ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

EPA Finds Compound Used in Fracking in Wyoming Aquifer

After years of complaints from residents about foul water and health concerns, government investigators have found chemical compounds consistent with those used in natural gas fracking.

.

Pavilion, Wyo. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)

As the country awaits results from a nationwide safety study on the natural gas drilling process of fracking, a separate government investigation into contamination in a place where residents have long complained that drilling fouled their water has turned up alarming levels of underground pollution.

A pair of environmental monitoring wells drilled deep into an aquifer in Pavillion, Wyo., contain high levels of cancer-causing compounds and at least one chemical commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, according to new water test results released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The findings are consistent with water samples the EPA has collected from at least 42 homes in the area since 2008, when ProPublica began reporting on foul water and health concerns in Pavillion and the agency started investigating reports of contamination there.

Last year -- after warning residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they showered -- the EPA drilled the monitoring wells to get a more precise picture of the extent of the contamination.

The Pavillion area has been drilled extensively for natural gas over the last two decades and is home to hundreds of gas wells. Residents have alleged for nearly a decade that the drilling -- and hydraulic fracturing in particular -- has caused their water to turn black and smell like gasoline. Some residents say they suffer neurological impairment, loss of smell, and nerve pain they associate with exposure to pollutants.

The gas industry -- led by the Canadian company EnCana, which owns the wells in Pavillion -- has denied that its activities are responsible for the contamination. EnCana has, however, supplied drinking water to residents.

The information released yesterday by the EPA was limited to raw sampling data: The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution. From the start of its investigation, the EPA has been careful to consider all possible causes of the contamination and to distance its inquiry from the controversy around hydraulic fracturing.

Still, the chemical compounds the EPA detected are consistent with those produced from drilling processes, including one -- a solvent called 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) -- widely used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. The agency said it had not found contaminants such as nitrates and fertilizers that would have signaled that agricultural activities were to blame.

The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols -- another dangerous human carcinogen -- acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel.

The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy. The gas did not match the shallower methane that the gas industry says is naturally occurring in water, a signal that the contamination was related to drilling and was less likely to have come from drilling waste spilled above ground.

EnCana has recently agreed to sell its wells in the Pavillion area to Texas-based oil and gas company Legacy Reserves for a reported $45 million, but has pledged to continue to cooperate with the EPA's investigation. EnCana bought many of the wells in 2004, after the first problems with groundwater contamination had been reported.

The EPA's research in Wyoming is separate from the agency's ongoing national study of hydraulic fracturing's effect on water supplies, and is being funded through the Superfund cleanup program.

The EPA says it will release a lengthy draft of the Pavillion findings, including a detailed interpretation of them, later this month.

Barry Schmittou

Nov. 10, 2011, 1:48 p.m.

Will all commenters who claim there is no health or environmental concerns with fracking or big energy companies please let us know if you have connections with the oil industry or any State or National government agency like some commenters have. I do not have any connections; I’m just an average citizen who is concerned that many big businesses seem to endanger many humans and living beings while many government agencies of both political parties often set and watch. That’s one reason I pray often for God’s help.

Barry Schmittou

Nov. 10, 2011, 1:54 p.m.

I should have included natural gas and energy connections too.

Colt H. Beddoes

Nov. 10, 2011, 3:06 p.m.

It is to bad that the government and big business get away with all the lies and with causing all the health problems and even death of innocent people without being held accountable. Hopefully one day the general public will be able to stand together and make those who are in higher positions such as president, CEO’s, and elected official’s responsible for their actions.  If those who are in such positions were found guilty of all their neglect and lies and put in jail and lost all their worldly posessions then maybe they would be more responsible in their actions. So all people who live on this earth should be concerned and stand together for those who have their lives ended prematurly or have to live with health problems caused by the greedy and rich. We should all stand together in all pursuits to live life to the fullest in happiness, health, and love for each other and hold those who cause injustices accountable. So stand up for your rights and pray daily for those who destroy others lives to be held responsible for their actions.

Nancy McGovern

Nov. 10, 2011, 3:13 p.m.

Big business does not give a whit about people dying from toxic contaminants or enduring a lifetime of disabilities from industry operations—it’s all about money and power. I’m surprised the government/EPA is actually looking into drilling that poisons water supplies since they are often in bed with the very industries they’re supposed to be regulating. It shows what a horrific problem drilling and fracking really is…it’s serious when whole aquifers are contaminated with multiple carcinogens, keeping in mind that aquifers are a water supply for many thousands of people in most states. More pressure on government might causes it to do the job right this time. Cross all your fingers, pray and burn sage if it will help.

Sorry, but this is the same garbage you published last year. These “cancer-causing compounds” are found in thousands of consumer products ranging from whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, to latex paints. Unless the 2-Butoxyethanol is also found with other drilling additives or markers from produced fluids (high levels of chlorides and TDS’s) this adds nothing to the story except to bolster your diatribe against the gas industry.

Its rather telling that you would write an article on this one preliminary study and ignore the recent and comprehensive study from Penn State that found no evidence that HF was responsible for groundwater contamination. The Penn State study compared water samples taken before drilling and then six months after HF operations were completed and similarly found no contamination issues.

I guess it just didn’t jive with the angle you are pursuing.

Hey Mike H,

Where is the link to your Penn State study?

I would like to know more about the depth of the fracking that appears to have contaminated the water.  Is this from fracking for coalbed methane or is it for shale gas?  Shale gas tends to be much deeper and the companies keep saying that there is no risk of contamination for that reason.  I would like more information on this.

Mike H - this data is not at levels that would be considered “trace” amounts - the water used by the resdients is visibly affected no less analyzed for the parts per millions

so what is your angle other than propaganda?

speak to the specific data - thank you

How would 2 BE move to the deeper aquifer?

Studies of the High Plains Aquifer show that it can take 10s to 100s of years for water to pass through the soil to eventually recharge the aquifer.

True, some water wells can provide a means for surface water to preferentially flow down but I would expect to see nitrates and other agricultural chemicals to be found in the recharge water.

Really, contamination of groundwater, even those aquifers 100s to 1000s of feet above the shales, can be visualized at:

http://www.ogs.ou.edu/PTTC/newsletters/FourthPub2005.pdf

In this case, it seems to be that gas migrated upward along the well and then followed geological strata to the stream.

@ Not Mike H

Cant embed links here, look it up yourself.

@ David

I dont recall saying it was “trace ammounts” but if this contamination was from HF, you would expect to find lots of other things, like the chlorides and other TDS’s. They dont appear to be present so my guess is this is much to do about nothing.

My angle, I like breaking peoples balls ... especially journalists.

bruce ritchie

Nov. 10, 2011, 4:29 p.m.

Hey Mike H,
            Penn State?  Isn’t that the place where Terry Englander works?  Why didn’t you mention Dan Voltz from the University of Pittsburgh?  He says we are turning the ground into swiss cheese, and “are we gonna keep re-plugging the ground forever”?  What have you to say in response to Dan Voltz?

bruce ritchie

Nov. 10, 2011, 4:32 p.m.

Oh, take the “t” out, it is Dan Volz.

Hey Mike.  How many whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions etc, do you eat and drink on a daily basis?  The Penn State study, according to you, took samples six months apart, prior to and after “fracking.’  Drilling in the Wyoming area affected has been going on for decades.  Concrete casings and piping deteriorate, fracture and leak

In reply to Terry W. who asked about the depth of the fracking in Pavilion: If you click on the link “have alleged for nearly a decade” in the above article, you will get an earlier (Feb, 25, 2011) ProPublica article on Pavilion that contains the following quote:

“‘You’ve got about a mile of rock between the areas you are fracturing and the drinking water,’ says Doug Hock, a spokesperson for the U.S. Division of EnCana, which owns several hundred gas wells around Pavillion.”

@Mike H
The “Penn State” study you mention was funded the industry it purports to study. Here, from Media Matters:

<indent>Two of the study’s authors, Timothy J. Considine and Robert Watson, previously wrote two reports also sponsored by the Marcellus Shale Coalition. The dean of Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, William E. Easterling, criticized the initial version of their 2009 report for making the “clear error” of failing to identify the sponsor, which is against Penn State policy. Easterling further stated that it would be “simply incorrect usage” to refer to the earlier report as a “Penn State report” rather than a “Marcellus Shale Committee report.” </indent>

Moreover, there’s no natural cause for high levels of the solvent 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE), nor for benzene at 50 times what is safe, nor phenols, nor diesel fuel—in an aquifer previously free of these toxins. This could be the industry’s worst nightmare: unshakeable evidence that fracking has ruined an aquifer. It would directly contradict years of testimony by the industry and its numerous proponents that not one instance of ground water contamination has occurred.

And which industry PR effort do you work for, Mike H?

Barry Schmittou

Nov. 10, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

Excellent post Preston !! Mike H’s info in my next comment.

Charles Sifers

Nov. 10, 2011, 4:51 p.m.

Ahh…the usual suspects.  ProPublica puts out it’s lies, the companies are going to deny that they are causing the problem, and the locals are going to continue to drink and use bad water.
!st, I’d take care fo my own water.  What kind of a moron would keep using something that they know is bad?  Those people need to die.  Its callled thinning the herd.
Its pretty much impossible that the fracking is causing the problems, but the argument will continue because no one really wants to solve the problem, they just want to whine, bitch, and feed the trolls.

I live in British Columbia, where we are witnessing the fastest government sellout to oil and gas companies, like EnCana.  This is proof of what has been said all along and has been ignored and/or denied by those who are more interested in their business interests than those of ordinary people.
And as for Mike H, he probably works for a company with interests in fracking.  There will always be deniers of course, look at the tobacco companies and their supporters.  For years governments an even the medical profession denied the relationship between cancer and tobacco.
I’d believe these company apologists and spokespeople if I saw them drinking the water and living in the affected areas for 6 months.
We all know that won’t happen.
To see what’s happening here and see what courageous Canadian independent journalists are revealing check out the CoomonSenseCanadian.org

Barry Schmittou

Nov. 10, 2011, 4:55 p.m.

Usually there are multiple comments quickly posted by people who are for fracking and/or anything that is good for the big energy companies. It’s amazing how quickly they post.

Mike H who has posted above is usually one of the first, and if I remember correctly he is either with the energy industry or a government regulating agency.

If I remember correctly he responded the first time I asked for that information, but did not respond the next time. I’m sorry if my memory is wrong about that
.
The inductry commenters often mention other possible causes for contaminants. I respect their right to do so.

I hope everyone including Mike H will understand that many Americans do not trust big businesses to act responsibly or tell the truth, unless it is profitable.

I believe the corruption we see in government and many industries is intricately connected, I often sacrifice my health to work to stop it, and the remainder of my comment (except for the last four paragraphs) reflects that so please skip if not interested.

Colt, I love your idea : “pray daily for those who destroy others lives to be held responsible for their actions.”

I hope people of all faiths and non believers will recognize the thoughts and goals we share and work together to stop the flagrant injustices.
My life and many more have been greatly damaged by corporate crimes as seen by pasting obamadrugmurdersconnection.blogspot.com and also looking at the links.

It’s hard to not be angry, but I read a Bible quote that is making me change the way I think and act. I had forgotten that God wants us to forgive our enemies :

Mark 11:25 says :

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
At the same time we are also supposed to stop injustices :

Isaiah 1:17 says :
Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

The leaders who are supposed to do good are intentionally stealing and/or destroying the great majority of the resources on earth. I believe they have overthrown the governments of the world. I believe they have such a death grip on everything it will be very hard to overcome, but I believe God wants us to peacefully try.

Edmund Burke wrote :

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
I am encouraged by seeing so many women and men commenters on ProPublica and in the world who are taking action and trying to do something to stop the flagrant and intricate patterns of injustices that are endangering and destroying so many lives !!

It will be interesting to see if Mike H can explain how the study done for Penn State does not unfairly favor the industry, and how did he know to pick that study, when other studies such as the one from the University of Pittsburgh that Bruce mentioned provide evidence that fracking is harmful.

Alexandra Grabbe

Nov. 10, 2011, 5 p.m.

Ordinary citizen here, against fracking.  I don’t even live in an area that is threatened.  On Cape Cod we have to worry about the utility company spraying herbicides which are toxic chemicals that will get into our sole-source aquifer.

@ Preston

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

Since you can’t argue either the methodology or the results of the Penn state study (peer reviewed I might add), you attack its authors. It’s a pretty typical line for the intellectually inept but I suppose I shouldn’t expect any better.

You are correct that there is no natural cause for this contamination, but an old abandoned underground fuel storage tank would explain this very nicely. But then again, what are the odds of a leaking fuel tank in ranch country ....must be like a billion to one or something.

I am a nurse and organic farmer, not a scientist, not an attorney. I think this is it though. It’s going to fall now. Lustgarten has credibility and EPA has responsibility with greatly renewed public scrutiny. With the added good news of today’s announcement on the Keystone XL, I thank all who work for truth and justice and a kinder and cleaner future.

Mike H - i said the report: “wasnt” at trace amounts - you said it “could be” normal runoff from daily use: ” found in thousands of consumer products ranging from whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, to latex paints”

this statement in the report: means ‘material findings” NOT trace amounts:

“The wells also contained benzene at 50 times the level that is considered safe for people, as well as phenols—another dangerous human carcinogen—acetone, toluene, naphthalene and traces of diesel fuel…. The EPA said the water samples were saturated with methane gas that matched the deep layers of natural gas being drilled for energy.”

which means another source???

so i get your reply - on busting journalists balls - we all need to keep amuzed - but you are being disengenous in the extreme

i drilled or recompleted wells in converse county, wyoming in the late 70’s and early 80’s - wih my own money in part - objective for the Niobrara formation - which is fractured shale - and we fract at that time - much cruder methods needless to say 30 years ago - at 9,500 feet - so the affect on the acquifer closer to the surface was never a problem for my wells according to the ranchers who live there - however, it can happen given bad cement jobs or / and broken or corroded casing from sulfides over long periods of time -  migrating up especially if the pumping stops and fluid builds up the hole

Wanted to correct a typo,it’s the CommonSenseCanadian.org for info on what’s going on here.

Let me also respond to Mr. Sifers.  It’s all very easy to call people names and say they don’t want to solve the problem.  Actually, in order to solve the problem, the problem has to be recognized.  It is journalists like those here who bring the information to the public.  I wonder how Mr. Sifers would feel if his home had been contaminated by a company who denied responsibility.  Wonder how easily he’d be able to sell his contaminated home and move away.  Heck, he may not even be able to afford the bottled water he’d have to drink.

Barry Schmittou

Nov. 10, 2011, 5:24 p.m.

Mike H, do you have any connections to the industry ?

I think it’s fair for Preston to question if the authors of the Penn State article were biased.

As Preston mentioned :

“the dean of Penn State’s College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, William E. Easterling, criticized the initial version of their 2009 report for making the “clear error” of failing to identify the sponsor, which is against Penn State policy. Easterling further stated that it would be “simply incorrect usage” to refer to the earlier report as a “Penn State report” rather than a “Marcellus Shale Committee report.”

I share this with Alexandra :

“Ordinary citizen here, against fracking.  I don’t even live in an area that is threatened”

We did have a huge coal ash spill here in Tennessee !!

If you want examples of why it’s reasonable for citizens to distrust big business and the leaders of both political parties please paste :

obamadrugmurdersconnection.blogspot.com

I had multiple surgeries in 2007 and 2008 so I was unable to document as much about Bush ignoring evidence, but will be happy to do so if a Grand Jury ever asks !! I still have many falls and accidents (two in the last ten days) but I feel our nation and planet are being destroyed by organized criminal sociopaths and stopping them seems most important right now !!

I am turning my computer off soon, thanks to all who work so hard so every living being will have the best chance for a good life !!

Mike H, do you have any connections to the industry ?

Pointing out that a study was funded by the industry involved is hardly as hominem…it’s full disclosure.

I wonder if Mike H will concede that contamination of an aquifer by chemicals used in fracking could actually be caused by fracking?

Let’s see…ranch country.  Leaking fuel tanks.  How many states and square miles could that cover?  Quite a bit larger than the Pavillion Area.

And yet….the problems AND the contamination are found—where?

Oh yeah, the Pavillion area.

I live a short distance from faucets that can be lit with a match.  I suppose you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fracking caused these flammable faucets and exploding wells. But there isn’t any reasonable doubt.

From you, sir: “Since you can’t argue either the methodology or the results of the Penn state study (peer reviewed I might add), you attack its authors. It’s a pretty typical line for the intellectually inept but I suppose I shouldn’t expect any better.”

Speaking of “ad hominem”: I didn’t call you intellectually inept, just a shill for the gas industry—a charge you have repeatedly refused to refute. Therefore it stands.

And I didn’t attack Timothy J. Considine and Robert Watson personally, I just said their research doesn’t pass the smell test: It was funded by the industry they are studying (which apparently offended their own dean). Do you think it’s OK for, say, Hormel to fund a study of allegedly tainted hot dogs from a Hormel plant? And such a study is of equal value to studies by scientists from CDC and FDA and NIH?

Again, from you: “You are correct that there is no natural cause for this contamination, but an old abandoned underground fuel storage tank would explain this very nicely. But then again, what are the odds of a leaking fuel tank in ranch country ....must be like a billion to one or something.”

If you bothered to look at the study as EPA presented it, there are two phases: water samples from 39 individual drinking-water wells over several miles in Wyoming’s Wind River Basin, an arid, rocky stretch of nothing much roughly a mile above sea level. The second phase, which this article reported on, was results from two drilled wells—the first time anybody has actually drilled a monitoring well in fracking country, to my knowledge. (Three were drilled but one had a blowout.) The results are startling. Your feeble attempts to deflect the results by suggesting household chemicals or a leaking oil tank are ludicrous. Somehow stuff has percolated from gas wells through heavily fracked shale beds into these two test wells, where sensors captured the evidence 763.5 feet bgs (below ground). How? We can only surmise. But to me, and certainly to the EPA, the evidence is compelling.

Now don’t go telling me the EPA is always out to get your employers. Typically it bends over backward to make sure the industry is not misrepresented. After all, scientists shuttle back and forth between the the two employers. Private citizens have to practically bring down the nation’s capitol building on EPA’s heads to get them to do anything.

It wouldn’t be contamiination from the open, unlined pits Shell and others used in 1955, 65’ and 73’ in the Pavillon area that were mentioned in the original EPA study could it?

It wouldn’t be contamiination from open, unlined pits Shell and others used in 1955, 65’ and 73’ in the Pavillon area that were mentioned in the original EPA study could it?

Mike H. said “You are correct that there is no natural cause for this contamination, but an old abandoned underground fuel storage tank would explain this very nicely. “

I’m still trying to puzzle out how an old, abandoned, underground fuel storage tank could saturate well water with methane that matches the methane from the deep layers that are being drilled for natural gas. That must be one heck of a deep underground fuel tank, and it must be that the EPA just happened to put their test wells right next to this amazingly large and deep and damaging abandoned fuel tank. Or…maybe the gas industry is to blame. Which seems more plausible?

lolll…I’m cracking up…what is up with the nearly identical “DelVal” and “Fred P” posts? 

Did somebody accidentally send the same urgent “Post this!” to two different “independent” contractors?

Error on my part it rejected the fist try so I tried again and guess it posted both.

So yet another smoking gun is found—a toxic,corrosive, dripping smoking gun—pointing squarely at the gas industry and the obviously insane practice of fracking. Yet the comment section is filling up with illogical rants from pro-pollution types intent on rendering the landscape unlivable just so they can put off our inevitable move to alternative energy sources for another few months or year.

How predictable. How sad.

clinton quart

Nov. 10, 2011, 7:37 p.m.

Hey Mike H. Isn’t Penn State the place where college officials molest little boys and then cover it up? Keep quoting Penn State. Really helps you make your case.

Fred P
Your answer would make more sense if it had come from the same place.  Besides, the content is slightly different.  The word “the” is only in the first post.  I would say your spin room should be a little more careful “Fred”.  After all this site is read by investigative journalists who look for this exact type of post or emails from government and large corporations trying to get their spin across.

Mike H:  As a former clinical chemist and licensed toxicologist, I consider this finding a very serious event. You can provide all sorts of excuses for these findings but the compounds mentioned do not normally exist in nature. I believe the EPA has done a very great favor for all of us by revealing the story. We need energy but we should be wary of exposing our families to these potentially carcinogenic chemicals.

Walter D. Shutter, Jr.

Nov. 10, 2011, 8:17 p.m.

After reading the article I was not convinced one way or the other. One compound does not a chemical cocktail make. However, the last sentence noted that the EPA would release a lengthly draft of the Pavillion findings along with a detailed intrepretation of those findings later this month. As I write this, the month is almost half over.  Hopefully I won’t have much longer to wait for the real skinny and I can make an informed comment. Maybe you folks will wait with me. Just a thought.

The industry sponsored posts in this thread are easy to spot. They must have hired amateurs. Are these industry sponsored posters physically near the location of the fracking? Do they also attempt their spin in the local arena? Public meetings etc?

Just curious.

@ DebbieM Knock yourself out, investigative journalism indeed!!!

@Fred P

Do you have an explanation for the use of different poster ID’s? Why would you need to have an alias?

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING FOREIGN CORPERATIONS 2 FOUL OUR DRANKING WATER??
SEND THEM NASTY FRACKERS BACK 2 CANADIA!!

I guess its not important nor relavent that unlined pits from ng development from 55’, 65’ and 73’ is the likely cause of the contamination and I believe the EPA will come to the same conclusion.

Learn or not your choice,

it’s beyond any reasonable doubt that fracked wells contaminate aquifers, & that’s just one of the problems they cause. btw, special govn’t. panel on fracking reported today ( 11/10, ) guess what they found?

Penn State was recently given over $700,000 in contributions by big oil and natural gas companies. You do the math.

Hey Mike H, The bigggest difference is, we know these products are not for humane consumption. They do not come out of our faucets that are supplying our drinking water. And most of all we do not have to purchase these harmful products. It is called being held accountable for your actions. Something the oil and gas industry has yet to learn.

We’ve dug/drilled/punctured the earth so many times to have left a half million abadoned mines behind alone. We’ve drilled all sorts of places for oil like mosquitoes. And now we want to drill even deeper and literally blow the gas out of the earth wasting an enormous amount of water both in the process and what blows out.  How many holes, how much vibration before we infiltrate and contaminate aquifers and aggravate a landscape that includes seismic areas. Having said that there are overlay maps of just about anything on the usgs.gov website. Check out the aquifers across the U.S. We also have some mighty tenuous seismic areas too. http://www.nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html?openChapters=chpgeol#chpgeol
Polluters and deniers claim climate science isn’t exact and oppose it. Well back atcha this time. Fracking as we know it needs to stop. We simply don’t know what extracting huge amounts of gas while under pressure will do near seismic zones or to fresh water supplies. Fracking is not an exact science.

Not to be unheathily worried because all is being done by the creations and the creations have the defending power too. Bringing all the too rich guys in oil or energy business under “New tax rules (to be passed soon)” can easily solve these kind of small issues.
We the human, with a good man in the Western leadership, are now capable of removing even a menmaid city in a better location. We have millions of employable welfare recipients, skilled labours sitting idle.

If not today, tomorrow we won’t have no choice but to get used to inevitable changes of new era as follows:
Whenever, current “Tax rules & Laws” and the professional Capitalist formulas of modern Economy are failed, that gives a signal to get back again to basic accounting of Socialism for redistribution of wealth for a limited time.
Money is a token, fruitful-positively usable to exchange mainly labours and not to sit as numbers in the banking system as fortunes of businessmen. Men-made new rules such as ‘$ One million maximun per person income is allowed’ and rest will go to the global public funds such as UN’s and private and public credits or debts will be wiped off, just like recent Gaddafi’s etc. are capable of totally changing present bad financial situation in the West including our USA or tomorrow’s North-America.

WE still can print it in volumes, pay off some of the debts, distribute as “must be spent vouchers and collect it back as revenues” and handle the situation by inviting foreign (until our available citizens join) labours @ minimum wages, -like Saudi-Arabia or Libya, to make and produce here everything we need everyday, because we are still blessed and we have free lands and all kind of minerals here too.   
There is another preventive solution to be applied against worst kind of world situation of economy. It will be so easy that presently certified economists cannot even dream about.

Welcome to the “free” market. You and your parents and grandparents sat watching T.V. or drinking at the pub while this monster grew too large to be stopped. You reap what you sow, enjoy suffering under crushing fascism.

Sitting back and saying and doing nothing is the problem, YOU are the problem.

After news of the Penn State sex abuse coverup, I would not put much faith in the credibility of a fracking fluids contamination study performed by Penn State.  It could have been bought and paid for just like their athletic program.

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Fracking

Fracking: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat

The promise of abundant natural gas is colliding with fears about water contamination.

The Story So Far

The country’s push to find clean domestic energy has zeroed in on natural gas, but cases of water contamination have raised serious questions about the primary drilling method being used. Vast deposits of natural gas, large enough to supply the country for decades, have brought a drilling boom stretching across 31 states. The drilling technique being used, called hydraulic fracturing, shoots water, sand and toxic chemicals into the ground to break up rock and release the gas.

More »

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional