Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-19-2009, 12:49 PM   #61
daxs
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Jersey by the beach
Posts: 272
In PA right now, a big issue is water treatment and where and how to dispose of the sediment from the water used in the fracking process. The state requirement treatment of the water. The DEP is now looking at what constitutes acceptable levels of chemicals etc. Due to budget issues, Pa has leased land to the drilling companies. Its a small portion of state owned forest land but is controversial.
daxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 10:06 AM   #62
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by backwoodsman View Post
Wow! Thanks for posting this link!
And remember the coment period is almost over.
__________________
Be careful, don't spread invasive species!!

When a dog runs at you,whistle for him.
Henry David Thoreau

CL50-#23
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 08:03 PM   #63
Scenic New York
Member
 
Scenic New York's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Western NY
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
New York's Allegany State Park is a major recreation area for people in my region, and our ADK chapter is very active in working to protect our state park from damage similar to that which has already been done just a couple miles south, near Bradford, in Pennsylvania's Allegheny National Forest. The fact that the company that claims to own mining rights there is in the nearby Town of Amherst (close to where I live) puts another personal spin on this. The hydrofracking process would destroy most, if not all, of the recreational opportunities in a large portion of Allegany State Park. In order to obtain that natural gas, deeply forested park lands would be destroyed with a maze of access roads, retention ponds, and large drilling footprints, with an extra bonus of a water table polluted with a variety of chemicals that could render the underground water supply useless for many years to come. It's not worth it, and New York's DEC will hopefully make the mining company not only prove that they actually own the mineral rights, but will prevent this and all future attempts to apply similar invasive mining techniques in New York State parks. Outside the state park, there are public and private forest lands that might be better suited for hydrofracking, and landowners will have to decide if the money they would receive is worth the risk of having their well water permanently polluted. In fact, the Marcellus Shale region is larger in areas east of Allegany park, so other portions of the Southern Tier may more likely see the gas mining take place, where there might be less resistance to the destruction of forest and field. I wish those residents good luck.
WHOA..they're looking at doing this in Allegany?! Geez, and they had fights over the snowmobile trails.

Sadly, I highly doubt the NYS DEC gives a hooey about comments from the public, well informed or not. Case in point in WNY, CWM/LOOW. Money talks and they don't care as long as it's not in their own backyard. Now, drill around Albany and NYC and you might get some attention.

I just read about some guy with a multi million dollar property that was ruined by (unnaturally occuring) toxins in PA but couldn't prove it was from hydrofracking because the companies wouldn't disclose what chemicals were in their "propitary" solution. I just looked and can't find the article but will edit this if I can find it.
Scenic New York is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 07:01 PM   #64
qam1
Member
 
qam1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 265
Here's an editorial from Investor's Business Daily

Get The Frackin' Gas

What's interesting is apparently all these environmental groups and politicans against this are being financed by Billionaire George Soros who is owner of InterOil, a company that has large natural gas fields in Papua New Guinea, which these American resources would compete.

So by not taking advantage of our own resources, we are enriching foreign billionaires at the expense of American companies which provide energy and jobs for American Citizens.

New Guinea is mostly pristine rainforest with incredible biodiversity while western/southern tier New York is already developed/deforested and has been for sometime now,

Can anybody with a straight face claim that they will be more environmentally friendly in New Guinea then they will be here? And Can anybody with a straight face claim any one of these environmental groups actually cares?
__________________
:
:

Qam1

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/qam1 - Everything & Anything on the Adirondacks
:
:
qam1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 07:31 PM   #65
Scenic New York
Member
 
Scenic New York's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Western NY
Posts: 64
I think one of the biggest issues here is going to be one simple word. Propietary. As long as the companies don't have to disclose what is being used to do this, they can easily deny any enviromental impacts because no one can PROVE they are causing contamination because no one knows what is in their secret sauce. Heck, they could use baking soda or some highly dangerous deadly chemical and no one could say either way. If what they are doing is so environmentally friendly, patent the material and disclose what it is. No one can copy it and you can prove it's not toxic. I can't trust the NYS DEC/Army Corps after seeing what they've condoned in Lewiston/Porter with CWM and the LOOW. Brush it under the dirt and pretend it's not there. If you can pass the buck around enough and put off citizens groups long enough, maybe people will forget about it. IMO, if it's SO safe, then the execs need to live right there where it's happening, with their wives/husbands and kids. Move the owner of CWM onto Balmer Rd next door to the "safe" facility. Move the Haliburton CEO and family onto land where the wells are, where they are fracking. Move the DEC officals and their families in, where it's "safe".
Scenic New York is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 07:50 PM   #66
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by qam1 View Post
And Can anybody with a straight face claim any one of these environmental groups actually cares?
Which environmental groups? The ones made up of people that actually live in the region? I can't say if they truly care because I'm not them, but if I lived there you're damn straight I would care.

From the linked article:

Quote:
Slam dunk? Hardly. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the sponsors of the job- and economy-killing Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and no fan of domestic energy, wants to hold hearings on the alleged environmental dangers of the new technology.
Seriously? All he wants to do is hold hearings, how is that bad? This is what elected officials are for, to represent the best interests of their constituents, and it's hard to argue that potential water contamination is in the best interest of the people who have to drink that water. You can assert that he's not holding the hearings in good faith, but drill-and-ask-questions-later is a ridiculous idea. Besides, hearings get held for everything. It's part of the democratic process.

Quote:
Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, [said] "In hydraulic fracturing's 60-year history, there has not been a single documented case of contamination."
The article linked here just yesterday listed several recent cases of contamination, and specifically said that "Similar stories of exploding wells and houses and contaminated water supplies are documented in news reports from around the country. Congress recently asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency to study the effects of fracking on drinking water." So, somebody's stretching the truth.

This is why I hate this crap. One side paints this stuff like angels have come down from heaven to save us from our energy woes, the other side makes it sound like the second a drillbit touches the ground, we'll all die from cancer. There has to be middle ground somewhere.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 07:58 PM   #67
Scenic New York
Member
 
Scenic New York's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Western NY
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by qam1 View Post
Yes I did, there are few facts in any of them, it’s mostly typical environmentalist scare tactics.

Much of Western New York is pretty flat and ugly, so it won’t have the emotional appeal they are trying for so they have try and mislead viewers by showing the Adirondacks. They aren’t drilling at Marcy Dam or Whiteface. That’s not exactly the tactics someone with facts on their side resorts to.

I take issue with this statement, from a personal level as well as the fact that it's quite untrue. We have two of the great lakes here, which have already had to go through clean ups from toxins. There's rolling hills in the southtowns as well as the finger lakes, which is where this more will likely happen than in the northtowns (besides, we have our own enviromental disasters already). The fingerlakes are home to a major wine trail as well as several smaller lakes and a number of beautiful parks. In western NY, we have the "grand canyon of the east" (Letchworth), Allegany state park, beautiful beaches on the lakes. In central NY, there's a lot of beautiful parks (look for photos from Watkins Glen). If they wanted to, they could show beautiful places here. I could give them plenty of photographic evidence. Take a look at my avi, it's taken in "ugly" WNY.
Scenic New York is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 08:04 PM   #68
Scenic New York
Member
 
Scenic New York's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Western NY
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by colden46 View Post
This is why I hate this crap. One side paints this stuff like angels have come down from heaven to save us from our energy woes.
This is the problem imo, anyone trying to come in like it's a miracle cure makes me completely suspicious. You know the old saying "if it's too good to be true..."
Scenic New York is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 08:09 PM   #69
ALGonquin Bob
Lake Lila - Low's Lake carry
 
ALGonquin Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by qam1 View Post
Here's an editorial from Investor's Business Daily

Get The Frackin' Gas

What's interesting is apparently all these environmental groups and politicans against this are being financed by Billionaire George Soros who is owner of InterOil, a company that has large natural gas fields in Papua New Guinea, which these American resources would compete.

So by not taking advantage of our own resources, we are enriching foreign billionaires at the expense of American companies which provide energy and jobs for American Citizens.

New Guinea is mostly pristine rainforest with incredible biodiversity while western/southern tier New York is already developed/deforested and has been for sometime now,

Can anybody with a straight face claim that they will be more environmentally friendly in New Guinea then they will be here? And Can anybody with a straight face claim any one of these environmental groups actually cares?
I presume that the above statement is a direct quote from Investor's Business Daily. That statement is completely FALSE in regards to any financing of environmental groups, so I also doubt all the other "facts" as well. I wonder what is the source of their information.
__________________
"Like" my FB page http://tinyurl.com/FB-BuffaloPaddles and visit my map ALGonquin Bob's "BUFFALO PADDLES" Paddle Guide

Check out my "Mountain Blog" http://tinyurl.com/BobMountainBlog2

46er #5357W
ALGonquin Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 10:44 PM   #70
timetohike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
I presume that the above statement is a direct quote from Investor's Business Daily. That statement is completely FALSE in regards to any financing of environmental groups, so I also doubt all the other "facts" as well. I wonder what is the source of their information.
It sounds like a lot of hooey, but how do you know that it is "completely FALSE in regards to any financing of environmental groups"? Maybe he does finance "environmental groups" whatever those are. (that in itself sounds like a silly phrase.)

But let's say "environmental groups" are groups that claim they exists to "protect the environemnt" (again, whatever that may mean.) How do we know Soros isn't financing them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 11:58 PM   #71
ALGonquin Bob
Lake Lila - Low's Lake carry
 
ALGonquin Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 1,101
The key objectionable phrase here is "apparently all these environmental groups and politicans (sic) against this are being financed by Billionaire George Soros". That statement is false. There could be a group representing itself as concerned about the environment that is secretly financed by someone with an ulterior motive, but certainly the mainstream groups that are fighting this are independent, the largest of those in New York being the Adirondack Mountain Club. The bottom line is that this type of mining devastates the ground above and the water table below, as evidenced by looking at the Allegheny National Forest and the problems reported in the wake of the hydrofracking done there. I favor doing whatever is legally possible to keep this damaging practice out of our state parks, and leave it up to private property owners to decide if they want to risk future uses of their property for some quick dollars today.
__________________
"Like" my FB page http://tinyurl.com/FB-BuffaloPaddles and visit my map ALGonquin Bob's "BUFFALO PADDLES" Paddle Guide

Check out my "Mountain Blog" http://tinyurl.com/BobMountainBlog2

46er #5357W
ALGonquin Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 12:03 AM   #72
timetohike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
The key objectionable phrase here is "apparently all these environmental groups and politicans (sic) against this are being financed by Billionaire George Soros". That statement is false. There could be a group representing itself as concerned about the environment that is secretly financed by someone with an ulterior motive, but certainly the mainstream groups that are fighting this are independent, the largest of those in New York being the Adirondack Mountain Club. The bottom line is that this type of mining devastates the ground above and the water table below, as evidenced by looking at the Allegheny National Forest and the problems reported in the wake of the hydrofracking done there. I favor doing whatever is legally possible to keep this damaging practice out of our state parks, and leave it up to private property owners to decide if they want to risk future uses of their property for some quick dollars today.
Bob, the question was how do you know that Soros isn't financing "environmental groups"? how do you know that he is not the single largest contributor to the ADK Club?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 12:15 AM   #73
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by timetohike View Post
how do you know that he is not the single largest contributor to the ADK Club?
You're serious? They're a non-profit. You can look it up. Or read their annual report; yes, there was a large anonymous donation last year, but donations as a whole are only 16% of their revenue. Now I suppose they could be cooking the books to cover up Soros' nefarious involvement (in which case I would hope their revenue would greatly exceed the stated $3.5 million), or you could just stipulate that the idea is, to use your word, hooey.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 12:20 AM   #74
ALGonquin Bob
Lake Lila - Low's Lake carry
 
ALGonquin Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 1,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by timetohike View Post
Bob, the question was how do you know that Soros isn't financing "environmental groups"? how do you know that he is not the single largest contributor to the ADK Club?
Donors don't get to dictate the ADK mission - that has been well established for decades, and is administered by the officers and the BoD. There are members who have first hand knowledge of what the "forest" near Bradford looks like today, and have seen records of citations for numerous violations by the company currently operating the natural gas mines in NW Pennsylvania. I would be more concerned about who is financing the vocal pro-hydrofracking lobby than about who wants to protect our New York State park land and recreational resources.
__________________
"Like" my FB page http://tinyurl.com/FB-BuffaloPaddles and visit my map ALGonquin Bob's "BUFFALO PADDLES" Paddle Guide

Check out my "Mountain Blog" http://tinyurl.com/BobMountainBlog2

46er #5357W
ALGonquin Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 01:47 AM   #75
looncry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
Donors don't get to dictate the ADK mission - that has been well established for decades, and is administered by the officers and the BoD. There are members who have first hand knowledge of what the "forest" near Bradford looks like today, and have seen records of citations for numerous violations by the company currently operating the natural gas mines in NW Pennsylvania. I would be more concerned about who is financing the vocal pro-hydrofracking lobby than about who wants to protect our New York State park land and recreational resources.
Ditto Looncry
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 02:13 AM   #76
qam1
Member
 
qam1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
I presume that the above statement is a direct quote from Investor's Business Daily. That statement is completely FALSE in regards to any financing of environmental groups, so I also doubt all the other "facts" as well. I wonder what is the source of their information.
The 1st link in the 1st post in this thread goes to Democracy Now!, They are sponsored/funded in part by George Soro's Open Society Institute

Looking at the 2nd link http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/10-2

Notice the " Copyright 2009 Pro Publica Inc" which is a match for the Investors Business Daily article

Looking them up on the leftwing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pro_Publica confirms they are run by Herbert and Marion Sandler who are also founders of The Center for American Progress http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...rican_Progress which is again funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute

So the Investors Business Daily article has it right. There are forces with "ulterior motives"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALGonquin Bob View Post
The bottom line is that this type of mining devastates the ground above and the water table below, as evidenced by looking at the Allegheny National Forest and the problems reported in the wake of the hydrofracking done there.
This statement is false. See my earlier links, the air & water quality of the towns "devastated by frackin'" is better than the country's average

Quote:
[Quote:
Slam dunk? Hardly. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the sponsors of the job- and economy-killing Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and no fan of domestic energy, wants to hold hearings on the alleged environmental dangers of the new technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colden46

Seriously? All he wants to do is hold hearings, how is that bad? This is what elected officials are for, to represent the best interests of their constituents, and it's hard to argue that potential water contamination is in the best interest of the people who have to drink that water. You can assert that he's not holding the hearings in good faith, but drill-and-ask-questions-later is a ridiculous idea. Besides, hearings get held for everything. It's part of the democratic process.
The DEC has been holding hearing for how long now?

What business of what we do here in New York (or Texas, Montana, or where ever else this shale is) is it of a Massachusetts Representive? Even if all the horror stories of what will happen comes true, it will have no bearing on his district in Boston. He's not representing the people of Western NY, they didn't vote for him. Why does he get a say?

And yeah hearings, suuurrre. Just like Senator Kennedy wanted hearings on the wind farm off Nantucket and Diane Fienstein wants hearings on solar plants in the Sonoran desert, etc, etc. These so called environmentalist always talk big in regards to alternative energies, but when the time comes to actually DO something productive, all of a sudden they want to have endless hearings and other delays,
__________________
:
:

Qam1

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/qam1 - Everything & Anything on the Adirondacks
:
:
qam1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 03:55 AM   #77
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by qam1 View Post
What business of what we do here in New York (or Texas, Montana, or where ever else this shale is) is it of a Massachusetts Representive? Even if all the horror stories of what will happen comes true, it will have no bearing on his district in Boston. He's not representing the people of Western NY, they didn't vote for him. Why does he get a say?
First off, it would be easy to argue that this is a federal concern. Hydrofracking is not exclusive to NY. The Marcellus Shale extends into other states, and this formation is not the only place in the country the technique is used. A number of states aside from New York were mentioned in your article. You listed a couple right here.

Second, from doing 10 seconds of googling, this guy is on the Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, where he is Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. If anyone in Congress is calling hearings on hydrofracking, it seems to me like it would be him.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 08:20 AM   #78
daxs
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Jersey by the beach
Posts: 272
Hydrofracking is done in states other than those with marcellus shale. Penna made alot of mistakes up front when drilling was started. They are trying to fix things after the fact which is too late for some areas but other states hopefully can learn from the mistakes in Penna. Drillers now need permits to draw water from sources, water from the process cannot go through normal waste water treatment plants ( i beleive some though may be grandfathered) and must be treated at plants capable of removing heavy metals and salt from the water, (there are only 11 plants in Penna capable of doing this), they have put out for public comment regulations regarding the disposition of particulate from the treated hydrofraced water, have set guideleines for storage of fracked water waiting to get treated and they are studying permit applications to build more water treatment plants. You can blame the federal government for the exemption from the safe water drinking act because thats where that legislation got approved not at the state level. The PA DEP is responsible for permit approval not the local government and thats a problem since the DEP had layoffs with the budget crisis. The DEP is not necessarily researching permit applications closely. There are groups out there that are monitoring the process however and have gotten the state to rescind some permits. I read somewhere that it takes 5 acres of land to build a drilling platform and related storage facilities for water. I saw a drilling platfroms and drilling operations when I was in Tioga Cty Pa over Christmas. The platfrom area is very large. I can't imagine some of the roads standing up to the heavy loads and the number of heavy loads being transported.
daxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #79
daxs
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Jersey by the beach
Posts: 272
I talked to some of the locals and overhead conversations between some locals last week. Restaurants and motels are doing very well due to drilling activities. Other than that, not many locals are being hired so unemployment is still high. Also, Gov Rendell backed down from taxing the gas companies in order to get a budget approved.
daxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 01:20 PM   #80
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scenic New York View Post
I take issue with this statement, from a personal level as well as the fact that it's quite untrue. We have two of the great lakes here, which have already had to go through clean ups from toxins. There's rolling hills in the southtowns as well as the finger lakes, which is where this more will likely happen than in the northtowns (besides, we have our own enviromental disasters already). The fingerlakes are home to a major wine trail as well as several smaller lakes and a number of beautiful parks. In western NY, we have the "grand canyon of the east" (Letchworth), Allegany state park, beautiful beaches on the lakes. In central NY, there's a lot of beautiful parks (look for photos from Watkins Glen). If they wanted to, they could show beautiful places here. I could give them plenty of photographic evidence. Take a look at my avi, it's taken in "ugly" WNY.


I too live in the Finger Lakes. It doesn't have High Peaks but it is beautiful.

One of my main concerns is MY drinking water. If they drill in the section my water well is in, even if the gas well is not on my lowly 15 acres, my well might be affected. Besides the fracking fluids used, there is also a radiation release with the used frack water.
Who pays for me to have poatable water trucked in forever if my well is compromised?
Where are the new treatment plants going to be built? Who pays for them? The taxpayer or the drillers? Or will they just truck the millions of gallons of waste water out of state, (taxing the roads some more), that each well produces? Even after the well is in production, their is still waste water produced, highly salty btw.

Too many unanswered questions.
__________________
Be careful, don't spread invasive species!!

When a dog runs at you,whistle for him.
Henry David Thoreau

CL50-#23
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.