Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Wait-And-See Approach

Local Representatives To Discuss Fracking In Coming Months

February 2, 2014

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in the state of New York has become a hot topic....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-04-14 8:33 PM

Moderate1...Your points are not backed by facts. I will take your point on the chemicals used. There are roughly 100 used in different combinations. All are used for many other common uses we can find in our homes and everyday use. Why do over 30 state environmental agencies and the USEPA deem this process safe? Because the facts prove it!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-14 9:00 AM

Regulator, I'm a moderate. I suggest we develop more solar and wind power along with a smarter grid system. The power plant in Dunkirk is destined to be upgraded and instead of a balanced rational debate the decision process was dominated by gas company finances. There are renewable forms of gas production being developed that we can hope to some day help balance the load vs production. One example is the landfill gas reclamation project in Steuben county, it's starting to show a profit even against this cheap dirty fracked gas. Conventional gas wells are still productive and do not have as many problems associated with them. So the plant isn't all bad, but we need to make better investments.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-14 8:43 AM

OMG2012 So you work for the industry that stands to profit from us? Of course they, and you would have us not want to know more. I made six points, none have been argued against. None of them relate to how you design the well sites except the one about not getting free gas, and I know that from the companies that offer me a gas lease. I'm and engineer that has worked designing water treatment facilities. I'm not a chemist, but I've worked with them and the process is far from perfect. I'm always interested in knowing more. The more I know about fracking the more reason I see to stop it. Any real information you can add?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-14 6:59 AM

Govt. is only concerned with increasing revenues, not decreasing expenses. Any taxes gained through gas drilling will be wasted and your taxes will not be reduced.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-14 6:55 AM

DID YOU KNOW Municiple Water Treatment plants will have to be UPGRADED(Taxpayers treat)to handle the Unknown Secret Chemicals in Millions and Millions of gallons of despoiled FRESH water forEVER as unregulated free market Capital encroaches on small business and homeowners with legal protection,and PROMOTION from the likes of REED and GOODELL.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-14 6:38 AM

"NUKULAR" energy is so safe we marched our troops out into the South West Deserts to 'witness' an actual NUKULAR device erupting into the environment!OOPS!Maybe the 'wait and see' approach would have been a good idea if it hadn't already been 'too late.The Environmental authorities in 30 states have blessed the KOCH-CHENEY knuckle draggers.They had exemptions from environmental accountability to pre-empting local laws to protect themselves from financial responsibility before they even started.When the GAS is depleted-The waste belongs to our childrens childrens children.How many TICKS can one Dog sustain?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 5:30 PM

Moderate1, there was a very vocal group that cast gloom and doom about the bridge. It would kill all the fish, ruin the lake they said. We heard doom about gas wells 40 years ago We have heard the gloom and doom before. Environmentalists are against coal and oil. Everybody's going with natural gas. Where do you propose we get it? Anywhere but here right.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 5:14 PM

Moderate1, I am and oil and gas industry professional engineer. I design, drill and frac oil and gas wells in several states. I can tell from reading your comments you are not educated on oil and gas well development. You should consider taking an entry level petroleum science class at Pit Bradford. As for Portland resident Diane Hofner wanting the town to put a ban on fracking and on the transport of any fracking waste through the town. If she is that concerned about frac fluid she should be petrified of the 5000 gallon gasoline tankers traveling to Portland filling stations so she can gas up her vehicle. In comparison frac fluid verse gasoline on the ground frac fluid would have minimal effect.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 3:01 PM

No "Regulator" I wasn't against the bridge, and once I understood the compromise of a conventional gas well I signed a lease for that, but times are a changing, facts are facts. "Safe" has always meant "Safe enough" for the compromise of profit, and I admit, our existence. However the advantages and profits do not fall on the same entities as the liabilities do. We really need our leadership to step up and protect us here.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 2:25 PM

Moderate is typical of the gloom and doom environmentalist whacko. I bet they were against the bridge over the lake too. Same people.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 1:59 PM

Moderate1...Your ranting is totally baseless and false. None of what you write holds water. The USEPA and 30 state departments of environmental protection have deemed hydrofracking safe.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 1:35 PM

6. It does not improve the value of property. Quite the opposite, and there is a wealth of evidence to prove this. The initial lease with sign on bonus does not add to the tax base which supports our community and governments. The selling price of land may go up if fracking is allowed, but then once this value is extracted by the gas lease it will drop. If an individual is only selfishly interested in money they would be smart to sell the lease, sell the land and move. effectively selling out their neighbors, community and environment.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 1:35 PM

3. "If disposed of properly there is no environmental impact" Wrong. If they could at least the water would be removed from the earths surface forever and that is an impact. We are talking about a lot of water here, and many many wells around the world. Also there is no proven method of properly disposing of this stuff except for pumping it back down and hoping it doesn't come back up. It always does eventually - all well casings fail over time. 4. Much of the Fracking isn't "miles down" especially in Chautauqua county. 5. Landowners can't get free gas from fracking. The high pressures used create too much of a liability. If your house blows up they might get sued, and they wouldn't want that to happen.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 1:32 PM

This article is still bothering me, so let me try and help any of you who don't know better than what was in it, especially our elected representatives. Here is what I found to be misleading and/or outright wrong.... 1.Fracturing old wells, done since 1947 is very different than the current "High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing" used now. It uses more and different fluids that are potentially much worse. They are exempt from our clean water act, and are used in different geological formations that themselves contain and release toxic and radioactive elements. 2. The "Chemicals" used are not to hold the fractures open, they are used to better transfer the forces over long distances and cause more fracturing. Sand is added to hold the fractures open. Some say the chemicals used are also selected because that is what they have and need to get rid of somehow without incurring expenses that would go along with proper disposal. They can do this because of the legal environme

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 11:59 AM

Wow! That article is full of misinformation and miss-characterizations. The list of correction I could site would be quite long. So people please! do some research yourself! There really should be a retraction if the PJ is to be considered a truthful newspaper. I am hopeful. It goes to show that those minds in power are closed to those who want to exploit our area. Even from a strictly financial perspective we should ban this High volume hydraulic fracturing so if in the future, when the price is up, we can negotiate for a better deal. As well as banning the importation of the toxic waste it produces! Right now the market price is being held artificially low to encourage a commitment of infrastructure that will force us to keep using this source of energy. Any well informed fiscal conservative should be pushing for more renewable energy sources and higher efficiency. Look at what the rest of the world is doing! We look like idiots here!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 10:53 AM

Momcat, I think the good people of Pennsylvania would disagree with you.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 10:35 AM

MR. Goodell says "without fracking, there wouldn't be any natural gas wells in Chautauqua County." Hydraulic fracturing's inception was in 1947. The nation's first shale gas well was designed in Fredonia in 1821. Well, which is correct?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 9:50 AM

Environmental agencies from 30 states and the USEPA have all concluded high volume hydrofracking is safe. This drilling technique has meant the United States will be an energy self sufficient country in a few short years. The naysayers are simply blocking economic progress because they are anti-fossil fuel.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 9:31 AM

Mr. Goodell should know better. The high volume horizontal fracturing that is at issue is NOT the same technology that has been used for years and years, and the toxic cesspool known as Pennsylvania is a testament to its "safety." Follow the money, as always.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-02-14 8:34 AM

Goodell says that gas companies pay millions of dollars in taxes. My problem is that when I open the newspaper and see the delinquent taxes owed by these gas companies. Some pay, some don't.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web