State fishing panel ousts executive director…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
9 Comments
So, he was fired because he wouldn't do more to stop prosperity: From the article: ""He wasn't doing the job," Shetterley said. "We wanted him to do physical things, to put fish in the streams, to take positive steps against Marcellus shale drilling … to prevent pollution from the drilling … those kinds of things. . ."
If you're a Pennsylvania bureaucrat, and you don't work hard to make people in Pennsylvania poorer, your job is in danger. The Marcellus shale natural gas he didn't try hard enough to keep us from accessing, (gas that wells up continually from underground processes and is trapped in the shale) would have given us all cheaper energy. Those who want us to be poorer don't want to see those wells drilled.
His firing is a warning to all bureaucrats in this administration, "If you don't work to make people poorer, you'll be out of work."
All the pollution that will come from Marcellus shale drilling won't be worth the energy it recovers. I came from coal strip mining country and when I look back on the whole thing, one nuclear power plant would have probably taken care of all the energy they got from destroying the land. I'm not so sure whether they are after energy or just using this drilling as another money making gimmick.
I'm interested in seeing if this drilling and fracking of the land will change the flow of the aquifer. Where I used to live, the aquifer flow supplied several small communities and that is right where this drilling etc. will take place. If the water supply is lost, the State will step in and replace it at the cost of the taxpayer while the drillers walk away with their profits (less what they paid the politicians). I would make them prove it's safety before I let it go on widespread. I find it humorous that people will oppose nuclear power on the grounds of waste pollution and then turn around and allow the land to be raped by mining and drilling.
Stephen, the Marcellus shale is about a mile below the surface, according to geology.com . Few water wells are more than a couple of hundred feet deep. I just can't see how the aquifers of water wells can be hurt by some process that's mild compared to even the weakest earth tremors that happen frequently without us knowing about them.
The fracking process simply can't have the power of the mildest earth tremors, especially when it's going on a mile or more underground. I once lost a water supply because of a strip mine, and the mining company drilled me a new well that worked better than my old supply. Seems there's no danger of that with the activity so vastly farther below the aquifer.
Yes, it's true, billadams, that the Marcellus is well below the aquifers and don't pose a large threat to drinking water. But that's not where the pollution problem lies.
The fracking process takes 4 million gallons of water and pumps it into the shale formation, sending a similar amount of salty, noxious, water back up the pipes. That water's gotta go somewhere–usually into holding ponds where it evaporates. But then, you have tons (literally) of smelly smelly solid waste to dispose of.
Put more fish in the creeks!
Frack… I can first hand attest to the impact of this drilling. Before the drilling, my parents never had dirty water. Since the explosion of drilling in Greene County, the water has become often dark in color and foul smelling.
I am not against the drilling, but those who drill need to be held accountable for the water pollution caused as a side effect.
It is destroying the land and causing millions of gallons of polluted water. We have made great strides in cleaning up the water supply in this state over the last three decades, but some obsessed with fossil fuel extraction cannot see the consequences. I am for removing fossil fuels as long as the side effects are contained. With the current drilling regime, there is no regulation preventing drillers from polluting the water supply.
His job is to protect the water supply. Permitting millions of gallons of polluted water to be introduced into the water supply is crime.
When a local house burned down, the local VFD put it out, and filled the basement with water in doing so. A few days later, the neighbor could taste the smoke in his water. In a few more days, the smoky taste disappeared as the underground waterflow moved it away. Houses farther away were barely, if at all, affected.
Suggest that the same thing will happen here. Most chemicals appear to break down underground, where their large molecular structures appear to break down. My own house, whose well is in what was a barnyard, held a couple of hundred cows for a century and a half. The well is at a low point, and when I had the water checked (mostly worried about a half century of disposed brake fluid, transmission oil, battery acid, pesticides, insecticides, etc., the water was perfectly clear of ALL contaminants. Then, I realized that underground water made an ideal boogeyman for Nanny since no one could ever really see it, but many could be made to worry a lot about "protecting" it. "For the children."