tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post6175983806537489477..comments2024-02-13T02:20:03.350-08:00Comments on Shale Gas Review: Coming soon: Audit to grade DEP’s oversight of drillers Water testing protocol remains center of transparency flap TOM WILBERhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-82705731650518001492016-02-19T20:11:19.273-08:002016-02-19T20:11:19.273-08:00Great post.I'm glad to see people are still in...<br />Great post.I'm glad to see people are still interested of Article.Thank you for an interesting read.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ecrunewyork.com/" rel="nofollow">Cosmetic Haircare Salon Products</a>Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05350890850213973354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-69427708475572940992014-06-11T03:40:52.708-07:002014-06-11T03:40:52.708-07:00I have no words for this great post such a awe-som...I have no words for this great post such a awe-some information.<a href="http://www.uenergysolar.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">solar energy</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-24278164980871048272014-05-27T10:37:34.325-07:002014-05-27T10:37:34.325-07:00It's important for people to understand that t...It's important for people to understand that the DEP's primary role, regardless of what the agencies name implies, is not to protect the environment, but merely to control the rate of pollution and degradation to the environment - but not the amount of pollution and degradation - and to ensure that O&G permits are expeditiously approved. The state has called upon the DEP to "partner with the O&G industry to oversee this industrial development". Common sense dictates that it would not be in the interest of the DEP to "regulate" their "partners". On the contrary, it is in the DEP's best interest to run interference and provide regulatory cover for the O&G operators. <br /><br />1. There is a well documented "revolving door" between the DEP and the O&G industry. That's the "better paying carrot" the industry tangles for state regulators who "co-operate".<br /> <br />2. The clear "lack of political will" on the part of the state's executive branch to impede this development, or make it more costly, even if it means running the risk of "necessary sacrifices and unintended consequences". <br /><br />3. The O&G industry's financial contributions to the state's regulatory agencies in the form of "permit fees", AND to the legislature under the guise of outrageously generous and disproportionate "campaign contributions". <br /><br />The degree of half-truths and non-transparency are a clear indication that the DEP is in fact, the regulatory "fox guarding the hen house" for the O&G industry, hoping that no one will notice the "carnage". Citizen Sanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03538948972693457483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-5704744008881703182014-03-09T07:04:15.164-07:002014-03-09T07:04:15.164-07:00You hit on something critical. It's very hard,...You hit on something critical. It's very hard, if not impossible, to connect the dots of pollution and potential source when the chemicals used at the potential source are undisclosed and therefore unverifiable. Technically, the industry should have to comply with an investigation, but in practice compliance is often slow and imperfect, with the industry availing itself of legal inertia and roadblocks. See “Heitsman Spill pp 155-159 in Under the Surface. TOM WILBERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-30949856304981130592014-03-08T15:36:00.733-08:002014-03-08T15:36:00.733-08:00It seems to me there are three issues here:
1) Di...It seems to me there are three issues here:<br /><br />1) Did the DEP follow the protocol of the EPA's Method 200.7, which requires testing for at least 24 different chemicals?<br /><br />2) To what extent did the DEP withhold test results from local residents?<br /><br />3) Given the uncertainty about exactly what substances were injected into gas wells in the region, even if the EPA's protocol were followed and the results were fully reported to the public, would that be sufficient? Or should tests for additional substances be added to the protocol on an individual basis depending on exactly what substances were used in nearby gas wells at each site in question? Mary Sweeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878546420428414773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-5001189920374262382014-03-08T06:17:37.366-08:002014-03-08T06:17:37.366-08:00Thanks for your thoughts, Bill. Yes, White drew a ...Thanks for your thoughts, Bill. Yes, White drew a lot of fire when he stepped in. The EID response to Kiskadden is interesting. TOM WILBERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16103105549852845055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6949864949316311883.post-36284904955854813012014-03-07T19:52:52.559-08:002014-03-07T19:52:52.559-08:00Thanks for writing about this, Tom.
I call it th...Thanks for writing about this, Tom. <br /><br />I call it the Suite Code 942 Scandal. <br />I've blogged about it, <br />but without your class and attention to detail :)<br /><br />One interesting thing I noticed about this case-- <br /><br />I knew nothing about it from the mainstream press,<br />but suddenly there was a huge EID response. <br />Jesse White is the PA state rep in the area,<br />and Jesse went to bat for Kiskadden before the PA-DEP. <br /><br />Suddenly people are driving by his house and posting video to EID. They even published a hit piece, calling Kiskadden "Jesse's Junkyard Plaintiff". (there are several abandoned autos on the property, and EID was claiming they were the source of the contamination). <br /><br />Anyway, I knew this story was hot just because of the massive PR response to story. Then we leaned about Suite Code 942. EID even published aerial photos over the Kiskadden's house. There's been illness in the household, and the EID bullies are going after the victims, as they usually do. <br /><br />The other <b>super interesting and noteworthy footnote</b>about this case is that when the attorneys for the plaintiff during discovery asked Range for the list of chemicals in their fracking fluid, <b>Range admitted they didn't know</b>. <br /><br />Say what? No, it's true! <b>Range Resources couldn't respond to the court's demand for the list of chemicals, because Range Resources does not know</b>. The purchase pre-made chemical mixtures which formulated by well service companies like Halliburton. <br /><br />Blogger Dory Hippauf wrote about this in a series called "Don't Know Frack". <br /><br />My friend Russell Donnelly calls it "A mystery going in down the hole, and a mystery coming out". He has an amazing theory about fracking chemicals. I've been checking it out.<br /><br />Keep in mind that Halliburton has a side business: waste disposal. Let those facts mix around in your brain for a while... <br /><br />1) Chemicals are secret, even from the drillers. Only Hallburton knows. <br />2) Exemption from the Clean Water Act, engineered by the ex-CEO of Halliburton Dick Cheney. <br />3) Halliburton is also in the waste disposal business. <br /><br />I have a ton more info on this story... <br /> It's one of the most horrifying and untold stories of fracking. <br />Bill Huston 1https://www.blogger.com/profile/15288627254805985954noreply@blogger.com