Friday, February 3, 2012
Gasland filmmaker gets fracked, hauled out of a House committee public hearing
Note: Here's one for Charles O'Dell. He would understand the difficulty that front line journalists and government watchdogs often face in trying to report the facts about their government, regardless of the party or personalities in charge. First question always is, what have they got to hide? Charles' last bill estimate from the county for an open records document search to try to answer that question for an upcoming article was $241.15. Stiff-arming the public with high priced information is no way to instill confidence in our public offices and officials. Charles knew that, yet he always persisted.
Update: WOAI, San Antonio | Quakes in Karnes County Linked to Fracking Industry (Tues. Feb. 7, 2012) – After the third earthquake in four months rattled residents of Karnes County southeast of San Antonio over the weekend, there are increasing concerns that the earthquakes are being caused by the widespread oil and gas fracking industry, which is underway in the region.
Read more about the Oscar-nominated Gasland documentary (trailer here) and the flap over the EPA's findings earlier this week at a public hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. You should be very concerned if you or a loved one lives anywhere near natural gas drilling activity that is using the controversial underground hydraulic fracturing procedure. There's a lot of it going on around the Lone Star State.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Everyone knows what this is about.
Gasland director Fox is very bad PR and an embarrassment for the natural gas fracking industry as his documentary shows water coming out of kitchen and bathroom taps that can be lit on fire.
I have even heard some right wingers say that such inflammable water is "normal" in some places.
My comeback is always that if they think it is so normal, prove it by going up to Pavilion, Wyoming - stay for a week or two - and drink the fire water daily. No takers so far.
The truth is always the same. Water, air and other pollutants are fine as long as its not in my backyard.
As for the Republican congressman that had the director arrested, we all know the fossil fuel industry pays these people to be their personally chosen political escort service.
Why do you think the Koch brothers and their elite polluters are planning to spend $1 Billion to defeat Obama - deciding to use Romney as their new Prostitute-in-Chief?
Get a fresh glass of inflammable water, right wingers. It's time for your next dose of Flomax.
I don't understand why a local government agency would charge so much to access public papers. $214.15 is outrageous! It should be part of the job description to help the public answer questions. We get taxed to pay their salaries and we can't believe what comes out of their mouths most of the time. No one should be charged extra much less $200 to try to learn what the truth is. Shame on the county.
Get used to the trend, Outrageous.
This is what the "new world order" under a Rebublican anti-government, pro-privatization public sector is trying to establish.
It is called "paying for democracy."
If you don't have money, you can't participate in holding elected leaders accountable - AND you can't participate in getting people elected (see Mitt Romney et al).
Rocky, the methane gas found in those wells that caused the water to be flamable was biogenic (not associated with natural gas production) and not thermogenic (released during the process of drilling a gas well).
Thank you, Anonymous, for your clarification. I would hope that you are correct.
But for factual thoroughness, could you site your source(s) for that claim from scientific documentation that can be proven to be from a technical or scientific organization(s) that is not in any way affiliated with the energy or fossil fuel industry.
I would also be interested in knowing if there is any proof that drinking this biogenic or thermogenic water over time is not a health hazard.
And this may sound naive on my part, but why did this water flammability issue not come out publicly until after the water fracking activity started?
Thank you in advance for your follow up.
This report from a major UK newspaper on fracking is not about inflammable water, but about toxic air due to fracking activity:
"Texas has seen some of the worst pollution. The town of Dish, which has 362 residents and 60 gas wells, saw the departure of its mayor, Calvin Tillman, who was not willing to place his family’s health in the hands of the gas companies smashing up the Barnett Shale beneath their home. A sickening smell of gas hung in the town, and, when the gas companies denied responsibility, Tillman commissioned an independent air quality test, at a cost of 15 per cent of the town’s annual budget of $70,000.
The resulting report showed the air contained the carcinogen benzene at levels 55 times higher than even the relaxed Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) allowed. Neurotoxicants such as xylene and carbon disulphide, as well as the blood poison naphthalene, were also found at levels up to 384 times higher than levels deemed safe. The final straw was when both of Tillman’s sons began suffering from acute nosebleeds. “My five-year-old woke up with blood all over his hands, blood on the walls – our house looked somewhat like a murder scene.” Similar reports of severe nosebleeds, respiratory problems and rashes have been made across the country."
Still researching about the inflammable methane water and its causes and health hazards. Any unbiased research help is appreciated.
I see a pattern of the left wing always opposing anything scientifically progressive. Anything of benefit to the citizens of this country and meant to reduce our dependence on the one world government's fuel supply, is poo-pooed by these people. And they call themselves "progressives."
Rocky, you are getting very annoying. We get it Rocky, you are against capitalism, republicans and Corporations and want more government control over our lives as long as it is your weird idea of government.
Hey, Rocky, when a gullible right wing robot like the one who says you are getting "very annoying" - and says you are "anti-science" (oh the irony coming from him) and anti-free markets - consider that a badge of honor.
Keep doing what you are doing by challenging their thoughtless right wingnut assumptions.
And isn't it interesting how these Anonymous commenters won't tell you their real name because they haven't the courage to risk embarrassing themselves with their foolish beliefs?
Or are these wingnuts who write in known businessmen and women who are too afraid to be exposed for their wild attitudes? Or are they children of politicians - or the politicians themselves, hiding like moles in the ground?
Although I don't agree with you in some instances, keep writing. I respect your courage and your desire to expose the lies inherent in the ignorant and greedy side of our free market system.
Amen to just about everything Disgusted by Wrong said. Oh, and Emancipator, too. You all have saved me a bunch of typing.
Which major UK newspaper and when was the article published. I want to read the article and tack down their scientific proof.
Thanks
Hostile Anonymous of February 6, 8:55 AM is obviously trying to play the "get-even-game" of "show me the proof".
Readers will notice that I asked above for proof that the inflammable water was NOT toxic to residents of Dish, TX.
Not surprisingly, I get no back up proof that the inflammable water is safe and "normal."
But unlike the pollution regulation and public health hating right wingers, I can back up my data claims.
First, the UK newspaper from which I published a quote was the UK Telegraph.
But more importantly is the actual SOURCE of the UK Telegraph's article:
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.
Their article - describing the horrible air pollution in Dish, Texas - caused by indiscriminate fracking activity can be read at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shale-gas-and-hydraulic-fracturing.
The question is: Will the right wingers try and make Scientific American out to be "a liberal magazine - written by scientists with too much time on their hands."
And while we're at it, let's toss in another statistic:
STOCK MARKET PERFORMANCE.
Under 8 years of George W. Bush:
S&P 500 Stock index: Down 42%
Under 3 years of Barack Obama:
S&P 500 Stock Index: Up 58.9%
These returns do not include a roughly 2% annual dividend reinvested each year.
It the results did include S&P dividends invested, it would be this:
Bush DOWN 32% over 8 years in office
Obama UP 64% for his first three years in office.
" Source: www.stockcharts.com
The blogsite of the Mayor of Dish, Texas, where he discusses the study paid for by the City re: the air pollution caused by the intense fracking activity around Dish is:
http://baddish.blogspot.com/
Now, is some local yokel also going to call the Mayor of Dish, TX an anti-corporation liberal?
I hope not. They only make themselves look even stupider.
I suggest all readers with an open-mind simply google "Dish Texas fracking" and you will see how accurate Rocky's intial assessment of what is going on there really is.
Are we better off now than we were four years ago?
The stock market sure is.
Detroit's auto industry sure is?
Republican actor and film director Clint Eastwood thinks we are?
John Boehner and the Republican politicians in the US House and Senate don't want us to be; they and Mitt Romney want us to go back to the Bush years.
I want to keep going forward, not backwards.
Rocky,
Have you ever thought about creating your own Blog Site so you and your 5 or so faithful followers and their alter egos could reinforce your ideas of Amerika in a room of your own? Just look at this one thread and see how much you try to dominate (occupy) the blog space. I have a feeling that you may not even realize how you come off. It is painfully obvious to me, at least to me, that the you and your's are just preaching to yourselves. If you are so passionate about these liberal ideas, why not run for office so you can do something about it? I suspect you know as I do, your diatribes would get hardly any notice or votes in the real world.
BTW, Fracking has been with us since at least the sixties when I worked in the oil patch over in Alabama and I never heard of water catching on fire because of it.
Good Luck with your new Blog Site!
Here is a second Scientific American article - this one about the water pollution that started in Pavilion, Wyoming when the quick rush to start fracking began - without a clear understanding of what effect fracking and its "secret" chemicals would have on the ground water in the area.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemicals-found-in-drinking-water-from-natural-gas-drilling&page=3
It is very important to understand that the Clean Water Act was amended under the Bush Administration to EXEMPT fracking companies from legal liability that could better guaranteee that local drinking water would be protected from company's engaging in irresponsible fracking activity.
It is also in the pro-fracking Clean Water Act amended bill that fracking companies DO NOT have to disclose the chemicals being used during the fracking process.
As a result, the studies needed to be done by the US EPA and other state public health orgs are rendered ineffective if they cannot compare the chemicals in the water to the chemicals used during the fracking process.
Read the Scientific American article. It will tell readers a lot of what is really happening in the fracking business.
Anonymous, you still haven't responded to my request that you and your deregulator cohorts provide unbiased scientific evidence that minimally regulated fracking activity is safe - and not in fact creating public health problems in our water and air.
The rest of your comment is wasteful personal hostility nonsense.
Rocky, I apologize for the delay in compiling some supporting documents. I have pasted some links below that provide good information. Hope these answer some of the questions raised. The second to last link is a study regarding the different types of methane gas. The bottom link from COGCC is from a 1976 report regarding already existing high levels of methane. Also methane gas evaporates out of water so it is not considered a health risk.
http://www.mos.gov.pl/g2/big/2012_01/12d9f6a02b57db505a97e28f17bc0bc7.pdf
http://www.anga.us/media/136662/cogis%20complaint%20report%205-23-08.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
http://www.anga.us/media/136665/mcclure%20complaint.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/GeoFingerPrinting.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/1976CDWRReport.pdf
Thank you last Anonymous.
I appreciate the information you kindly submitted for a more balanced side of the fracking debate - at least the part that deals with the issue you raised - water inflammability caused by a hopefully innocuous methane infiltration.
With your information, readers of the Roundup can now more intelligently understand the complexity of the fracking debate and make more informed decisions about its benefit to our nation.
Facts and good research are ultimately what is most important for our community to move forward productively.
To Anonymous, Feb. 7, 12:12 PM:
You cite 6 articles which purportedly back up whatever your position on fracking/methane/water-on-fire is.
Three of the articles are from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Two are from America's Natural Gas Alliance. Great examples of fox guarding henhouse.
The final article is from www.mos.gov.pl, some bureau in Poland, written entirely in Polish. I don't read or speak that language. Do you?
FYI: The free Google Chrome browser provides an automatic and reasonable translation from almost any language to English.
Barbara, I apologize for the links not posting fully, I will try posting them again shortly. As for the sources provided the COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) is a Colorado State Agency and a division of the Department of Natural Resources. The two links from ANGA (Americas Natural Gas Alliance) are just scanned copies of the complaint reports filed to the COGIS (Colorado Oil and Gas Information Services) by two land owners who believed fracking was causing the issues with their well water.
Here are the links again, hopefully you should be able to copy and paste them to view the documents.
http://www.mos.gov.pl/g2/big/2012_01/12d9f6a02b57db505a97e28f17bc0bc7.pdf
http://www.anga.us/media/136662/cogis%20complaint%20report%205-23-08.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
http://www.anga.us/media/136665/mcclure%20complaint.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/GeoFingerPrinting.pdf
http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/1976CDWRReport.pdf
Anyone thought to look to see if any local business directly has benefited from the south Texas fracking?
I know of at least one.
"Anonymous said...
Anyone thought to look to see if any local business directly has benefited from the south Texas fracking?
I know of at least one."
What's your point? Is that supposed to be bad or good?
OK, Anonymous, what local business have benefitted directly from the south Texas fracking.
Is this a game or what?
Try this one.
http://www.texassharon.com/
Thanks to "lease-holder."
I looked at the www.texassharon.com
website. There are many fracking horror stories there.
Denton County (N.Texas) has put a moratorium on new fracking.
Earthquakes -- where almost unheard of -- are blamed on fracking (which is done with tremendous force, breaking up or "fracturing" underground rock formations.)The fractured plates are bound to slip along fault lines, causing shifting of the earth (earthquakes).
And on and on.
Who owns underwater land?
The question above is not a rhetorical one. If anyone knows the answer, please enlighten me and maybe others.
The question occurs to me because of a short article I read in the Austin newspaper, Feb. 5, p.B2. The headline says "MUD to buy underwater land." It seems that a group of MUDs and a property owners association bought from LCRA the land beneath a raw water intake barge which Lakeway MUD had previously bought from LCRA. The Lakeway MUD realized that LCRA had title only to the barge itself -- not also to the land beneath it, and so the MUDs/POA bought the land as well.
First of all, I guess I've never thought about anyone's owning land at the bottom of a lake. Are individuals allowed to own such property?
So, does the MUD/POA still have to buy from LCRA the water they suck up from Lake Travis through the intake barge? I presume the amount they suck up is done with a permit for a certain amount, from LCRA?
Second situation: in a recent (and ongoing) case, LCRA had to truck in water to Spicewood Beach because LCRA had been selling water from Lake Travis to bulk water haulers, drying up Spicewood Beach area wells. Is the amount of water which haulers take from Lake Travis permitted to them? If not, the situation is a bad precedent which can lead to haulers taking water from the lake which cities have already been permitted for. LCRA needs to keep a strict record of to whom it sells water, and how much.
Not a game, rather a challenge. Find the company making money off the Eagle Ford fracking. COD would have loved the challenge, and the result.
Barbara, the LCRA has easements over the land covered by the highland lakes, they do not own the land, only the right to inundate it.
Thanks for the info about land under lakes, Anon 8:27 PM!
A few of the oil companies which use fracking are Devon Energy, Halliburton, and Chesapeake Energy.
Just google "fracking," and you'll get more info than you'd ever want to read.
It is amazing the lack of knowledge the anti-fracking loonies have.
Halliburton is and Oilwell Service Company and has always been one, not an oil Company.
Chesapeake Energy is a Natural Gas Producer not an Oil Company.
I guess when you just make it up as you go it really doesn't matter.
To Anonymous 6:06 PM:
Okay, I was lazy in referring to Devon, Halliburton, and Chesapeake Energy collectively as "oil companies." Point taken.
BUT, whatever their proper descriptions, they all do aid and abet fracking. Fracking is used to free up natural gas as well as oil. And fracking uses harsh chemicals which get into the groundwater that people drink.
Halliburton indeed is involved in natural gas drilling operations.
Chesapeake has pretty much been taken over by BP, and XTO Energy, a subsidiary of Exxon/Mobile, is one of the biggest.
The list of companies involved in the gas play here in Texas is vast, because many are small operators or only involved in getting and managing leases.
There is essentially no difference in the players in the oil or gas business. Just look a little deeper and they are the same guys.
As a lease-holder, and someone who benefits from the mining of natural gas, I would like to see other methods of extraction used that do not do harm to water supplies or cause earthquakes or ruin the land around these wells.
If fossil fuel extraction cannot be made safe for everyone, it should not be allowed.
Same with any toxic industrial practice.
Humans are idiots to have developed ways of doing business and making things that injure and kill themselves and other living things.
Post a Comment