ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

New Study Predicts Frack Fluids Can Migrate to Aquifers Within Years

A new study has raised fresh concerns about the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale, concluding that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could migrate toward drinking water supplies far more quickly than experts have previously predicted.

« Return to Story

Sort by: Oldest Newest  <  1 2 3

Sandra Bilek

May 28, 2012, 11:15 a.m.

Many ways to fight a war and conquer a civilization…. humans cannot survive without clean air, clean water and food.  Unconventional drilling we already know causes very toxic air plumes… even ODNR admits the 80% fracking cocktail mix they’re not able to extract will rise to the surface, eventually.  The other 20% going down injection wells, at least in Ohio.  Where’s all that “stuff” going that goes down injection wells?  Does it disappear… or disperse and rise?  When dispersing, where does it disperse to?  Aquifers, underground rivers?
Earthquakes, government has known and admitted since the 80’s that injection wells cause earthquakes.  No brainer there. 
Think your municipal water supply is safe?  Better think again.  Don’t drink water, so you don’t care?  Drink pop and juice and beer?  Better check your ingredients… all use water.  Well, when the planet goes…. we’ll all be going down together, somehow there’s comfort in that.

Pappadave

May 28, 2012, 11:58 a.m.

Well, Sandra.  Where to begin?  Humans do NOT “need clean air and water to survive” first of all.  We “survived” quite adequately, thank you very much, before anyone even KNEW that some chemicals, or bacteria for that matter, were “bad” for you.  Survival was one way in which we built up immunity to the poisons and bugs and it made us stronger.  It was only recently that “science” convinced a bunch of dilitants that only “pure” air and water would allow people to “survive.”  You may want your children to grow up as “hot house” kids, but most of us don’t.  Don’t you think that the extraordinary rise in such things as asthma or “allergies” in recent years MIGHT be traceable to our being so overprotective that we’re creating generations of weaklings?

Secondly, ever hear of gravity?  It pulls stuff towards the center of the Earth…not towards the surface.  It’s also why most oil wells require a PUMP to get the oil to the surface.  Gas will “flow” to the surface…in part because natural gas is lighter than air and all you have to do is provide it with a vent.  Yes, it’s under some pressure as a result of fracking and that helps get it where it’s going, but there IS a difference between how gas behaves and how liquids behave.  If you throw a bucket of water into the air, it does NOT keep going up until it evaporates.  It falls DOWN until it meets an obstruction…like the planet, for example, and then the majority seeps into the ground if it’s at all permeable.  Where does IT “go?”

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that fracking “causes” earthquakes…period…dot…end of sentence.  It’s just another myth propounded by the moronic eco-freaks in their never-ending quest to take down the economy of the U.S. so they can usher in their idea of a socialist nirvana.  We’ve been fracking in oil and gas operations at LEAST for 75 years.  Where are all those “earthquakes”?  Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia shaken itself off the map?  That’s just plain, ordinary stupidity. 

Ever wonder why EVERY myth put forth by these people eventually turns out to be just that….mythical??  The ozone layer isn’t “destroyed” and never WAS in “danger” from human activity.  “Acid rain” has NOT “destroyed” Eastern rivers and lakes, mostly because 99.9% of the “acid” found in them is TANNIC acid, the result of decaying vegetation—especially pine needles.  When ground detritus is burnt in a fire, the ashes are alkaline.  When you PREVENT forest fires, one of the “consequences” is that you prevent rainfall (and runoff) from picking up that alkalinity and neutralizing the acidity it picks up flowing through unburned detritus.

Garcol Euphrates

May 28, 2012, 9:58 p.m.

These and many other homespun old-wives’ tales are available from PAPPADAVE’s website: “Don’t need no learnin to spread the word.com”

Mitch Slagghorn

May 28, 2012, 10:39 p.m.

It’s the Pappadave new logic defying stun weapon with super side spin.
I mean, you read it and you are actually stunned, I’ve been reading it and
sometimes I just hold my head with both hands, sometimes I end up
actually laughing out loud.  I went back and re-read the wiley library link
from an earlier comment just to shake it off.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 8:48 a.m.

...all of which doesn’t refute one, single thing I posted, either.  Go ahead and “hold your head in both hands,” because that’s all your head seems to be good for.

You eco-morons have NOTHING except name-calling and invective in your quivers….period.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 29, 2012, 10:48 a.m.

NowNow Pappadave,
The wiley article (Thanks Dave):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00933.x/abstract
actually does refute
your science and balances the argument, if you read it,
and you should.  I believe the name-calling is your gig,
and to be quite frank, it only cheapens your stance to
such a degree, I find it hard to actually
reach for one of my quivers of information that would
truly blast you off the commentary.  I think a lot of the
previous writers herein feel the same way, you are just not
worth the effort.  In parting however, I do challenge you to
possibly come up with an alternative to the 65 year old
method of injecting an average 167 TONS of chemical PER
well or the use of 10,500,000 gallons of water per well.
  This is your chance Pappadave, sell the alternative plan
and you won’t need to spin like a whirling dervish. 
But hey, as long as you are so entertaining, I have 2 questions:
1. Do you drink? ,,like heavily?
and 2.  Do you have poster of Dick Cheney on your wall?
-or, Did you get the life-size cut-out?  just curious

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 11:44 a.m.

Most of Wiley’s citations are from EPA “investigations”.  I wouldn’t trust the EPA if they insisted that sea water is salty.  As a result of one of their “investigations” here in Oklahoma, some woman was awarded $5 MILLION because they claimed that ARCO had “polluted” her ground water because of percolation from an oil well reserve pit into her aquifer.  They determined this by drilling 5 test wells into the aquifer.  One on each corner of the former reserve pit and one in the dead center.  The ground water directly under the pit registered 78 ppm of chlorides while those at the corners registered 73 ppm each.  From that “data” they determined that ARCO had “polluted” her ground water.  The only problem is, you can’t even TASTE salt in water until it gets to about 350 ppm and the Oklahoma City’s drinking water supply hovers around 118 ppm day to day and has for decades and we have some of the best-tasting, healthy drinking water in the country.  The amount of water used in fracking is GREATLY exaggerated, by the way.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 11:52 a.m.

Secondarily, maybe you should check your vocabulary.  Your disdain for “chemicals” is understandable, given the state of modern education, but YOU are made up of lots of those evil “chemicals.”  Does that make YOU “evil” too? 

Part of the problem seems to be that technology has advanced to the point where we can literally detect parts per trillion of some substances and the eco-freaks believe that if you can detect it, it’ll kill you.  1 part per trillion, by the way, would be like pouring a cup of “pollutant” into Lake Michigan, stirring thoroughly, and then testing a random water sample.  You would likely be able to detect a molecule or so of “pollutant” in that sample.  That’s what a part per trillion represents and it’s no more dangerous than eating an organically-grown carrot.

R Laurence Davis

May 29, 2012, 12:05 p.m.

It is interesting to see the level of ignorance about science, about ground water, about everything that has been generated by my simple posting about where to find the article behind all of this. It is clear to me that many of the commenters here know what they know because they know it must be so. Good luck to them. It seems they cannot be educated because they are so sure that they know everything. A good scientist knows how little he knows. Perhaps we should all line up behind these know-it-alls. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about anything.

Sigh….it makes me very depressed.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 29, 2012, 1:57 p.m.

Don’t let it bother you Mr. Davis,
It’s all part of a script of pro-fracking arguments
that is common in all venues that I have seen.
  So far flung from science comes some of these comments,
you can only laugh. In terms of consilience, the methods
of HVHF are just against basic common sense, not just science. 
  The script basically starts with the argument of the definition
of words. when that fails, it goes immediately into a crossroads
of history or past events either related or not, offered I suppose
as a distraction effort.  When that fails, then comes the labeling,
effectively attempting association with some group, be it
ecological, political, or mental, usually fanatical to hopefully dismiss
the opposing comment and then comes the name calling to
ineffectively burn the comment down, and further distract from
the original format of discussion.  It’s a game, and unfortunately,
I have witnessed it across the board from different reps of the
industry, and it is the very same desperate plan of divide and conquer
that is well practiced and tiresome.  Forgive my comments,
but a sense of humor is all that is left.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 2:26 p.m.

Well, Mr. Davis, maybe you should “line up” behind people who have actually WORKED for decades in the oil and gas business and had first-hand, hands-on experience with this very issue instead of theorists.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 2:34 p.m.

