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

Drilling boom seen as potential boost for area towns

April 19, 2013

BELPRE— If drilling of the Utica Shale natural gas deposit makes its way into Washington County, towns like Belpre could see benefits to businesses as workers will need places to live and eat, said......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

gonefromMOV

Apr-19-13 6:55 AM

Methinks the freaks that chained themselves to poles in New Matamoras have found it easier to just create multiple fake IDs on the Marietta Times website.

Of course, the Times, being too lazy to proofread copy, lets them.

7 Agrees | 25 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

begame

Apr-19-13 8:48 AM

A "potential" booast? Is it worth the price that would have to be paid to health, the intrusion of big, trucks tearing out streets/roads, etc.?

21 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BeRight

Apr-19-13 11:07 AM

Natural Gas: Its clean... Natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels and is simply the best energy choice for the environment — It's domestic... 99% of the gas we use comes from North America — It's economical... Natural gas appliances are virtually maintenance-free It's efficient... It's multi-purpose... It's dependable... You never have to worry about weather, delivery schedules or running out. Remember the derecho? Everyone with a gas fired Generator had power.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BeRight

Apr-19-13 11:23 AM

This is how you influence these forums:

You get 10 Gmail or hotmail addresses-

You open up 10 tabs in your browser-

You sign in at the Times, one time in each tab, using one of your email addresses and never sign out of the Time site-

You can then quickly agree or disagree with a post in a matter of a minute by clicking and votig on each tab-

Some folks never turn off their computers- That is how it is done.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-19-13 9:15 PM

Health issues?? Fracking has been going on for YEARS.. The boost to local farmers and the economy outweighs any treehuggers concerns. They drive their gasoline powered cars out to chain themselves to oil rigs !! Idiots !! I think Greenpeace and the Sierra club are secretly funded by OPEC oil ministers so they can keep their monopoly on the oil industry and probably some secret funding from Al Qaida because we are stupidly scared of the treehuggers.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-19-13 9:18 PM

The water below 300 feet or so is unfit for human consumption anyhow !!It hasnt hurt the current water table to frack up to this point in time. People need to educate themselves on these subjects before they protest and make fools of themselves !!

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 7:59 AM

Pennsylvania officials didn't report toxic metals found in drinking water from a private well near a natural gas drilling site, according to legal documents and reported by Jon Hurdle of The New York Times reports. Seven plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against companies serving the gas industry that claims natural gas extraction by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, within a mile of their homes in southwestern Pennsylvania contaminated their drinking water and caused serious illnesses.

Toxicology tests on the plaintiffs found the presence of toluene, benzene and arsenic in their bodies, according to the complaint.

16 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 8:00 AM

Toluene and benzene, commonly used in fracking, are called BTEX compounds and are listed as contaminants in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Benzene and arsenic are known human carcinogens.

A spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) told the Times that oil and gas division officials only wanted to see the results they deemed relevant to determining whether drinking water was being contaminated, and that the remaining metals were below federal standards or had no standards attached to them.

Kendra Smith, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, countered that some of the 14 metals not reported in her client's tests have already been identified by industry studies as contaminants in water produced from oil and gas operations.

Smith told the Times that it could only be a "deliberate procedure” by the oil and gas division and the Bureau of Laboratories “to withhold critical water testing results.”

15 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 9:25 AM

Beginning in 2008, the EPA took water samples from resident’s drinking water wells, finding hydrocarbons and traces of contaminants that seemed like they could be related to fracking. In 2010, another round of sampling confirmed the contamination, and the EPA, along with federal health officials, cautioned residents not to drink their water and to ventilate their homes when they bathed because the methane in the water could cause an explosion.

To confirm their findings, EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1,000 feet. The agency released data from these test wells in November that confirmed high levels of carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, and a chemical compound called 2 Butoxyethanol, which is known to be used in fracking.

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 9:28 AM

thegreek says... People need to educate themselves on these subjects before they protest and make fools of themselves !!

I agree, let's start with You :-)

20 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 9:31 AM

The EPA said that pollution from 33 abandoned oil and gas waste pits – which are the subject of a separate cleanup program – are indeed responsible for some degree of shallow groundwater pollution in the area. Those pits may be the source of contamination affecting at least 42 private water wells in Pavillion. But the pits could not be blamed for contamination detected in the water monitoring wells 1,000 feet underground.

That contamination, the agency concluded, had to have been caused by fracking.

20 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 10:11 AM

Claims that what goes down a gashole (wellbore) or what is found down the hole cannot ever come back up into our groundwater aquifers or to the surface are just pure lies, and industry knows it. Landmen have zero integrity. They just want to make the big bucks by getting leases signed while the getting is good.

The amazing thing to me is how stupid the average person really is. First, the gas companies will tell you that what they put down there can never come back up because it is too deep and there are too many “impermeable” rock layers that protect the groundwater and surface. Then, when gas is found in water wells, creeks, rivers or lakes industry claims it is because the stuff has always been there, and that it comes from rock layers below the well, aquifer, creek, river or lake, and is a naturally recurring event.

For some crazy reason average people fail to see the contradiction in those two claims. The reason for that is a general lack of education and intellectual curios

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-20-13 10:12 AM

Very few are going to be the next Jed Clampett because of natural gas exploration.

21 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-20-13 5:07 PM

OK NascarNut. How come sewage bacteria that we put in the ground doesnt get into the groundwater??It is only 3 foot deep !! What about all the other chemicals that go into surface water??Yet you claim that frack water that is injected hundreds of feet down can weep back up and pollute groundwater?? How come it hasnt happened in the past??? We are way deeper now that ever..

1 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-20-13 5:12 PM

And gas and oil DO seep out of surface water naturally. Just drive on SR 37 over by New Lexington Ohio and you will see that.. Can you all prove that fracking pollutes or has killed or sickened anyone or is this another evil gun syndrome. Baseless.!!

1 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-20-13 8:36 PM

A person with a name like NascarNut is against developing our oil reserves here in the USA!!! Where do you think Nascar would be without petroleum?? Like I said, it is typical for treehuggers to drive their big expensive "gasoline powered vehicles" to oil rigs to chain themselves to them in protest!! Kind of ludicrist, dont you think??They should be walking there or riding a horse or bicycle for it to mean anything!!

1 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

scrappile

Apr-20-13 10:47 PM

As soon as AEP and others can figure out a way to patent sunshine, the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity will become a thing of the past. If those that trust what frackbackers say about no case of tainted water from this new style of fracturing wells, then let them go to these areas where the metals and chemicals found in fracking fluids are showing up in water wells, and drink a few gallons of this water.

16 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

scrappile

Apr-20-13 10:58 PM

Since liquids cannot be compressed, if a well is overfilled with fracking fluid, where is the only reasonable palce for the fluid to end up, why back at the point of injection of course, and as humans, we are not infallible, what was the verison spill, a bad cement job, that was allowed to continue for the profits, want that in S.E. Ohio, in the name of so few making so much, hopefully not.

18 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-21-13 1:10 AM

I am not a petroleum engineer or geologist but I would guess that with all the cracks, crevacises and caves under the earth surface, the possibility of deadheading the high pressure frack water would be very slim. That is why the engineers pick where to frack like they do.. It is not a coin toss.

1 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

thegreek

Apr-21-13 5:41 AM

Fracking has been done in TX, OK, NM, LA & AR on tens of thousands of oil-gas wells for decades without any major adverse enviromental impact to report

1 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-21-13 10:19 AM

A 2004 EPA study concluded fracking did not pose a risk to drinking water, helping lead to its exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The study was later criticized as limited and compromised by oil/gas industry influence. A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and local governments.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NasCarNut

Apr-21-13 10:23 AM

Although Wyoming in 2009 is often reported to be the first case of water pollution due to fracking later documented by the EPA, the Times reported in 2011 that "a 1987 report to Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency that deals with waste from the exploration, development and production of oil, natural gas and geothermal energy ... states that hydraulic fracturing, also called fracking, can cause groundwater contamination. It cites as an example a case in which hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminated a water well in West Virginia. The report also describes the difficulties that sealed court settlements created for investigators." The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, West Virginia. The report contradicts prior statements by the oil and gas[

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web