Who are these top 5 corporate leaches?
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
17
#TarSands #GasFracking.
Started by Hayden, Oct 20 2011 01:59 PM
553 replies to this topic
#142
Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:28 PM
ConservativeGreen, on 10 February 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:
Yes, not all republicans are evil. But more important, this is a state effort. Regardless of what the fed may or may not do Ohio will do better. Providing it can survive the legislative process which tends to turn good ideas into bad laws. Nice to see leadership.
I agree that state efforts have to, for the most part, be the primary focus for pollution control. Individual states have the most to lose by becoming a dumping ground, as no one wants to invest in a state that is little more than a toxic reservoir. Even so, several states have given up (out of desperation?) and welcome the relatively unregulated destruction of their resources because it brings in some dollars. Unfortunately, this destruction is rarely kept within state borders since pollution and ecological devastation do not recognize borders. And then the Feds get involved and noone is ever happy after that. The states are not happy because they feel the Fed is encroaching on their turf, the polluters are not happy because they are happy being able to pollute, the republicans are not happy because the government is getting all up in their faces. And the environmentalists are not happy, because people let it get as far and as bad as it got without consistent, efficient, uncorrupted oversight and regulation.
#143
Posted 19 February 2012 - 12:32 PM
I still think it interesting that a disturbing number in congress (state and fed) are happy to give up tens of thousands of jobs in the wind industry, but will fight to the death for 6,000 temporary jobs in the oil industry.
#144
Posted 20 February 2012 - 04:56 AM
"The U.S. Department of Energy may have recently cut its estimates for natural gas reserves from the country's
shale formations by 42 percent, but the volume of news coverage that high-volume fracking; what Time magazine
called "the biggest environmental issue of 2011" -- continues to receive has not declined one bit.
On Feb. 1, Gasland filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested while attempting to record footage of a congressional hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) investigation into groundwater contamination -- possibly caused by hydraulic
fracturing -- in the town of Pavillion, Wyo. The arrest raises questions about open government and censorship.
Also agitated by the arrest was Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York, who continues to call for tougher standards to
protect against the risks associated with the controversial natural gas drilling process.
In his statement regarding Fox's arrest, Hinchey said:
two recent New York Times pieces (see here and here) provide evidence of a drastically slowing process.
In a move that environmental groups have applauded, DEC is seeking fines against U.S. Energy Development Corporation
for water quality violations associated with Pennsylvania drilling activities that affected a small waterway within Allegany State Park. Three separate incidents of water quality violations during recent rainstorms caused severe turbidity in the waterway -- Yeager Brook -- from stormwater runoff.
Bulgaria recently became the second nation in Europe (and the world -- France was the first) to ban the controversial shale gas extraction technique. According to a Treehugger post, the ban is for "an indefinite period of time... valid for the whole territory of the country."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
(Originally published at Ecocentric)
shale formations by 42 percent, but the volume of news coverage that high-volume fracking; what Time magazine
called "the biggest environmental issue of 2011" -- continues to receive has not declined one bit.
On Feb. 1, Gasland filmmaker Josh Fox was arrested while attempting to record footage of a congressional hearing on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) investigation into groundwater contamination -- possibly caused by hydraulic
fracturing -- in the town of Pavillion, Wyo. The arrest raises questions about open government and censorship.
Also agitated by the arrest was Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York, who continues to call for tougher standards to
protect against the risks associated with the controversial natural gas drilling process.
In his statement regarding Fox's arrest, Hinchey said:
This is blatant censorship and a shameful stain on this Congress. I stand by Josh's right to record this hearing. His arrest was a huge mistake.
Thanks to the extraordinary volume of feedback received -- over 60,000 comments, a record for a DEC issue -- on the state environmental agency's proposed plan, Martens acknowledged that there are months of work ahead for the DEC. In fact,two recent New York Times pieces (see here and here) provide evidence of a drastically slowing process.
In a move that environmental groups have applauded, DEC is seeking fines against U.S. Energy Development Corporation
for water quality violations associated with Pennsylvania drilling activities that affected a small waterway within Allegany State Park. Three separate incidents of water quality violations during recent rainstorms caused severe turbidity in the waterway -- Yeager Brook -- from stormwater runoff.
Bulgaria recently became the second nation in Europe (and the world -- France was the first) to ban the controversial shale gas extraction technique. According to a Treehugger post, the ban is for "an indefinite period of time... valid for the whole territory of the country."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
(Originally published at Ecocentric)
#145
Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:12 PM
Some things we may be failing to realize beyond the destruction of the area of mining.
The destruction of the forests in the area of the tar sands. The needless killing of animals that will wander
into the camps; especially bears-a precious being.
(Still pictures and video on link below.)
"Amidst all the political wrangling over the Keystone XL pipeline, some may lose sight of what the fight is ultimately about.
And that, of course, is one of the most environmentally devastating projects ever undertaken:
the tar sands mining operation in Alberta, Canada.
The tar sands are still a blight of epic proportions, and the U.S. oil industry and the conservative political establishment are vying to squeeze even more oil out of it.
It's still resulting in the destruction of Canada's Boreal forest, one of the last and largest swaths of
pristine forest in the world —it's bigger than the Amazon rainforest.
And it's still unclear how much damage it's doing to public health: officials and investigators aren't sure how much
toxic waste is leeching out and contaminating nearby waterways.
All that is to say nothing of the veritable "carbon bomb" that the tar sands contains—
if we were to burn it all, the nation's top climate scientist, NASA's Dr. James Hansen, says it would be
"game over for the climate"
A Reddit user (jonnypondwater) said "I would still see bears coming into the area,
I would guess they killed up to 10 bears in three months.
And that's just in this small camp of 500." (How many more have been slaughtered?)
http://www.treehugge...quit-video.html
"Last year, Canada Wildlife Officers shot 145 problematic black bears in the region.
A bad berry crop last summer and careless handling of food and trash at the miner camps have been
blamed for the dramatic increase in bear encounters.
In 2010, 52 black bears where shot."
http://www.treehugge...bears-2011.html
The destruction of the forests in the area of the tar sands. The needless killing of animals that will wander
into the camps; especially bears-a precious being.
(Still pictures and video on link below.)
"Amidst all the political wrangling over the Keystone XL pipeline, some may lose sight of what the fight is ultimately about.
And that, of course, is one of the most environmentally devastating projects ever undertaken:
the tar sands mining operation in Alberta, Canada.
The tar sands are still a blight of epic proportions, and the U.S. oil industry and the conservative political establishment are vying to squeeze even more oil out of it.
It's still resulting in the destruction of Canada's Boreal forest, one of the last and largest swaths of
pristine forest in the world —it's bigger than the Amazon rainforest.
And it's still unclear how much damage it's doing to public health: officials and investigators aren't sure how much
toxic waste is leeching out and contaminating nearby waterways.
All that is to say nothing of the veritable "carbon bomb" that the tar sands contains—
if we were to burn it all, the nation's top climate scientist, NASA's Dr. James Hansen, says it would be
"game over for the climate"
A Reddit user (jonnypondwater) said "I would still see bears coming into the area,
I would guess they killed up to 10 bears in three months.
And that's just in this small camp of 500." (How many more have been slaughtered?)
http://www.treehugge...quit-video.html
"Last year, Canada Wildlife Officers shot 145 problematic black bears in the region.
A bad berry crop last summer and careless handling of food and trash at the miner camps have been
blamed for the dramatic increase in bear encounters.
In 2010, 52 black bears where shot."
http://www.treehugge...bears-2011.html
#146 Guest_arboramans_*
Guest_arboramans_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:25 PM
How much oil does the Canadian Tar Sands area contain?
#147
Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:25 PM
arboramans, on 22 February 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:
How much oil does the Canadian Tar Sands area contain?
Ah, for that you're relying on estimates, which will vary greatly. Since it's hard for transport, Canadian crude sells for $25/barrel less than most oil in U.S. markets.
#148
Posted 24 February 2012 - 01:41 PM
And that is also what needs to be remembered-the world market. Just because the pipes will run
through the middle of our country, doesn't mean we will see the benefit of lower gas prices.
It's a commodity, just like sugar or coffee, or home mortgages.
Gee, now that I think of it-"thanks a lot wall street" (said with heavy sarcasm)
through the middle of our country, doesn't mean we will see the benefit of lower gas prices.
It's a commodity, just like sugar or coffee, or home mortgages.
Gee, now that I think of it-"thanks a lot wall street" (said with heavy sarcasm)
#149
Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:44 PM
I also think it is important to note that President Obama has tried to keep this pipeline from being installed. Meanwhile Republicans in Congress have tried and are continuing to try to add this to essintial needed legislation in other areas to force the president to sign this pipeline into law.
Think of it as back door politics, by placing it in a bill for say, school lunch programs it forces the President to Veto good legislation or face the passage of the pipeline. I think we as a environmental community and as a country as a whole need to give the President the credit for using important political capital to fight the Keystone pipeline, while highlighting just how many of congress seem to be in the back pocket of big oil and gas lobbyist and companies.
Certainly if the President is defeated in November a Republican President would quickly sign the pipeline into law, this and other environmental issues shows why that would be a very bad thing. Under president Bush environmental progress was rolled back 10 to 20 years depending on the issue and a new Republican president would do the same.
Finally I think it is important to point out that if this pipeline went through it would have no affect on our gas prices and would add significant pollution in the refining process. Some in the industry have pointed out that tar sand oil is so dirty to refine that it would not pass current EPA guidelines, which kind of shows why the Republicans want to do away with the EPA.
In their mind clear air and water is bad business, in my mind it should be a basic human right in this country. Less government would be good, but at the cost of human and environmental health is just stupid.
Think of it as back door politics, by placing it in a bill for say, school lunch programs it forces the President to Veto good legislation or face the passage of the pipeline. I think we as a environmental community and as a country as a whole need to give the President the credit for using important political capital to fight the Keystone pipeline, while highlighting just how many of congress seem to be in the back pocket of big oil and gas lobbyist and companies.
Certainly if the President is defeated in November a Republican President would quickly sign the pipeline into law, this and other environmental issues shows why that would be a very bad thing. Under president Bush environmental progress was rolled back 10 to 20 years depending on the issue and a new Republican president would do the same.
Finally I think it is important to point out that if this pipeline went through it would have no affect on our gas prices and would add significant pollution in the refining process. Some in the industry have pointed out that tar sand oil is so dirty to refine that it would not pass current EPA guidelines, which kind of shows why the Republicans want to do away with the EPA.
In their mind clear air and water is bad business, in my mind it should be a basic human right in this country. Less government would be good, but at the cost of human and environmental health is just stupid.
#150
Posted 25 February 2012 - 03:07 AM
E3 wise, on 24 February 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:
Certainly if the President is defeated in November.
we should stock up on water and oxygen tanks.
Clean versions of both won't be available after that; but then again, it might not matter because the #gop
would bomb Iran and possibly start a nuclear war anyway, so why bother with water?
(Mayans right about December after all?)
Obama is pushing for a cleaner method of extraction of natural gas but I doubt those oil giants will
reveal their "secret sauce" laden with chemicals to the American public.
We'd be horrified, not to mention the fact that halliburton is too powerful to go along with telling the truth.
Tar sands are the worst. The environmental damage will be significant but obviously, the repubs don't
care.
#151 Guest_arboramans_*
Guest_arboramans_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:42 PM
I answered my own question....quite fortuitously actually...just happened to see an article last night that was all about it. So here are the facts from that article -
Andrew Weaver holds the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria and was a lead author with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on global warming, and one of the fiercest critics of the Harper government’s carbon emissions policy — or lack thereof.
"Feb. 19th, Weaver and his doctoral student, Neil Swart, published an analysis in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, an offshoot of Nature, the world’s most prestigious science journal.
In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
Burning up all the oil in the areas currently being mined would have even less impact.
“[I]f only the reserve currently under active development were combusted,” they write, “the warming would be almost undetectable at our significance level.”
Even using up every last estimated drop of estimated oil-in-place, including bitumen that’s currently inaccessible or unproven — even if such a thing were possible — would raise global temperatures by roughly 0.35 C.
That’s a stark contrast to the claims of those such as NASA climate scientist James Hansen, a leading opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, who described Alberta’s oilsands as “the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.”
“There’s a lot of really strong emotional rhetoric on both sides of the oilsands and climate change debate,” says Swart, the paper’s lead author. “We’re hearing from a lot of people that if the oilsands are used, there will a climate apocalypse. But part of the picture is that, in and of themselves, the oilsands will not cause a climate calamity.”
That finding might come as a surprise to some, as it did to Swart himself. He set out to crunch the numbers because he couldn’t find any elsewhere.
“I just wanted to know, how much warming would there actually be if the oilsands were utilized? Certainly, what I can say is that it wasn’t what I expected, relative to what I had heard previously.”
Swart and Weaver say the biggest potential contributors to global warming are non-conventional gas and coal.
The two scientists certainly don’t give the oilsands a free pass. They note that their paper doesn’t weigh the other environmental consequences of oilsands development, such as their impact on water quality or wildlife habitat."
http://www.edmontonj...0734/story.html
Andrew Weaver holds the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria and was a lead author with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on global warming, and one of the fiercest critics of the Harper government’s carbon emissions policy — or lack thereof.
"Feb. 19th, Weaver and his doctoral student, Neil Swart, published an analysis in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, an offshoot of Nature, the world’s most prestigious science journal.
In their paper, Swart and Weaver conclude the impact of burning all the economically viable proven reserve of Alberta’s oilsands — all 170 billion barrels — would be negligible. Burning all the proven reserve between 2012 and 2062, they say, would raise global temperatures by just 0.02 C to 0.05 C.
Burning up all the oil in the areas currently being mined would have even less impact.
“[I]f only the reserve currently under active development were combusted,” they write, “the warming would be almost undetectable at our significance level.”
Even using up every last estimated drop of estimated oil-in-place, including bitumen that’s currently inaccessible or unproven — even if such a thing were possible — would raise global temperatures by roughly 0.35 C.
That’s a stark contrast to the claims of those such as NASA climate scientist James Hansen, a leading opponent of the Keystone XL pipeline, who described Alberta’s oilsands as “the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.”
“There’s a lot of really strong emotional rhetoric on both sides of the oilsands and climate change debate,” says Swart, the paper’s lead author. “We’re hearing from a lot of people that if the oilsands are used, there will a climate apocalypse. But part of the picture is that, in and of themselves, the oilsands will not cause a climate calamity.”
That finding might come as a surprise to some, as it did to Swart himself. He set out to crunch the numbers because he couldn’t find any elsewhere.
“I just wanted to know, how much warming would there actually be if the oilsands were utilized? Certainly, what I can say is that it wasn’t what I expected, relative to what I had heard previously.”
Swart and Weaver say the biggest potential contributors to global warming are non-conventional gas and coal.
The two scientists certainly don’t give the oilsands a free pass. They note that their paper doesn’t weigh the other environmental consequences of oilsands development, such as their impact on water quality or wildlife habitat."
http://www.edmontonj...0734/story.html
#152
Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:21 PM
"A deadly landslide in the mountains of Papua New Guinea, near where U.S. oil major Exxon Mobil is building
a $15.7 billion gas project, is raising fresh questions about the global energy industry's scramble for ever harder-to-reach resources.
The landslide tore through a quarry used by Exxon in January, killing at least 25 people in the poor South Pacific country,
but it has stirred little international publicity, even though an expert report had questioned the safety of the excavations.
Less than 12 months before the landslide, an independent consultant, Italian firm D'Appolonia, found Exxon's quarrying
operations did not meet the environmental and social standards demanded by the company's creditors and it concluded that workers had been under pressure to meet deadlines.
All of the bodies of those killed remain buried in the debris, according to the provincial governor.
The upstream gas field is being carved out of remote highlands, where communities live in thatched huts and tend small, terraced farms. It will feed gas by pipe to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, which is scheduled to start up in 2014.
Joseph Warai, believes it is "obvious" the landslide was caused by the excavations.
Exxon denied it had ever put timetables ahead of safety." (Yeah right)
(Full story here)-
http://www.msnbc.msn...ld_environment/
a $15.7 billion gas project, is raising fresh questions about the global energy industry's scramble for ever harder-to-reach resources.
The landslide tore through a quarry used by Exxon in January, killing at least 25 people in the poor South Pacific country,
but it has stirred little international publicity, even though an expert report had questioned the safety of the excavations.
Less than 12 months before the landslide, an independent consultant, Italian firm D'Appolonia, found Exxon's quarrying
operations did not meet the environmental and social standards demanded by the company's creditors and it concluded that workers had been under pressure to meet deadlines.
All of the bodies of those killed remain buried in the debris, according to the provincial governor.
The upstream gas field is being carved out of remote highlands, where communities live in thatched huts and tend small, terraced farms. It will feed gas by pipe to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, which is scheduled to start up in 2014.
Joseph Warai, believes it is "obvious" the landslide was caused by the excavations.
Exxon denied it had ever put timetables ahead of safety." (Yeah right)
(Full story here)-
http://www.msnbc.msn...ld_environment/
#153
Posted 10 March 2012 - 05:20 AM
"I feel the earth move under my feet." Carole King
Evidently, earthquakes in an area is enough incentive for lawmakers to finally deal with gas fracking/waste
water issues.
"A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater
into the earth, state regulators said Friday as they announced a series of tough new rules for drillers.
Among the new regulations: Well operators must submit more comprehensive geological data when requesting a
drill site, and the chemical makeup of all drilling wastewater must be tracked electronically.
Northeastern Ohio and large parts of adjacent states sit atop the Utica and Marcellus Shale geological formations,
which contain vast reserves of natural gas that energy companies are rushing to drill using a process known
as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Drillers in Pennsylvania sent almost 1.5 million barrels of waste to injection wells in Ohio during the second half of 2011."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
Evidently, earthquakes in an area is enough incentive for lawmakers to finally deal with gas fracking/waste
water issues.
"A dozen earthquakes in northeastern Ohio were almost certainly induced by injection of gas-drilling wastewater
into the earth, state regulators said Friday as they announced a series of tough new rules for drillers.
Among the new regulations: Well operators must submit more comprehensive geological data when requesting a
drill site, and the chemical makeup of all drilling wastewater must be tracked electronically.
Northeastern Ohio and large parts of adjacent states sit atop the Utica and Marcellus Shale geological formations,
which contain vast reserves of natural gas that energy companies are rushing to drill using a process known
as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Drillers in Pennsylvania sent almost 1.5 million barrels of waste to injection wells in Ohio during the second half of 2011."
http://www.huffingto....html?ref=green
#154
Posted 21 March 2012 - 03:29 AM
"When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that tests showed the water is safe to drink in
Dimock, Penn., a national hot spot for concerns about fracking,
it seemed to vindicate the energy industry’s insistence that drilling had not caused pollution in the area.
But what the agency didn’t say – at least, not publicly – is that the water samples contained
dangerous quantities of methane gas, a finding that confirmed some of the agency’s initial concerns and the
complaints raised by Dimock residents since 2009.
The test results also showed the group of wells contained dozens of other contaminants,
including low levels of chemicals known to cause cancer and heavy metals that exceed the agency’s “trigger level”
and could lead to illness if consumed over an extended period of time.
The EPA’s assurances suggest that the substances detected do not violate specific drinking water standards,
but no such standards exist for some of the contaminants and some experts said the agency
should have acknowledged that they were detected at all.
ProPublica reported that a woman’s drinking water well blew up. Pennsylvania officials eventually determined
that underground methane gas leaks had been caused by Cabot Oil and Gas, which was drilling wells nearby.
Pennsylvania sanctioned Cabot, and for a short time the company provided drinking water to households in the Dimock area.
Then, last Thursday, the EPA released a brief statement saying that the first 11 samples to come back from the lab
“did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern." (_____?)
The EPA began the testing in Dimock in search of methane and found it.
Methane is not considered poisonous to drink, and therefore is not a health threat in the same way as other pollutants.
Among the other substances detected at low levels in Dimock’s water are a suite of chemicals known to come
from some sort of hydrocarbon substance, such as diesel fuel or roofing tar.
They include anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene– all substances described by a branch
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as cancer-causing even in very small amounts.
Chromium, aluminum, lead and other metals were also detected, as were chlorides, salts, bromium and strontium."
http://www.propublic...y-safe-to-drink
https://www.document...der-dimock.html
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
Dimock, Penn., a national hot spot for concerns about fracking,
it seemed to vindicate the energy industry’s insistence that drilling had not caused pollution in the area.
But what the agency didn’t say – at least, not publicly – is that the water samples contained
dangerous quantities of methane gas, a finding that confirmed some of the agency’s initial concerns and the
complaints raised by Dimock residents since 2009.
The test results also showed the group of wells contained dozens of other contaminants,
including low levels of chemicals known to cause cancer and heavy metals that exceed the agency’s “trigger level”
and could lead to illness if consumed over an extended period of time.
The EPA’s assurances suggest that the substances detected do not violate specific drinking water standards,
but no such standards exist for some of the contaminants and some experts said the agency
should have acknowledged that they were detected at all.
ProPublica reported that a woman’s drinking water well blew up. Pennsylvania officials eventually determined
that underground methane gas leaks had been caused by Cabot Oil and Gas, which was drilling wells nearby.
Pennsylvania sanctioned Cabot, and for a short time the company provided drinking water to households in the Dimock area.
Then, last Thursday, the EPA released a brief statement saying that the first 11 samples to come back from the lab
“did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern." (_____?)
The EPA began the testing in Dimock in search of methane and found it.
Methane is not considered poisonous to drink, and therefore is not a health threat in the same way as other pollutants.
Among the other substances detected at low levels in Dimock’s water are a suite of chemicals known to come
from some sort of hydrocarbon substance, such as diesel fuel or roofing tar.
They include anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene– all substances described by a branch
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as cancer-causing even in very small amounts.
Chromium, aluminum, lead and other metals were also detected, as were chlorides, salts, bromium and strontium."
http://www.propublic...y-safe-to-drink
https://www.document...der-dimock.html
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
#155
Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:06 AM
We're running out of states to move to.
Mountain-top removal, gas fracking, oil pipelines..........the list goes on.
And now, two of our "favorite" (heavy sarcasm) companies- shell and dow chemical are moving aggressively
to build in Pennsylvania and Texas.
"Shell Oil has tentatively chosen to put a new multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania to take advantage of an abundance of natural gas from Marcellus shale.
On March 7, Dow Chemical saidits board had approved the construction of a “world-scale” propylene plant in Texas to take advantage of shale gas resources there."
http://www.washingto...EPES_story.html
File this under "Where are we going, and why are we in this hand basket?"
Mountain-top removal, gas fracking, oil pipelines..........the list goes on.
And now, two of our "favorite" (heavy sarcasm) companies- shell and dow chemical are moving aggressively
to build in Pennsylvania and Texas.
"Shell Oil has tentatively chosen to put a new multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania to take advantage of an abundance of natural gas from Marcellus shale.
On March 7, Dow Chemical saidits board had approved the construction of a “world-scale” propylene plant in Texas to take advantage of shale gas resources there."
http://www.washingto...EPES_story.html
File this under "Where are we going, and why are we in this hand basket?"
#156
Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:26 AM
Going from bad to worse-
Dr. John Q. Gag Ordered Physician might say-
"You're slowly being poisoned, but we can't tell you why. And even if we knew the chemicals that were poisoning
you, we can't tell you what they are. It's a secret."
"The law, known as Act 13 of 2012, an amendment to Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,
requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking.
Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company
doesn't have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information,
nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds.
If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound
by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may
be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician
believes may have led to their health problems.
A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign
the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.
The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the
Republican-controlled
General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. 
The new law, not only hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.
The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson.
Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community
can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages."
http://ecowatch.org/...ags-physicians/
Dr. John Q. Gag Ordered Physician might say-
"You're slowly being poisoned, but we can't tell you why. And even if we knew the chemicals that were poisoning
you, we can't tell you what they are. It's a secret."
"The law, known as Act 13 of 2012, an amendment to Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes,
requires that companies provide to a state-maintained registry the names of chemicals and gases used in fracking.
Physicians and others who work with citizen health issues may request specific information, but the company
doesn't have to provide that information if it claims it is a trade secret or proprietary information,
nor does it have to reveal how the chemicals and gases used in fracking interact with natural compounds.
If a company does release information about what is used, health care professionals are bound
by a non-disclosure agreement that not only forbids them from warning the community of water and air pollution that may
be caused by fracking, but which also forbids them from telling their own patients what the physician
believes may have led to their health problems.
A strict interpretation of the law would also forbid general practitioners and family practice physicians who sign
the non-disclosure agreement and learn the contents of the “trade secrets” from notifying a specialist about the chemicals or compounds, thus delaying medical treatment.
The clauses are buried on pages 98 and 99 of the 174-page bill, which was initiated and passed by the
Republican-controlled
General Assembly and signed into law in February by Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. The new law, not only hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.
The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson.
Physicians who sign the non-disclosure agreements and then disclose the possible risks to protect the community
can be sued for breech of contract, and the companies can seek both injunctions and damages."
http://ecowatch.org/...ags-physicians/
#157
Posted 21 March 2012 - 04:59 PM
From what I understand, the end result or one of them. will be that the oil will get shipped overseas. So where is the benefit from all of this? The fact that there may be 20,000 short term jobs? This does not make a lot of sense. Please fill me ibn on what I am missing. Thanks much.
#158
Posted 24 March 2012 - 03:51 PM
artistry, on 21 March 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:
From what I understand, the end result or one of them. will be that the oil will get shipped overseas. So where is the benefit from all of this? The fact that there may be 20,000 short term jobs? This does not make a lot of sense. Please fill me ibn on what I am missing. Thanks much.
You are not missing anything. We are paying for the privilage to give our tax dollars to the oil industry so they can drill here and export the oil and the profits. All for temp jobs.
#160
Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:21 AM
The bad news:
An unexpected twist to gas fracking- loss of juniper trees and pinion pines because jays don't like the noise
of the compressors, so they don't stash seeds in those areas.
Seeds that are forgotten become trees, but jays are not in those areas, only in quiet areas.
The good news:
Certain flowers are doing better because they're being pollinated from the humming-birds who don't
seem to mind the noise. Because the jays are not eating the humming-bird eggs, their populations
are doing better.
http://www.npr.org/2...nts?ft=1&f=1025
An unexpected twist to gas fracking- loss of juniper trees and pinion pines because jays don't like the noise
of the compressors, so they don't stash seeds in those areas.
Seeds that are forgotten become trees, but jays are not in those areas, only in quiet areas.
The good news:
Certain flowers are doing better because they're being pollinated from the humming-birds who don't
seem to mind the noise. Because the jays are not eating the humming-bird eggs, their populations
are doing better.
http://www.npr.org/2...nts?ft=1&f=1025
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
