published Friday, August 9th, 2013


about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Ignoramus with crayons. Just following orders from his Democrat Party handlers.

August 9, 2013 at 12:26 a.m.
EaTn said...

I've yet to have read any unbiased reports on the pros and cons of fracking. It appears to give this country and edge on internal energy supply, but using asbestos as an example, we need to determine the long term health effects before going too far down that road.

August 9, 2013 at 5:24 a.m.
mitziyates1 said...


August 9, 2013 at 6:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I don't know very much about it, but to be sure southeast TX and southwest LA have returned to life after 2 decades of stagnation.

August 9, 2013 at 7:12 a.m.
fairmon said...

The EPA and DOE say FRACKING can be done safety so get on with the frigging regulated FRACKING. Energy independence, the associated jobs and economic boost are worth pursuing. There have been naysayers opposing every new technology and progress through out history. The world is not flat and population growth is not stagnant. The middle east, north Africa and other oil producing countries are certainly opposed to U.S. energy independence. How will they pay for all the guns, bombs, ammunition and other armaments without the flow of U.S. dollars? Let them drink their oil and eat sand. Train and put Americans back to work.

August 9, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Eaton, the same people who disregard the effects of burning fossil fuels on the planet are the same ones who disregard the effects of hydraulic fracking on local water supplies.

Dollars and cents are all some people see, whether they profit from such ventures, or reap any realized savings in the production in savings on energy.

Who cares if people are poisoned along the way. They're casualties of Capitalism.

Common sense should tell anyone that it's not clean, pure water being pumped into the ground to extract oil and gas from deep below the surface. It's a mixture of chemicals, and known deadly and/or carcinogenic chemicals at that.

And while I am on the subject of pure, clean water, the average well uses millions of gallons of water...water that is quite contaminated when it is pumped back up from the ground.

This contaminated water is prohibited by law from being filtered through normal water filtration plants to be used for drinking, so where does all that water wind up?

Washington and Idaho are the only two states with landfills safe enough for disposal of such waste. An estimated one million wells have been drilled in the United States. Much of that wastewater winds up being used as a cheap treatment by states to deice roads in the winter, due to the brine content that it contracts from being underground.

30% of what is pumped down below is never recovered. It is absorbed into the ground. Numerous fines have been levied when ground water has been proven to be contaminated.

Increased seismic activity, also known as earthquakes, is also in evidence in states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado, where such events used to be rare.

The video and documented proof of the negative effects can be found online. As biased as some of it may be, it's very hard to ignore the proof that fracking has consequences that may not be worth the lives that are endangered because of it.

I ask anyone who is a proponent of hydraulic fracking, would they want a well on THEIR property, or in close proximity to where THEY and their children live?

Fracking has not been shown to be anywhere nearly as safe as nuclear energy, which is tightly controlled, monitored, and that now has established itself to be a very worthy source of clean energy.

If high pressure is all it takes to fracture underground shale to expose those pockets of gas and oil, why the chemicals? Why not just plain water?

That's my question. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why the need for benzene and Methanol being used in the process.

August 9, 2013 at 9:09 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

If Alpo is agin it, I'm for it.

August 9, 2013 at 10:05 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

In spite of the ongoing terror threat emanating from Yemen, the White House says it does not plan to rethink President Obama's decision last May to lift a moratorium on releasing Guantanamo Bay prisoners back to that country." President Obama will begin the transfers as soon as we can re-open our embassies, which we closed because of rising threats from al-Qaida. Think that thru, folks. Then laugh

August 9, 2013 at 10:34 a.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told reporters Thursday morning that the process of natural gas extraction called fracking was safe and should be used, provided it was properly regulated.

“I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater,” he said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

President Obama has generally rejected those concerns and regularly touted natural gas as a “bridge to a low carbon future,” a phrase Moniz used again Thursday. Natural gas releases a third to half as many carbon emissions than other fossil fuels.

Environmental activists argue that it pollutes groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency has not found evidence despite three high-profile investigations. Most recently, it pulled out of an investigation in Pavillion, Wyoming.

Asked if the abundance of natural gas was retarding investment in renewable energy resources, Moniz said the opposite was true. It was helping the US meet lower emissions targets, giving renewable technology a chance to catch up.

By Sean Higgins

August 9, 2013 at 10:35 a.m.
Reconman said...

Clay is showing us the Obama jobs plan.

August 9, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.
limric said...


The chemical and fossil fuel companies, who have a well-deserved reputation of poisoning everything never admit to anything.

Report on Pennsylvania DEP investigation for "alleged misconduct and fraud"

When you pump toxic chemicals into deep groundwater systems there WILL be movement of these chemicals with the water. Deep ground water migrates at varying rates. Some rates, depending on geology and environments, range from an inch +or- per year to 10 ft. per year. Now drill through the surrounding substrate and then fracture it. You can bet that these flow rates will accelerate. To sum it up, residents and communities are in financially dire straights and the fossil fuel industry is exploiting this and is willing to poison future generations as long as they get theirs now.

It ain’t nothing new though. Same old game, same old outcome.

Hydraulic fracturing chemicals with 10 or more health effects.

• 2,2',2"-Nitrilotriethanol • 2-Ethylhexanol • 5-Chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one • Acetic acid • Acrolein • Acrylamide (2-propenamide) • Acrylic acid • Ammonia • Ammonium chloride • Ammonium nitrate • Aniline • Benzyl chloride • Boric acid • Cadmium • Calcium hypochlorite • Chlorine • Chlorine dioxide • Dibromoacetonitrile 1 • Diesel 2 • Diethanolamine • Diethylenetriamine • Dimethyl formamide • Epidian • Ethanol (acetylenic alcohol) • Ethyl mercaptan • Ethylbenzene • Ethylene glycol • Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-BE) • Ethylene oxide • Ferrous sulfate • Formaldehyde • Formic acid • Fuel oil #2 • Glutaraldehyde • Glyoxal • Hydrodesulfurized kerosene • Hydrogen sulfide • Iron • Isobutyl alcohol (2-methyl-1-propanol) • Isopropanol (propan-2-ol) • Kerosene • Light naphthenic distillates, hydrotreated • Mercaptoacidic acid • Methanol • Methylene bis(thiocyanate) • Monoethanolamine • NaHCO3 • Naphtha, petroleum medium aliphatic • Naphthalene • Natural gas condensates • Nickel sulfate • Paraformaldehyde • Petroleum distillate naptha • Petroleum distillate/ naphtha • Phosphonium, tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)-sulfate • Propane-1,2-diol • Sodium bromate • Sodium chlorite (chlorous acid, sodium salt) • Sodium hypochlorite • Sodium nitrate • Sodium nitrite • Sodium sulfite • Styrene • Sulfur dioxide • Sulfuric acid • Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (Dazomet) • Titanium dioxide • Tributyl phosphate • Triethylene glycol • Urea • Xylene

Investigation of ground water contamination near Pavilion, Wyoming

Notice what they're wearing in ‘Appendix D’ D3 – D8. Doesn’t exactly instill confidence does it?

August 9, 2013 at 12:22 p.m.
joneses said...

Fracking is good for Americas energy independence so of course liberals will hate it.

August 9, 2013 at 12:40 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Truly riveting, Limric.

August 9, 2013 at 1:17 p.m.
limric said...

Glad you took the time to peruse the data Plain Truth. I didn't think you had it in you.

There is NO DEBATE about the contamination and pollution dangers associated with hydraulic fracturing. Anyone want some 'Diesel 2' or 'Ethylene glycol monobutyl ethers' with their iced tea?

What color is the sky today ?

August 9, 2013 at 1:33 p.m.
joneses said...

It does not matter whether we frack for natural gas or not with hussein obama's Sequestration. Hussein obamas forced Sequestration has forced closure of the space defense shield and in return extraterrestrial threats could doom the planet because the Air Force says it can no longer afford to scan the sky.

Thanks obama!

August 9, 2013 at 2:57 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(AP) — A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

August 9, 2013 at 4:48 p.m.
limric said...


I read your other musings and found you’ve never even addressed the space defense shield problems. I bet you think it's not about catastrophic scenarios; but it is!

Why only now do you find it an overarching problem? The best long-term way to deal with ‘Sequestrarian Extraterrestrials’ (big and small) is Wal Mart. Wal-Mart is, and was, just as good as an example of the small. Yesss you do!

Yeah, but I know why -- because you have no answers! WHO KNEW? Thus proving how the free market causes new innovation and cost reductions for architects, and even shepherds.

So, rather than be upset with negro’s Joneses - Relax; have yourself a heaping bowl of Loostners Caster Oil Flakes and remember: “Don’t crush that dwarf ---- hand me the pliers”.

August 9, 2013 at 5:01 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

By Mark Drajem - Jun 20, 2013

The only finding by U.S. regulators of water contamination from fracking was thrown into doubt yesterday when the federal government halted its investigation and handed the probe over to the State of Wyoming.

State officials will now investigate the integrity of gas wells owned by Encana Corp. (ECA)near 14 domestic water wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, while the Environmental Protection Agency stops further work on its draft report from 2011, which linked groundwater woes to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas. While EPA said it stands by its data, that preliminary finding is now effectively abandoned.

The EPA “stands behind its work and data” from Pavillion. Still, the agency said it won’t finalize the report drafted in 2011, nor does it plan to rely on that report’s conclusions.

“If the EPA had any confidence in its draft report, which has been intensely criticized by state regulators and other federal agencies, it would proceed with the peer review process,” Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a group representing gas drillers, said in an e-mail. “But it’s not, which says pretty clearly that the agency is finally acknowledging the severity of the report’s flaws.”

August 9, 2013 at 5:11 p.m.
tifosi said...

The coal industry has been contaminating drinking water for years. A little more won't hurt.

I worked surface coal mining in Kentucky and Illinois. I was shocked to discover the thousands of gallons of Castrol Hydraulic Blue that were being spilled on the ground every month, then casually covered up during reclamation. I was privy to the oil top-off records for hundreds of pieces of equipment. Anyone that knows anything about hydraulic systems knows that they do not consume oil. Just push it back and forth. Yet, equipment was being topped off with hundreds of gallons of hydraulic oil very day. Why? Because it was cheaper to keep running it, then top it off. Rather than shut it down and fix the leaks. Production Baby!$file/014378CA-Lubes%20Americas-BP%20(Wayne,%20NJ%20&%20CA%20%20mfgr).pdf

Thanks a lot Peabody!!!

The folks around Wildcat Hills sure appreciate ya!

Let's just assume all coal mines operate like that. That would mean more oil is being spilled very year by mining than the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Capitalism out of control. It happens.

I doubt the fracking companies will be irresponsible like that.

August 9, 2013 at 5:38 p.m.
limric said...

It’s interesting to see how ‘Pink Sky’ proponents spin sludge into wine.


1) Methane ethane, propane or any of the chemicals ‘that really aren’t there’ are not bad for you anyway, so what’s the problem?

2) The studies were flawed, managed by grant seeking liberal scientists. We need further study, the results to be released in 2016, or 2020.

3) Methane was already there, and the fact that it just happened to contaminate water supplies when drilling started is a coincidence; and modern instrumentation is just finding better ways to measure it. Trust us.

4) Ask (bribe) friends in the MSM to ignore contrarian studies. Especially the Duke University study published in the National Academy of Sciences. (this is already happening) Sciency knowledge is for geeks, not real men, and certainly not for MSM consumers).

5) Suppress all conflicting evidence as partisan.

6) Insist the sky is still pink.

Number 4 is what will ensure that people don’t find out, and that it doesn’t become a political issue; even if there are precedents, with tobacco, toxins in foods, GMO’s, etc.

August 9, 2013 at 6:10 p.m.
cheezy123 said...

Why don't you Liberals produce something tangable to how bad Fracking is to our country. I have heard nothing but crack pot conspiracy theories.If the oil and gas hating mongrels of the EPA can't find evidence of real danger from fracking then no one will. Continue with your pandering all you want, but at least back it up with FACTS and not these myths and propaganda produced by the tree huggers who have nothing better to do, since most don't have jobs anyway.

August 9, 2013 at 6:37 p.m.
tifosi said...

I presented first hand account cheezy123 and you choose to ignore that. I doubt "FACTS" will do anything for you either. Keep your head buried in the sand bro'!

I have a very good job.

August 9, 2013 at 7:04 p.m.
limric said...


That didn't take long. You validated both prediction number 2 and number 6.

August 9, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
alprova said...

Puny fines, scant enforcement leave drilling violators with little to fear

Pennsylvania fines Chesapeake Energy $1.1 million

An inside look at fracking a well

August 9, 2013 at 7:17 p.m.
cheezy123 said...

lol, silly libs. still running the chipper chopper but still no factual evidence that fracking is a danger to the environment. ALPROVA all that you cited were violations made by certain companies to spin off the you fact's needed. I garauntee I could find just as many violations for these so called "green companies" you love so much. Stay on point, and tifosi I am proud that you have a good job, I never said all tree huggers were jobless (just most). As for Limiric, Josh Fox is one of the most extreme (and untruthful) tree huggers on the planet, so it is fitting that you refer to his work when it comes to this issue. the guy lighting the water on fire out of the faucet blamed on fracking debunked by by Colorado Department of Natrual Resources, and there is so much more this crackpot has dreamed up, i'm not going to waste my time debunking most the loon's distorted truth..but I can if you wish.

August 9, 2013 at 7:42 p.m.
cheezy123 said...

Take your pick from any of the failure rates that Fox has cited over the past years: If he’s right – or even close to right – shouldn’t there be thousands of confirmed cases of water contamination from faulty wells and compromised casings? Unfortunately for Josh (but fortunately for everyone else), the GWPC report tells a very different story.

August 9, 2013 at 8:06 p.m.
alprova said...

chesy123 wrote: "lol, silly libs. still running the chipper chopper but still no factual evidence that fracking is a danger to the environment."

Someone had you pegged correctly. Your head is firmly stuck in the sand. What does it smell like?

"ALPROVA all that you cited were violations made by certain companies to spin off the you fact's needed."

Fines are not levied for violations or contaminations that did not occur.

"I garauntee (sic) I could find just as many violations for these so called "green companies" you love so much."

I have expressed no "love" for any green companies.

"Josh Fox is one of the most extreme (and untruthful) tree huggers on the planet, so it is fitting that you refer to his work when it comes to this issue. the guy lighting the water on fire out of the faucet blamed on fracking debunked by by Colorado Department of Natrual Resources, and there is so much more this crackpot has dreamed up, i'm not going to waste my time debunking most the loon's distorted truth..but I can if you wish."

You obviously have not informed yourself to other instances of flaming water, located in other states states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Study links flammable tap water to fracking

"When the documentary 'Gasland' revealed an instance of flaming tap water, the gas industry tried to debunk it. A peer-reviewed study now confirms the finding."

Radioactive Cows And Methane Tap Water Spark Fracking Debate Amid Pennsylvania Gas Boom (With Video)

August 9, 2013 at 8:32 p.m.
GameOn said...

Lamar Alexander busted with earmark.

On Thursday evening, Nashville’s News Channel 5 investigative reporter Ben Hall uncovered that Alexander’s re-election campaign was working with the taxpayer-funded museum to roll out the exhibit. The museum canceled the planned exhibit abruptly once Hall began asking questions about the process. Emails showed the campaign working with museum officials to put the exhibit together.

August 9, 2013 at 11:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

Between those that consider themselves liberal or conservative we get:

o No FRACKING. The EPA and DOE are not to be trusted. They say it can be done safely but I know better.

o No Nukes. The EPA, DOE and operators will not adhere to the standards and will kill all of us.

o No coal. Too much pollution and risk.

o No pipeline. It might leak and contaminate.

o No offshore drilling. They are risky and an eye sore to those on the coast.

o No drilling for oil and no emissions from oil.

o Electric cars are the future of the country.

o Big is bad except big government which should be bigger and take care of and provide more for more people.

o The government should create good paying jobs for people without reducing their taxes or unnecessary and redundant regulations.

o People risking their money to invest in businesses should not make a return of more than prime+2% and should pay a higher tax if they make over a certain dollar amount.

o The government should make it easier for those that need a job to immigrate to the U.S.

Makes one wonder how the electricity for all those electric cars and the added jobs will come from? Why create jobs in America when Americans keep buying more and more imported goods and services? Why do we need more workers when only 63% of the eligible workforce is currently working? Do we insist on a no risk country except from the risk of criminals with guns?

Is it time to buy an imported bicycle for transportation, buy garden implements and grow our own food, drill a well and build houses underground to have the same temperature year round with solar panels for heating water? Are we to buy an assault weapon for hunting game and for protection?

Has the community organizer taken on a community bigger than he can organize? Is he trying to carve out a segment he thinks he can organize and incite?

August 10, 2013 at 6:56 a.m.
tifosi said...

A lot of extreme assumptions that are unfounded.

August 10, 2013 at 7:41 a.m.
jesse said...

Your talking "REALITY" fairmon and 90% of the population ain't gonna deal with it!

The only solution is a pandemic that wipes out about half the population and sends the planet back to the 1860's or so!

August 10, 2013 at 7:48 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tiffy: Lame retort. Were you in a hurry?

August 10, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.
tifosi said...

PT: Let's pick one point that is full of BS.

"People risking their money to invest in businesses should not make a return of more than prime+2% and should pay a higher tax if they make over a certain dollar amount."

Even Warren Buffet thinks the "One Percenters" should pay their fair share of taxes. No one is saying anyone should pay a higher tax than anyone else.

August 10, 2013 at 8:14 a.m.
workinjay said...

Plain Truth,

What happened? Why the change? Thanks for the laugh while it lasted.

August 10, 2013 at 8:48 a.m.
rick1 said...

"People risking their money to invest in businesses should not make a return of more than prime+2% and should pay a higher tax if they make over a certain dollar amount."

Where did you come up with businesses should not make a return of more than prime+2%? Also how much of a higher tax should tax should a business pay and what dollar amount would that be?

Buffett is a hypocrite, while he is fighting a $1 billion tax bill owed by his company he stands with Obama saying those making $500,000 should pay more in taxes and yet he has not voluntarily written a check to pay more taxes.

Liberals love to spend other peoples money they just don't like spending their own.

August 10, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
tifosi said...

rick1- fairmon said that

August 10, 2013 at 10:10 a.m.
rick1 said...

tifosi, what about Buffett and his hypocrisy on taxes?

August 10, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Quote, Jesse:

” The only solution is a pandemic that wipes out about half the population and sends the planet back to the 1860's or so!”

You mean the ‘Tea Party’ platform -- don’t you?

August 10, 2013 at 10:42 a.m.
rick1 said...

tifosi, I'm sorry I missed where fairmon had written that part of your post.

fairmon, sorry I made my post before I realized you had initially made the post and the context you made it in. No response is required.

August 10, 2013 at 10:46 a.m.
carlB said...

when it comes to energy use we are going to have to balance out all sources. The earth cannot be a cocktail on the rocks

August 10, 2013 at 10:59 a.m.
tifosi said...

It is impossible to control how the earth will react to each and every instance of fracking. It "will" result in the pollution of ground water that rural people rely on. Most of these are rural Republicans. How many here rely on a well for drinking water?

Once it happens, these is no way to go back and fix the problem. The damage is done. It is a Pandora's Box.

Create jobs by supporting the research going on right here in Tennessee that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

August 10, 2013 at 11:14 a.m.
tifosi said...

Shale Gas still exposed to a “Three Mile Island Moment” because public is not fully confident in the technology

This document says there is promise for fracking, but it is far from being ready.

August 10, 2013 at 11:25 a.m.
fairmon said...

tifosi said...

Even Warren Buffet thinks the "One Percenters" should pay their fair share of taxes. No one is saying anyone should pay a higher tax than anyone else.

Really? 47% or more pay no federal income tax. What is "the fair share" for the 1% with the highest income? $250,000 and above is not in the 1% but all just had their rates increased including small business owners that pay taxes at the normal income rate. If I pay 35% of my income as taxes and someone else pays none or even 17% I would say I am paying a higher tax than at least 60% of those paying taxes. Is that fair? What benefits do I participate in that everyone else can't?

Would you agree with abolishing all exceptions to the tax rates and simplify to the point anyone could complete their filing on a post card? Set the progressive rates any way that appears to be fair and at a level that covers what is spent.

Buffet is not credible. He makes very little personal income but the business, BRK, perks such as meals, transportation, security, administrative assistants (house hold help) etc. etc. are not treated as income. A lot of his personal wealth is in tax exempt municipal bonds.

August 10, 2013 at 11:43 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

workinjay: I can only take it in small doses.

August 10, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

tifosi said...

A lot of extreme assumptions that are unfounded.

These are not assumptions but reflect the positions people here, including you, take a issues.

tifosi said...

PT: Let's pick one point that is full of BS.

"People risking their money to invest in businesses should not make a return of more than prime+2% and should pay a higher tax if they make over a certain dollar amount."

Have you not heard people, including politicians, lamenting how those big corporations make an obscene amount of money. Many do not make much more than 4% profit but the investment and cost is huge. Tax them more and it only shows up in what we buy so why tax them at all?

August 10, 2013 at 2:14 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

by Dana Bohan

Last year, Dr. Tom Myers released a report suggesting it was theoretically possible for hydraulic fracturing fluids to migrate vertically through thousands of feet of solid rock to contaminate water aquifers — within as little as three years’ time. As you might remember, the study, which was funded by the anti-fracking group Catskill Mountainkeeper, received a strong rebuke from the scientific community.

As Energy In Depth has highlighted before, a report released in May from the Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PGS) and Pennsylvania Council of Professional Geologists (PCPG) found Dr. Myers’ assumptions were “unsupported by any empirical data,” among other problems.

Gradient recently published a paper in the National Ground Water Association’s periodical Groundwater:

“Our review of the literature indicates that HF affects a very limited portion of the entire thickness of the overlying bedrock and therefore, is unable to create direct hydraulic communication between black shales and shallow aquifers via induced fractures.

As a result, upward migration of HF fluid and brine is controlled by preexisting hydraulic gradients and bedrock permeability. We show that in cases where there is an upward gradient, permeability is low, upward flow rates are low, and mean travel times are long [often >1,000,000 years].

Consequently, the recently proposed rapid upward migration of brine and HF fluid, predicted to occur as a result of increased HF activity, does not appear to be physically plausible.

Unrealistically high estimates of upward flow are the result of invalid assumptions about HF and the hydrogeology of sedimentary basins.”

As the authors point out, the geological characteristics of basins in which shale formations exist are not conducive to the upward migration of hydraulic fracturing fluids. For starters, the formations above these shales are typically of low permeability — including siltstones, mudstones, and shales. Secondly, hydraulic fracturing not only impacts a small portion of the rock, but the pressures associated with the process are “short lived and localized to the fracture network.”

A second peer-reviewed paper from Gradient, featured in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, echoed these findings. The study concluded:

“It is not physically plausible for induced fractures to create a hydraulic connection between deep black shale and other tight formations to overlying potable aquifers, based on the limited amount of height growth at depth and the rotation of the least principal stress to the vertical direction at shallow depths.

While groups opposed to shale development hang on to the talking point that hydraulic fracturing is a threat to subsurface water supplies, the facts – and the studies — continue to prove them wrong.

August 10, 2013 at 3:22 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

fairmon: Tiffy means well. He's just stupid.

August 10, 2013 at 3:51 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

(CNN) -- America's foreign policy has gone into a tailspin. Almost every major initiative from the Obama administration has run into sharp, sometimes embarrassing, reverses. The U.S. looks weak and confused on the global stage.

and the wagoneers are falling off the ride, too....approval ratings down

August 10, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

By Steve Everley

When Josh Fox released his movie “Gasland” in 2010, he made it clear from the very beginning that the iconic scene would be the “flaming faucet” from Weld County, Colorado. And why not? It coupled fears of water contamination with vivid imagery – which was exactly what Fox wanted to do with the film.

The problem, though, is that two years before the release of Gasland, Colorado regulators had investigated that exact case, and determined hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas development had nothing to do with it. “There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well,” according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission report.

After Gasland was released, COGCC noted once again that the landowner’s water well “contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity.”

The iconic scene on which Fox hinged the movie’s credibility (not to mention his own) was blatant and deliberate deception.

Fast forward to 2013 and the release of Gasland Part II. The iconic scene in this film? A man in Parker County, Texas, lighting the end of a garden hose on fire, which the audience is supposed to believe is a result of gas drilling.

According to a 2012 ruling of the Texas District Court, this landowner conspired with a local consultant to:

“…intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”

Not only that, but two years ago state regulators investigated that incident and determined the source was natural seepage from a shallower rock formation, and that nearby natural gas wells “have not contributed and are not contributing to contamination of any domestic water wells.”

As for the EPA, a senior official – Al Armendariz – initially worked in lockstep with local activists to pursue a baseless endangerment order against the operator of those wells, Range Resources. Extensive geochemical gas fingerprinting, however, showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”). An EPA official later admitted under oath that the agency had not conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source, and in 2012 the EPA dropped its case.

After the EPA withdrew the endangerment order, the Texas Railroad Commission – which regulates oil and gas in Texas – reaffirmed the lack of impact: “Range Resources’ Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater.”

As you can see, Gasland Part II is a film premised on the same dishonesty, the same deception, and the same careless disregard for the facts as the original.

August 10, 2013 at 4:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

PlainTruth said...

(CNN) -- America's foreign policy has gone into a tailspin.

PT...How can something we don't have go into a tailspin? Do you think someone failed to tell Russia the "cold war" is over?

I questioned the statement that our president is like a caged animal when it comes to foreign affairs...then on second thought chickens are caged animals that wake up in a new world every day to scratch, cackle and spread crap all around while laying another egg. I may have questioned the comparison too quick.

August 10, 2013 at 5:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Even Warren Buffet thinks the "One Percenters" should pay their fair share of taxes. No one is saying anyone should pay a higher tax than anyone else.

So all of a sudden a man that doesn’t pay all of his taxes and admits to stretching the tax code to it’s limits is someone we should listen to on tax policy.

Since we don’t have his secretary's tax return to verify his claims we’ll have to assume he is implying that it applies to all secretary’s taxes or even the average middle class taxpayer. In that instance his argument is not true and has been debunked many times.

Now let’s deal with that last sentence of yours. Why don’t you reread that several times and then get back to us with your assessment of how rational it is. No sane person can make such a claim and actually believe it to be true whether you're talking about total taxes or tax rates.

August 10, 2013 at 5:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

By Dana Bohan July 16, 2013

“North Dakota used 37.9 billion gallons of water in 2011 for irrigation, a wet year when less irrigation was needed. Typical daily water use of a Midwestern city with 50,000 people is 10 million gallons. That means oil and natural gas development — in the second largest oil producing state in the country – uses about 87 percent less water than irrigation.”

Almost all industries—be it energy and manufacturing or agriculture and irrigation—require the use of water. Take Coca-Cola for instance: the company used 81.6 billion gallons of water to produce 34.3 billion gallons of beverages in 2009. That’s over 2,000 hydraulic fracturing jobs.

In Pennsylvania, “state annual consumption totals about 3.6 trillion gallons. The shale gas industry uses less than 0.2% of that for hydraulic fracturing.”

Power plants in the state use 6.43 billion gallons of water every day. As a state well-known for its farms, the Commonwealth also uses 86.1 million gallons per day for agriculture and irrigation, and private water wells use 152 million gallons per day.

A hydraulic fracturing job, by comparison, only requires about 4 million gallons of water, spread out over several days.

New York City consumes four million gallons of water every 6 minutes.

Four million gallons is about 1.3 percent of the amount of water used in car washes every day.

Just one of the 15,889 golf courses across the United States uses four million gallons of water in less than one summer month.

Let’s look at Colorado, certainly no stranger to oil and gas development, and where water scarcity is of constant concern: Agriculture and irrigation are two of the largest users of water, consuming 85.5 percent of the state’s supply.

Oil and gas companies estimate that they will use about 6.5 billion gallons of water in Colorado this year, and that figure makes up only 0.1 percent of overall water use, according to state data.

In Texas, a state well known for oil and natural gas development, the use of water for production is minimal.

For every one acre-foot of water used in fracking, 280 acre-feet is used for other purposes in South Texas.

Water use for mining activity (which includes oil and gas) was only 0.5 percent as compared to other water use categories such as municipal demand, manufacturing, steam electric, irrigation and livestock.


August 10, 2013 at 5:53 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...


Similarly, Oklahoma has found energy development plays a relatively minor role in its overall water usage:

Many if not most of their permits issued, “including those specified for hydraulic fracturing, range from one to about thirty acre-feet of water. Regular permits issued for public water supply, irrigation, and other large-scale uses often authorize hundreds to thousands of acre-feet annually.

Daily water consumption rates for drilling activities in the Marcellus shale rank below the amounts used for nuclear power generation, agriculture, livestock, irrigation, mining and all public and domestic use.

Maximum water use in the Marcellus Shale, at the peak of production for each state, assuming 5 million gallons of water per well, would be about 650 million barrels per year. This represents less than 0.8 percent of the 85 billion barrels per year used in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

Total Marcellus Shale water use “represents a little more than half of the amount currently used consumptively by the recreation sector (golf courses, water parks, ski resorts, etc.)”

A typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby source to create steam for turning its turbines – the equivalent of 550 hydraulic fracturing jobs.

Solar energy is the most effective in regions where the sun is most intense. As a result, it tends to be most effective in areas with scarce water supplies. In California, disputes over solar projects in the Mojave Desert, the city of Bakersfield and elsewhere have been delayed due to massive water needs in areas with little access to natural sources. The Mojave solar farm being built by Abengoa Solar plant will require 705 million gallons of water annually to operate – equivalent to more than 176 hydraulic fracturing jobs.

A significant potential issue with biofuels, especially in an arid state such as Arizona, is that they require large amounts of water to produce feedstock. With an average annual evapotranspiration rate of between 3 and 8 feet, there are very few locations within the state that receive enough rainfall to get by with no or even little irrigation.”

According to the USDA, when the feedstock in biofuels is corn or soy (used to make ethanol and biodiesel, respectively) and grown on irrigated land, then the water consumption per gallon of fuel produced can exceed the water consumption for refining by a factor of one thousand.

August 10, 2013 at 5:55 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Fracking could lower the price of gas, produce jobs, lower dependence. Ergo, the left will fight it tooth and nail....sorta like the pipeline.

August 10, 2013 at 6:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

PT, thanks for Kimberley Strassel's article. It is more of the same with this administration with all of the secret deals they make. This from Obama, who promised the most transparent administration ever and it is anything but.

It would be interesting to know who benefited from the exemption as it appears Warren Buffett benefited from the blockage of the Keystone Pipeline. Obama blocks the pipeline, which benefits Buffett's railroad and in return Buffett called for higher taxes. Of course you know they would have written the tax law in such a way that Buffett would have kept the same exemptions he currently has.

August 10, 2013 at 7:32 p.m.
fairmon said...

PlainTruth said...

Fracking could lower the price of gas, produce jobs, lower dependence. Ergo, the left will fight it tooth and nail....sorta like the pipeline. could people allow the government to support them if they were working.......the nerve you have to suggest interfering with the good life of not working but being supported by those who do. Cheaper gas may leave more to spend and increase demand, hello, that may mean more people working, you do have the nerve.

August 10, 2013 at 8:26 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

I know, mon. Silly me

August 10, 2013 at 9:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

PT...Do you have the audacity to suggest America utilize the resources they have in order to generate the revenue needed to develop energy alternatives? That would be to logical, you know it is much easier to be against something than for it not to mention the opportunity to show a pseudo intelligence reflecting the information put out by uninformed sources intent on selling printed media or to attract viewers and listeners in order to achieve high ratings and advertising revenue.

August 10, 2013 at 11:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Isn't it amazing how some people would sacrifice the lives of other people who are, who have, who will be become infected with carcinogens, not to mention the depletion of the natural resources that could make places right here in this very country to become totally uninhabitable by man or animal, in order to save a buck?

I propose a fifteen second waterboarding session for you defenders of fracking, that includes the use of water from those sources that some of you believe are not tainted, taken from the proximity of any one of the defunct fracking wells that are thirty plus years old.

Who knows? Your chances of getting just plain potable water poured down your nostrils are about 40%. You might get lucky.

August 11, 2013 at 12:10 a.m.
GlacierClipper said...

The EPA and DOE should be terminated.

August 11, 2013 at 8:17 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.