Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:59 AM

GasBuddy News Article

50
votes
EPA fracking investigation in Wyoming revisited after objections

Ars Technica -- In December of last year, Ars reported on a major EPA study in Pavillion, Wyoming that concluded hydraulic fracking operations there had contaminated the groundwater aquifer. While there wasn’t a clear link to contamination detected in some shallow private water wells, EPA believed the deeper contamination was very likely related to fracking. This determination came primarily from two deep monitoring wells that EPA had installed for the investigation.

Encana, the gas exploration company that owned the natural gas wells, disagreed vehemently. They asserted that EPA had drilled monitoring wells into a zone where gas was naturally present. As for the other compounds EPA detected in the wells, which were known to be components of fluids used during fracking, Encana said these were likely intr


Read the Full Article

Submitted Oct 15, 2012 By: CdnLynx
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: EPA fracking investigation in Wyoming revisited after objections Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2012 11:55:58 AM

You're welcome CdnLynx
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,032,810
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2012 11:40:55 PM

Interesting Dr.Pepper; Tks for the scientific journal, report from this scientific peer to peer journal. This report on Colo. air sampling of natural gas.
This 10 Oct 2012 draft by Mr. Levi; Not being a scientist, hope the final report, will be written for comprehension of the common layman; somehow think it will be scientific peer to peer again.
Curious, if when they say venting, are they speaking of deliberate and or accidental venting of natural gas from well heads.
If this does not add up with amounts in the atmosphere; then does the additional natural gas amounts within the Colo. air, could it be coming from the natural percolation through ground leakage or other wells in addition to the ones tested.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2012 11:33:56 AM

You might find this New Paper interesting. The report finds NOAA’s methane leakage estimates to be “unsupportable”.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,032,810
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2012 12:48:30 AM

Aquiclude (impermeable layers) are supposed to be an impermeable layer, my assertion (Not, my ascertain - should watch my English) is that when there are disruptions to the earth, either by fracking or earthquakes, this will cause faults and fissures increases to the impermeable layers, resulting in the escape of Natural gas (methane etc) through this layer into the air. Another assertion is that fracking, the human industrial activity will aggravate/increase the migration of gas through the impermeable layers, beyond, just the natural release of natural gas. Air testing in Colo. have found that since the increase in fracking, there has been an increase of methane in the upper atmosphere.
I have never made any comments re: fracking, contributing to earthquakes; reason being, is that the tectonic plates are significantly deeper then the hydro-carbon pockets/formations. Faults can be in other areas and in the shallow areas toward the surface, and they could effect the oil/gas fields; they may have a effect on local faults. I am open to further evidence of whether it contributes or not.
I feel that major/medium earthquakes would be due to the buildup of tectonic plates pressure, placing an increase pressure on faults in a particular area.
USGS earthquakes data, most earthquakes are miles beneath the surface; there are the odd ones, close to the surface.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 2:53:57 PM

"Just want to clarify one thing, about the Aquiclude (impermeable layers), my ascertain is that yes they maybe impermeable; however during times when the ground is disrupted by fracking/earthquakes etc, this may still cause faults/fissures that may allow for lighter then air to migrate up through this not-so impermeable layer) allowing it to escape into the upper atmosphere. Yes, I want energy but not at the expense of the environment; the modern fracking developed around 1998 is far more intrusive then the original fracking that was developed around 1947."
=====================
When you use the word "may", that is an oversimplification of a million maybe's.
There's a lot of confusion over this earthquake hype. Notice that the evidence toward earthquakes is 99% on disposal wells, not as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Yet the headlines always read "fracking caused earthquakes" or some twist to that supposition.

Again, for there to be an earthquake there must already be faults in the earth crust. If those faults are present the chances that methane is contained under an existing fault (conduit for migration) is almost nil, as the gas could not be trapped in an impermeable layer. As to fraccing (older or newer) the length of the fractures created is minimal (less than 300' ft) and those fractures so narrow (millimeters), only enough for the proppant sand particles to wedge and hold open that a conduit for gas migration is not probable.

As to methane, oil and other natural carbons escaping into the atmosphere, land or oceans...this has been and will continue to be a natural event anyway. Nature has always vented these emissions, what we term pollution is actually a part of nature as we are a part of the natural world. WHo are we to say what is good or bad for the planet? We did not have a choice as to being part of the system.

Now, I agree that I want to do what is best for, or what I think is best for the land I own and my family. The lengths I go to manage the habitat, take care of the soil and so on are my choice, a part of the freedom of choice we are supposed to have. Some things are completely out of my control, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes and so forth. We see these as disasters, nature sees them as part of the natural cycle.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 2:33:54 PM

CdnLynx, it is always the case that there will be common ground between people.

I completely agree with your thoughts about the Keystone XL.

A couple of quick responses to "I know you don't like the EPA, maybe you don't like other fed depts, like USGS, NOAA, USF&W; maybe you harbour animosity towards Texas A&M, for participating in these report findings."
============
I do not have problems with the EPA, in the original intent of the EPA. What I have a problem with is the EPA being used by an administration to aid and abet a political position, let's please be clear on that! Take the warbler and toad situations any maany more like them, these should be regionally overseen by the state concerned.
-I recieved my degree from Texas A&M, no animosity there.
-The USGS, NOAA, and the USF&WS- no particular animosity there either as long as they remain non-political.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,032,810
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 1:46:26 PM

I understand there are regional interests, that I would not be privy to; I took a quick cursory look at both the Houston frog and the Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat on my own. Tks for the pdf doc on the Warbler.
I quickly perused the (194 pg) report that was research by Texas A&M Univ and US Fish & Wildlife. This report is all encompassing re: bird, breeding, wintering areas, its life. They are trying to save the bird and its habitat; yes, if the breeding areas in Texas are compromised; suspect they will try to ensure its survivability within the areas of their jurisdiction/influence.
I know you don't like the EPA, maybe you don't like other fed depts, like USGS, NOAA, USF&W; maybe you harbour animosity towards Texas A&M, for participating in these report findings.
Your not the only person affected; earlier this year I was in N. Ontario, there were a nesting pair of bald eagles, that have been returning every yr. Their nest was on the friends, neighbouring property, the owner was not able to do anything w/his property as the B.eagle is a threatened species; could not build anything! The owner might be considering/trying to sell the property. This is only hearsay, from my friend and I have not ck's out the policy myself. Don't believe there is a concerted effort by gov't/organizations of trying to interfere with anything that you and others maybe a supporter of.
Gov't and private agencies/orgs, the world over are trying their best to save the environment as it's that very environment that nurtures/benefits humanity.
Your correct, I can't speak directly about events in Texas; overall I am allowed an opinion that differs from yours as I don't think everything or everybody is out to persecute people of the same mindset as yourself.
It's still my opinion, that the mandate of Gov't agenies, (ie. epa, usgs, noaa and usf&W etc) are there for the benefit of the people they represent. You may disagree, as their policies at time seem to negatively affect the interests you and others support/purport.

Just want to clarify one thing, about the Aquiclude (impermeable layers), my ascertain is that yes they maybe impermeable; however during times when the ground is disrupted by fracking/earthquakes etc, this may still cause faults/fissures that may allow for lighter then air to migrate up through this not-so impermeable layer) allowing it to escape into the upper atmosphere. Yes, I want energy but not at the expense of the environment; the modern fracking developed around 1998 is far more intrusive then the original fracking that was developed around 1947.

Re: another thread here yesterday, you may not have been a contributor however I just thought I would add comment here.
I am also a supporter of Keystone! Its far safer then train; however there is much false rhetoric re: jobs, steel quality, China, and other never ending crap. Canada is not out to get America. It was my understanding that Canada was going to send to oil south; as the gulf coast area had excess refining capacity. Now there are rumblings on this forum re: eagle oil. Originally the U.S was going to refine the Cdn. crude; it has evolved that we will also ship N. Dakota (Balkan) oil, that's an American resource to do with as America sees fit. However Canada should be able to utilized its oil as it sees fit; my understanding that it was for the U.S market; however, over time it seems to have evolved or hijacked, as being exported overseas, including China. It is still an export, if Cdn oil is used/export to the U.S., whether it's crude or refined in America. A lot of this is semantics. When there was talk of keystone failing, Canada considered other markets including China!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/18/2012 1:48:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 11:01:37 AM

Now take a look at what the Central Texas landowner faces if he or she owns property with Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat.

194 pages
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 10:06:03 AM

I live between Houston and Dallas. Has no bearing on this anyway.

And wells, conventional or not have the same risk, well casing integrity. And casing failure is very, very rare and an issue already strongly regulated by the TRRC.

Relieved? Hardly. I would welcome oil or gas production on my ranches, it's just too deep for production at this time.

I've brokered the sale of hundreds of ranches with oil and gas production, all wells are tested prior to executing a contract during the inspection period. Never has the been a case of a "poisoned" well.

You're right about one thing, we it agree on the impermeable layers of rock trapping the gas. Just suffice to say that the rock has contained this gas somehow for millions of years or it would not be there today.

I beg your pardon sir! As a a listened Broker in the State of Texas I am bound to be responsible for my agents remarks. Doth by TREC law, and the Realtor code of ethics. And that code of ethics, which I take and honor, firmly entrenches my thoughts that the EPA should be held responsible for their employees statements. Period!

And the EPA has caused more issues for farmers and ranchers than oil or gas. You have no clue what we have faced with habitat issues from the golden cheeked warbler to the Houston toad. Until you have personally witnessed their heavy handed tactics, you have no room to speak.

Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,032,810
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 1:32:49 AM

Think I will summarize now; opposed to later; Naive EH! (just to make you happy and put a smile on ur face {;-) ). I think we agree, to disagree!
Since I know your going to state the following is wrong or even worse.

Curious, where in Texas do you reside, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, etc?

1. Southwest U.S, Texas is not really abundant with potable water, as opposed to other areas of America. Yes, sitting over gas/oil fields is really profitable to the land owner but only for the gas/oil. My point is, that lands that have little water, and if it has been poisoned by oil/gas, then the land loses all value for ranching/farming. Hopefully the land could be used for both, without compromising the land for living off, specifically living/grazing. Conventional gas wells without the fracking, minimises the water contamination of the ground waters.
Your quote as follows "and as luck would have it, there are no recoverable gas or oil fields beneath my ranches."; You, sound relieved that there are no recoverable oil/gas on your property. Yes your right, I agree that it increases land values, for all that you state; Again, my concern is the possible poisoning of the water for the land, as it was intended, for ranching/grazing/farming/living.
2. "Gasland"; my point is, I don't have to watch this to know of the problem, it's been documented all over N. America that people Had potable water; then after the fracking, in close proximity to their water wells, then the water then becomes contaminated with flammable gas. This happed in many areas of N. America, not just in the areas represented by gasland.
3. I have seen the illustrations of the fracking, that show Aquiclude (impermeable layers); this is my contention that they may not be as seal-able as the industry or its supporters attests to.
If the Aquiclude areas are truly impervious to gas migrating into aquifer levels, that would be great; however the water (aquifers) is/are being contaminated with lighter the air natural gas (methane etc). Yes, fissures in the ground are there, however we with fracking are disturbing/disturbing the substrate and may allow for this gas to vent not only into the wellhead but some maybe venting through the substrate into the upper atmosphere; the link previously given was the University of Irvine findings with increase of Methane in the higher altitude of Colo. Methane is not completely being contained, at the well-heads.
4. If one of your ranch-hands or real-estate agents make comments that are not correct, and gives a bad impression of your Ranch or Brokerage firm, and it's not sanction policy or proper comments, and they caused your organization damage; should you be held responsible for their comments or should they? I firmly believe the person uttering the comment should be held accountable for what they say. Gov't employer sanctioned the employee upon uttering a viewpoint not in accordance with policies of the gov't department. This is why I state you should not be blaming the EPA!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/17/2012 1:34:53 AM EST]
Profile Pic
teafortwo
Champion Author Washington

Posts:27,165
Points:1,984,685
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 12:47:47 AM


CdnLynx,

Thanks for posting this article about the additional test results confirming fracking chemical contamination of the Wyoming aquifer. Water is essential to life, therefore, it is a very serious and sad situation for which the industry continues to refuse to take responsibility.

Kudos on your attempt below. Good comments.

Unfortunately, GB allows shills and spin doctors on the site. They pose as members, but as you have noticed they have no interest in discussion of test results or legitimate science news. They are here only to spew industry propaganda and misinformation :0\ As pathetic as it sounds, that is the truth of the matter for several very vocal "members".

This however, may help you to understand why they keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, even when the scientific facts show their claims to be blatantly false.

This may also help you to understand the venom of the attacks on anyone that discusses legitimate science. This goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. The intention is to harass and intimidate into silence any members that prefer legitimate science over industry propaganda.

The good news?
The oil & gas industry has jobs for pathological liars much like the tobacco industry.
Also, many GB members have picked up on the motives of these shrolls and have them on ignore.

Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 3:36:17 PM

RE: the questions to my occupations. "As per your profile > Not sure why Fracking is so important to a real estate agent, unless your ranches are sitting on enormous gas fields. Fracking is not good for land values. Puzzled and very curious!"
===============================
No sir, as Broker/Owner of a real estate office I do know land values, and as luck would have it, there are no recoverable gas or oil fields beneath my ranches. You could not be more wrong (likely just mis-informed) about hydraulic fracturing and land values! One, if the landowner has mineral and royalty interest, there's going to be a PREMIUM to the price of that person's land. Two, even if the landowner is not selling his property values increase (thereby increasing the ad valorem tax values of the land. Three, the land is now a tremendous income producing asset adding further value to the property. Four, even the drilling itself increases the land value as the companies drilling will build tremendous roads into and out of the property.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 2:00:36 PM

As to the theory posted "Gasland, well I watched something quite some time ago, however flammable gases, which I grant you are natural gas (methane included); what is not natural is human process of physically disrupting the earth to squeeze more out of the gas pockets. Natural gas, being lighter then air will not all migrate to the gas well head, they will also begin to percolate through the earth ground fissures, generated by the fracking. This gas will rise into the upper atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases and global warming."
===================
"Gasland imagery, using tap water burning all the while knowing this has been happening for over a century, has been proven as deception and fraud. As far as gas migration due to fracturing your theory is unworkable, if there were fissures already occurring there would be no need for fracturing, mat gas would have already permeated to the surface and the atmosphere. As to fracturing causing a pathway, an extremely long shot, please look up the length of the tiny fissures created in a frac job. Most are less than 50ft of the well bore, the longest, in rare cases, are 300 ft. The theory of fracced fissures allowing gas to escape to the surface thru thousands of feet of solid rock is not sound.
Profile Pic
sparky808
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:5,379
Points:1,180,100
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 1:34:29 PM

Thank you for posting.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,357
Points:1,353,245
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:51:00 PM

CdnLynx "Mr. Al Armendariz (EPA) area 6 regional director made erroneous comments, (I Do Not condone); Yes he lashed out; people at times when frustrated sometimes say things in the heat of battle, its a human failing. He paid the price with his dismissal. He is one man, and those were his personal views when he was frustrated. It is unfair to hold the EPA to his comments."
==========================
Frustrated? Lashed out? Really? At what? You may not "condone" it but you'll apologize for him??? People get frustrated and lash out when they are emotionAlly charged ideologues, period.

Armendariz was a prototype Obama appointee, ideological, an "academic" with ties to radical 'environmentalists'. He garnered over $540,000 in public grants, had Almost no private work experience and zero managerial experience, sounds just like Obama eh?

Armendariz did not just talk about "crucifying" oil companies, he attempted it just a few months after uttering that statement. See Range Resources vs EPA, later the EPA was forced to withdraw Armendariz' emergency order and the Federal Court dismissed the case.

No sir, it is in no way unfair to hold the EPA to his comments, they knew EXACTLY what they were getting when he was appointed, to claim differently is naive at best.
Profile Pic
gas4433
Champion Author Houston

Posts:3,339
Points:1,069,860
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:42:06 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
jrs4125
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:4,822
Points:1,182,870
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 6:45:22 AM

Money is always right in the US.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,233
Points:1,032,810
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:37:05 AM

Late response to some of your earlier comments.
Mr. Al Armendariz (EPA) area 6 regional director made erroneous comments, (I Do Not condone); Yes he lashed out; people at times when frustrated sometimes say things in the heat of battle, its a human failing. He paid the price with his dismissal. He is one man, and those were his personal views when he was frustrated. It is unfair to hold the EPA to his comments. Even I become frustrated!
Gasland, well I watched something quite some time ago, however flammable gases, which I grant you are natural gas (methane included); what is not natural is human process of physically disrupting the earth to squeeze more out of the gas pockets. Natural gas, being lighter then air will not all migrate to the gas well head, they will also begin to percolate through the earth ground fissures, generated by the fracking. This gas will rise into the upper atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases and global warming.
EPA Site > This is an EPA repository site for all docs including USGS followup report.
As per your profile > Not sure why fracking is so important to a real estate agent, unless your ranches are sitting on enormous gas fields. Fracking is not good for land values. Puzzled and very curious!
BLM, I suspect your mean Bureau of Land Mgmt; not sure what their involvement is in these circumstances.
Dear DrPepper (I did not use EH!, yes I noticed previous comments/mock, to Cadillac and myself)- Your killing me w/semantics. EPA is not the problem; it's been hijacked; its being used as a rallying cry, as to all that is wrong; by its opponents for their own nefarious reasons.
Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field
You may not agree, but Mother Earth is being ravaged by its inhabitants; some unwittingly, others, deliberately and for their own gain!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/16/2012 12:42:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
camel1
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:10,822
Points:2,857,715
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:32:33 AM

ok
Profile Pic
PDQBlues
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:9,658
Points:2,048,825
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:27:40 AM

crashintuc34: I'm all for energy independence and getting at our natural resources, but in a way that doesn't cause long term damage.

Everyone will agree to that. It's the amount of damage and pollution we're willing to accept.

Thanks for posting, CdnLynx.
Profile Pic
us4usa
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:7,095
Points:1,492,920
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:15:49 AM

Time will tell...
Profile Pic
rahcat
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:5,315
Points:1,267,600
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:08:23 AM

Pull funding for the EPA. Maybe it will quietly go away.
Profile Pic
diesel8888
Champion Author Salt Lake City

Posts:3,433
Points:930,495
Joined:Nov 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:04:22 AM

Ok
Profile Pic
crashintuc34
Champion Author Tucson

Posts:5,707
Points:1,146,235
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:02:08 AM

I'm all for energy independence and getting at our natural resources, but in a way that doesn't cause long term damage.
Profile Pic
PrinceLH
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:5,302
Points:1,141,470
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:00:25 AM

Only 3 more weeks to go!
Profile Pic
getalong
Champion Author California

Posts:2,407
Points:431,405
Joined:Aug 2007
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:00:01 AM

does it never end?
Profile Pic
radiorumor
Champion Author Texas

Posts:5,280
Points:1,350,775
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:58:45 PM

What…Objections to injections?
Profile Pic
IUVidiot
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,195
Points:1,312,535
Joined:Jun 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:57:49 PM

k
Profile Pic
bsg75
All-Star Author Chicago

Posts:522
Points:146,795
Joined:May 2010
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:57:23 PM

End the EPA! Never mind that it was created by a Republican. The last thing good conservatives should do is conserve. If we are going to be concerned about future generations we might as well have left the country to the Injuns. Live for NOW, tomorrow may never come. Rapture, harpazo, these are the end of days, praise Jesus, herp derp.
Profile Pic
jrsva
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:12,685
Points:2,216,650
Joined:Jan 2006
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:54:53 PM

We are carrying out a nationwide experiment to determine if fracking using toxic chemicals is safe. If it is we win and get a lot of cheap oil and gas. If it is not we lose and get a lot of contaminated water from which people will get sick and die. Wouldn’t it be better to slow down the headlong rush to frack and do some controlled studies in limited areas? What we don’t know CAN hurt us.

[Edited by: jrsva at 10/15/2012 11:55:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
fullauto
Champion Author Reading

Posts:7,080
Points:1,871,095
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:48:50 PM

ugh!
Profile Pic
nehemiah
Champion Author Portland

Posts:6,334
Points:1,412,525
Joined:Jul 2007
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:45:17 PM

we need other alternatives
Profile Pic
veemotors
Champion Author Alberta

Posts:1,314
Points:106,975
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:44:44 PM

oh frack.. thats terrible
Profile Pic
blazerbob91
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:7,089
Points:2,444,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:42:01 PM

Frackin is no frackin good for ground water
Profile Pic
Blue48
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:9,921
Points:2,242,245
Joined:Feb 2007
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:37:22 PM

OK!
Profile Pic
bonzoonfmb
Champion Author Florida

Posts:2,540
Points:888,110
Joined:Feb 2010
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:36:37 PM

It is too late to turn back now.
Profile Pic
AnObserver
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:10,785
Points:2,828,090
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:36:26 PM

We really need to understand the long term implications of fracking.

NedW: Here's a quarter, go out and buy a clue
Profile Pic
menagerie1013
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:2,365
Points:1,161,790
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:34:42 PM

Fracking is bad.
Profile Pic
NedW
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:7,899
Points:1,655,325
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:33:36 PM

The EPA has outlived its usefulness. It now is facilitating Obama's mission promise to "fundamentally change" America;" read that, lower its living standard.
Profile Pic
carinthuist
Champion Author San Francisco

Posts:5,088
Points:864,775
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:31:58 PM

ok
Profile Pic
mcmonsta
Champion Author Honolulu

Posts:5,586
Points:1,410,935
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:28:31 PM

double check now or suffer later!
Profile Pic
Jeeputtputt
Champion Author Ohio

Posts:3,027
Points:692,490
Joined:Aug 2009
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:25:14 PM

costly?
Profile Pic
pgerassi
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:13,509
Points:2,734,665
Joined:Apr 2007
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:19:24 PM

OK
Profile Pic
clermont40miles
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,912
Points:2,371,985
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:16:57 PM

Greenies behaving badly. GO AWAY.

Let the greenies walk. Let them freeze. Let them go broke. Let them go first.

Green is red.
Profile Pic
REKEY
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:11,136
Points:2,293,775
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:15:28 PM

Nothing wrong with fracking if you hate water.
Profile Pic
DeeLA
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:7,316
Points:1,956,610
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:15:06 PM

Okay.
Profile Pic
biggyhy
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:3,134
Points:989,860
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:13:05 PM

ok
Profile Pic
toadNY
Champion Author Albany

Posts:9,690
Points:2,117,950
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:10:28 PM

Need different ways to do it.
Profile Pic
SUPPER
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:2,701
Points:1,712,880
Joined:Dec 2004
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:10:13 PM

Ok
Profile Pic
aggietim
Champion Author Fort Worth

Posts:2,359
Points:1,152,270
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:09:26 PM

ok
Post a reply Back to Topics