.

These Are the Fracks, Folks !

Anti-fracking politicians have proved themselves economic know-nothings and energy know-nothings.

Hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking or fracking) is a process of pumping water, mixed with a fraction of a percent of chemicals, into wells at least 3,000 feet beneath the surface, considerably lower than the water tables.

 Abundant natural gas obtained through hydrofracking has made alternate forms of energy increasingly irrelevant. The alternative known as ethanol uses more petroleum than it saves. Those squiggly light bulbs cost more, produce less light and the mercury inside makes them dangerous if broken. At the same time, there’s been a sharp decline in natural gas prices, thanks to the states that do allow fracking.  

So why do some New York elected officials and candidates seeking election demonize fracking?  Because those who worship the god of man-made global warming want us to use costlier alternatives. They want to create an artificial market for the alternatives by making fossil fuel more expensive on the false assumption it will save the planet.  

[Read on by clicking here]

DO YOU AGREE WITH BAZZO'S FRACKING OPINION OR SHOULD HE FRACK OFF? LET HIM KNOW BY CLICKING ON THE COMMENT BUTTON.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dan Seidel July 01, 2012 at 06:37 PM
So fracking is 100% safe, no probs, anytime, anywhere, right? I believe it was David Chernecky (?), geologist, who "discovered it". I invested with his group. lost a LOT!!! the field was mismanaged and permanently shut because the field mgr screwed up. Pollution happened as well (not being punny). It's all to easy to screw up a field and the surrounding area - for good. let's go slow - this stuff ain't going anywhere - been there for millions of years, it can wait another year or so. There are no guarantees. Wrong geological survey and you are also screwed. Furthermore, the USGS estimated there was 80% less reserves than reported by the industry - this may be a land grab and most are just too dumb to see it. Not the panacea most expect.
Dan Seidel July 01, 2012 at 06:40 PM
ps: biomass, plasma gasification, methane/anerobic digesters, fuel cells, retrofits: all add to the mix.
William Nuesslein July 06, 2012 at 10:13 AM
There being no ill effects from tens of thousands of applications of fracking over decades should settle the matter. The three claims of contamination of water supplies, Demrock being the most glaring example, have been shown to be false by the EPA of all people. The earthquakes from waste water ejection are no greater than those caused by coal mining. A couple of days after the BP Macondo well was capped, CNN put a girl reporter in a blimp to look for oil on the surface of the Gulf. She spent a day in the blimp and found no oil. The reaction to the BP spill was hysterical, especially by Governor Jindal. The anti-fracking comments in this stream are just ridiculous.
Aidan July 06, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Mentalist ... as in mental. As in over the top. As in unreasonable. As in hyperbolic, out of control fear mongerers.
Dan Seidel July 06, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Hey Nuesslein: your industry petticoat is showing.... talk about garbage propaganda!!! Did you check out David Chernicki? what were the other "2" non-incidents? and would you drink the slurry mix? is is that safe? PS: Pennsylvania is almost at nat gas full storage capacity - no more underground places to store the fracked gas. Check that one too!
Ken Gale July 06, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Most insurance companies will cancel your insurance if you have fracking on your property. Here is the latest announcement: National Casualty (Insurance) Company, part of the Nationwide group of insurance companies with over $12 billion in assets, announces Hydraulic Fracturing Operations Prohibited: After months of research and discussion, we have determined that the exposures presented by hydraulic fracturing are too great to ignore. Risks involved with hydraulic fracturing are now prohibited for General Liability, Commercial Auto, Motor Truck Cargo, Auto Physical Damage and Public Auto (insurance) coverage. (We will) not bind risks with this exposure, and any policies currently written with this exposure (will) be non-renewed (following state requirements). Prohibited risks involved in fracking operations include, but are not limited to: Contractors involved in fracking operations; landowners whose land has been leased to lessees with fracking operations; Frack sand and frack liquid haulers; Water haulers — clean water, salt water or sludge; Hotshots — including hauling pipe/equipment, parts, site prep (dump trucks, bulldozers) or leasing of tanks; Oilfield support operations — hauling of pipe, lumber or equipment; Oilfield support operations — tankers, over the hole or non-owned trailers.
J Philip Faranda July 06, 2012 at 01:53 PM
"The reaction to the BP spill was hysterical, especially by Governor Jindal. The anti-fracking comments in this stream are just ridiculous." I wonder how ridiculous they'd seem if your business & livelihood were ruined.
Elaine Santos July 06, 2012 at 02:02 PM
I agree. How was it "hysterical"? The ecosystem suffered and so many harmless animals perished. I think the reaction was appropriate.
robert pidgeon July 06, 2012 at 03:17 PM
thats why shrimp prices are declining, because there is no shrimp from the gulf. have you been to the gulf region? i visit often and they are still hurting. the spill is still having an effect on the local economy.
Bob Rohr July 07, 2012 at 03:22 AM
The U.S. is in a bind. Our dependence on foreign energy sources leaves us very exposed to economic blackmail. We have large coal deposits, but it is an ugly fuel to burn, and one of the most ugly to extract from the ground. Wind and Solar have not proven themselves to be viable as of yet. In fact Solar Panel manufacturers don;t use Solar energy to manufacture the panels. Living near Indian Point and watching the Nuclear disaster in Japan should make you feel uncomfortable. Natural Gas is a very clean fuel to burn and we have an abundance of it, and it has become very cheap as of late. Factories and Power Plants are converting over from Coal to Gas, and this drives down the cost manufacturing goods which makes the more competitive, and can create jobs. The technology and the process of making these underground fractures needs to be improved so tha it will have little or no environmental impact. Until that time, no fracking should be allowed in New York. When you put these energy companies on notice they will get no revenue unless some safer practice is used, amazing things can happen.
Aidan July 07, 2012 at 11:57 AM
More inconvenience than truth ... http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/the_truthland_about_gasland_ogG3RH5UbegJP33eajRdAO
Ken Gale July 07, 2012 at 01:10 PM
Fracking goes on for longer than three days. It turns the leaser's property into an industrial zone. The air stinks for a long time. Fracked gas also contains high levels of radioactive radon gas, the #1 cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. That'll be in you cellars and kitchens. Start imagining life in a more efficient house that is cheaper to live in. Google "Passive House" or "German Passive House," which was developed in Illinois but adopted in Germany. It's a house so efficiently and intelligently designed that it can be heated by the people and appliances within it.
Ken Gale July 07, 2012 at 01:21 PM
A bind of our own making that we can unmake. "Natural gas" is methane, a greenhouse gas 20-40 times worse, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide, the #1 ghg. In order to keep high pressure gas pipelines from blowing up (which they do about once a week somewhere in the U.S. anyway), they vent the methane to the air. The best source of energy is not using it. Homes can be built so efficiently that they can be heated by the people and appliances within them. This was developed in Illinois in the '90s, called "the Passive House" and adopted in Germany so it's now called the "German Passive House." Google it. There are over 100 certified solar installers in NYC and Westchester, but most of them are for electricity. Solar thermal directly saves oil and gas, is cheaper and faster to install, and gives you free heat and hot water. Check the yellow pages. Plumbers can become certified solar thermal installers for a single course at a community college. We can get out of this bind we put ourselves into.
John Taggart July 07, 2012 at 06:40 PM
From what I can verify fracking is the last step of the process. The property is a constrution zone during drilling to fracking, and in the end you have only a small vent and monitoring station. After the 3 days of fracking the well can work for 30 years or more. The fracked gas is the same as your stove runs on now (unless you live in Weschester and are killing the world burning oil and using electric stoves). Natural gas is the best and cleanest fuel source we have, cleaner than wind and solar if you look at the REAL details.
John Taggart July 07, 2012 at 06:58 PM
Ken Gale, methane is altered as it is burned, and carbon dioxide is not a polutant. Animals take in oxygen and release carbon dioxide and plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, thats how planet earth workes. Solar is great on buildings, but to have a real solar house is a chemical storage cell nightmare, and wind is an environmental disaster in its own right But if you want to give me the 80,000 dolars to get me off the grid I'll take it, and unlike Clarkstown which is against creating green jobs, I'll higher local installers and not outsource to an Albany company who is going to put up workers in hotels and spend their wages outside of Rockland. ...
John Taggart July 07, 2012 at 07:02 PM
No your home insurance will not cover a comercial industrial site. All the parties involved have their own comercial insurance, as will the property owner, as they are paid for the use of their land.
John Taggart July 07, 2012 at 07:18 PM
I hope you don't hate me for this, but I am a carbon base life form, as is all life forms on earth. Carbon is what makes wood burn. Carbon is a basic building block of life. NASA lookes for carbon on other planets. I am proud to be a carbon based life form walking the surface of the earth. I am not buried deep in the earths crust, and niether are all the animals and plants and dirt that are ALL carbon based.....Environmentalists have completly rewritten science.....and its wrong... ... I am saving for a dual axis 12 panel solar array for my back yard. I have taken a solar instalation course.
Bob Rohr July 08, 2012 at 01:23 AM
Yes Ken yo are correct, a home can be built that uses very little energy. That is the future. Most of us live in homes not built to those standards, and retrofitting would be financially impossible. We can not wish away the decisions made in the past, we can only cope with today's reality. Gas heated homes create less pollution, Gas fired power plants are cleaner that coal or oil. Nuclear is far too dangerous as the experience in Japan has proved yet again. Fracking is far from ideal, but with good controls it can be acceptable. We need energy independence and we need it faster than the alternatives can be implemented.
Bob Dumont July 08, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Hmmm..Mr. Taggart sounds like an oil and gas lover. Mr. Bazzo, as I've read some of his work seems light headed. What I would suggest is to use common sense. If an oil or energy company is so gung ho telling me it is OK, it probably isn't. If an engineer in Japan says a nuclear power plant is earth quake proof, it isn't. If BP says their are so many precautions in place that a blow out can never happen - it will. And with government workers bought and paid for by lobbyists, regulations get done by our wonderful ivy league graduates 6 minutes out of college and no real world experience. You can bet, it is a recipe for disaster. I'm no fracketologist, but breaking rock through high pressure water being pumped and it "magically disappearing" sounds a bit fanciful for me. recovery of filthy water is probably dumped in someone's pool, until it leaches into the ground. Tops of mountains "disappear" in West Virginia with strip mining. I'm sure every coal company, Bazzo and Taggart says it is fine. Please think with your mind open and don't quote me what the energy company gives you on a nauseating fact sheet.
Mike Rodriques July 08, 2012 at 11:51 PM
How many people doed in Japan vs. how may people die in oil and GAS refineries every year? How many people have been killed living so close to Indian Point.
Walt July 09, 2012 at 12:39 AM
I don't know, why don't you tell us?
Walt July 09, 2012 at 12:44 AM
So in Bob's perfect world we should we be using horses to get to work, chopping wood to heat our houses and importing all our oil from overseas. Talk about lightheaded.
Mike Rodriques July 09, 2012 at 03:09 AM
From 2000 – 2009, pipeline accidents accounted for 2,554 significant incidents, 161 fatalities, and 576 injuries in the US.
John Taggart July 09, 2012 at 10:02 AM
You haven't seen my posts on the riverkeeper stopping gas from getting to Westchester. Coal plants give off more injestable radiation than a nuke plant, You like to put words into other peoples mouths Dumont. Oil is dirty, expensive and unnecessary for heating yet an environmental group keeps people burning it. We have a domestic and clean resource in NY now, Natural gas. Western NY is full of it, we have our energy source for the next 90 years. In the mean time figure something better, not just an impossible utopian dream. Solar and wind are not reliable, efficient, or as clean as people say. ( I like solar as a supplement) And yea your right ,waste is dumped into neighborhood storm drains, and swimming pools, yea thats the ticket, scare everyone with unfounded lies. ...
Walden Macnair July 09, 2012 at 01:19 PM
You folks talk like we're all going to change over tomorrow. Take a reality check. I can guarantee you that in the coming years solar, wind, hydro and possibly something we haven't even thought of will be come reliable. Rice university recently produced a solar cell that can be painted on the outside of a house and is capable of storing the electricity produced as a battery would. In the mean time while the real geniuses of this world are working on this stuff, it is the job of the rest of us not to destroy the planet, but we can't even manage that because most of you are more concerned with paying an extra $20.00 a month on your electric bill than you are in leaving your children air to breath and water to drink.
