Gasland

[uscitizen]

Actually pharmacuricals passing thru humans and winding up in our drinking water is becoming a problem.

Pretty soon your dr will just prescribe an extra glass of water a day and big pharma will go broke.

What problem?

You don't think we all need an extra dose of Ritalin?

Yep and that estrogen will help your moobs grow

 

[Samson]

Actually pharmacuricals passing thru humans and winding up in our drinking water is becoming a problem.

Pretty soon your dr will just prescribe an extra glass of water a day and big pharma will go broke.

What problem?

You don't think we all need an extra dose of Ritalin?

Yep and that estrogen will help your moobs grow

You want pics?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeeeeech!!!!!

 

[GWV5903]

You seem to be unable to accept any possibility that fracking contains contaminants, and hence remove yourself from the responsibility of even having to be aware of it. It is pretty sad my friend. Unless you have absolute proof, you will not believe. What will that take? don't you think that will be a little hard with a government and big business trying to keep that evidence from reaching anyone? There IS evidence, you are just not accepting it as as being sufficient. We, as the little people, have to try and get at the information however we can. We have to search for it, because 'they' don't want you to see it, and 'they' have control over everything (media, big business, legislation, regulation, money, police, FBI, etc...) They can silence the little people pretty easily. It is much harder to dissent than to simply go along with a program to avoid being construed as a dissident. In this case, I would say it is most prudent to be a dissident, because this is going to injure very many people more than it already has, including, you, me, and every person on this board... perhaps we will then all have to buy 'filtered drinking water' at some point... yet another ploy for big business to make money, else we get all get sick from drinking out tap water.

They might be doing fracking that would affect the entire New York City watershed. That's 8 million people (non-business hours). Let's hope Fracking isn't dangerous, or a lot of shit is going to go down.

So far, it looks as though some people don't feel fracking is safe:
New York Governor Vetoes Fracking Bill - NYTimes.com

Not at all, I have said it needs to be monitored....


What I have a problem accepting is that we all to often cry wolf and find out there is no wolf and so far thats all this is.....

No wolf? have you seen footage the water taps with fire spewing out of them? You really think there is no correlation that and nearby fracking processes? That, after fracking begins in a certain location, all of sudden, out of nowhere, taps start becoming flammable, animals lose their hair, people get sick and even die?? What does that indicate to you?

The EPA and the government will try to find a way to word it that makes you feel safe at night, because inherently, people trust the government, and therein lies the error. They are taking advantage of everyone's naiive trust. Simply because they are called the Environmental Protection Agency and they are a government agency, what they say is truth, is simply not true. They would only blow a whistle on something if the government were indifferent to the financial effects of exposing something. If, by the EPA's own study, the fracking industry would have to be altogether called off, they would find a way to down play the results, such as burying the information by presenting a 'better, more conclusive' study, or using the media, which the government has at their disposal to create positive public image for fracking... who knows how far and deep their methods of public persuasion go. We will never know. My guess, at the very least, is that they would fire the EPA scientist who produced such results, seperate their association with him, label him as a dissentist 'disgruntled' employee or something, begin a PR slandering campaign against him to generate a negative public perception of him, and would re-fortify their position that 'everything is okay' to insure the public, and dissuade them from further inquiry. This has happened time and time again. It just happened in Canada with the Tar-Sands, for which I will post a video soon. The same exact situation is happening in Alberta right now. History repeats itself over and over again when it comes to profit and greed. I don't see why people think this is any different. This has happened a million different times. I don't see why this time is special.

More reason to question the acusations....
Range Resources struck a blow for the entire oil industry January 19 – 20, 2011 at RRC hearings in Austin. Responding to an EPA Emergency Order dated December 7, 2010, Range presented extensive evidence as to the inaccuracy of the claims made in the Order. The order sited the EPA authority to act pursuant to Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act after receiving “information that indicated contaminants are present in or likely to enter an underground source of drinking water and may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons, and EPA has determined that State and local authorities have not taken sufficient action to address the endangerment described herein and do not intend to take action at this time.” Curiously the claimant (EPA) was not in attendance nor was any representative of the Agency. David Poole, General Counsel for Range, provided an overview of the testimony to be provided by the expert witnesses for the hearing examiners. Mike Middlebrook, Range V.P. of Operations, testified as to the events that had taken place since late July 2010. Emphasis was placed on the communications and actions taken by Range in conjunction with the RRC staff in determining the sources of the problem with the Lipsky (owner of the water well in question) water well. In addition, a complete review was presented regarding the drilling of the Teal and Butler wells (Range’s Barnett Shale wells in the area). Lastly Exhibit 11 was introduced, being a large photograph of nearby water well drilled in 2005 flaring natural gas and flowing water without a pump! The photograph had been obtained from a local water well driller who was familiar with the history of gas contaminated well water in the area. Additionally, Range pointed out the significance of the well being drilled four (4) years before they drilled their first Barnett wells in 2009 (Strike 1).

Next up was Norm Warpinski, Ph.D, an expert on micro seismic and hydraulic fracturing, who explained the methods of drilling and fracturing the Barnett Shale formation at depths almost a mile below the water wells in question. From the evidence presented it was difficult to imagine how gas contaminated frac water could migrate from the Barnett Shale formation at approximately 5000 feet below the surface into an aquifer a couple of hundred feet from the surface.

Mike McCaffrey, Ph.D, followed as the expert regarding geochemical gas fingerprinting. He testified that the method of fingerprinting attempted by the EPA was fundamentally flawed and could not accurately match gas from the Lipsky water well to Range’s wells. The EPA only used an isotopic test to identify the gas in the Lipsky well and since the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all the gas containing strata above it the isotope reading would be the same for gas from the Barnett and any shallower formations. Using a more appropriate scientific methodology for geochemical gas fingerprinting utilizing isotopic and compositional testing he testified that the source of the gas in the Lipsky water well was the shallow Strawn formation. He pointed out that Strawn gas contains high levels of nitrogen not present in such amounts within Barnett Shale gas and therefore the samples taken from the Lipsky well which contained higher nitrogen concentrations must have been released from the Strawn formation (Strike 2). John McBeath, P.E. testified about the extensive history of gas in water wells in this part of Texas and that those occurrences are unrelated to Range’s oil and gas activities. He also reviewed cement bond logs of the Teal and Butler wells which revealed first rate well completion and well integrity by Range. The cavalcade continued with Charles Kreitler, Ph.D an expert hydrologist testifying that the gas found in the Lipsky well occurs as a result of a widespread naturally occurring geologic contact between the shallow gas bearing Strawn formation and the shallow Cretaceous fresh water-bearing formation which lies on top of the Strawn. Last but not least Keith Wheeler, P.G., C.P.G. and expert on hydrology reviewed the comprehensive water well and gas sampling project undertaken by Range in response to the RRC’s investigation of the Lipsky complaint. Mr. Wheeler testified that extensive sampling of the water wells in the area of the Lipsky well indicates that there is absolutely no public health risk or safety issue related to any of the water wells, including the Lipsky well. The coup de grace came with the taped deposition of citizen Lipsky admitting that he had temporarily moved out of his large house into guest quarters on the property while he was claiming his house was uninhabitable due to the well problem and receiving a substantial reduction from the Parker County Appraisal District in his property value and tax bill (Strike 3). One can only hope that the appraisal district receives the information from this investigation so that the school children of Parker County can receive their just due from citizen Lipsky. He has subsequently moved back in his house and presumably resides there today.

This sensationalized tale is becoming all too common in regards to unconventional shale gas drilling around the country. The EPA seems to be taking rash action without adequate investigation when citizen complaints arise and are publicized on local television stations. Their public grandstanding and then subsequent disappearance from proceedings only damages their credibility regarding environmental issues important to all parties. Unfortunately the deposition of their designee John Blevins before the Federal Court in New Orleans on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 did little to dispel this notion. Appearing with a small army of EPA and Justice Department lawyers and only after being subpoenaed, Mr. Blevins testimony revealed an administrator far more skilled at the art of the deposition than in seeking the facts. His testimony revealed an Agency with an astounding lack of transparency and a penchant for objecting and denying each question. This painful testimony should come with a warning label; WARNING: Reading this deposition may cause you to want to deport yourself to another country.

Kudos to Range Resources for standing up and defending their business at great expense but with commensurate benefit to their reputation and credibility. They offer the industry a primer on how to proactively approach a sensationalized assault on their company. The hard truth is that oil companies are going to have continuously pursue best business practices in all aspects of well drilling and completion so as to be able to defend themselves with the facts versus fiction. Failure to do so will be fatal.

 

[newpolitics]

Not at all, I have said it needs to be monitored....


What I have a problem accepting is that we all to often cry wolf and find out there is no wolf and so far thats all this is.....

No wolf? have you seen footage the water taps with fire spewing out of them? You really think there is no correlation that and nearby fracking processes? That, after fracking begins in a certain location, all of sudden, out of nowhere, taps start becoming flammable, animals lose their hair, people get sick and even die?? What does that indicate to you?

The EPA and the government will try to find a way to word it that makes you feel safe at night, because inherently, people trust the government, and therein lies the error. They are taking advantage of everyone's naiive trust. Simply because they are called the Environmental Protection Agency and they are a government agency, what they say is truth, is simply not true. They would only blow a whistle on something if the government were indifferent to the financial effects of exposing something. If, by the EPA's own study, the fracking industry would have to be altogether called off, they would find a way to down play the results, such as burying the information by presenting a 'better, more conclusive' study, or using the media, which the government has at their disposal to create positive public image for fracking... who knows how far and deep their methods of public persuasion go. We will never know. My guess, at the very least, is that they would fire the EPA scientist who produced such results, seperate their association with him, label him as a dissentist 'disgruntled' employee or something, begin a PR slandering campaign against him to generate a negative public perception of him, and would re-fortify their position that 'everything is okay' to insure the public, and dissuade them from further inquiry. This has happened time and time again. It just happened in Canada with the Tar-Sands, for which I will post a video soon. The same exact situation is happening in Alberta right now. History repeats itself over and over again when it comes to profit and greed. I don't see why people think this is any different. This has happened a million different times. I don't see why this time is special.

More reason to question the acusations....
Range Resources struck a blow for the entire oil industry January 19 – 20, 2011 at RRC hearings in Austin. Responding to an EPA Emergency Order dated December 7, 2010, Range presented extensive evidence as to the inaccuracy of the claims made in the Order. The order sited the EPA authority to act pursuant to Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act after receiving “information that indicated contaminants are present in or likely to enter an underground source of drinking water and may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons, and EPA has determined that State and local authorities have not taken sufficient action to address the endangerment described herein and do not intend to take action at this time.” Curiously the claimant (EPA) was not in attendance nor was any representative of the Agency. David Poole, General Counsel for Range, provided an overview of the testimony to be provided by the expert witnesses for the hearing examiners. Mike Middlebrook, Range V.P. of Operations, testified as to the events that had taken place since late July 2010. Emphasis was placed on the communications and actions taken by Range in conjunction with the RRC staff in determining the sources of the problem with the Lipsky (owner of the water well in question) water well. In addition, a complete review was presented regarding the drilling of the Teal and Butler wells (Range’s Barnett Shale wells in the area). Lastly Exhibit 11 was introduced, being a large photograph of nearby water well drilled in 2005 flaring natural gas and flowing water without a pump! The photograph had been obtained from a local water well driller who was familiar with the history of gas contaminated well water in the area. Additionally, Range pointed out the significance of the well being drilled four (4) years before they drilled their first Barnett wells in 2009 (Strike 1).

Next up was Norm Warpinski, Ph.D, an expert on micro seismic and hydraulic fracturing, who explained the methods of drilling and fracturing the Barnett Shale formation at depths almost a mile below the water wells in question. From the evidence presented it was difficult to imagine how gas contaminated frac water could migrate from the Barnett Shale formation at approximately 5000 feet below the surface into an aquifer a couple of hundred feet from the surface.

Mike McCaffrey, Ph.D, followed as the expert regarding geochemical gas fingerprinting. He testified that the method of fingerprinting attempted by the EPA was fundamentally flawed and could not accurately match gas from the Lipsky water well to Range’s wells. The EPA only used an isotopic test to identify the gas in the Lipsky well and since the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all the gas containing strata above it the isotope reading would be the same for gas from the Barnett and any shallower formations. Using a more appropriate scientific methodology for geochemical gas fingerprinting utilizing isotopic and compositional testing he testified that the source of the gas in the Lipsky water well was the shallow Strawn formation. He pointed out that Strawn gas contains high levels of nitrogen not present in such amounts within Barnett Shale gas and therefore the samples taken from the Lipsky well which contained higher nitrogen concentrations must have been released from the Strawn formation (Strike 2). John McBeath, P.E. testified about the extensive history of gas in water wells in this part of Texas and that those occurrences are unrelated to Range’s oil and gas activities. He also reviewed cement bond logs of the Teal and Butler wells which revealed first rate well completion and well integrity by Range. The cavalcade continued with Charles Kreitler, Ph.D an expert hydrologist testifying that the gas found in the Lipsky well occurs as a result of a widespread naturally occurring geologic contact between the shallow gas bearing Strawn formation and the shallow Cretaceous fresh water-bearing formation which lies on top of the Strawn. Last but not least Keith Wheeler, P.G., C.P.G. and expert on hydrology reviewed the comprehensive water well and gas sampling project undertaken by Range in response to the RRC’s investigation of the Lipsky complaint. Mr. Wheeler testified that extensive sampling of the water wells in the area of the Lipsky well indicates that there is absolutely no public health risk or safety issue related to any of the water wells, including the Lipsky well. The coup de grace came with the taped deposition of citizen Lipsky admitting that he had temporarily moved out of his large house into guest quarters on the property while he was claiming his house was uninhabitable due to the well problem and receiving a substantial reduction from the Parker County Appraisal District in his property value and tax bill (Strike 3). One can only hope that the appraisal district receives the information from this investigation so that the school children of Parker County can receive their just due from citizen Lipsky. He has subsequently moved back in his house and presumably resides there today.

This sensationalized tale is becoming all too common in regards to unconventional shale gas drilling around the country. The EPA seems to be taking rash action without adequate investigation when citizen complaints arise and are publicized on local television stations. Their public grandstanding and then subsequent disappearance from proceedings only damages their credibility regarding environmental issues important to all parties. Unfortunately the deposition of their designee John Blevins before the Federal Court in New Orleans on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 did little to dispel this notion. Appearing with a small army of EPA and Justice Department lawyers and only after being subpoenaed, Mr. Blevins testimony revealed an administrator far more skilled at the art of the deposition than in seeking the facts. His testimony revealed an Agency with an astounding lack of transparency and a penchant for objecting and denying each question. This painful testimony should come with a warning label; WARNING: Reading this deposition may cause you to want to deport yourself to another country.

Kudos to Range Resources for standing up and defending their business at great expense but with commensurate benefit to their reputation and credibility. They offer the industry a primer on how to proactively approach a sensationalized assault on their company. The hard truth is that oil companies are going to have continuously pursue best business practices in all aspects of well drilling and completion so as to be able to defend themselves with the facts versus fiction. Failure to do so will be fatal.

The only reason Range was brought to court was because the location the complaint was made was in the Silverado area, a very rich and well off area in Texas. If it was anywhere else, no one would have paid attention, except for independant filmakers and 'muckrakers.' But, no one listens to them, only Gas companies who make their own investigations of their own gas wells. How funny. GWV, you must work for a Gas company, and come in here to sway popular opinion. That is the only reason I can think of for someone to have such ludicrous views, and to think at all, that the ruling on a court case represents truth.

 

[GWV5903]

No wolf? have you seen footage the water taps with fire spewing out of them? You really think there is no correlation that and nearby fracking processes? That, after fracking begins in a certain location, all of sudden, out of nowhere, taps start becoming flammable, animals lose their hair, people get sick and even die?? What does that indicate to you?

The EPA and the government will try to find a way to word it that makes you feel safe at night, because inherently, people trust the government, and therein lies the error. They are taking advantage of everyone's naiive trust. Simply because they are called the Environmental Protection Agency and they are a government agency, what they say is truth, is simply not true. They would only blow a whistle on something if the government were indifferent to the financial effects of exposing something. If, by the EPA's own study, the fracking industry would have to be altogether called off, they would find a way to down play the results, such as burying the information by presenting a 'better, more conclusive' study, or using the media, which the government has at their disposal to create positive public image for fracking... who knows how far and deep their methods of public persuasion go. We will never know. My guess, at the very least, is that they would fire the EPA scientist who produced such results, seperate their association with him, label him as a dissentist 'disgruntled' employee or something, begin a PR slandering campaign against him to generate a negative public perception of him, and would re-fortify their position that 'everything is okay' to insure the public, and dissuade them from further inquiry. This has happened time and time again. It just happened in Canada with the Tar-Sands, for which I will post a video soon. The same exact situation is happening in Alberta right now. History repeats itself over and over again when it comes to profit and greed. I don't see why people think this is any different. This has happened a million different times. I don't see why this time is special.

More reason to question the acusations....
Range Resources struck a blow for the entire oil industry January 19 – 20, 2011 at RRC hearings in Austin. Responding to an EPA Emergency Order dated December 7, 2010, Range presented extensive evidence as to the inaccuracy of the claims made in the Order. The order sited the EPA authority to act pursuant to Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act after receiving “information that indicated contaminants are present in or likely to enter an underground source of drinking water and may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons, and EPA has determined that State and local authorities have not taken sufficient action to address the endangerment described herein and do not intend to take action at this time.” Curiously the claimant (EPA) was not in attendance nor was any representative of the Agency. David Poole, General Counsel for Range, provided an overview of the testimony to be provided by the expert witnesses for the hearing examiners. Mike Middlebrook, Range V.P. of Operations, testified as to the events that had taken place since late July 2010. Emphasis was placed on the communications and actions taken by Range in conjunction with the RRC staff in determining the sources of the problem with the Lipsky (owner of the water well in question) water well. In addition, a complete review was presented regarding the drilling of the Teal and Butler wells (Range’s Barnett Shale wells in the area). Lastly Exhibit 11 was introduced, being a large photograph of nearby water well drilled in 2005 flaring natural gas and flowing water without a pump! The photograph had been obtained from a local water well driller who was familiar with the history of gas contaminated well water in the area. Additionally, Range pointed out the significance of the well being drilled four (4) years before they drilled their first Barnett wells in 2009 (Strike 1).

Next up was Norm Warpinski, Ph.D, an expert on micro seismic and hydraulic fracturing, who explained the methods of drilling and fracturing the Barnett Shale formation at depths almost a mile below the water wells in question. From the evidence presented it was difficult to imagine how gas contaminated frac water could migrate from the Barnett Shale formation at approximately 5000 feet below the surface into an aquifer a couple of hundred feet from the surface.

Mike McCaffrey, Ph.D, followed as the expert regarding geochemical gas fingerprinting. He testified that the method of fingerprinting attempted by the EPA was fundamentally flawed and could not accurately match gas from the Lipsky water well to Range’s wells. The EPA only used an isotopic test to identify the gas in the Lipsky well and since the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all the gas containing strata above it the isotope reading would be the same for gas from the Barnett and any shallower formations. Using a more appropriate scientific methodology for geochemical gas fingerprinting utilizing isotopic and compositional testing he testified that the source of the gas in the Lipsky water well was the shallow Strawn formation. He pointed out that Strawn gas contains high levels of nitrogen not present in such amounts within Barnett Shale gas and therefore the samples taken from the Lipsky well which contained higher nitrogen concentrations must have been released from the Strawn formation (Strike 2). John McBeath, P.E. testified about the extensive history of gas in water wells in this part of Texas and that those occurrences are unrelated to Range’s oil and gas activities. He also reviewed cement bond logs of the Teal and Butler wells which revealed first rate well completion and well integrity by Range. The cavalcade continued with Charles Kreitler, Ph.D an expert hydrologist testifying that the gas found in the Lipsky well occurs as a result of a widespread naturally occurring geologic contact between the shallow gas bearing Strawn formation and the shallow Cretaceous fresh water-bearing formation which lies on top of the Strawn. Last but not least Keith Wheeler, P.G., C.P.G. and expert on hydrology reviewed the comprehensive water well and gas sampling project undertaken by Range in response to the RRC’s investigation of the Lipsky complaint. Mr. Wheeler testified that extensive sampling of the water wells in the area of the Lipsky well indicates that there is absolutely no public health risk or safety issue related to any of the water wells, including the Lipsky well. The coup de grace came with the taped deposition of citizen Lipsky admitting that he had temporarily moved out of his large house into guest quarters on the property while he was claiming his house was uninhabitable due to the well problem and receiving a substantial reduction from the Parker County Appraisal District in his property value and tax bill (Strike 3). One can only hope that the appraisal district receives the information from this investigation so that the school children of Parker County can receive their just due from citizen Lipsky. He has subsequently moved back in his house and presumably resides there today.

This sensationalized tale is becoming all too common in regards to unconventional shale gas drilling around the country. The EPA seems to be taking rash action without adequate investigation when citizen complaints arise and are publicized on local television stations. Their public grandstanding and then subsequent disappearance from proceedings only damages their credibility regarding environmental issues important to all parties. Unfortunately the deposition of their designee John Blevins before the Federal Court in New Orleans on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 did little to dispel this notion. Appearing with a small army of EPA and Justice Department lawyers and only after being subpoenaed, Mr. Blevins testimony revealed an administrator far more skilled at the art of the deposition than in seeking the facts. His testimony revealed an Agency with an astounding lack of transparency and a penchant for objecting and denying each question. This painful testimony should come with a warning label; WARNING: Reading this deposition may cause you to want to deport yourself to another country.

Kudos to Range Resources for standing up and defending their business at great expense but with commensurate benefit to their reputation and credibility. They offer the industry a primer on how to proactively approach a sensationalized assault on their company. The hard truth is that oil companies are going to have continuously pursue best business practices in all aspects of well drilling and completion so as to be able to defend themselves with the facts versus fiction. Failure to do so will be fatal.

The only reason Range was brought to court was because the location the complaint was made was in the Silverado area, a very rich and well off area in Texas. If it was anywhere else, no one would have paid attention, except for independant filmakers and 'muckrakers.' But, no one listens to them, only Gas companies who make their own investigations of their own gas wells. How funny. GWV, you must work for a Gas company, and come in here to sway popular opinion. That is the only reason I can think of for someone to have such ludicrous views, and to think at all, that the ruling on a court case represents truth.

You just supplied further evidence you have no clue....

I am in the home building industry, Silverado is an acreage community with varying price points, try from the $140K range and up....

What you fail to recognize is the evidence that the water wells where bad long before Range performed any fracking....

 

[GWV5903]

The latest....

It's not what the EPA claimed it was, big surprise....

Hearing examiners say gas driller didn't cause water well contamination | Barnett Shale ...

 

[newpolitics]

The latest....

It's not what the EPA claimed it was, big surprise....

Hearing examiners say gas driller didn't cause water well contamination | Barnett Shale ...

Methane is not what we are most concerned with, it is the more noxious chemicals. Further, did these people have methane coming out of their faucets to make them flammable? Because, in areas where there are fracking wells, they are. I didn't read anything about that. So, yes, perhaps in this one case, of course it is possible that another source lead to methane being present in a water well, why not, but that is not to say that fracking doesn't input other serious chemicals in other wells all around the country. This case does not set a precedent that fracking is not harmful. I mean, and further whos to say what corruption is going on in these courtrooms and even with the investigation itself. Who knows? I don't trust these people. I trust my senses that say, if you pump carcinogenic chemicals into the ground in large doses, it is going to come back up, someway, somehow, and people are going to get hurt, and it has happened all over the place where there is fracking. That is all I need to know. I appreciate your posting though. Thanks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now why do you suppose the industry was exempted from the clean water and air laws?

Smog In Wyoming Thicker Than In L.A.

The AP notes that as a result of natural gas drilling, smog in parts of Wyoming is the worst in the country:

Wyoming, famous for its crisp mountain air and breathtaking, far-as-the-eye-can-see vistas, is looking a lot like smoggy Los Angeles these days because of a boom in natural gas drilling.

Folks who live near the gas fields in the western part of this outdoorsy state are complaining of watery eyes, shortness of breath and bloody noses because of ozone levels that have exceeded what people in L.A. and other major cities wheeze through on their worst pollution days.

[...]

Preliminary data show ozone levels last Wednesday got as high as 124 parts per billion. That’s two-thirds higher than the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum healthy limit of 75 parts per billion and above the worst day in Los Angeles all last year, 114 parts per billion, according to EPA records. Ozone levels in the basin reached 116 on March 1 and 104 on Saturday.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality urged the elderly, children and people with respiratory conditions to avoid strenuous or extended activity outdoors

 

[jasonmorston]

fracking does contain contaminants. the chemicals used are stored as hazardous at the sites. the picture of a guy igniting his tap water on youtube should indicate a problem.