilled beyond 400 feet in depth. Although methane gas may also smell like rotten eggs, more often than not it is a direct result of sulfur. I have it and I have had my water tested. I have a water filtration system that eliminates the sulfur smell and also treats the very hard water that I have. Without the filtration system my water would be usable but disgusting.

Also, someone mentioned baseline water testing is expensive. This is simply untrue. Sure, you can go all out and pay $1500.00 to cover everything. However, to cover everything that could be a result of a natural gas well it's more in the range of $100.00. This is directly from a company (third party) that has made a living for over 30 years doing a wide variety of water testing but specializes in testing resiental water wells in areas where oil and gas drilling has taken place. They gave a very informative presentation to about 500 landowners in Columbia and Luzerne Counties back in January. Again, and I hate to sound like a broken record, take some time to get educated before making blanket statements that are at best half truths.

A few points - sulfur is not a common problem in PA - but it is more common in areas near wetlands or in formations that consist of shales. Methane gas has no odor. Sulfur can be caused by a chemical reaction or a biochemical reaction. If the reaction is chemical - a treatment system like carbon filtration or aeration is ok, if it is biochemical you would need to disinfect and oxide the water. Methane gas is also common in some regions of PA in shallow wells, i.e. < 500 feet.

Baseline testing by a certified laboratory would most likely cost more than $ 100.00 - I believe the best price I have found for the parameters listed by the PADEP was about $ 500.00.

Sulfur is common in NEPA specifically. In my community virtually everyone has sulfur. You are correct, it is most common in aquifers residing in shale. We have hundreds of deep wells in my area and hundreds that encounter sulfer odor.

The water testing lab. that did the presentation I attended stated methane gas presence can be associated with a rotten egg smell. Technically, methane has no odor, but it's presence can be found in shales and thus can be associated with a rotten egg smell. Typically, the rotten egg smell the vast majority of land owners encounter in NEPA is sulpher however and more than likely is not methane.

Penn State Co-operative Extension Services provides good guidance. The Independent water company I speak of is Seewald Laboratories Inc. They have worked with PSCES and they are recommedning three testing packagaes broken down by Tiers. Tier 1 is the least expensive and covers the following:

Chloride,PH,Total dissolved solids,barium. The total cost for this test is $55.00

Tier 2.
Arsenic,Chloride,Hardness,PH,Total Dissolved Solids,Suspended Solids,Barium,Iron,Manganese,Bacterias. Total cost $135.00

Tier 3. Arsenic,Chloride,Hardness,oil & grease,PH,Total dissolved solids,VOC (volatile organic compounds),MBAS (surfactants),suspended solids,Barium,Calcium,Iron,Lead,Manganese,Strontium,Sodium,Bacteria,Methan/Ethane. Total cost $270.00

You can also mix and match as you like. If you like Tier 1 but want to add methane and barium you can.

As you can see even the Tier 3 test is not that expensive at $270.00.

Remember this is guidance from the testing lab and the Penn State Cooperative Extension Services. They recommend these tests as baselines. I am sure if you would rather follow a more radical route you could very well spend $500.00 to $1500.00 for a more elaborate testing criteria. I am also sure the lab would give you the guidance that it is not necessary. They seem to be very reputable. If you insist I am sure they can accomodate. Maybe you should give them a call. From what I gather $500.00 is spending way too much and the water testing companies you are working with may be feeding off of the fear factor from all of the negative press out there.

It is also important to test and/or measure for the volume of water. The drilling process can have a major impact on your supply and quality. The other expense in testing the water comes with the fact that the testing has to be done by someone who will supply you with a "Chain of Custody" if not done it is worthless in a court of law. This requires the testor to follow strict guidelines with respect to collecting and handling of the water that is being tested.

Agreed. The company I listed will comply with chain of custody. Excellent company, reasonable rates. Check the website if you get time.

LOL!!! That was the most one sided interview that I've ever seen on any subject in my life!! LOL!!!

Thanks for the link--very entertaining.... :)

I have not seen the interview yet. But in all fairness both sides are equally portraying their side. The gas industry has certainly spent a lot of time and money on attempting to convince the public that what they are doing is safe and that one should not worry. So what is so wrong about another perspective being given for people to hear? I do not think that the potential threat to my quality of life is something that is particularly humorous.

Both sides equally portraying their side ? Wow ! That's like saying Rush Limbaugh is partial to democrats. Where are the statistics on how many natural gas wells have been constructed and frac'd without incident, wIth absolutely no harm to anyone ? They number in the tens of thousands. The creator chooses to focus on a few isolated incidents that may be credible, I will give him that much. But to make blanket statements degrading the industry as a whole with no more than a few examples is quite disturbing. He obviously has a hidden agenda, probably money. He kind of reminds me of that guy that does the infomercials Kevin Trudeau.

John What do you consider and "incident"? What you consider one may not be what I consider to be one. I am learning that the gas industry does a good job of covering up alot of incidents related to fracking. Dimock, PA is a major cover up in my opinion.