Published: Sunday, Aug. 21 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
Leave it to MoveOn and the Sierra Club to twist the fracking truth.
The development of domestic natural gas, made much more available thorugh
"fracking", poses a direct threat to the bottom line of one George
Soros -- who happens to be one of the nation's largest importers of foreign
liquified natural gas. He, through his contributions to groups like moveon.org,
is ginning up fear over domestic gas production because of the financial threat
it presents to him.Just follow the money, as many of these same
people are quite fond of saying.I work indirectly in the natural gas
production industry in the Appalachian Basin. We have been treated to Mr.
Soros' alcolytes' particular brands of misinformation and deception for some
time now, and have paid something of a price for it as these Luddites have
deceived some public bodies into enacting franking bans in some jurisdictions
based upon their bogus "scientific" claims. I trust that public
officials in Utah will be a little more level-headed when it comes to reacting
to the Chicken Little Brigade than we have experienced elsewhere.
There is one worry. When they pump stuff into the ground are they actually
circulating some back up? Then they have the drilling mud that they have to
dispose?With regards to the comment about George Soros and following
the money, that seems plausible. A BP scientist told me that BP lobbied for low
sulfur diesel in Australia because they knew that they could produce it in their
Australian refineries. They were then ready with the hydrotreating processes in
place and they made a killing because they were the only Australian refiner who
was producing low sulfur diesel while the other refiners were scrambling to meet
the requirement.BP took advantage of environmental regulations to
make a lot of money.
Lets just let the oil and natural gas companies do whatever they want. I'm sure
they'll always maintain high safety and nothing will ever happen. Just ask BP
and Chevron. Red Butte in SLC is still suffering from that "small" oil
spill from over a year ago. Yes.... Lets trust in the billionaire
companies. They'll all worry about the health of all of us (as they're living
hundreds of miles away in their mansions off Miami Beach).
Arsenic, copper, vanadium, hydrochloric acid, various biocides, glutaraldehyde,
2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, peroxodisulfates, tetramethylammonium,
methanol, potassium, sodium acrylate, polyacrylamide, thioglycolic acid,
ammonium chloride, ethylene glycol, polyaccrylate, methanol, isopropanol... ...Mixed with water and pumped deep into the ground at pressures of
around 10,000 psi, often below natural aquifers......Oil and gas
companies get to keep the short-term profits, and local governments get to deal
with long-term contaminated water supply and public health problems...How could anyone object to that?Drill baby drill! My Escalade
Drill, baby, drill . . . and never mind the harm it causes the people impacted
by it. Once again the oil companies are trying to cover up the harrm their
processes cause. It astounds me that the DesNews would publish such a cover-up
So you have the article and greedy industry that cites science and the
enviromentalists with money from Mr. Soros the old industrialist and
anti-american communist that cites science, which can we trust? Neither make
reasonable regulations and hold industry responsible to pay for any future
problems. Just like they have been required to pay more than 75 million dollars
into the economy of SLC to correct the problems caused by the pipeline leak.
Fracking is a dangerous technology because of difficulties containing the
chemicals used in its application. In an editorial the D-News seemed to
Fracking (or fracing for the hyperoffended among us) is but one small part of
the larger 'drill baby, drill' philosophy we have already signed up for. Whether
it has any environmental or health ramifications is inconsequential. We've came
out on the side of domestic production and anything we can do except
conservation to get cheaper energy. This is what it's going to look like, and we
have no right to gripe about it.
So let me get it straight, you pump fracing fluid into the ground to FRACTURE up
the rock that contains more natural gas and then claim that it's impossible that
ground water is contaminated because it would have to pass through solid rock?
Well is it fracturing fluid or rock welding together fluid? Can't be
Will this process have an effect that can increase the likelihood of
earthquakes? Does the elevation of ground level increase or decrease during and
after they oil is out of the ground? Where is the 'Saudia Arabia' oil find that
is coming out using this technology? Are long term ground water tables going to
be effected, a major concern in the Arid West?Would those pushing the
technology have any problems living near the oil fields using it?
McDonalds has to list the ingredients of their hamburgers, why doesn't the oil
and gas folks have to do the same with what they are putting into the ground to
get the gas? I know it is their "secret sauce" or like the Colonel's
secret recipe and it would be more of the nanny State to make them tell! WHEN oil and gas are gone, we will figure out a way to get by. What
about when there is no fresh water left to drink? Remember when the tobacco
companies said that smoking was not harmful?
This article is nothing but an apologist piece for the industry. Nothing more.
Ask all the people in Pennsylvania and Kentucky who can't drink their well water
Shame on the D-"news" for printing this fabrication.
This article should be an absolute embarrassment to the Deseret News staff who
printed it. "Sand and water" is really multiple toxic
chemicals. The problem isn't that the deadly chemicals seep up from
thousands of feet, but that reckless companies let them spill at or near the
surface. As for "more energy than Saudi Arabia", that
claim is a ridiculous lie as well. Moderately more natural gas can be recovered,
but will be only a small fraction of the energy we will need in the future.
"salvational technology", "evangelical, fundamentalist faith of
radical environmentalism"Is it safe to say that Jay Ambrose's
objectivity is, um, questionable? Congratulations, Deseret News, on printing a
hysterical far-right response to a perceived far-left criticism of fracking. Perhaps you could find the decency to print something in the middle?
Something from a reputable source, rather than a political columnist who knows
nothing of the matter? How about an independent scientist knowledgeable in the
field, or the scientists responsible for the cited EPA study?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments