City's Gas Drilling Task Force Received a Public Education at Last Night's Hearing

Categories: The Environment

jacoby1.jpg
Photos by Leslie Minora
Jeffrey Jacoby, the Program Director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, gave the task force a passionate three minutes, emphasizing their responsibility to protect Dallas citizens.
In the end, council members Delia Jasso, Dwaine Caraway and Scott Griggs skipped Mayor Mike's shindig to sit amongst the public at last night's hearing in front of the city's gas drilling task force. And they were surrounded: The council members were joined by about 100 people who addressed many of the issues topping the list of the task force's concerns -- air and water pollution, truck traffic, proximity to neighborhoods, you name it. In short, they wanted to make sure Dallas doesn't get fracked when the task force makes its recommendations to the council, which will rewrite its drilling ordinance in the fall.

"I need as much information as possible," said task force member Cherelle Blazer. Far as she was concerned, the citizenry's input would serve as a "good barometer" of public concern.

"This task force is an opportunity," said Jeffrey Jacoby of Texas Campaign for the Environment when he took the podium. "You are an opportunity, and, of course, you have an opportunity." He theatrically expanded on his point, saying that the task force has the ability to give energy companies a chance to make "boatloads" of money and that it also has the chance to protect the citizens of Dallas.

"I see you as the group that's going to define the word 'safety' for the city."

"I believe fracking is a license to kill," Dallas resident Donna Turman said. She noted that it felt "surreal" to ask the task force, "Please don't kill us."

Raymond Crawford, often hailed by his fellow activists as the man who got City Hall to pay attention to drilling diligence, asked the task force to pay close attention to drilling impact studies that detail the effects of drilling on water, road conditions, the environment and business. "Very little science was known or was used" when the current ordinance was created in '08, he said.

"No matter what anybody says, there is not a stainless steel plate under the earth," environmental activist Marc McCord said when it was his turn to speak. "We're in a critical shortage of water ... and this is nothing new. There is no new water coming from outer space."

Mountain Creek's Ed and Claudia Meyer took back-to-back turns at the mic, and both ended their three minutes with that quote Mayor Rawlings uttered before the screening of Gasland at the Texas Theatre several weeks ago: "I will never vote to put any neighborhood at risk because of money."

Dallas resident Robert Unger was one of only two people to speak in favor of fracking: "It has proven to be a safe technology," he said. "It is an industry that is respectful of the communities in which we operate and in which we live." He characterized the practice as a "compromise" wherein the positive outcomes outweigh the negatives.

At the end of the hearing, task force chair Lois Finkelman told Unfair Park, "We can hear from dozens of professionals and experts in all the various fields ... but the bottom line is what is the effect on citizens and neighbors and what are their concerns." Public hearings, she said, are another way of "broadening the education" of the task force.

Finkelman hinted that the task force may need to extend its flexible October deadline for its recommendations to council. "Whether or not [the October deadline] is realistic remains to be seen," she said at the hearing's outset, adding that she has her sights set on early November. After that, she said there would be additional opportunities for public input as their recommendations make their way to the city council.

My Voice Nation Help
99 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Thunder
Thunder

It's really great to hear that so much emphasis is being given to the health and safety of citizens and neighbors. 

Marc
Marc

If the DO bloggers are going to quote people, then I wish that they would provide the entrie quote rather than take things out of context. Without the rest of a statement a quote out of context often loses its relevance.

When I mentioned the stainless steel plate it was in reference to the often stated position of pro-drillers that they drill so deeply beneath the water tables for gas, and inject produced water so deeply beneath the water tables that it is not possible for it to migrate to the surface or to contaminate drinking water in subsurface aquifers.

The fact I made was that even the most impermeable rock formation has billions of cracks and fissures that are naturally occurring migration paths between those layers and the surface of the earth. The very act of frac'ing opens those cracks and fissures even wider, and the proppant used in the process holds those cracks and fissures open so the gas will flow, but so too will everything else that is forced down that hole under up to 15,000 psi. I made the point that there is no stanless steel plate under the earth that prevents migration of gases and toxic, carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals used in the frac'ing process from contaminating subsurface water, surface water, surface soil or air.

Anybody who believes that ANY rock is impermeable is an uneducated fool, and anybody who claims that to be the case is a liar! Technically, there is no such thing as a "solid" because everything on this planet is comprised and composed of atoms and molecules that are in constant motion, attached to one another by metallic, ionic or covalent bonds (primary bonds) or permanent or fluctuating dipole bonds (secondary bonds), or a combination of some of the above.

Without understanding the physics and chemistry of atomic bonding it is not possible for one to grasp the concept of impermeability versus permeability. To claim that toxins injected into the ground cannot return to our water tables or the surface is just patently ignorant of the scientific facts about this place that we call "home."

pak152
pak152

"Without understanding the physics and chemistry of atomic bonding it is not possible for one to grasp the concept of impermeability versus permeability"serious question what do degrees do you have? are they in the hard sciences such as biology, geology, chemistry or physics?

Marc
Marc

Actually, my degrees are in electrical engineering and aviation electrical engineering, both requiring many credit hours of studies in physics and chemistry. Beyond that, I have studied this issue in great depth for a long time, and my degrees have prepared me for being able to comprehend these matters in greater depth than is the case with the general population since I already have done significant studies in both chemistry and physics.

Additionally, I routinely work with geologists, chemists and engineers who continually educate me about those sciences.

So, what are YOUR qualifications?

As to the question of permeability, there is no such thing as "impermeable rock". All rock formations contain billions of natural cracks and fractures. The very process of hydraulic fracturing further opens many of those natural cracks and fissures while also creating new ones. Any intelligent person with a knowledge of geology knows this as a fact. if you doubt it, then go look at the Grand Canyon, any exposed rock formation or any mountain formation anywhere, and take a very close look at all that rock. There are cracks everywhere!

Claims that toxic, carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals injected into the ground to fracture rock for gas production, or injected under tremendous pressure into the Ellenberger formation, can never return to the water table or the surface are just BULLSHIT LIES by people who are either uneducated, or else just patently dishonest. Based on some of the comments you have made I suspect that you fall into the category of "patently dishonest."

texaspainter
texaspainter

pakie ain't got no education, only parrots what he sees on Fox. LOL!

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

Respect and wishes for sound reason/science to prevail on behalf of those in Dallas who favor clean air/potable water! Solidarity from NY and PA!

pak152
pak152

based upon your previous replies I would say that your statement "respect and wishes for sound reason/science to prevail" is an oxymoron.

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

and would you find industry supplying residents with bottled water a benevolent gesture, or an admission of guilt?  http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/art...

pak152
pak152

I would find it a benevolent gesture, but I suspect that you see it as an admission of guilt. The problem as I see it is that no matter how much credible objective evidence is provided to you and others like you, you will ignore it and say "but, but...what about". if you not read it I suggest you read Michael Crichton's Environmentalism as Religion http://scienceandpublicpolicy.... or listen to him here http://youtu.be/Vv9OSxTy1aU

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

and baed on your previous replies, i would expect you to find the phrase "sound reason/science" to be an oxymoron. for most of the western world, it isn't. that's okay, jesus loves the (science) doubters, too.

pak152
pak152

about what I expected in reply. glad to know that you are sufficiently grounded in science that you are able determine what has merit or not

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

ooh, what clever tit for tat! when you actually link to some science, i'll let you know what merits doubt. so far, you've come up with nothing that resembles it.

pak152
pak152

yes I'm glad that you realize Jesus loves science doubters such as yourself

pak152
pak152

A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring. As the report stated there was “troublesome amounts of methane” in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.

But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland.http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Dan
Dan

Duke study linking methane in well water to fracking.http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

EPA found well water contaminated by gas drilling over 20 years ago.http://www.ewg.org/release/epa...

pak152
pak152

here is the Energy in Depth response to the EPA report. they provide some information that EWG and propublica do not http://www.energyindepth.org/?...

for example this letter from the West Virginia Dept of Energyhttp://www.energyindepth.org/w...

from the letter "I would like to point out that WV Code 22B-1-20 requires an operator to cement a string of casing 20 feet below all fresh water zones. At the time the permit was issued concerning this well, the Division [of Oil and Gas] had no knowledge that the Pittsburg sand was a fresh water source. This is because in certain areas oil and gas is produced from the Pittsburg"

pak152
pak152

Dan thanks for the links . do you have a link to the actual EPA report. EWG notes " It is unclear how the "fracking" fluids may have entered the water well, but four old natural gas wells nearby could have been the conduits for contamination." past reports have said that many times the water contamination is not a direct result of the fracking but rather a result of a problem with the well casing

the duke study looks very interesting and does focus on what has been done in other well studies ie they note that there are chemical differences between different types of methane and ethane so that they can identify if the gas in water came from a well.

also glad to get good information looking forward to that EPA study

TC
TC

"I believe fracking is a license to kill,"

Here's a complete list of citizen fracking deaths:

yeahIsaidthat
yeahIsaidthat

that you know of

Edgar
Edgar

Well, if I don't know of any, then there obviously must be a lot of them.

pak152
pak152

do you have credible information proving otherwise?

John
John

What's the money situation here? I thought I had heard that the two companies had already paid or contracted with the city to pay upwards of several dozen millions for the drilling rights. Surely those contracts contain some cancellation provisions. How much has been paid to Dallas already? How much will Dallas have to refund if the companies don't get to drill as contracted? Is that money already being counted in the Dallas budget? Who will be asked to make up the difference if Dallas doesn't get to keep the cash? Are the people trying to cash the drilling companies out of Dallas going to cover those millions?

Marc
Marc

John, XTO and Trinity East paid the City of Dallas about $34.8 Million for land leases. Those leases are in areas NOT designated as heavy industrial use areas. The leases came with the stipulation that drilling would require a Special Use Permit for EACH well, which is the result of a zoning change to allow an activity that is otherwise prohibited by law or odrinance.

There was never a quid pro quo granting the right to drill. It was always known that the leasee would have to go before the City Plan Commission and make its case for a waiver and granting of the SUP. The CPC could either grant the SUP, deny the SUP without prejudice and send it to the City Council for an appeal hearing, or deny it with prejudice in which case the issue is dead and cannot be raised again for at least two years.

If SUPs are denied, and no drilling permits are issued by the City Council, then the City of Dallas owes nothing, and the leasees would not have a legal leg upon which to stand in court since the leases were for exclusive rights to land and they already got their 36 months plus an additional 30 months at no extra cost. So, no court could possibly find that the city failed to honor its agreement.

The problem for XTO and Trinity East is that natural gas is currently selling for under $4 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). They need a price of about $8 per mcf at the wellhead to break even and show a small profit. There is a glut of natural gas and very few actual uses for it, so prices remain depressed. For that reason the leasees did not apply for SUPs knowing that they had three years in which to do so, but the requirement is that they had to get pipe in the ground during the initial lease to secure the lease and qualify for automatic renewals of ten years each.

Had the drillers (leasees) applied for the SUPs when they first got the permits, then they probably would have gotten them and the drilling permits, put pipe in the ground and none of this would be a subject of discussion today because it would be a done deal. But, they waited until about 90 days before their leases expired, and by that time the truth about their industry, their abhorrent safety records and the ultimate dangers of natural gas production and transportation in residential neighborhoods became known, and opposition grew quickly. If you are not aware of the pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California last year, then look it up. It killed 8 residents, destroyed 38 homes and severely damaged another 120 homes. It charred and destroyed MANY automobiles and caused major disruptions to the lives of hundreds of people. And, that is but one such case history!

We stopped them dead in their tracks, and they can threaten to sue Dallas, but it would only compound the losses they have already taken because Dallas also has attorneys, and they are the ones who wrote the contracts such that they protect the city.

Now, I do not expect idiots like Edgar and Pak152 to understand these matters, but they are real, they are factual and they are the way it is. Opinions from people who are clueless about the facts are irrelevant. Hopefully, you are a lot smarter and more logical than those guys, and you can comprehend what I had stated. The supporting documentation is a matter of open records, and it is available to anybody who wants the information, free of charge, on the City of Dallas website. Those of us opposing urban drilling in residential neighborhoods have copies of the lease agreements and the city ordinances, as well as the procedures for SUP and drilling applications.

We know this issue because we have studied it in great detail for a long time. Guys like Edgar and Pak 152 have no clue about any of this. They just like to lob ad hom attacks and industry propaganda as if those were factual, and they can NEVER support their arguments with scientific fact. At the same time, they refuse to review and comprehend the facts and science, and then declare that evidence to support our position is flawed.

The fact that they deny our evidence does not make it incorrect or irrelevant. If they truly understood the issue then we would hear nothing from them.

Darrd2010
Darrd2010

XTO/EXXON and Trinity East paid a total of $34 million for a lease BUT no guarantee to drill. I have the lease, by the way... City would get 26% royalties which sounds like a lot but industry and geologists will tell you that Dallas barely sits on any gas. If they sue? So what and for what? Lost revenue? There is none. Last year Grand Prairie who has 90 wells took in $132,000 TOTAL. The only ciites who made any kind of dough was Arlington and FW. $10 and $13 mil respectively. Small potatoes. It's not about a new energy, you're not going to drive a LNG car next year(it will never happen anyway) and there are not gas power plants going to be built. NONE. All coal. So why all the fuss? The industry wants to get their pipes in the ground so they can use that as a selling tool to Wall Street and to others in order to 'flip' the assets. That would be a 'ponzi' scheme.

Last year, Chesapeake sold 1/3 of their assets in South Texas to China. So now, China owns thousands of acres of land in Texas. Thanks Rick.It's also about exporting the gas to foreign countries who want it. We are sitting on too much shale gas and the price is around $4 bucks. To be profitable, it should be $8. Not going to happen. But when they do get their rods in, they start the pumping and grinding and all the emissions and contaminated water blows all over the place. Lack of regulations, dirty environment, no cash, then you're fracked, well so to speak.

pak152
pak152

sounds like someone has been reading that NYTimes article which has so many holes in it the Swiss think it is cheese

pak152
pak152

apparently your reading comprehension score is low. have you not heard of the phrase "don't shoot the messenger" what type of job do you have?

heart and soul
heart and soul

Is that what you call yourself pak152, the messenger, LOL. Get a real job.

pak152
pak152

marc you really should expand your vocabulary here is some suggested reading for you

http://blogs.forbes.com/christ...

http://blog.energytomorrow.org...

http://www.energyindepth.org/2...

http://www.energyindepth.org/2...

now I realize it is easier to throw out scatological reference and attack the messenger than it is to attempt to refute the information provided. but I do hope that you will provide some credible information hopefully information that isn't loaded with hyperbole and scare words (in your terms not loaded with bullsh*t) ;-)

Marc
Marc

Typical pak 152 bullshit - not a word of truth and no comprehension about the credentials of the authors of that NYT article to which he refers.

Mike
Mike

How is setting up the infrastructure and selling potential output a Ponzi scheme?  Ponzi schemes involve paying early investors with later investors' funds.  You have your frauds confused.  If the cost is $8 and sales price is $4, no one is "flipping" anything.  Chesapeake sold mineral rights to land it leased on those acres.  China did not become a big landowner.  What does Governor Perry have to do with it?  It was the Federal Government that reviewed the transaction and the President signed off on it.

I don't know what the scientific answer is, but I hope they get some people up there that know the subject.  Reading an NYT article does not make you an expert.  I don't want to do anything unsafe, but I don't want the same crowd ridiculously complaining about high voltage transmission lines or vaccinations causing autism deciding this one. 

Marc
Marc

Mike, please read what Dr. Marc Durand wrote about the Ponzi scheme called natural gas well drilling. Here is how the Ponzi scheme works - the initial drilling companies claim to have vast resources under lease. In fact, they KNOW that they can only recover about 20% of the potential gas, but they never reveal it to investors. Instead, they sell shares in their companies, and eventually sell out, leaving the later investors holding the bag for the losses that occur when things go wrong and when the actual gas recovery is a fraction of what was claimed.

XTO sold out to ExxonMobil for a LOT of cash, and XTO's original owners make a fat profit. If ExxonMobil gets stiffed on the deal, then they can merely write it off as a tax loss and reduce their income taxes, which are already far too low, so they really do not get hurt. But, in companies that sell out to bond or stock brokers, investment groups, mutual fund managers, etc. the ones left holding the bag are going to be a lot more like those who trusted Bernie Madoff in that the losses will not be something they can just write off.

