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

Bombs Gone, But Problems Remain

October 28, 2013

When Sandy Putorek discovered that a Texas company had placed 10 explosive charges on her Belmont County farm without her permission to help develop a map of Utica Shale natural gas assets, she was......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(11)

TrollSlayer

Oct-28-13 6:31 AM

Bombs? Seriously? LOL

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RRafael2

Oct-28-13 7:31 AM

Why yes, here's another grade school lesson for the Troll. "bomb (noun) 1.a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance, designed to explode on impact or when detonated by a time mechanism, remote-control device, or lit fuse." There were several of them placed on her PRIVATE property, and the company illegally trespassed without her permission. The right wing private property loving Troll should be especially outraged by that, but it's the frack companies, so she should just accept it. We know this lady. She came to one of our meetings very distraught, looking for someone to help her with this situation after no one at the company or in the government charged with protecting us responded to her many many documented calls for assistance. We advised her to keep a diary, which she has. We hope she declines their gag order so people can actually hear the entire truth of this story. Big money has bought itself a LOT of silen

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Oct-28-13 7:59 AM

RRafael, I’m VERY concerned about the trespassing part. This property owner should pursue charges to the full extent of the law. Which in this case probably won’t be much since I doubt she can prove much in the way of damages. The fact that she’s shown in the photo poking one of the “bombs” with her finger indicates there wasn’t much mental anguish or suffering.

I just disagree with calling those explosive devices “bombs.” Are shotgun shells bombs? They are by your definition. But the term “bombs” can sure rile up the anti-gas loons. The gas companies are placing BOMBS on your property! Run for your lives! LOL

And the sheriff didn’t respond when she called 911 to report “bombs” placed on her property? I’m also skeptical that she was as distraught as you claim. But now there’s a chance of a “big money” settlement it pays to be “distraught.” LOL

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Oct-28-13 10:44 AM

RRafael is babbling about “bombs” and Choker is screeching about sticks and pitchforks...

...and I’M the “wack-job” who’s “freaking out”? Too funny.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mkhunt

Oct-28-13 11:08 AM

China loaned billions of dollars to companies such as Chesapeake and the tactics used have reflected an absolute disrespect for the lives and health and long term survival of residents.Make no mistake about it...you cannot separate rights.AND SELL the America we live on to foreign totalitarian regimes.Prosecute the top corporate frac meisters for contamination, exploition and corruption..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Oct-28-13 12:40 PM

Now substitute “America” and “Progressive Democrits” into mkhunt’s ravings about the companies that provide the gas that keeps her from freezing to death every winter:

“China loaned billions of dollars to [America] and the tactics used [by its Progressive Democrit President and Progressive pols in Congress] have reflected an absolute disrespect for the lives and health and long term survival of residents.” mmm hmm...

Still waiting for that single documented case of “contamination, exploition and corruption” here, mk. yawn...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RRafael2

Oct-28-13 12:41 PM

Troll is following the facts on this so closely that he completely misses the caption on the picture, and he alleges Sandy is "poking" a bomb. The FACT is that the "explosives" have been *finally* been removed, and the photographer probably asked her to indicate the spot for the paper. I've met this woman, she is thoroughly documenting everything that has happened. She has found out that citizens are ON THEIR OWN when it comes to the gas companies. I admire her courage in dealing with this situation and all the hoops she's had to jump through. And when is a bomb, not a bomb? When it makes the industry look bad.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Oct-28-13 1:04 PM

I've been in the construction industry, energy industry, and exploration industry for some time now and I've never heard of these explosive charges being referred to as "bombs". The bias in this article is laughable.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Oct-28-13 1:20 PM

Troll: If they are/were anything like the seismic mapping charges one of us here once worked with long ago, which could each contain a pound or two, maybe more, of dynamite, then, yes, "bombs" is a sadly appropriate label to apply to them. Maybe "Ideliketoknow" has more recent experience, as he seems to indicate, and the devices might be smaller, more sophisticated, nowadays. But, still, they ain't 4th of July fire crackers. And, the fact that they could be so carelessly managed, that is, be put in the hands of people who didn't respect or understand property boundaries and maps speaks to a potential problem far greater than one property owner's rights being infringed. The hair on the backs of the cops' necks in that area should be tingling a bit.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Oct-28-13 1:27 PM

WVUGEO, Whatever kind of geotechnical work you did for the highway, coal company, or whatever... You would have been laughed off the job if you referred to those charges as "bombs" and you know it. You're trying way to hard to support an agenda and you sound ridiculous.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Oct-28-13 1:30 PM

RR, the caption says “Sandy Putorek discovered explosive devices such as this...” “This” referring to “explosive devices.” So, in writing “such as this,” apparently the author of that caption believed the photo IS of an explosive device.

Later in the caption it says, “The explosives have been removed.” RR, “the photographer probably asked her to indicate the spot for the paper”? Seriously? Do you really think that company would remove the explosives, buried 20 or more feet underground, and then put the rest of their equipment back where it was and leave it on her property?

Now tell us who’s not following the caption, RR. LOL

RR “And when is a bomb, not a bomb? When it makes the industry look bad.”

I was thinking a bomb is not a bomb when it’s an explosive seismic test charge, but if BOMB! gets the loons riled up better – just look how it got WVUGEO all riled up - good for you. LOL

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 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: