Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Frack Water Plant Cheered

April 20, 2013

Do not expect Lee Landon to be among those protesting GreenHunter Water’s planned natural gas frack water recycling plant at 2 p.m. Sunday at Warwood Garden Par....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 9:12 PM

Interesting that WVUGEO opposes shipping out gas well flowback by barge, but has no problem with shipping out coal by barge. Wonder where his financial interest lies?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-22-13 2:49 PM

CleanWater: If you check back in here at any time, we wanted to acknowledge your response: "Thanks for the cite Geo. I wasn't thinking GHG though, thinking coal's NOx, SOx, Hg, PM2.5, and the remaining fly ash"; in the comments string from the article: "Frack Water Plant Cheered". Sorry we can't give you a link, but do a quick search for: "Mercury Does Not Disqualify Coal Ash for Use in Concrete". If it pops up for you, you'll find it to be a brief essay centered on: "United States Patent Application 0110197791 - Compositions and Methods to Sequester Flue Gas Mercury in Concrete", an application made by Albemarle Corporation, which is a pretty big outfit. It might answer some of the questions you raised about Coal Ash, Mercury and other potential Coal-use pollutants. We can use Coal Ash to make high-performance concrete; and, we make enough concrete in the US that we could almost without doubt use up all of our Coal Ash.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 12:01 PM

Like a dog watching a chemistry lecture. Head cocked and ears up. Too funny.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 9:20 AM

CleanWater “The dead, radioactive fish would then stagnate and rot in the eddy pool where the water intake is.”

Sorry, I don’t do math for dead, radioactive fish. The image is hysterical, though.

Suggest you start using real math when you make a scientific argument. Your constant unsupported fearmongering with screeches of “radioactive,” “cancer,” and “dead fish” are a substitute for science and only fool the “scientifically illiterate” types like Choker.

By the way, that figure of a million liters in one hour is more typical of an above-ground spill you’re most concerned about. A leaking barge would never really leak that fast; it would have to be intentionally dumped to achieve the rate I applied. A ruptured barge would take days to weeks to empty. No, you can do that math yourself; I know you can if you want to. But you don't. Too much truth comes out when you start delving into the facts.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Apr-22-13 8:33 AM

Troll, impressive math. I won't bother to check since you failed to realize that a spill (one we're most worried about anyway) undetected leaks, site runoff, etc. would have the greatest risk near shore where they load (that's where all the action is), and just upstream of the drinking water intake (on the same shore). The contaminants would hug the shore, and not mix or adequately dilute for miles. the higher salt load would hug the bottom killing the fish.. The intake is at an eddy pool, which would circulate the contaminants round and around and not dilute as readily as you hope. The dead, radioactive fish would then stagnate and rot in the eddy pool where the water intake is. Please re-run your calculations for us?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 8:05 AM

Don't make me run the numbers for when the mixture reaches the Gulf of Mexico, because that’s where “unfathomably undetectable” comes into play.

Now, Choker, being a “scientifically literate” person I’m sure you can follow my example for any other contaminate you wish, so I leave the rest as an exercise for the sassy student when she stops choking on her popcorn. LOL

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 8:02 AM

The Ohio River flows at 7,960,000 liters per second [EPA]. If you dump an entire 1500 ton barge loaded with 1.1 million liters of flowback water of WVUGEO’s inflated maximum radium concentration in one hour, the radium is diluted by a factor of 0.000038. Multiply 6540 pCi/L by 0.000038 and you see that the concentration of radium in the mixture is 0.25 pCi/L, which is 20 times LESS than the maximum allowable for drinking water, and even less than the typical 0.6 pCi/L concentration of radium in river water (USDI), hence undetectable. QED

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-22-13 8:01 AM

Those were “them childlike terms” rover requested. But for the more “scientifically literate” types like you, Choker:

“For total Radium (combined 226 Ra and 228 Ra) the highest level reported is 6540 pCiL." By way of comparison, the Federal limit on any type of Radium in drinking water, the allowable Maximum Contaminant Level is 5 pCi/L.” Those are WVUGEO’s numbers. The 6540 pCi/L number is ridiculously inflated, but for arguments’ sake we’ll go with it. Try to keep up.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-21-13 11:06 PM

rover, so I was right. If you can’t make money, nobody makes money. As they say, misery loves company. Enjoy all the prosperity in bustling Warwood. Childlike terms? LOL

Choker, how about pollution that dilutes to the point of undetectability and then flows into the ocean to be diluted to the point of unfathomable undetectability? Or are you concerned about the homeopathic energy of the pollution that remains after the pollution itself is long gone? Probably.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rover1958

Apr-21-13 8:57 PM

And so...Troll....I must speak to you in childlike terms. Hello, McFly!! Do you remember mere months ago how the city/county was preening themselves for acquring the Beech Bottom Plant and land of Wheeling Steel? Wow! rail connect, a port on the river, all just hunky dory!

PUT THE FRACK PLANT THERE! Local yokels like yourself still benefit (I guess you got a lock on being a 'Greeter' at the Frack Plant, eh), and the community, blah blah blah. Of course, that's all BS....Texans will benefit but they might leave a tip for your wives working the grills, eh.

Just don't put the*****frack dump in community-based Warwood. We don't need heavy trucks, drug-crazed drivers, noise and pollution so the small potatoes locals can get the drip down crumbs!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-21-13 6:41 PM

I guess you have a point, rover. Since every industrial operation involves risk of some kind, we should run all industry out of the valley. Come to think of it, sometimes gas-heated homes explode, sometimes home electrical systems cause fires, and sometimes gasoline powered cars go up in flames. So the gas heat, electrical power, and automobiles just have to go.

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones! They’re the modern rover family...

Yabba dabba doooooo!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rover1958

Apr-21-13 5:36 PM

@Troll wants the 'town to prosper'. Wow! Then we should quickly make a bid for a replacement to the fertilizer factor that exploded in Texas. We could also send them 12 or so firemen and other first responders that were vaporized when that wonderful community asset blew like small atom bomb.

Yeah....that's the ticket! Or maybe Warwood should volunteer to build a crematorium or rubberoid factory or a Potters Field for the endless supply of bums in our area.

As the 1percenters said during the Viet Nam War...what possible harm could dumping 55 million gallons of Agent Orange on our troops possibly cause?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-21-13 4:02 PM

Of course I hold a stake. I want my town to prosper. I want my state to prosper. I want my country to prosper. I’ll bet a dollar rover and the rest of the loons opposing an industry they don’t know a thing about oppose it simply because they see no personal benefit from it so they feel better about themselves if nobody else benefits from it, either. No envy like progressive envy.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rover1958

Apr-21-13 2:06 PM

@joeknows as does goodwine - Those swooning over this scam are under the control of the owners. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a horse turd (if trollslayer aka wRAT holds stakes in his mouth!)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-21-13 10:15 AM

Since all the flowback water transported to the facility will be either a) recycled and then pumped more than a mile underground where it has never produced a single documented case of harm to anyone in the thousands of Ohio Valley wells where it has been used, or b) transported by barge to a disposal facility far from Wheeling, I doubt the Wheeling-Ohio County Health Department will have much interest in it.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SpankysLastDance

Apr-21-13 9:55 AM

Still waiting to hear from the Wheeling-Ohio County Health Department on this issue. "As a City-County Health Department, our agency is the official government entity with the responsibility for protecting the public's health". ***********wheelingwv.gov/uploads/02-22-12_tb_Health.pdf

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SpankysLastDance

Apr-21-13 9:43 AM

"I think once people get to know GreenHunter, they will have a better view of them." Really? Knowing them and liking or disliking them on a personal level has nothing to do with the dangers of the fracking water. Sounds like politics coming into play.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-21-13 8:58 AM

Fear change. Resist growth. Oppose development. Because everything’s fine just the way it is. All that wisdom and foresight is why Warwood and Wheeling and West Virginia are such bustling, thriving, healthy economic powerhouses today.

No worries. Your kids can always find jobs and a future elsewhere. Maybe they’ll visit. Not long visits, though. Too depressing after seeing what’s possible.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

billybob

Apr-21-13 8:13 AM

I think there is more here than what we are told.The aim is Wheeling citizens to pay for sewer plant upgrade and frack business to not have any cost using that Wheeling system after the upgrade. Then water plant paid by Wheeling citizens may handle dirtier water. WELL WHO PAYS IF WE CAN NOT GET THE CLEAN WATER OR CLEAN UP FRACK SEWER OUTPUT? One major spill and company will sneak away and WHO Pays?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Apr-21-13 7:52 AM

and while the epa has shut down almost every other business around here.polluting is polluting.at least with the other companies we knew what the pollution was.being untruthful is the name of this game.we don't trust gas officials or our own government officials.you all dumped this stuff into the river in wellsburg using us for your lab tests.and the epa let you do it.gas officials,government officials,lawyers,used car salesmen,etc.one will lie and the other will swear to it.can't we at least have obama come here and tell us that this stuff is safe to drink?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Apr-20-13 7:11 PM

Thanks for the cite Geo. I wasn't thinking GHG though, thinking coal's NOx, SOx, Hg, PM2.5, and the remaining fly ash.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Apr-20-13 6:28 PM

CleanWater, you wrote: "gas is cleaner burning than coal". Maybe not. A report: "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations"; March 2011; by Cornell University professors Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea confirmed an earlier, controversial study by Howarth and Ingraffea that the complete cycle of Shale gas extraction and use emits a lot more greenhouse gas than Coal. Methane is a far more potent heat-trapper than CO2. A quote: "We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. ... The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured ... . ... Compared to coal, the (greenhouse gas) footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years".

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-20-13 5:58 PM

CleanWater, I hope nobody tells you about the millions of gallons of highly flammable, poisonous, carcinogenic, carbon-filled liquids being tanker-trucked in and pumped out daily at gasoline stations on almost every street corner, some within only feet of residences and schools. Perhaps we should rethink, redesign, and better innovate our modern motor transportation system. Go back to the Flintstones mobile. Slow it down a bit.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CleanWater

Apr-20-13 5:33 PM

we're a bit concerned that there will be millions of gallons of highly concentrated, soluble, radioactive waste being moved in and out of a site just upstream of a drinking water intake (on the same shore). That's stupid by design. We're worried about spills, runoff, leaks here. Since they legally don't have to disclose the chemical composition of each load, there's no way to know what's in it. We'd like to know. The government cant tell us and the industry wont. Moreover, I'd want to know where is this toxic waste going? Some other community of folks and their children? How is it being dealt with to protect humans and the environment? Sure gas is cleaner burning than coal, but as addicted to energy as we are, why suffer exposure to toxins? Study it more thoroughly. EPA/DEP going about this willy-nilly. With the glut, let's slow it down a bit, and rethink, redesign, and better innovate this extraction process and waste stream. Recycling? Vague/ambiguous. Stoneage Greennazi's? Huh?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Apr-20-13 4:04 PM

WVUGEO “3,609 times more radioactive than the federal limit for drinking water and 300 times more radioactive than a Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit for nuclear plant discharges.”

So don’t drink it and don’t discharge it. Duhhhh...

Are you proposing we don’t allow the industrial production of ANY liquid you can’t drink? The only thing that will satisfy the greenazis like WVUGEO, CleanWater, and mkhunt is for America to go back to the stone age.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: