Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 21, 2009 at 14:02

LOL, your calculator skills overwhelm me sometimes and I'm your friend!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 21, 2009 at 14:10

jffree - I think she was just trying to cozy up to me because she heard about the cowboy Christmas card that might be passed on to her. ha, ha 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on December 21, 2009 at 14:25

ROFL!! That is a state SECRET (shhhhh) known only to a very few.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TXsharon on December 24, 2009 at 19:10

Excuse me, but it seems that the same disturbing numbers continue to turn up all over the Barnett Shale in additional studies so please don't break your arm patting yourself on the back there.

In fact, the toxic emissions from drilling activity caused the TCEQ to revise their policy for handling odor complaints. You can read all about it and the health impacts on my blog of course.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on December 22, 2009 at 5:22

You know, GHS has remained a place open for discussion Ive even highlighted TXSharon's stuff. Any inability for her message to gain traction is not a reflection on GHS. Which site is open to posting both sides? Hmmm.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TXsharon on December 24, 2009 at 19:15

Excuse me, but that's not exactly true, Keith. I still have the email from you complaining about outside links because you wanted to keep people on your site rather than allowing them access to information off your site. In addition, you threatened to not highlight anything from me unless I removed all outside links which makes it rather difficult to substantiate.

However, you guys go right ahead and distort reality because eventually the truth always surfaces.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 22, 2009 at 4:51

This journey is OURS to take, the information to leave or take. The members can CHOOSE to stay & fight for what they believe, or take flight & leave. Just saying. 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TXsharon on January 1, 2010 at 5:13

The fact that my "agenda"--better regulation of an out of control industry--didn't gain traction here is a reflection of the industry friendly slant of this site.

MY Agenda: I am a mineral owner and a surface owner. My "agenda" is to have an opportunity to develop my minerals without ruining my land and my family's health.

What is YOUR agenda?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on December 21, 2009 at 16:07

Calling that a research site is a stretch to say the least.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 21, 2009 at 18:53

Research site... yeah... um... if that's a research site I have fifteen pages of isomers of half a dozen compounds to share with you... and make it out to to be a gazillion different things... yeah...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on December 21, 2009 at 19:10

Gary, I read Dr Armendariz's study but it was based on some fairly broad assumptions rather than detailed facts. Also, I do not recall the study dealing with toxins but rather NOx & VOC emissions which contribute to ozone formation. This is the trouble with people like TX Sharon that choose to make up their own information or attempt to confuse the facts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TXsharon on December 24, 2009 at 19:18

The numbers in his study were confirmed by the state. However, his study no longer matters because other studies have shown similar results and now the state is so concerned they have changed their policy.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page