Links to Dr. Durand's analysis of this scheme:

http://fracdallas.org/docs/rec...

http://fracdallas.org/docs/rec...

yeahIsaidthat
yeahIsaidthat

to make any money it needs to be at least $8. Right now it's stuck at $4. They keep flipping land leases all the time that are worthless. The leases on the east side of Mt. Creek have flipped twice already. Chesapeake sold their Eagle Ford parcel to CINOOC for $1 billiion. Because they NEEDED THE MONEY. I think at that price, China pretty much is 'on top' in that relationship. Rick Perry has everything to do with the gas industry. He IS the gas industry.LOL

SteveT
SteveT

We've seen over and over that industry (including its scientists and legal advisors) has no problem ignoring public safety to make money; and that should not surprise us, as companies' first priority is to make money--that's why they exist.  Government regulation, and consumer activism (bolstered by the most objective science possible) exists to counter-balance that very powerful initiative.

The larger question is: What price are we willing to pay to obtain energy (with all the costs considered in that price)?  Seems to me that price is rising.

pak152
pak152

and of course journalists are pure of heart. who can forget NBC faking exploding gas tanks. what about the alar scare? the Audi unexplained acceleration or the more recent one Toyota (?) sudden acceleration problem. Industry does not purposefully sit down and say "Gee what will we destroy today?" Ever consider that government laws and regulations cause problems that no one thought of?

Marc
Marc

You are an idiot!

pak152
pak152

Thank you again Marc for providing further evidence

Darrd2010
Darrd2010

Check out WFAA's tonage of video stories showing explosions, blowouts, and death all related to a lazy gas industry. Go do your homework!

Edgar
Edgar

You draw such a great caricature of yourself, Marc.

Marc
Marc

Cal, I want to emphasize what Heart and Soul said to you. I have NO vested interest in this matter, and I never will. I am NOT trying to build any power base anywhere. In fact, I am spending a LOT of my own time and money fighting to protect the city in which I was born and raised for no benefit other than the safety and security of neighborhoods from thugs in the gas industry who do not mind harming or killing people, destroying water, air and soil, wiping out birds and animals, destroying property values and any other damage they can cause in the name of corporate profits.

By claiming that I am trying to personally profit, in ANY way from this, you are a LIAR!

Marc
Marc

pak152, it is simply not possible to have a "scintillating discussion" with a moronic idiot who thinks that frac'ing is safe and that it should be allowed in densely-populated urban areas or near critical infrastructure.

And, frac'ing is NOT profitable. It is a fraud - a shell game - with the purpose not to sell gas, but to sell gas companies. Natural gas is currently selling for half the rate necessary for profitability. There is no demand and the supply is too great, which is why the industry is selling OUR American product, that they claim is giving us independence from foreign energy, to India and China, the two countries most responsibile for taking American jobs.

Anybody who promotes natural gas is un-American and is working toward the downfall of this nation for the sake of corporate profits!

Marc
Marc

No, pak152, I was addressing you specifically! I was not addressing intelligent people who actually understand the issue. You and Ed Ireland, aka Edgar, should go back to your circle jerk and leave us adults to discuss this issue based on REAL science, not that stuff where industry says that rock is impermeable, and that what they pump into the ground can never come back to the surface.

I understand that you favor drilling. I do not. We have zoning ordinances in Dallas to protect our neighborhoods so that they do not resemble those in Virginia, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Houston or other industrial cities that failed to limit where heavy industry could operate. We WILL keep it that way. So far, our coalition has stopped ExxonMobil dead in its tracks, and we are doing the same to Trinity East. I was the guy who started the assault on Chesapeake for drilling too close to the dam at Joe Pool Reservoir, and my complaint has stopped them from drilling four more wells they intended to drill from that pad site, which is probably going to be shut down by USACE for violating the Texas Resources Management Plan that requires a mandatory 3,000 foot setback from any USACE dam, spillway or other critical structure.

But, you would not know or understand any of that, nor would you care what the law says if the law opposes drilling anywhere for any reason. The real problem with you is that you are all emotion and no logic. Drilling has its place, and its place is NOT in residential neighborhoods or near critical infrastructure, regardless of what idiots like you and Ed Ireland say.

heart and soul
heart and soul

Gee Edgar, you sound so bitter. What is all that about? BTW, how is the job hunting going?

Edgar
Edgar

heart and soul: The irony of your comment is that you are underlining the point that pak152 already made - anyone who disagrees with the mob (oil, gas = bad/Bush/Cheney/Halliburton evil!) obviously works for the industry.  That's a cheap, stupid fucking thing to say.

heart and soul
heart and soul

Don't worry Cal/Pak I don't want your job. No amount of green could make me a whore for the gas industry. LOL. It is all yours baby.

Cal
Cal

Pak, you just don't get it, son. Around these parts we run things on the patronage system, as in Patron, a strong man who lines up the little people the way he wants them and then runs their lives the way he thinks best. Our John Wiley Price has South Dallas already locked up, and he's telling anybody who doesn't like it to "Go to Hell. You're all white."

Marc and Heart and Soul want their piece of some action, too, and so they're telling you the same thing, "Go to hell. You're not one of us." Now Marc and Heart and Soul already know they can't cut into JWP's action, but if they build a new power bloc around some other issue making some other group of people dance to their tune they can then do the same kind of Patron/patronage thing in another sector. Decide who can drive cars where (it's like gas drilling, good for the environment), and in the process decide who pays who for the privilege. Decide whose bicycle shops get permitted in what areas and what it costs under the table to speed things up. Decide to cut your property values in half by having a crew of homeless people put in a plot of lettuce and rats on the lot next door to you instead of a nice new house. Of course with a proper contribution you could persuade them not to.

If you don't like it, pak152, you can just go to hell. You're not green.

See how it works, pak152? It's not about the truth, it's only about the power, and you ain't got it. You're not green enough, so you can just go to hell.

heart and soul
heart and soul

Come on admit it. You are a whore. You work for the industry. You don't have a job. This is your job. You have been on this blog full-time. LOL. If fracking is so damn good then why does the industry need little whores like you to promote it on blogs?

pak152
pak152

no just using my education. your debate skills are truly admirable and have added quite a lot to the discussion. thanks again

heart and soul
heart and soul

Spoken like a the true stooge you are. Do they pay you by the word?

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

except that new york hasn't "decided to let drilling take place". whatever that means. we're still examining it, and shall continue to do so. a lot of farmers understand that they'll have no farm or home left if they lease and hydrofracturing commences. those who want to remain on their farms, producing, actually question it.

pak152
pak152

apparently you didn't read the wiki link I provided as it has nothing to do with fracking. I am well aware of what takes place on wikipedia with both sides rapidly changing entries to support a pov.

pak152
pak152

heart and soul thank you for the engaging scintillating discussion. you've confirmed once again that those opposed feel it is better to attack the opposition via ad hominem attacks then it is to engage in reasoned intellectual discussion of the facts.. I look forward to increased natural gas production as it fuels our economy and reduces our reliance on foreign sources of energy

pak152
pak152

Ask Marc he was the one who said individuals from out of state should not be commenting. complain to him not me. glad to hear that NY has decided to let the drilling take place. I understand the state budget can use the money and the landowners especially the farmers will benefit from the royalty payments, too

heart and soul
heart and soul

Go frack yourself pak. I don't get my info from wiki. All your links just point to propaganda. And yeah I do think you are a stooge. Because who in their right mind would want to trade water for gas? You drink it pak. Suck it right out of the pipe.

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

this is a "rule"? sounds like hillbilly justice: "you got no POV in these parts". we'll stop issuing points of view on what goes down in dallas when the gas/oil buffoons stop sending their contract workers up to our region to drill shale. deal?

thatgirlinnewyork
thatgirlinnewyork

so you say "interesting link but it is to a blog do you have anything more direct and more objective" and then post a link to not only a blog, but a diploma mill school? and pov/conjecture about propublica as a source? that you feel these are more reliable than a news organization that cites sources you may look up yourself simply underlines your need to find something, anything that agrees with you, over any level of objectivity.

and wikipedia? anyone can put what they like in wikipedia. or didn't you hear about palin's supporters changing paul revere's story to jibe better with her lack of education: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...

pak152
pak152

heart and soul  apparently you didn't read the above wiki link assuming it involved fracking. let me suggest first that you read the items then point out where they are inaccurate.

"Fracking isn't safe and it is not productive" define unsafe. unsafe in what way. as for not being productive it apparently is as the industry uses it to loosen tight formations to improve the flow of natural gas and oil. so what do you mean by unproductive.

don't assume that because someone presents a POV opposite of yours that they are a stooge or employee of the industry you oppose. what industry do you work in? Myself? I work in the software industry

as for drinking gas who in their right mind would drink gasoline? (I assume that is what you meant by gas) oh! you meant water that had methane in it.

thank you for engaging in the discussion. I look forward to whatever information you can provide

heart and soul
heart and soul

And what is your job pak152? Clearly you work for the industry. Is it your job to push industry propaganda on this blog?

Fracking isn't safe and it is not productive. Uses too much water.  You can't drink gas. But I would like to see YOU try. And BTW you can't support your propaganda with a wiki link. Heck the industry probably wrote that. Get a new Job pak152.

pak152
pak152

LOL! thanks ts didn't realize that when one offers a POV opposite to the "perceived wisdom" of the herd that it is seen as poisoning the well. and here I thought I was offering up valid information that is contrary to the herd's knowledge. thanks again

ts
ts

Considering the topic, it's pretty amusing that you're continually attempting to poison the well in your comments.  This tactic is not a known unknown on these here interwebs.

pak152
pak152

oh and one more thing from your name "thatgirlinnewyork" one would assume that you don't live in Dallas. According to Marc elsewhere in these comments those of us who don't live in the DFW area or at least in Dallas shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Just wanted to let you know in case he doesn't inform of this rule ;-)

pak152
pak152

thank you but propublica is not exactly an objective unbiased source of information whereas at least wikipedia is open to correction . and a blog is definitely not unbiased. If you could would point out where the wikipedia article is incorrect? and if so you should go there and make the correction.  let me suggest that you read this article concerning propublica and it s objectivity http://www.rockymountainnews.c...

'ProPublica is attempting to fill a void that has often been filled by public relations organizations, who in their role as press agents have created, pitched, and placed news stories for years, often anonymously. In the 1980s, video news releases produced by public relations and advertising firms provided packaged stories to television news programs, and in recent years, governmental agencies have taken up the practice as well."http://medianomad.blogspot.com...

http://www.policymed.com/2010/...

http://www.phoenix.edu/about_u...

http://cogcc.state.co.us/libra...

pak152
pak152

interesting link but it is to a blog do you have anything more direct and more objective

"Up until the late 1990's they did frack, but it was called directional drilling(straight down, no turns) using only sand and water out in the country. No prob."

all drilling is directional the difference is that in that last 10 years the technology came about that allowed for greater control. Check out the book Last Boom which is about the East Texas giant and you'll find that drillers back then were doing slant hole drilling a precursor to horizontal drilling. see this is one of the problems you don't even know the correct terminology

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

"Directional drilling has been an integral part of the oil and gas industry since the 1920s."http://www.slb.com/services/dr...

"Halliburton came up with horizontal drilling using chemicals, sand, water" ah yes the big bad Halliburton"

check the facts here http://www.energyindepth.org/i...

http://naturalgasforamerica.co...

History of Hydraulic Fracturing (Journal of petroleum Technology)http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/a...you're right! It's all Halliburton's fault from the above link"On 17 March, 1949, Halliburton conducted the fi rst two commercial fracturingtreatments in Stephens County, Oklahoma, and Archer County, Texas."

Chemicals have always been used in drilling. typically called "mud" and served as lubricant for the drill stem.

Darrd2010
Darrd2010

this will give you 'link' envy:www.dallasdrilling.wordpress.c...

You can read, go to links, read some more, for a couple of months and then you'll get more information than you ever really wanted to know about shale gas.

One more thing, before I go because I know you'll probably repeat the gas industry mantra of ' we've been fracking for over 60 years without any incident". Well, that's a lie.Up until the late 1990's they did frack, but it was called directional drilling(straight down, no turns) using only sand and water out in the country. No prob.

Then when the large shale plays(Marcellus, Haynesville, B. Shale) were discovered, Halliburton came up with horizontal drilling using chemicals, sand, water. So in 2005, The Energy Act was created by the Bush Admin which allowed the gas industry to circumvent The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act. Now why, would they need to do that at this time?

So here we are at the crossroads of some of the dirtiest air in the country, shale plays that lose their life after one year of drilling, and emittting and polluting. And those $50 monthly hillbilly checks stop coming in. Should we proceed as usual, roll over and pretend it's the best frack we ever had or say enough is enough? It's a tough question for some.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...