Sunday, March 31, 2013

Trust the science!!! (... are we really SURE?)



Executive summary:

Science is not the uber-schiznit. 
Science is a useful tool as a method of inquiry.

While science, as a method of inquiry, 
can help inform us of the risks of an activity, like Fracking, 
science CAN NEVER answer the question:
"Considering all of the known risks, 

SHOULD WE permit fracking?"
This requires human judgment
beyond & outside the realm 

of the mere cognitive.
... and an experience of being transcendent of the mere rational.


Science is a useful tool. Of this there is no doubt.
Yet, a wise person understands a tool,
understands its recommended applications,
and limitations. 

Science as an absolute worldview, or dogmatic belief system
provides a grave threat to the practice of authentic science,
(as a means of inquiry). 

Narrative text:

Cuomo says: "We must trust the science!"
Energy in Depth says: We must trust the science!
The people say: "We must trust the science!"
Wow, have we found a common shared value?

... or is EID exploiting a fundamental error in our thinking
about the scientific paradigm?

Turns out there is a Ted Talk about this very subject,
By Oxford scientist Rupert Sheldrake,
a critique of a belief in the absolute certainty of science
which is so controversial to be banned by TED!

The people at TED are so freaked out, 

they pulled the Youtube,
and locked down the Vimeo so much

that it cannot be shared directly!
without being subjected to reading
the big disclaimer from TED.


These are evidently dangerous ideas, so watch this with caution:

http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/

Here are some facts about science.
(I can support all statements which published citations.)

  • Certainty is a limitation of Science,
    not an asset.
    (cf. Heisenberg, Godel, Kuhn, etc)

  • Science
    1. is haunted by irreconcilable paradox (cf. Russell, Hofstadter, Godel)
    2. is based upon unprovable axioms which much be taken on faith (cf. Kuhn)
    3. sometimes generates meaningless gibberish, like "1/0" or "log(0)",
      (cf. Godel), phrases which are so dangerous, ugly, and subversive
      as to be utterly forbidden from usage!
  • Science is always changing. It is not immutable,
    which we would expect truth to be.
  • Scientific truths must be repeatable on demand,
    thus are unable to describe one-time events.

  • All scientific truths are falsifiable, therefore suspect.
  • Science is amoral, utterly.
    Science is without a moral compass.
    Morals and ethics are not within the domain of scientific inquiry. 
  • Mathematics, is the language of science,
    is useful for describing certain material phenomena,
    e.g., projectile motion, and bridge mechanics,
  • However Science is not well equipped to describe or measure
    virtue, creativity, inspiration, intuition, cause, choice, impulse, emotion, or purpose
    or other aspects of consciousness or being,
  • Science is deeply rooted in the Rational and Cognitive,
    however these are only a subset of conscious experience.
Are we sure we want to
"trust the science"

with very important decisions?

... which are affecting the quality of life
for many beings in Four Directions
and throughout many generations?

 

A wise person recognizes a useful tool as such,
and always uses a tool for
only the recommended purpose.

A wise person does not use a hammer,
for example, to thread a needle
or to make ice cold,

A wise person does not use a wrench to analyze music.
This is a misuse of the tool.

I think most scientific discoveries rely upon an educated "hunch" or guess
which the scientist sees as a vision or dream
in their imagination--- this vision or hunch guides their inquiry.

Many creative people speak about this as a "Genius"
or Muse, a kind of spirit-guide which is from outside, elsewhere.

Science is best to use to make correlations and
"educated guesses" as to how certain mechanistic things work.
These theories can be demonstrated with models which make predictions.

However, every model has limitations
and a restricted domain of application.

Let us be informed by all dimensions of our experience,
including, but not limited to, the rational and cognitive
(which is where science hangs out)....

Let us not worship the rational/cognitive
as if that's all there is.



BOTTOM LINE:

Science can NEVER say
"Activity X is Safe" or "Activity X is Unsafe".

The strict definition of "safe" means "without risk".
Since there is no activity in life which is without risk,
then we can not name anything as being safe.

Fracking is, like
hopscotch or golfing or driving your car to the market--
inherently risky and unsafe activity.

In actual practice, the measure of "safety" 
is a qualitative human judgment
which science is utterly unable to make.

If I were to ask science:
What is the escape velocity of a rocket?
Or, What are the equations which govern electrical transmission?
 ...or some such thing, science is perfectly capable to answer.

However, if we ask any kind of a qualitative assessment,
like "which is better, coffee or tea?" or something less trivial,
"Is fracking safe?"-- science is utterly unable to answer.

Science can tell you whether cancer clusters are correlated
to proximity to compressor stations... or whether the gas
in your drinking water is thermogenic methane or biogenic,

But science is utterly unable to answer:
"Should we permit fracking, or not?"

And I wish we all would please stop talking about science
as if it were able to give that answer,
because it cannot.

It is not reasonable to demand that science answer that question.

That is a complex question requiring human judgment
which involves nindfulness
of  many aspects of consciousness
beyond the mere rational/cognitive--

including:

compassion, cultural memory, instinct, intuition, creativity,

imagination, choice, emotions, body sensation, moral duty, ethics, 
purpose, caution, and care of the planet over which we have custody.

None of those things have anything to do with science,

but absolutely MUST be a part of the decision-making process.

Thanks for listening,
BH

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Mayflower, AR Tar Sands Dilbit Pipeline Rupture/Spill

link to this: TinyURL.com/DilbitIsNotOil

See also:  
http://tinyurl.com/DilbitIsNotOil2
http://tinyurl.com/DilbitIsNotOil3
 
DILBIT COVERUP?


UPDATE 4-2-2013: This pipeline is 66 years old. The flow direction used to run from South to North from Texas to Illinois. It sat idle "for a few years", then was brought back into service with the flow direction REVERSED. Dilbit commonly requires operating pressures 1300-1450 psig which is ~160% greater then the operating pressure in 1961.  DETAILS BELOW


UPDATE 2 4-3-2013: TALKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH? Exxon-Mobil is telling the media this is Crude Oil, but telling the government it is Not Crude Oil. Why would they do that? See below.

Update 3 4-4-2013: Pressure anomalies. (see below)


Intro: Mayflower, AR Tar Sands Dilbit Pipeline Rupture/Spill being called "Crude Oil",
like most other Dilbit spills.

Why would this be?

Is it a harmless error? Maybe.


FIRST THINGS FIRST: Tar sands "oil" is not oil at all. It is Bitumen, a highly viscous, semi-solid hydrocarbon more akin to Coal than to "oil". Bitumen actually shatters like solid rock, but flows like a liquid over geologic time. (cf. Wikipedia and Youtube for "Pitch Drop Experiment". Warning, watching this is more dull than watching golf.)



Dilbit LOOKS LIKE CRUDETo an Oil Executive, Dilbit shares many properties of Crude Oil.

It is a broad-spectrum mixture of many types of hydrocarbon molecules.
From Methane (the purest form of "natural gas") which is a C1,
to lighter oils (commonly called "distillates", or "natural gas liquids",
because they can be  distilled from "natural gas")
e.g., Ethane, Propane, Butane, Pentane,
to heavier lubricating oils, gasoline, kerosene, fuel oil,
to soapy diesel, to waxes and paraffin (like petrolatum, i.e., Vaseline),
to the heaviest pitch, asphalt, tar, bitumen.

They may *think* about it like crude oil. But it is not crude oil.

Dilbit (Diluted Bitumen) is a kind of synthetic crude oil, with lots of lighter hydrocarbon solvents added, which is necessary to transport it in a pipeline.

Or, is the media calling Dilbit "Crude Oil" a deliberate coverup?
... to keep the public from understanding A) that this "oil" is really from Alberta Tar Sands?
or b) To keep the public from understanding the unique hazards of Dilbit Pipelines? and c) cleanup of spills?

This ruptured 20-inch pipeline runs 858 miles from Patoka, Ill. to Nederland, Texas, and is called by several names, "Pegasus",  "Exxon Patoka - Corsicana" (NPMS/PHMSA) , and also by the partnership which operates it: Mobil Pipe Line Company (MPLCO). 

NOTE: part of the problem with emergency response is these pipelines often have several different names. 

The pipeline was transporting "Wabasca Heavy Crude" which is a high density, high-viscosity form of Diluted Bitumin (Dilbit) from Alberta, Canada Tar Sands:
 http://www.crudemonitor.ca/crude.php?acr=WH

Many of the mainstream media are calling this a "crude oil spill", however this is somewhat of a misnomer. It should properly be called Dilbit.   

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130330/exxon-confirms-ruptured-pipeline-ark-carried-canadian-dilbit
 

This search of google news produces 11,400 results (calling it Crude or Oil)

Whereas only 2 results for Dilbit: 

Dilbit is a kind of synthetic crude.

This is a very important distinction for the press to get correct for several reasons.

While DILBIT (Diluted Bitumen) is a complex mix of hydrocarbons, similar to crude oil, the basic component is Bitumen, which is more like coal or pitch than like oil. They have to dilute it with all kinds of other lighter hydrocarbon solvents to transport it in a pipeline.

You can even see the chunky nature of the Dilbit... this is not ordinary crude oil. Dilbit has special risks when transported in pipelines. Let's hope the mainstream media starts reporting this correctly, as a DILBIT spill.

Chunky (and nasty) Dilbit Spilll


The important reasons to get this exactly correct are

a) because crude oil and dilbit are REGULATED differently,
b) they have different toxic properties,
c) they have different safety concerns.

For example, due to the high viscosity (and specific gravity) of dilbit, shipping it in a pipeline requires higher pressure and higher heat than ordinary crude oil.  This makes DILBIT PIPELINES especially subject to cavitation, friction, fluid hammer, and piezoelectric effects, which can produce vibrations, resonances, shock, explosions, and weld failures and pipeline ruptures.


PHMSA to study DILBIT pipelines:
http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/DilbitCommittee.aspx

Also see: "Kohlhase Effect" e.g., http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2012/10/very-interesting-are-all-pipelines.html


Map detail showing route of the "Pegasus" line, also called the "Exxon Patoka - Corsicana line (NPMS/PHMSA) , and also by the partnership which operates it: the Mobil Pipe Line Company (MPLCO) line.

This pipeline was put into service April 2006:
http://ir.exxonmobil.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=115024&p=irol-newsArticle_pf&ID=845428&highlight=



ExxonMobil

news release

ExxonMobil Pipeline Company Delivers Canadian Crude to Gulf Coast Refineries; Historic 20-Inch Pipeline Reversal Project A First in Industry
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 20, 2006--Mobil Pipe Line Company (MPLCO), an affiliate of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, has started delivering Canadian crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast through an 858-mile crude oil pipeline that runs from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas. Deliveries to Beaumont, Texas-area refineries began in early April.

A first for the U.S. Gulf Coast region and Canadian crude producers, the successful completion of the 20-inch Pipeline Reversal Project gives shippers of western Canadian crude oil direct pipeline access to U.S. Gulf Coast refining markets. It also allows MPLCO to optimize a previously under-utilized pipeline to best advantage.

Mike Tudor, president of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, said, "The 20-inch Pipeline Reversal Project is a win-win for the people of the Gulf Coast and Canada, the crude producers, refiners and ExxonMobil Pipeline. It is also an excellent example of our efforts to maximize the value of our pipeline and terminal assets. Canadian shippers have committed an average volume of 50,000 barrels per day for the next five years, and, in light of the high shipper interest, we anticipate that the pipeline will operate on average near its estimated capacity of 66,000 barrels per day in heavy crude service."

"The project team, from our Business Development group's work with Canadian producers to the engineering and operations activities in the field, did an exemplary job in implementing a project with a unique and valuable niche in the marketplace. The team worked over 240,000 hours, many in challenging winter conditions, without a recordable safety incident and we commend them for their utmost commitment to safety," he added.

The project reversed a 20-inch, 858-mile MPLCO crude oil pipeline that had historically run south-to-north from Nederland, Texas, to Patoka, Illinois. The 648-mile segment from Patoka to Corsicana, Texas, had been idle for several years, while the 210-mile segment from Corsicana to Nederland had been moving predominantly foreign crude north to markets in North Texas and Oklahoma.

The project has also enhanced synergies with Mustang Pipe Line Partners, a joint venture in which MPLCO has a 70% ownership share. Mustang operates a crude pipeline that extends from the Chicago area to Patoka, which allows access to other pipeline systems further north.
CONTACT: ExxonMobil

Brian Dunphy, 713-656-5431

SOURCE: Exxon Mobil Corporation

Overview of Pipelines in Faulkner County, Arkansas. The "A" marker at the bottom center of the image, near where the Red "Pegasus" line crosses a blue natural gas pipeline, is the actual site of the spill. (Map composition from Google Maps and the NPMS / PHMSA public viewer)


Detail. Marker A is site of spill. The blue pipeline is natural gas. The red pipeline is the one that ruptured, called variously, the "Pegasus",  "Exxon Patoka - Corsicana", or the MPLCO.


This is the Northwood subdivision near Starlite Rd. North. Notice the pipeline runs right under some houses in the upper left of the subdivision.





 


Dilbit Coverup?

Is the Oil+Gas industry deliberately trying to mislead the public and the government by referring to dilbit spills as "Crude Oil"?

Media reports that the Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 is "Crude Oil" over the correct "Dilbit" by a factor of 4:1. (by using Google matches as a guide).  http://www.michiganradio.org/term/kalamazoo-river-oil-spill



Yellowstone River July 2011 Dilbit spill called "crude oil" by industry and most media 15:1:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120629/enbridge-dilbit-disaster-kalamazoo-oil-spill-epilogue-tar-sands-crude-cost-liability-lives-changed



Alberta Red Deer River Dilbit spill June 2012 widely reported to be "Crude oil" over "dilbit" by 10:1 (by using Google matches as a guide).

Alberta Red Deer River Dilbit spill June 2012

March 28, 2013 Minnesota train derailment. Media Reports "Crude Oil" over Dilbit by 1,000:1
Mayflower Arkansas DILBIT spill called "crude oil" by the mainstream news over the correct term by 1:000 : 1. 





Notice the trend. 4:1, 10:1, 1000:1. Media is getting it wrong more often.

Hmmm... Intentional media/corporate coverup? YOU BETCHA!

See also:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/texas_judge_asks_if_bitumen_is.html

UPDATE 4/2/2013 -- Just found the history of this pipeline.  

It's 66 years old, built in 1947. Seems like the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure was 800 psi. Dilbit typically requires 1300-1440 psi, which is around 160-175% the design pressure.
It used to be operated by the Magnolia Pipe Line Company, and ground first broke June 2, 1947: http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d/f2d/195/195.F2d.391.13268.html

It cost $46 million in 1947:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19461126&id=O68fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ItcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4497,2834674

This line was to supply about 250.000 barrels per day. It was to service the Lubrite Refinery in E. St. Louis. The Strawberry station was automated in 1962 and operated remotely from Dallas. It has a single 900 hp electric motor turning a centrefugal pump and producing an output pressure of from 600-800 psi.

books.google.com/books?isbn=1563117533
http://books.google.com/books?ei=t5hbUbnEO4S5Udu6gOgL&id=K94o71aLb-0C&q=magnolia#v=snippet&q=magnolia&f=false
-- Mother of Counties, Lawrence County 1815-2001 History and Families

Dilbit pipelines typically run at 1300-1440 psi. That's around 160-175% the design pressure.
Nearly 2x!

No wonder the thing ruptured.


They basically took and old pipeline which used to ship crude from Texas to Illinois, and reversed the direction in 2006 after it had sat ideal "for a few years".


UPDATE 4/3/2013 --  TALKING OUT BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH?

While 99.5% of the media is repeating what they are being told by Exxon Mobil, that this is a "crude oil spill", the same Exxon Mobil is telling the government the truth, that this is DILBIT, thus exempting them from paying into a fund for the cleanup.

http://rt.com/usa/arkansas-spill-exxon-cleanup-244/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/02/1810571/exxons-duck-killing-pipeline-doesnt-pay-taxes-to-oil-spill-cleanup-fund/?mobile=nc


Update 4/4/2013 -- Pressure anomalies

"Exxon Mobil increased the capacity of its 1,381-kilometre Pegasus Pipeline by 50% to about 96,000 barrels a day, the Irving, Tex.-based company said Wednesday in a statement."

Huh, no mention of HOW they were going to do that. No mention of laying new pipe, so they must have accomplished this by increasing pressure. Keep in mind that Dilbit already requires much higher pressure to flow, typically 1300-1400 psi:
 
http://oilsandstruth.org/exxon-boosts-pegasus-pipeline-tar-sands-50

Yet, yesterday Inside Climate News reports: "....the agency ordered pressure in the pipeline to be reduced to 656 pounds per square inch once operations are allowed to resume, just 80 percent of the operating pressure of 708 psi moments before the rupture. At the time of the reversal, the pipe was tested at 820 psi."

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130403/federal-rules-dont-control-pipeline-reversals-exxons-burst-pegasus

Dilbit = high pressure (1300-1440psi) + increased capacity by 50% in 2009
does not add up to an operating pressure of 708 psi. 

I smell something fishy. 
Or maybe it's Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons


I want to especially thank my friend Leland Snyder for helping me understand chemistry better. Any errors or omissions are mine alone!!

link to this: TinyURL.com/DilbitIsNotOil 

Depleted Uranium in fracking perf-guns

UPDATE: Several readers have written to me saying this is in-fact proof of nothing.  TRUE.   However, it is strong circumstantial evidence. Certainly, Hallibuton and others have performed trial experiments. They must have to support the patents. But Where? In PA? TX? OK? CO? Where is the paper trail? NRC and DOT both should issue these permits, but upon FOIL both responded, "no such records exist". Something doesn't smell right.  If this is going on, and I suspect it is, then have the toxic effects of this been studied anywhere? 

This is only the beginning of an investigation....


Earliest article I can find on the subject (2007):
http://brianforsantafe.blogspot.com/2007/11/depleted-uranium-and-oil-drilling-in.html

Dick Cheney connection to DU (Mr. Halliburton Loophole):
http://www.notinkansas.us/du_1.html


SEE ALSO: http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/07/halliburtonschlumberger-radiation.html

We know there are several sources of radiation from HVHF operations.

1) NORMS from deep underground coming up
2) Radioactive rods used for well-logging. See: http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/09/19/where-is-the-radioactive-rod-how-halliburton-lost-a-tiny-fracking-tool/

and this one, which is not often talked about:

3) Depleted Uranium used in Perf Guns

"wire line" perf gun



DU makes an ideal material for fracking perf-guns, for the same reasons why
it makes an ideal material for an anti-tank weapon, because DU is very hard,
and burns with extreme heat.

See: Invisible War: Depleted Uranium and the politics of radiation
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psfK8ijrzyc
(Watch about the first 10 min to learn about the properties of DU)

After the horizontal leg of a HVHHF well is drilled, cased, and cemented,
the final step before fracking is to lower in a "perf gun", which is loaded
with some of the highest explosives developed, with a blast pressure on
the order of 10 million PSI.

These extreme pressures are necessary because the hydostatic pressure at 7,000' is already ~10k 3,500 psi. So not only this must be overcome, but also the yield pressure of steel pipe:

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/01/fracking-perf-gun-explosion-in-tx-2.html

I first heard rumors about DU being used in Perf Guns several years ago,
but couldn't find proof at the time.

Here's the proof of a connection. That it's at least been on Halliburton's mind, if not already been in trials. Where? Pennsylvania maybe? Has anyone looked at the possible consequences to living beings of this application?

Again: this is only the beginning of an inquiry... stay tuned...




Patent US 2011/0000669 A1 Pub. Date: Jan. 6, 2011
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Carrollton, TX (US)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=EYLwAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

A perforating gun assembly for use in a wellbore. The perforating
gun assembly includes a carrier gun body and a charge
holder disposed within the carrier gun body. A plurality of
shaped charges are supported within the carrier gun body. A
secondary pressure generator is operably associated with at
least one of the shaped charges. The secondary pressure generator
optimizes the wellbore pressure regime immediately
after detonation of the shaped charges by controlling the
dynamic underbalance created by the empty gun chambers to
prevent excessive dynamic underbalance which may detrimentally
effect the perforating operation.

...



[0013] In one embodiment, the shaped charge component
may be formed from or may contain a reactive material such
as a pyrophoric material, a combustible material, a Mixed
Rare Earth (MRE) alloy or the like including, but not limited
to, zinc, aluminum, bismuth, tin, calcium, cerium, cesium,
hafnium, iridium, lead, lithium, palladium, potassium,
sodium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium, cobalt, chromium,
iron, nickel, tantalum, depleted uranium, mischmetal or the
like or combination, alloys, carbides or hydrides of these
materials. In certain embodiments, the shaped charge component
may be formed from the above mentioned materials in
various powdered metal blends. These powdered metals may
also be mixed with oxidizers to form exothermic pyrotechnic
compositions, such as thermites. The oxidizers may include,
but are not limited to, boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide,
chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide,
iron(II, III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, lead(II, III, IV) oxide and
the like. The thermites may also contain fluorine compounds
as additives, such as Teflon. The thermites may include nanothermites
in which the reacting constituents are nanoparticles.

...

[0032] The secondary pressure generators may be formed
as all or a part of a charge case such as charge case 128
including as a coating on the charge case, a liner such as liner
130 or the explosive within a shaped charge such as shaped
charge 126. Preferably, the secondary pressure generators are
formed from a reactive material such as a pyrophoric materials,
a combustible material, a Mixed Rare Earth (MRE)
alloy or the like including, but not limited to, zinc, aluminum,
bismuth, tin, calcium, cerium, cesium, hafnium, iridium,
lead, lithium, palladium, potassium, sodium, magnesium,
titanium, zirconium, cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, tantalum,
depleted uranium, mischmetal or the like or combination,
alloys, carbides or hydrides of these materials. In certain
embodiments, the secondary pressure generators may be
formed from the above mentioned materials in various powdered
metal blends. These powdered metals may also be
mixed with oxidizers to form exothermic pyrotechnic compositions,
such as thermites. The oxidizers may include, but
are not limited to, boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(
III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron
(II, III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, lead(II, III, IV) oxide and the
like. The thermites may also contain fluorine compounds as
additives, such as Teflon. The thermites may include nanothermites
in which the reacting constituents are nanoparticles.
The reaction generated by the secondary pressure generators
may manifest itself through a thermal effect, a
pressure effect or both. In either case, the reaction causes an
increase in the pressure within perforating gun 100, the near
well bore region or both which counteracts the forces created
by the dynamic underbalance condition in the well bore.

...

What is claimed is:
1. A perforating gun assembly for use in a wellbore, the
perforating gun assembly comprising:
a carrier gun body;
a charge holder disposed within the carrier gun body;
a plurality of shaped charges supported within the carrier
gun body; and
a secondary pressure generator operably associated with at
least one of the shaped charges.
2. The perforating gun assembly as recited in claim 1
wherein the secondary pressure generator further comprises a
reactive material.
3. The perforating gun assembly as recited in claim 1
wherein the secondary pressure generator is selected from the
group consisting of zinc, aluminum, bismuth, tin, calcium,
cerium, cesium, hafnium, iridium, lead, lithium, palladium,
potassium, sodium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium, cobalt,
chromium, iron, nickel, tantalum, depleted uranium and combination,
alloys, carbides and hydrides of these materials.
 ...


24. The wellbore pressure control assembly as recited in
claim 21 wherein the secondary pressure generator is selected
from the group consisting of zinc, aluminum, bismuth, tin,
calcium, cerium, cesium, hafnium, iridium, lead, lithium,
palladium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, titanium, zirconium,
cobalt, chromium, iron, nickel, tantalum, depleted uranium
and combination, alloys, carbides and hydrides of these
materials.








UPDATE April 8 2013: PA DEP is beginning to study radiation hazards related to Marcellus Shale drilling.
As I have reported, there is evidence to suggest that the O+G industry is using Depleted Uranium in their Perf-Guns (I found the Halliburton Patent, and it is also an ideal material for this application)
http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/03/finally-proof-of-use-depleted-uranium.html

The one tracer which will positively ID the use of DU is U-236
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
However, U-236 is not being tested for in the PA DEP study:
http://www.nofrackingway.us/2013/04/06/pa-dep-gets-radioactive/

Please call PA DEP and insist that they include U-236 in their radiation study
so we can find out of the industry is using DU in their perf guns in PA:

Colleen Connolly,
Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office


(Or use any other contact at PA DEP you might have)

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Friday, March 29, 2013

Center County PA pipelines

from google maps

from NPMS public viewer

combined

with townships

Burnside Twp detail



Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Drilling risk can, must be managed By Brad Gill

Press and Sun Bulletin 03/26/2013

GUEST VIEWPOINT
Drilling risk can, must be managed
By Brad Gill

It's become very clear that New Yorkers have, in large part, tuned out the debate over the future of natural gas development. Proponents are entrenched in their supportive positions. Likewise, opponents see no way drilling can ever be done safely — despite the superb performance record in other states and the decades-long history of safe oil and gas exploration in New York.

This dynamic is playing out as energy experts, regulators, economists, political leaders and others are clearly demonstrating that natural gas exploration is creating jobs, leading to a manufacturing resurgence, helping the environment and, most importantly, not polluting groundwater.

Natural gas is being harvested safely across the world and in more than half of U.S. states. Its use is helping to lower carbon dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Its extraction will lead to 600,000 new jobs by 2020, according to the Obama administration. Its availability can "spark a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S., including billions in cost savings, a significant number of new jobs and a greater investment in U.S. plants," according to a 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers study.

Additionally, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg actively supports natural gas usage in power production and transportation. In August 2012 study, he said that "natural gas is a lowcost, low-emissions fuel that makes good economic and environmental sense." The federal Environmental Protection Agency, the Groundwater Protection Council and governors in gas-producing states support its safe extraction and have testified to its safety.

For nearly five years, the public in New York has been exposed to a well-organized and well-funded campaign designed to distort the truth about natural gas development, to create an illusion of some dire emergency and public health threat, and to plant seeds of doubt that have little chance of germinating.

Their arguments often hinge on a particular image that has helped sustain the controversy — the flaming faucet clip from the widely panned film "Gasland." The scene continues to show up in news reports as a problem caused by drilling. It is not.

There is no perfectly safe energy source. Coal, wind, oil, solar, hydro and natural gas have benefits and drawbacks.

Risk can and must be managed. Demanding zero risk from energy production, however, is unattainable, unrealistic and not requested of any other modern industry. We must listen to the real experts in the dialogue — not actors, activist academics and New York City-based special interests — to determine if expanded natural gas development can be done safely in the Southern Tier. History, experience and science will conclude just that.Gill is executive director of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York.


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Re: Meet the EPA advisory panel on fracking

More:

EPA Press Release:
http://yubanet.com/usa/EPA-39-s-Science-Advisory-Board-Announces-Independent-Panel-to-Peer-Review-Agency-39-s-Hydraulic-Fracturing-Research.php

News articles:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/03/25/epa-announces-fracking-studys-peer-review-panel/

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/290235-new-panel-to-advise-epa-on-fracking-




On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM, William Huston <williamahuston@gmail.com> wrote:
via Josh Fox on Facebook:

Meet the EPA advisory panel on fracking

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalSubCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&subcommittee=Hydraulic+Fracturing+Research+Advisory+Panel

Hmmm. Don't recognize any of these names.
RESEARCH NEEDED HERE... Bios?

Conspicuously absent:

Tony Ingraffea? Nope.
Bob Howarth? Nope.
Ron Bishop? Nope.
Sandra Steingraber? Nope.
Conrad Voltz? Nope.....


Is this another cherry-picked panel by Obama's EPA to produced the "desired" result?

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)



--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Meet the EPA advisory panel on fracking

via Josh Fox on Facebook:

Meet the EPA advisory panel on fracking

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebExternalSubCommitteeRosters?OpenView&committee=BOARD&subcommittee=Hydraulic+Fracturing+Research+Advisory+Panel

Hmmm. Don't recognize any of these names.
RESEARCH NEEDED HERE... Bios?

Conspicuously absent:

Tony Ingraffea? Nope.
Bob Howarth? Nope.
Ron Bishop? Nope.
Sandra Steingraber? Nope.
Conrad Voltz? Nope.....


Is this another cherry-picked panel by Obama's EPA to produced the "desired" result?

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Monday, March 25, 2013

PLEASE make 2 phone calls today! 1:Sen. Libous (or your NY Senator) 2: Gov Cuomo

Please try to make 2 phone calls each day this week:

1: Sen. LIBOUS: 607-773-8771 -- 518-455-2677 -- 877-854-2687 


"Move the Moratorium Bill to the Floor for a VOTE!"

If you live outside Senator Libous' district, please call YOUR senator.
Find his/her contact info here: http://www.nysenate.gov/

While you're at it, call the governor:

2: Gov. CUOMO: 518-474-8390 -- 212 681-4580 -- 866-584-6799

"Give us a Fracking Break! No Permits until
a Health Impact Assessment is DONE!"

(HINT: Put these numbers into your cell phone so you always have them!)


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

What happens to Drill Cuttings in NY?

Vera asked me to check on drill cuttings in the NY Regs.
She noticed a NY permit application which allowed for on-site burial of drill cuttings.

This is illegal even in the wild-west no-regulations state of Pennsylvania.

Sho' nuff:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/87420.html

554.1(c)(4) If applicable, prior to the issuance of a permit to drill, deepen,
plug back or convert a well or for any operation noticed to the department on
the Sundry Well Notice and Report form that requires pre-approval from the
department, the owner or operator must submit and receive approval of a plan
for the environmentally safe and proper disposal or beneficial re-use of
drill cuttings on-site or off-site.

So there you have it.
So maybe, "If applicable", the driller might be required to fill out a form.

On site, off-site, spread them on farm land as a "beneficial use".
Anything goes, baby.

Share this info anywhere.

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

It's MONDAY! Time to start calling Libous! and Cuomo!

IT'S MONDAY!
That means it's time to start calling the office of Senator Tom Libous!

Do this every day Mon to Fri :)

Sen. LIBOUS: 607-773-8771 -- 518-455-2677 -- 877-854-2687 

"Move the Moratorium Bill to the Floor for a VOTE!"

If you live outside Senator Libous' district, please call YOUR senator.
Find his/her contact info here: http://www.nysenate.gov/

While you're at it, call the governor:

Gov. CUOMO: 518-474-8390 -- 212 681-4580 -- 866-584-6799

"Give us a Fracking Break! No Permits until
a Health Impact Assessment is DONE!"

(HINT: Put these numbers into your cell phone so you always have them!)

Inspiration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxzX2DoppQE&list=PLzNVpdhc5ElxTc2-swyaRd0lD-hPcgVDr




--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Sunday, March 24, 2013


Summary of Oral Arguments in the Dryden and Middlefield Cases Appealing
Decisions Upholding Local Bans Prohibiting Gas Drilling
By Nicole Dillingham, Otsego 2000

(Third Appellate Division, March 21, 2013)

The appeals from the lower court decisions in the Dryden and Middlefield cases
upholding local zoning laws,which banned heavy industry, including specifically gas
drilling, took place at the Third Appellate Division on Thursday, March 21. The Panel
consisted of 4 judges. They started the proceedings by indicating they had read all of
the briefs, including the amicus briefs, found them helpful and would address questions
to the attorneys based on all of this material. As the arguments unfolded the Judges
quickly demonstrated that they were well informed and fully engaged on the issues.
None of the attorneys was allowed to present more than a sentence or two of their
prepared remarks. Each in turn was repeatedly interrupted with questions from the
Court leading to a somewhat disjointed, but lively oral argument.

As attorney for the first Appellant, the bankrupt Norse Energy Corporation, Tom West,
argued first.He had a shaky start. He said that to make the capital commitments
necessary for gas extraction the industry needed “certainty” with respect to regulations,
not a patchwork of local rules. At this point he went so far as to urge the Court to “put
yourself in the shoes of the operators.” This quickly led to an admonition from the Chief
Judge that this was not the role of the Court. Standing in the shoes of one of the parties
was perhaps his role, but not the Court’s, which was obligated to interpret and the law to
all parties.

Mr. West then turned to the claimed important State interests that encouraged gas
drilling and by extension supported preemption of local laws. These included the
importance of domestic energy production,avoidance of "waste" of energy resources, and
even prevention of disruption of the energy markets. He said these interests were so
important, they could only be advanced through State and DEC control of drilling
operations unimpeded by local laws. (The Court later noted that these concerns are
largely questions of public policy that are for the legislature, not the courts, to decide.)
The Judges soon steered Mr. West to a discussion of the statutory construction of the
preemption language in the Oil and Gas Law(ECL 2-303). The Court indicted that
clearly the legislature could preempt local laws, but when they do so they must be “very
clear”. As discussed in the briefs, ECL 2-303provides that local laws related to the
“regulation” of the industry are preempted; the only exceptions are for local laws
concerning road use and property taxation. The issue before the Court is whether local
zoning laws of general applicability should be considered “regulation” of gas drilling
within the meaning of the preemption clause.

Interpretation of similar language in the context of the mining was discussed in the case
of Frew Run. There,the Court of Appeals found that preemption of local “regulation” of
the mining industry did not invalidate local zoning, because zoning was not a direct
“regulation” of the mining industry. The Court asked Mr. West how mining differed from
gas drilling? He responded that mining impacted surface land use more directly. Mr.

West claimed that fracking has been practiced for decades in New York without incident,
and that recent technological developments in hydraulic fracturing now made it more
like brain surgery than mining.

The Court asked whether the key was to treat the term “regulation”in ECL 2-303 as
concerned with the “how” of drilling, while zoning laws controlled the “where”, mirroring
an argument made by attorneys for the Towns. At this point Tom West argued that
regulation of the “where” of drilling must be interpreted to be included in the preemption
clause to avoid waste, an express State interest. For example, he urged the Court to
consider that well spacing, which concerned the “where” of drilling was clearly a matter
for the DEC. The Court then asked whether State control of spacing units could be
interpreted to be limited to areas where fracking was allowed by local zoning? Mr. West
asked the Court “not to fall into the Frew Run trap”. In his view ECL 2-303 exempted the
industry from all local laws, other than laws related to road use and taxation.

The Judges asked Mr. West several tough questions about the extent of the
immunity from local regulation granted the industry under his interpretation of the law.
The Judges asked incredulously whether it was his position that there was no local
control whatsoever with respect to drilling,even near or under sensitive local sites, such
as drilling under reservoirs? Also, the Judges asked: “Is it you position that that towns
have absolutely no authority even as to drilling 24 hours per day?” Mr. West replied that
all such regulation was for the DEC and that except for traffic and taxation, the Towns
had no authority. He stated that if local noise regulations were violated it was up to the
DEC,and only the DEC,to control it.

Tom West reiterated that the industry simply could not operate with a myriad of local
laws. The Chief Judge then told Mr. West that she was concerned that on pg. 7 of his
brief he went so far as to say that no prudent operator would ever invest in a state where
it operations were subject to the “fickle” decisions of municipal boards. The Judge
indicated concern that Mr. West would dismiss hard-working local Town Boards as
“fickle”. Mr. West admitted it might have been a poor choice of words, but stated it was
based on his own “real world experience”.

Scott Kurkowski argued the case for Jennifer Huntington. He urged the court to consider
that the Middlefield ordinance was overbroad because it would ban not only horizontal
drilling, but also vertical wells, which Ms. Huntington was depicted as eager to profit
from. He also maintained that there is a clear State interest to maximize gas extraction
that should not be impaired by local laws, such as the Middlefield zoning law. In his
view, the State’s goal to maximize energy extraction was clear, in the interest of all the
people of New York, and not to be compromised by local government. He distinguished
Frew Run and other cases under the Mined Land Reclamation Law as inapplicable
because “we have never had a gravel crisis in our country.” He insisted that risk of
another energy crisis required the State to take control of all laws which might affect gas
extraction away from local government and that the only traffic and taxation, as
specifically mentioned in ECL 2-303, were excluded from the preemption clause.

The Court asked Mr. Kurkowski why, if such broad preemption was intended, the
legislature did not insert specific language preempting zoning laws in ECL 2-303,such
as the examples cited by attorneys for Dryden at p. 24 of their brief. Mr. Kurkowski
pressed that the statute was clear; the only exceptions for local control were road
regulations and taxation. He then turned to reading legislative history into the record
claiming the legislative history supported his view that broad preemption was
intended.The Judges pointed out that legislative history is irrelevant if the law is clear on
its face as Mr. Kurkowski claimed. The Court also politely pointed out that policy
questions with respect to energy policy generally were not for the courts to decide; the
job of the courts was to apply the law.

Alan Knauf, of Knauf Shaw LLP, representing Dryden Resources Awareness Coalition,
commenced arguments in support of the Town of Dryden. Mr. Knauf began by stating
that Frew Runwas controlling and could not be distinguished. He was immediately
interrupted by questions from the Court regarding the outer bounds of the claims being
advanced by the industry. The Court focused on three questions. First, the Court asked
whether even local noise regulations would be deemed “regulation” and therefore
preempted. Mr. Knauf answered that “probably” they would be deemed regulations and
would be preempted.

Secondly, the Court again referenced the cases cited at page 24 of the Dryden brief
indicating that “the legislature knows how to” preempt local zoning when it wants to do
so. They noted, however, that clarifications were added to the Mining Law to protect local
zoning after the Frew Run decision was decided, but that similar changes were not
added to the Oil and Gas Law. Mr. Knauf emphasized that the plain language of the
ECL 2-303supports the Town’s position, that the ECL 2-303 is not ambiguous, and that
legislative history is, therefore, irrelevant.

Thirdly, the court turned to a discussion of the policy to avoid “waste” expressing
concern that unless an economic process for the retrieval of gas could be implemented
the resource might be wasted. Regarding the industry’s claimed need for contiguous
spacing units to avoid waste, the Court asked how the industry would know where it
could start and stop drilling? Similarly, the Court asked whether zoning, which is
generally concerned with surface activities, extended to below ground impacts. The
Court was interested in whether a town could control activities under its borders that
originated from a neighboring town and how an operator would know where to stop if
certain lands were not leased for drilling. The Court noted cemeteries, which involved
subsurface activity, were subject to zoning, but was uncertain about how the zoning
provisions in issue would be applied. Mr. Knauf stated that zoning laws probably did
extend to below ground activities and that the gas remains trapped under ground and is
not therefore wasted in any event.

Next, Deborah Goldberg of Earthjustice presented additional, compelling argument for
the Town of Dryden. Immediately upon stepping to the podium and outlining her
intended remarks, she too was interrupted by questions, many of which had been posed
to other counsel. The Court first asked whether town-wide zoning was unique either in
New York or other jurisdictions? Ms. Goldberg answered that under land use powers, it
was in fact common to zone-out certain activities on a town-wide basis as the Town of
Dryden had done here. It was a commonly utilized expression of local zoning power.
The Court then returned to questions about the legislature’s power to preempt, again
citing page 24 of the Earthjustice brief, where examples of specific preemption clauses
upheld by the courts were cited. Ms. Goldberg urged the Court to apply those cases and
utilize standard principles of statutory construction to the issue of the preemption clause
in ECL 2-303. She pointed out that the enacting clause of 2-303 dealt only with
“regulation of an industry”; it did not reach “regulation of land use.” The exceptions
clause,dealing with road use and taxation, must be read as limited to the scope of the
enacting clause.

When asked about application of zoning laws to below ground activities, Ms.
Goldberg conceded that the Dryden zoning law expressly regulated only surface
activities, although zoning laws frequently regulated at least the near surface, such as
burials.She explained that this is a unique feature of the Dryden law.

The Court then again asked if a town could be deprived of power to regulate even 24-
hour noise and dust if it allows fracking? Ms. Goldberg indicated that towns
generally have the right to regulate noise within their borders. However if fracking is
allowed by local zoning, then certain powers like those to regulate noise may not be
retained. (The question of the enforceability of local laws of general applicability such as
noise restrictions was not in issue in the cases now before the Court;these cases
concerned only the validity of a complete bans.)

Lastly, the court returned to the issue of potential of waste of the resource. Ms.
Goldberg was asked if the highest and best use of the technology, to avoid waste,
required contiguous extraction units. Ms. Goldberg stated the concerns about waste
must be tempered by concerns for the welfare of all citizens and that issues about waste
only arise once extraction has been commenced, and only in zones where drilling is
allowed.

Lastly, John J. Henry, of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, stepped forward to
represent the Town of Middlefield. Like all the other counsel, his argument was
consumed by questions from the bench, which he ably handled. Initially, the Court
asked if Mr. Henry agreed that lateral drilling from a town that allowed drilling would be
allowed to intrude under a town that banned it? Mr. Henry thoughtfully noted that he
could not at this time fully answer this question, as it was hypothetical and not presently
before the Court.

He was also asked if he agreed that the exceptions in ECL 2-303 regarding road use
and taxation could reasonably be considered “regulations” within the enabling clause of
the statute. For example, the Court asked how taxation would be considered a
regulation. Mr. Henry replied that the Court need not consider the exceptions.
Appropriate statutory construction of ECL 2-303 started and ended with the enabling
clause, which clearly stated that preemption applied only to “regulation of the industry”,
not regulation of land use.

The Court went on to ask what if a “land use” regulation incidentally impacts the
industry? Mr. Henry pointed out that this was an “implied pre-emption” argument that
should be rejected in light of the express preemption language in the statute. And what
if the industry needs a large geographic area in which to operate, asked one of the
Judges? Mr. Henry responded by emphasizing that in order to preempt the traditional
power of towns to exercise home rule to enact laws of general applicability, the
legislature must be “explicit” and very clear. He stated the Frew Run decision cannot be
distinguished and is controlling on the issues before this Court.

In conclusion, Tom West reserved a few minutes of time for rebuttal. He used this time
to make three points. First, that the language of Frew Run is not identical to that of ECL
2-303 and that therefore it is not binding precedent. Second, urging the Court to
invalidate the zoning bans so as to protect the “correlative rights” of landowners who
wish to profit from drilling. Lastly, he offered rather weakly that perhaps the ECL 2-303
could have been written more clearly to expressly specify broad preemption, but that the
Court must consider that the legislature may have had a "bad day” and the Court should
find preemption nonetheless. The notion that the legislature simply had a bad day when
writing ECL 2-303 was a novel last thought with which to end the argument.
At least 8 amicus briefs were accepted for filing. Brewery Ommegang and other
businesses submitted an amicus brief, prepared by John Barone of Tooher and Barone,
supporting home rule because it was crucial to protecting local business and economic
activity. Also, Otsego 2000 joined the Preservation League of New York and several
other environmental groups in a brief supporting home rule with an emphasis on the
need for local control over community character and historic assets, prepared by Kate
Sinding and Dan Raichel of NRDC.We are very grateful for the contributions made to
the presentation of these issues by Earthjustice on behalf of Town of Dryden,
Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, on behalf of Town of Middlefield, NRDC on behalf of
environmental groups, and Tooher and Barone on behalf of businesses, among many
other fine briefs.

(The Middlefield briefs and all of the amicus briefs can be found on the Otsego 2000 website:http://www.otsego2000.org/environmental-stewardship/home-rule-chc-v-town-middlefield/ )

It is not possible to predict with any certainty how or when the Court will rule, but those
familiar with appellate procedures estimate a decision should be expected in 4-8
weeks.Since the panel was composed of 4 judges, we are informed a 2/2 split would
result in affirmance of the judgments below. Thus, the appellants need three judges to
overturn the decisions. We remain hopeful, based on the excellent briefs and arguments
presented, that the decision, when issued,will uphold home rule and the carefully
reasoned decisions of the trial courts.

Nicole Dillingham
March 23, 2013

For your research: Every NY Regulation which mentions Oil, Gas, Well, Mining, or Drilling

For your research:

I used a computer program to grab every single regulation of the NYS DEC found here:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/regulations.html

I then searched for the following key words
Oil Gas Drilling Well Mining
Here are the results, including section headings.

I believe most of these existing regulations are from 1972.

The entire text of the rule may not be there -- just the lines
which match any of these words: OIL, GAS, WELL, MINE or MINING, PIPELINE, or DRILLING


Note well that this needs some cleanup. It's 1.0 MB right now.
There are false hits, like any rule which contains the phrase "As well as"

I will eventually do some additional filtering to improve this.
But it may be useful to you if you search this document for
something like "gas well", note the section number,
then go read the actual rule.

http://changetheframe.com/bhuston/NY-O+G-Regs.html


Which refers to the rules here:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/regulations.html


If you will be using this file,
please save a copy locally,
as my server has limited bandwidth.

Have fun -- BH



--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Frackers Plan Feb 2008: 1) Take out the Sheriff 2) Slide past the blind dude

I was going back over the history of Oil+Gas regs in NY
and found an interesting coincidence (??).

Two noteworthy events happened in Feb 2008.

Also during that same month:

  • The Sheriff of Wall St., Eliot Spitzer,
    now the Governor of the Empire State
    checks into swank DC hotel as "George Fox"
    and as a client of the Empire Club VIP,
    pays $4,300 cash for two female entertainers.

  • Resigns 1 month later.

This always seemed like a set-up / take-down to me.
Still, Eliot had to fall for the bait
(oops, he did).

Do you think these events are related?

I can imagine some Texans smoking cigars
discussing what they could slide past the
blind black dude....

Guess they were wrong....!



David Paterson 2 by David Shankbone.jpg

David Paterson -- created the NY Moratorium on Fracking
Still in effect nearly 5 years later (56 months)!


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Saturday, March 23, 2013

The state of Fracking NY in 30 min. (2 video segments)

Watch the show online:




--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

New TV show on Fracking+Health TONIGHT Time Warner/Binghamton ch.4 -- 6pm-8pm

Watch the show online:

You may have already seen part 1. Just skip to part 2. :)
Enjoy...

Here's a still:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/269316_550889898264965_1311653804_n.jpg


It will play for the next few weeks on Time Warner Cable/Binghamton ch.4 
Fridays 10pm-midnight
Saturdays 6pm-8pm

The show is ~31m, and will be repeated several times.

It is a creative video mashup of the last year of news about
the state of fracking in NY.

Highlights:
  • Debunking the Siena Poll which shows NY is split on fracking
  • Measuring the growth of the anti-fracking movement
  • Update on the Health Study and the Regs -- in the words of the experts

There is CALL TO ACTION to call Libous and Cuomo
to pass the 2-year moratorium,  and
NO FRACKING PERMITS until the health studies are done.
I've put ~130 hours of editing into this show-- it's crafty and funny,
has animated parts, and is packed with good information.

Be sure to pass this info on to other people who have Time Warner Cable
in any of these communities:

Binghamton, Candor, Chenango, Conklin, Dickinson, Endicott, Fenton, Johnson City, Maine, Nanticoke, Newark Valley, Owego, Port Dickinson, Tioga, Union, Vestal, and Montrose PA.

Please try to call each of these men a couple of times per week
until we get the Senate Moratorium Bill PASSED!

Sen. Libous: 607-773-8771  or 518-455-2677 or 877-854-2687
Gov. Cuomo: 518-474-8390 or 212-681-4580 or 866-584-6799



--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

New TV show on Fracking+Health TONIGHT Time Warner/Binghamton ch.4 -- 6pm-8pm

I have a New TV show on Fracking+Health TONIGHT
Time Warner/Binghamton ch.4 -- 6pm-8pm

The show is ~35m, and will be repeated several times.

It is a creative video mashup of the last year of news about
the state of fracking in NY.

Highlights:
  • Debunking the Siena Poll which shows NY is split on fracking
  • Measuring the growth of the anti-fracking movement
  • Update on the Health Study and the Regs -- in the words of the experts

There is CALL TO ACTION to call Libous and Cuomo
to pass the 2-year moratorium,  and
NO FRACKING PERMITS until the health studies are done.

I've put ~130 hours of editing into this show-- it's crafty and funny,
has animated parts, and is packed with good information.

Be sure to pass this info on to other people who have Time Warner Cable
in any of these communities:

Binghamton, Candor, Chenango, Conklin, Dickinson, Endicott, Fenton, Johnson City,
Maine, Nanticoke, Newark Valley, Owego, Port Dickinson, Tioga, Union, Vestal,
and Montrose PA.

Please try to call each of these men a couple of times per week
until we get the Senate Moratorium Bill PASSED!

Sen. Libous: 607-773-8771  or 518-455-2677 or 877-854-2687
Gov. Cuomo: 518-474-8390 or 212-681-4580 or 866-584-6799




--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)