- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Hollywood’s negative energy

Published: Tue, January 15, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Hollywood’s negative energy

Even as Americans crave en- ergy independence, Hollywood has once again joined ideological forces with environmental leftists and foreign exporters of oil to ensure the U.S. doesn’t tap into its own vast natural gas resources.

The latest effort, a film called “Promised Land” starring Matt Damon, attempts to persuade Americans of the evils of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” as a means of mining natural gas.

Judging by the success of previous anti-fracking films, “Promised Land” seemed poised to come out swinging. Instead, the flick proved a flop at the box office.

Why the fade in fracking fascination? Perhaps it’s because Americans are tired of hearing the rhetoric. Perhaps it’s because they would rather see Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, or maybe because Damon’s $15 million propaganda was financed by OPEC oil tycoons. Or perhaps it’s because a lie can stand only so long before it falls before the truth.

The truth is that not only has fracking been safely used in the United States for more than 60 years, but that it also has actually contributed in recent years to a drastic decline in energy-related carbon emissions in the U.S. Just don’t expect the green goons to give up too quickly.

Cathy Lukasko, Brookfield


1cambridge(3334 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago


Suggest removal:

2kurtw(1311 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago

cambridge: I like that! It's a great time saver. Next time I want to disagree with someone, I'll just use your line!

How would it be if reporters at Obama's Press Conferences used that tactic? "Mr. President what you just said is- BULL$HIT!!!"

P.S. Actually what the lady said made a lot of sense. Fracking has been safely used for about 60 years now. That's not "Bull$hit" it's a fact.

Also, I tried using the real word without the Dollar Sign and the Vindy Computer stopped me- told me to "Watch my mouth!" I'm so happy that "Vindicator Square" is a profanity free zone!

I'd like to hear what they say to each other in the Newsroom!

Suggest removal:

3cambridge(3334 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago

kurt...BULL$HIT!!! is the perfect description of anything your girl cathy writes.

One post she will be lecturing the masses about their godless fall from grace as she looks down from her pedestal, then her next post will be some blatant lie like the one she posted on this thread. cathy....I thought lying was a sin.

The clowns that claim fracking is safe are liars and everyone knows it. I have no problem with drilling for gas and oil but it should be done without ruining the environment. That gas can be brought to the surface by using water and pressure but the gas and oil companies add hundreds of chemicals. What are the chemicals for? They are anti corrosives for the protection of their PIPES.

That is why the industry is exempt from clean air and clean water acts. The protection of PIPES. The priority of big gas and oil is the protection of their PIPES, not the protection of the local water table and the air quality that is contaminated as those chemicals evaporate into the air.

So after the water, air, local livestock and local produce are contaminated what is left? What is left is a community of worthless real estate. On a previous post the top gas stooge uticashill gloated about how happy the new rig in Poland made him. He didn't mention how the residents of Poland feel about their new real estate appraisal.

As long as those hundreds of chemicals are ignored in any analysis of the air and water big oil and gas will always get a clean bill of health. After all it's what they paid for. So there you have it kurt, all that writing just to comment on cathy's post when I explained it perfectly the first time.

Suggest removal:

476Ytown(1318 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago


As of 2012, fracking is exempt from seven major federal regulations. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/...

The EPA doesn't plan to address how often drinking water contamination might occur. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01...

Fracking requires large quantities of fresh water. Fracking the Marcellus will require many billions of gallons of water over the next 15 years. This water can be withdrawn from lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds, and wells. Contaminated water may never be returned to the watershed.

Our water supply is finite Although water covers about 70 percent of the Earth, less than 1 percent is available as freshwater for human use. Surface water—such as that in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams—is the primary water source for humans. Groundwater—that is, water underground in aquifers (highly permeable rocks, soil, and sand)—can be extracted through wells or found as springs. Technically speaking, groundwater resources exceed salt-free surface water on Earth, but humans use surface water more often because it is easier to access in large quantities.

Wells can be fracked up to 10 times. Marcellus wells will remain active up to 40 years... Then what? http://shaleshock.org/drilling-101/

And what will the future look like for our children and grandchildren? t's all about greed and money. This project is a short term "solution". The people who see dollar signs are not thinking about the consequences.

Suggest removal:

5DwightK(1376 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Cathy, people distrust fracking because of the secrecy that surrounds the chemicals used in the process. This "Haliburton" law that says the companies can't be forced to say what chemicals are being injected underground is nonsense. If my well water suddenly tastes funny or has a harmful effect on my family and I have it tested, I should be able to identify the company that injected that stuff underground. They should be held liable. If that law were overturned many people might change their minds about the process.

Suggest removal:

6Adnil(24 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Multiple earthquakes and flammable water are enough to make we wonder about the consequences of fracking! I haven't seen the movie but common sense tells me we need to know more about this before we proceed to destroy our environment.

Suggest removal:

7DwightK(1376 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago

Actually, the Haliburton law is reminiscent of the way Carnegie ran the steel industry; laying out huge amounts of cash to get favorable laws. We have every right to know what checmicals are being pumped into the ground. The fact that the industry hides this information makes me wonder what else they are hiding.

Suggest removal:

876Ytown(1318 comments)posted 2 years, 6 months ago


"Between 2009 and 2011, the USGS tested 52 samples of Marcellus shale wastewater, otherwise known as brine, from wells in Pennsylvania and New York. The resulting report, compiled in December, found that many of the samples contained radiation levels that would be 242 times higher than the federal safety limit for drinking water.

Because Ohio does not have laws prohibiting the disposal of other states' hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," waste, Ohio accepts a significant amount of fracking waste from out of state.

Last year, 54 percent of the 12.5 million barrels of brine disposed of in Ohio were from out of state, with quite a bit coming from Pennsylvania, said Heidi Hetzel-Evans, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes