Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

On Feb 7, 2:27*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

Shades? Try whole cloth. He's taking our natural resource to those
willing to pay.

People have very little knowledge on how that 'sands' process works.
It is actually quite clever and surprisingly clean from an
environmental standpoint. It can be said that the whole process cleans
the environment. We are doing a good thing and making a few bucks
along the way.

In article om, Lew
Hodgett wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world does
not have to do what they want, just because they want it.

Deb

In article , Leon
lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

You do know that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA,
yes?

Do you expect us to ONLY sell to you? HAH!

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Leon
lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

You do know that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA,
yes?

Do you expect us to ONLY sell to you? HAH!
If we turned off the tap there would be a lot of chattering teeth
south of the 49th. And long lines at the pumps.

And don't think about taking it by force. Until 9-11 the Canuks were
the only ones to successfully attack the USA on their own turf - and
you have your "white" house to show for it.

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Leon
lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

You do know that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA,
yes?

Do you expect us to ONLY sell to you? HAH!
If we turned off the tap there would be a lot of chattering teeth
south of the 49th. And long lines at the pumps.

And don't think about taking it by force. Until 9-11 the Canuks were
the only ones to successfully attack the USA on their own turf - and
you have your "white" house to show for it.

I believe the official plan is "blow the bridges and head north"... The
only troops the Yanks have that could stand the cold are from Wisconsin
and Minnesota, and if we can't beat a bunch of friggin' Lutherans, we
may as well surrender now.

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

I believe the official plan is "blow the bridges and head north"...
The
only troops the Yanks have that could stand the cold are from
Wisconsin
and Minnesota, and if we can't beat a bunch of friggin' Lutherans,
we
may as well surrender now.
---------------------------------
Might want to run that by the survivors of the Korean war,especially
those who fought at Inchon.

Lew

"Dr. Deb" wrote:

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world
does
not have to do what they want, just because they want it.
--------------------------------------
"Liberal" has nothing to do with it.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, stand to make a lot of money,
if that pipeline goes thru.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, have bought and paid for a
collection of Congress critters, and will collect their marks as this
plays out.

Sorry, but a pip squeak P/M and the 30-35 million Canucks he
represents, don't have a seat at the table for this poker game.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:27 am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

Shades? Try whole cloth. He's taking our natural resource to those
willing to pay.

People have very little knowledge on how that 'sands' process works.
It is actually quite clever and surprisingly clean from an
environmental standpoint. It can be said that the whole process cleans
the environment. We are doing a good thing and making a few bucks
along the way.

Cleans the enviroment....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

It's enviromentally disaster in the making with the massive tailing ponds,
water contamination and destruction of thousands of square miles for forest.

And for the record, I have been there, worked there and seen the damage
first hand. If we are going to destroy Northern Alberta then there is no
way we should be shipping raw bitumen anywhere. It should be refined here
so we can take full advantage of the resulting oil and other petro products
that result and then sell it at world prices.

Harper is a GWB wannabee and lord help us we are stuck with him.

--
PV

"This sig left intentionally blank"

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4f3203ef$0$25426
:


"Dr. Deb" wrote:

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world
does
not have to do what they want, just because they want it.
--------------------------------------
"Liberal" has nothing to do with it.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, stand to make a lot of money,
if that pipeline goes thru.

Big oil, especially the Koch brothers, have bought and paid for a
collection of Congress critters, and will collect their marks as this
plays out.

Sorry, but a pip squeak P/M and the 30-35 million Canucks he
represents, don't have a seat at the table for this poker game.

Lew

I am waiting how this is going to go. There is OBVIOUSLY a lot of
obfuscation going on. Is winning tar sands oil and gas indeed bad for
the environment? I don't know, but it seems that cracking that stuff and
heating it until it bleeds does cost energy. Does it leave the top layer
of the mining area devastated? Probably, but can it be easily restored?
Running a pipeline may be fairly easy, but the Alaska pipeline has had
relatively frequent problems, and the tar oil is much more viscous and
corrosive. Can that be managed sufficiently? Running such a pipeline
through environmental sensitive areas such as the aquifer area in
Nebraska (?) is asking for trouble - move it or else.

I would like the idea of building refineries in Alberta, and shipping
finished products ...

Canucks - work on the concepts and the plans before you have to redo
fully built infrastructure ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 08 Feb 2012 12:01:26 GMT, Han wrote:
corrosive. Can that be managed sufficiently? Running such a pipeline
through environmental sensitive areas such as the aquifer area in
Nebraska (?) is asking for trouble - move it or else.

I would like the idea of building refineries in Alberta, and shipping
finished products ...

Kind of an opposite statement isn't it? On one hand, you're concerned
about environmental implications. On the other hand, you'd have us
process it and then ship it. What about the environmental effects of
processing it on Canadian soil? Just as long as the processing isn't
done in the US eh?

What about the environment implications if some of that highly refined
oil somehow finds its way onto American soil?

And then there's the added cost to the US if we did the processing
first before shipping it. At least if you're refining it, you save
some money. Money that is apparently in short supply in the cash
strapped US.

On 2/7/2012 9:20 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:40:23 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In articleDf2dnRRGyp6TV6zSnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d@giganews. com, Leon
lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

You do know that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA,
yes?

Do you expect us to ONLY sell to you? HAH!
If we turned off the tap there would be a lot of chattering teeth
south of the 49th. And long lines at the pumps.

And don't think about taking it by force. Until 9-11 the Canuks were
the only ones to successfully attack the USA on their own turf - and
you have your "white" house to show for it.

Yeah and if we quit buying your oil all together you would be whining.
And had we wanted to invade you would already be speaking English. Oh
wait! ;~)

On 2/7/2012 8:40 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In articleDf2dnRRGyp6TV6zSnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d@giganews. com, Leon
lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 2/7/2012 5:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In raweb.com, Lew
wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

What, we should sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting for your
president to get his head out of his?

If the USA doesn't want it, there are others who do.

Suck it up, America. You're not the only game in town.


Apparently you guys are sucking it up. ;~)

You do know that Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the USA,
yes?

Do you expect us to ONLY sell to you? HAH!


Don't you have to suck it up to get it out of the ground? ;~)

On 2/7/2012 7:32 PM, Dr. Deb wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

Lew, as others have said, "Actions have consequences."

I know that is very difficult for liberals to process, but the world does
not have to do what they want, just because they want it.

Deb

No kidding, you can say that again and again.

In article om, Lew
Hodgett wrote:

"Dave Balderstone" wrote:

I believe the official plan is "blow the bridges and head north"...
The
only troops the Yanks have that could stand the cold are from
Wisconsin
and Minnesota, and if we can't beat a bunch of friggin' Lutherans,
we
may as well surrender now.
---------------------------------
Might want to run that by the survivors of the Korean war,especially
those who fought at Inchon.

I've talked to a number of Canadian vets of the Korean war.

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 03:46:44 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 7, 2:27*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Your prime minister states your shale sands oil are being sold to the
Chinese now that the pipeline across the US is on hold.

Shades of GW Bush.

Lew

Shades? Try whole cloth. He's taking our natural resource to those
willing to pay.

People have very little knowledge on how that 'sands' process works.
It is actually quite clever and surprisingly clean from an
environmental standpoint. It can be said that the whole process cleans
the environment. We are doing a good thing and making a few bucks
along the way.

I just read about this last week, and suggest that you read a bit more
about it. That "cleans the environment" is a load of banana gas, sir.
_Green_ it _ain't_.

Tell us about the massive quantities of natural gas needed to cook the
oil out of the shale, the water use, aquifer abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...shale_industry

If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

Now watch "Gasland".

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

On Feb 8, 9:20*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just read about this last week, and suggest that you read a bit more
about it. That "cleans the environment" is a load of banana gas, sir.
_Green_ it _ain't_.

Maybe that was copy written by the same crew that writes about 'clean
coal'?
There seems to be no way we can harvest oil without damaging the
environment. So we switch to the 'lesser-of-evils' mode.
That fracking process of which you speak, has nothing to do with the
tarsands. Totally different processes.

Tell us about the massive quantities of natural gas needed to cook the
oil out of the shale, the water use, aquifer abuse. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...e_oil_shale_in...

I wasn't talking about fracking. That process is far more likely to
devastate the environment than what we're doing at the tar sands.

If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. *It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

We have lots of natural gas without fracking. Sufficient in fact to
sell a LOT to the US AND to use to separate the oil from the sand.

Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas):
a) The separation of oil from sand
b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable.
Also, the oil we extract from the sand is already being processed to a
more readily acceptable product so that any refinery can use it.

We take 'dirty' sand, take out the oil, and put the clean sand back.
When I called that a 'clean' process, I should have changed fonts to
Sarcastica.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...


Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas):
a) The separation of oil from sand
b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable.


This is fracking: http://northernoil.com/drilling

Dave in Houston

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:31:01 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Feb 8, 9:20*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I just read about this last week, and suggest that you read a bit more
about it. That "cleans the environment" is a load of banana gas, sir.
_Green_ it _ain't_.

Maybe that was copy written by the same crew that writes about 'clean
coal'?

That and 'dehydrated water'.


There seems to be no way we can harvest oil without damaging the
environment. So we switch to the 'lesser-of-evils' mode.
That fracking process of which you speak, has nothing to do with the
tarsands. Totally different processes.

Yeah, I realize that. I made an unsignaled segue into shale oil.
So solly.


Tell us about the massive quantities of natural gas needed to cook the
oil out of the shale, the water use, aquifer abuse. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...e_oil_shale_in...

I wasn't talking about fracking. That process is far more likely to
devastate the environment than what we're doing at the tar sands.

True, but the oil sand has to be cooked, and that takes natural gas.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm


If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. *It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

We have lots of natural gas without fracking. Sufficient in fact to
sell a LOT to the US AND to use to separate the oil from the sand.

Wonderful!


Two processes being discussed here (3, if you include banana gas):
a) The separation of oil from sand
b) Fracking.

They are NOT interchangeable.
Also, the oil we extract from the sand is already being processed to a
more readily acceptable product so that any refinery can use it.

We take 'dirty' sand, take out the oil, and put the clean sand back.
When I called that a 'clean' process, I should have changed fonts to
Sarcastica.

I see.

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

They still speak English on Mackinac, even after many attempt and then
asking nicely.


----------
"Leon" wrote in message
...
house to show for it.

Yeah and if we quit buying your oil all together you would be whining.
And had we wanted to invade you would already be speaking English. Oh
wait! ;~)

If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years, and
perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the change in
attitude?

-- Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start
screaming now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen
in many decades.

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years,
and perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the
change in attitude?

-- Jim in NC

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:53:16 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:

If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start screaming
now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen in many
decades.

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years, and
perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the change in
attitude?

-- Jim in NC



Fracking near minor fault lines apparently has the distinct
possibility of turning them into active fault lines.

Morgans wrote:
If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start
screaming now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen
in many decades.

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years,
and perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the
change in attitude?


Well, I have to say that you caught my attention with your statement, since
fracking is fairly new to our area. So, I turned to the trusty google
search, only to discover that fracking has been successfully implemented in
Saskatchewan for 50 years. Maybe that explains that Canadian attitude...

--

-Mike-

Somebody wrote:

If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start
screaming now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen
in many decades.
-------------------------------
Especially if you cut corners in the fracking process to save a few
bucks.
----------------------------------

Morgans wrote:

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years,
and perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all
the
change in attitude?
---------------------------------------
After the strip miners got thru raping SE Ohio, what's left to save?

Belmont County comes to mind.

Lew

Fracking near minor fault lines apparently has the distinct
possibility of turning them into active fault lines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One could reason that if a fault line became active sooner than natural
forces would cause, that the resulting quake would release the energy
sooner, and be less severe than the natural, later quake.

But really, are there _any_ documented, proven cases of fracking causing a
quake?

I do not know of any negative results due to fracking in Ohio when I lived
there.

The waste water from drilling operations, and the proper cleanup of the area
after drilling was sometimes an issue when those corners were cut.

-- Jim in NC

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:24:59 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
If they want to frack the land to get natural gas out, start
screaming now. It's environmentally worse than anything we've seen
in many decades.

They have been fracking gas wells in SE Ohio for well over 30 years,
and perhaps more, from what I know from living there. So why all the
change in attitude?


Well, I have to say that you caught my attention with your statement, since
fracking is fairly new to our area. So, I turned to the trusty google
search, only to discover that fracking has been successfully implemented in
Saskatchewan for 50 years. Maybe that explains that Canadian attitude...

Successfully? Has anyone's well out there been tested? Probably not,
due to the isolation and wilderness areas they've likely been working
in. Or have they been more careful in their drilling practices?
Injecting benzene and 595 other nasties into the ground anywhere near
an aquifer, as oil companies here apparently have been doing, is
tantamount to mass murder and rape of the land, in my eyes. And
deliberately setting aside air and water regulations to allow said
rape is no better and should warrant capital punishment, for the
deaths it has and will continue to occur as a result of that action.

--
Energy and persistence alter all things.
--Benjamin Franklin

Larry Jaques wrote:


Successfully? Has anyone's well out there been tested? Probably not,
due to the isolation and wilderness areas they've likely been working
in. Or have they been more careful in their drilling practices?
Injecting benzene and 595 other nasties into the ground anywhere near
an aquifer, as oil companies here apparently have been doing, is
tantamount to mass murder and rape of the land, in my eyes. And
deliberately setting aside air and water regulations to allow said
rape is no better and should warrant capital punishment, for the
deaths it has and will continue to occur as a result of that action.

All points that merit examination. Around here fracking is just now being
introduced - or maybe better said, proposed. Somehow I had gotten the
impression that as a technology, it was something fairly new, but that's
because I have only given token attention to any of the reports and
discussions about it. I used the word "successfully" to reference the
technology and its proven ability to get oil/gas out of the ground, and not
to reference all of the other considerations that you raise.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Larry Jaques wrote:


Successfully? Has anyone's well out there been tested? Probably
not, due to the isolation and wilderness areas they've likely been
working in. Or have they been more careful in their drilling
practices? Injecting benzene and 595 other nasties into the ground
anywhere near an aquifer, as oil companies here apparently have been
doing, is tantamount to mass murder and rape of the land, in my eyes.
And deliberately setting aside air and water regulations to allow
said rape is no better and should warrant capital punishment, for the
deaths it has and will continue to occur as a result of that action.

All points that merit examination. Around here fracking is just now
being introduced - or maybe better said, proposed. Somehow I had
gotten the impression that as a technology, it was something fairly
new, but that's because I have only given token attention to any of
the reports and discussions about it. I used the word "successfully"
to reference the technology and its proven ability to get oil/gas out
of the ground, and not to reference all of the other considerations
that you raise.

Fracking itself isn't the problem at all (except the distinct possibility
of stimulating earthquakes). The problem is inadequate quality control
in the lining of the boreholes - especially where they penetrate
sensitive geologic formations such as aquifers. The other points of
trouble are what to do with the waste, how to conserve water resources,
and traffic, noise etc problems. For instance, I don't think you'd do
any fracking directly under the White House, or the Empire State
Building. But what about Uncle Al's farm in the wilds of Ohio? What
consideration to his farming, drinking water protection, traffic and
noise for his neighbors?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Fracking itself isn't the problem at all (except the distinct possibility
of stimulating earthquakes). The problem is inadequate quality control
in the lining of the boreholes - especially where they penetrate
sensitive geologic formations such as aquifers. The other points of
trouble are what to do with the waste, how to conserve water resources,
and traffic, noise etc problems. For instance, I don't think you'd do
any fracking directly under the White House, or the Empire State
Building. But what about Uncle Al's farm in the wilds of Ohio? What
consideration to his farming, drinking water protection, traffic and
noise for his neighbors?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why not under the Whitehouse? You would never know it.
Can anyone point to cases where fracking did all (or part) of the above
nasty things?
Until there is a history of problem, don't go hysterical. They have been
doing it for decades, so if there were problems, there would be cases of
problems to study.

-- Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:

Fracking itself isn't the problem at all (except the distinct
possibility of stimulating earthquakes). The problem is inadequate
quality control in the lining of the boreholes - especially where they
penetrate sensitive geologic formations such as aquifers. The other
points of trouble are what to do with the waste, how to conserve water
resources, and traffic, noise etc problems. For instance, I don't
think you'd do any fracking directly under the White House, or the
Empire State Building. But what about Uncle Al's farm in the wilds of
Ohio? What consideration to his farming, drinking water protection,
traffic and noise for his neighbors?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why not under the Whitehouse? You would never know it.
Can anyone point to cases where fracking did all (or part) of the
above nasty things?
Until there is a history of problem, don't go hysterical. They have
been doing it for decades, so if there were problems, there would be
cases of problems to study.

-- Jim in NC

Just in case you recently arrived on this Earth, there are plenty of
problems documented, although very few have a direct connection to the
fracking itself. Noise, above ground pollution, trampling on
individuals' rights due to defective regulations/disclosures/contracts,
and bad practices regarding sealing of the walls of the wells,disposal of
waste, and so on and so forth. Nothing that can't be overcome (I hope!!)
by proper regulation and enforcement, and properly disclosed and arrived
at contracts.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 2/11/2012 2:53 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in

Why not under the Whitehouse? You would never know it.
Can anyone point to cases where fracking did all (or part) of the
above nasty things?
Until there is a history of problem, don't go hysterical. They have
been doing it for decades, so if there were problems, there would be
cases of problems to study.

Just in case you recently arrived on this Earth, there are plenty of
problems documented, although very few have a direct connection to the
fracking itself. Noise, above ground pollution, trampling on
individuals' rights due to defective regulations/disclosures/contracts,
and bad practices regarding sealing of the walls of the wells,disposal of
waste, and so on and so forth. Nothing that can't be overcome (I hope!!)
by proper regulation and enforcement, and properly disclosed and arrived
at contracts.

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G business
myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one simple
concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY other
industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all
provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence is
involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 2/11/2012 3:02 PM, Swingman wrote:

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G business
myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one simple
concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY other
industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all
provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence is
involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

Case in point:

Pfizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S.
history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for
illegal marketing of four of its drugs: Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and
Lyrica. Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such
settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/11/2012 3:02 PM, Swingman wrote:

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G
business myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one
simple concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY
other industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all
provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence
is involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

Case in point:

Pfizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S.
history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for
illegal marketing of four of its drugs: Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and
Lyrica. Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such
settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten
years.

Good idea. perhaps some bankers can show the way?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 11, 9:03*am, "Morgans" wrote:

But really, are there _any_ documented, proven cases of fracking causing a
quake?

There was a case over here before christmas of a fracking test site
near a place called Blackpool allegedly causing two minor quakes. The
north-west of England isn't renowned for it's seismic activity, but I
have not heard anything more about the case, so don't know if it was
just coincidence or not. I would tend to think it was, just because
small quakes DO happen occasionally, and these were not really out of
the ordinary magnitude-wise.

"Morgans" wrote:


Fracking near minor fault lines apparently has the distinct
possibility of turning them into active fault lines.

But really, are there _any_ documented, proven cases of fracking
causing a quake?
--------------------------------
They have stopped operations in Arkansas after several quakes.
--------------------------------
I do not know of any negative results due to fracking in Ohio when I
lived there.
--------------------------------------
Mike DeWine, Ohio A/G, is reviewing Ohio fracking statutes as this is
being written.

Lew

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:02:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/11/2012 2:53 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in

Why not under the Whitehouse? You would never know it.
Can anyone point to cases where fracking did all (or part) of the
above nasty things?
Until there is a history of problem, don't go hysterical. They have
been doing it for decades, so if there were problems, there would be
cases of problems to study.

Just in case you recently arrived on this Earth, there are plenty of
problems documented, although very few have a direct connection to the
fracking itself. Noise, above ground pollution, trampling on
individuals' rights due to defective regulations/disclosures/contracts,
and bad practices regarding sealing of the walls of the wells,disposal of
waste, and so on and so forth. Nothing that can't be overcome (I hope!!)
by proper regulation and enforcement, and properly disclosed and arrived
at contracts.

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G business
myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one simple
concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY other
industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all
provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence is
involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

Their bosses talked the corrupt CONgresscritters into waiving the
Clean Air and Clean Water acts for their sorry asses. What's a little
guy to do when his own _government_ has sold out the public's safety
for the Almighty Dollar?

--
To use fear as the friend it is, we must retrain and reprogram ourselves...
We must persistently and convincingly tell ourselves that the fear is
here--with its gift of energy and heightened awareness--so we can do our
best and learn the most in the new situation.
Peter McWilliams, Life 101

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:09:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 2/11/2012 3:02 PM, Swingman wrote:

I don't have a dog in the fight, despite having been in the O&G business
myself, and raised by a geophysicist, but I can tell you one simple
concept that will stop any possible nonsense, in this _and ANY other
industry:_

Start making corporate EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS responsible for all
provable violations and put them in PRISON when criminal negligence is
involved in company operations.

What is so frackin' hard to comprehend about that??

Excellent idea, where applicable.


Case in point:

Pfizer pleaded guilty in 2009 to the largest health care fraud in U.S.
history and received the largest criminal penalty ever levied for
illegal marketing of four of its drugs: Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, and
Lyrica. Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such
settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years.

Line 'em up against the wall. Somebody will find a way to deal with
them sooner or later.

--
To use fear as the friend it is, we must retrain and reprogram ourselves...
We must persistently and convincingly tell ourselves that the fear is
here--with its gift of energy and heightened awareness--so we can do our
best and learn the most in the new situation.
Peter McWilliams, Life 101