And, interesting enough, Mr. Slagghorn, NO ONE is more adept at diversion (or projection for that matter) than those of you on the left who are so full of yourselves that you think that YOUR opinions should have the force of law.  When a conservative believes in vegetarianism, for example, he simply doesn’t eat meat.  When one of YOU guys believes in vegetarianism, you do everything in your power to insure that NO ONE eats meat.  It’s pretty much the same with almost everything that tickles your fancies.  Don’t like oil?  Fine, do what you can to destroy the oil industry so NO ONE can afford it any longer…even if you have to conjure up some fantasy to sell the idea.

R Laurence Davis

May 29, 2012, 2:42 p.m.

Well Pappadave-I actually have a Ph.D. in geology (by the way it is “Dr. Davis”. and have worked extensively on ground water and on natural resources (oil and gas and coal) in both Pennsylvania and New York. Much of my work has been in the areas where frakking is proposed (or going on). So, I do know what I’m talking about. Although, I’m sure that these credentials won’t be good enough for you…I’m also not afraid to use my real name as I stand behind my comments.

Michael S. Knapp

May 29, 2012, 2:54 p.m.

Dr. Davis,

If you are to have us believe that you have worked in and around the gas and oil industry for years, you’d be much more convincing if you spelled ‘fracing” correctly.

Regards,

Michael S. Knapp

R. Laurence Davis

May 29, 2012, 3:04 p.m.

A typo and Propublica does not let you edit your comments once posted.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 3:35 p.m.

About to note the same thing.  It’s “fracking,” by the way…a short term for “fracturing” though not all THAT shorter, obviously.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 3:46 p.m.

Funny, too, how the only “Dr. R. Lawrence Davis” to come up on Google are a few physicians.  One just listed as an “MD” and a couple of entrys for a “Neuphrologist” plus a chiropractor or two.  Not a single entry for a “Geologist” by that name.  Now isn’t that strange?  BTW, I also tried just “R. Lawrence Davis” and “R. Lawrence Davis, PhD.”  Couldn’t find anything there, either.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 29, 2012, 4:21 p.m.

‘Dr. Davis’ , my apologies.
  - Mitchell R. Slagghorn jr.

R Laurence Davis

May 29, 2012, 5:11 p.m.

That’s because you too did a typo. My name, as you can see, is spelled with a “u” and not a “w”.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 29, 2012, 5:25 p.m.

Hows that google search working out for ya there Pappadave?
Not good? hmmm, not surprized, idk who Mitch Slagghorn is,
  but I think you assumed, assumed I was using my real name,
JUST like you assume that I am unable to look at both sides
of an argument equally. JUST like you assume that I haven’t
done any research. JUST like you assume that anyone with an
opposing opinion to yours is a “freak” or a “moron”
or some type low intelligence lifeform.  JUST like
you assume people in Upstate NY can’t grasp the importance of
water, for all things. JUST like you believe the people in this state
can’t understand technical data, or geological formations, or the
depth and/or condition of ancient bedrock and the percentage
of accurate value describing it.  JUST like you assume that we
won’t comprehend what the increased truck traffic will do to our roads.
JUST like you assume that we will be unable to understand the
process for the waste or it’s storage.  JUST like you assume that
the opposition is anti-oil, anti-gas!!!  THATS NOT IT !
-“IT’s The Process Stupid !!!!”-
JUST like you assume,,,
-and this is the big one charlie…
just like you assume, that if you high volume hydrofrack,
in this state,, that if you make a mistake, (and thats likely)
you are going to get away with it.  You Will Not.
  -It is NOT a matter of IF you will pollute, It’s a matter of
How Much, and Where. -

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 6:01 p.m.

You are right about one thing.  I do “assume” some things.  For example, I assume that you are much like every other eco-freak who thinks they can FORCE new technologies to become viable, affordable and efficient, just by snapping your fingers and WISHING it so.  Solar doesn’t work very well and won’t replace hydrocarbon fuels within the lifetimes of you or I, our children, grandchildren OR great-grandchildren and probably not our great-great-grandchildren.  For one thing, it REQUIRES more energy to make, transport, erect and repair or replace a single solar panel than the thing will provide in its entire lifetime—a net energy LOSS.  Wind doesn’t work very well and a windmill requires more energy to build, transport, construct, replace and repair than it will PRODUCE in it’s entire lifetime—a net energy LOSS.  Alcohol for fuel is ONLY produced by distillation, which requires HEAT.  A gallon of alcohol REQUIRES more energy to distill than it will produce when burned as fuel—a net energy LOSS.  The ONLY reason we’re trying those things in the environment today is because some idiot in the government, who doesn’t CARE about efficiency OR cost, is willing to spend billions of our tax dollars to subsidize them.  After all, it’s not HIS money. (or hers)  All three of those “alternatives” are more destructive of the environment than oil or gas have ever been (or will ever BE).  We are the “Saudi Arabia” of coal, and North America could be the “Saudi Arabia” of natural gas and oil if we just had the will to go get what we KNOW is there available for us.  But YOU folks think the phony “scientists” who are perfectly willing to sell out their own souls for a few research dollars couldn’t POSSIBLY have an ulterior motive for perverting their own “science.”  East Anglia SHOULD have convinced some of you sheep that “scientists” ARE perfectly willing to bastardize “science” for a few million here or a billion there.  For God’s sake, folks.  They ADMITTED it.

Pappadave

May 29, 2012, 6:46 p.m.

Took a look at what is “presumably” Dr. Davis’ “selected publications.”  Seems like he’s a “hired gun” any time someone wants to get an “expert witness” needed to stop ANY development….not that I’m surprised.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 29, 2012, 7:21 p.m.

..hows that script coming along?,
let’s see:
distract; check,
delineate; check
distort: check,
denounce; check
denigrate; checkcheckcheck..
..hmmm, ,, whats missing?
oh wait.. next you will demean my spelling,
Yesss, .. that’ll be important ..
wait for it.. here comes..

Garcol Euphrates

May 30, 2012, 10:32 a.m.

Any half-watt engineer can throw a bunch of numbers at you and “prove” a point…to THEIR satisfaction.
For instance: solar will not replace petro-energy because the cost of manufacture is never returned in operation.
Fact 1: If you calculate all the energy and resources required to search/locate, drill/excavate, pump/transfer, refine, crack, refine, transport, clean-up, pay fines, pay CEO salary, market, lobby, etc, etc you will be able to prove that non-renewable petroleum/gas usage will not be able to furnish a positive return for at least 200-years.
Fact 2: The cost of manufacture, the efficiency and the manufacturability of volume PhotoVoltaics, Solar steam generation, Solar thermal recycling is now or within 2 years able to provide positive ROI - both for industrial level as well as for home use.
Fact 3: Once in place, the primary energy source of Solar-based energy conversion products is ... the SUN! with an expected lifetime of 3-4 billion (that Billion with a B) years! And THAT is a damn site longer than the continued availability of Oil a/o Gas.

Pappadave

May 30, 2012, 11:02 a.m.

If your “Fact 1” is correct, then you have some ‘splainin’ to do about all those alleged “obscene profits” that the oil companies are supposedly making, wouldn’t you say?  You can’t have it both ways.  Either oil and gas DO have a positive ROI or they don’t.
“Fact 2” - Nonsense.  I work in the power generation industry and there is NO positive ROI without massive government subsidies for these systems…period.
“Fact 3” - True.  The sun is supposed to last for much longer than we can reasonably expect oil and gas to be available.  So what?  Until we have a reasonably efficient means of harnessing the sun’s energy to provide all of our energy needs, we’ll STILL need to be producing oil and gas…certainly for the foreseeable future.

Pappadave

May 30, 2012, 11:12 a.m.

By the way, natural gas IS at least marginally “renewable.”  We’re currently getting copious quantities out of old landfills….enough that GM uses landfill gas to run their boilers at their plant in Shreveport, Louisiana.

Garcol Euphrates

May 30, 2012, 1:21 p.m.

Factum 1: Even with their obscene profits, the Oil/Gas companies CONTINUE to get FEDERAL SUBSIDIES today! ‘splain that !

Factum 2. If YOU wanted to get O&G off the ground (out of the ground from NO infrastructure) TODAY, it would take 200 years of R&D, investment, expensive wars and mistakes, to build the process to get to the “obscene profits” you gloat upon.

Fact 1 and Fact 2 acknowledge this cost of investment; You do not.

Fact 3 merely indicates that, given two sources of energy: One with a limited lifespan, known significant pollution effects, and, as a result, becoming progressively more expensive (in terms of locating and maintaining and use), and one which has zero-pollution, whose source is free and limitless (for all practical purposes), that it makes more sense to put development resources into the limited, expensive and polluting source, instead of putting development resources into the free, unlimited and non-polluting one?
This is the country that sent men to the moon and brought them back - and we cannot develop an efficient, cost-effective solar enenrgy source?
Oh, and as for your “renewable natural gas”... placing a balloon on the rear-end of cattle is a good way to capture renewable methane.

Pappadave

May 30, 2012, 3:14 p.m.

...except, of course, oil and gas companies do NOT receive any government “subsidies.”  A “subsidy” is a direct transfer of cash in the form of operating capital from the government to an industry.  O&G companies do NOT get any such thing.  On the contrary, the O&G companies pay royalties TO the government for production on government lands.  What O&G companies DO get, are tax breaks—i.e. they can write off the cost incurred in exploration and recovery, to some extent, from their tax bill.  These, by the way, are pretty much the same tax breaks that the government affords LOTS of industries, including the boadcast industry, which makes nearly twice the profits of oil companies when measured against investment.  A subsidy, would be a government-guaranteed $800 million loan to Solyndra, for example, that disappeared down the rat-hole when the company went belly-up.  No oil & gas company gets any such government “help.”  Oil companies make about 7 cents profit on every gallon of gasoline sold.  Various levels of government make about 44 cents per gallon in tax revenue.  Now WHO is it that’s ripping off the public?
So much for your “Facts 1 & 2.”
I have no problem whatsoever with investing R&D in alternative energy.  I just don’t believe that the GOVERNMENT has any business investing MY tax dollars in unproven industries like Solyndra that even the spendthrift Bush administration recognized was unsustainable and refused to subsidize.  If people want to become millionaires from solar or wind energy, don’t expect me or any other taxpayer to subsidize them and eat their inevitable losses.  The government has no business “investing” tax dollars in private industry period, unless that industry is proven and provides a good or service that’s essential (and, coincidentally, constitutional) to the functioning of government, such as military materiel.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 30, 2012, 9 p.m.

True colors time Pappadave..
  What if,
Newly appointed Director General Laura Burke and
Director Gerard O’Leary, decided to head up to the hill
and formally re-introduce the
Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act
with the help of,  Maurice Hinchey D-N.Y.,Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Jared Polis, D-Colo. as well as, Senators Charles Schumer, and
Bob Casey, further supported by Lisa Rickard, Doug Kendall, and
maybe even Kenneth Baer, and a few more.
What if, the Act re-introduced,
passed into law, disassembling the preemption of regulatory power
allowing the states to override the federal rules applicable towards..
say,.. the environment, public safety, health and well-being.
..that sort of thing..
  With that, then the State of New York could allow high volume
hydrofracking of the Marcellus Shale only if Green Fracking Fluid
were to be solely applied, such as SteriFrac or some equivalent.
  What would ya say Pappadave!!??
    Would Ya Want to Come To NY
and Set Up Some Wells For Us?!?  yes or no?

Pappadave

May 31, 2012, 7:15 a.m.

Well, Mr. Slagghorn, I wouldn’t go to New York for ANY reason whatsoever…period.  Who in their right minds would voluntarily live or work in a state that seems to be deliberately running off it’s producers and encouraging leeches to move in???  NY will be in the same shape that California is becoming unless you folks have an epiphany VERY soon and get rid of the leftists in your government who think THEY know how everyone should live their lives and who think your hard-earned income actually belongs to THEM.

Garcol Euphrates

May 31, 2012, 10:25 a.m.

pappodave (aka tarbaby) =>

subsidies/tax write-offs; a rose is a rose by any other name; government handouts/writeoffs/subsidies to O&G are government support for an industry which most certainly does NOT need Federal support.

You have your head so far down the oil hole that you make Yosemite Sam look like a Liberal.

The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company’s expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.
Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month.
Statistics
The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.
When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.
Current Status
The Obama administration contends the oil industry no longer needs help. The three largest oil companies made $80 billion in profits combined in 2011, which amounts to $200 million per day. The White House also asserts America uses 20 percent of the world’s oil but only has two percent of the world’s oil reserves. Oil drilling continues in all areas of the United States and oil rigs are plentiful in the Gulf of Mexico, the White House blog states.
The New York Times had an article dated July 3, 2010, in the middle of the Gulf oil spill. Deepwater Horizon rented the sunken rig to BP. The company used an oil industry subsidy to write off 70 percent of the cost of the rent for the rig which amounted to a deduction of $225,000 per day.

Pappadave

May 31, 2012, 10:42 a.m.

For (hopefully) the LAST time, a tax DEDUCTION is NOT a government SUBSIDY…period…dot…end of sentence.  If it were, 100% of Americans would be getting a “subsidy” because deductions to one’s tax bill are not only permitted, but encouraged.  Deductions are what permit businesses to stay profitable and therefore in business.  If you insist that a deduction IS a “subsidy” then what you’re really saying is that ALL money belongs, first and foremost, to the government and NOT to those who earn it.  That’s communism and I, for one, want no part of it.  YOU can embrace it all you want, but you need to understand that, so far, at least, you’re in the minority here and we are going to fight you tooth and toenail—starting this November.

Pappadave

May 31, 2012, 10:49 a.m.

While it’s true that “drilling continues” in the U.S. it’s because it’s all on PRIVATE PROPERTY and the feds can’t do a single, legal thing to stop it.  Besides, DRILLING isn’t the same thing as FINDING oil and gas.  There are lots of rigs in the gulf, too, but they are PRODUCING rigs…not DRILLING rigs.  Most of the drilling rigs left for a more friendly environment when Obama stopped all off-shore drilling after the BP spill…which, by the way, was the equivalent of spilling a can of beer on the 50 yard line at Texas Stadium in terms of its “impact” on the Gulf of Mexico.

You need to get YOUR head out of whichever of Obama’s orifices it’s presently lodged and look around you.  We have only 2% of the world’s PROVEN reserves.  We’ve got about 40% of the world’s POTENTIAL reserves—and we’ve explored about 10% of the land so far and virtually NONE of the sea bottom.

Pappadave

May 31, 2012, 10:52 a.m.

“Proven reserves” by the way, means reserves from which we’re currently producing oil and gas.  We KNOW, for example, that ANWR has roughly 10 BILLION barrels of oil, but that’s not included in Obama’s figures because it’s not “proven” and it’s not “proven” because the eco-idiots won’t permit drilling there—for entirely bogus reasons, by the way.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 31, 2012, 1 p.m.

pappadave, honestly, your entertainment value just can not be denied.
  If you had a radio broadcast, I think I’d have to make popcorn,
shoot, who needs comedy?  The scary part is; you might actually be at
the helm of a supertanker or something.. I cringe at the thought.
  I’d offer you another shovelful of dirt but I can see you’ve got it
pretty well covered. I think your attempt to use blinding technological
statistics however does not actually offer a slab of intelligence when you back it up with an analogy of “a can of beer on the 50 yard line”.
  But hey, as long as you have this train of thought,
I was wondering, Can you give me another analogy in regards to
the oil spill in Alberta?  That was only.. 22,000 barrels into the muskeg,
and I’ll just add your take on that to the previous 28,000 barrels
spilled from the pipeline into the forest in the past year.. I mean,
really, whats the difference of 5000. barrels between the two spills?
That would be merely condensation off of the beer can to you Right?
Come on man, I made popcorn..

Mitch Slagghorn

May 31, 2012, 1:18 p.m.

Mitch Slagghorn

May 31, 2012, 1:34 p.m.

Wrong link, my bad, and certainly
Mistakes Happen.. and I apologize.
  Here’s the correct link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/30/rainbow-lake-oil-spill_n_1556622.html?ref=canada-business
  What do you say if you make a mistake pappadave?
“whoops”? ,, ‘whoopsie” ? (- “shucks, only 5000 barrels,
thats like fly pee on the back of on alligator” )

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
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.

Get Updates

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

optional

Our Hottest Stories

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •