Hydrofracking...

[Has Been]

Tell em , Walleye.

We need energy independece NOW !

And yup, there will probably be some sort of negative impact on the enviroment. As there always is when we extract the natural resources we want and need. That's the chance you have to take ,there are allways risks involved. And someone will make a good buck doing it, those damn 1 % ers.

Crap in a creek ,And yet we STILL have the some of the best fishing on the planet. I 'm not going to complain on the farmers who have it tough as it is. I like to eat.

[ifishy]

as far as being self sufficent our current natural gas supply exceeds the current demand with no more drilling sites economiclly this is the worst time to sell land for a new well. As i've said repeatedly lets wait and let the technology develop where its already being used so when the price goes back up it will be a lot safer in ny as far as using gas for my boat I would love to switch to an electric engine maybe if there wasnt so much oil being drilled there would be incentive to pursue that technology. there may be wells that are not near drilling that burn however the point your missing is there are wells that used to supply drinking water that never burned that now have eternal flames from fraking and are contaminated to a level where they are poisnous. no one can say what chemicals are being used because the gas companys wont tell us they are claiming its proprietary information and they all have a unique formula which they wont divulge. Do you really trust an energy company to do anything other than maximize there profit inpite of negative effects. yes they pump it below the aquafer but fracking means to break and shatter the shale dont you think this might light the fluid move up through the newley created cracks. and yes there are other sources of pollution out there but that is no reason to create a new one thats like saying fish are already caught by recreational anglers so lets let in unregulated commercial fishing. solar power is undeveloped? so lets use the money to develop it not mine gas no wind on the lake lets put it on land where it makes more sense nuclear power? actully a lot cleaner than people give it credit for. there is also geo-thermal which does exist and has a lot of potential. I'm only saying lets take all profit out of this equation and then re-evaluate it for what it is and I say that it demands caution and study and at this point there is no reason to rush.

[troutcatch]

I am not for fracking either, but I am with Gator as I am not sure there is anything that can be done about it right away. Most likely time will tell and hopefully whatever methods are used in the future will be safer and better for everyone.

[panfisher]

Hope and trust are good positives, and that is what drillers and extractors rely on. But, hard work and due diligence is what really turns good hopes into realities. And that is what develops and cultivates trust. Not powerpoints, payola, lobbying, and turning blind eyes to common sense. Water resources are at what's at stake here, as well as air and living quality. The natural gas will be there... Let's take stock of (count) our blessings and let's not throw the baby out (the high quality of our lives) with the bathwater (trading rather limited sweetwater reserves for short term jobs and potentially long term polluting issues). The high value of our freshwater and clean air and living environs will only continue to increase in value to everyone both within and without our state's borders, as other surrounding areas deteriorate in their value. Why could that happen? Well, look closely at the fracking process (I know it's not Right under your feet) as it is practiced, and think of why Haliburton and others worked so hard (there's that hard work thing again) to get immunity from EPA environmental impact responsibilities and accountability. Plus, the ingredients in the fracking fluids do not have to be divulged as public info because of proprietary issues. But this is not pizza sauce. These are combinations of highly toxic things made at a few limited plants, then pumped deep into the ground in huge quantities ALL OVER (or under, really) THE PLACE. Then much of it is brought back up, poured into holding ponds until it is pumped into trucks and hauled away to be dumped someplace else (a job!). Or, it's sent to regular waste-water treatment plants, which are in no way capable of, or were designed to, "treat" these kind of tricks and then poured into surface water sources (rivers and streams). Not to mention the fact that rather high volumes of excess methane gas are simply spewed off directly into the air to relieve pressure, as the holding places for the NG can't hold it all. Methane gas is a 20% better heat insulator than CO2. ( I know, water vapor is too. but what would you rather have in your face; water or methane?). Also, concrete is not a 100% indestructible material. All kinds of different mixing methods and criteria for use scenarios must be worked up (not to mentioned tested) to get the proper, long term job done in any particular usage. STOP. Now lets take a look at just these things mentioned. All of these things mean a job for someone to do. Potentially all kinds of employment opportunities. They all are places, too, where something or someone can go wrong in application, follow through, judgement, or any number of other pertinent-to-the-process things. Too many weak links. Which is the weakest link. It has all happened before. Sort of. Again, New York State sits atop of and holds sway to a very large source of the most precious natural resource of all: Clean, Free, fresh, sweetwater. You CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT THIS STUFF. We can live without natural gas, as it is want to be had through the hydrofracturing process. Find a better and cleaner way to putt ourselves around and heat stuff. I do believe in energy independence. I do believe in job creation. But I do more believe in "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush". The bird is our water, air and living environs. The two birds are in hell, using hydrofracturing as it is now practiced.

[walleyemagic]

"Then much of it is brought back up, poured into holding ponds until it is pumped into trucks and hauled away to be dumped someplace else"

See here is are the myths again .

Holding ponds, hmm i guess you are refering to Fracking ponds?

Wrong again.

The So called Frac ponds are Actually a FRESH Water Pond that holds FRESH WATER that is tested for any contaminites and is Strictly a FRESH Water pond. Some even 12 million gallons of FRESH Water.

Theses are used to Help Eliminate the Truck trafic and Pump water from the Pond to the Drill site. The Extract water is then filtered and 98 percent is reused.

And again your Wrong So Pay attention to the Facts and dont get caught up on the Myths

"Plus, the ingredients in the fracking fluids do not have to be divulged as public info because of proprietary issues. But this is not pizza sauce. These are combinations of highly toxic things made at a few limited plants, then pumped deep into the ground in huge quantities ALL OVER (or under, really) THE PLACE."

The Companies Have released the ingredients.

Maybe a little reading will help you on this subject. I know it takes more time than hearing from other people talk that dont read either but you can Learn if you read it for yourself. They even have the MSDS for it That is the Material Safety Datat Sheet want to make sure you know what that is so you dont misinterpret that for something also.

http://www.halliburton.com/public/proje ... tml?SRC=MP

[panfisher]

One cannot live without clean freshwater. One can live without money.

[JDKDesigns]

The Companies Have released the ingredients.

Maybe a little reading will help you on this subject. I know it takes more time than hearing from other people talk that dont read either but you can Learn if you read it for yourself. They even have the MSDS for it That is the Material Safety Datat Sheet want to make sure you know what that is so you dont misinterpret that for something also.

http://www.halliburton.com/public/proje ... tml?SRC=MP

In the Pennsylvania WaterFrac Formulation, Halliburton lists hydrochloric acid as one of the primary "constituents".

http://www.halliburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/Hydraulic_Fracturing/fluids_disclosure.html

Product Name.........................Additive............Purpose...........................................................................................Concentration

7.5% Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) | Acid / Solvent | Removes scale and cleans wellbore prior to fracturing treatment | 1000-4000 gal run ahead of frac

Is 1000 to 4000 gallons of 7.5% HCL a lot? How the frick often does it run ahead of frac? Every day? Every few minutes?

Hydrochloric acid is designated as being hazardous "as it appears on MSDS" but as a qualifier, they list some common

usages of it which includes the production of olives, unripened cheese, and yes, say it ain't so...Cottage Cheese!

The next thing you know, those environmentalists will be trying to take away our delicious cheese.

Seriously though, anyone who enjoys the benefits of clean water and good health should read the Material Safety Data Sheets

because it doesn't take a genius to understand they describe a concoction of nasty poisonous chemicals.

[Gill-T]

I hear rumblings that the EPA will be closing hydrofracking soon.

[seasquirrel]

They are supposed to reopen the railroads that were all damaged by the recent floods here in my area. These railroads havent been open since 2006. Federally funded project from what I hear. Supposedly to help supply materials needed in the anticipated gas drilling.

[walleyemagic]

I got an idea<

WE can use Big giant wind mills situated all over the Great lakes and Finger lakes.

We can start cutting whats left of our hardwood forests.

Start using Hydro power

Install Nuclear generator plants all over the great lakes Finger lakes and our Rivers since they need water to cool them

And then

We Can All GO TO BASS PRO SHOPS AND CABELAS AND FISH IN THERE Fish TANK AND PRETEND TO HUNT ON THERE SHOOTING GAME >

[panfisher]

What is the main, #1 reason anyone wants to have high-volume hydrofracturing processing taking place in their backyard or nearby or regional community?

[walleyemagic]

"We can live without natural gas, as it is want to be had through the hydrofracturing process"

Another Idea

See everyone wants the end product and needs the end product.

But no one wants the risks associated with the process.

Right now it is Safe if done properly [/b] , and Maybe down the road even safer.

But again even playing ball or flying a kite can lead to an accident.

Ever spill any oil from that outdrive on the ground while changing, hmm you contaminated that ground water.

How about the boat that leaks oil, or sinks. hmm contaminated the water.

All accidents.

See the words are IF DONE PROPERLY and YES Some Companies DO THIS.

Why not shut off all the Natural gas on the Pipeline,s that feeds the entire USA . Import All our gas from foreign countries. keep supporting the terrorists . Keep sending our troops over there instead of being in our own country protecting Our Country here and being with there families.

For just 1 week lets See what everyone heats and cooks with. and you know what might even by chance affect you electricity hmmmmmmmm.

Including NYC.

The entire city of Binghamton, Elmira, Ithaca, Syracuse, Scranton,. and all the others feed by Nyseg and Rochester gas . and all over the USA every one and everthing that uses CNG

You know what right now we would be #$%^%$# if that happened.

You tell me what else that is clean, abundant, natural, and can actually make our country USA self sufficient.

There is a reason the windshield is bigger than the rearview mirror.

WE Need to see More of what is ahead of us versus what we passed.

Merry Christmas

Have a Safe and Happy New Year

[JDKDesigns]

A ball playing or a kite flying accident or spilling a little oil in the driveway

probably won't make your children die of cancer.

Ask someone who has to live near a hydro-fracking operation gone wrong, if they think hydro-fracking is safe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html

In Amwell Township, Pa., the dividing line is between those

who are getting rich and those who are paying the price.

I expect that some people will not read this because it doesn't support their point of view.

They are content to repeat the propaganda that the big energy companies promote with their big

$$$ political campaign contributions and lobbying efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/nyregion/hydrofracking-debate-spurs-huge-spending-by-industry.html

Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas

By THOMAS KAPLAN

Published: November 25, 2011

Energy companies that drill for natural gas have spent unprecedented

amounts of money lobbying the Cuomo administration as environmentalist

groups have struggled to be heard.

[Gill-T]

Benzene and Arsenic........That is all you need to know.

[LongLine]

What is the main, #1 reason anyone wants to have high-volume hydrofracturing

My furnaces, stove & dryer run on Natural gas & I'd rather buy American, (helping to keep real jobs in our area) even if paying for extra safety precautions than be dependent on foreign oil.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

BTW: Chemical scarres are "interesting". Arsenic is purposely added to livestock feed. Benzene is in the gasoline we pump every week & fumes we breathe when out fishing. Just to name the chemical is meaningless, the concentration is what is important, after all coco-cola contains phosphoric acid, Ketchup contain acetic acid, drinking water conatins chlorine (Chlorene + water = Hydrochloric acid)

[walleyemagic]

Now i see and understand your thoughts, just what i thought and just a matter of time before they were revealed

See the problem is the NY TIMES you read.

Some of us can read this paper and decipher for OURSELVES what is Mislead information and other material the is actually TRUE and can be backed up by Facts.

See you need to beware of words like . Seems, apears, could have, may have, and other words that make it sound like it is true but does not hAVE ANY BACKING OR FACTS.

Even the public water systems have nasty bad chemicles that can hurt you.

Sodium fluoride

"The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g.[6] Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[12] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system."

"In the higher doses used to treat osteoporosis, plain sodium fluoride can cause pain in the legs and incomplete stress fractures when the doses are too high; it also irritates the stomach, sometimes so severely as to cause ulcers. Slow-release and enteric-coated versions of sodium fluoride do not have gastric side effects in any significant way, and have milder and less frequent complications in the bones.[13] In the lower doses used for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.[14]"

Political persuasion overall

The New York Times has been variously described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times.

Also

Do you live near one?

Did you possibly sign a lease?

Is this a good lease ?

or

Did you make a poor decision and accept a low price lease and others are getting a better deal? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[panfisher]

Wow! Could anyone, please, without getting personally defensive or offensive, comment on the question "What is the main, #1 reason anyone wants to have high-volume hydrofracturing processing taking place in their backyard or nearby or regional community?"

[Tim Bromund]

Hardly an impartially asked question IMO.

Kind of like : Have you stopped beating your wife?

[stinger]

Wow! Could anyone, please, without getting personally defensive or offensive, comment on the question "What is the main, #1 reason anyone wants to have high-volume hydrofracturing processing taking place in their backyard or nearby or regional community?"

....one can substitute any number of processes in that statement to try and get a rise out of some people,...like ...... waste water treatment plant in their backyard,......or slaughterhouse processing plant in their backyard,...and the list will go on if your looking for a argument.

There are plenty of other forums besides LOU to beat the hydrofracking issue to death.

[LongLine]

Wow! Could anyone, please, without getting personally defensive or offensive, comment on the question "What is the main, #1 reason anyone wants to have high-volume hydrofracturing...

Answer: -> 4th post back.

Offensive??? Defensive??? Please explain how you interpret that to be offensive or defensive.

Tom B.

(LongLine)

[panfisher]

Yes. By without getting personally offensive or defensive I'm trying to hear if folks can express their thoughts about the issue without sounding as if they have little respect or regard for the difference of viewpoint of, or even the relative intelligence of, some other probably unknown forum participant. This is obviously a very important issue for our society these days (amongst many). As for the LOU forum, in many ways this a very good place to express thought on the issue of a natural resource extraction process that may potentially affect anybody who enjoys the out of doors environment that we all share. With the importance of water in all of our lives, including the fish that we love to engage with, and it's key positions in hydrofracking , Lou seems to be one of the better places talk about this subject amongst people with many shared interests.

[Has Been]

The wealth that has made this country as great as it is was generated by technological advancements & a "Can Do",not going to fail attitude. Granted,look at GE & the Hudson river, Dow chemical & the Love Canal , and there is more.We need regs, But we are getting to the point of not being able to pitch a tent in this country without an enviromental impact study. lets not EPA ourselves into France , which we are almost at the point of. Expensive energy costs make ALL prices rise , Bleed us a little more each day of our savings, drive buissneses out , and lower our standard of living.

The plastic wrapped meat we see at the store that makes your mouth water took a pretty ugly trip on its way into the showcase.

[Mortigan]

New article - still scary: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... m-20120301

[JDKDesigns]

Now i see and understand your thoughts, just what i thought and just a matter of time before they were revealed

See the problem is the NY TIMES you read.

Some of us can read this paper and decipher for OURSELVES what is Mislead information and other material the is actually TRUE and can be backed up by Facts.

See you need to beware of words like . Seems, apears, could have, may have, and other words that make it sound like it is true but does not hAVE ANY BACKING OR FACTS.

Even the public water systems have nasty bad chemicles that can hurt you.

Sodium fluoride

"The lethal dose for a 70 kg (154 lb) human is estimated at 5–10 g.[6] Sodium fluoride is classed as toxic by both inhalation (of dusts or aerosols) and ingestion.[12] In high enough doses, it has been shown to affect the heart and circulatory system."

"In the higher doses used to treat osteoporosis, plain sodium fluoride can cause pain in the legs and incomplete stress fractures when the doses are too high; it also irritates the stomach, sometimes so severely as to cause ulcers. Slow-release and enteric-coated versions of sodium fluoride do not have gastric side effects in any significant way, and have milder and less frequent complications in the bones.[13] In the lower doses used for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on aesthetic appearance or on public health.[14]"

Political persuasion overall

The New York Times has been variously described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times.

Also

Do you live near one?

Did you possibly sign a lease?

Is this a good lease ?

or

Did you make a poor decision and accept a low price lease and others are getting a better deal? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I don't really understand your logic with the example about Sodium Fluoride. Eating too many candy bars will give you a belly ache, but that's not the same thing as the cumulative damage to the human body over time from ingesting low doses of toxic chemicals. It's been proven low doses of hydrofracking chemicals over time will cause deadly diseases unlike low doses of fluoride in the water which is used to prevent tooth decay. What's the solution if the drinking water in certain areas becomes poisoned with small amounts of toxic chemicals? If you look at the history of hydrofracking in this country, it's a given that there will be accidents regardless of preventative measures or imposed safety regulations. Paying fines for violations is just part of the cost of doing business for the companies that run these operations, but it's a serious health issue for those who are exposed to the outcome of those operational "mistakes".

I do understand where you're coming from with your fixation on the New York Times, but who really cares if the article is from the New York Times? I tend to be somewhat conservative in my outlook, yet I take positions that could be defined as "liberal" in regards to some issues. I'm not an ideologue...ideologues are forced to ignore large chucks of reality in order to support their narrowly defined ideals.

Regardless of the source of information, Facts are Facts. The editorial pages of the NYT have a more liberal slant than some other papers, but good journalism is good journalism regardless of the banner it's under. I read the Wall Street Journal, cognizant of the fact that it's a conservative publication. I agree with some of their editorials and may disagree with others, but above that, I value their reporting on events and issues because they offer good journalism.

Also in defense of using the NYT as a source of information, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, Political society wants things simple. Political scientists know them to be complex... One could argue that, in part, the leftist impulse is so conspicuous among the educated and well-to-do precisely because they are exposed to more information, and are accordingly forced to choose between living with the strains of complexity, or lapsing into simplism.

He also said " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts".

Can you point to something that is factually incorrect in those articles and back up your assertion with a reputable source?

I ask this rhetorically, because I don't want to get into a debate. Let's face it, you and I are never going to agree on whether

or not hydrofracking would be in the best interest of our state..

So if I may, I'll respectfully ask that we agree that we disagree and just leave it at that. Deal?

As for your other questions, the answer is no to all of them.... be careful about making assumptions !

[JDKDesigns]

New article - still scary: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... m-20120301

Yep, it sure is...of course it's from RS, so we can dismiss any factual information therein.