Fracking ban is lifted in NY- Thanks GOV, who really is going for pres. in 2016

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

Well folks, the Gov. and the DEC has spoken; the oil and gas companies win, the upstate people loose.
We will have tainted water, and foul air, people will die of asthma all the way to cancer. But who the fuck cares, NYC people will still have their clean water, the Gov decided that fracking won't happen around the reservoirs. BUT IT'S SAFE ....... BULLSHIT. Fracking will create jobs........ bullshit. It will destroy tourism, aggriculture and if you want to try to sell your house, next to a neighbor who is leasing their land to frack and along comes someone who wants to buy your house, well , the bank sends out their adjuster who sees the fracking going on next door and puts a great big HALT TO THE MORTGAGE, your land is now worthless. You can't sell it because no bank will give a mortgage - the land is polluted. Thanks Governor Cuomo, you've destroyed NY. Have fun in Washington.

Comments

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but do you know what specific method of hydrofracking they're going to be doing? There are variations, including methods that don't use harmful chemicals.

Right now, any kind of alternative energy push by the government is at a stand still because members of Congress are too busy screwing each other over. Until something's done to change that, states have to do what they can to provide.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

But there are ALTERNATIVES TO FOSSIL FUELS. We must move on so we are not sitting here being dictated to by foreign interests. America has become a plutocracy, government by and for the corporations. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of corporations the most in these past few years than ever before. "The American People" are corporations interests, not yours or mine. Our government doesn't seek to help the US citizens, instead the politicians seek to put money in their pockets for reelection.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"...including methods that don't use harmful chemicals."

Since almost all gas wells use fracking methods, your statement is very important. Certainly, the general procedure doesn't merit the calamity predicted in the OP.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Well look at it this way: restaurants can sear your steaks right under the kitchen faucet if they can move the stove pilot light. And no more dry steakies!

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Oh well, who can afford to go to a restaurant for a steak :)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is a very good move for NY.

And yes, fracking is safe. Yes, it will create jobs. No, it won't kill toursim or agriculture. Why do you believe these things?

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

So everything I saw in GasLand (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/) was a lie?

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

I don't have to "believe" I have been to enough meetings for gas companies to say just what I told you. They do not deny it. They lie about it though. Go ask the people out west who are enjoying the "jobs" it created. Then ask them how many of them are sick and it doesn't matter what "jobs" it created, the people are all sick and will have medical problems for the rest of their lives, oh I'm so happy it brought "jobs!"

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

I don't have to BELIEVE in them. I've seen them all come true in Penn. You on the other hand just like to make an argument for the sake of hearing yourself.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

Glad I got the hell out of upstate NY.

We've been Dicked, again.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

I would say I am amazed at the things governments do, except I no longer am. All amazement has long passed, and nothing at all that governments do surprises me any more.

The reason I say this is that when I was a biology major in college, I was so amazed at how so very critical is water to life. Critical. Even rudimentary knowledge of just how critical it is can practically not allow someone to overstate its importance.

And yet, the industry that pumps [b]etween 200,000 and 6 million gallons of water," and these gallons "mixed with a cocktail of solvents, surfactants and acids," into each hydrofracking well, enjoys what is known as the Cheney Exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

There's an irony that of the various industries that might be exempt from something called the Safe Drinking Water Act, the one that uses a process called hydrofracking, a process which involves pumping hundred of thousands of gallons of water, laden with a secret mixture of solvents, surfactants and acids into the ground for each hydrofracking well is actually exempt from the act that was passed to protect the nation's water supply. Ironic, but not surprising or amazing at all.

With regard to hyrdrofracking, the facts are that the facts are not in yet. Not nearly. When and if the facts do come in, they may or may not be favorable. The beauty of the Cheney Exemption, however, is that those facts are not going to be arriving any time soon. Without federal oversight, there is neither a mandate for the EPA to provide the facts, nor a motivation for the industry to provide the facts. And really, the indisputable fact is that those are the only two groups with both the money and either the mandate or motivation to collect the facts.

Of course, if you believe the industry and even some environmental group reports of the magnificent benefits that can be had from this technology and the gathering of this energy source, it's almost too good to be true - which in itself ought to raise at least a few questions, if not some red flags. But let's pretend for a moment it really is all this good. If indeed it is all this good, then why not confirm that once and for all, so that we can dispense with this dissent and get on the road to good clean energy?

I don't know. However, what I do know is that at least for the moment Dick Cheney has answered the question for the balance of the nation. For the drinking and bathing population, for every living plant and animal in the nation, including those we eat and those that allow us to breathe, and those we export to other hungry nations, every single one of which require water to survive, Dick Cheney has answered the question.

If one thinks hydrofracking is going to be a major player in life, then one ought also research what a major player water already is in life, and has been from the start, before one makes a call in either direction on the former.

Also, I found this article (http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.11/hydrofracked-one-mans-quest-for-answers-about-natural-gas-drilling/print_view) interesting. However, one ought read the whole thing before concluding it's only just a collection of anecdotes, or one man's sad story. It's not. It's only just the beginning of the facts that Mr. Cheney et al. decided are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Re: We've been Dicked, again.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

Yep

Agreeing with this post

[lai-choi-san.livejournal.com]

It's such a step back, I can't believe it.

Something I have to say after reading the comments above : in France, everybody agrees that water has a price and that the cost of fracking is too high. The fracking ban has unanimous support from all the parties, right and left wings.
Btw, and it's a dem governor who lifted the ban ?

Re: Agreeing with this post

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

France also thinks it's a good idea to ban burquas regardless of the wearer's feelings. France is very backwards in a lot of aspects, this is just another example of it.

Re: Agreeing with this post

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

He was in the Democratic party, but he's no Democrat.

Re: Agreeing with this post

[existentme.livejournal.com]

"The fracking ban has unanimous support from all the parties, right and left wings."

Are you talking about France's ban or New York's there? In any case, I can't imagine, particularly with the adjectival unanimous that that's remotely correct, since even in France the vote on the measure was 176-151.

This may get buried in the threads above, but here's a new study about this specifically

[telemann.livejournal.com]

A new study by several scientists (http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/methane-contamination-of-drinking-water-accompanying-gas-well-drilling) was just published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,: "Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking."

“Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale gas exploration worldwide,” the article states.

The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York State. Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the wells had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling. The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.

The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells near drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent “hazard mitigation” action, according to the study.

The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.

But they were alarmed by what they described as a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.

“We certainly didn’t expect to see such a strong relationship between the concentration of methane in water and the nearest gas wells. That was a real surprise,” said Robert Jackson, a biology professor at Duke and one of the report’s authors.

Re: This may get buried in the threads above, but here's a new study about this specifically

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was linked above. No causation, and one would expect higher amounts of methane in the water where there are higher amounts of gas worth drilling for.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

It's telling how France, one of the world's leaders in nuclear development, bans fracking, but the US doesn't and is against building new nuclear plants or approving waste disposal sites.

How can the US possibly maintain that nuclear is more dangerous than fracking?

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

They are both dangerous. Duh.
Geo thermal- George W. has it in one of his houses.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/173312/20110702/natural-gas-fracking-ban-hydrofracking-ban-natural-gas-ban-new-york-natural-gas.htm

"[New York Comptroller Thomas] DiNapoli has also pressed oil companies to release more information about the risks associated with the procedure, noting that the New York State Common Retirement Fund has invested in firms that seek to harvest natural gas. U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether "investors have been intentionally misled," and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed five oil and gas companies for documents detailing the risks the procedure entails.

New York will now enter a period in which the Department of Environmental Conservation will review and respond to public comments before new permits can be issued."

So we may not be past the point of no return on this, it seems. Hopefully. No doubt it helps that the potential profits may have been exaggerated at the same time the risks were downplayed.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

We all know how honest the oil and gas companies are about safety with their production of oil and gas. Just ask the friends in the Gulf.

More fun from the oil industry-yes we can all believe them

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

Exxon Spills Again, Scenic Yellowstone River Tarnished

By Associated Press

04 July 11



Exxon claims spill damage limited, Governor doubtful.


uthorities struggled Sunday to gauge the environmental and crop damage from tens of thousands of gallons of oil that spilled into the legendary Yellowstone River, as Montana's governor criticized Exxon Mobil for downplaying the possible scope of the disaster.

A break in a company pipeline near Laurel fouled miles of riverbank and forced municipalities and irrigation districts to close intakes across eastern Montana.

Exxon Mobil brought in more cleanup workers to mop up crude at three sites along the flooded river that were coated with thick globs of crude. Yet there was no clear word on how far the damage extended along a scenic river famous for its fishing and vital to farmers who depend on its water for their crops.

The uncertainty frustrated riverfront property owners such as Linda Corbin, who worried that severe damage would be revealed as the flooding Yellowstone recedes in coming weeks. The stench of spilled crude was obvious in Corbin's backyard - a reminder of the potential problems lurking beneath the surface of the nearby river.

"The smell has been enough to gag a maggot," said Corbin, 64. "I just hope it doesn't come too far because I'm on a well, and I won't appreciate having to shower in Exxon oil."

Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Sonya Pennock said its staff had spotted oil at least 40 miles downstream. There were other reports of oil as far as 100 miles away, near the town of Hysham.

Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. president Gary Pruessing said flyovers had shown most of the damage was limited to a 10-mile stretch of river. One of the company's main cleanup sites was about 20 miles downstream of the break.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer dismissed Pruessing's claim as premature. The Democratic governor said Exxon Mobil needed to get more personnel to inspect the situation close-up. He also slammed Pruessing's statement to reporters that no injured wildlife had been found.

"For somebody to say at this early stage that there's no damage to wildlife, that's pretty silly," Schweitzer said. "The Yellowstone River is important to us. We've got to have a physical inspection of that river in small boats - and soon."

Locial media have carried photos of apparently oiled pelicans and turtles. Pennock said she can't confirm any damage to wildlife or fish kills, but investigators were checking and she expected to know more Monday.

About 120 Exxon workers arrived at the site on Sunday. The company estimated that up to 1,000 barrels, or 42,000 gallons, spilled Saturday before the flow from the damaged pipeline was stopped. An EPA representative said only a small fraction of the spilled oil was likely to be recovered.

State officials earlier reported a 25-mile long slick headed downstream toward the Yellowstone's confluence with the Missouri River, just across the Montana border in North Dakota. Authorities had no further reports on that slick, and Pruessing said the oil appeared to be evaporating and dissipating as the Yellowstone carries it downstream.

Pruessing also said that the 12-inch pipeline had been temporarily shut down in May because of concerns over the rising waters on the Yellowstone. He said the company decided to restart the line after examining its safety record and deciding the risk was low.

The US Department of Transportation, which oversees pipelines, last year issued a warning letter to Exxon Mobil that cited seven safety violations along the ruptured Silvertip pipeline. Two of the warnings faulted the company for its emergency response and pipeline corrosion training.

Re: More fun from the oil industry-yes we can all believe them

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

The company was also cited for "probable violations" in a letter in February. The problems included inadequate pipeline markers in a housing development near Laurel, a section of pipeline over a ditch covered with debris, vegetation in housing area covering a portion of line that prevented aerial inspections, and a line over a canal not properly protected against corrosion. The company responded in a March letter that it had corrected all of the problems, most of them within a few weeks of being notified.

The company and government officials have speculated that high waters in recent weeks may have scoured the river bottom and exposed the pipeline to debris that could have damaged the pipe. Eastern Montana received record rainfall in the last month and also has a huge snowpack in the mountains that is melting, which has resulted in widespread flooding.

"We are very curious about what may have happened at the bottom of the river. We don't have that yet," Pruessing said.

Crews were putting absorbent material along short stretches of the river in Billings and near Laurel, but no attempts were made at capturing oil farther out. In some areas, oil flowed underneath booms.

EPA on-scene coordinator Steve Way said fast flows along the flooding river were spreading the oil over a large area, making it harder to capture. But Way said that also could reduce damage to wildlife and cropland along the river.

Property owners said they could not wait long for Exxon to clean up, particularly in agricultural areas where crops and grazing pastures were at risk. The Yellowstone River also is popular among fishermen, though areas further upriver from the spill are more heavily trafficked.

Billings-area goat rancher Alexis Bonogofsky said the flooding Yellowstone brought the oil into her summer pastures - pollution that she was afraid would kill the grass needed to feed her animals.

"My place is covered with oil," she said. "I would like a list that says: `This is what's in crude oil.'"
The 20-year-old pipeline was last inspected in 2009 using a robotic device that travels through the line looking for corrosion, dents or other problems, Pruessing said. Tests to determine the pipeline's depth were taken in December, and at the time, the line appeared to be 5 to 8 feet below the riverbed, he said.

"It was completely in line with all regulatory requirements," he said.

Workers first became aware of a problem with the pipeline when pressure readings dropped early Saturday. Pruessing said workers began shutting down the line within six minutes, although company officials declined to say how long that process took.

The spill was small compared to other oil-related disasters, such as the 11 million gallons leaked by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska in 1989. But officials said the pristine nature of the Yellowstone, along with its turbulent waters and riverside communities, complicated their cleanup efforts and attempts to assess the damage.


This is the basic problem with industry, they know how to drill, and place pipes, they just don't know what to do when there is a problem because they go on and on how SAFE everything is.......... RIGHT

Study shows fracking is hurting lots of other business. Ruining jobs.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110708/NEWS01/107080315/Study-Gas-drilling-will-hurt-local-tourism?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Re: Study shows fracking is hurting lots of other business. Ruining jobs.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Could. Not is, could.