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

« News Home

The question remains

Published: Sun, March 23, 2014 @ 12:01 a.m.

RELATED: State: Too soon to say if Poland quakes will delay Weathersfield well

By Tom McParland



Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources; Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Youngstown State University


We’ve heard it since the dawn of the fracking boom in the Mahoning Valley: Fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes.

Beginning in 2011, a swarm of as many as 109 quakes hit the Valley. Eventually, the cause was linked to an injection well at D&L Energy Inc. on Salt Springs Road, which had penetrated the Precambrian crust with fracking waste.

That acknowledgement was slow to come. In October 2011, Heidi Hetzel-Evans, a spokeswoman with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, told The Vindicator “[ODNR has] not seen any evidence that shows a correlation between localized seismic activity and deep-injection well disposal.”

By the following March, the ODNR was on board, telling the Valley what it had suspected for months: an injection well triggered quakes.

Two years later and 12.5 miles away, a 3.0-magnitude earthquake shook Poland Township just before 2:30 a.m. In total, geologists have recorded 12 low-magnitude quakes, all near the Carbon Limestone Landfill.

This time, there was no injection well at the site — only fracking wells.

This month’s events have led the Valley to wonder, again, whether the fracking process can trigger earthquakes, given the right geological conditions.

Geologists are examining a hypothesis that would link the Poland tremors directly to fracking at the landfill.

The theory ­— that fluid from a fracking well could have seeped into an unknown fault extending upward from the Precambrian basement — is being considered by outside observers, while ODNR spokesmen remain tight-lipped.

Thomas Serenko, chief of ODNR’s geological survey division, laid out the scenario last week while responding to a Vindicator interview via email.

The state’s top geologist said “all preliminary indications” show the quakes occurred in the Paleozoic rock sequences and not the Precambrian basement, where the Youngstown injection-well quakes occurred.

“[Seismic events] are far more likely to occur in the Precambrian than in the overlying Paleozoic,” he said.

The location is unusual because most of Ohio’s earthquakes happen in the Precambrian formation, along ancient faults and zones of weakness that are antagonized by crustal stresses. Those faults are older and more stressed than the Paleozoic faults that lie above.

Not only is the depth unusual, but it is also close to the depth of fracking wells that were drilled at the Carbon Limestone Landfill.

Hilcorp Energy Co. was in the process of completing six wells at one of its two pads at the site, when the March 10 quakes struck.

An ODNR spokesman confirmed that at least one of those wells was being fracked at the time.

ODNR ordered all activity at the pad shut down, while another well at a separate Hilcorp pad continued to produce.

Hilcorp said the wells under development were drilled to an average depth of 7,900 feet.

At that depth, the wells penetrated the Trenton Limestone, a rock layer just below the Utica Shale and located in the Paleozoic formations, Serenko said.

Serenko’s assessment caught the attention of Ray Beiersdorfer, a geology professor at Youngstown State University, who has floated a “working hypothesis” that the tremors were the product of fracking.

“If the earthquakes happened in the Paleozoic rocks close to the well [and] while the well was fracking this provides strong evidence that fracking was responsible as a trigger,” he wrote in an email.

Mike Brudzinski, a professor of seismology at Miami University in Oxford, said the quakes all occurred at a common depth and generally had an east-to-west orientation, suggesting that they all occurred along an unknown fault line.

Despite ODNR’s spotting of the earthquakes’ depth, Brudzinski said the early data are not conclusive as to whether the actual location was in the Paleozoic sequences or the underlying Precambrian basement.

He added that the regional seismic network in the area limited determining the time and space of tremors from a distance.

According to his analysis, the earthquakes could have originated within a vertical range of two-thirds of a mile to nearly 1.5 miles. The shallow end of that spectrum puts them near Hilcorp’s wells. The deepest end locates them in the shallow part of the Precambrian.

In the email correspondence, Serenko noted that many of the Paleozoic faults actually originate in the Precambrian and propagate upward.

If the earthquakes actually did occur in the basement formation, Beiersdorfer said it is possible that fluid could have escaped the fracking horizon and seeped into one of those faults, causing rocks to shift and produce tremors below.

Brudzinski agreed with the premise. Should it be determined the earthquakes occurred in the deeper rock, he said, it would be a leading theory to explain the quakes.

While the connection between injection wells and earthquakes has been well-documented in the past few years, a link between the fracking process and seismic events remains unclear.

Geologists point to only three instances where fracking was the cause of earthquakes. In Oklahoma, British Columbia and Great Britain, fracking has been linked to a series of low-magnitude tremors, registering from 2.0 to 3.0 on the Richter scale, according to United States Geological Survey.

But the instances are exceedingly rare, given the number of hydraulically fracked wells in this country — 1.1 million, according to FracTracker — and abroad, raising the point that site-specific geology plays a key role in determining if quakes occur.

“There seems to be something about the geology [in Mahoning County] that’s really throwing up a red flag that we shouldn’t be doing either of these activities in this vicinity,” Beiersdorfer said at a press conference earlier this month.

The underlying rock formations and the faults they may hide remain somewhat of a mystery here.

Much of what is known about the Precambrian is held by geophysical companies as proprietary information and sold to oil and gas companies looking for resources in the overlying Paleozoic sequences, Serenko said.

“There is no public seismic reflection information available for Mahoning County,” he wrote.

“Our knowledge will be enhanced if additional Precambrian penetrations are drilled in this region,” Serenko added.

There is much to be learned about these earthquakes.

Though ODNR established a network of 13 seismic monitors in the region after the 2011 quakes, the agency has not yet moved any to the Hilcorp site.

USGS and Lamont-Doherty have both expressed interest in setting up their own monitors, but neither has taken action, likely out of professional courtesy to ODNR.

Beiersdorfer has joined in the chorus of geologists and activists urging ODNR to place seismic devices at the Poland site.

“These should be deployed before they start fracking again, and they should keep them there while that’s happening,” he said.

As of last week, Hilcorp’s fracking wells remained shuttered.

ODNR said the company is cooperating and actively turning over logs to the agency.

The agency said it is still too early to determine the cause of the quakes, but it continues its review of the events.


1NoBS(2144 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

This area has had earthquakes before these deep wells were even thought of. I can recall some from 20 or 25 years ago that caused telephone poles to sway, and that one could feel from within one's house.

I encourage the pursuit of further knowledge, but I detest a witch hunt.

Suggest removal:

2bunkpatrol(181 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

How much money per word do you get paid ?

Suggest removal:

3msweetwood(170 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Actually, Utica, we explored the dynamite theory. It's a dead end, for this case. First, they don't blast at 3 in the morning. Secondly, they have done so for years and their blasts are so low level they don't register as quakes with the USGS. We included all of this in earlier reporting.

Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor

Suggest removal:

4BIGDRILL(36 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The best gas and oil traps are where the strata is broken up, folded and faulted. Blowing wind knocks down weak limbs. Do we ban trees? The plates of the earth are constantly on the move and we will have quakes with or without fracking.

Suggest removal:

5bunkpatrol(181 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

So what is it propagandists for the industry ?

Either fracking/brine injection IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the quakes, OR

YOU MUST ACCEPT QUAKES to get the gas.


Lets just burn frackers for fuel if we must trade well being for energy.

Suggest removal:

6James_S(268 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

NATO OHIO will be EXPORTING NATO OHIO's gas from FRACKING, after being liquefied, to the NATO EUROPEAN UNION to supply NATO EU with gas that was being supplied by non-NATO Russia until NATO EU/USA decided to attack Russia via Ukraine.... get it?
Not only will NATO OHIO not be able to use its gas from FRACKING to heat NATO OHIOAN's homes (thus reducing energy prices for NATO OHIOANs) but our NATO OHIO/USA/EU POLITICIANS want to get us NATO OHIO/USA/EU citizens into yet another war at the cost, not of the NATO OHIO/USA/EU POLITICIANS, but out of YOUR wallet.
"Truth is tyranny in the empire of lies."
And I agree with ABC100's assessment.

Suggest removal:

7Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@highgpoint, You don't KNOW that releasing a Mag 2 or Mag 3 earthquake in one location will or will not trigger a Mag 5 earthquake farther down the fault line. What if you are wrong and a Mag 5 hits Poland Village? Can we then hold YOU responsible for millions of dollars in damages? Your assumption that Faults and Earthquakes are very simplistic events is not correct.
They are so complex that we typically:
1) Cannot predict when they will happen
2) Cannot predict what Magnitude they will be
3) Do not know how many after shocks will occur
4) How long it will last.

So, Seismologists "know" nothing.
Where did you get your facts from?
Truly think about it ...

Suggest removal:

8Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You stated, the best gas and oil traps is where strata is broken up, folded and faulted. But that is true for Conventional Drilling, only. The Utica Shale is NOT Conventional Drilling. The Utica Shale is not a "gas and oil trap". The drillers do not want to find and usually do not find significant Natural Faults in the Utica Shale. Natural Faults can leak away FRAC Fluid (to where, who knows?) and that can prevent the Shale from cracking properly and that is bad news. You don't want Natural Faults any where near an Injection Well or a Frac Well.

Suggest removal:

9Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@JAMES_S, You talked about exporting nat gas. I would like to add this to your comments...
So exactly how does exporting our natural gas to Europe make the residents in Ohio "energy independent"? There is a finite (not infinite) amount of gas in the Utica Shale. When it is all burn't up then there is no more. So, why should we export Nat Gas? Does it really make sense to just burn up our Nat Gas that much quicker and then return back to Energy dependency? Isn't that like the Farmer selling his Tractor, Cows, Barn and Land to his neighbor just to "live the good life" for 10-15 years? Then in 15 years you are on Food Stamps!

Also, the Royalty Owners and the Drillers surely want the price of Nat Gas & Propane to skyrocket from the increased export demand but what about the cost to the Ohio consumers bot residential and industrial?

Why export our "Low Price Energy" advantage to our economic competitors? We need the JOBS in Ohio...

Suggest removal:

10Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ABC100, You talked about Earthquake Insurance. Wow, Good Point!

I ask ...
Who in Mahoning County actually has Earthquake Insurance?

My insurance agent stated, "Your home is NOT covered because your policy states: No Coverage due to ACTS OF GOD or NATURAL DISASTERS".

Then I said, "It was not GOD, it was D&L Energy and Hillcorp",

His reply was, "You will have to prove that" ...

Oh dear!

Suggest removal:

11Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@UticaShale, You wrote, It will be funny to see egg on faces if this [dynamite] turns out to be the shaking that the FrackPots are FAST to say are a result of fracking.

Then Mark Sweetwood, Managing Editor wrote, we explored the dynamite theory. It's a dead end.

So it appears, "The egg is on your face", right?
Your apology is accepted.

Does any company have the "right" to cause / trigger an earthquake?

I say, "No they do not" given that the D&L Injection Well was eventually shut-down by ODNR.

Do you not know that the position of one of the earthquakes was very near the bottom of one of the FRAC WELLS? And I think it was the highest Magnitude Earthquake at 3.0, too.

If a policemen walks into a bank, with the alarm bells ringing, and there are two masked gunmen holding the money; I say, "Immediately arrest those two masked gunmen and ask questions later".

You on the other hand, want to let the two masked gunmen go free! Then you want to start investigating the patrons and tellers in the bank. Finally, you call the patrons and tellers "FrackPots" for pointing at the masked gunmen who running down the street with the loot! I am so glad you are not a cop.

Suggest removal:

12Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You wrote,
Facts at present:
1. 100's of wells drilled in the Ohio and PA Utica. ZERO reports of tremors except Poland.

But that is NOT the same as saying, "100's of FRAC Wells were drilled near a FAULT without triggering earthquakes."

Still, you provide NO PROOF that it is OK to drill an Injection Well or a FRAC well near a FAULT Line.

Nobody is saying that every FRAC Well causes earthquakes. But the Poland FRAC well apparently does. And there are FRAC Wells in Canada that caused earthquakes, too. And not per Anti-Frackers but per the Canadian Oil & Gas Commission. You want FACTS? Well now you have a FACT. Try and tell the Canadian Oil & Gas Commission that you know more than they do. Geez. And guess what? There was FAULT nearby, too. So, the Poland FRAC Well is NOT unique in triggering earthquakes.

Did you learn nothing for the D&L Injection Well?
Or did you just stick your head in the sand for a year?

Stay away from Natural Faults, it could be that simple.

Suggest removal:

13NBees(53 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

While all the frackers and anti-frackers debate the cause of earthquakes, the fact remains that we, the people who have never lived in California, need educated about earthquake safety. Are we supposed to stand in a doorway, run outside, or crawl under a desk? Or just say, "whoa, what was that?" Should our schools have earthquake drills?

Our homes are not built to withstand earthquakes. Do our building codes need revised? Is there anything we can do to make existing homes more earthquake friendly? More could happen besides a cracked foundation. What about gas lines, hot water tanks, etc.

Suggest removal:

14CongressWatcher(201 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

The whole point about utilizing random frack jobs to induce smaller earthquakes in order to release larger pressures on faults makes me need to vomit in the back of my mouth. So we are suggesting we should just go willy nilly, with an admitted lack of forethought and allow drilling companies to be in charge of our large earthquake prevention program. Wow! Put anyone who believes that is wise in the category of a complete greed motivated crackpot.

Suggest removal:

15Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You wrote, free enterprise last time I checked allows us to seek the true market price for our minerals

Yep, you can export your minerals, export your tractor, export your cows and export your land rights but in 10 - 15 years then what do we do?

The Barnett Shale play has already hit PEAK OIL. Even though they continue to drill new wells at a rapid pace, total Oil & Gas Production is declining. That's right, Oil Production in the Barnett Shale Play has already begun DECREASING even though they are still drilling new wells. Go figure. The Utica Shale Play is no different than the Barnett Shale Play. It will rise, it will peak and then it will decline.

The growth of this Utica Shale play needs to be properly "managed". Uncontrolled growth is usually not a good thing, long term. Uncontrolled growth usually causes an ECONOMIC BOOM and then an ECONOMIC BUST. During the Economic Boom nobody wants to discuss the Economic Decline that must occur. Again, the "Head-In-Sand" concept. This will be especially true with the politicians, as they get "addicted" to the increasing revenue and they grow the size Government during the Economic Boom.

Since you want to export our "Low Cost Energy" Economic Advantage, then you have proven to me that you are not interested in helping your neighbor keep his Job. You are more interested in putting a buck in your wallet, while helping our over-seas economic competitors keep their jobs while hurting your neighbor here in Ohio.

Thanks neighbor ...

Suggest removal:

16JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I want to see a real earthquake, not a little rumble.

Then we can discuss the issue.

Suggest removal:

17bunkpatrol(181 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Insurance may protect your assets. Whats going to protect your a** ? I was in a building on Mahoning Ave that shook for minutes after the New Years Eve quake. One or two more like that and the building falls on me.

If that building falls on me and doesn't kill me, you'd better believe I'm seeking vengeance on the profiteers and ANY greedy politician who fast tracked this mess.

Suggest removal:

18BIGDRILL(36 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago




Reservoir Rock & Source Rock Types: Classification,

Properties & Symbols

Reservoir rock: A permeable subsurface rock that contains petroleum. Must be both porous and permeable.

Source rock: A sedimentary rock in which petroleum forms.

• Reservoir rocks are dominantly sedimentary (sandstones and carbonates); however, highly
fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks have been known to produce hydrocarbons, albeit on a
much smaller scale

• Source rocks are widely agreed to be sedimentary

• The three sedimentary rock types most frequently encountered in oil fields are shales, sandstones,and carbonates

• Each of these rock types has a characteristic composition and texture that is a direct result of
depositional environment and post-depositional (diagenetic) processes (i.e., cementation, etc.)

• Understanding reservoir rock properties and their associated characteristics is crucial in
developing a prospect

Suggest removal:

19Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You wrote, Hey, you're GMAN, your scribble carries more weight than us all :').

Yes, FACTS carry more weight than OPINION.
Yes, I presented FACTS that "FRAC Wells can cause Earthquakes"
And you presented absolutely nothing but "scribbles"!

So, if you have any FACTS that can prove "FRAC Wells cannot trigger an Earthquake" then put your cards on the table now because "I Call Your Bluff" !!!

Suggest removal:

20Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You wrote, it is widespread knowledge that earthquakes are induced in Calif. to relieve major future ones.

But USGS states that is FICTION per this web page (14th paragraph) ...

Just more "scribbles" from you, eh?

UticaShale when are you going to post something FACTUAL?

Suggest removal:

21cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I was in the Simi Valley earthquake in 1971. It was a 6.5 and shook for a minute. The Olive View Hospital which was just recently built collapsed and was a total loss.

I was in the San Francisco earthquake in 1989. It was around a 7 and shook for 15 seconds. A portion of a freeway near my house that I used every day collapsed and killed dozens and a portion of the Bay Bridge collapsed (see pic next to my username lol). The epicenter was 80 miles away.

You can build in a way that can somewhat protect property in a quake but if you are close enough and it shakes hard enough and long enough it's coming down because in a case like that there is no such thing as earthquake proof.

Suggest removal:

22Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

YOU wrote, it's called "induced seismicity"

Yes, I knew that years ago.
So what?
And doesn't that CONFIRM what I have been telling YOU.
So what is your point?
You seem to be wandering aimlessly from issue to issue, grabbing at straws, trying to make yourself seem relevant.

Then YOU wrote,
One simple question for you, if you are against it so much ...

I never said, "I was against it so much..."
So now YOU provide me with a QUOTE to back up your most recent fabrication.
Why do continue to fabricate these "stories"?
Why does the TRUTH seem to elude you?
You appear to be a very confused and delusional individual.
Maybe, English is your 2nd language?

What I have been saying all day is, "FRAC wells can cause Earthquakes" .
You tried, in vain, to refute that claim.
I have proved you wrong.
So, end of discussion?

Then YOU wrote,
When are you going to disconnect your "fracking" gas?
Yeah I know, too cold outside right :') ?

OK, so now you want to deflect from the original topic of discussion (since you have finally realized that you have NO FACTS to back up your "false claims"). But why the need for you to make this personal? OK, I play along. And I will reply with this ... What "right" do you have to tell me or anyone else on this website what energy source we can or cannot use? Who are you? The Energy Police? What energy source I use is none of your business. When you start paying my energy bill then you can tell me what energy I can use, how much I can use and when I can use It. Until then, stay out of my personal life because I assure you, you'll have nothing to gain by going down that path. Kapeesh?

Suggest removal:

23Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

YOU wrote, I want to see a real earthquake, not a little rumble.

I do NOT want to see a real earthquake.
Any damage to my home will come out of my pocket.

Do you have any idea how much is costs to replace a broken water main, a broken gas main, a broken sewer pipe, broken storm drain pipes or buckled foundation walls?

Not to mention any settling that will cause windows and doors to not open or close properly.

What happens to the value of your home when you try to sell and you have to tell the buyer there is an earthquake every day instead of once a year?

You think it can't happen ?????

Oklahoma’s November 2011 earthquake was the state’s largest recorded with modern instrumentation. Two people were injured in the quake, which destroyed 14 homes, “buckled” pavement and was felt in 17 states, according to the paper. The research centered on a sequence of earthquakes that occurred in November 2011 near Prague, Okla. They included a 5.7-magnitude quake on Nov. 6, the largest quake triggered by injection wells to date, according to the research.

They now have 3 to 4 Earthquakes on average per day - WOW!
And a Magnitude 5.7 - YIKES!
Does anybody actually think this would be a "good thing" for the Mahoning Valley?

Suggest removal:

24JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ Gman:

A 5.7?

Now you're talking.

Anxiety is not good for your health. It is caused by fears, either founded or imagined. I won't loose any sleep worrying about the imagined.

Suggest removal:

25Gman(46 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Do your own homework.
I am sick and tired of spoon-feeding you.
You have your head-in-the-sand when you find it convenient.

Reported TODAY on Oklahoma news ...
15 Earthquakes in the past 48 hours
Biggest was Magnitude 4.0
Read the newspaper articles
Watch the TV from Oklahoma
Prior to the Injection wells they had only 4 Earthquakes per year!!!

Have you learned nothing from the D&L Injection Well?
Do you deny that 109 earthquakes occurred in Youngstown?
And now the Injection Well is shutdown and the earthquakes stop?
Is this all just one a big coincidence for you?

Your GREED for Royalties is preventing your brain from preforming rational analysis.

So now the Oklahoma TV and Newspapers are liars and
only Ron Eiselstein knows the TRUTH?

What arrogance you have?

Suggest removal:

2676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

To answer a question posed above:

The safest place to be is in a doorway or under a table away from a window or falling objects. Do not go outside because trees and power lines can also be a hazard.

Structures most damaged are two story wood frame house or brick buildings. In Ohio, homes and buildings are not built to withstand earthquakes. In CA large buildings are built on rollers to sway with a quake and homes are built to earthquake standards. Hot water heaters, and large furniture are strapped to the wall to prevent them from falling over. People are more conscious of what to do in an earthquake and know where to shut off their gas in an emergency.

In the 1994 Northridge quake which registered 6.7 on the richter scale, I was not able to even walk to the next bedroom to reach my child. The shaking was like being in a doll house with someone shaking it up and down.I felt very small and helpless. My house did not have damage due to the quake, but many of my friends did. Items from the refrigerator on one side of the kitchen ended up in the oven on the other side. A sturdy dining room table ended up on its side. Swimming pool water splashed to the 2nd floor. Each point on the richter scale is 10 times stronger. For many years, we lived with an earthquake kit outside our house. A trash can filled with change of clothes, shoes, toiletries, paper products, gloves, basic tools, basic first aid, mylar blankets, water and a few food stuff.

Suggest removal:

27walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

As a structural engineer, I can assure posters that seismic forces are quantified in our building codes and they can be used in the design of buildings. Seismic loads are not only dependent on the seismic activity of the area although the magnitude and duration of seismic activity is the biggest factor. In CA, their events are large and last for a long duration, causing the buildings to shake back and forth repeatedly with loads. Our earthquakes are of a very short duration. In our area, however, the lateral structural design of buildings is controlled by wind loading, not seismic. The loads imposed by the remnants of Hurricane Katrina were much higher than any anticipated seismic event.

Many of the structures built locally decades ago are ordinary masonry structures. Brick on normal residential structures is only a veneer and is a non-structural item. However, it is tied to the underlying wood framing for support based on the wind loads that could be applied to it, which is far higher than seismic loads. Masonry structures that I design incorporate small amounts of steel reinforcing to tie the masonry together. Newer wood structures incorporate steel straps and ties to properly reinforce them and to tie multiple stories together. Once again, in CA, a big problem are the residential structures that have homes built over the top of garages that have large openings. This is basically building a house on stilts and the legs are not properly braced. Wood structures, if properly detailed, can easily withstand a seismic event due to their inherent flexibility and wood's inherent strength to short duration loading. This doesn't mean, however, that you won't have some cracks in your drywall or plaster. Nonstructural items in a seismic event can be damaged. Water tanks with gas lines pose a problem if they are not braced to the structure with ties.

Suggest removal:

2876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Walter you said our earthquakes are very short in duration. You need to take into consideration the magnitude of a quake. Each point is 10 times stronger. A magnitude 3 is ten 10 times stronger than a magnitude 2 and a magnitude 4 is 100 times stronger than a magnitude 2. So far this area has only experienced was the 4.0 in Nov 2011.

Suggest removal:

29JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

While the Richter Scale is logarithmic, Walter is correct in noting that the duration of most local seismic events is quite short.

Structural damage is equated to the product of the amplitude of displacement and the time of duration of the event with respect to the elasticity of the subjected structure.

Suggest removal:

30cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I'll translate joe's post for the rest of you...."just ignore the obvious if money is involved."

Suggest removal:

3176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Cambridge: touché

Suggest removal:

32walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

You are correct but most non-scientific people have trouble understanding what you posted. Most people don't understand that structural loads are based on probability and statistics using risk assesment. While bridges are designed for a line of cars and trucks, the greatest load they could ever see is if it were carrying a marathon of runners. I bet most people would be shocked to understand that one of the biggest changes to structural design of buildings and bridges AFTER the Northridge quake was to actually make building LESS stiff. Yes, we purposely engineer weak spots into structures so that they will behave in a flexible manner rather than a rigid manner as this will lead to sudden collapse. We in the steel industry have seen the photos of the cracked joints in columns due to the concentration of stresses. So, now buildings are designed with preventing loss of life, not necessarily damage-free structures.

As far as buying a helmet and standing on the sidelines of the game, I would urge those to look around and note the changes from the oil and gas industry. Many of the landowners that made good money up-front were farmers, many who have been hit hard for the last 30 years. Rather than pay taxes on their gains, many made large-scale capital purchases on new machinery. Equipment demand has grown considerably. I have also noted many new barns and storage buildings going up in the countryside. When I purchased my Ford last Sept. at fairway in Canfield, I asked them about truck demand as their lot is full of pick-up's. They told me that, for the month of Aug. 2013, they sold 93 NEW trucks. So, much of the money being invested in the oil and gas industry in our area has been spread around to quite a few businesses. Now, the question is, is it worth the risk? Since the risk is minimal, I say go for it.

Suggest removal:

3376Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Don't mess with Mother Nature! This is just a warning.

Suggest removal:

34walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

If you mean "forced pooling", it is codified under state law and it seems reasonable. It is not like the landowners are not being compensated. It merely states that the tail won't wag the dog. Energy from fossil fuels is necessary to drive the engine of the US economy. If building a dam or hydro plant or steel mill means the snail darter becomes extinct? Yes, it sucks to be a snail darter!

Suggest removal:

35walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

No, not trying to be a smart aleck; just clearing it up for those who may not understand about what you are talking. But, forced pooling does not necessarily mean taking all of your property. It means that once you reach a percentage that want to proceed, drilling cannot be stopped by the refusal of a minority holder. Pooling is a construct of law and the law can, thus, be adapted to the benefit, or detriment, of all parties.

As for Dr. Ingraffea, I have read articles about him and his warnings. He raises concerns that should be weighed in this process. I still think horizontal fracking can be done responsibly. But, if I cross the street, I could get hit by a car. Do I merely stay on this side or do I proceed across in a responsible fashion?

Earthquake insurance? I wouldn't bother. My advice is to relax and have a bottle of spring water.

Suggest removal:

3676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Walter: I can tell you from experience that no matter if the length of an earthquake is 10 or 30 seconds, it still feels like an eternity. Shallow earthquakes create more damage than the deeper ones. Structurally, it's usually the 5.0's and higher that cause damage and they definitely get your attention.

Not all earthquakes feel the same. Some create a jolt, some a rolling motion and some a rumbling or shaking You may hear what sounds like a freight train approaching or only the rattling of dishes on a shelf. You may only experience a queasy feeling in your stomach as in the case of being on one of the top floors of a high rise building watching the mini-blinds sway with the building. Depending on the soil and ground beneath you, the intensity will also be different.

Walter: 93 new trucks relative to what?

Nor­mal level of sales per deal­er­ship is about 830. Variables... size, location of dealership and average age of a used car is 11.4 years old which is good news for dealerships.

Suggest removal:

3776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Walter: "My advice is to relax and have a bottle of spring water"

Would you suggest Pine Hollow Bottling from Lowellville, Ohio or Perfection Bottled Water from Struthers? Freshly drawn from the Mahoning River I'm sure.

Suggest removal:

38cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

walter....I'm going to assume your comment about "non-scientific people" was directed at me. I'll refresh your memory. I retired as a detailer for mechanical contractors that specialize in micro electronic and bio pharmaceutical fabrication factories as well as power plants, chemical plants and refineries.

