Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stevew on August 27, 2010 at 18:25

Thanks for posting this. I continue to be dismayed by the strength of the Gasland fans and the weakness of the ng industry's response.

I have been waiting for the industry to ramp up a response. But, their whimpering speaks volumes. Maybe they don't refute Gasland because they can't?

A couple of years ago I thought NG was the future of energy. It's very disappointing to read that may not be the case. The industry is losing the "hearts and minds" battle, and in my opinion, it is not even trying. The science of fracking is way too complex for most people to really understand. Right now, the most believable presentation (to outsiders) is coming from the Gasland gang.

The "Debunking Gasland" site is poorly I would not have paid for it (years ago I was a lobbyist, so I know how campaigns are won and lost) This pro industry site won't convince anyone - but these sites posted by sesport are doing their job. Dam I am pizzed! Why can't the industry make a decent webpage defending their livelihood? ?? Are they that beaten?

Go to both websites and download their pdfs and see which one you find most persuasive (not which one you want to believe, which one states their case better?)

For example, the Debunking Gasland pdf is only 2 pages long. Two pages. The PDF debunking the debunkers of Gasland is 39 pages, with many hyperlinks to go directly to source articles. If I was a reporter I'd believe the anti site way before I'd believe the Energy in Depth site.

Grrrr .... I'm going outside and grabbing my axe and cutting firewood. It's past midnight on the Left Coast and chopping firewood may help me relax. It's already starting to get chilly at nights.

thanks sesport,

logger

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 28, 2010 at 2:07

logger - Sounds like you've got an axe to grind? Hey, how much do you charge for a cord of cut wood, it's been a little chilly in the mornings down here, too. Perhaps more importantly, do you deliver? lol

Yeah, I'm not one for pretending the elephant isn't in the room, let alone that it's starting to make a stink that may drive us all out.

One of the things that I noticed at the EPA's website, under the link for stakeholders meetings, is that it appears that those of us here in HS country aren't going to be afforded the opportunity to bend ears. Meetings were scheduled for Ft. Worth, Colorado and Pennsylvania, but I haven't yet seen any scheduled for us. hmmmmm...

While I in no way consider myself an expert in fracking, I've read enough to know the process is one with multi-steps, from transport of frac chemicals, to injection, to recovery and storage, to more transportation to a disposal site and injection there. Each phase in the process carries it's own risks. There are also numerous service providers, each with their own records of accountability. Additionally, the geologic formations are very dissimilar.

I sooooooo loathe broad brushing, and think it's unfair that this issue is being handled in such a manner. Kind of like saying ALL public schools are failures, or all children in a given group can't/won't succeed in school. geeeezzz, Get real, folks.

Now is the time to start making noise if we're inclined & committed to this.

Here's a link to the EPA's Hydraulic Frac investigation website. Information is provided for contacting them if we want to have our say. Sure wish Dr. Hanson would be asked to give his input.

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturin...

Here's the proposed timeline for the study.

"Proposed Study Timeline
With input from the July and August meetings, EPA plans to complete the study design by September 2010. ORD expects to initiate the study in January 2011 and have the initial study results available by late 2012. "

chop safely, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 28, 2010 at 11:56

Logger, the industry (or any industry) will always loose because in general people are anti-industry. How else can you explain people swallowing the Gasland garbage. Also, it is an unfair fight because the anti-industry people tell blatant lies with no qualms while the industry feels the need to be more factual in their statements.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pudgie on August 28, 2010 at 1:51

I guess through my ignorance, I just don't understand why we in the ng part of the world don't lobby as the coal industry does. There is no such thing as clean burning coal and we know that ng would much least harmful to the world than gasoline, diesel or anything going now. Propane is made from crude oil so we don't need that. I know the site manager, Keith is very intelligent so why don't we start our own lobby or am I missing something here? I certainly don't mind writing or calling what pitiful persons we call our local congress or senate.They are all in the hands of who hands of who has the most money and the people back in their districts that can put them back in their confo. jobs where they vote therselvs comfortable paychecks'very good health insurance' and so on very .They make trhe laws and here isw not much folks can do avbout it. We are going to have to makea stande and I am ready The legaly cway is to votethem out,Stra Sthing is neveryonewants to vote everyones congres out but not their own.They are masmastes at getting things done in their district which puts them baqck in the same old rut that t6heyr life.!!!Its a shame but it5s reaqlity!!Any getting back to cng or Lng there is definately a future for the globalfwarming' our transportaing.power generation and a lot of

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 28, 2010 at 2:24

Pudgie - The task has been assigned to the EPA and the funds already allocated. It has already begun, and changing players on Capitol Hill may have little impact. We should be voicing our opinions to the EPA and do all we can to make sure this study is conducted fairly so that it's reliability & validity are strong.

One of the other things that I noted on this website is that the EPA cites 2 references on it's 2 page fact sheet, one of which is a study done in Wyoming concerning coalbed methane. There again, a horse of a different color.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/hfresearchstudyfs.pdf

"REFERENCES:
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_coalbedmethanestudy.html"
thanks, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stevew on August 28, 2010 at 10:38

Pudgie, any outreach helps - and your elected officials will keep a letter on file with any bills.

The coal industry is highly unionized - natural gas is not. Officials can get money from the coal company AND the union representing the workers. Plus, union members will often go door to door and write letters to the editor. But, natural gas is very different. We have no union to fund candidates with and our landowners and workers are not very organized at all. It's not even a fair lobbying fight :)

Thanks for the links, sesport. I want to see the science and there may not be easy answers in each geographic areas. Maybe drilling is safe in Louisiana but not in NY because of ground formations, ground water or whatever.

IMO, the debate is at a crossroads and from where I sit the anti natural gas groups are much better organized. It's really up to the industry to create a unified response that we can follow. If there are severe problems with fracking lets recognize it and fix them where we can. I agree with others that say this is too good a fuel to give up on, but it may have many more problems than I thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on August 29, 2010 at 3:28

logger- I've been checking out the links on the EPA's site posted above. I found this pdf regarding the criteria for site selection for this study. STAKEHOLDER INPUT IS SOLICITED & WANTED! Seems to me it would be a good idea to get our two cents in, and it would be most helpful if those in the know add theirs.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/poster_site_criteria_poster_8...

from the box in the lower left corner labeled "EPA REQUESTS YOUR FEEDBACK."

on the proposed criteria to select case study sites for our hydraulic
fracturing study. If you have comments on unique characteristics of
your region that EPA should consider when planning the study, or if
you would like to recommend a particular location, please submit your
comments
1. by email to hydraulic.fracturing@epa.gov
2. by placing them in the drop box located near the registration area
3. by mail to Jill Dean, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mailcode 4606M,
Washington, DC 20460.

Sure would like to recommend that they talk with Dr. Hanson.

80)

• ▶ Reply