E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Alex Brandon / AP
Jean Carter is one of the residents of Dimock, Pa., who had been getting free bottled water. She's seen here on Oct. 14 on her property with a natural gas well next door.
A major environmental group tells msnbc.com that come Wednesday it will join forces with 11 families in rural Pennsylvania against the state and a natural gas driller who has stopped shipping free bottled water that was supplied after methane entered the local aquifer.
The families in Dimock, Pa., were told not to drink top water nearly three years ago when 18 water wells were found tainted with methane. In recent months, Cabot has treated the water and the state now says it is fit to drink. Residents dispute that finding.
"A pivotal showdown ... is brewing between residents and industry" over the drilling process known as "fracking," Kate Slusark, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in announcing plans to challenge Pennsylvania's decision allowing Cabot Oil & Gas to discontinue shipments after it said it had cleaned up the damage.
"Even after treatment," the group said in a letter to the state department of environmental protection, "some residents still have found toxic chemicals in their water such as ethylene glycol -- otherwise known as antifreeze. Residents have also indicated that the system has been almost completely ineffective at removing other contaminants."
The families themselves have petitioned the state to get Cabot to restart water deliveries. The families, as well as NRDC, plan to submit arguments on Wednesday, the deadline set by a judge for filing in the case.
The Associated Press earlier reported that state regulators previously determined that Cabot drilled faulty gas wells that allowed methane to escape into Dimock's aquifer. The company denied responsibility, but has been banned from drilling in a 9-square-mile area of Dimock since April 2010.
MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan travels to Dimock to investigate whether natural gas fracking is safe.
Dimock, Slusark said, "has become the national poster child for fracking-gone-wrong."
A Cabot spokesman told AP that the company has worked diligently to resolve the problems in Dimock, located 20 miles south of the New York state line.
"Cabot has reconditioned water wells, drilled new water wells and installed treatment systems that work properly and effectively. Additionally, we have tested the water and the results have proven the water meets federal safe drinking water standards," said George Stark.
The "fracking" process -- whereby chemicals are injected into the ground to separate natural gas from shale rock -- has divided communities across the Northeast, where some welcome the jobs and extra income while others fear environmental impacts.
New York state, for one, has had a three-year moratorium on fracking but is now weighing whether to lift it.
More news and feature stories from msnbc.com:
Leave a Comment:
Stick it to em. Stick to your guns. Stick it to em again.
From now on, I'm going to spell Fracking like this...
F***king.
When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat, breathe or drink money.
We are destroying all of our aquifers by puncturing them with tens of thousands of oil and gas drill shafts.
The oil and gas industry will tell you that they cement these shafts once the wells run dry.
But guess what? Cement deteriorates over time and so eventually 50, 100, 200 years from now all of those "plugged" holes are going to start to leak back into the pierced aquifiers. And then all of our aquifers will become contaminated with oil and gas and made undrinkable.
We need to stop all of this fracking and drilling.
We have energy technologies that are 100% environmentally safe.
And we need to put all of our efforts into moving forward on these energy technologies of the future before it is too late.
Which technologies are 100% environmentally safe? None unless the hardware is made of air.
Mr Spock-3934837, we know how to make wind turbines that are 100% recyclable. Same for solar panels. Same for geo-thermal systems. Same for hydro-electric systems.
These technologies do not pollute the land and water unlike that massive amount of pollution that occurs with fossil-fuel drilling and fracking.
.
US, you seem to know practically nothing about where the nenergy for your daily life comes from. You seem to have left out the casing in its entirety. Also across water zones there are typically multiple layers of cement and casing. But lets not forget that over time fractures heal and those wellbores no longer become conduits to the surface. We have been drilling wells since what 1859? Those problems you mentioned should have already occurred.
mhr83, these problems ARE already occurring. And wells from back in the 1800's were very shallow. Many less than 100 feet deep. It's only when we started to drill high-pressure wells at 1000's of feet in depth that we get injection problems into water aquifiers. And over enough time any amount of casing will rust away and any amount of cement will deteriorate and crumble away. All of this is a time-bomb in the making that will affect future generations forever.
.
No, that's isn't at all correct. Aquifers typically are 500 feet and above. The reason is water deeper than that is typically salt water. Once again, the fractures heal and close and formations slough into the wellbore again trapping fluids.
When companies like Halliburton refuse to give a list of chemicals it uses for Hydro-fracking, I would be very concerned about everyone's drinking water! The DEC/citizens meetings for several towns across New York State were a big joke! Say what you want but it all falls on deaf ears. The oil and natural gas industries have already paid off all the organizations involved! Get ready to carry a new type of home owners insurance for earthquakes! I will be mandatory!
the website is fracfocus.org you can find them there. Also did you know Halliburton created a fracturing fluid system made solely of items found on the "Generally recommended as safe" list from the FDA?
Oh...safe like antifreeze? Bet they're not fracking in your fracking neighborhood!
In South Louisiana, the highest incident of Cancer, in the entire world; from the early 1940's, they just pumped the drilling fluid back into the ground, the Chemical industry, petro chemical products most amount of plants in the United States, pumped the waste back into the aquifer; Cancer is highest recorded in the United States, industry is in business to make money ,cutting costs also cut short people's lives.
Ol doc, safe as in safe for human consumption. That is what the GRAS list is. And yes they are.
mhr83, Generally recommended as safe from the FDA? The FDA needs a complete colonoscopy to clean out their corrupt management too! The NYS DEC never got a list!
And not everything is listed. The website, which reeks a bit of lobbyists, states very clearly that they list all chemicals except those that are "trade secrets". And any good chemist knows that many volatile and poisonous mixtures can be created from two or more seemingly innocuous chemicals...even those deemed "generally safe" by the FDA.
yeah jeff, remember that while you enjoy a bottle of water after a fish dinner around a campfire. natural gas is the energy bridge for the US until we resolve the issues with renewables and transportation and storage. pay the 11 families, move them, and let's get on with this.
We have two arguments basically one side says trust the companies they say they are doing things safely and they are cleaning up their accidents and the plugs will last for ever and we have to do this until they get all the problems worked out with renewable energy.
And we have a side that says the plugs could leak and that the companies are both using chemicals that can harm humans and wildlife plus taking chances of contaminating aquifers due to casings and or plugs failing. Usually in life when you make decisions and you have the benefit of being able to check history you have the advantage of an informed decision. I would say that history would indicate the only thing you can trust energy companies to do is make as much money as is possible and in the case of accidents spend as little as possible and do the bare minimum allowed to correct the issue.
I cite exxon valdez spill as the perfect example that spill occurred in 1989.The bay is still un fishable by the people that used to sustain themselves from those waters the clean up such as it is will continue for decades to come.
The law suits for damages and relocation costs and clean up costs are still as of 2009 ongoing,We have even heard from a former exxon attorney that the game plan was to seek continuances until all of those effected are dead and gone and at that point ask that the cases be dropped.
We all know that if one wanted there are hundreds of superfund sites and hundreds of episodes of accidents that one can point to as historical proof that the energy companies care about two things and two things only 1.Profits 2.Making sure they do what ever is necessary to continue to be allowed to drill to ensure future profits.
As far as we have to do this until we work all of the bugs out of renewable energy I have heard that argument since the 70's imagine what we could have achieved in the last 40 years had we focused our energies in actually making renewable energy work for us.
America went from the first commercial airline flights to sending men to the moon in the same amount of time.
We went from computers so big you could walk around inside them to hundreds of times the computing power in a hand held phone in the same amount of time.
We know the history of the companies that say (Trust us)
We know what America is capable of yet we are supposed to allow energy companies to contaminate our environment and poison our water in exchange for what ? So they can make ever higher profits?
And all the while 40 years from now we will be told renewable energy still is not perfect?
Forgive me for saying so but I have to call BS on that argument and I think anyone that looks at the situation in a rational manner would have to agree.
the wellbore may pass through and aquifer, but the zone that the well produces from is generally thousands of feet below any freshwater aquifers.
Wow, am I really the only one here who immediately thought of Battlestar Galactica when reading this headline???
I hope these people are successful with their lawsuits. Poisoning someone's well is just plain wicked. But with the way judges are these days justice probably won't occur.
Yep, industry, energy, and big business will ALWAYS be given higher priority than the health and wellbeing of the "little people". From people with sulfur tainted wells in Appalachian coal country to shrimp boat captains in Louisiana to the natives drinking polluted water in Ecuador, you are always going to be considered less important than profit by big business and the government officials in their pocket.
Will while I don't agree with with they are doing in Dimock, PA. Judging by your post you are either at one of the Occupy protest sites or need to be.
greycloud57 - So show us where he's wrong, or even exaggerating! When you're on the wrong side of the facts and the wrong side of history, you should consider being sparing with your comments.
Everybody blames big business, but ow did they get so big? How did J.K. Rowling become a billionaire? by everyday suckers like you and me buying their products and feeding the machine.
Hey, corporations are now considered people thanks to the Supremes. Politicians, "justices", you name it, they have been bought, and we are the losers. Funny thing, though, the people whose greed is destroying the earth are destroying their own grandchildrens' futures.
Stop feeding the machine.
Because everyone loves to set the "water" from their tap on fire.
When my brother-in-law was a little boy he used to go visit family members that lived in Dimock. One of their big "fun to do" things was to see the water in the pond and from the faucet set on fire. My brother-in-law is now 80. This means that there were large amounts of methane in the water long before gas drillers ever set foot in Dimock. Methane is natural in lots of water supplies. A friend in another county, where there is no gas well drilling, put in a new water well last year and the cap exploded off the pipe from methane in the water. Again, there is no gas drilling in their area. People drank the Dimock water for years without incident. If the drillers had not come in would the people who are now suing the pants off everyone in the gas industry be suing God because He put the methane in the water?
If God did the fracking and now the "water" is undrinkable, sue away!
Ruken, the same thing was shown in the movie gasland. It was proved that the methane in that faucet was the type put off by coal seams. It wasn't a surpirse because the water well went through four different coal seams and water wells aren't the best construction to begin with.
So... let me get this straight, Sandra. Because something with similar characteristics happened in other places as a result of different processes, we shouldn't be concerned about it happening now due to preventable processes? Is that really the argument you are making? Water sometimes goes bad from natural methane contamination, so we should not be concerned about nor try to prevent methane contamination that occurs as the result of human activity? That's just screwy. Just because things goes bad in nature doesn't mean we should tolerate people making things goes bad where nature didn't beat them to it. If this water is bad due to what this company has done, they need to be held responsible for the damage they have caused. The same goes for all of their ilk.
Sad, actually I believe the point was that in this case methane existed in the water prior to drilling. Now if the methane levels in the water have been proved safe by the state the company should quit providing water as levels may be what they were prior to any oil and gas development. That was the point.
mhr83 - And I suppose there was ethylene glycol in the water prior to drilling. Oh that's right, I forgot; we are fortunate enough to have naturally occurring "antifreeze" in our water.
I would have to see the dataset. First the concentration and second the mechancial integrity of the well. How the samples were collected etc. But tell me, should we stop flying because of one plane crash?
OH! You're a mouth for the industry, mhr83. Okay, now your using Haliburton as a positive example of corporate stewardship of the environment makes total sense.
But tell me, how is befouling drinking and ground water over thousands of square miles for millions of people and other living things the same as crashing a plane again? Was that supposed to be an innovation analogy? And what is the "one plane crash"? You've been saying nothing went wrong, that there is no plane crash, that there was methane in the water prior to drilling, blah, blah, blah. Which is it, boy-o?
read these posts, think about how stupid the average person is, then realize that 50% of the people are more stupid than average. depressing. go live in the woods.
Finally, actually I am an engineer. Tell me where is the fouled drinking water that spans thousands of square miles and millions of people? Do you have any proof? Any whatsoever? Have you read any technical papers? Tell me about your educational background that qualifies you.
The analogy is simple. Society decides the cost and benefits of a technology. In the case of planes people choose to get on them knowing they may crash. We choose to drill wells knowing that casings may fail. That is what this case is, likely the water well casing failed or the gas well casing failed. That is why you need to know more. You need to know what the gas was typed to (bio or thermogenic) and the condition of the casing in the well. The article stated that the company improperly drilled a well. That is likeley a casing/cementing failure or the set too shallow. But tell me since you seem to be an expert finallyproud, which is it boy-o. Or are you content to continue to blah, blah, blah?
MHR83, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Trying to muddy the waters with your engineering speak........For you and the industry, there are always excuses. Your excuses don't wipe away the large bodies of evidence already compiled.
Our family farm is within 30 miles of this area in the article. I am 52 now. As a child you could drink water from anywhere on that farm. Now, we wouldn't feed that water to anyone but you and your family. In fact, why don't we bring you around to each of these sites and have you prove to us how much faith you have in all of your obfuscation.
In fact, that type of test has been tried actually. Employees of various companies were offered to drink the very water they said was safe. And of course they chose not to.
For you MHR83 I have only a big F%^K YOU. Be thankful I can't get my hands on you liar.
PJ, what are we going to do with you? Threatening other posters? I mean seriously, you are mad that someone tries to bring engineering into an engineering problem? There are 60 years of evidence opposing your view. Hundreds of papers, and over 1 million completed frac jobs. But I tell you what, where do you live?
Yesterday I drank from a livestock well that has been in the middle of an oil field for the last 70 years. Fracturing has been done there since the 60's and continues today. As always it tasted fine, and the cows didn't seem to think differently.
After they finish screwing up all the local drinking water, water will become more valuable that oil and gas, and these same "people" will take control of the water that is left and sell it back to the residents.
Water is already being sold for a higher price per gallon than either oil or gasoline. Incredibly, the purity standards for bottled water are even lower than the purity standards for tap water in most areas. The corporate beverage companies such as Coca-cola and Pepsi, take the local tapwater, "filter" it, and sell it back to willing customers for about $1.25 per 12 ounces or the equivalent of over $10.00 a gallon. God forbid you're feeling thirsty at a concert or a movie theatre, that'll cost ya $3.00 a bottle or about $30.00 a gallon. Water is already 'more valuable [than] oil or gas'.
On a volume basis starbucks coffee is much more valuable.
MikeyMike....That is correct. I hope they never do invent that mythical car that runs on water, we will never be able to afford the fill up !
Interesting that the gas companies do not want us to know what the chemicals are that they use. Aww, that's OK. We can trust them, right?
fracfocus.org can show you the chemicals on a well by well basis.
Which oil or gas company do you work for? You seem to be working this blog very heavily, interesting.
Stuck in a hotel, snow outside, and nothing on tv. But more than that, I am tired of people not understanding anything about how they get their energy.
Yeah, but then why don't you add the caveat that proprietary chemicals don't need to be divulged and in fact are not listed on fracfocus.org? If you want us to understand, try offering the whole truth. Or better yet, try explaining how we all get our energy. Mostly, you're just trying to make lethal chemicals and energy corporations sound all nicey nice.
Finally, wow that was completely ridiculous. Ask a question where our energy comes from and I will do my best to answer it. I have been pointing out facts and data throughout this seed, I suggest reading it first. But yes trade secrets aren't necessarily divulged. However that doesn't mean that the court systems can't vet them. But think about this, the chemicals that make up those products can be found through analysis, its really proportions that are the secret.
We get where it comes from; it's the how that is at issue and you are asking us to trust entities that have long rack records of lying and obfuscating issues much like you are doing.
What a shill.
PJ, tell me disprove anything I have said. Telling someone the truth wouldn't seem to make someone a shill. Threatening people in posts, well that makes you something completely different and much worse. Tell me, when was the last time you saw an anger management counselor.
I agree with you all,and richard,it makes the bile rise doesn't it?In Ohio we're already taking waste water from Penna. I want a list of everyone who signs off on this,govt and buisiness.Because when this blows up, and the water is sh--,I and many others will be looking for blood.NOT figuratively. Js husband
"According to Halliburton, 98.47 percent of the material its workers use for fracking consists of water and sand, leaving just 1.53 percent for other materials. Some of the chemicals found in Halliburton's fluid mixture include formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and propargyl alcohol."
Can't this be considered intentional chemical dumping and therefore illegal?
Combine those with the pesticides and herbicides the local farmer drench the place in and you've got a real mess.
Congress exempted natural gas fracking from our environmental laws. Nothing the EPA or anyone else can do. In PA natural gas fracking is even exempted from paying taxes.
Fracking is bad.. unregulated, and if it gains momentum we are going to see lots more problems from it.
Unregulated? I seriously hope you're kidding. Drilling for oil and gas is heavily regulated by the feds and state.
If you're not kidding, you can begin your education here: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/lawsregulations.htm
What about the relation of fracking to earthquakes. A lot of tremors are happening in areas that do not normally have them. hs321, do you have any information on this relationship?
Sorry but it is very unregulated where I live in WV and the governor has actually been dragging his heals on calling a special session about fracing even though the voters want it and state legislators are also doing what they can to limit regulation. Meanwhile, the gas industry lies saying that they know this or that is safe when they really don't know. My favorite lie is that it will lead to lower gas prices. How many of you in these areas have seen your gas bills go down? I sure haven't.
If this industry is so great for everyone then why do they need so much propaganda to convince everyone?
$1000 dollar fines mean nothing to these gas and oil companies. Also, when you live in an area as I do, 20 miles from Titusville PA, and you've watched that "regulation" in action your whole life you can see it's just a feel good word for those that want the product. All that regulation has yet to stop the salt water/oil run offs, the leaking ponds, the fumes, the erosion, the fish kills or anything else they "shouldn't" be doing out here.
Jeffor frac'ing in WV is indeed regulated and natural gas prices have been at record lows for the pass several years
Lol no it is not. There aren't even any rules that keep companies from putting these thngs next to houses. They put one up across the river from our drinking water plant without telling the public. Some regulation.
Actually there are rules governing well spacing. But putting wells next to houses is nothing special. There are actually wells in the middle of beverly hills. They are hidden from view by a facade but they are their. WVU has links to energy and regulations.
Whatever these companies do, they'll never be able to overcome the image of people lighting their tap water on fire.
When it turns out that image was a lie as it was in Gasland it is difficult to undo the damage done.
I've never seen ethylene glycol burn so doubt burning water will be a problem. However, I have seen ethylene glycol kill an animal. Apparently has a sweet taste that's attractive to animals. Very nasty way to die.
Interesting that the fracking company was supplying bottled water and went to great lengths to clean up the aquifer. Has the look of "oops, yeah, um, hey, here's some bottled water and look over there, shiny stuff, please sign this hold harmless agreement."
Surprising to me that people allow such stuff to happen in their back yards in the first place.
Why does anyone settle a lawsuit? Because they don't like the prospects of a jury trial. The innocent don't always win, and given the public misconceptions about the oil industry I would bet that most companies would want to avoid litigation. I mean what about that isn't common sense?
Thank Bush for the Halliburton Act, which allows for 'secret chemicals' to be used in fracking. Fools and idiots, greedy fools and idiots grab the money and forget that they won't survive very long without water. Not one governmental agency is focused on the toxicity of fracking, nor are they focused on the damage to water tables or the wasted water....nope, gotta get that 'energy' and to hell with what is best for the citizens. The FDA and AG dept go after dairy farmers, can't be drinking that raw milk, but when it comes to poisoning billions of gallons of formerly drinkable water they are nowhere to be seen.
"Thank Bush for the Halliburton Act, which allows for 'secret chemicals' to be used in fracking."
OMG! Its the "vast fracking conspiracy" is it now?
FYI, see comment 9.1 above for a link so you can educate your self.
Yup, soooo heavily regulated that water is contaminated. And contaminated water is only happening in PA? Guess the Canadians don't count, right. BTW: your site was a little shy on the fracking info. And, where are the listed chemicals used for fracking? Where is the official website for that?
I think the phrase you are looking for is "Drill Baby Drill".
mygirl, the official website is fracfocus.org. By the way the webbsite came from the industry and yes, fracturing is regulated by both the federal government and the states.
besides the water issue the resultant oil recovered needs to have a much greater amount of energy to refine. So the trade off of energy consumed to produce the oil is somewhat questionable, especially if there is further study showing damage to the water table. In that case the cost of recovery and clean up is enormous and therefore probably not a good idea. Think of the open pit mines left for the citizens to deal with after mining companies went out of business.
mhr: There is very little oversight into fracking currently. The EPA wants to expand the requirements and include several items such as waste water disposal and more importantly, do an impact study on the chemicals used in fracking. I don't trust the industry to police itself, look to the Gulf oil spill of recent memory for an example of that. Currently in North Dakota and Texas they are fracking as many areas as they can possibly can, as quickly as they can and while greed plays an important role, the other reason is to grab as much as they can before the environmental shut-downs start happening.
The Halliburton exclusion was a creation of Dick Cheney, it allowed the fracking companies exclusion from the Clean Water Act. Wonder why? Because they can't guarantee that they won't pollute water tables and they already have as witnesses by the current crop of lawsuits in both the US and Canada. It was also under Bush that the mining companies were allowed to 'table top mine' whereby they blasted the tops of the mountains and made no attempt to control the runoff or destruction of rivers and streams.
Mark, oil from a frac'd well is the exact same as the oil produced prior to the frac. It takes no more energy to refine.
Mygirl, every state regulates fracturing. Tell me why do you think greed plays an important role? And have you ever heard of the API? You still have yet to provide any proof of contamination of frac chemicals caused by the frac process. And you have 60 years worth of data working against you. Funny thing is that prior to that 2005 act frac'ing had the same regulations as what they have now. I mean come on produce some sort of data.
you go mygirl1...............it is all driven by greed without regard for future consequences
Right no regard for the future, that's why oil companies fund alternative energy research and implement best practices to clean up without government intervention of course.
mhr: the lawsuits are happening because the people with the polluted water are spiteful and mean and upset because the mining company is no longer giving them bottled water?
I live in Texas, not too far from the S. Texas fracking boom town. I have a buddy who is a 'landsman' and it's his job to research mineral rights. They move fast because they don't want to pay more for the leases and....because they don't want to have environmental agencies coming down on them. There are several articles which I will have to post in another post after this, mostly concerned with how little regulatory oversight there actually is vis a vis fracking. Many states cite inadequate budgets as a cause. Other states appreciate the money revenues coming in and will look the other way when it comes to environmental concerns.
As to the alternative energy sources which energy companies are investing in....it ain't because they're altruistic, it's because they realize they are dredging a finite resource and...early on they can control the 'alternative energy' so that they have a serious stake in the game. Business isn't in business for love of the earth, business is there to make a profit (note that I am the first to congratulate a business for being profitable, so long as they do so without destroying the environment or the inhabitants of said environment) and history has proven over and over again that pollution caused by industry is not something that industry will address unless forced to do so.
mhr: OK. You asked for some info re fracking and some corroboration for my statements, check out some of the oddball sites like the NY Times. They have a series on fracking and it ain't pretty. Note that there are over 250,000 wells currently being fracked in Texas. Guess how many inspectors? More than a hundred? Nope, 83 inspectors to cover 250,000 fracking sites. So, either you work for the industry or need to do a tad more research.
http://nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp
http://huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/fracking-pollution-bradford-pa-blowout_n_883902.html
http://prnewswire.com/news-releases/clean-air-council-pennsylvania-dep-has-dropped-the-ball-on-fracking-pollution-and-us-epa-should-step-in
mygirl, the nytimes article describes hydraulic fracturing as a drilling process. It is not, in fact it can be done in any well at any time, and does not have to be done in a recently drilled well. That is your source, an article that cannot even define the process it is talking about. The first portion of the article deals with surface water management. Disposal is important which is why self contained water recycling systems have been created to both treat water and recycle it. More information can be found in the Journal of Petroleum Technology.
Next is gas migration to wells. Again no evidence just a statement that it has occurred. And it has, but think of this, in Gasland they lit tap water on fire. But in that case the gas was typed to be coal gas and was not from the nearby producing wells but rather from the coal seams the well was drilled through. Then the next section is the Marcellus, which I addressed with an SPE paper earlier. But my point is that the nytimes article lacks a lot research and a fundamental understanding of the process.
The second article bluntly states, the EPA did not disclose the contamination and also did not know the casue. But again this was a surface equipment failure which caused a spill. This is in no way related to the migration of frac fluids into aquifers was pumped downhole. Think of all the chemicals that are driven across the country every day. A spill is just as likely to happen as any of those.
The third source seems to have been moved.
But tell me what would you expect a frac inspector to do? The fluids are in steel lines and can't be seen. So there really isn't anything to inspect. I mean, its been proven that fluids aren't migrating through the rock. So really the only things to worry about are wellbore failures or surface spills. Surface spills are easy enough to take care of, and wellbore integrity is in the interest of the well owner. So tell me what other regulation would you like to see.
mhr: In a state going through the worse drought on record, Texas has managed to allow fracking which uses millions of gallons of fresh, clean, drinking water while ignoring the dire needs of the cities and towns going dry. But let us put that aside. Where does the contaminated water go? Currently it is buried in an area where, as one little fellow informed me, 'nature can take its course' and by that he meant beneath the water table.
Now, since you seem to be employed by or are involved in the industry, can you ennumerate for me as to what chemicals are used in the process? All the chemicals?
I realize there are toxic chemicals traveling on both the highways as well as rail lines, I remember quite vividly a rail accident where several people died as a result of toxic fumes. I also know that nuclear material travels on the rails, those facts do not gladden my heart nor do they make me sanguine as to the aftereffects of fracking.
As to the articles I posted, there are many more of a similar theme. Just type in Fracking, pollution, lawsuits, contaminated water etc.
My girl, yes I live in Texas I understand the drought. But keep this in mind every year the US uses 150 billion gallons of water to water golf courses. I will be honest I don't care for golf but if others want to play that is fine. But society will have to decide how to use the water we have whether it be on energy or entertainment or something else. That is why the industry has developed ways to recycle frac water on site.
You can see the chemicals on fracfocus.org. That will list them out by wells and you can probably find them in your area. But to start with (this is for wells in west Texas, I would imagine south Texas is similar. You may have HCL (probably around 15%) you will have a crosslinked gel (typically guar as in what they use to thicken ice cream) water of course, you will need a gel breaker at the end (something that breaks the gel so fluids flow easier at the end of the job, not a trade secret so disclosed), also a clay stabilizer may be pumped along with a friction reducer (again not trade secrets). And I am sure there are some more that I left out. But what you need to realize is that once these are placed in the formation either they are broken down and produced, or they stay there. That is the entire point of fracturing to keep everythihg in the formation. These fluid aren't going to migrate up through the cap rock because they are larger than gas molecules and if the gas molecules were able to get out there wouldn't be any gas left in solution. But fracfocus.org is going to be your best place to start.
I live in Texas, and mygirl1 must have been put in a camp to be indoctrinated so thoroughly. She and the NY Times are full of crap if they think 250,000 wells are being fracked in Texas right not. That's just hysteria of the worst kind. Fracking in Texas has been a common practice in Texas since the 1950s, with minimal damage to aquifers. Especially when you compare it to farming.
So, lets see here, golf courses and farming are far more damaging than fracking? Right? Note that the 'trade secret chemicals' ie: 'undisclosed' are not available for public scrutiny. Wonder why? Now, golf courses and farmers aren't using 'secret' chemicals and while I agree that they use tons of water, in the case of farmers, they grow food, something necessary for survival. Watering golf courses and football fields, totally wasteful and a discussion for another day.
As to the number of wells, I got that from the source. I have a map of geologic surveys and drilling etc. for the Eagle Ford shale, and, interestingly enough, seems another 35,000 acres have been acquired recently. You can be real sanguine about fracking, rather like the nuclear fans ignore Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukishima, and a host of less disclosed nuclear 'events' but the fact remains, fracking is not a good thing, if it were why all the lawsuits and shipping of bottled water?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking
http://energyindustryphotos.com/eagle_ford_shale-formation_of_s.htm
Note that according to the photos site, they have the only map showing the extent of the fracking in S. Texas....
Mygirl, you brought up water useage. From that standpoint frac'ing and golf courses are the same. The point was do you choose energy or entertainment was meant to set up that what you may see as waste others do not.
Acreage acquired is not acreage drilled and given the shortage of both crews and equipment, and the fact that you have to study the geology first I wouldn't really worry about acreage. Especially since everything leased is not drilled. And yes I am a nuclear plan. We have two events that happened prior to computers and a nuclear plant hit by an earthquake and a tsunami that didn't suffer a catostrophic meltdown. That would seem to indicate that nuclear energy is safe. Especially when you add in that the reactor on the Kursk didn't meltdown despite being hit by an explosion and spending time on the ocean bottom. Meanwhile all those nuclear plants we currently have hum on as they have for the past 40 years.
Everbody sues. The EPA tried to shut down range resources in Colorado. They alleged contamination and issued an injunction. Then it turned out that not only was the methane in the water well from coal, but that it wasn't even at elevated levels. In this case, sue without proof. That is why you have no proof, you have lawsuits but none that show cause. But of course you have an unpopular industry that most people don't know anything about who would be making up the jury in that lawsuit. It is better to avoid litigation especially when the only cost to you is bottled water. After all the stella awards were started by someone spilling hot coffee on themselves and suing McDonalds. Don't you think they would have bought water to avoid litigation?
Back to the trade secret chemicals. The government can indeed find what is in them. It just has to be done through legal channels. They can also get samples of the fluids and break out the chemical base.
Mygirl, I went through the wikipedia article. There are a lot of errors, and the Daily Beast does not count as a reasonable source.
The second site gave me a 404 error do you have another link?
Easy way to know if water is safe to drink. Have officials from Cabot show up with their children and grandchildren and stay in Dimock for a week. If the Cabot officials let their own family members drink the tap water then it might be okay.
fracing the spelling is fracing, you know it comes from the word fracture!
Of course it comes from the word 'fracture', but the way you're spelling it, it looks like it would be pronounced "frasing". Linguistically, it makes sense to add the 'k' to create the hard C sound in the middle of the word. In general, c followed by a vowel (especially an i) is generally pronounced as 's' or the 'soft c ' sound. Examples: spacing or tracing, as opposed to backing and tracking.
DC is correct, there is no k in frac'ing. However there is also an apostrophe.
it's a freaking made up word!!! It can be spelled however!! mhr83, you are most definetely a troll for the industry...you must be getting paid by the post on here...good for you, you have a job!! I think the idea above is the best one....MarcieB...let the greedmonsters bring their children to town and let them all drink, bathe, and wash their clothes in the water for a few weeks...if they will do that, then I would believe that the water is just fine..otherwise, not so much.
former, why would anyone pay someone to post on this webpage? I mean really, what effect in the physical world does this page have? You are way over-gauging the importance of anonymous blogging. The word is spelled frac'ing as in a shortened version of fracturing. You seem to need anger mangement.
as some one who makes his living in the oilfield....it is most definitely FRACKING
South, I am sorry but its not.
in thirteen years in the oil and gas industry, I have never personally seen in any correspondence the process of fracking referred to as "fracing".
Sooooooooo :finger:
You should really elaborate on what you do. I mean if you aren't actually involved in frac'ing then I doubt you would really be seeing it.
Hmmm, sounds like a Julia Roberts movie.........
Actually Erin Brokovich got nailed for $450,000 in legal fees over wells on a campus she said were causing cancer in students. Turned out she had no proof and when they did do a study they found nothing out of the ordinary. The school sued to get her to cover legal fees.
I cannot believe the stupidity of the comments on this page. Fracking is safe and does not harm drinking water because of the current safeguards. The people who have been affected in this article were victims of initial fraking procedures that had not been carefully regulated. This is an exceptional case that was definately abusive.
However, todays' process has very effective controls. The typical fracking well is a mile deep, well below aquifers (which are generally within 200 feet of the surface. Cement casings are now used and double wall pipes are placed inside the cement casings. None of the liquids used in the fracking process with todays' methods are remotely close to aquifers.
I challenge anyone to provide similar results to those in this article where fracking wells have been sunk in the last 5 years or sooner.
Meantime, let's all go back to living in caves. All this modern technology is certain to kill us all! Therefore, to be really safe, throw away your cell phone, don't use any electrical appliances, nor should you drive a car or ride a bus or subway. We are all doomed by technology. AND, the Eartyh is flat! Please take care not to fall off.
It's thinking like this that let coal companies tear down our mountains and fill in our mountain streams with the rubble. Hey as long as Chuck has a job then screw the rest of us right?
Yep Chuck, you are the ONLY person that knows anything. We just live in it so wtf do we know right?
Who pays you to post this stuff, Chuck? Exxon?
Acutally an SPE paper just released used 11,,000 cases of microseismic in the Marcellus to prove that microseismic events happen over 2000 ft. from the deepest wells in each county. The UK released its environmental study showing frac'ing safe for shale plays. Aside from that this has been going on for the last 60 years, and over 1.5 million jobs have been done. We are still waiting for anyone to tie frac'ing to contamination. As in the case above any liability to the oil company stems not from fracturing but from wellbore integrity. So please if anyone has any actual proof that frac'ing chemcals somehow get through impermeable rock 2200 ft. away from aquifers by all means present something.
I can't believe your stupidity. Clearly you are a shill for the oil and gas industry, along with that other shill mhr83. No matter how you slice it, pumping large amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground is not healthy. I'm sure you and mrh83 would love to drink water from a well that is adjacent to an area where f****ing is being done. And your tired arguments about it being safe are just that, tired. Those of us with some intelligence are long past believing the lies of the oil and gas industry. Frankly, people like Chuck and mrh83 make me want to vomit and our society would be far better off without them and their ilk.
Rick, prove anything you just said. Which arguments are tired and why have they been disproven? I have drinken water pumped from a well running into a cattle trough in the middle of the Permian Basin. Pumping units all around, and yet the cattle are fine. Rick define large? After all everything is about concentration.
You seem to fit the profile of intellectually lazy, and have no desire to really learn anything new. You depend on being spoon fed information from whichever source fits your political beliefs. You are no different than the tea party.
But for your information, the SPE paper is Hydraulic Fracturing Height Growth: Real Data. SPE 145959. But I am sure you have no interest in reading it, you are no better than those who deny climate change.
lol, look who's talking about being spoon-fed their info...
Fly, actually I am an engineer. My information comes from experience. Tell me, where does yours come from?
mhr83, this stuff is going on right now in our communities. We don't need studies and papers when all we have to do is open our eyes. So you see my info comes from experience as well.
Tell me Jeffor, how much time have you spent studying rock mechanics? How about casing strengths? Do you know the rules regarding surface casing in your area? My point is you really don't know anything, that is where papers and studies come in. To help educate.
Chuck, you've clearly been watching too many "clean natural gas" commercials.
Hey -- I've got a great bridge to sell you :)
Yeah it makes you wonder why an industry would have to have full blown propaganda campaigns if they were so beneficial.
Also, prove to us that it is safe and doesn't harm drinking water.
Its been proven. Both here and in the UK you can find 100's of scientific papers on fracturing. Tell me, do you have any proof?
Interesting. Seems the people are against you mhr83. Seems the people don't want frac'ing. You ask if the people have proof that it's not safe. The people don't need proof that it's not safe. If the people don't want it, that's all they need.
Idaho, this would seem to be a very limited sample population. Tell me what about the rest of the country that isn't on this page. Do they count? And what about the land owners who are perfectly happy, you know those not mentioned in the article. They greatly outnumber these. 1.5 million frac jobs and this is a single case. Tell me, what makes you think the people don't? Or do you think if they actually knew facts about fracking (as most people here don't) their opinions may change?
Like I said if this industry was so great for all of us then why do they need extravagant propaganda campaigns to convince us otherwise? If it's so fabulous shouldn't we be seeing said positive results?
What propaganda campaign? Could you elaborate? Also the unemployment rate in oil towns/states (ND, Midland, Bakersfield) is a paltry 5%. That would seem to be great results. Especially coupled with low natural gas prices.
What propaganda!? Are you serious? The gas industry has been in full brainwash mode all year. TV commercials and full page newspaper adds to begin with. And not the kind of adds that say, "hey buy our product", (because they are selling none of course) but rather the old, "we are your friends" message. Oh boy a huge industry wants to be my friend!! When can I add the natural gas industry to my facebook friends?
Also, as I pointed out to you before I am not dumb enough to fall for your tactic of using other, unrelated studies and examples and applying it to a new area. What does North Dakota and Bakersfield have to do with WV and Pennsylvania? These places are thousands of miles apart and I don't trust your stats to begin with.
Sure you might be able to find papers on fracing but most of it is outdated as the methods change from year to year. Each site/region is different. Different geology, topology, etc. You can't do a study in the UK and then say its true everywhere in the world. That's not the least bit scientific. That's guesswork and wishful thinking.
You know its amazing, people lie about the oil industry for years and once they actually bother to be more public about what they do people like you think its propaganda. Prove it wrong. For you to know it is propaganda you must know its wrong. In fact, prove anything you have said. Everything you mention shows a lack of understanding. Quit being lazy. If you want to really know what companies are doing go get a job working for them, then you will be able to report first hand. But back to propaganda, there is a portion of business called brand management. Tell me is any company that practices this spouting propaganda? Because I would think most of the business world would disagree with you.
You really don't think that there have not been any studies on the Marcellus do you? I mean really, the largest gas play in the country and you don't think anyone has bothered to study the geology? Let me guess you didn't really like science in school. But again, the shales in the UK are actually quite similar to those here. But again you are dealing with the same stimulation procedures and the same product lines. You also have water wells in the area and you are studying where those fluids are in the formation. Its amazing that you just absolutely hate science that doesn't fit your political views. You must be a member of the teaparty. Do yourself a favor, search ATCE 2011 and go to the technical papers section. You will be able to view all of the papers presented and their first page. Research would do you some good.
When are we going to stand up to the corporations?
What are YOU doing to stand up to the corporations?
If you have a method, an idea, spread the word.
"fracking" has been around for decades. the difference now days is the PSI has doubled or even tripled in some cases, newer bigger pumps.
Yeah this is another shady industry tactic that they are trying to use in Morgantown, WV. They say. "oh drilling is safe" but they don't mention that they are speaking of old techniques that they aren't using any more. Truth is they know nothing about what wil happen one they have sucked the shale reserves dry. At least Morgantown is trying to fight their shady tactics.
I would advise you all to be diligent and pay attention if fracing is brought up in your community you will have little chance to stop it. They will put up these drill pads as quickly as possible and keep you in the dark as long as they can. When Morgantowners realized what was happening we all spoke out and tried to introduce some laws to protect our drinking water. The gas companies reaction? The sued the city and withdrew a donation that they had pledged to a local grade school. Yeah it's great for the community.
Jeffor, what is this new technique they are using? Please tell me about it, horizontal drilling is not new and I was under the impression that is how they were exploiting shale plays. By the way, when the gas leaves the reservoir the rock is still there so I don't really expect anything to happen. After all there are shallower fields all across the country long since abandoned.
Actually putting up a pad is independent of fracturing. I was in Morgantown a couple weaks ago, it seems to be doing great.
Doing great in your eyes. This was done mostly in secret. Most of the townspeople didn't know this facility was moving in until after construction started. If this was such a great thing then why not herald the arrival instead of sneaking in like thieves?
And even if it's doing well now how will it be in the future? No one knows and that's the problem. Well not for you since you don't have to live here and drink the water.
You do realize that a pad is just a cleared space of ground right? There is no facility. Its literally a cleared patch of ground with a road leading to it. You really need to read up.
In any other developed nation, this dangerous procedure would have been outlawed the very day it was first invented. But not in America... We've gone from "land of the free" to "land of the highest bidder," and our children will suffer all the more for it.
Really because the UK just finished its study stating that shale fracturing was safe. So the UK is not developed? By the way, other countries to use fracturing include France, Germany, Poland, Norway, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Kazackstan, Canada Mexico....you see where I am going with this.
Can they light their water on fire in those countries?
That would seem to be irrelavent. Especially since the UK green lighted shale fracturing this year following the same type of environmental report that the EPA is putting out in 2012. But further, lighting tap water on fire (as in gasland) has been proven not related to fracturing. For example in gasland the well in question went through 4 different coal seams. And when the gas was typed (same confidence interval as fingerprinting) it was found to be coal gas.
Hey mrh83 why don't you tell us what industry employs you?
mhr83,
Shale fracturing is one thing but the frac'ing taking place in Canada and quite a few places are oil sand areas that don't really have the same impenetrability that you have mentioned with the shale formations
Mark, its permeability. And actually shale has less permeability than oil sands. But that would seem to be beside the point because oil sands don't flow naturally which is why they are mined. Rick, I have been investing in the oil and gas industry for the last 15 years. You should always no where you put your money, and as an engineer I just enjoy learning about the industry. But tell me, why do you feel that were I employed in oil and gas my points would have less value. After all I have provided more evidence than most posters. Perhaps you aren't interested in hearing the way things actually are?
mhr83,
It is spelled "know"...................knowing that you desire to profit from your investments it is easy to see that you're tending to color your investigative research to fit your perspective, it is what they call in most cases "conflict of interest", and this is well known to cause people to ignore certain information to advance their agenda.
Mark, the sign of a weak argument is trying to correct the typing of another. Tell me what engineering data can you present to the opposite. After all I am an engineer and I am happy to show you proof of why every assertion you have made so far is wrong. Tell me where is your proof? BTW you are also invested in the oil industry (if you have any sort of index fund, retirement fund, 401k etc.) so doesn't that mean that you have a conflict of interest?
mhr,
your weak arguement has been further exposed today with BP citing destruction of evidence by Halliburton with the gulf oil spill incident. Trying to qualify your statement by stating you are more qualified to understand the subject by being an engineer is as weak as circus lemonaide.
Now did you want to explain to us how the "reseasrchand conclusions"" conducted by the oil industry is suppose to be trusted?
So even if it's so safe in the UK how is that relevant to West Virginia? Are the same exact techniques and equipment being used? Is the earth here exactly the same as that studied in the UK?
In the Mississippi it would be safe to swim with a raw steak tied to your neck. Would you do the same in a crocodile infested river?
Maybe after all the shale gas is gone, the formation will collapse, and Morgantown will slide into a giant sinkhole of burning couches
Mark, where should I begin? I have studied fracture mechanics, the PKN and KGD fracture models, leakoff, proppant distribution and its relation to stoke's law, cementing, casing design, stratigraphy, sedimentology, etc. All of those things that come with an engineering degree. So mark how much of fracturing have you studied? Have you at least read some sort of technical journal or paper? By the way, today's development really means nothing. But perhaps you could elaborate why it does? And you mispelled lemonade.
Jeffor, the Earth doesn't know its in WV or in the UK. Shales can have similar properties and the pumping processes are similar. Still waiting for you to provide some support for your evidence. BTW the API has been researching fracturing for decades. If you want some US research then I suggest reading something. Also the word out right now is that the EPA study will have similar results.
South, no the formation won't collapse. The rock strata is still there. Gas is highly compressible and not bearing the overburden load. Where this long beach subsidence could be an issue but one handled by water reinjection.
dude, i was being facetious, don't get all technical on me, I can quote all that crap as well. You might invest in it and read up on the industry. I make my living in the industry.
mhr,
I have numerous doctorates in geology and specialize in fractureology of Shale formations? Did you also know that everyone is James Bond while on line? So I guess I can assume that I "topped" you for expertise, I also forgot to mention my literary works and received numerous prises for my insight into this subject, as well as several of my publications being printed in Scientific America.
I will try to explain to you, slowly, why falsefied information will effect the results of an study performed. I believe you have stated in previous articles that you relied on publications from the petroleum industry, with the current question of destruction of pertinent evidence by petroleum companies would make most reasonable people somewhat leary of depending on their research. That is why conflicts of interest while doing studies into that subject is questionable.............got it?
BTW..."leak off" is two words / you should capitalize Stoke's / you misspelled....mispell.....epic fail
South, I have to ask what do you do? But by all means please give me your fracturing background.
Mark, sadly fractureology is not a major. Also someone with literary works should be able to spell prizes. So let me get this straight, you are in no way for using experts in any industry to actually talk about that industry? Right that sounds good. Tell me what about the shale fracturing study in the UK? That was performed by the government. Tell me if the EPA study released in 2012 doesn't say what you want will you believe it? You ignore all data that doesn't fit your political views, you are ridiculous. And sadly I bet you vote however the tv tells you to.
mhr,
Sadly you don't pick up on sarcasm well, don't worry there are always some who
straggle to understand humor and concepts like conflicts of interest. No you
didn't "get it straight", I don't really understand how you extrapolate
petroleum industry publications into "all experts" in
the industry. Reading for comprehension may prove to be of benefit for your
further studies as it may be hard for you to see the difference
between independent research and researchers who are employed by and make their
living from the petroleum industry. As an example, the majority of all scientific
experts agree with the fact the we have global warming with the exception of the
research that was conducted and paid for by the oil industry......go figure. If
you had in fact studied the subject at any reputable university or college you
would already know this. Additionally any conclusions you reach must have the
same results duplicated by independent researchers, this is known as the
"scientific method" in most circles. With
that being said I can only imagine the research you have conducted was done on
your own without the aid of anyone with a modicum of
intelligence. Possibly you would like to consult with your TV for your next reply............on further review it is incorrect to start a sentence with "And"
I hope that everyone got a good nights sleep last night. Interesting reading, but sounds like everyone needed a time out.
Mark, tell me is the Duke university study that shows elevated methane in some wells considered independent? If that is, then wouldn't microseismic data showing no events near aquifers from the University of Texas also be? I received my degree from the Colorado School of Mines, you may find them here at www.mines.edu. I suggest you readup on the fact that they are considered one of the best engineering schools in the country. I also sent you an SPE paper, and if you would like insight into my library on stimulation all you have to do is ask. You continue to only trust sources that show your political views. Also, the rule regarding beginning sentences with "and" lost traction long ago. It is an excellent way to contrast two points. If you try to correct someone's grammar I suggest you do it correctly.
Wonder if the corporation would make the same claim if their CEO and board members had to drink the water on national TV. Corporations are ruining this country, unfortunately, because they don't operate in integrity or for the greater good. Water is our most precious commodity on this planet - we can't survive without it.
Drinking water containing some methane won't harm you. Someone highly sophisticated should know that.
mhr,
Drinking water contains many chemicals in small amounts, the concern here is not so much about "some" amounts in the water but when it reaches a toxic level, anyone with common sense should know that.
Sure, but cases of menthane contamination have shown elevated but not toxic levels.
The Ceo's and board members of companies that do the fracking should spend a couple of years in the direct area of fracking, this should include the families. If they enjoy the monetary let them enjoy the results of their process.
They do, everyone involved in field operations lives around the field. And since most oil in this country is produced by independents those smaller companies typically have bosses living near their fields.
That's funny all the gas companies working here in West Virginia are from Oklahoma and I only know of one or two people personally from the area that work in the industry. Where are all these jobs and benefits we are supposed to be seeing?
The jobs are there, the oil and gas industry employs 9.3 million people across the country. Benefits come with jobs, and as we have seen in the natural gas market lower prices.
Says who? Where do these numbers come from? Like I said I've been in Morgantown most of my life and I only know of two guys that were truck drivers and there are the handful of guys that make service calls but that's it. No job boom here at all. As I said you mostly see out-of-staters doing this and it seems most of the money goes out of state with them. They even try to fight fees and regulations that watch out for the local people, their economy and their environment.
Jeffor, that would be the API and the federal government. But again, for the oil industry to be beneficial to the country it doesn't necessarily have to be providing jobs everywhere. But you are going to have service guys, and drivers. But you also have to have a field office in the area to take care of the day to day. Performing well tests, fixing beam units, trouble shooting wells etc. Morgantown is a pretty good size, you aren't going to know everyone.
The key personnel for the companies do not live anywhere near the operations....period. By key I refer to the CEO and his like. What a joke you are mhr83. You always have an answer to defend the oil and gas folks.
If the evidence could all be brought to bear in this forum, it would more than fill your home as$hole.
PJ, key personnel are the ones who actually do the work at the wellbore. So let me get this straight, CEO's are key personnel unless they have large pay packages then the individual workers are the key people.
I say DRAG all Government officials who had anything to do and the businesses to COURT and let them have at it. If on TV there is better chance of JUSTICE.
All to be TELEVISED LIVE so the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY see the corruption that is going on in the land of DICTATORS. Who think they can own and run people to REPRESSION.
Oh my.......what would Nancy Grace think? Certainly no shenannigans would be involved there, right?
Why should these companies stop? No one goes to jail. When caught red handed. They pay a fine, writting it off their taxes and move on. It usually takes a whisle blower to turn them into the state, which is few and far between. Koch Brothers refinery is a good example of this in Texas. Lying to the state, with a whistle blower testifying against them. They paid a fine, whistleblower no longer works for them and they move on. With no one going to jail.
In West Virginia most of our major politicians make too much money from coal and gas companies to do anything about it. West Virginians have been very concerned with fracing and the governor did everything he could to delay a session to set up even basic regulations. Money, money, money.
Here is a solution.
When a corporate pimp or his government whore tells the people that anything is safe, the pimp and/or whore must be subjected to the same chemical, industrial procedure (ie Frack under the CEOs homes), air or water quality conditions.
Living in the middle of PA where this is happening I see the only ones complaining are those who were not smart enough to have gotten on the lease band wagon and allowed drilling on their farms. The farmer next door said yes is a multi-millionaire and the person who said no is now having a case of sour grapes.
Fracking is totally safe and does not harm the water supply. The media will not tell the truth on this matter and the idiots who believe the major media are also the idiots who voted for Obama this last election. By the way how is your change coming along? More jobs, more green industries, better work and environment? Boy are you stupid still.
Fracking makes us energy independent of the muslims (Obama's close friends) and has produced thousands of very high paying jobs here in central PA. There are help wanted signs all over. But liberal idiots do not want people to be independent and definitely to make enough money to live on. Well the energy companies pay better wages than the crappy unions do for liberals and the benefits are much better. And it is all safe. I do not work for these energy companies but do have a business in water quality here and guess what it is not adversely affected at all. So get lost you libs and America haters and drill baby drill and get the USA independent of the muslims, Obama and the liberals who want to destroy the USA.
Yes we sure were stupid to vote for Obama because by golly ol' Sarah "I can see Alaska" was a sure fire winner. LMAO at the look on her face when she was asked what kind of material she reads. Well Lawrence Lee Huber (a red neck name if I've ever heard one) you can crack on liberals all you want but the fact is we are typically smarter and better educated than douches like you.
Indiana
Yes, we can all see that just looking at your english writing skills. Brilliant people!!! (heh heh)brilliant
tiger u ignorant fool u are incapable of of comprehension. untill u learn to function above a 1st grade level do the world a favor and have ur mommy change the password on her computer so u can't interrupt the adults while they are talking.
In actuality very little is known about the effects of fracking. So you are somehow a geological engineer and not tainted by energy money? The only reason this procedure is being used is because there is tons of corporate money behind this venture. We shouldn't be boring holes in the ocean floor miles deep and we shouldn't be fracking at such depths either. We simply do not know the potential consequences. We did find out we can't do repairs a mile underwater so how would you fix something miles deep in the Earth? When your own water is contaminated not going to have a bit of pity for you.
That is just a pathetic comment. Absolute proof of your total lack of intellect!
Yeah they love to tells about all the jobs and cheaper gas yet I might know (indirectly) two people in my town that work in that industry and my gas bill certainly hasn't gone down. On the contrary it's increased this year like it does every year. Yeah the gas industry really looks out for us.