Aidan July 09, 2012 at 01:35 PM
History is a testimony to man's inventiveness and adaptability. This energy issue will resolve itself. The essential question is who will supply the impetus for effective, economical change. That sort of question has almost always been reserved for private enterprise. That where innovation comes from. The follow-up inquiry is in regard to the role of government. Government's role should not be to compete with the private sector. And it should not begin a sort of "command " economic lurch. Government should highlight the issue and then clear the deck of as many roadblocks as is practical ... and let the market find a solution that is compatible with need and cost. it is NOT the role of government to micromanage the process ... only to facilitate the process. Most of the government's recent efforts to choose winners or losers in this regard have been failures because those ideas seem to be void of the most important element: they're not cost effective and, in many cases, practical. If it was truly doable ... we'd all have pocket energy gizmos at the ready. Unleash creativity and provide incentives and the problem will find lots of willing entrepreneurs. And they'll find solutions. The government has no such track record.
Aidan July 09, 2012 at 01:43 PM
And ... the entire process needs more patience than we're exhibiting. No one discounts the need for energy independence. But the public will not substitute ineffective choices for unrefined, pie-in-the-sky solutions based on a theory that we're all destroying the planet and martyring wildlife. The appeal has to be more human-based because humans always conduct themselves in their self-interest. When a viable, cost-effective energy solution presents itself, well, it'll be embraced ... and private funding will do what it's always done: create a product or service that makes the old obsolete. That's been the cadence of mankind for time immemorial. My chips are on the private sector. They have a track record. Government does not.
INTHEKNOW August 06, 2012 at 02:16 AM
The faucet that caught fire in the movie "gasland" was not in Pennsylvania, but in Colorado. The Colorado DEP found that it was not a result of fracing, but of naturally occuring methane, and told it to the filmmaker, who left it in anyway, In many part of the country, if you throw a match on a pond, it will catch fire, this is from the natural release of methane gas from the earth.
Nummy August 06, 2012 at 02:49 AM
Katonah Municipal Well in 1978, at which time it was taken out of service. By 1979, the possible sources of the contamination were traced to four nearby dry cleaning establishments discharging process liquids to septic systems. The County worked with the owners to correct the problems and to remove the sources. Maintenance activities at the nearby pumphouse also contributed to contamination in the aquifer. In addition, the area surrounding the well and pumphouse had been historically used for the disposal of street cleaning debris. The Katonah Municipal Well is part of the Bedford Water and Storage System. The original Katonah Municipal Well had supplied approximately 6,000 residents with water for domestic use.
roncepts February 28, 2013 at 06:14 AM
FRACKING WASTEWATER ANALYSIS YIELDS SOME SURPRISES Duke University 01-24-2013 http://freshare.net/article/fracking_wastewater_analysis_yields_some_surprises/ Here's a great example of how to SPIN the facts: Report: frack uses 10X water per well than regular gas drilling; but, because wells are 30X more gas-productive, the statistic becomes, "far less water per unit of gas produced." Obviously an apologist for the industry, as are many here. Nevertheless, even this biased author has to admit, the treatment & disposal facilities are simply being overwhelmed-- a toxic backup for sure. About 80,000 gallons of water and chemicals are used in a each hydraulically fractured well-- and the incredible proliferation of wells-- thousands per PA county-- means ZILLIONS of gallons of the water that used to be drunk, fished from, or used for the lucrative tourist trade in the more pristine areas, now has to be DISPOSED of, with expensive treatment that YOU KNOW WHO is paying for (the gas cos. pay a mere token). The "fraction" of toxic chemicals is another spin. Would a billionth of a gram of arsenic make you feel any more safer?? The industry says these are merely chemicals found under any household's kitchen cabinet. OK-- would you want to drink those?? Once destroyed, a water resource is gone forever. A truly CONSERVATIVE approach would dictate erring on the sid of safety. roncepts

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »