Jump to content
Sled, you are mistaken as usual. I am not offended by your highly creative names for liberals and environmentalists. That comment was removed because of your use of racist slurs, which is where the line gets drawn. I don't expect you to get that anymore than you get anything else that contradicts your entrenched point of views. You are clearly someone who thinks you can behave like a racist but not actually be a racist. I try not to read your posts and I try not to read YVB's either, but you happened to inject your vitriol into a place that caught my eye. Sorry, dude, but I think you are the one who needs to relax, man.
In regards to sled's 11/11/11 10am post...
Pilot, I ask you again - how many times does someone get to violate the user agreement before being banned?
Pre- and post- frac testing might prove contamination from fracking activities, if the contaminants do not exist naturally or as a result of other human activities that could concievably be the source. If there's any chance they could have come from another source, you would have to prove they did not. A signature chemical of fracking fluid is the best chance of making a defendable link. That, in part, is why the news out of Pavillioncould be quite meaningful.
Yes, bathing in contaminated water could be dangerous. The risk would be dependent on the toxins but then that's probably a mystery...
I might add that the EPA is very rigorous about conclusively proving a causal relationship between industrial activity and pollution. As you might imagine, the energy industry gets pretty litigious if the evidence is not bulletproof. This creates quite a burden in the case of fracking because you either have to prove the migratory path of contaminants through the earth (more or less impossible) or prove that the contaminant could not possibly have originated from another source. Since, the chemical makeups of fracking fluids have been shrouded in mystery under the pretext of proprietary status, establishing a causal link has been even more difficult. Fortunately CO now requires disclosure of the chemical composition of fracking fluids. Unfortunately, not all states do.
This just in. Apparently it may not be unpossible for fracking to contaminate drinking water supplies:
You can thank Congress for exempting fracking from the scope of SDWA, CWA, & CAA as part of the 2005 energy act. This was basically a successful lobbying effort by the gas industry and supported by the white house administration, Cheney being a notable player. Of course, all the uproar over foreign oil dependency provided some nice political capital.
Just to be clear, fracking is not totally absolved from CWA regulations. What comes back out of the ground (flowback) would be regulated under the NPDES program if they discharge the waste into navigable water.
If you look at the history of environmental regulations, there is a consistent pattern - a catastrophe must occur before the government will oppose industrial interests.
Way to Keep it Klassy Kids!
Hey Pilot- in regards to 11/6/11 8:11 sledneck post which was removed this morning, just how many times does someone get to violate the user agreement before being banned?
Interesting article in the context of this debate:
Actually, not everyone is in bed with ski corp, though I will concede that most are. IMO, the argument that everyone will benefit is outweighed by the fact that a few will benefit much, much more than the rest. This strikes me as a very selective and duplicitous brand of socialism.
Last login: Thursday, February 9, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.