Don't assume you know what I do or do not know about seismic and or earthquake construction. Every project has weekly coordination meetings with detailers from all crafts and those meetings at times included the design team (engineers) like yourself when the detailers had to prove to them the error of their ways. It's important for every detailer to have a through understanding of every craft and every crafts seismic responsibility. Inertia basses and seismic isolators in mechanical rooms along with seismic for the piping runs themselves run into hundreds of thousands of dollars for my trade alone on a four or five story hospital.

Something Ytown76 and I know about that you don't are large earthquakes. The Simi Valley quake in LA was about twenty miles from my apartment. The noise from everything shaking sounded like a train going through the room. My girlfriend and I were in bed and my eyes were fixed on the doorway which was bending and flexing like it was made of rubber. Forget about standing in it, it was impossible to get out of bed. There was two feet of water left in the complex pool, the rest was splashed out as high as the second floor. Power poles on fire from transformer explosions, power lines covering the streets, no utilities, freeways collapsed.

The freeway that collapsed near my home in the SF 89 quake had been seismic retrofitted and it still collapsed. California is more prepared for earthquakes than any place on earth yet every time we has a massive quake we have massive damage.

You're someone that has no problem with a rig on farm land producing produce or livestock for your dining room table. You wouldn't care if the entire valley shook till it all collapsed as long as you made a buck. That's who you are so you should just own it and cut the BS.

Suggest removal:

39NBees(53 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

76Ytown & Walter: thank you for the information in comments 44 & 46.

Suggest removal:

4076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

Where's Walter?

Suggest removal:

41walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

No, it would not be directed at you. I understand that you are well-educated and I didn't mean to ridicule you. Most posters do not, however, have the knowledge to understand earthquake data. My engineering does involve the details of structural steel construction and I have to point out errors on engineering drawings constantly to the engineer-of-record as my company has to construct the structures.

This area of Ohio does not have the active geology that underlies Cahlifornia. That is why our building codes reflect low risks of seismic events. Engineers have learned a lot due to recent seismic events out there and I read about them constantly. The Northridge quake, especially was troubling as they thought they had a good handle on ground motion until the types that arose out of that quake. But there is no comparison between the two areas. If I were to design a building in Youngstown to withstand loads imposed by seismic activity in Cahlifornia, I would be out of business since they would be too costly to build. Your state is a great place to visit, but I would never live there. My wife wants me to take her to San Fran for her birthday as my son recently returned from a conference and told her how beautiful it was there. If I go, I'll let you know so you can clear out for I can cut a rather big swath.

I agree with Gov. Kasich. We need to be cautious but we are going to keep going forward with this industry. It is providing many jobs and significant wealth to the area. My co-worker told me of his neighbor in Pulaski that is a farmer that is receiving $28 per foot for the right-of-way for an underground gas line on his property. He will be receiving about $500,000 for that! Good for him!

Suggest removal:

4276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

So Walter, "we need to be cautious but keep going forward with this industry"

The concerns of our drinking waters the air we breath and the food we eat being contaminated by chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are not enough to be cautious?

The fact that areas of the country are experiencing earthquakes coincidentally, only after hydraulic fracking began. With all we know and all we don't know about earthquakes, would causing 3.0 earthquakes be acceptable to you? Is there a risk that these could trigger larger quakes or worse yet set off a domino effect to

At what point do we become concerned with the risk of chemical exposure to future generations through endocrine disruptors.

"In 1991, an international group of experts stated, with confidence, that “Unless the environmental load of synthetic hormone disruptors is abated and controlled, large scale dysfunction at the population level is possible.”1 They could not perceive that within only ten years, a pandemic of endocrine-driven disorders would begin to emerge and increase rapidly across the northern hemisphere. Today, less than two decades later, hardly a family has not been touched by Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, autism, intelligence and behavioral problems, diabetes, obesity, childhood, pubertal and adult cancers, abnormal genitalia, infertility, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s Diseases. TEDX’s findings confirm that each of these disorders could in part be the result of prenatal exposure to chemicals called endocrine disruptors. TEDX has also confirmed that the feed stocks for most endocrine disrupting chemicals are derived from the production of coal, oil, and natural gas. It is clear that endocrine disruption, like climate change, is a spin-off of society’s addiction to fossil fuels. Setting aside the effects of endocrine disruptors on infertility, and just considering their influence on intelligence and behavior alone, it is possible that hormone disruption could pose a more imminent threat to humankind than climate change. The urgency of the above conclusions provided the incentive for much of the work described on this website."


Is it ok to leave future generations with the consequences of hydraullic fracturing in exchange for a quick buck. So a friend of a friend of a friend says they'll get $500,000 from the oil/gas industry. Wow! Sounds like a get rich scheme to me. Did you know that if you invest $2000 a year for 10 years then stop, after 30 years you could have one million dollars. http://www.daveramsey.com/article/how...

Suggest removal:

43JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ ABC100: Another correction is in order:

>>CEO OF EXON IS SUING because he doesn't want fracking by his property<<

My print edition of the Wall Street Journal carried this story over a week ago. It seems that Rex Tillerson, the CEO, is displeased with the SIGHT of an associated water tower, visible from his home.

He is NOT against fracking in the area.

Suggest removal:

44thinkthentalk(286 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@76Y. Just because you provide a web link, that doesnt mean that it is true or correct. For example, your guidance on how to have a million dollars after 30 years. Did you read the article? 12% return for 30 years?

Suggest removal:

4576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

thinkthentalk: The secret to turning $16K into $1 mil is compound interest. Investments need to be left in for the long haul. Averages depend entirely on the time period you're investing. Stock market growth in the 90's was explosive then the market crashed in 2008. If you timed it to enter after the crash, the Dow has gone up 112% in the last 5 years.

Regardless of the return, the point of this article is to show that there is power in starting small but starting early. If you wait till your late 20's or 30's you have to save so much more and so much longer to equal what you could have by starting early.

Suggest removal:

4676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

ABC100: Hey! Here's more to the story...

Former Mobil Oil Corporation Executive Vice President Louis W. Allstadt points out in a scathing open letter to Tillerson sent on Tuesday, he can always afford to move away...unlike most of the less fortunate victims of fracking around the nation.

After more than 30 years at Mobil (and six months at ExxonMobil under Tillerson, after the two companies merged), Allstadt went on to become a foe of fracking and a vocal proponent of climate change action.

"No one should have to live near well pads, compression stations, incessant heavy truck traffic, or fracking water towers, nor should they have their water or air contaminated," Alstadt writes in his letter to Tillerson, who is otherwise a champion of fracking when its not in his own backyard. "You and I love the places where we live, but in the end, if they are ruined by fracking or frack water tanks, we can afford to pack up and go someplace else. However, many people can't afford to move away when they can no longer drink the water or breathe the air because they are too close to one of your well pads or compressor stations."

Read Alstadt's full letter to Tillerson...

Suggest removal:

47JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ ABC100 :

Sorry I took so long to get back to you.

The posts here about Rex Tillerson's apparent hypocrisy are understandable. People in high places are in a vary precarious position and have to measure every word and action.

Rex probably didn't have his corporate team assembled before threatening to sue over this issue. The result is great theater.

Suggest removal:

48JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ cambridge:

>> I'll translate joe's post for the rest of you...."just ignore the obvious if money is involved." <<

Yes, it is good to have a lot of money. That resolves many issues.

My hope is that the "fracking" industry accumulates sufficient resources to fend off attacks by those fearful souls who want to destroy the wealth it can bring.

Suggest removal:

49James_S(268 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

"Genie Energy"

Suggest removal:

50JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

I Dream of Genie also.

Remember Barbara Eden? She was hot back in the day.

More heat than a fracophobic on a well pad.

Suggest removal:

51walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

A good well-reasoned post that calls out the hypocrisy of the frackophobes. Similar to Algores house cracking up the amps. But, you will most certainly be attacked as an industry shill and stooge bent on injecting massive quantities of endocrine disrupters into the environment.

Barbara Feldon just turned 81! No doubt, 99 was a definite 10 back in the day.

Suggest removal:

52JoeFromHubbard(1350 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

@ Walter :

>> Barbara Feldon just turned 81! <<

Genie, on the old TV series "I Dream of Genie", was played by Barbara Eden.

My Genie post was in response to James_S comment, "Genie Energy."

Barbara Feldon was a hottie also.

Suggest removal:

53oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Dr. Ingraffea is completely incorrect about casing failures.
The report he uses is over ten years old and doesn't even deal with wells such as those being drilled here in Ohio. In fact there is a disclaimer in the reprot that states it has nothing to do with on shore wells. It deals with old abandoned offshore wells.
Further the main report he cites isn't even about casing failures; that is a conclusion he came to all on his own without any basis in fact.
The report he cites deals with :Sustained Casing Pressure" which he assumes will cause a leak yet there is no proof that it will.
Actual studies done here in Ohio show that casing failures between 1970 -2003 were 0.03%, and that was prior to the new regulations dealing with casing and cementing. Since those regs went into place there have been no casing failures, ZERO! if what Dr. Ingraffea is saying was true at least 20 or more wells would have had casing failures, yet there have been ZERO !
In my opinion he is a fraud with a preconceived agenda BTW he did not create horizontal drilling).

Suggest removal:

54oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Dr. Ingraffea is completely incorrect about casing failures.
The report he uses is over ten years old and doesn't even deal with wells such as those being drilled here in Ohio. In fact there is a disclaimer in the reprot that states it has nothing to do with on shore wells. It deals with old abandoned offshore wells.
Further the main report he cites isn't even about casing failures; that is a conclusion he came to all on his own without any basis in fact.
The report he cites deals with :Sustained Casing Pressure" which he assumes will cause a leak.
Actual studies done here in ohio show that casing failures between 1970 -2003 were 0.03%, and that was prior to the new regulations dealing with casing and cementing. Since those regs went into place there have been no casing failures, ZERO! if what Dr. Ingraffea is saying was true at least 20 or more wells would have had casing failures, yet there have been ZERO !
In my opinion he is a fraud with a preconceived agenda BTW he did not create horizontal drilling).

Suggest removal:

55oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The flaring of a well is common practice used to keep the fluid in the well moving. This is used to bring water out of the well, which if left in the well would cause the shale to swell and close the fractures.

Suggest removal:

5676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

"One dataset highlighed found that 8,030 fracking wells targetting the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania were inspected between 2005-2013 and 6.3% (506 wells) were reported for internal or external well barrier failures."

"Analysis of another Pennsylvania dataset of 3,533 wells between 2008-2011 found that one-third were issued with environmental violation notices. These were mostly for surface water contamination, land spills or problems with site restoration. But 2.6% (91 wells) suffered some internal or external well barrier failures, including four blowouts. "Measurable concentrations of gas we present at the surface for most wells with casing or cementing violations," the researchers wrote."

"Going after these risky sources of energy threatens our natural world as regulation can only go so far in protecting people, our water supplies and the wider environment. This report highlights that oil and gas well failure is widespread and the best way to avoid the risk this brings is not to frack or go after other hard to reach and polluting fossil fuels."


Suggest removal:

5776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

If only natural gas would just innocently seep up from the ground without having any effect on our drinking water and without the addition of chemicals. Reminds me of that 'ole 60's show The Beverly Hillbillies.

Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed.
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin at some food,
And up through the ground came a bubblin' crude.
Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.
Well the first thing you know ol' Jed's a millionaire, Kinfolk said Jed move away from there.
Said Californy is the place you ought to be
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.
Hills, that is.
Swimmin pools, movie stars.

Suggest removal:

58oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The paper written by Dr. Ingraffea was based on a couple of studies. The one you refer to is from 2005, but that study reviewed well data from the 1920's from California. Hardly relevant to an evaluation of wells being drilled here in Ohio.
Another study used WAS ten years old from the Minerals Management Service. There was a disclaimer included in the report that stated it was for offshore wells only and NOT land locations. This study was not about leaks but Sustained Casing Pressure.
If you want actual data related to the Utica and Marcellus shales why not refer to recent studies that deal specifically with them. For example the study conducted by the PA DEP from 2005. It showed that there was a less than 0.033 well failure. Or the study conducted in Ohio by the Ground Water Protection Council which showed 0.03 percent failure rate. Not the 6% initial rate or 50% rate after thirty years claimed by Dr. Ingraffea.
In fact the wells study in each of these reports were drilled and completed prior to the new casing and cementing regulations were implemented. In Ohio, if Dr. Ingraffea's statistics were to be believed there would have been at least 20 casing failures by now. There have been ZERO !
So there should be no fear of well casing failures.

Suggest removal:

59oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

First: In Ohio it's not forced pooling, it's unitization.
Second: No ones property is "taken".
I refer you to the ODNR web site which explains the process. You will find that the landowner's rights are well protected and this is not a slam dunk for the oil and gas companies.

Suggest removal:

60oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

A well barrier issue is not a leak, and is easily corrected. Therefore this condition poses virtually no environmental danger.

BTW these are not "fracking wells" they are shale wells or oil and gas wells. Hydrofracturing "fracking" is only one process in the drilling and completing of oil and gas wells.

In the cases where there were casing or cement issues they were prior to the new regs. They were also easily corrected and posed no permanent threat to the environment.

Well casing or cement failure is not wide spread, and there is no proof that the extraction of oil and gas from shale is risky. This is just more fear mongering from those who oppose shale development.

Suggest removal:

61oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You are in more danger of being killed in an auto accident than you are from being harmed in any manner from shale development.
Therefore, we should outlaw automobiles.
Actually you are in more danger from a plane falling on you. BAN AIRPLANES NOW!

Suggest removal:

62oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

BTW the industry has combined horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing since 1994.
I will admit that full scale use of this combination didn't begin until 1999. Either way that is well over 10 years.
In all that time over 50,000 wells have been drilled and completed using this combination, and not one incident of "fracking" as the cause of pollution.

Suggest removal:

63oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

There is no proof that shale development puts endocrine disruptors into the atmosphere in any significant volume or for any sustained period of time.Both of which are required in order to declare a health concern.

Do you know what the greatest source of endocrine disruptors in air is ? It's auto exhaust. So I believe you will join me in calling for a ban on cars, right?

Suggest removal:

64oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The records he may have referred to dealt with Sustained Casing Pressure. SCP is not a leak. He has never said his research showed actual leaks,it's a theory (an unproven theory)(I've seen the presentation and read his work). He has maintained that SCP will lead to leaks, yet there is no proof of this. As I stated twice before; if his assumptions are correct then there should have been at least 20 and as many as 47 casing failures here in Ohio. But as of today there have been ZERO! His assumptions about SCP are wrong.
My comments have nothing to do with my opinion, I stated the studies that disprove Dr. Ingraffea's theory, and it is only a theory. It has never been proven.
His work is only theoretical, I have goiven you hard facts not some chicken little the sky is falling nonsense.

BTW nice liberal response, when you can't discuss an issue based on facts you all start with the personal attacks.

Suggest removal:

65oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Another point you missed; the study Dr. Ingraffea referred to was partially based on info from 100 years ago in California.
It would be better to deal with recent info dealing with Ohio. As I stated; a study performed by the Ground Water Protection Council (2011), examining wells drilled between 1983 and 2007, showed a 0.03 % casing/cement failure rate. The study goes on to point out that the incidences of failure were prior to the new state regs for casing and cementing. And, as I have pointed out, since those regs have been in place there has not been the massive failures predicted by Dr. Ingraffea.
Do you want to know why? Because Dr. Ingraffea is a theoretician who uses computer models to make his predictions. A prediction based on a computer model is only as good as the information placed into the model, and you know what they say ? Garbage in - garbage out.

Suggest removal:

66oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You liberals love to throw around the accusation that the oil and gas industry buys off anyone who happens to agree with them.
Do you know who funds much of Dr. Ingraffea's work ? The Park Foundation; a virulent anti fossil fuel organization. Gee, I wonder if they might be a bit biased along with Dr. Ingraffea ?
Plus, much of the anti fossil fuel effort is funded by "dark money", meaning it comes from offshore accounts which are untraceable. So the source of the money is difficult to determine. However, due to the efforts of enterprising investigative journalists we know that some of that money comes from Russia and the Middle East.
Why would anyone in Russia or the Middle East care about shale development in the U.S.? I think even you are intelligent enough to answer that question.

Suggest removal:

67oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You and I live in Ohio so let's deal with Ohio. The study I cited (Ground Water Protection Council) shows a cement/casing failure rate of 0.03 % in Ohio prior to the new regs. Since then there have been over 700 wells shale wells drilled and completed; I am not aware of any failures. So where is the 6.3% initial failure rate predicted by Dr. Ingraffea ?

Suggest removal:

68oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

BTW, fracking is GOOD for the elderly so yes I say "Frack Grandma".
Senior citizens are some of those most affected by increases in utility costs; this is due to the fact that so many of them are on "fixed incomes".
Due to horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing utility costs have come down and have remained stable.
My mother is a senior citizen and supports shale development. You and the other liberals on this thread are on the wrong side of this discussion.

Suggest removal:

69oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Yes you are a liberal, a conservative would see the lack of logic in what Dr. Ingraffea presents.
The info you saw was manipulated by Dr. Ingraffea,
The actual info from the DEP showed that a less than one percent failure rate. Just as in the report in Ohio I cited, most of the failures were prior to the new casing and cementing regs. No failures since.
The point that you keep missing is that Ingraffea predicted a 6.3% failure rate on ALL shale wells. Where is it ? In Ohio over 700 wells ave been drilled and completed, that would mean 47 wells should have failed. Can you tell me how many have failed ? I can, ZERO!
What has earthquakes have to do with Dr. Ingraffea presenting false info.
In my opinion Ingraffea is a fraud financed by anti fossil fuel fanatics.

Suggest removal:

70oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The point you keep missing is that Dr. Ingraffea presents info in order to distract.
For example the DEP info you saw, what he didn't tell you was the conclusion of the DEP report was that the failure rate was less than 0.03%, not the 6,3% predicted by Dr. Ingraffea. He manipulates info, why? Because he has an agenda, he is anti fossil fuel. He is biased.

Suggest removal:

7176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

My post # 98 with is from The Guardian in the UK reporting on the failure of wells in PA. These studies were by the way, independent of Dr. Ingraffea.

"The research analyzed every reliable data set on the 4m onshore hydrocarbon wells that have been drilled around the world since the industry began a century ago, in order to assess the implications for unconventional oil and gas exploitation, including shale gas. The study focused on well failures, in which the cement, steel casing or valves failed to contain the oil, gas and drilling fluids. It noted the difference between internal failures, where gas, oil or other chemicals did not leak into the wider environment and external failures, where leaks did enter rocks, water acquifers or the air."

Suggest removal:

72oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I am well aware of this study. The report relies on very old data much of which has been completely debunked, and it ignores more recent studies which found very low well failure rates.
In fact the study finding 75% of wells fail is from a 2005 study which is based on nearly 100 year old well data. So if you truly want reliable data on well issues today why would you focus on statistics from the 1920's ? How you could believe that this material is relevant to modern shale development is hard to understand. To suggest that the high failure rates shown in this report are indicative of the shale wells of today is absurd.

The report predominantly deals with barrier failures not well integrity issues (leaks). In fact this report frequently cites a report from the Society of Petroleum Engineers which found the risk of well failure to be extremely low. Here is an actual quote from the SPE report:
"...actual well integrity failures are very rare. Well integrity failure is where all barriers (in a well) fail and a leak is possible.."
What this means is this: a well contains several barriers (casing and cement) which are designed to protect groundwater, even if one of these barriers fails it doesn't mean the well integrity is compromised and it certainly doesn't mean there will be a leak.

The data on well failure contained in the report relies predominantly on anti fossil fuel groups and Dr. Anthony Ingraffea. Dr. Ingraffea's work has been debunked and he has been exposed as an anti fracking activist. In other words he is biased.

Further: in the section of the report dealing with the Marcellus Shale the report cites code violations which "might" cause a leak, again might, no actual leaks. Those code violations were easily remedied and did not pose significant environmental risks.

Another study of Marcellus wells compiled by the AP found a well failure rate of only 0.33 percent. Why so different a result ? Because the AP report did not manipulate data to fit a pre-conceived conclusion and it threw out all well barrier issues and concentrated on actual well integrity issues.

Rob Jackson who was involved with the Duke University studies was a researcher for the report cited by the Guardian. The Duke study is quoted repeatedly, the only problem here is that the Duke study has been thoroughly debunked by subsequent studies.

What I did find interesting about the study cited by the Guardian was that it found no evidence of hydraulic fracturing causing contamination. Here is a quote from one of the authors Professor Davies: " A few years ago people were saying fracking causes water contamination. We have robustly researched that...and we have not found any evidence that fracking is the problem,".

So the report you cite as evidence of well integrity problems is bogus and has been debunked. The AP report that I cite shows a minimal risk, a risk which is that is manageable.

Any more softballs you wish to throw?

Suggest removal:

73oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Liberals are people who don't believe facts and accept rumors, innuendo, and hyperbole without investigation.

Suggest removal:

74oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I still maintain that the earlier earthquakes were not "frack" related. They were related to the North Star disposal well.
My opinion is based upon the fact based study/review of the ODNR. Again you liberals hate facts.

Suggest removal:

7576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: "I still maintain that the earlier earthquakes were not "frack" related. They were related to the North Star disposal well."

And what was disposed of in the North Star Disposal well? BRINE.

And what is brine? FRACK FLUID.


Suggest removal:

7676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: "I still maintain that the earlier earthquakes were not "frack" related. They were related to the North Star disposal well."

And what was disposed of in the North Star Disposal well?


And what is brine?




Suggest removal:

77oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Brine has nothing to do with fracking, it's production water.
If you liberals cared about facts you would know that.

Suggest removal:

78oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Brine is not frack fluid. You people have no idea what you are talking about.
Plus, at that time you people claimed that fracking caused the earthquakes. There was no fracking at that disposal well.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now, talk about twisting information.

Suggest removal:

79oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

What is your devotion to hypocricy? You enjoy the benefits of what oil and gas development provides yet you want to stop that development. That is hypocricy.

Suggest removal:

80oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

So let's follow your silly point out to it's logical conclusion (I know logic will give you a headache)
Your point is that because the disposal well is associated with the oil and gas industry and the industry uses fracking, therefore fracking by association caused the earthquakes (good thing you guys aren't scientists). Guilt by association.
Based on your rules I could make this association; GM Lordstown builds the Cruze, the Cruze is involved in accidents. Therefore, GM is responsible for the accidents.

You guys are really sad. Just because something is associated does not mean it is connected. My six year old grand daughter understands this simple concept.

Who is smarter than the liberals on this page ? A six year old.

Suggest removal:

81oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

At least you guys are predictable. You have done a good job to follow the liberal playbook.
When confronted with facts and logic use personal attacks, then change the subject.

The fact is that there is no imminent danger due to well integrity (leaks).

Suggest removal:

8276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

ABC: I wonder why is it that the folks like oh13voter think that being concerned with our health and safety is political? I'm far from liberal. He works for Board of Elections so I guess everything in his world is political.

Change the subject? All I did was rebut oh13voter's quote.

What did he think they were pouring down that disposal well? Hey oh13voter... have you tried to brine your turkey with that stuff? That explains a lot.

Here's their company profile.

(330) 792-9524
View Marcellus well waste details for this facility

Below are sample total values of waste
types accepted by this waste facility
Waste Type Amount Amount
BRINE 190736 bbls 8,010,912 gals
FRAC FLUID 199 bbls 8,358 gals
DRILLING 3510 bbls 147,420 gals

oh13voter is delusional to think that there is no connection between NorthStar, earthquakes and fracking.

Suggest removal:

83oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

What fracking occurred near the disposal well that contributed to the earthquakes ? Answer: none.

The point you folks keep missing is that the cause was not what went into the well. The cause was drilling into the bedrock and finding a fault. If they had simply cemented the bottom of the hole back to the injection zone those earthquakes would not have occurred, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Again - brine is production fluid, not frac fluid.

Suggest removal:

84oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You are so naive and misinformed. There are over 170 injection wells in Ohio, the majority are for industrial waste other than oil filed waste.

Suggest removal:

85oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I will call you crazy, and hypocritical. You enjoy the benefits that fossil fuels bring you but not the method to obtain it. There is no other way to get it.
In order to stop the development of the shale you have to reduce the demand for the product. I suggest that you and 76 begin reducing the demand by not heating your home or driving your car. You talk the talk, let's see if you can walk the walk. I doubt it, you anti shale liberals are generally hypocrites.

Suggest removal:

86oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

"Call me crazy, but when something causes THE EARTH to shake...then you probably shouldn't be doing it." Your post 135

Again; you are so misinformed. The people in California would disagree with you; they intentionally lubricate faults to cause small earthquakes (about the size felt in Poland, OH). Why? Because this helps prevent the big ones that actually do damage and kill people.

So I'm calling you crazy.

Suggest removal:

87walter_sobchak(2082 comments)posted 1 year ago

There is no comparison of the faults in Kahlifornia, like the San Andreas fault, and the faults in the shale here. That fault is active fault over 800 miles long that's between two tectonic plates not too mention, readily visible on the surface of the earth. Our faults are very small ones, deep in the earth. Apparently, if one that is unknown gets lubricated with injection fluid under pressure, it can release energy and cause the earth to tremble. It is generally accepted that the Northstar injection well, into sandstone with minimal porosity, caused the quakes that previously occurred, especially since they have ceased since the injection ceased. The Poland landfill quake cause is interesting since the drilling should only be in the shale. If there is a small fault, abandon the site and try somewhere else.

Suggest removal:

88oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I was not attempting to compare faults, just the perspective of the people in California with regards to earthquakes.
In fact comparing the geology of our area to that of others is the mistake made by our anti shale development friends.

Suggest removal:

8976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: You are beginning to sound desperate in your attempt to defend horizontal hydraulic fracking.

From the USGS website:

You can prevent large earthquakes by making lots of small ones, or by "lubricating" the fault with water
FICTION: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are about 10 of magnitude 5, 100 of magnitude 4, 1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds like a lot of small earthquakes, but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event. It would take 32 magnitude 5's, 1000 magnitude 4's, OR 32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are far too few to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake. As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, if anything, this would have the opposite effect. Injecting high- pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes—to cause them to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. This would be a dangerous pursuit in any populated area, as one might trigger a damaging earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topi...

Suggest removal:

90oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Don't have to defend it, there is nothing to defend, it has been shown to be safe. Consider also the opinions of the following people:
Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator:
"There's nothing inherently dangerous in
Sally Jewel, Secretary of the Interior:
"Fracking has been done safely for many,
many years."
Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy:
"I think the issues in terms of the
environmental footprint of hydraulic
fracturing are manageable."
Steven Chu, former Energy Secretary:
(fracking) "...this is something you can do
in a safe way." "It's a false choice to say
we can either have hydraulic fracturing or
protect the environment, we have done
both for many years."
Ken Salazar, former Interior Secretary:
"...hydraulic fracking is safe."

These are some of the people charged with protecting the environment and public health. You on the other hand usually cite political activists who receive grant money for their anti shale development work. That grant money comes from anti fossil fuel groups such as the Park Foundation.

Suggest removal:

91oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Even for you that is a sad response.
There is no proof to all of your claims or those of the other liberal farctivists on this thread.
The science shows that shale development is safe, regulators know it is safe, and the public believes in it. You and the others are the noisy minority. Yes, it's true you get attention, but it's of no consequence. This ship has sailed and you and the other malcontents have been set adrift to complain to each other. Really, no one is listening.
Too bad you and the others only give lip service to your beliefs. Turn off your gas, disconnect your electricity and stop driving your car. If you do those things then I will be impressed. At this point you and the others are my daily amusement, I cannot take you seriously.

Suggest removal:

92oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

BTW, do remember that video you posted ? The one of the woman complaining about the methane in her water, and the video shows her lighting the water ?
Guess what ? Her neighbors are in a video saying they all have methane in their water and it was there before oil and gas drilling began.
That makes sense, know why? It's always been there and that lady knew it and thought she could make a few extra bucks off the company. Did I forget to mention she has a law suit against the company which she had to drop ?
The USGS performed a study in county's surrounding the one where she lives. Guess what they found ? Methane in the water wells. Here's the interesting part; there is no shale development in those county's; the methane occurs naturally. WOW who'd a thunk it ?
According to you liberal propogandists the only way methane could be in a water well is if "fracking" put it there.
As I said; you guys are adrift in a sea of denial complaining to yourselves.

Suggest removal:

93oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Everything you just said is a distortion of the facts, which isn't unusual for a liberal.
The fact is this, the methane existed in her well prior to drilling.
As anyone who has methane in their well water can tell you the level fluctuates so the fluctuation in this woman's water is not unusual.
Look, you need to face facts, the science is against you and your merry band of malcontents.
Study after study proves that fracking has nothing to do with methane in water wells.
So you can keep singing this song as long as you choose, but it's out of tune and tiresome.
Plus there are no facts to back it up, just some losers on youtube hoping to make a buck.

Suggest removal:

9476Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Isn't it interesting that our resident self proclaimed industry expert oh13voter has so much to say about "facts" but never posts anything to back up his opinions. Must be a shill.

Suggest removal:

95oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

It's called a nuisance settlement. There was already a methane venting system on her home;it was not functioning. The company fixed it to shut her up.
After the system was fixed the methane level dropped.
Gee, if there wasn't methane in her water well prior to drilling why was there a methane venting system on the water well?

Suggest removal:

96oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The Dept. of Energy, The Dept. of the Interior, USGS, Duke University, Ground Water Protection Council, PA DEP, ODNR, U.S. EPA etc. etc.

You obviously either can't read or have a problem with reading comprehension. All of the above were cited somewhere in my previous posts.

Now on the other hand you and ABC have only been able to provide rumors, hyperbole and misinformation from self serving money grubbers. The folks you cite dance to and sing the tue of the anti fossil fuel crowd in order to get their grant money.

Suggest removal:

97oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I write for those who read these threads so that they get the truth, and to expose the fallacies spread by the liberals on these threads.

Suggest removal:

9876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

So noble of you. Too bad it's only industry propaganda. Is this your full time job or working for the Board of Elections?

Suggest removal:

99oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

No propaganda, all facts.

Suggest removal:

100oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

That is a fact stated in the DEP review, there was a ventilation system, it was faulty. You have to stop getting your info from those leftist websites.

As I said, it was nuisance compensation, which is not an uncommon practice for corporations.

Suggest removal:

101oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

BTW, thanks for continuing to prove one of my points about liberals.; when you can't discuss a subject intelligently always use the personal attack to deflect from your lack of knowledge.

Suggest removal:

102oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I do not snidely call you a liberal.
I use that term directly.

BTW I did mention that fact the last time we discussed this non issue. Plus in a later video even the woman herself mentions it. Do a little research. Oh I forgot, liberals hate research, they may just find facts and we all know how liberals hate facts.

Look, don't take my word for it, call the DEP yourself and ask for the report.

Suggest removal:

103dontbeafool(1313 comments)posted 1 year ago

I think it is hilarious that the right wing folks on here, when you disagree with them, they always start with the "left wing, extremist, liberal, tree hugging" name labeling.

Now some of the conservative right in this thread are getting a dose of their own medicine by being labeled liberals, because they oppose fracking.

I also find it ironic that their conservative party that they support are the ones who support big oil the most, and have the motto, "drill baby drill'.

Suggest removal:

104oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Most, if not all, of the stories about water well pollution are over five years old and from PA.

Here in OH there have been 735 Utica Shale wells drilled and completed not one story of water well pollution. So where is all this pollution we have heard of.

This is called the Chicken Little Syndrome, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Making continuous false claims without anything ever happening,-.
fracking causes, pollution, fracking causes pollution.

Why? Hydraulic Fracturing does not pollute. The process can't . The claims are false.

Here is a challenge for you fractivists:
Cite one proven incidence of pollution caused directly by hydraulic fracturing. Should be easy if this is as bad as you all claim it is. I won't be holding my breath.

Suggest removal:

105oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

It's not a matter of labels it's a matter of principle. What do you believe in ?
Conservatives believe in the concepts of our founding fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Liberals do not hold the same beliefs.
From your posts I believe you are a liberal.

Suggest removal:

106oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Where is the proof of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing ?

As usual you liberals don't have an answer.

Over 50,000 shale wells completed using horizontal drilling and "high volume" hydraulic fracturing; not one incident of pollution due to "high volume" hydraulic fracturing. NOT ONE !

It's nonsense that hydraulic fracturing causes pollution.

Readers of this thread should observe that the liberals have not taken the challenge. The only response has been from the liberal ABC with a personal attack; which is a typical liberal response.

Suggest removal:

107oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Over 50,000 shale wells drilled and completed using high volume hydraulic fracturing.

Not one, again, not one incident of pollution due to high volume hydraulic fracturing. Not one !

Bring it on liberals !

Suggest removal:

10876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Oh13voter: Liberals tend to be Democrats, Conservatives Republicans, and Independents do not vote for the party but tend to vote for the individual that comes closest to their ideas and beliefs. ABC is an independent. Ever hear of that term over there at the Board of Elections office? Why do you insist on labeling people?

Suggest removal:

109oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Still no takers of the challenge, just diversionary tactics. Typical of liberals.

Suggest removal:

110thirtyninedollars(407 comments)posted 1 year ago

actually there have been 6 confirmed contaminated wells in Ohio since 2010, 4 in the last year alone. Not nearly as many as other states are reporting. Why? Could be reporting guidelines or different geology. Maybe it's a fracking technique they are using here due to population density vs more rural areas? Some of these questions are probably closely guarded industry secrets like the toxic brew they use to inject into the wells.

Suggest removal:

11176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

$39: Or could be the gag orders.

Suggest removal:

11276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: Define pollution. Air, water, land, noise or light?

Suggest removal:

113oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

not due to hydraulic fracturing.

Suggest removal:

114oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


There are no gag orders, that is an urban myth.

Pollution, any of those. Hydraulic fracturing hasn't been the cause of any pollution.

Suggest removal:

115oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Please cite the six incidences using reliable sources like the ODNR, EPA. Not the hearsay that is so prevalent on this site.

Suggest removal:

116oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

First that is in PA. Second the suit was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Finally, anyone can sue over anything, it doesn't mean the suit is valid.

Now, as I have said before, here in Ohio there is no gag order, and I have posted in the past the ORC sections to prove it. Don't believe me then do some research. It gets really tiresome that you liberals continue to post false info after it's been debunked.

Suggest removal:

117oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


The lawsuit was frivolous, it was based on his opinion and interpretation of the legislation that there "could" be a gag order, not that there actually was one.

Suggest removal:

118oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Cite one actual case where a medical provider was refused information needed to treat a patient. Stop with this nonsense about a frivolous law suit.

Just one verified incident. This is similar to my challenge to cite one proven case of hydraulic fracturing causing pollution.

Why am I so confident ? Because I know none of you can do it. There has never been an incidence of pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing, and there has never been an incidence where a medical care provider has been denied necessary information.

Suggest removal:

119oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


A petition by uninformed people, so what?
As far as truthfulness you should check your sources. They make money off of being anti shale development.
Then they allow people such as yourself to spread the misinformation

No they do not need to sign anything, read the ORC. Cite one incidence where this has occurred.
You guys really need to stop making stuff up.Prove me wrong cite one incidence where a medical provider has had to sign a gag order. Good luck, I won't be holding my breath.

Suggest removal:

120oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


So let me get this straight, you can't cite an incidence of medical providers being denied info in order to treat a patient, and you can't cite an incidence of a gag order here in Ohio.
So where is the problem ? There isn't one, this is just another scare tactic used by you anti shale activists.

Suggest removal:

121oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


BTW - the lawsuit filed by the physician you cited and the people pushing the petition you cite "claim" they will be denied info needed to treat patients. Do some research, stop parroting everything you read on those leftist liberal web sites you frequent.

Suggest removal:

12276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: you said:
"Cite one proven incidence of pollution caused directly by hydraulic fracturing"
"Hydraulic Fracturing does not pollute. The process can't"
"Pollution, any of those. Hydraulic fracturing hasn't been the cause of any pollution"
"There has never been an incidence of pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing"

oh13voter: pay special attention to words in caps below from the following article http://www.cleveland.com/court-justic...

...U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach and Randall Ashe, special agent in charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Ohio, said Lupo must be held accountable for his crime.

...“Those who make it their business to harvest from under Ohio its great natural resources, have a responsibility to the men, women and children who drink its water, live on its land and breathe its air. And they have a duty to follow the law," Dettelbach said.

Ashe said, “As natural gas exploration continues, it must be done in a way that ensures the drilling byproducts are treated and disposed of safely and legally.”

...Nugent sentenced Lupo’s former employee, Michael Guesman, 34, of Cortland, to three years probation last week after he pleaded guilty to the same CLEAN WATER ACT CRIME as his boss."

..There was no plea bargain. Lupo pleaded guilty to the indictment, which charges him with the unpermitted discharge of POLLUTANTS under the federal Clean Water Act.

...The wastewater was a byproduct of Lupo’s HYDRAULIC FRACTURING operations — commonly known as “FRACKING”

...admitted dumping the POLLUTED water into the drain on at least 20 occasions between Nov. 1, 2012, and Jan. 31, 2013.

Suggest removal:

123oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You are sad.
Lupo did not operate a business that provided hydraulic fracturing.
There was no hydraulic fracturing at the Northstar site, and the EPA never cited hydraulic fracturing as the source of pollution. The source of the pollution was the intentional dumping of oilfield waste. Your post even cites this.
Pathetic, this wasn't even a good effort. Just you again making stuff up.

Suggest removal:

124oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

BTW the words in caps in the article were put there by the author.

Again, pathetic.

I still stand undefeated in the challenge. Hydraulic fracturing has never caused pollution.

Suggest removal:

12576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter Sad to say but you are in denial. That's ok. Loss has 5 stages. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. You and you will get there at some point. You may want to consider counseling in order to help you through.

These are the author's words. I put them in caps to highlight the fact that the crime of POLLUTING the water was caused by wastewater, a byproduct of Lupo's hydraulic fracturing operation.

You wanted one instance, but in fact under Lupo's direction, the tributary was polluted on at least 20 occasions.

Suggest removal:

126oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


The pollution of the tributary was due to an intentional dumping of water not the process of hydraulic fracturing. Nowhere in the EPA or ODNR documents do they cite hydraulic fracturing as the cause of the pollution.

Once again you just make stuff up to fit your agenda, the truth doesn't matter.

Suggest removal:

12776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Environmental disasters can be either accidental or man made.

Per the EPA: "The waste water was a by product of Lupo's hydraulic fracturing operations - commonly known as "fracking". "

As long as this barbaric method is being used to extract natural gas from the earth we risk polluting our environment at many steps of the process.

There alternative methods available but the cost is higher. The industry is playing Russian roulette with our lives in order to save a buck.

Suggest removal:

128oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

That statement is not "per the EPA". Those are the words of the autor of the article. Again you misinform.

Suggest removal:

129oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


These anti shale folks rant on and on about pollution from shale development, the dangers of endocrine disruptors, carcinogens etc. without any proof of any of that.

Yet there is study after study showing that automobile exhaust does put all of that into our air in quantities that affect human health. Do you hear a word about this from these self proclaimed protectors of the environment ? No, of course not, it's called hypocrisy..

Suggest removal:

130oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The Chicken Little Syndrome.

At the beginning of shale development the whacko environmentalists would cry fracking pollution, fracking pollution, and the media would come running, printing one false story after another.

Have you noticed that there been fewer of stories? The reason is that the media got tired of running to cover and report false stories of pollution. They got tired of being made suckers.

Just as the towns people stopped listening to Chicken Little, the media has stopped listening to the false claims of the environmentalist whackos.

Suggest removal:

13176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Randall Ashe, special agent in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency's criminal enforcement program in Ohio, said the case sends a signal to the state's growing energy industry.

"As natural gas exploration continues, it must be done in a way that ensures the drilling byproducts are treated and disposed of safely and legally," he said. "This case demonstrates that if companies and their owners skirt environmental laws, EPA will hold them accountable."

According to court documents, Hardrock's facility in Youngstown had about 58 mobile storage tanks holding a combined 20,000 gallons of waste, including oily mud and chemical-laced brine. Lupo directed an employee to empty some of the liquid waste into a nearby drain after everyone else had left the facility and after dark, the papers said.

A sample of the discharge collected Jan. 31, 2013 — the last night the dumping occurred — was black in color and contained several hazardous pollutants, including benzene and toluene.
- See more at: http://thecontributor.com/environment...

Suggest removal:

132oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Gag orders don't exist, you are reading opinions, interpretations. In fact there is no gag order.
In fact those people are wll known anti fossil fuel activists. Please, do some research, stop relying on your leftist liberal web sites.

You need to show some proof not just an opinion; where has a gag order been used? I'll save you some time NEVER! It's a bogus argument; you liberals always do this, throw out bogus issues to deflect from the real issue.

After twenty years of use,the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has provided our economy an inexpensive abundant source of energy with minimal environmental impact. The people who benefit the most from this are the poor and the elderly. But like a typical liberal you would even throw them under the bus just so you don't have to admit you are wrong.

The only thing you folks have are bogus scare tactics like the mythical gag order.

Suggest removal:

133oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


I almost forgot, how are your friends Bigfoot and the Unicorn? Aren't they really the ones who told you about the gag order ?

Suggest removal:

134thirtyninedollars(407 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter even if I did the legwork again to post the links from the odnr site you would still come up with yet another reason why it isn't valid. Go do your own homework instead of being a shill for the oil industry.
I'm not going to hold your hand when you can google like any other person.
But you won't because you just want to argue.

Suggest removal:

135oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


We live in Ohio and the Ohio Medical Association is satisfied with the legislation and regulations here in Ohio with regard to information sharing. Your continued posting about the "opinion" of the American Medical Association (along with others) is nothing more than a scare tactic, fear mongering. Without proof that "gag orders" actually exist it is only an opinion, nothing more.
How many gag orders have been imposed in Ohio?
Gag Orders are mythical creations of the liberal mind.

Suggest removal:

136oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

"Shale development reduces energy costs for American consumers (especially the poor and elderly)"
"Shale development credited for declining emissions in the U.S."
"Shale development brings manufacturing back to America"
"100 Utica Shale projects worth over $18 billion dollars in investment"
"New study confirms the environmental benefits of natural gas"

Suggest removal:

137oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I just read Act 13 again this afternoon, there is not a "gag order" in it, or anything close to it.
It's just another made up fear mongering item.

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling!
There's a Gag Order, There's a Gag Order !

Sorry Chicken Little, neither is true.

Suggest removal:

138oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Both the Society of Medicine in PA and the Ohio Medical Association researched the issue of reporting with regard to medical professionals and oil and gas chemicals, each has found the situation acceptable.
You continue to cite the AMA concerns which are from two years ago, so it's old news. Since I live in Ohio and the state medical association has no problem with this issue I am satisfied. The folks in PA should be also be satisfied.
Only folks such as yourself hang onto this non-issues such as this.

Suggest removal:

139oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

All those doctors? First: the AMA membership is only about 20% of the doctors in the U.S.. Second: prior to writing any opinion the AMA does not survey it's membership to find out if the membership agrees with the opinion. Therefore, the opinion of the AMA represents a small minority of doctors.
I place far more reliance on the Ohio Medical Association and it's opinion which has come down on the side of the disclosure regulations in the ORC.
The problem you have is that you are arguing a minority opinion. You continual call me a liar (a typical liberal tactic) yet do not provide any proof. I on the other hand have never attacked your character.
The problem we have here is that you deal in opinion and I deal in facts. The fact is that there is no proof that there is a gag order in Ohio. I offer you another challenge, show where a doctor has been issued a gag order in Ohio.
The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling. Have a good night Chicken Little.

Suggest removal:

14076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: "The problem we have here is that you deal in opinion and I deal in facts. The fact is that there is no proof that there is a gag order in Ohio. I offer you another challenge, show where a doctor has been issued a gag order in Ohio"

You are a funny guy!

Gag Order: Noun
law : an order by a judge or court saying that the people involved in a legal case cannot talk about the case or anything related to it in public. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

Suggest removal:

14176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

COLUMBUS – The Ohio Senate this afternoon passed Gov. John Kasich’s fracking bill, Sub. S.B. 315, by a vote of 27-6. The bill had been amended and passed by the Ohio Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee this morning. Committee Chair, Sen. Shannon Jones, had introduced the bill at Kasich’s request. Sub. S.B. 315 now goes to the Ohio House for consideration.

The only Senators voting “No” were Michael Skindell (D-23 Cleveland), Capri Cafaro (D-32 Trumbull, Ashtabula counties), Nina Turner (D-25 Eastern Cuyahoga county), Charleta Tavares (D-15 Columbus), Tom Sawyer (D-28 Summit, Portage counties) and Joe Schiavoni (D-33 Mahoning, Carroll, and Tuscawaras counties).

Among the changes introduced into the bill by the committee was the medical gag rule, which has already become law in Pennsylvania. The provision reads as follows:

(H)(1) If a medical professional, in order to assist in the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident associated with the production operations of a well, requests the exact chemical composition of each product, fluid, or substance and of each chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I) of this section, the person claiming the trade secret protection pursuant to that division shall provide to the medical professional the exact chemical composition of the product, fluid, or substance and of the chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is requested.

(2) A medical professional who receives information pursuant to division (H)(1) of this section shall keep the information confidential and shall not disclose the information for any purpose that is not related to the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident associate with the production operations of a well.

— Paul Ryder, Assistant Director, Ohio Citizen Action


Suggest removal:

142oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

76 and ABC,

Thanks for posting the exact wording of the ORC for Ohio. You made my point better than I could have. There is no gag order.

Suggest removal:

143oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You continually post about the AMA and other medical professionals expressing their concerns about the effect disclosure legislation would have on medical professionals. The main concern of these folks was that medical professionals would be prevented from speaking with each other about the care of a patient.
It is quite clear from the wording of the ORC that this is not the case. Thanks again for posting the wording and making my point; there is no gag order which will prevent medical professionals from doing their jobs.

Suggest removal:

144oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Just because someone is educated doesn't mean they can't do something "stupid" (your word).
In case of the non-existent "gag order" it's obvious that these educated people are not completely informed and are doing something "stupid".
On the other hand the Medical Society of PA and Ohio have both come out in support of the legislation. I suppose you think these organizations and their members are "stupid" because they don't agree with your position.

So let's review - we live in Ohio and as we see above the wording of the ORC section contains no gag order which would prevent medical professionals from treating patients, and finally, the Ohio Medical Association supports the legislation. I'm satisfied.

As usual you have presented a straw dog.

Suggest removal:

14576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

ohio13voter: The wording does not prevent medical professionals from treating patients. The wording prevents medical professionals from disclosing the information.

The can treat their patient but shut their mouth if they know that the chemicals in that well caused the problem with their patient. They are prohibited from warning the public about health dangers of fracking. That's like treating your patient with a communicable disease and not being able to warn others.

How do you feel about any other industry knowing that a potential problem exists yet forbids anyone from sharing information about it. Maybe the auto industry would like to do the same? If there is a parts defect we'll pay you for your injuries but don't tell anyone else about it. Fewer people that know, the longer it will take for people to realize that there is a problem. And heck, some of them might not even make the connection. Saves a ton of money!

I sincerely hope that you or any of your family members or friends will never experience any harm from this barbaric method of extracting natural gas. If they do, how will you feel about their physicians not being able to discuss the fact that others might also have been affected?

Suggest removal:

146oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You are incorrect, the wording specifically says that they may share the information.

There is no public health danger therefore no need for the doctors to use the information other than to treat their patient. Just another straw dog.

It is not a "barbaric" method of extracting natural gas. This is a form extraction that has been used for decades without any significant environmental or public health issues.

You folks just can't seem to understand that.

I feel completely confident that I and my family are safe grom harm due to shale development and in particular hydraulic fracturing. Why ? Because there is no proof that I or my family will ever be negatively impacted.

Suggest removal:

147oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Where you and the other leftists fail in your argument is this: There is nothing preventing medical personnel, patients etc. from informing the ODNR, EPA, Health Department etc that they believe a public health issue exists. At that point the proper regulatory body is free to investigate the claim.

Like I said this issue is nothing but a straw dog set out by you Chicken Littles.
The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling.

Suggest removal:

148oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Almost 60,000 shale wells drilled and completed using this "barbaric" method; not one significant public health problem, not one.

Suggest removal:

149oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I would suggest to you that most of the doctors who are opposed have never even read ACT 13 or our ORC. It's my belief they are acting strictly on misinformation provided to them.
Case in point; a friend of mine is a physician in PA. His opinion of the shale industry was not very high based upon what he had been told. Once I spoke with him and offered the other side of the story (the truth) his opinion changed.

Please cite an incidence of corruption related to the Ohio EPA or ODNR. Just one.

Yes I believe that the Ohio EPA and ODNR "get's in the way" of the shale industry. In fact the Ohio EPA and ODNR just implemented , last Friday, regulations that only three other states have in place. The new regulations require operators to test all equipment for leaks of "fugitive gas" using infrared equipment, quarterly. Plus the operators must report the results of the tests and make necessary repairs in a timely manner. Only three other states have this regulation.

Almost 60,000 shale wells horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured, can you cite one time where a gag order was imposed on a medical professional ? No? Didn't think so.

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling.

Suggest removal:

15076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

3 states have regulations that operators test equipment for leaks. Does that mean that the industry is being responsible in the other 47 so that they don't need to be told to to test for "fugitive gas". Besides, oh13voter, who cares if the "fugitive gas" escapes. It's perfectly harmless according to you!

Suggest removal:

15176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

13: post #225
1. Read it again. "shall not disclose the information for any purpose that is not related to the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident. Period. Warning the public is not diagnosing or treating an individual.

2. You claim that there are no potential public health dangers yet this industry takes from our drinking water sources, returns it to the environment polluted with chemicals by injecting it into the ground, open pits and illegal dumping into our rivers, streams and tributaries. Our air is being contaminated with the exhaust from equipment and the release of methane gas. The integrity of land is being tested by the process. Earthquakes are being felt in places that had never before experienced them. We are what we eat and we depend on the environment being free from dangers when we grow our food and feed our livestock.

By the way, The California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water on April 8 passed SB 1132, legislation that will place a moratorium on fracking (hydraulic fracturing) and well stimulation until the state fully studies the impact of the oil extraction on California's air and water quality, public health and economy.

Suggest removal:

152oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

76 ABC,
Where is proof of the environmental harm ? Where is proof of the gag orders. You guys and your leftist web sites.

The Sky I Falling and hit you guys on the head.

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have been used in almost 60,000 shale wells. No unmanageable environmental issues (certainly none caused by hydraulic fracturing), Oh and guess what ? No gag orders.

Suggest removal:

153dontbeafool(1313 comments)posted 1 year ago


What we all knew all along! Well, what most of us would admit anyway.

Suggest removal:

154oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

That bill in CA is going nowhere, the Governor opposes it. So even if it were to pass it will be vetoed.
Just because some leftist legislators in the most leftists state in the country come up with an ill conceived piece of legislation proves nothing.
Your public health concerns are unfounded.
There is nothing in the code in Ohio that prevents a physician or anyone from contacting an appropriate agency and expressing their concern of potential health problem. Nothing. You are using a typical liberal tactic - fear mongering.
Please cite the passage in the code that states that a medical professional , or anyone, may not express a concern about a potential public health issue. This ought to be good.
But what difference does it make ? According to you and ABC, all of our government officials are on the payroll of the oil and gas companies. Of course neither of you has presented any proof of this, typical liberals, unwilling to provide proof.
Fear Mongering = The Sky is Falling

Suggest removal:

155oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Last year the CA legislature passed SB4 the new oil and gas regulations (including allowing fracking) for the state. The legislation was signed by Governor Brown. During the debate there was an attempt by legislators to include a ban/moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, one such amendment was defeated 56-24 in the CA House. In other words the Governor and state legislature is squarely behind shale development including hydraulic fracturing.
So your point about CA SB 1132 is moot. You really need to stop just cutting and pasting stuff from the lerftist web sites you visit. Try understanding an issue just once, but of course i doubt that will happen because we all know how you liberals hate facts.

Suggest removal:

15676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

"According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, babies born near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have birth defects."


Suggest removal:

157oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You really need to stop cherry picking info out of articles to fit your twisted agenda. It's just too easy to discredit your posts.
For example: from the same article; "The researchers hypothesize living near hydraulic fracturing, or fracking sites, may increase the risk of some birth defects. " It's just a theory, and a bad one at that. Also note that they researcher are careful to cover their buuts by using qualifiers such as ..."may" increase the risk...Also from the article; "The researchers did not take into account the mothers' education, smoking, age, ethnicity, and the combination of smoking and alcohol use." Gee I wonder why those factors weren't considered? Because those are prime factors in many of the health risks identified in the study. Could it be that the researchers had a preconceived conclusion, an agenda. Yes that is the answer, in fact this same outfit has put other garbage studies in the past with an anti oil and gas slant. Each time those studies were debunked.
In fact 76 if you did some research away from your polluted leftist websites you would find that this study has also been debunked.
Further: here is what the lead researcher (Lisa McKenzie) had to say about her own study "... that the study doesn't definitively prove that natural gas development causes anything..." How3 about this from the Colorado Department of Health:"... we disagree with many of the specific associations with the occurrence of birth defects noted within the study. Therefore, a reader of the study could easily be misled to become overly concerned."
76, did you get that ? "...could be easily misled..." Gee do ya think that was the intention of the report? Of course it was.
Or howw about this quote from the CDH- "the study did not consider other the effects of other risk factors..." Or this from the Chief Medical Officer, "I would tell pregnant women who live, or who at the time of their pregnancy, lived, in proximity to a gas well not to rely on this study... many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored in this study.
I could go on and on with quotes from the Colorado Dept. of Health debunking the study, but I think you get the point. 76, just like most of your posts it's pure garbage.

Suggest removal:

158oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Hey Repub,

Ever hear of the First Amendment ? Oh, that's right I forgot. You libs hate the Constitution, just too much freedom there for you.

Suggest removal:

15976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, babies born near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have birth defects.

oh13voter says: "The researchers did not take into account the mothers' education, smoking, age, ethnicity, and the combination of smoking and alcohol use."

I'm sure research will show that only low educated, alcoholic smokers live near fracking sites.

Suggest removal:

160oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Typical liberal tactic ; avoid the facts and attack people. You don't even know these people and you're attacking the.
Talk about lack of education; only seeking info from one source (leftist websites) is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Continually ignoring facts and believing rumors is a sign of a lack of intelligence (I'm talking about you).

The conclusion of the study was pre-conceived and has been showed to be a fraud by the Colorado Dept. of Health.

Suggest removal:

16176Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Aw 13, did I hit a nerve? Remember, when you point a finger, 3 others are pointing back at you.

13 loves to call everyone liberal and say sources are from leftist websitea, lack of intelligence, yada yada yada, but he derives all of his info from the industry propaganda websites to misquote articles.

The fact is that this article was quoted in yale.edu, medicaldaly.com, kidshealth.org, nh.gov, sanfordhealth.org, akronchildrens.org, epa.gov, dph.georgia.gov... should I keep going to list 77,000 or more sites? Which of these are the leftist websites you claim?

It is a known fact that exposure to toxic chemicals cases birth defects and whenever you see a rise in incidence, especially 30% it is definitely a red flag.

Suggest removal:

162kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Almost every comment on this thread is pure conjecture by rank amateurs who have very little technical or scientific knowledge- which includes anything I might have to say which is why I won't say anything- Only exception to above is Walts Comment- coming from somebody with an Engineering Background- what he says Is Persuasive. Everything else reminds me of the kind of stuff you hear in Barbershops- Bullsh-t and Blather.

Suggest removal:

163oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

So a dozen or so liberals quote the article, and then lefties such as yourself spread it around the internet, so what ?Iit still is a garbage study. The Colorado Department of Health is not a conservative organization and that is my source. All you have is some proven leftists producing a biased study. BTW, there was not a 30% rise in birth defects as pointed out by the Colorado Department of Health, no red falg.

ABC, I am not against anyone expressing a concern about our environment. I object to nonsense, such as the study posted by mind numbed drones such as 76.

Suggest removal:

164oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


According to your "red flag" theory you should never even leave the house, because there is a better than even chance of you being involved in a tragic life altering incident.

Like I have said several times; The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling. Don't go outside it will hit you.

Suggest removal:

165oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

ABC, 76,

It's obvious that you not even read the articles or sites that you post. For example the ones you just cited in the last two posts. Those sites do not offer a critical analysis of the Colorado study, all they do is reference it and parrot the attention grabbing head line. So your citation of them is of no consequence.

However, I have cited as my source the Colorado Dept. of Health which has performed a review of the study and found it to be bogus.

Suggest removal:

16676Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: The study was found to be bogus you say? “Our findings are far from representing a causal effect,” says McKenzie

Remember another famous industry's in our history and their push to sell their product? Tips from the tobacco industry playbook:

~Manufacture uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence showing their products to be hazardous to human health.”
~Adopt a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.” In the minds of the public, the message is more believable if it comes from a seemingly independent source.
~Promote scientific spokespeople who misrepresented scientific findings or cherry-picked facts to mislead the public
~Say that the opposition’s case was not based on sound science.
~Cultivate close ties with government officials and members of congress

Suggest removal:

167oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Finally something upon which we agree; anyone who does not enjoy the discussion does not have to read it.

Suggest removal:

168oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


You are sad, and your reading comprehension still hasn't improved. Your quote about a "casual link" actually strengthens my point, McKenzie may have said that but the study does not back up the claim. And remember, she also said this "...that the study doesn't definitively prove that natural gas development causes anything...", and she is the lead author.
This discussion is not about an ad campaign, it's about science, and that science comes down on my side of the discussion. Even actual results are on my side, almost 60,000 shale wells horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured without any of the chicken little claims which you make.
Your style of presenting information is sad, cherry picking, cut and paste, take out of context information which supports your unfounded, delusional point of view. All the while ignoring information from the same sources which completely debunks that perverted view.
What about the landfills nearby, or the industrial complexes in the areas where the women lived, or the fact that most of the women lived in urban areas where automobile exhaust is heavy ? Interesting how the researchers didn't research any other source of toxins and included only one industry in the study. Could it be that their study was biased, with a pre-conceived conclusion ?

Consider this from the Colorado Dept of Health, this is only one of a dozen reasons it gave for dismissing the study;
"... the authors cite nearly three pages of limitations to their findings (pages 14-16). And, the findings showed only association, not causation, and the statistical differences in birth defects were miniscule."
"...only association..." in other words they only showed the association between where the women lived and the proximity of the wells, they never connected the wells to the women or the birth defects. To give you an example of how shoddy this work is allow me this association, within 10 miles of where the women lived were grocery stores, pharmacy's, ice cream parlors, fast food places, malls etc. etc. By the standards set by the authors of this study we could conclude there was an association with the establishments I just listed.

Suggest removal:

169oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

All of the claims made by thee geologists, doctors, and scientists which you have cited have been debunked and shown to be bogus. Most of these people have been shown to be connected in one way or another with anti oil and gas environmental groups. Further, many of those people which you cite receive funding, through grants, from those same groups and organizations. But of course their work isn't biased at all. Yeah right !
And before you go into one of your tirades about anyone who disagrees with being on the take from the oil and gas companies, I suggest that you do some research and read what the Colorado Dept of Health has to say about the bogus study 76 keeps citing. Or are they on the take too?

See how Chicken Little that sounds ?
Everyone's on the take, Everyone's on the take !

Suggest removal:

17076Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

13: I have to laugh! You are so predictable!

~ Manufacture uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence showing their products to be hazardous to human health.”
~ Adopt a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.” In the minds of the public, the message is more believable if it comes from a seemingly independent source.
~ Promote scientific spokespeople who misrepresented scientific findings or cherry-picked facts to mislead the public
~ Say that the opposition’s case was not based on sound science.
~ Cultivate close ties with government officials and members of congress
~ When all else fails call them a liberal.

Suggest removal:

171kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

"Almost every comment on this thread is pure conjecture by rank amateurs who have very little technical or scientific knowledge- which includes anything I might have to say which is why I won't say anything- Only exception to above is Walts Comment- coming from somebody with an Engineering Background- what he says Is Persuasive. Everything else reminds me of the kind of stuff you hear in Barbershops- Bullsh-t and Blather".

Nothing has changed since I first said above, sad to say. It's all junk. Walt talked about specifics coming from a scientific background. I like Barbershop Bull same as anyone, but enough's enough!

Suggest removal:

172cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....in a previous thread walt stated that if too many solar panels were installed that they would use up all the energy from the sun. I'm paraphrasing but that's what he said and that is the science your boy walt uses. I'm not surprised he makes sense to you.

Suggest removal:

173kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Cambridge, are you sure you're not misrepresenting or misquoting Walt here? Could you name the thread or do a "cut and paste" and supply the entire comment, so I can read for myself?

Actually, I like the concept- using up the Sun with oversized Panels- sounds like the kind of thing I might say in jest- Mad Magazine Stuff.

Suggest removal:

174cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....read posts 69, 70, 71 and 72. That's your boy walter's science.


Suggest removal:

175oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


You described the conduct of yourself and ABC perfectly, except for the last item. It should read:
When all else fails "deny" you are a liberal.

Suggest removal:

176oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Here is a headline I believe that you agree with:
Birth Defects Result of Fracking.
Yet the study cited in this article (Colorado School of Public Health) never, ever says this. Only sensational headlines have ever made that claim. Yet people such as yourself continue to use sensational headlines such as these to make your twisted, misinformed claims.

Suggest removal:

177oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

The corruption runs far deeper on your side of the discussion. Please read the following article:
The hypocrisy runs deep on the anti side.

Suggest removal:

178kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Ok, Cambridge, I read those posts- only 69 was by Walt- the rest by other people. You said: "in a previous thread walt stated that if too many solar panels were installed that they would use up all the energy from the sun." I asked: please lead me to that thread or "copy and paste" so I can read it for myself. So far you haven't done so. I mean, what's up dude? Too busy soaking up the Frisco rays to bother- or maybe had a bit too much of the (medicinal, ha. ha.) Pot?

Walts Comment made good sense- talked about different building standards in your lovely state- sitting on a major seismic fault- and Ohio a far more stable region. Only makes sense to liberal-loony birds to put up buildings the same way in both states.

Suggest removal:

179cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....like I said I was paraphrasing. Look it up if you don't know what that means. I also said his science would make sense to you and obviously I was right about that too. You both think you're experts on everything until you get called on it then you slink away and pretend you never noticed being asked to back up your BS.

I'm still waiting to hear how much time you've actually spent in San Francisco, you know the place you claim to be such an expert on.

Suggest removal:

180kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Look, Cambridge, I don't give a rat's ass about Frisco. I'm sure its a great place and you sound like you're really happy there. Good for you. Just do me a favor- stop "bobbing and weaving" and be direct- just lead me to the thread- or "copy and paste"- so I can read for my little itsy-bitsy self what Walt actually said. Ok, is that too much to ask? I Don't want your "paraphrases"- I want to read what the man actually said, OK?

Suggest removal:

181kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

I just wish Walt would get on and talk about this. I can't believe he actually said that. Cambridge's 'paraphrasing" reminds me of Big Daddy Pollits in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"- he came out and he said he smelled deceit and Bullsh-t and he said: "I smell Mendacity! There's Mendacity in this Room!"

Well, there's Mendacity on this Thread- and guess where it's coming from? Northern California- Frisco- Mendacity!

Suggest removal:

182cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....what walt "actually" said was, "Once you capture energy from the sun plant life will die". That's your boy walt's "actual" science.

Regarding your previous lectures on San Francisco and your refusal to tell me how much time you've "actually" spent there I'll assume you've never been there at all. Just one more thing you try and pass your self off as an expert on when in reality you know nothing about.

Suggest removal:

183kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Cambridge- You still haven't answered my question. Can you lead me to the thread in question so I can read the ENTIRE COMMENT and not just your EDITED VERSION

Suggest removal:

184kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

As far as my views on San Francisco are concerned- this discussion has nothing to do with that. I'm sure it's a great place- I've never, unfortunately, had the privilege of going there and I envy you. So there, I said it.

Suggest removal:

18576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: The hypocrisy of your comparison is that this article states for one thing that "Wealthy foundations fighting oil and gas extraction around the country have incorporated ostensibly dispassionate news outlets into their grant-making portfolios, creating what some describe as a self-sustaining environmentalist echo chamber."

"The Park Corp has granted nearly $40 million to environmentalist groups since its creation."

"Political observers see Park as a major force in the fracking debate, especially at the state level."

Now let's compare that to the oil/gas industry money being spent and where they are putting their money. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012...

Oh, and also interesting to note: Oil and gas companies are funding research at major universities to counter environmental objections to shale gas drilling. - See more at: http://www.dcbureau.org/201302218310/...

Suggest removal:

186cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....I provided the link above and his comment is number 69. The quote I provide was not edited it is exactly what he said. You can pretend he didn't say it or try and spin it all you want but it's right there. It's what your hero and mentor said. It actually gets funnier every time I read it.

Suggest removal:

18776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Here is the funny science quote from Walter http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/sep/07... (comment #69)

" Let me explain this to you simply: there is insufficient energy coming to the earth daily to provide adequate power for mankind's energy requirements plus growing crops. Once you capture the energy from the sun, plant life will die. Thus, we use stored energy in fossil fuels, or petroleum, which could be abiotic, or geothermal. But, this whole "green" energy sham is only possible on large scales with government tax credits or the threat of additional taxes because of some company's bogus "carbon footprint".

And yet another funny... (comment #72)

"If I put solar panels on my roof, I can generate electricity. If my neighbor erects panels larger and higher than mine, will I generate electricity in the shade?

Suggest removal:

188oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

I must admit that you never cease to amaze.
thinkprogress, dcbureau ? Two well known leftisr webs sites and squarely on the side of the anti-fossil fuel crowd. Hardly credible. All you have to do is read each article and see who the authors hold up as icons, for example the continually discredited Dr.Ingraffea along with his completely debunked paper with Dr. Howarth.

Then there is the old story misusing the profits of oil and gas companies. What is never reported is the percentage of profit. The reason this is never reported is the dishonesty of the authors. Actual percentage of profit ranks low when compared to other corporations, aproximately 7%.vs 12 and more.

Of course neither article mentions the funding to schools from anti-fossil fuel foundations etc. Not to mention the billions of tax payer dollars wasted on grants for alternative energy.

Hypocrisy thy name is 76, or ABC.

Suggest removal:

18976Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter predictable as always, following the playbook! LOL

Suggest removal:

190oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Yes it is true, I am predictable. You can always count on me to present reasoned, logical, fact based information.

And I can pay you, and 76, the same compliment of being predictable. You always present, rumor, hyperbole, misinformation and rhetoric, never any facts.

Suggest removal:

191kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Well, thank you both for taking me to that link. I will certainly study it carefully- much better than somebody's "paraphrase". This issue is extremely complex and deserves a lot of study. I do like Walt's comments concerning Nuclear Energy- that's something we've underutilized this country and should look at. Other countries, France for instance, generate the bulk of their electricity that way and- when properly maintained- those plants are extremely safe.

As far as ABC's comment: "Kurtw....if you don't like what any of us have to say on here, simply x out of the discussion. You're not the final word on anything.

Plus, Walter probably doesn't want you crushing on him so much. He's like your idol or something apparently."

I don't pretend to have the final word on anything- especially an issue as complicated as this one- and I said in my comment that I thought Walt's statement made good sense and the rest of the thread- most of it was "Bullsh-t and Blather"- the kind of junk you hear in Barbershops. I haven't changed my mind about that but, of course, that's just my opinion. It is, I believe, a PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD, so why should I "x out" because somebody doesn't like what I have to say? I don't always like what other people have to say but I respect their right to say it.

Suggest removal:

192kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

You know this is a very long thread- 281 comments- and I've just started carefully reading some of them. When I made my original comment ("Bullsh-t and Blather") I glanced through the comments and was so struck by Walt's- which I agree with- and his professional credentials that I may have been a bit hasty with my "B&B" remark. There's many good comments on this thread- not just Walt's- and just because I disagree with a comment doesn't make it "B&B" (I like that "B&B"- I'm going to have to remember that one!).

Actually, I have an ulterior motive in stating the above- I've made over 700 comments- and thinking about some of them- I realize they fit squarely into the "B&B" category: a case of the words you use coming back to bite you in the Ass!

Suggest removal:

193oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


I would glad to take the lie detector.
I have substantiated all of my posts with factual information. Whereas, you and your cohort rely on rumors and bad science.

You should consider that i have been able to refute/debunk the info you post. On the other hand you have never been able to do the same with the info I post. Instead you resort to personal attacks like your last post.

Suggest removal:

194oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Here is what I am talking about; you and the other leftists environmental whackos claim that if shale development is allowed to continue, using the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, there will be (or has been)wide spread pollution of our land, water and air. That this pollution will (or has) caused serious health problems for people. That is all fear mongering, there is no fact to support your whacko claims.

The fact is that there have been over 50,000 shale wells drilled and completed in the U.S.. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing was used on each one of them. Yet there has not been any wide spread pollution of the water, land or air. Nor have there been any wide spread health problems, in fact there haven't been any health problems.

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling !

Sorry Chicken Little, it just isn't so and the facts prove it.

Suggest removal:

195kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13Voter: I've just spent time reading the comments on this thread and I have to compliment you on yours- they're excellent- of course, initially, I say that because I happen to agree with you- but mainly it's because you supply evidence for your views and you leave your opponents sputtering and gasping- as well as resorting to personal attack. I think the assault on the hydraulic fracturing industry by the organized left is another attempt to shut down an industry on ideological grounds- they don't like fracking because it works and for them that's bad- more greenhouse gases don't you know. They did the same thing with Nuclear Energy- shut that industry down- when other countries- for instance France- safely- obtain 70% of their energy that way (while were stuck at barely 20%). The sad truth is if we follow the recipe of the Left- Wind Power- Solar Power- Pedal Power- Foot Power- that's were we'd be- walking or riding bikes (Oh, yes, not all of us- the "Commissars" would have their SUV's and Mansions- "Ozone Man" Al- not exactly living a simple lifestyle with a private jet- that's how it works in Leftist Centralized Economies- think Soviet Union, think China, think Korea, think Cuba- the people in charge have everything they want while the ordinary people are expected to "do without" to satisfy the ideological fetishes of their masters.

Suggest removal:

196kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

For anybody who wants an alternate- and accurate- view of the Hydraulic Fracturing Industry a good way to start would be to rent the video "Truthland". I rented mine at the Girard Library (after having viewed "Gas Land" (yes, I look at both sides; no, I'm not a rabid ideologue) and the one scene that made the greatest impression on me was when the traveling host (the Pennsylvania lady with a dairy farm with leased gas wells who wanted to know the truth about fracking after watching "Gasland) visited a farm in southern New York- with no gas wells of any kind for miles around- and the farmer took her into his kitchen and demonstrated how his well water caught fire exactly as in "Gas Land" where that was used to show the hazards of fracking. Of course, the truth is that many soils are impregnated with methane gas that work their way into a well pipe line- it has nothing to do with fracking or gas drilling of any kind- it has to do with how the well is drilled- the depth of the well and the quality of the casing.

What really impressed me about "Truthland" is the objectivity of the presentation- she interviewed numerous geologists as well as landowners with long histories of hosting hydraulic fracking wells with no problems whatsoever. A number of farmers said gas-well's were a godsend for them and allowed them to keep their farms. The problem with contaminated well water, as a number of the geologists she talked to said, has more to do with the way the well is drilled- depth of the well- and especially- the quality of the casing.

Josh Fox's Opus, "Gas Land", on the other hand, reminded me of a horror-movie put out by Universal Studios. It can't be taken seriously as a legitimate documentary. It has to be seen as "agitprop" put out by dedicated Lefties to attack and destroy an industry by whatever means possible.

But don't take my word for it. Rent them both- the Girard Library has them- and draw your own conclusions.

Suggest removal:

19776Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw: Surely you are being facetious!

Oh13voter has posted 1189 comments and never a link to support his self proclaimed industry expert opinions. He gets his propaganda from the oil/gas industry websites to post during slow times down at the Board of Elections office.

Count on oh13voter to distort the facts and call everyone a liberal among other names. That's his game, he tries to bluff everyone into believing that what he says is truth.

Suggest removal:

19876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw: "The problem with contaminated well water, as a number of the geologists she talked to said, has more to do with the way the well is drilled- depth of the well- and especially- the quality of the casing"

Before you fall hook, line & sinker for drilling, know that horizontal hydraulic fracturing is different from traditional drilling and vertical fracking techniques that have been used for years. “Fracking”, has only been in standard use in the last 7-10 years. It drills thousands of feet vertically and then drills horizontally, up to 2 miles, with high velocity seismic injection of fracking fluid and sand. It uses hundreds of times more water (2-5 million gallons per frack and each well can be refracked multiple times). It then has to dispose of that water, contaminated by toxic fracking chemicals and the minerals that it brings up from underground (some radioactive, some of which can combine to make the highly toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide). About 50% of the toxified water remains underground. It takes longer than vertical fracking and requires a huge scale industrial operation, with massive heavy tanker truck traffic of about 1,200 tanker truck trips per frack (transporting clean water, fracking fluids, etc.)

Much has been discussed on this issue before. Check out this vindy link from one year ago: http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/apr/15...

Suggest removal:

199oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


Wrong as usual.
The technique of fracking is over 60 years old. Combining horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing is relatively new, 20 years ( not the 7-10 you and your mis-informed friends use).
Although the remainder of your post is full of misinformation I'll just leave it alone since it has all been debunked in the past by me.
Further, the proof is in the record. Over those twenty years there have been more than 50,000 shale wells developed using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. No major environmental or health problems.

kurtw, I would also suggest Frack Nation.

Suggest removal:

200kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

@kurtw: " But don't take my word for it. (or anybody Else's) Rent them both- the Girard Library has them- and draw your own conclusions."

Good point Kurt! That's exactly what I would have said.

Suggest removal:

201cambridge(3231 comments)posted 1 year ago

kurtw....who was it you were pretending you are in that last post? LOL, how many usernames do you have that you can't keep them straight? Busted!

Suggest removal:

20276Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

Who should we believe, oh13voter or...

Chevron "It is only over the past decade that energy companies have been able to economically unlock natural gas from shale by combining two established technologies: hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling" http://www.chevron.com/deliveringener...

ConocoPhillips: "ConocoPhillips operates oil and gas facilities around the world, including areas with impermeable rock known as tight shale formations. Because these formations require a relatively new combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to produce oil and gas, they are known as “unconventional resources.”

How about this from Range Resources: "The Marcellus Shale gas boom began with the drilling and hydraulic fracturing of the Renz Well in 2004.

Renz 1 was the first slick water frac east of the Mississippi, and is considered to be the 1st Marcellus Shale well drilled.


Suggest removal:

203kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Cambridge, it was a "joke", OK. Me commenting on Me!

Suggest removal:

204oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

Sadly you are so predictable.
Once again you cherry pick information to suit your warped agenda. Then you don't even read the stuff you post. Take for instance the article about Range; it clearly states that it is about the Marcellus shale. Well if you weren't so intent on cherry picking you would realize that the Barnett Shale of Texas was one of the first shales to be commercially developed. Further, Mitchell employed the first use combined use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. That was in the early 1990's. So let's see is that more than seven years ago ? according to my math it's about twenty years ago. You didn't even need to look very hard for this information on the internet.
Plus you continue to ignore the fact that over 50,000 shale wells have been drilled and completed since the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drlling have been combined. All with ut the gloom and doom mass environmental havoc you keep predicting.
Sad, as always.

Suggest removal:

20576Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago

oh13voter: At least I post sources leading to the facts. You however are intent on trying to debunk the facts with your mantra of "the technique of fracking is over 60 years old."

The fact remains that horizontal hydraulic fracturing is a totally different beast that has only come about in recent years. It wasn't until the late 1990's that slickwater was introduced. Don't confuse hydraulic fracturing with what you may think of as a pumpjack (also called nodding donkey, pumping unit, horsehead pump, rocking horse, beam pump, dinosaur, sucker rod pump (SRP), grasshopper pump, thirsty bird, or jack pump).

And I repeat:

It drills thousands of feet vertically and then drills horizontally, up to 2 miles, with high velocity seismic injection of fracking fluid and sand.
It uses hundreds of times more water (2-5 million gallons per frack and each well can be refracked multiple times).
It then has to dispose of that water, contaminated by toxic fracking chemicals and the minerals that it brings up from underground (some radioactive, some of which can combine to make the highly toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide). About 50% of the toxified water remains underground.
It takes longer than vertical fracking and requires a huge scale industrial operation, with massive heavy tanker truck traffic of about 1,200 tanker truck trips per frack (transporting clean water, fracking fluids, etc.)


Come up with a safe method of extracting gas and we'll all live happily ever after.

Suggest removal:

206oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

In this thread please cite where I spoke of hydraulic fracturing being 60 years old. Typical misinformation.

Just from your description of hydraulic fracturing it's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

I also find it interesting that you have continually insisted that hydraulic fracturing is only 7-10 years old yet in this recent post you say it began in the late 1990's (which isn't true). That would make the procedure over 15 years old. But you are incorrect, the initial commercial application of combining horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing was performed by Mitchell Energy about 1994. That is twenty years.

However, none of that really matters; there have been over 50,000 shale wells safely drilled and completed. There has been no massive environmental damage or health impacts as you have predicted.

You are wrong, this is a safe method of extracting natural gas.

BTW I love that you keep citing newspaper articles as sources, they are just stories.

Remember - 50,000 shale wells safely drilled. Come on let me hear you say it - 50,000 shale wells safely drilled.

Suggest removal:

207oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

You really should read the stories that you post. The vindy story has nothing to do with your last post.

I am going to type slowly so that you can understand this:

Yes a typical horizontal well is a larger operation than a vertical well. However, that one horizontal well will replace up to 20 vertical wells. Therefore, that one well has less surface impact and is better environmentally.

Yes the fracking process of a horizontal well is larger than that of a vertical well. The frack job of a vertical is for one well. the frack job of a horizontal well is similar to performing up to 20 frack jobs. Performing those 20 frack jobs on one site reduces the possibility of accidents and environmental damage. It's safer.

The whole idea of combining horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing is environmentally better.

As for the components of frack fluid; most of them can be found in your bathroom, laundry room and under your kitchen sink. Homeowners are not licensed or regulated in the use of those products. But the oil and gas industry is. The industry is regulated by no less than than eight federal laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act etc. Plus voluminous state and local regulations.

Remember, over 20 years there have been 50,000 (or more) shale wells drilled and completed using these products. No massive environmental impact as you have predicted.

the Sky Is Falling, the Sky Is Falling. NOT!

Suggest removal:

20876Ytown(1316 comments)posted 1 year ago


#231 "I also find it interesting that you have continually insisted that hydraulic fracturing is only 7-10 years old yet in this recent post you say it began in the late 1990's (which isn't true)"

#82 "I will admit that full scale use of this combination didn't begin until 1999"

#225 "The technique of fracking is over 60 years old"

#232 "No massive environmental impact as you have predicted"

13... Thank you for admitting that this new form of extraction does have an environmental impact. The fact remains that the chemicals used in this industry are being hidden from the public as "proprietary" under the "Halliburton loophole," Does pollution have to be massive in order to matter? What would be acceptable to you?

To speak on your level, I will type this slowly so that you understand... h o r i z o n t a l . h y d r a u l i c . f r a c t u r i n g . i s . n o t . y o u r . g r a n d m o t h e r ' s . d r i l l i n g .

I will agree to disagree with you on the entire subject. Period.

Suggest removal:

209oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

As usual you cherry pick information.
The facts are these:
Hydraulic fracturing is over 60 years old.

The combination of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling is newer. This does not change the fact that hydraulic fracturing is over 60 years old.

Drilling and hydraulic fracturing are not the same thing. The fact that you assume they are shows your complete lack of knowledge.

It's been settled that the chemicals in frac fluid are available to the public. Only extremists such as yourself won't accept that. There is no "halliburton loophole"/ This is another piece of misinformation that extremists continue to use just like the chemicals are secret. Both claims have been completely debunked.

You can agree to disagree with facts. Which you continually ignore.

Again: 50,000 shale wells drilled and completed no serious environmental impact or health impact. You continually ignore this when I post it. Please respond to my claim, just once.

Where are the massive environmental and health impacts you continue to predict ?

Over 20 years of use and 50,000 wells. Where are these massive negative impacts ?

Where ? No more of your nonsense. Where?

Answer the question.

BTW a certain amount of pollution has been acceptable for all of my life. Automobile emissions, emissions from power plants etc.

Suggest removal:

210kurtw(1154 comments)posted 1 year ago

Oh13- "Yes the fracking process of a horizontal well is larger than that of a vertical well. The frack job of a vertical is for one well. the frack job of a horizontal well is similar to performing up to 20 frack jobs. Performing those 20 frack jobs on one site reduces the possibility of accidents and environmental damage. It's safer."

That's a very convincing statement- fact that a horizontally drilled well reduces the environmental impact of conventionally drilled vertical wells. It makes good sense to me.

Unfortunately, it won't convince any of the "anti-fracking" zealots- with them it's a religious crusade- I get that feeling just reading the back and forth comments on this thread- they're the "Untouchables" in some kind of La-La Land all their own. All you can do is talk to the open-minded people who may be listening (who, hopefully, will decide the day). You've done that with your comments and I applaud you for that.

Suggest removal:

211oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago


I have been writing on these types of threads for about three years. It isn't about convincing the people that disagree withme; they are lost causes,as you said it's almost religious with them. There are far more people who read theses threads than post; it is they that I am writing for.

Suggest removal:

212oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

All the anti crowd has is an effort to create fear and apprehension in the public by using sensational false information.

The fact is that the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has been used in over 100,000 wells in the U.S. and Canada. One of the sensational fear mongering claims of environmental doom have come true. Nor have the unfounded claims of dangers to public health.

Suggest removal:

213oh13voter(1205 comments)posted 1 year ago

If you have to promote your point of view using negative fear mongering then it is not worth supporting.

So it is with the charter amendment. You never hear any of the proponents tell about the benefits; that's because there are none. All they have is fear mongering.

The amendment is an anti shale development piece of legislation. Notice I said " anti " it doesn't promote anything positive.

Shale development will have a "positive" impact in our area, help support that development - Vote No May 6th !

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