Comment

Comment by TXsharon on March 24, 2012 at 9:49am

At the time I posted this, I didn't what to take the time to provide a link to where the state supported the accuracy of the SMU study. But yesterday I dug that link up and thought I might as well share it here too.

TCEQ Data Report in April 2009 Supports Accuracy of SMU/EDF Emissio...

TCEQ Data Report

And here are some TCEQ videos from the Eagle Ford Shale: http://www.texassharon.com/2012/03/20/tceq-videos-show-voc-emission...

Comment by Dion Warr, CPL on August 15, 2009 at 10:01am

(Edited once as to format and proofed from 8/14/2009, 6:49 pm)

TXSharon:

Too bad. You posted. I will respond. You may cease the 'dialogue' by not posting. Otherwise, I will continue to speak as to the issues. Nothing like facts to get in the way of an agenda, whether typed in bold or not.

You can't speak on the facts; you don't know them. An opinion is just that, and citing it all caps, bold, underlines and hyperlinks still makes it an opinion. You state that the industry reviewed the study. You state that the TCEQ confirmed the findings.

As reported July 8-9, 2009 by Mike Lee of the Star-Telegram: (excerpted)

"As debate continues about how much gas drilling contributes to air pollution in North Texas, state regulators want to make sure it’s clear that they disagree with a study that concluded that drilling creates about as much pollution as car and truck traffic.

The study by SMU professor Al Armendariz used data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s inventory of air pollution. Commission officials say that although his numbers might be correct, Armendariz took them out of context, and they think his conclusions are flawed."

So much for that 'confirmation' thing.

To continue:

"Commission officials take exception with several areas:

First, Armendariz’s numbers combine all the different types of chemicals that help form ozone, which is the Metroplex’s biggest air pollution problem, commission officials said.

It is important to consider volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) separately, said Susana Hildebrand, chief of the commission’s air quality section.

Nitrogen oxides are produced by vehicle exhaust and drilling. Volatile organic compounds can come from those sources but also occur naturally."

So much for blowing off JHH. Next...

"Second, Armendariz compares pollution numbers from different geographic regions: the western side of the Metroplex, the 21-county area that includes the Barnett Shale and so forth.

"He kind of mixed and matched numbers," Hildebrand said...

The commission calculates that about 1,500 tons of air pollutants (VOCs and NOX combined) are released each day in the nine-county Metroplex area.

Compared with that, the 90 tons a day from gas drilling is a small portion."

So much for that 'embarrassed pretender know-nothing' Sesport.

To be fair, there are elements in the press release that acknowledge issues raised in Dr. Armendariz's study, especially as to pointing to lack of regulation in the rural areas (which are generally not within the non-attainment area). And State Senator Wendy Davis (listed as a frequent critic of the commission) makes her points in the article as well.

You mention that industry reviewed the study; I am sure you know that 'their kind' of experts largely refuted it. But what do they know, they're sellouts. Knowing about this article, I am sure you will now trash and dismiss the TCEQ as 'industry sellouts' henceforth.

Why wade through all the comments? Why let the facts get in the way of a good agenda? Is this clear enough for you?

Merriam-Webster's defines an apologist as "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something". I speak and write in defense of the facts, and those who ask legitimate questions and those who challenge and seek account for statements of those purported as fact but can offer nothing but dismissive language and worthless talking point rhetoric. I challenge you to find fault in what I present here. I challenge your experts to deny what I state here as far as the chemicals and chemistry.

To the extent I defend these people and these facts, I am an apologist. I apologize for nothing.

Comment by TXsharon on August 14, 2009 at 4:04pm

I don't have time to wade through all your comments as it would take hours. BTDT with you and it all gets convoluted--like it is now.

Your response listing molecules had no bearing on the toxins emitted or the fact that many of them are harmful to humans--it's just you showing off. I don't pretend to know what every single toxin is or what it contains because I'm not a doctor. That is why I listen to the EXPERTS like Dr. Colborn who provided an opinion to go with the video and the TCEQ who listed the toxins found in the emissions.

People viewing the video SHOULD be scared! These toxins are going into our air unchecked when there is a simple, easy remedy if industry would only take that step.

I understand that your preference would be that this issue not be exposed. You would rather the toxins not be listed.

You do not need to explain a peer reviewed study to me. I know what it means and I know that industry reviewed the study. The findings in the study were confirmed by the TCEQ.

Your message is diluted by your consistently being an apologist. I knew when I posted the video here that it would not be well received by some but I also know that your kind are not the only ones who frequent this site.

I really don't have any need to continue this dialogueewith you.

Comment by Dion Warr, CPL on August 14, 2009 at 3:34pm

Sharon:

Well, at least Sesport isn’t purporting to know something by blindly posting it and then claiming ignorance when it comes to actually having to account for what he’s posted. And let’s not point out the obvious absurdity of having a discussion about chemicals muddled up needlessly with things like, you know, chemistry.

While I appreciate your false praise and backhanded acknowledgement of my education and good sense, what I am trying to point out to you is that (IMO) your being an activist should be less about attempting to scare the bejesus out of people with ominous chopper whirring and long and intimidating chemical names and more about honestly and intellectually discussing the issues with both the people that don’t understand and the people who do.

In two replies you succeed in looking down your nose at someone whom you deign as “an uninformed pretending to know something” and then knock someone else who ACTUALLY knows something, for knowing something about it. By exclusion, this only leaves room in your world for people that have your same basis of education and share your viewpoint (and a penchant for only quoting learned people that espouse views which suit your purposes).

Since you insist on running behind the cover of a peer review study, let me try to explain to you what a ‘peer reviewed study’ is. It is much like what happens here on the many pages of GHS. Someone conducts a study based upon hypothesis, and prior works of their own and/or others. One takes measurements and/or conducts (an) experiment(s) which will test the hypothesis. Based upon the observations and/or measurements taken and the data collected, one then analyzes the data, measurements and observations and attempts to apply and/or correlate the theory to the results, to some degree of statistical reliability. One then makes conclusions based upon the analysis. In order to ensure against data skewing, inherent bias, or outright fabrication, studies are published in reputable scientific journals for peer review. Getting published does not make settled science. It is the vetting and scientific scrutiny in the arena of peers which gives credibility to the work. Wait, not done yet; other investigators may challenge the data, or its verity, or attempt to duplicate the experiments and/or measurements to independently confirm the results. So-called ‘settled science’ is a process and not a spontaneous event (like being published). The idea is that the truth will out, as borne out by scrunity, not by dogma, agenda, or by gospel.

What I have attempted to point out to you (prior to you being baffled by the chemistry of chemicals) is that every substance that you pointed out that is contained in fugitive gas emissions samples from a natural gas well are… substances that are produced from a natural gas well (like natural gas, propane, gasoline, charcoal fire starter, and diesel.) Much of what you reported as different compounds are in fact structural variants of the the same basic hydrocarbon compounds, all of which you would expect to find in oil and gas production. You point out correctly that no one would want to breathe gasoline vapors for extended periods; you point out correctly that there are systems available to recapture a fair amount of these types of fugitive emissions. Your message is diluted if not totally undermined, however, by your insistence on being sensationalist, apocalyptic, and totally dismissive of anyone else who does not share your worldview.

You also appear to be plagued by an illusion that somehow if O&G is made to pay for it, we (the end users) won’t pay for it. This is never true. The end user always bears the cost of producing the product and bringing it to market. Otherwise, the product does not remain available very long.

Comment by TXsharon on August 14, 2009 at 6:05am

You are seriously uninformed pretending to know something. The TCEQ confirmed the study so don't embarrass yourself.

Comment by sesport on August 14, 2009 at 1:21am

OMG, are we back on this inflammatory suggestion again? We've already had this discussion, I've already looked at and disaggregated the data in the report I gave you before. The majority of these emissions were from ON ROAD VEHICLES! DC is right, if you want to get something across to us Everyday Joes, post in EVERYDAY language. We're all aware of the story of the boy who cried wolf.

best, sincerely, but get some new material - sesport :0)

Comment by TXsharon on August 13, 2009 at 7:24pm

It's from the drilling. You can always read the report.

Comment by JHH on August 13, 2009 at 5:37pm

Txsharon.... Here is a paragraph from your response to Dion... "According to the SMU, peer reviewed study by Dr. Armendariz, "Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements," methane production is responsible for half the smog/air pollution in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex including all the vehicles and airports. Now that D/FW has some of the worst air in the nation, it pollution from methane production is significant. Being on the non-attainment list is costly for tax payers. It's also really bad for health reasons.
Is half the D-FW pollution caused by the methane specifically from the Barnett Shale production as the response leads the reader to believe... or could it b from cows, pigs, other livestock, landfills, people waste... seepage from the earth or other natural causes? thanks, jhh

Comment by Dorcheated A1 on August 12, 2009 at 2:21pm

Dion,

Your the freaking man. Thanks for translating that for us. No doubt she had me baffled, but she didn't have me BS.

I like the part where she said... "by throwing in chemistry to confuse regular folks like me" Heck man, she posted a manifesto a lawyer couldn't understand, and she wants to talk about confusing folks.
Good call Dion.

Comment by TXsharon on August 11, 2009 at 9:12am

Wow, Dion! You are so smart!

I just copied and pasted the list of chemicals from the TCEQ report. Since TCEQ listed them and obviously thought it was important, I included them in the video. As you try to make light of the chemicals by throwing in chemistry to confuse regular folks like me, notice that many of the "common" chemicals you list are deadly. Just yesterday I read the warnings on the gas pump as I filled up my car. You really wouldn't want to breathe that stuff for extended lengths of time.

You're so right! We are surrounded by toxins everywhere so it seems especially important to reduce the toxins from fugitive emissions. The problem is easily resolved but it will take a push from the public because industry never takes these kinds of measures willingly.

According to the SMU, peer reviewed study by Dr. Armendariz, "Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements," methane production is responsible for half the smog/air pollution in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex including all the vehicles and airports. Now that D/FW has some of the worst air in the nation, it pollution from methane production is significant. Being on the non-attainment list is costly for tax payers. It's also really bad for health reasons.

A comment from Dr. Theo Colborn who viewed the videos when I was in Colorado recently:

"The tanks you see in this picture can be found across the gas fields in the US. They look harmless as you drive by just like the other stationary equipment you see on well pads. Without an infrared camera, as in this case, that picks up the plume of the highly active volatile chemicals escaping from the tanks, no one would suspect that the tanks could possibly pose a public health problem. As natural gas extraction continues to increase, federal, state, and local public health authorities and regulatory agencies are unprepared to deal with the problem.

--
Theo Colborn, PhD
President, TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange)
PO Box 1407
Paonia, CO 81428
direct:970-527-6548 office:970-527-4082
http://www.endocrinedisruption.org"

Industry can do better!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page