Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2013, 11:10 PM #1
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
How to win votes in WY

By all means leave
So here is the letter the Rev. wrote
Quote:
Dear Representative,

I hope you are taking care of yourself during this busy session. I know it is a challenging, compressed time.

I am writing to express my grave concern about House Bill 105. Ample evidence has shown that schools and guns do not mix, and in particular, guns in the hands of amateurs/non-professionals is extremely dangerous, especially in any highly-charged situation. to expose our children to greater risk in their schools by encouraging more guns on campuses is something that we cannot allow.

My husband and I moved to Wyoming not too long ago. We believed it was a good place to raise children. With the recent and reactive expansion of gun laws and the profoundly serious dangers of fracking, we find we are seriously reconsidering our decision, which is wrenching to all of us. However, the safety of our family must come first. We are waiting to see what the legislature does this session. I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking.

sincerely,

Rev. Audette Fulbright

And here is the responce,
Quote:
Rev. Fulbright,

I’ll be blunt. If you don’t like the political atmosphere of Wyoming, then by all means, leave. We, who have been here a very long time (I am proudly 4th generation) are quite proud of our independent heritage. I don’t expect a “mass exodus” from our state just because we’re standing up for our rights. As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet.

It offends me to no end when liberal out-of-staters such as yourself move into Wyoming, trying to get away from where they came from, and then pompously demand that Wyoming conform to their way of thinking. We are, and will continue to be, a state which stands a head above the rest in terms of economic security. Our ability to do that is, in large part, to our “live and let live” mentality when it comes to allowing economic development, and limiting government oversight. So, to conclude, if you’re so worried about what our legislature is working on, then go back home.

Sincerely,

Hans Hunt

Representative Hans Hunt

House District 02
At least I some faith left in local politicians.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-25-2013, 11:21 PM #2
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
"As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet."
I didn't know this wasn't unanimously known.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:31 PM #3
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I didn't know this wasn't unanimously known.
Matt Damon said fracking was bad in "Promised Land" so it must be true...
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:35 PM #4
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Lol; so did Duke:
http://www.propublica.org/documents/...-well-drilling
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:49 PM #5
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your article
We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fractureing fluids. We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and-possibly- regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in its use.
Ok
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 11:58 PM #6
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Holy ****. Selective reading much?
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 04:27 AM #7
Frank101
legit legit legit
 
Frank101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NJ
Frank101 is a Supporting Member
Frank101 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Frank101 is reppin' sidebar 4 life
Frank101 plays in the APPA D5 division
Not getting into an entire discussion over fracking, but why dioes their need to be sensationalism and misleading information if the science is so solid and proven? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...sconceptions/#

reminds me of Al Gore's inconvenient truth and nearly everything he says is debunked or explainable. I'm not saying that Fracking is completely safe or that Global warming is a fiction, but I am saying is that the credibility and integrity of the proponents for each respective issue is lacking on both sides of the argument.
__________________
"Originally posted by pokenose: We quit doing that secret Santa thing after the black guy got a bucket of fried chicken, watermelon jolly ranchers, a bottle of colt 45 and a cotton scented candle then someone else got a ball of that free twine you tie down your items with at ikea and a vibrator so you can go **** yourself if you didn't like the twine."

"Originally posted by AlphaNeo36:
Election fraud is perfectly acceptable when it intends to keep Ron Paul out of the White House."
Frank101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 10:16 AM #8
Lazarusrat
 
 
Lazarusrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Lazarusrat owns a Planet Eclipse Lv1
TSA,

I am not saying fracking is good,I am not saying fracking is bad. I am agreeing with Hans Hunt (and Duke) that more research is required before conclussions can be made.

You say I have selective reading well lets look at the your Duke report...

Knows
Methane levels in ground water were higher by drilling sites.
No fracking fluids or toxic water soluable deep saline traces (that are in teh shale formation) were found in the water samples. So there wasn't a direct path or contamination between the well shaft, the shale formation, and teh aquafier.

Unknowns
Distance between high and low gas samples.
The geology of the region.
What were the levels of gas in samples taken over the shale deposit but not close to any drilling sites.
Where the low gas samples taken over te shale deposit or another formation.
Are teh formations between the shale and the aquaifer fractured?
Are there fault line in teh area.
Is teh gas leaching through the formations on its own.

On a personnal note: I am not getting too excited about fracking because my grandparents lived in a little town called Lusk, WY. Lusk is located on the 22 miles south of the Lance creek oil field, some 2,600 below the surface. The Water table runs 0-300 feet below the surface. I can remember stories about gas coming out of their water well long before Fracking was around. So when I read about this now and people start blaming fracking as the cause with out hard evidence I have my doubts.
__________________
"If you prepare for the zombie apocalypse, you'll be prepared for all hazards," CDC spokesman Dave Daigle told Reuters over the phone on Thursday.
Lazarusrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 10:31 AM #9
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Holy ****. Selective reading much?
Where's the selective reading taking place? The study found higher concentrations of methane in drinking water but didn't find saltwater or fracturing fluids in the same water reservoirs. That's not a smoking gun for proving that hydraulic fracturing is per se dangerous; it's showing that deep formation methane is somehow getting into the shallow groundwater, but the fracturing fluids and brine associated with shale production are not.

The study claims that methane concentrations were 17x higher on average in water wells located in "active drilling and extraction areas" but doesn't define "active drilling and extraction areas." If the Utica and Marcellus formations are like any other NG producing formation in the US, they've been producing NG for the past 60 years (albeit not in the quantities they're currently producing). Few study I've read thus far have included a true control group for studying the effects of fracturing on aquifers: samples from wells in active extraction areas prior to the widespread use of fracturing.

We certainly need to address the issue of methane seeping into groundwater as a result of NG extraction, but the extraction process on the whole needs to be examined.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.
StellarKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 12:34 PM #10
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
I don't have a lot of time to respond right now. I'll try to address some things and get to the rest later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarusrat View Post
TSA,

I am not saying fracking is good,I am not saying fracking is bad. I am agreeing with Hans Hunt (and Duke) that more research is required before conclussions can be made.
I agree that more research needs to be done as well. But I think that a potentially dangerous practice should be halted when the danger of citizens is shown to be likely or at least possible. This is entirely my point. The representative is being an asshat if he thinks it is wise to continue with a potentially dangerous practice because some corporation is paying for his election. This is the worst kind of politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarusrat View Post

Knows
Methane levels in ground water were higher by drilling sites.
No fracking fluids or toxic water soluable deep saline traces (that are in teh shale formation) were found in the water samples. So there wasn't a direct path or contamination between the well shaft, the shale formation, and teh aquafier.

Unknowns
Distance between high and low gas samples.
The geology of the region.
What were the levels of gas in samples taken over the shale deposit but not close to any drilling sites.
Where the low gas samples taken over te shale deposit or another formation.
Are teh formations between the shale and the aquaifer fractured?
Are there fault line in teh area.
Is teh gas leaching through the formations on its own.
This is all the more reason to stop and find out whether it is okay instead of sitting idly by. How many people died between the time we started having suspicions that asbestos was poisoning people and the time we actually did something about it?

Also, these are the flaws with this specific study (which I only choose because I know people who worked in this project). There are plenty more articles, some better than others, that address many of these issues.


--

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
The study claims that methane concentrations were 17x higher on average in water wells located in "active drilling and extraction areas" but doesn't define "active drilling and extraction areas."
Did you mean distance? They did defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
We certainly need to address the issue of methane seeping into groundwater as a result of NG extraction, but the extraction process on the whole needs to be examined.
I agree. This is, however, one of many many studies that pieced together make a pretty compelling case against:

"As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on “dangers” that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet."

I cannot imagine a less responsible thing for a politician to do than to refuse to acknowledge the growing concern for the safety of his citizens. Maybe it all turns out to be no big deal. I hope so. But until we know that, it is incredible irresponsible and even dishonest to ignore the issue and potentially allow people to keep living unsafely.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 02-26-2013 at 12:38 PM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 02:18 PM #11
StellarKnight
Mind Erasure
 
StellarKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Lost...In a Lost World
StellarKnight is a Supporting Member
StellarKnight is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
StellarKnight has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
But I think that a potentially dangerous practice should be halted when the danger of citizens is shown to be likely or at least possible.
THIS is bad politics because of the incredible breadth of scope. Possibility of danger to citizens = wholesale halting of practice? I can think of absolutely nothing which does not present a possibility of danger to citizens, so to base regulatory policy on such an idea is to demand an absolute standstill of innovation. I'm not against regulation, but I certainly don't feel that any and everything should be subject to an absolute bureaucratic thumbs-up (especially after you implicitly admit that our system of governance is rife with corruption).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I cannot imagine a less responsible thing for a politician to do than to refuse to acknowledge the growing concern for the safety of his citizens. Maybe it all turns out to be no big deal. I hope so. But until we know that, it is incredible irresponsible and even dishonest to ignore the issue and potentially allow people to keep living unsafely.
The first hydro-frac experiment occurred in the Hugoton gas field, here in my homestate of KS, in 1947. How much time is sufficient to gather evidence and determine safety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Did you mean distance? They did defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.
No, I mean active production area. Did the study look at fracked horizontal wells in previously unproduced fields, or were they looking in areas that have had a long history of steady production?

Here's what I'm talking about: here in KS, there has been a major land play to tap into the Mississippian limestone formation with horizontal drilling. The Mississippian system has been produced since the mid 1970's, but because of the tightness of the formation and the efficacy of horizontal drilling, this new play is hoping to unlock NG/oil that is still down there. Major companies are coming up here run horizontal Mississippian completions in the in fields that have been continually produced over the last 30 years. These companies are performing a lot of hydro-fracking in fields that have hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of vertical wells which utilized little to no fracturing.

If there is no data indicating the levels of deep/coalbed methane in our aquifers prior to the mass influx of fracked horizontal wells, how can you claim that the present levels are the product of hydraulic fracturing? You can't even make a correlation argument without such information.

Fracking is just a single part of entire well-completion process; therefore, under your reasoning above, we should halt all domestic drilling operations simply because the process presents a possibility of danger to the citizens. That's a cure worse than the disease it aims to remedy.
__________________
Evil presupposes a moral decision, intention, and some forethought. A moron doesn't stop to think or reason. He acts on instinct, like a stable animal, convinced he's doing good, that he's always right, and sanctimoniously proud to go around ****ing up . . .What the world needs is more thoroughly evil people and fewer idiot ****heads.

Last edited by StellarKnight : 02-26-2013 at 02:25 PM.
StellarKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 09:22 PM #12
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
The first hydro-frac experiment occurred in the Hugoton gas field, here in my homestate of KS, in 1947. How much time is sufficient to gather evidence and determine safety?
It should take as much time as necessary for at least a majority of people in the field to feel it is safe. This is not the case; but rather quite the opposite. We are not talking about a few people here and there objecting to fracking. The objections to fracking are widespread. It is unwise to ignore them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
THIS is bad politics because of the incredible breadth of scope. Possibility of danger to citizens = wholesale halting of practice? I can think of absolutely nothing which does not present a possibility of danger to citizens, so to base regulatory policy on such an idea is to demand an absolute standstill of innovation. I'm not against regulation, but I certainly don't feel that any and everything should be subject to an absolute bureaucratic thumbs-up (especially after you implicitly admit that our system of governance is rife with corruption).
Are you familiar with the history of asbestos poisoning in this country? Do you know how many years did we continue to use asbestos while the scientific/health community suspected it was dangerous? How many people died from asbestos poisoning because of politicians with this attitude, valuing profit over life and working with the interests of the corporations paying their pockets than the citizens they are called to look after?

---

A LARGE majority of the experts in the field are at least suspicious of the dangers of fracking. Ignoring this and continuing to put citizens in danger is just down right irresponsible.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 12:31 AM #13
Fat_Joe
$OG$
 
Fat_Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: MASSachusetts
Fat_Joe has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fat_Joe has perfected Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
Fat_Joe has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fat_Joe has perfected Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
Fat_Joe has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Fat_Joe is one of the top 1000 posters on PbNation
That guy is awesome. Telling libtard ****wads to get bent must be so much fun.
__________________
Beast Mode: Activated
big as I wanna be
HHAP Founder
Team Aircraft Carrier - Captain
Fat_Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 07:21 AM #14
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
What experts are suspicious? What are they experts in? (not trying to be a Douchy McDoucherson)

As far as I can remember, fracking didn't become an issue until the advent of horizontal drilling technology.

PS - I watched the documentary Fracknation, and have Gasland on DVR waiting for me to watch it.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 01:08 PM #15
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat_Joe View Post
That guy is awesome. Telling libtard ****wads to get bent must be so much fun.
.
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 01:43 PM #16
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
What experts are suspicious? What are they experts in? (not trying to be a Douchy McDoucherson)
Most of what I am drawing from is my experience with people I know in the field. Unfortunately the field is muddied with corporate lobbies and shady politics, so it often is quite hard to get clear.

I think this says it best:
"A 2012 Cornell University report noted that it was difficult to assess health impact because of legislation, proprietary secrecy, and non-disclosure agreements that allow hydraulic fracturing companies to keep the proprietary chemicals used in the fluid secret. Cornell researcher Bamberger stated that if you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing."
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 01:50 PM #17
rT159
BlackOps
 
rT159's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shadows of Darkness
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by StellarKnight View Post
THIS is bad politics because of the incredible breadth of scope. Possibility of danger to citizens = wholesale halting of practice? I can think of absolutely nothing which does not present a possibility of danger to citizens, so to base regulatory policy on such an idea is to demand an absolute standstill of innovation. I'm not against regulation, but I certainly don't feel that any and everything should be subject to an absolute bureaucratic thumbs-up (especially after you implicitly admit that our system of governance is rife with corruption.
That is 100% without a doubt, dead on.
rT159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 01:53 PM #18
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Most of what I am drawing from is my experience with people I know in the field. Unfortunately the field is muddied with corporate lobbies and shady politics, so it often is quite hard to get clear.

I think this says it best:
"A 2012 Cornell University report noted that it was difficult to assess health impact because of legislation, proprietary secrecy, and non-disclosure agreements that allow hydraulic fracturing companies to keep the proprietary chemicals used in the fluid secret. Cornell researcher Bamberger stated that if you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing."
You do not need to know anything about the chemicals in use by the drilling operation to make a before and after analysis of water samples. In fact not having it allows you to make a more honest assessment/reveal the presence of any bias in your analysis.
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 02:59 PM #19
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by rT159 View Post
That is 100% without a doubt, dead on.
Asbestos was first suspected to be harmful to people in 1898. The US didn't have any real legal prevention until 1989. How many people do you think died because of this "dead on" attitude of profit>life? In this case, we have a large population of experts in the field who fear the dangers of fracking. Ignoring this because of corporate lobbying is a regrettable thing to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
You do not need to know anything about the chemicals in use by the drilling operation to make a before and after analysis of water samples. In fact not having it allows you to make a more honest assessment/reveal the presence of any bias in your analysis.
Technically, you can, but it is very expensive and completely unrealistic. In every single industry that necessitates for testing of water quality, you simply test for the chemicals you are worried about. You know what to look for and look for it. That is the most reliable, most efficient, and most realistic way of going about it. Any other way would be absurd.

And the part about bias is nonsense.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 03:17 PM #20
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Technically, you can, but it is very expensive and completely unrealistic. In every single industry that necessitates for testing of water quality, you simply test for the chemicals you are worried about. You know what to look for and look for it. That is the most reliable, most efficient, and most realistic way of going about it. Any other way would be absurd.

And the part about bias is nonsense.
No it isn't. If you don't know what you are supposed to be finding, you can't "look" for it, ignore samples where it isn't present, or exaggerate it's presence. This happens more frequently than it should in scientific papers.

Doing content analysis of water isn't particularly difficult. Mass spectral analysis is done frequently in cases where a comparison is needed and there is no particular known difference to look for. They could reasonably complete the research without knowing anything about the fracking procedure.
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 03:44 PM #21
rT159
BlackOps
 
rT159's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shadows of Darkness
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Asbestos was first suspected to be harmful to people in 1898. The US didn't have any real legal prevention until 1989. How many people do you think died because of this "dead on" attitude of profit>life? In this case, we have a large population of experts in the field who fear the dangers of fracking. Ignoring this because of corporate lobbying is a regrettable thing to do.
CO2 emissions are hazardous to my heath and the pollution they bring could bring about catastrophe due to global warming implications. Lets all stop driving until this problem is fixed. That wouldn't happen, because you need your vehicle. Since it would be an inconvenience, you would let that one pass.
rT159 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump