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

Project Under Scrutiny

Recycling opponents have flood of questions

May 23, 2013

WHEELING — After living in Warwood for the past 77 years, Barbara Bland fears GreenHunter Water’s natural gas frack water recycling plant will harm the community she loves....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

WVUGEO

May-23-13 6:19 AM

"And while radium and uranium are considered radioactive, he said these elements will be minuscule in volume." They ARE radioactive. This is at least the second time this newspaper has repeated the weasel phrase "considered radioactive", relative to the radium content of frack waste. Just how stupid and influence-able do you think people are? Wheeling residents should find that lame attempt at subliminal influence insulting. To keep repeating it is contemptuous.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

May-23-13 7:05 AM

If the progressive libs would have had the common sense to leave the railroad tracks undisturbed, this would not even be an issue right now!!!

You CAN'T have your liberal utopia in the valley!!!

And this area has forever been zoned as "industrial" and as such HAS had and WILL have industry of this type on site!!

With BILLIONS of dollars in road and bridge damage as a DIRECT result of the pipeliners and drillers, something MUST be done to take as many of these trucks off the roads as possible!!!

Since the tree hugging libs destroyed all hopes of safe and cheap transport by TRAIN, a barge loading area is the ONLY choice left!!!!

Area roads are in fact seeing 10 YEARS worth of traffic in one WEEK!!!

The recent re-paved section near the pike island****is a prime example of what I've said from day one!!!

This was just paved two weeks ago yet it is like riding on a coaster at Kennywood!!!

The ROAD BEDS have been DESTROYED!

BILLIONS in damage to roads and bridges!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whg2ga

May-23-13 7:10 AM

Typical of Wheeling and the State as whole, get something that is viable for the area with possible job creation & income to residents but they need to make sure everything is met with resistance and objections. The area is dying slowly and has been for years due to things just like this. The 1970s are not coming back and neither is Wheeling when they act like this.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

May-23-13 7:39 AM

""Find another way to frack your frack water," she told John Jack"

I feel like this is a microcosm of all resistance to anything having to do with the natural gas boom. What an idiotic statement. Thanks for representing the community so well.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 7:41 AM

"he said these elements (radium and uranium) will be minuscule in volume". Not necessarily so. At the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineering, the University of Pittsburgh, in the paper "Fate of Radium in Marcellus Flowback Water", reported that "Radium is ... often found in Marcellus Shale flowback water at activities exceeding 10,000 pCi/L (picocuries per liter - a measure of radioactivity from which physical amounts of radium can be implied - while the) EPA maximum contaminant level for drinking water is 5pCi/L". The legal radium limit for industrial effluent is 60 pCi/L. This stuff can contain more than 150 times the radium allowed in industrial effluent and 2,000 times the radium allowed in drinking water. There is no safe level of radium. It will displace calcium and accumulate in your bones if the exposure, no matter how small, continues over time.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

May-23-13 7:45 AM

Judging by the article, this meeting sounds like it was an enviro train wreck. Chock full of environmental anti fracking cliches by an uninformed audience.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SpankysLastDance

May-23-13 7:50 AM

"The 1970s are not coming back and neither is Wheeling when they act like this".

This statement is exactly the problem with the Ohio Valley. People stuck in the past.

If the residents don't want the recycling plant in their city, then why would the company put up the fight? Just find another site, and quit aggravating the citizens. IT'S THEIR HOME ! Barge the crap a few more miles to New Martinsville or to your existing facility in Matamorris!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 7:51 AM

WVUGEO, it’s not drinking water, and it’s not going to be dumped into the river. So why do you keep comparing the radium concentration of fracking flowback water to the concentrations in drinking water and industrial effluent? Those comparisons are intentionally misleading. Dishonest. But if misinformation is all you have, well I suppose misinformation will have to do.

And we’re STILL waiting for you to cite that single specific example of damage from fracking anywhere in the Ohio Valley. yawn...

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 8:03 AM

Spanky, the problem with the Ohio Valley is people are no longer permitted to do what they choose to do, within the law, with their own private property. When the Government puts up roadblocks to hinder industrial development, based on misinformation and politics, industry moves elsewhere and takes its jobs elsewhere. GreenHunter wants to put an industrial facility in a location zoned for industry. They should be allowed to do that unless someone can show their facility will violate the law. It’s a private property rights issue.

Enjoy all the prosperity, Warwood. When your kids are looking for jobs someday they’ll thank you. Maybe they’ll visit.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 8:07 AM

Troll: The problem has been documented in other areas of the country where fracking has been going on longer. If you wait until an OV well is contaminated, it's too late. The aquifer itself is tainted. And, we're not talking about fracking itself here, but frack wastes on the surface.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 8:16 AM

Other areas where the geology is different, the aquifer is different, the drilling methods and materials are different...

For a “GEO” you sure are short on information about geology.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 8:29 AM

Troll: To a certain extent, you're right. We're not experts. Neither are you. But, as in our citation, below, of the University of Pittsburgh, there are experts out there saying some things quite different from the propaganda being reported in these pages. Why is no effort being made to seek out those contrary experts and make pubic their views and facts, so that the public itself has the info it needs to make genuinely informed decisions and judgements?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 8:47 AM

Troll: Concerning your statement: "Other areas where the geology is different, the aquifer is different, the drilling methods and materials are different". Again, with regards to this specific article, we're talking about frack wastes on the surface. But, as far as geology itself goes, the sedimentary deposits in which the gas exists will in general, and in most specific, terms, be quite similar. The primary differences will be in depth; and, that is an issue with effects and implications that can, to a certain extent, be argued.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 8:51 AM

WVUGEO “as in our citation, below, of the University of Pittsburgh, there are experts out there saying some things quite different”

Please. AGAIN, that citation compares the concentrations of radium in flowback and drinking water. IRRELVANT. It’s not drinking water, and it’s not industrial effluent because it WON’T be dumped in the river. So once again your citation is misleading and dishonest.

Now maybe you could find a different but also irrelevant citation about wells elsewhere that aren’t as deep, or that used older technology, or that were beneath more porous strata, or that used improper casings... Those would be misleading but effective propaganda, too.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DisplacedWVian

May-23-13 8:53 AM

All of the hubbub this proposed facility has generated and only 50 people show up for the meeting???

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 8:54 AM

WVUGEO, regarding your comparison of radium concentrations in fracking flowback to drinking water, as you said, "To keep repeating it is contemptuous."

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 8:55 AM

Troll: Whatever comes out of the frack waste treatment plant is, indeed, "industrial effluent". And, any leaks from that plant or from the trucks and barges hauling stuff to and from it could well become entrained in our "drinking water".

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 8:59 AM

So WVUGEO, is gasoline coming out of a refinery “industrial effluent”? Most of the fluid will be recycled PRODUCT, so it will NOT be industrial effluent. The rest will be put into landfills or injected into deep wells, so it also is NOT industrial effluent. Any spills that may occur will be contained and also disposed of as described, so spills also will NOT be industrial effluent.

More misinformation from you. How impressive. yawn...

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

May-23-13 9:05 AM

the trucks still have to bring that stuff to the plant and the recycled water will still have to be trucked to the well site.there won't be any less truck traffic.mr.jack says this stuff is safe****pared to what?the walking trail can still be used for recreation.i can see the "authorized personnel only" signs that they put at all their other sites going up to keep the people away.these gas company people don't want outsiders poking around cause they might find something like a valve left open.below wheeling would be a better choice.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 9:13 AM

Troll: Concerning your statement about land-filling the solid waste, in a recent article: "Radioactive Gas Drilling Wastes Sets Off More Radioactivity Alarms", May 16, 2013, which is just the latest of a long sequence, it was again documented that frack wastes have been setting off radiation alarms, installed to prevent unsurprisingly unscrupulous hospitals and clinics from dumping radioactive medical wastes, all over the country. One report, which we haven't yet been able to verify, has it that such has occurred more than 1,000 times. That sounds high to us, but it has definitely happened much more than once.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 9:15 AM

Oxford English Dictionary, effluent – “liquid waste or sewage discharged into a river or the sea”

They won’t be discharging fracking flowback into the river. So it’s NOT effluent. Now keep comparing your inflated loosely-documented radium concentration in fracking flowback to the maximum allowed concentration for effluent, so I can keep pointing out that all you have is misinformation, and, as you say, "To keep repeating it is contemptuous."

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 9:17 AM

WVUGEO "One report, which we haven't yet been able to verify, has it that such has occurred more than 1,000 times. That sounds high to us"

Haven't been able to verify. Impressive support you have there. And it sounds like a faulty alarm to me. But who am I to discount proof like that? Shut 'em all down. Derrrrr....

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 9:21 AM

And come on, GEO. You think after the 999th time that truck set off the alarm somebody just said “Hey, wonder what’s in that truck? Better turn him around again...” Seriously?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

May-23-13 9:21 AM

Troll, you're lapsing into inconsequential nonsense, debating definitions. If it's coming out of a plant or factory, it is, in fact, in the strictest, or even in the loosest, sense, "industrial effluent", no matter where it goes.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

May-23-13 9:24 AM

So when that maple syrup came out of the maple syrup factory you’d classify it as effluent. Check. Derrrrr...

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 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: