<p>Wow, from the transcript it sounds like Graham Spanier may not have been in bed with Sandusky, but he was certainly bedfellows with the fracking industry.</p>
<p>Fracking is not new to the industry, as most oil producing states in the U.S. have seen that technology employed for the last 60 years or so.</p>
<p>Certainly, the new shale plays have created a whole new dimension to fracking, especially with respect to the volume of water used. For example, many wells have been historically fracked with 40,000 to 100,000 gallons of water and chemicals for a long time. But these new shale plays are being exploited with long horizontal wells, that may use as much as 2,000,000 gallons of water for a frac job.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, the chemicals used in most frack jobs are typically quite benign. The bad chemicals result from the producing formation after the frack job is complete, and good ol’ mother nature starts producing back much of the frack water that is now combined with all kinds of toxic substances that exist in the shale formation like benzene, toluene, etc.</p>
<p>In most oil-producing states, the flowback water is allowed to be pumped deep into the ground into approved disposal wells, which basically removes most of the bad things from the surface exposure. But in some states like Pennsylvania, it is next to impossible to get permits to drill disposal wells. That creates a whole other industry for wastewater treatment that is poorly regulated and largely misunderstood. </p>
<p>The waste water companies have been allowed in some of those states to dispose of “produced” water into streams and rivers, as long as they meet certain chloride limitations. This is crazy, and should be stopped. A MUCH better solution would be to approve the drilling of disposal wells, if feasible. (I can’t speak to the practicality of that for Pennsylvania as I’m not sure if there are any geological formations conducive for water injection.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is technology out there today that cleans up the vast majority of oilfield waters to the point of turning them into distilled water quality, then can be re-used, thus recycled by the industry. That technology costs about 10 cents per gallon, but would be money well spent to sanitize the process in areas that disposal is not an option.</p>
<p>Many people will call BS on me when I say this, but the oil industry is actually VERY sensitive to environmental issues. Sometimes politics get involved and ridiculous laws get passed that are not based on common sense. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania should impose a 5% gas severance tax immediately (most other producing states have something similar). The Marcellus Shale is a wonderful gas shale reservoir with huge potential. It should be exploited to it’s reasonable limit. The resulting jobs and tax revenues could have a huge impact on that portion of the US, mostly beneficial. The environmental issues that result from that activity should also be resolved to a reasonable limit. I assure you that oil and gas producers fully expect to operate in an environmentally sensitive manner, and usually do so within reason.</p>
<p>Hugcheck, Volz was fired by the Univ of Pittsburgh the day after his research was featured on JunkSciencedotcom. His firing was covered by some news organizations. Also, West Virginia DEP determined the cause of Dunkard Creek to be the coal industry. The coal industry has since paid millions in fines.</p>
<p>Volz quit his position at University of Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>The point of disagreement was what role advocacy should play in academia.</p>
<p>And, due to his concern about his findings, Volz provided his results to the EPA, rather than writing them up as scientific research.</p>
<p>Here is a NY Times article which discusses the causes of pollution at Dunkard Creek:</p>
<p><a href=“In Fish-Kill Mystery, EPA Scientist Points at Shale Drilling - NYTimes.com”>www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/10/12/12greenwire-in-fish-kill-mystery-epa-scientist-points-at-s-86563.html?pagewanted=all</a></p>
<p>Note that a scientist other than Volz raised the issue of fracking contamination in this case.</p>
<p>Volz “quit” after he was debunked. </p>
<p>[Pitt</a> prof caught off base in new frack attack | JunkScience.com](<a href=“http://junkscience.com/2011/03/27/pitt-prof-caught-offbase-in-new-frack-attack/]Pitt”>http://junkscience.com/2011/03/27/pitt-prof-caught-offbase-in-new-frack-attack/)</p>
<p>[Winning</a>! JunkScience.com knocks off anti-fracking professor | JunkScience.com](<a href=“http://junkscience.com/2011/04/10/victory-lap-junkscience-com-knocks-off-another-junk-scientist/]Winning”>http://junkscience.com/2011/04/10/victory-lap-junkscience-com-knocks-off-another-junk-scientist/)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t take the junkscience web site as the final word on this subject.</p>
<p>The founder and publisher of the site is Steve Milloy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody has disputed the Steve Milloy article including the Univ. of Pittsburgh and media outlets.</p>
<p>[News</a> Headlines](<a href=“http://www.cnbc.com/id/45208498]News”>Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied)</p>
<p>oil executives facing opposition to fracking and drilling at township meetings say they face an “insurgency”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>on hiring psy ops personnel:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and for those towns that don’t decide to buckle with friendly ordinances – they get lawsuits.</p>
<p>Your first quote is from Matt Carmichael, the manager of external affairs for Anadarko Petroleum. Clearly, he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the industry. His mistake was to copy the military instead of the “antis” who are experts in psy ops.</p>
<p>What is a friendly ordinance? Here, in the heart of Marcellus drilling, communities with illegal ordinances are being sued.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely accurate. Everyone should pay attention to that statement because almost none of the idiot journalists who cover the issue will include a statement like that in their “pieces” on this issue. It gets in the way of the idea that this is some unknown process that no one has any experience with.</p>
<p>It’s new to the Marcellus Shale; and each area’s geology is different. Range Resources had to experiment with test wells in absolute secrecy back in 2005, because they were unsure that it would ever work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Friendly” ordinances are permissive ones. They’re trying to replace local ordinances on fracking with jokes of regulations like rules that state well pads can’t be within 300 feet of your house. Gee, that’s encouraging.</p>
<p>Why should communities that clearly do not want fracking on their lands be forced to comply with the drilling invasion? That would seem to be a total contradiction of the principles of John Locke and Rousseau, which this country was founded on.</p>
<p>Evita, I must admit that there isn’t anyone with less knowledge of the Marcellus drilling than you. I guess by secrecy you mean that they didn’t put it on their billboards. Those of us who live in the heart of Marcellus drilling knew what was happening. They gave tours and even helicopter fly-overs. Maybe they aren’t good at keeping secrets.</p>
<p>Nobody is trying to get well pads within 300 feet. Did you make that up or read it on a hate blog?</p>
<p>Communities have to follow laws. Do you have those at UVA? Communities can’t exclude minorities, can’t legalize marajuana, can’t ban drilling, etc. People are free to demand changes in the laws but aren’t allowed to just ignore them. When they do, they get sued.</p>
<p>[New</a> York Senate Backs Fracking Moratorium, Pennsylvania Group Tallies Violations | Water Contamination From Fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing)](<a href=“http://www.water-contamination-from-shale.com/new-york/new-york-senate-backs-fracking-moratorium-pennsylvania-group-tallies-violations/]New”>http://www.water-contamination-from-shale.com/new-york/new-york-senate-backs-fracking-moratorium-pennsylvania-group-tallies-violations/)</p>
<p>"Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, a report by the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association said the state has identified 1,435 violations by 43 Marcellus Shale drilling companies since January 2008. Of those, 952 were identified as having or likely to have an impact on the environment. Those included 100 violations of the state Clean Stream Law, 268 for improper construction of waste water impoundments; 277 for poor erosion and sedimentation plans during well pad, road and piping construction; 16 for improper blowout prevention; and 154 for discharging industrial waste, including drilling waste water containing toxic chemicals, onto the ground or into streams.</p>
<p>The report is based on state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) enforcement records obtained through a Right to Know Request filed by the association."</p>
<p>Your link is to a website of a law firm that represents clients who sue the gas industry. Seriously?</p>
<p>Are there violations or not?</p>
<p>Yes. Are they serious or minor violations? We have nearly 4000 Marcellus wells drilled in PA and things happen.</p>
<p>collegekidsmom, you do understand that dstark’s website is no more partisan than junkscience.com?</p>
<p>fendrock, I can tell you that some of the information on the dstark website is incorrect. Please read and tell me what is incorrect on the junkscience.com site.</p>
<p>collegekidsmom, read the wikipedia article on Range Resources. I say this because I just replaced the previous corporate drivel that was on there and added like eleven sources, so I don’t want to repeat myself or post redundant links.</p>
<p>They did it in absolute secrecy in 2005, back when it was experimental. It in fact is, still experimental, just not as secret. Why was it secret? They didn’t want their competitors to find out that the Marcellus could work, if it indeed could work, at least not that soon. They silently bought up parcels of land in secret.</p>