I and other opponents, of the charter amendment,knew and expressed our belief that the proponents of the anti fracking amendment had an ulterior motive. They want to control ALL business in the city.Just consider their own words "It's more than a fracking ban. It's about a community's right to allow what businesses come into the city".First: these people lied to the voters of Youngstown about their motives. On that point alone I would not support their amendment. Second: the city has a mechanism in place to control what businesses come into the city. It's called City Council, City Ordinances and zoning laws.The true issue here for the amendment is that these folks are in the minority and they can't take no for an answer. So they want to change the system in order to shove their radical agenda down the throats of the citizens of Youngstown.Fortunately the voters of Youngstown have seen through the misinformation about the amendment and have voted it down three times.Now admitting their ulterior motive will only doom the amendment to a fourth loss.
August 5, 2014 at 9:07 p.m.
This story is completely false.The study used to make this claim was a joke. The people who performed the study stated they were going to look for areas of high methane counts. Get that ? They went looking for it.They used 99 well sites and found 7 sites with high methane count and through out the 92 that didn't. Then they used the figures from the 7 entered it into a computer program which came up with the figures that supposedly dispute the EPA figures. You know what they say about computer programs ? Garbage in garbage out, and that's what this study is; garbage.
Typical anti shale misinformation. These people just can't tell the truth.
May 2, 2014 at 4:55 p.m.
The anti shale folks who are promoting the charter amendment cite ODNR incompetence as a reason for it's passage.
These new regs are more proof that we have a trusty worthy agency in the ODNR.
The effort to promote the charter amendment is nothing more than fear mongering. There is no basis to the negative claims and campaign.
I have always felt that in order to convince people of the validity of your position a positive message is the best course of action. Show me the benefits of voting for something. We don't have that with the charter amendment. Instead all we get is fear mongering.
VOTE NO MAY 6TH on the charter amendment.
April 25, 2014 at 1:29 p.m.
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 !
April 25, 2014 at 10:17 a.m.
The development of shale does not cause environmental ruin. This is all just fear mongering used to promote a nonsensical piece of legislation.If you have to use fear tactics to promote your point it instead of promoting the benefits then people should see that it isn't worth voting for.Fear is all the pro charter amendment folks have, they have never been willing to discuss the "merits" of the amendment. That's because there are none.
Vote No May 6th
April 25, 2014 at 10:12 a.m.
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.
April 25, 2014 at 10:07 a.m.
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.
April 25, 2014 at 8:16 a.m.
76,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.
April 24, 2014 at 8:44 p.m.
76,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!
April 23, 2014 at 8:32 a.m.
76,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.
April 23, 2014 at 8:12 a.m.