Fracking Haters

Anything that has a calorific value can be so used.

Eventually, New Yorkers will stop voting for people that think that tax increases can solve everything.

Taxing wall street out of existence would indeed solve everything!

Good luck with that. Wall St and Pennsylvania Ave are joined at the hip.

Only when they run out of someone else's money.

everyone wants the conveniences of modern life.......they just don't want to pay for it this isn't new

Any links?

Greenies, brownies, stupidies are at it all the time.

As for the gas, they would not make an effort if it was not worth it!

As far as I've heard, Cuomo has declared war on fracking...but who knows what this thread is about?

Seems a weird guy this Cuomo. Gave up reading about this. I rather wait for the next global warming thread.

Yes!

I'm not sure what you are asking? The whole idea of fracking is to get the gas, so it can be used as fuel. That is being done in PA, VA, the Dakotas, and other states right now. It is what our administration in Albany is fighting against - letting NY enjoy some of the economic benefits that other states are experiencing by capturing and selling the natural gas trapped in our deep shale deposits (They think they can make more revenue by promoting casino gambling!). So far the greenies and others have held enough sway over the Governor and others that they have been able to block horizontal-boring, high-capacity hydrofracking in NY. There is some limited gas drilling and collection that has been going on in the state for years in the past using traditional, vertical wells, though.

What that about.. This commie cuomo wants to build 7 or 8 new casinos to bring more revenue to the state. Someone needs to teach him some sound economic theory.. gambling is a zero sum game.. All the economic benefits that could come to our great state if we only had spitzer back in office..

Are you talking about the flare gas? That's the "first blow" from a new well, they use that to determine how successful the fracking is, if the pressure and flowrate stay high they cap it until they get a pipeline in to carry it away to a mainline.

Let me add this is not just a small spurt either - the Marcellus well 2 miles from my house was flared for 6 days. The flame was around 20 feet high above the flare pipe. Since it was basically unannounced, it caused quite a bit of commotion as it was visible from a major highway.

We might also want to consider how much gas is lost from oil tank batteries. While riding my mountain bike I stopped and watched a couple that were filling last evening, and the flow of gas from the vent pipe was quite substantial. The hazardous warning signs with the "4" in the flammable section are there for a good reason. They try to separate it before filling the tanks, but are never totally successful, so they just blow it off to the atmosphere. Valleys around here on cool damp mornings smell like an oil well.

The "greenies" would use their energy better trying to force an end to this practice, as fracking has been around for too many decades with no tragic results to be considered dangerous.

If you consider this, petroleum companies do not like hot weather, the fact is the colder the better for them as in hot period a great deal of evaporation takes place of the petrol in the storage tanks. The same thing happens with your car. So while you worry about the fracing, you have pollution happening, which belongs to each person who drives/owns a motor car with a tank of fuel.

Every time you fill up fuel, chemicals pour into the atmosphere, underground storage tanks in garages have breather pipes to vent evaporation into the air, just there where you fill up. One sucks it all in, daily, when using ones vehicle. Wonder now why they don't quite care as they know we are all used to pollution and help create it daily. Mixing with ethanol makes it evaporate quicker, so you get less distance on a tank of juice

The evaporation from storage tanks in the USA in one warm day, is greater than the total amount of fuel used by Zimbabwe in a year. And we are told to worry about burnt fuel emissions of Co2. I don't see closed loop evaporation systems on vehicles.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/200Series/210510-1.pdf Page 5.

"I don't see closed loop evaporation systems on vehicles"

You haven't looked at a vehicle lately?

As in the last 20 years?

Vehicle Emissions Systems

1.5 EVAP System Components

Evaporative emissions from the fuel system (fuel vapors) are trapped and stored in a charcoal canister. Later, a purge valve opens allowing the vapors to be sucked into the engine and burned. The EVAP system usually requires no maintenance. The fuel filler cap is also part of the EVAP system, and is designed to keep fuel vapors from escaping into the atmosphere. A leaky or missing fuel filler cap may cause a vehicle to fail an emissions test.

your "check engine light" just lit up....check that gas cap and gasket

"Check Engine" Light on?

LynDoor™Industries, Automotive Diagnostic Division has a solution for that, and those other pesky "idiot" lights that can distract you from the chore of driving, combing hair, applying makeup and drinking that morning cup-o-joe.

We offer a lifetime supply for the low price of @19.99 USD + shipping and handling.

Knife/Scissors not included.

Never seen this on any European car to date. Would not even know where to look for the charcoal filter and on all 20 cars I have owned I have never ever seen this filter system on any fuel lines.

Emissions control from the engine sump yes, (recycling the fumes from the sump oil), but not on a fuel line system? From the filler cap neck to the tank, yes! Hence my surprise and obviously dumb statement.

And my last dealings with any car, to change a heater matrix, and to rebuild the engine just happened to be yesterday, Golf II, Memphis. Have not seen a charcoal filter system on that either. But I shall sally forth and seek it out. Thanks for the update and is it perhaps an American thing?

I'd be willing to bet it's a USA thing.

That's the problem with an international forum.

Some of us have a small world. Mine is strictly USA 99.999% of my life, Canada and Mexico.

Yes indeed Lyn, their is life beyond the shores of the USA, Canada and Mexico. The pond is quite vast and life is abundant and we see things from the east rather than from the west and the rules are not American, even the acronyms are different and, you guys talk funny too.

Eg: Geyser, found in Yellow Stone Park, in the ground (only when open though).

Geyser in RSA, water heater found in every home.

Furnace: used to smelt metals or bake clays, bricks etc.

USA furnace: used to heat a home.

Assumption, possibly an island in the Caribbean. Reunion: what you guys to when you get together years after school.

Reunion: where some folks go on holiday.

So now we have cleared up that some of us are Internationally based and thing may be misleading for some. Cheers for that squire!

look behind the left headlight in the engine bay

Air filter unit, with injector pump, in line fuel filter which is standard on all cars. No fancy charcoal filters, closed loop systems here. Amazing!

Not amazing.

Not surprising either.

Which do you prefer?

6 Of 1, and half a dozen of the other actually. If they bother to run vehicles on hydrogen cells then there would be no need for facing, petrol, diesel and LNG. They could simply use the bore-hole water to replenish the cells. And very little evaporation and pollutants in to the air. We would produce power to run a vehicle and precipitation to replenish the water. A touch of solar and hey presto, Heavenly Power.

And everyone should be most happy with that?

thanks for solving the worlds energy requirements, any chance you'll be in Washington this week? they could use a little of your magical problem solving prowess.

If they get there fingers out I shall be in Canada next week. But, I could use some warm sunshine so sure, why not. Do I have to go through more visa BS? Perhaps Obamacare will care and let me in.

Big debate in Sweden today about having more wind farms built quickly. And, there is a Co in Australia who sells hydrogen cells from Au$450 for 4 cylinders cars to Au$700 for V8's. It works and the car manufacturers know it works too. City buses in Adelaide run on hydrogen only. Proof does exist.

Now if I can just turn lead into gold, I shall be a made man. I've done the wine, beer and whiskey with water! The best is still a pint of diesel with an unleaded chaser.

See you in Washington, but which one, I understand you have 2, one near Canada and one in DC. I assume this is a sub station!

all kidding aside. hydrogen cells have their beauties but there is the little problem of getting the hydrogen to put in them at a reasonable price. where is that supply going to come from? In California they've had test vehicles running on hydrogen for years, so yes they do in fact work. but like a purely electric vehicle they have a very limited range and few choices on fueling locations

Matter of factly, the hydrogen is produced from a cell filled with water and through simple electrolysis of the water the hydrogen is given off and tapped straight from the source. 1Litre of water, some bicarbonate of soda, (teaspoon full), 12 volts and two steel coils is all it takes. H2O Hydrogen x 2 and Oxygen x 1. All there to run the vehicle. It is limited by the amount of water you have in the cell. 45 Litres in the fuel tank will give you 700-800km. You make it as you drive and consume only what you make and need. The link below will explain how America has invested and how much, and still they don't offer it to you. Money from petrol maybe?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm

And, thanks for that recommendation. I was told yesterday I was good for nothing, you now tell me I am good for something. Thank you, I feel better now. Can you inform my psychologist please, and can I now become an Action Hero like Batman?

P.S. Nice bike, too big for me though. BMW 1200GS, just right.

Wouldn't you rather become a GURU?

No thanks, it makes my brain hurt.

http://www.controlrisks.com/Oversized%20assets/shale_gas_whitepaper.pdf

Plenty of anti fracing organisations. My name is added to support them. Its a global thing and people don't want it. Worth reading. It is bigger than people realise.

'Not my problem and, it will be alright' rings in my ears as replies.

Hey - that's it! I'm even think my 1984 Capri (Mercury Mustang look alike - not Euro version) had this system.

One of the many things to disappear when going drag racing with a 5.0.

Really? - on my 1989 Mustang 5.0 there is a line from the tank filler neck back to engine compartment to a charcoal canister and then to the intake. It was also on my son's 1987 Cougar. Haven't messed with cars since we quit drag racing these 10 years ago, but I doubt they dropped these evaporative return lines.

WHAT THE BLAZES ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT???

Fracking produces annual toxic waste water enough to flood Washington DC

Fracking can take 2m to 9m gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to frack a single well. The report said the drilling industry had used 250bn gallons of fresh water since 2005. Much of that returns to the surface, however, along with naturally occurring radium and bromides, and concerns are growing about those effects on the environment.

Of course this is another commie plot and is not true.

Oh, and all those earthquakes now happening where they're fracking, that's the CIA testing new explosives free of "Thermitic materials" that they will use to take down the new WTC building.

It's actually HAARP. Shssh.

Econodude might be referring to this incident....

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/7500-new-brunswick-songbirds-fly-gas-flare.html

In which a flock of birds were killed by a gas flare.....This is a pressure relief mechanism that is triggered by a pressure buildup in the distribution network of NG during load switching operation....The outrage was emotionally driven, and was countered by citing of numerous other causes of bird deaths, including cats(millions), wind turbines(unknown)and various other human related activities, now claimed to be in violation of the "Migratory Birds convention act" and the "Migratory Bird Treaty"...

http://globalnews.ca/news/875542/269-million-birds-are-killed-across-canada-each-year-due-to-human-related-activities-study/

Good for them!

I'd like to be able to drink water without all the added chemicals that escapes from the process of fracking. Too much money to be made to get any straight answers. Some one needs to offer the EPA queen that said it was safe. A glass of fracking fluid to drink.

Don't know what all the worry about CO2 and global warming is about. In a short time we will have fracked ourselves out of clean drinking water anyway. We can live with a little extra heat but with out water!

I have roughneck and worked on drilling wells that drilled from 5 to 17 thousand feet. There is no way to determine whether the cement plugs around the casing is leaking. After injecting this fluid and pressurizing it up enough to fracture the shale which is rock that they haven't fracture though some where else. Possibly force the fluid up though this fracture to contaminate water. With out disclosure of what the fluid are. There is no way to tell what environmental damage is done.

Wikipedia list the Uranium Energy Corp. is going to use fracking to mine for Uranium. Now we get to glow in the dark after that drink of water.

You must have a short memory. Its not called cement plugs but it is just cement around casing that might or might not be leaking. Since years and years there is easy methods to determine whether or not the cement sheet around the casing is sound.

There is Sonic measurements, a so called Cement Bond measurement and last but not least a simple temperature measurement can show you if there is a pathway behind casing.

The process of fracking is as old as most of the conventional drilling.

Water contamination can happen, but it can be checked upon and thats where your statement is simply untrue!

We had other posts about this issue. If you are so concerned about fracking abandon your car and go in the woods. If I am not very much mistaken the car production is said to use far worse chemicals with much easier pathways into surface water.

Yes it just called cement. Yes there are test that can be made to check for leaks. That though it is like most people they only take their temperature when the feel sick. So after they see a problem then they would test. At that point it maybe too late. I say maybe as my big issue is their non disclosure of what's the fracking fluid is made up of.

Yes fracking has been around a long time. It's use was a cost issue.

"Water contamination can happen, but it can be checked upon and thats where your statement is simply untrue!"

Sure we can test the water after they contaminate it. Lot of good that does for the people that need it to survive. You posted this anonymously and say my statements untrue. That in itself makes me wonder.

There are chemicals used in all industries that are environmental hazards. In every one of those industries the government requires them to post those chemicals in a book. It's call MSDS require by OSHA. Why then when asked what these fracking fluids are they do not disclose them. And there is no pressure from our government for them to do so.

Go into the woods naw. I'll stay here and drink municipal water and die with everyone else. At lease they test it. In the woods I'd have to drink well or surface water that has fracking fluid in it and die alone.

Yes it just called cement.

Grout

Hey you get that too. Makes my big toe sore for days.

Yes, its from eating too rich of food........... something about Uric Acid.

Yes it can be clearly seen that there is a logical disconnect!

Without going into details (because those who do want to properly discuss the problems and issues surrounding fracking have an obligation to do their own research) if the dialog happened the way it is described the BO is: not knowing their own arguments, is stupid to display greed and clearly verifies that the problem is not on the technical side of fracking.

Were did you get this piece of a drama? Made it up your self? Your bias is showing!

Found it in the internet? A glimpse of reality can be seen!

This is spot-on. Exactly what I said. A way to dump toxic waste. First it was on land (see love canal) then in the ocean (see radioactive waste and weapons on ships sunken) then, now, due to proprietary laws they dump it below the water table. Wasn't it just 15 years ago that farmers were trying to save those said water tables, and now they allow big gas to pay them to put in a well, in some cases buy them bottled water (while they pump good water mixed with chems down the pipe) and sometimes have go pay off people who get sick (and under non disclosure can't even talk about it). This has got to stop. But how? That should be the next topic we should start. Do you know how to start a whole new thread? I'll back you up. "solutions to stopping the use of chemical dumping in fracking Wells" for groundwater preservation? Get back to me about this. There's going to be lost of debate.

I always thought that the fluids that are injected are coming back up with the gas? How would that dump anything?

Just thinking out load here!

"Flowback" and "produced water" are both contaminated and not fit for use for anything.

Can you guess where it goes?

I was going to leave it there, but I won't. It gets pumped into more wells, in the ground.

I hear you. One other thought occured to me which is: Where is the "waste"/chemicals/contamination coming from? I mean according to Mr. Ecogeek it is waste being dumped but now it is pumped comes back up and pumped somewhere else.

Does not sound like a sane thing to do if I was to get rid of something. It also would not explain where the stuff comes from which for me could be from everywhere, industrial or I dont know what.

I am sure it left a bitter taste of accusation on a Geeks mouth and I think this is the wrong forum for this.

I found a long article in Wikipedia which I have to go through in more detail. There is also a link to chemicals being used some ca. 750 items if I read correctly.

Plenty of info there which should not be overlookled in a discussion like this.

Are you saying the oil industry has no MSDS and no OSHA system?

My daily work is affected by all the QHSE that comes our way it presents itself as one of the toughest standards. Training is mandatory. Go figure!

Disclosure of Fracking Fluids is all across the internet if ones wants to look for it.

http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

http://www.santos.com/coal-seam-gas/hydraulic-fracturing.aspx

Link further down directly from the industry!

So they do not disclose the recipe which the food industry also does not do. The reason is clear, isn't it?

Lets say Redfred nailed it in his post 26.

Adding to that I hope government wakes up and takes up the thread to get in control, but I daresay we are not here to discuss government, are we?

Okay, so I go onto the website given to look up what chemicals are used in the "proprietary" mixes used in fracking fluids. But each company uses a different slurry. YES chemicals used in fracking fluids are listed. But in many or most cases, the companies do NOT disclose the chemicals in THEIR OWN MIX that are used at each specific well. Some mixes may contain those listed on the Web site, but they may, and do, contain much more. I only see a list of about 30 chemicals. Others are various products that come naturally, such as guar gum. Further, many chemicals are a mix of multiple chemicals that make one. Reports suggest that some fracking companies' liquids contain up to or more than 1000 chems. I don't see lists of thousands of chemicals on the website. I am sorry, but this cannot be used as a factual list of everything in fracking fluids, and if it's "proprietary" then that list of chemicals is just a base line for what MAY be added. But, we are done argueing this, because it seems this is all a matter of opinion, seeing as we cannot get individual lists of the mixtures used. Period.

And do you think they have a conscience too? Is the Gulf better than ever now?

Climate change? Global Warming? Bermuda triangle? There is a lot of energy to harvest on the bed of the oceans, that if it doesn't happen on time, will kill us all. You have no clue what will happen in the generations to come. The choice is money or the planet and pretty soon. Why is man the worst self- destructive animal on the planet?

Another fine reason to ignore anonymous posters.

Ignore it, if you so like!

they will then play at being philanthropists, with our money and expect us to kiss their a$$es second time around.

I thought I was the only one that sees that. The more they give, the bigger the a$$.

Last post on this! _{(I cant take it when you cry!)}

Ozzb was wrong with his statement and the way you brush it off I can brush it off:

Yes you are right with what you say. For me every industry is the same. This is the way the world runs. We all die. While we live we have to make a decision which side we want to be on. But isnt that a too general statment?

I go and hide now, I've done my bit!

It's worse than that. BO has bribed Congress to defund all the meaningful studies that might expose the real hazards of fracking.

So, we're left with another potential Three Mile Island under every well site currently being fracked by those frackers.

I don't think they should be using toxic chemicals. There's no way to guarantee that they will stay put forever.

BO- We have to use chemicals to free up the gas and oil.

JP- Why can't you use ethanol mixed with the water?

Nitrogen is considered toxic!

How about there is no water at all.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=129261

Looks like there is forces at work that try to address public concerns driving research in this area.

Using ethanol? What a waste!

Nitrogen is not life sustaining and therefore possibly very dangerous, but you are right that it is not toxic. Large volumes of nitrogen gas provides a very real lethal threat. Unlike many toxic gasses that irritate, produce gagging or other natural body reaction that tell you to GET OUT, a space flooded with pure nitrogen will just put victims to sleep before they suffocate from a lack of oxygen. Even the nominal gag response from a build up of CO2 in the body doesn't happen because the lungs are successful of expelling CO2 naturally. The same problem can happen with other non-lethal gasses but with air being already about 70% Nitrogen there isn't any funny odors or taste to warn of the danger. This risk is why an odor agent is added to natural gas because it kills in the same suffocating manner.

Getting back to fracking, I'm glad that public concerns are reaching the engineers so that other approaches are being tried. Maybe Nitrogen pressure will be the solution, maybe it is just the next step until somebody comes up with an even better idea. Both sides have to roll back the hysterical rhetoric or nothing good will happen. Both sides have valid concerns and should not let down their guards either.

I can think of many more useful and tasty ways to utilize ethanol.

Yeah, me too.

I wasn't suggesting ethanol as an endgame, but it beats the hell out of using diesel fuel, and the other chemicals that I've read about.

I'm sure it will continue to get safer. I've never been very comfortable with the toxic stew they've been using...it doesn't matter how deep it is.

I subscribe to that!

Another argument about politics pretending to be about engineering, with the usual silly and stupid attitudes. There's about five times as much carbon listed as reserves by fossil fuel corporations than can be safely admitted into the atmosphere. Get around that.

you'll notice I had no say in this powder keg

Are you feeling okay?

You're usually on the front line, lobbing grenades.

trust me, I had plenty of smart Alec thoughts rush through my mind as I read the thread but when you have a topic get to an emotional point almost all objectivity dissipates. I'm in the camp that believes science and technology can be applied here to tap these resources responsibly, after that. everything is subjective when it comes down to trust, responsibility, liability, etc. so I just stood back and watched the show on this one.

I felt the same way, but the latest global warming blog has petered out.

At least I learned something in my last linked article. I didn't realize that they were getting very close to using completely non-toxic fluids. This is a good thing.

Are you coming fishing?

I think you're on the wrong site. Trolling shouldn't be tolerated.

I don't see what fishing has to do with trolling.

Typical economist, can't see further than their wallet.

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=trolling+definition&safe=active

Re: Fracking Haters I have always wondered the same thing myself. The "problem" is that it is mixed with many other different types of liquids and gasses such as CO2, which together, are very hard to separate and do not burn quite as efficient as the pure fuel itself. This is why it is all burned off. Much of it is methane, such as what is burned off at water filtration plants. I personally would like to see co-generation ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-generation) usedused as a method of generating heat for steam power generation, or heat for warming buildings. But, us "greenies" are really just wanting to care for the rapidly declining health of the planets ecosystems, and although natural gas has a lower carbon footprint than coal or oil/bitumen, the fluids used in fracking are extremely toxic, and it leaches into aquifers (Wells, streams and ponds) and as seen in Colorado's floodings , directly onto the lands surrounding the well stations. The fracking chemicals used are kept secret, because it is really just a way for chemical companies to dump unwanted toxic waste under the guise as lubricants. We all know it doesn't take over 1000 chemicals to make gas slipp through rock formations. It's an environmental disaster of mammoth proportions, and in doing so, we will go the way of the mammoths should we continue this way of providing energy by burning sequestered carbon - stuff that at one point choked the air with heavy pollutants. It should stay where it is. Houses can be heated with solar and geothermal energy, cars can run on wind and hydro, and oil companies can make their shift towards providing new sources of clean, green fuel. There is NO BETTER TIME THAN NOW to start doing so. I say this because I care not of me, but my children, and grandchildren, should they care to live in a toxic, polluted planet.

interesting. You state that the chemicals used to frack are "extremely toxic" and you state that no one knows what the chemicals are(secret).. ??

Which is it? Where is the proof of toxicity if no one know what the chemicals are?

2nd you stated that houses and cars can use solar, geothermal, wind and hydro. There is not enough of those available to do that now. Businesses use more power than home owners and vehicles. You didn't account for them. Geothermal has a lot of problems with chemical(mineral) build up that has not yet been solved. the other three sources also have problems. You would need to cover a large part of the country with solar for it to be even remotely feasible in the summer. It will never be feasible for the wintertime. Wind is only good when the wind blows. At best it is back up power. As for hydro, here in the northwest the "greenies" have convince the power companies to start removing dams. Looks like that source is slowly going away. Until the problems with your choices for energy sources are fixed what do you propose to use to keep mankind moving forward?

I'm not going to bat for the Geeky one but you might be interested to know that both solar and wind have a great chance of wider adoption should energy storage breakthroughs pan out. you might want to read up on work like this..http://www.gizmag.com/flow-battery/28747/

I think the good old Christian expression; Everything forward...and trust in the Lord! I think I just discovered 'heavenly power'. I'll patent that right now.

Solar works in overcast conditions but you have long dark hours. Hydro is clean, cheap and easy to use. I think the US is becoming 3rd world? No power stations, no hydro, no safe updated grid system, you have wind farms though. Houston I think you have a problem.

Buy Heavenly Power in a can, buy two, keep one as back up!

If their country was actually run by their government and not big business, then they wouldn't be in this position. These decisions would've been made years ago based on the needs of the population. But they haven't because big business twists the governments arm behind their back and, the decisions are made on purely financial viability. The UK has followed this model of government and, now we're in the same position. Happy Days.

Oh no,

You could not be farther from the truth when you say, "big business twists the governments arm behind their back."

Big business simply purchases a sufficient number of politicians to get whatever they want. Much more civilized than arm twisting, don't you think?

Even some of the duller politicians have deluded themselves into believing they are doing the right thing.

Ah you seem to think that arm twisting is a heavy handed, uncooth form of coercion. But it is a very subtle and well practised art form, where I come from.

And, there's the rub.

One of your old boys once said something like, The USA and Great Britain, two great countries, separated by a common language.

There's arm twisting, and then there's palm crossing.

It's late over on this side.

Cheers.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/toxic-gas-why-we-need-to-stop-fracking/

UK group not wanting it either. Interesting read.

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/

But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste - all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that is turning our communities into sacrifice zones. Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That's why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.

Why a Ban? Can't Better Regulations Make Fracking Safer?

No. Fracking is inherently unsafe and we cannot rely on regulation to protect communities' water, air and public health. The industry enjoys exemptions from key federal legislation protecting our air and water, thanks to aggressive lobbying and cozy relationships with our federal decisionmakers (the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is often referred to as the Cheney or Halliburton Loophole, because it was negotiated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney with Congress in 2005.) Plus, the industry is aggressively clamping down on local and state efforts to regulate fracking by buying influence and even bringing lawsuits to stop them from being implemented. That's why fracking can't be made safer through government oversight or regulations. An all out ban on fracking is the only way to protect our communities.

Thank you Dick Cheney. Your name says it all!

You only have to look back at the way the tobacco companies acted when we tried to say their product was dangerous.
Yeah they labeled people as tobacco haters, scaremongers commies and anything else we can think of.
It's all about the money money money
Del

I thought the jury was still out on that one..

Afterall, the pack does say 'MAY cause cancer'.

I think you should have the gunshot wound in your foot attended to...

It really is all about money, plain and simple. But not just for BO but also for you. As an economist, I can tell you that most people who are against this new technology of getting more and more gas are at the same time happy for getting clean and cheap energy..

Similar to PETA.

Yeah, but as an economist no one believes a word you say!

Del

when was the last time one of them was wrong??

Career choice?.... uhmmmmm, lets see......

Weatherman ...or..... Economist.........

This is a tough one.

OK I'm hooked. I just couldn't help myself, Sorry.

It's all about

"AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ON MY OWN DOORSTEP" senario.

If it's not affecting you why worry. And how many of the people who are make oooddles of money from this, live in the areas affected by fracking. How many of the FOR politicians live in these areas.

Somebody should start up a natural mineral water bottling business, that has it's water source in one of the areas, that is having their water affected. This company should then become the sole supplier of bottled natural mineral water to every government site.

We can all sit back and watch them choking on their biased decisions.

Now wouldn't that be nice, forcing the people who make the decision, to live with their decisions.

I say send this water directly to Washington, directly to the politicians throats and have them drink up and be merry. Washington problem soled. No more P's!

What a real shame that all this good information, resourcefulness, research and positive approach to halting others damaging our world for profit, is going to waste, and we are actually achieving nothing, but writing blogs.

Put it out there and I guess you will gain a great deal of support from communities and fracing would be stopped.

And, you have the right to know what is being done to your planet. It is not the sole and total right of business and government alone to decide your fate.