The View From 1776

Anti-Job-Creation EPA Twists Evidence

See Tainted EPA Report on Fracking.



Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/15 at 06:46 PM
  1. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas,

    You should know from your own living period in Stamford, that this paragraph is baloney. It says that wells go down only 300 feet so why worry if there is pollution deeper than that?? Over on Westover Road, the water wells are typically 700 to 900 feet deep because that is where the water-bearing strata are! And the aquifers are usually much deeper than that!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/17  at  04:46 PM
  2. I recently read a convincing article that North America will be exporting surplus oil and gas within 20 years--all because of advances in extracting energy from coal sands and shale. Apparently we have more reserves than Saudi Arabia when that resource is properly measured.

    If JFK was alive he might well promise to be shipping oil to the Middle East and the moon by the end of the decade--It is a worthy goal not only to rescue our nation, curb the OPEC power, defund terrorism, balance our trade and currency, but to employ millions of Americans here at home. And our engineers and entrepreneurs are fully capable of finding a way to avoid contaminating our water whuile accomplishing energy independence.

    The EPA will retard all such progress, and another term of Obama could derail it, but I believe the private sector will succeed, even while dragging the public sector along the way, and restore financial security to America.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/17  at  08:26 PM
  3. Mr. Jay, there may be water wells as deep as you say on Westover Road, but there is no drilling for gas or oil. The article referred to in my post concerned an entirely different location and was specific to that location.

    It's also true that the scaremongering in Pennsylvania relates to water wells that were tainted by natural causes long before frackiong started. In that area and where I live (soiuthern tier NYS) oil and natural gas emanated from underground seams in the rock, all well known to the Senecas before the arrival of white settlers.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/17  at  08:37 PM
  4. Mr. Jay, I should add that all, or nearly all, disaster warnings come in areas like NYS that have for decades been corrupted by reliance upon the welfare state.

    In a place like Hornell, NY (the old maintenance center for the Erie Railroad) more than a thousand people have been laid off by the successor entity, Alstom. Yet many people blindly reject replacement jobs in oil and gas drilling by opposing fracking and by supporting windmills that kill thousands of birds, make ear-splitting noise, yet produce only the tiniest trickles of electricity. The Welfare State of New York's "solution" is spending a few hundred thousand dollars on a development plan. As is said of Utica, NY, a long-term economic basket case, the only industry is economic development planning.

    One must conclude either that protesters are ignorant about the realities of jobs, or that they want to create Rousseau's fantasy land populated by noble savages living in bark-and-branch long houses, burning wood fires (pollution, anyone?), killing game with bows and arrows, and raiding neighboring tribes to steal food.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/17  at  08:51 PM
  5. Mark Perry has been all over this recently:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/18  at  12:07 PM
  6. "wells go down only 300 feet so why worry if there is pollution deeper than that"

    The point is that the EPA did not discover "pollution". They found hydrocarbons which were known to exist at those levels naturally, and confirmed from the earliest test wells. For that matter, there's been hydrocarbon in the ground almost throughout PA and WV since at least the 1750s, when an expedition into what is now KY made use of a "boiling spring" (a natural natural gas spring, as opposed to a natural gas well) to cook buffalo hides because they were totally out of food supplies. One of the towns that was established in the area made use of gas light and heating from a discovered natural gas spring until it ran out one night in about 1850 as I recall.

    So, properly, if they want to claim pollution has been introduced, they'd have to sink test wells in the area both deeper and shallower than the planned shale gas (and/or shale oil) fractionating wells, take samples and measure the profiles of water, hydrocarbons, trace metals including radioactives, and then periodically re-test as the gas an oil are extracted, then charge a reasonable fee for introduced contaminants. But, of course, they don't want to be reasonable. They want to speak in fictional absolutes in order to achieve their goals of making hydrocarbons for fuel and chemical feed-stocks more expensive and thus keep the citizenry as peasants under the guberment's thumb.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/18  at  12:18 PM
  7. Igo makes some good points, and I would agree that rigorous testing and documentation is certainly needed before this fracking activity becomes more wide spread. As it stands now, the well drillers do not have to state which chemicals (even if carcinogenic)they are injecting into strata to free up the hydrocarbons, so determining whether they are responsible for any particular contaminant is difficult.

    And to Mr. Brewton's argument that because of hard economic times, any job should be welcomed, even if it is doing something that may pollute the local water table, seems a little radical.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/18  at  06:27 PM
  8. A contrarian view might be to weigh the difference between killing and maiming thousands of America's youth in the Middle East wars in order to maintain energy imports versus the possible few(?) deaths from pollution caused by fracking. As the devil's advocate, I suggest that killing 5,000 citizens from pollution, sad as that may be, is less costly in lives and dollars than continuing wars in the Middle East!

    I suggest this bizarre illustrative example merely to illustrate that no alternative is without its costs. To achieve zero harm from energy production is a utopian dream. The creation of more energy in America will have its benefits that must be measured against the costs we have seen in Iraq and still ongoing in Afghanistan.

    Obama apparently prefers the continued killing of America's youth in Afghanistan to a little water pollution in Wyoming.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/18  at  09:59 PM
  9. Okay, Bill, I'll bite. Just how much oil are we getting from Afghanistan? Darned little, I'll venture and certainly not enough as interests our oil field developers while far richer fields remain.

    I'm afraid you've bought into the media/lefty swill the War on Terror is all or mainly about oil. It has never been about oil, even when we were in Iraq, not even when Republicans promised the war would pay for itself in oil savings. And, Bush bent over backwards keeping it that way such that, now, we have the spectacle of Iraqi oil we liberated flowing mainly to China (anywhere but here). There may be other pacifist arguments you can legitimately make against the WOT, but oil just isn't one of them. Sorry.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/25  at  02:03 PM
  10. Latest on attempts by leftist scare-mongers to cut off domestic oil and gas extraction:
    Karl Henkel _Youngstown OH Vindicator_
    2.4 earth-quake was area's 9th since March
    "The preliminary determination from USGS was that the depth was 4 kilometers or 2.4 miles below the ground.
    All of the other shakes registered depths of about 5 kilometers or 3.1 miles...
    The approximate depth of the latest quake is about 7K feet below the bottom of the D&L Energy Inc. brine-injection well.
    About 300 feet of the D&L injection well reaches the depth of the Precambrian, a nearly impermeable formation, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources."
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/25  at  04:50 PM
  11. Hi Bob, and it's good to see you back posting!

    My "Devil's Advocate" argument was perhaps a little too multi-tiered. And perhaps the wars in the Middle East are not wholly related to our energy policy. But, if we were energy independent--exporting oil and gas, the Middle East potentates would be financially less well-off and would have less money to fund terrorism.

    And we would have an improved balance of trade, more jobs at home, and we could totally eliminate the maintenance of oil supplies as a consideration in our foreign policy. I believe those benefits alone would offset at least some modest increase in pollution.

    I also believe that if we were energy independent our so-called experts in foreign policy would find it easier to deal with problems in the Middle East, Venezuela, and Africa. That could lead to less foreign entanglements, and perhaps reduce the cost of our involvement in regional conflicts.

    Finally, I wonder why Obama (and apparently you)continue to support the surge in Afghanistan if maintaining power in the Middle East region is not a sustaining motivation because I don't see it helping the WOT?
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/25  at  04:54 PM
  12. Bill,

    I never said (nor implied) I support the current presence in Afghanistan; only that it is not and never was about oil. The main reason I am against the surge is it serves no real purpose being there, neither strategically or tactilely; especially as Obama has no intention of pursuing effective war aims.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/25  at  11:41 PM
  13. Bob,

    I must confess that I was for the middle east incursions before I was against them. My initial support was based on the idea that 1.) I should support the government and troops in the field; 2.) Establishing a base in the middle of the Islamic theocracies would disturb their power base, 3.) that being there boots on the ground we could root out some of the worst terrorists; 4.)that we might actually succeed in nation building as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII; and 5.)that Saddam Hussein was helping finance terrorist organizations.

    Even with hind-sight it appears those goals were worthy and to a large part achieved. But Afghanistan is another matter--something like the quagmire we faced in Vietnam. And, I agree with you that it serves little purpose to stay there.

    If I had my way there would have been a slower departure from Iraq and a quicker departure from Afghanistan.
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/26  at  11:07 AM
  14. Re. the trade-off on ground pollution vs energy independence.

    Even if we for argument sake accept the possibility that our foreign entanglements have nothing to do with maintaining a supply of oil, there is still a need to recognize there is a trade-off involved in keeping our energy needs met. Some pollution must be accepted in return for all the comforts and benefits that come from a successful economy.

    For example, how many coal miners die to maintain our energy needs? How many motorists die each year to allow free and fast access on our highways? How many die in testing new drugs that in turn end by saving many lives? How many athletes get maimed to provide our rich sports entertainment? And so forth--nothing is perfect--

    Is it unreasonable to expect that some penalties and deaths are to be accepted in order to gain access to all the oil and gas from Fracting hitherto hidden deposits?
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/26  at  11:17 AM
  15. If I had my way there would have been a slower, unannounced departure from Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan with thousands of intelligence gathering agents embedded in the area.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/26  at  06:20 PM
  16. Bill,

    Good to be back; though, alas, briefly.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  09:15 PM
  17. J. Jay,

    You are such a hoot. JGO explains why EPA might think it necessary going three times deeper than residents drill their wells, and why the EPA testing was, in some regards, bogus, and you still manage to mangle the logic to imply its
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/28  at  09:23 PM
  18. Bob--why are you back just "briefly"? Where can one go to escape the internet and The View?
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/29  at  11:43 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.