Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2009/5/29 6:40
From harlansburg
Posts: 4474
Offline
troutbert, I've also written to them, and yes, they usually do reply.

Posted on: 2010/3/19 18:00


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2010/3/22 18:38
Posts: 2
Offline
why aren't we told what is being used to drill those wells? where can I find information on those surfactant and whatever else they put in the earth? seems everyone is babbling around and no one has any good answers and we have to believe what dep is saying when these gas companies are not reporting what they did? I don't think it is a small item and nothing to worry about. I saw where 2be is in surfactants and I think that is a big issue. why is everyone trying to rub this off as soapsuds when it isn't soapsuds according to a damacas comment. I am worried about the drinking water and the streams I fish in. why isn't something beind done before pa is completely destroyed? If anyone knows what chemicals are being used please post them or tell me how I can find out what pge is using at these sites. maybe I will get that water test someone said I need called an mbas test which will show me if my water is polluted. did anyone get it around here? Let me know and can't understand why no one is doing anything about this, where are we going to go to drink and fish in clean water? what am I going to tell my grandchildren happened to our water and streams? are we yellow bellies? I want help, tell me what you know and I will do my part but can't do it without help.

Posted on: 2010/3/22 18:47


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/10/25 14:19
From York County
Posts: 2129
Offline
The reason the chemicals are not listed is because some law stating they do not need to list the chemicals specifically. Something about the formula's being "proprietary", which is really a bunch of horse piss if you ask me.

I do not know the details, but I've read a few articles, and basically it just does not make sense to me. Just seems unnacceptable to me. I've heard some operations put some pretty nasty stuff into the ground. There was an article about it in TU magazine last year about it.

It's not ok for me to take a crap in the woods and bury it, but ok to drill a bunch of oil wells in the ground, take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water from our streams, and dump tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals into our water table.

Posted on: 2010/3/23 0:03
_________________
~ Fly Fishing ~ Personal therapy on the water. Equipment and travel rates apply.


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2009/5/29 6:40
From harlansburg
Posts: 4474
Offline
reason for chemicals not listed? from what I've heard, dick cheney/haliburton put an amendment on the clean water act allowing them to be exempt from the law.
nice huh?! this is one of the main threats in my opinion. to pump this stuff past peoples water supply without them knowing it or knowing whats in it is simply criminal. it will be ok though once all the 2 headed, 3 eyed and 4 armed babies start being born in the drilling areas.

Posted on: 2010/3/23 7:07


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2010/3/22 18:38
Posts: 2
Offline
did you see tis poison till we depart? sounds like we have no choice and this is how it is going to be in Waterville and like Clearville we will have poison and can't do anything about it because they have poison and now it is all over PA and the governor will not do anything so what can people do when there is so much money needed. I see no hope and no one doing anything in Waterville about lies from dep saying that stuff is safe when it isn't. I saw where there are over 400 poisons used and that means our streams and drinking water are being hit. How can the governor allow this, why isn't someone doing something instead of taking money and say it is o.k. to destroy because money is in our bank. this is not how it was to be. We are lied to and told it does not hurt the environment but the truth is coming out and more are telling us what these chemicals are doing. No one tests water for those chemicals? What in the world is happening and why isn't DEP giving us answers when they know we are in danger of dying from those poisons which seem to be in the chemicals. What a horrible lie for money. Is there any one out there trying to get these companies to stop poisoning our water? if so, who is it? give me facts if you are doing anything about it and if not I guess we will all die together and let them have our land and then our wealth will be theirs. They are going to take back what we got from gas because it will be theirs when we all die off in PA

Posted on: 2010/3/23 18:30


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13667
Offline
Quote:
The reason the chemicals are not listed is because some law stating they do not need to list the chemicals specifically.


Quote:
reason for chemicals not listed? from what I've heard, dick cheney/haliburton put an amendment on the clean water act allowing them to be exempt from the law.


You guys are talking about frac fluid. This stuff isn't frac fluid.

This is Airfoam HD. The company's description can be found here:

http://www.aquaclear-inc.com/surfacta ... ng-agents/AIRFOAM-HD.html

While the site lists the half life in the order of minutes, its important to remember that thats the half life of the foam, not the chemicals. The MSDS does not list it as a particularly dangerous chemical, which basically means that its probably fairly safe to work with, not necessarily that its environmentally friendly.

2-BE is the main chemical, which is basically an alcohol, and would have similar effects on animals as rubbing alcohol or antifreeze. In high concentrations it is deadly to any animal which ingests it. In low concentrations, its less dangerous directly but could cause cancer after repeated, long term exposure. The chemical is broken down in a 7-28 day time frame, depending on the oxygen level present. On bugs, the surfactant properties could have more severe effects at certain life stages. Even in small concentrations, it lessens the film between liquid and gas, which is its purpose. This would make it very difficult for a bug, for instance, to sit on top of the water without sinking. It is of a neutral pH. Because it tends to help liquids dissolve things, it could temporarily raise the salinity or water hardness by allowing more minerals in solution.

Because it does break down naturally, this stuff isn't a permanent contaminant. If sufficient knowledge of the hydro cycle in an area exists, it may even be able to be allowed to enter groundwater safely. But it most certainly should not ever be allowed to enter waterways directly, which is what happened here.

However, having said that, this is what would happen if the stuff was dumped before being used. If this stuff was down hole (and I assume it was), you also have to consider what else came out of the hole with it. I've seen nothing on that, and can only hope they're testing to try and find out.

Posted on: 2010/3/24 8:28


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13667
Offline
As far as frac fluid (again, thats not what this stuff is), its considered a trade secret. What this means is that if you try and patent something, you have to disclose it to everyone. If it fails to recieve said patent, it is then available for everyone to use. Even if it gets a patent, a patent only lasts 20 years, and thereafter anyone can use it legally. Thus, it is a recognized and legally protected way of preserving competitive advantage. You are required to not disclose the information to the public or else you lose the protection. The legal protection means that anyone who breaks non-disclosure agreements, etc., have to pay damages, and that it need not be disclosed, for instance, even on a witness stand, to health or environmental organizations, etc.

The most famous example is Coca Cola. Their formula is a closely held trade secret. Had they instead went the patent route, they would have had to disclose the formula and process. During the 20 year patent period, competitors could use that information and change it slightly, and sell something similar. After the 20 year period, competitors could make an EXACT copy, perfectly legally. But because its been held as a trade secret, so long as the company doesn't disclose anything to the public, it can't be made by anyone else legally. That has led to all kind of speculation about things like cocaine being added. It's probably not true, but the company HAS to remain silent or lose its protections. They can't even tell health organizations whats in it, though there's nothing preventing those health organizations from testing it themselves.

Posted on: 2010/3/24 9:13


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/10/14 11:12
Posts: 31
Offline
timesleader.com/news/Potential_leak_at_gas_drilling_site_probed_03-25-2010html Oh black water keep on flowin'.....

Posted on: 2010/3/25 13:50


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2009/4/24 16:40
From South Jersey
Posts: 590
Offline
Just one of many to come. They may have to stock fish in condoms so they don't die from the water they are stocked into.

Salmo

Posted on: 2010/3/25 15:53


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2009/5/29 6:40
From harlansburg
Posts: 4474
Offline
pcray, I understand the need to protect trade secrets, up to a point, and that point is when the health and welfare of people is at stake from the use of the stuff. especially when it gets pumped right past thier drinking water!!! it's just plain wrong, and they know it.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 16:57


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13667
Offline
biker,

I agree on the trade secrets thing. I was just throwing that out there for information. Most people see it as the big evil company just trying to avoid environmental regulations, which isn't true. Their reasons for not disclosing it have nothing to do with environmental regulations. Anything covered under a trade secret, since you can't know whats in it, could be feared to be dangerous to people or the environment. And the very fact that its a secret means people will speculate that it is dangerous. In this regard, the drilling companies are held to no different standard than any other industry would be.

Assuming the EPA agrees to a non-disclosure agreement, they still can require samples from the company to do their own analysis, and the EPA can still enforce its regulations if there is some sort of violation. But the EPA could not disclose the chemical composition to the public. If, for instance, higher than allowed concentrations of arsenic were found in Pine Creek, the EPA could still investigate and levy the appropriate fine, or require cleanup, etc. They could still make public that this company is responsible for this arsenic pollution. But they could not disclose that this arsenic is an intentional additive to the frac fluid, and certainly not in what concentration.

I also agree that drillers being exempt from any clean water laws is a bunch of B.S. I don't know enough about it to know exactly what they're exempt from, and what their regulations are, but I don't think that they should be any different than any other industry. This is a totally separate issue from them not having to disclose the composition of their frac water. This is about what levels of pollution they are allowed. And any exemptions for them is just wrong.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 17:44


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/10/14 11:12
Posts: 31
Offline
Trade secret is a nice way to spin the Haliburton loophole.....the real reason drilling companies don't want to disclose all the contents of frac fluid is because they're all either cancer-causing or otherwise seriously harmful to human, animal, fish and overall environmental health and they realize an educated public will lead to a backlash. Moreover, if the contents are disclosed, that will actually allow people to get pre-drilling tests for the toxic chemicals they're pumping into the groundwater. When water wells are contaminated with the same things that are disclosed a clear liability case can be proven.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 22:01


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

grhe wrote:
Trade secret is a nice way to spin the Haliburton loophole.....the real reason drilling companies don't want to disclose all the contents of frac fluid is because they're all either cancer-causing or otherwise seriously harmful to human, animal, fish and overall environmental health and they realize an educated public will lead to a backlash. Moreover, if the contents are disclosed, that will actually allow people to get pre-drilling tests for the toxic chemicals they're pumping into the groundwater. When water wells are contaminated with the same things that are disclosed a clear liability case can be proven.


I don't think this kind of rhetoric is helping the cause, with all due respect.

"that unknown substance is cancer causing and harmful!"

It doesn't add up. If you don't know what it is, you don't know what it does. It might not be good stuff (probably isn't), but spinning it without facts gives the opposite stance more ammo.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 22:07


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2008/10/25 14:19
From York County
Posts: 2129
Offline
Jay, I completely disagree with you on that one, and I think "what's his face" hit the nail on the head.

I've done a little reading and the exact chemical formulas used to drill is proprietary but generally speaking a lot of the same chemicals are used from company to company and it is widely known that many of the chemicals used in drilling are poisonous or harmful to people and the watersheds they might seep into. There was a good article about it in TU Magazine last winter.

I'm just saying, you might say "yeah well you don't know for sure what they put in a hot dog", but I bet If you found out you might not want to eat a hot dog for a while.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 22:32
_________________
~ Fly Fishing ~ Personal therapy on the water. Equipment and travel rates apply.


Re: Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

JakesLeakyWaders wrote:
Jay, I completely disagree with you on that one, and I think "what's his face" hit the nail on the head.

I've done a little reading and the exact chemical formulas used to drill is proprietary but generally speaking a lot of the same chemicals are used from company to company and it is widely known that many of the chemicals used in drilling are poisonous or harmful to people and the watersheds they might seep into. There was a good article about it in TU Magazine last winter.

I'm just saying, you might say "yeah well you don't know for sure what they put in a hot dog", but I bet If you found out you might not want to eat a hot dog for a while.


All I am saying is that it's unwise to say that something is a carcinogen without actual facts backing you up. It very well might be, but that's the kind of stuff that allows you to be spun as a wacko. It's not good for the cause, IMO.

I'm not saying it's not harmful. It probably is, but if you're going to say that you don't know what it is in one hand, you can't talk about the harm it will cause, as if you know the exact side effects in the other.

I am personally opposed to putting any unnatural, non biodegradable chemicals into the ground. That doesn't mean that someone has to lie or embellish facts to make their point. It marginalizes everyone that's making reasonable arguments against drilling. Sensationalizing the issue marginalizes it in the eyes of the undecided. If the truth is on your side, why would you need to make unsubstantiated claims?

grhe, if you are able to provide anything to back your carcinogen claims up, I apologize for questioning it. It just doesn't pass the smell test to me, and I'm opposed to drilling unless it's VERY tightly controlled.

Posted on: 2010/3/25 22:34



« 1 (2) 3 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com