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

Federal Fracking Comment An ‘Error’

Park Service takes back ‘inappropriate,’ unsubstantiated claim

November 28, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Park Service has withdrawn “inappropriate” comments about a proposed rule regulating hydraulic fracturing operations on public lands....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Dec-02-13 6:38 AM

Amazing how politicians and frackers talk of transparency and solid fact-based information...that is until it appears from an expert like Dr Ingraffea who used to consult for the likes of Halliburton and Schlumberger. Huge political contributions will further assure this type of powerful influence by corporations.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Dec-01-13 9:38 AM

Fracking or mining or what ever is madness in National Parks. All so some fat cat dkhead can make money selling energy to China whilst we are left to clean up the mess. Drill, Baby Drill for energy independence? What a lie fed to the Flag waving Fox News sheep.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-29-13 10:21 AM

I love reading the comments by the "experts" telling me how hazardous fracking is. I seriously doubt any of you have been anywhere near a well, aside from driving by one. The hazard of water contamination with a horizontal or slant well is no greater than any other. The hazard is near the surface down to a few thousand feet, where the aquifers are.

All wells are cased through water bearing strata. Know why? If water can leak in, the gas and oil can leak out. You have to be really stupid to do a bad casing job, because it will cost you a ton of product.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 4:56 PM

"Methane is far more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, although it doesn't stay in the air as long"

The ONLY true statement in the article

And the world's largest producer of methane by FAR is the termite!

But the green weenies, government tax goons, and progressive professors don't see any PROFIT in trying to collect from termites!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 11:50 AM

WVEXPAT: Further, the group and the effort you mention is an effort to work around the restrictive secrecy laws in place. It's more or less voluntary; and,regardless of whether or not the USDOE encourages their efforts at accumulating information and making it available, it's not as if they would be able to produce an official Material Safety Data Sheet if and when needed upon which medical decisions concerning treatment, or environmental protection, could be reliably made.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 11:33 AM

WVEXPAT: The Fed law supersedes. Totally unreported by the press, there have been some laws proposed in the US Congress to rescind the exemption for disclosure of frack fluid compositions under the Clean Water Act, at least, which is one of five or six laws to which the protective 2005 Energy Policy Act "Halliburton Loophole" specifically claims application. The fact that physicians in PA have to sign secrecy agreements with frack fluid suppliers so that they can be told what's in the fluids, and thus be better able to treat cases of frack fluid poisoning, is fallout in a state descending from the Federal 2005 Act. Note that the physician must sign a secrecy agreement for each and every case they treat, on top of it, so that they can't ever discuss frack fluid poisoning either generally or in specific. Again almost totally unreported in the press is that some physicians in PA, singly and in scattered groups, have attempted to bring suit to overturn those restrictions.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 9:39 AM


"Frackers are protected by the "Halliburton Loophole" inserted into the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005 from having to reveal the chemicals that the frac fluids,"

You make a case that there is no disclosure rules at all, which is not the case. From NPR, "A website called FracFocus is becoming a national clearinghouse for information about fracking chemicals. It’s run by the Groundwater Protection Council, and received a ringing endorsement from the federal Department of Energy’s August report on shale drilling, which called for an “immediate” increase in well-by-well chemical disclosure."

While certainly not uniform, states do require varying levels of disclosure. I do believe each well should list it's fracking components and the "trade secret" exemption can certainly be iffy.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 6:18 AM

mkhunt, the evacuations in Willard were for a leaking train tanker car; they had nothing to do with fracking. Is disinformation and fearmongering all you have? yawn...

GEO, sounds like the National Park Service is making public policy based on New York Times opinion column writers rather than peer-reviewed science. Same as you. And since methane is such a threat to the global temperature, maybe you could tell us what the coal mining industry does to eliminate all that methane the mines produce. Other than vent it to the atmosphere, I mean. Maybe coal booster methane is different from natural gas methane... LOL

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 5:26 AM

this is just the first hint of the truth of the matter we've seen in our public press.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 5:26 AM

Note that the drillers might, but only might, have to reveal the compositions of frac fluids used on "public lands". That would be ONLY on public lands. Frackers are protected by the "Halliburton Loophole" inserted into the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy Act of 2005 from having to reveal the chemicals that the frac fluids, which are being pumped at high volumes into the ground and groundwater beneath us, are composed of. In PA, for instance, doctors treating workers who might have been poisoned by fracking chemicals they were working with have to sign secrecy agreements with the fracking companies before those companies have to tell the doctors what their patients might have been poisoned by. That won't change for all of us out here in Podunk, no matter if the frackers have to reveal, to the Fed Guv, what they're using to frack with on public lands. Our public safety has been sold out; and, this is just the first hint of the truth of the matter we've seen in our public

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-28-13 2:30 AM

Note the evacuations in Willard, Ohio. US Patent 08762 describes the use of styrene for frac drilling and this chemical has appeared in toxic drinking water in WV along with acrylonitrile and other carcinogens...still don't believe that frac drilling is a major problem for health and safety?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: