Open Mic Comtinued

Keep the good discussions going. I’m still working on computer issues.



  1. gmanfortruth says:


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sorry for not being more available. Computer everywhere so doing most things on Iphone.

      Question about the race issue. Did anyone think about why the AA’s are hoarded into the iinner cities?

  2. I am going to pick up where Charlie left off. The points will be quick and short.

    1. Read what I write, don’t scan it. I know, I have the habit of doing that too but your last comment about me being delusional is nonsense. Keep the eyes and ears open.Sherlock Holmes was my first fictional hero. Must have read the canon half a dozen times by the time I was thirty. Deductive reasoning. I give you mostly chapter and verse.

    2. There was a black family, it was doing its job North and South. It fell apart. Why? When? How? I say again read Sen. Moynihan’s stuff on the Black Family. forty years ago he saw it coming.

    I hope that you are not one of those guys that has to re-invent the wheel. Moynihan is dead but his research, conclusions and predictions based on that research are more valid today than they were 40 years ago. Why? Because they have all come true.

    One of the things that frustrates me the most in this life are people whom Jack Nicholson’s taunt was directed at in “A Few Good Men”, “The truth? You can’t handle the truth”.

    • I don’t have time tonight, but I will double check tomorrow. Somehow, though, Patrick Moynihan doesn’t seem (to me) to be the one to speak on why black families fell apart. I mean, come on, Stephen … I did take a brief look/read and saw this as a response: “blaming the victim” to the “Moynihan Report” …

      Truth, Stephen, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder … American enslaves a race of people for hundreds of years and then blames it for not getting up to speed fast enough (while all the while, their race is held against them across the board) … we have a few black football coaches now in the NFL … and Bill Cosby … what the hell are they complaining about …

      You see what I’m saying … it points without probing (Mr. Moynihan’s Report) …

      • Dismissing Moynihan is absurd. Why, because he is a dead white guy? That’s like dismissing Newton. This is an issue that has been studied to death by white researchers and blacks. Moynihan was a sociologist. He certainly does not believe in blame the victim. He is demonstrating what outside forces have accomplished.

        The other night I caught a debate on this topic and a black gentleman not of the democratic persuasion was commenting that in the 1920’s the black illegitimacy rate was 15%. While I never heard that low a number before, the fact certainly is that it is now three times higher than it was.

        I want to thank you for something else. The other day you had me going and the brain cranked into overtime. It has been a very long time since I was an honored member of the “Baker Street Irregulars” or even thought about it. I’ve spent the last several years wondering to myself why my thinking follows the clear patterns it does. It was only your comment the other day that made me realize that long before there was a Spock, there was a Holmes and I was a disciple.

        as I prepare to leave for a week’s vacation, I might just pack “A Study in Scarlet” and “The Hound of the Baskervilles”.

  3. Matt the other day and Charlie to some extent have painted a very bleak picture of race relations prior to the civil rights movement. Matt specifically mentioned lynchings and implied they were nearly everyday events. Here are the details:

    I tried to set this up as a chart but could not paste a pdf image into here. Take a look at the numbers. Black lynchings peaked in the 1890s during the Plessey years with about 150/yr mostly in southern states. It declined after that to the teens by the depression and into single digits after 1940. Now let’s compare that to the number of people killed by lightening each year in the US:

    That chart peaks at about 430 people/yr in the 1940s to 26 in 2011. So the odds of being struck by lightening as opposed to being lynched are about 20x greater over the last 70 years. Now compare that to death by auto rate or the murder rate in Chicago.

    I do not recall studying or discussing much about the history of race relations in school. We did see it played out in news reels on TV. It may have been a topic of study when Matt and younger people went through school. Like many such emotional subjects it was probably over blown. The struggles were not daily events on TV and they were almost always in far away locations. The vast majority of Americans saw none of it first hand.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Can’t fault Mathius for poop Liberal teachers. Racism is overblown today, without it, the NAACP, Al Sharpton and the rest of the race pimps would be irrelevant . They, and those like them are the real racists .

    • Good morning, T Ray…….racism is a buzz word that keeps things going. That is all. It is gasoline for the fire. As I have said before, we had our growing pains like the rest of the world.We did not invent lynchings, improper behavior, or slavery. For tens of thousands of years, slavery was ever present in the world. There are still thousands of people is some form of forced slavery to this very day the world over. Racism is alive and well the world over. It is not limited to the United States. Enough is enough. The inner city problems and the blight that is going on is not the fault of “white” people. If the IRS can use phony scandal, so can I. Racism is a time worn excuse for things today. To create reparations of some form to “pay back” something is nothing more than racism in reverse. Reverse racism is just as bad, if not worse. What needs to change is the belief that ” I am this way because I am ( insert color ). Want to see REAL racism? Go to the African continent….not South Africa…..The Sudan for example, the local black African culture is being slaughtered in the thousands this very day……on the border of Zaire and Uganda…by blacks, led by blacks. Schools are not allowed to be built, education is denied even though the US is there trying to build them, hospitals are burned, and food is stolen. The men are kidnapped and forced into slavery in various mines owned and operated by blacks. In Sierra Leon on the border with Liberia, there are still slave ships that kidnap on a daily basis, not white slavers, but black slavers taken around the horn to Somalia. It is rampant the world over.

      Ok, I am not saying anything that has not been said before. How do we address it? Bill Cosby has it right. It starts with the culture. The culture has to change. The destruction of the black family, I am becoming convinced, is the real culprit. They feel that they are owed some thing when they are owed nothing except the same chances as everyone else and the deck is NOT STACKED AGAINST THEM. It is stacked in their favor. It is a phony scandal, to coin the new White House Mantra, to think that the “white man” addicted the “black man” to drugs. The “white man” did no such thing.

      The only way to eradicate race…is to take the word race out of the equation. The only way to defeat the inner city issues is to attack the problem with the family and the problems with certain cultures (no, not black culture) but the gang culture, the dependency culture, the “wannabe” cultures that spring up. But recognizing that there is a real problem is the issue and the real problem, in my estimation, is culture and it is a dependency culture.

      • Oh hell, sorry SUFA….I went back and read all the posts from the weekend……all I did was restate the same stuff……apologies. (Except for the Africa thing).

        • Thanks for the support on culture vs racism. I agree with everything you said. I view the liberal who profess that white man is responsible of the black man’s failure as enablers. One of my early remembrances from school, probably started about 3rd grade when we were learning fractions, is that the teacher trying to help kids having problems would open with “I know this is difficult, butt…” At the time I would cringe and think, no it’s not. I was too young to be able to verbalize my feelings. The phrase continued through the years and eventually I understood that the teacher was giving the students an excuse to fail. That is what all of the liberal actions have done.

          Success in this country is actually quite simple. Prepare yourself for the future by getting an education, i.e. skills, dress properly, act respectfully, show up for work and work hard. I have had employees who simply could not show up for work reliably. They all eventually go canned. If you show up at a job interview dressed like a punk and talking like a thug, forget it, i will not hire you. The last engineer I hired is black. He was picked over all other candidates because of skills, ability and work ethic. He will eventually have my job.

    • I don’t know how many times I have to post this but I suggest T, you take a read of this particular book (just for a sense of race relations in the 40’s and 50’s in Florida) …

      It is quite shocking … except it really isn’t.

      • Charlie, I am well aware that racism still existed in many ugly forms into the 60s. However, as the lynching statistics show, it was declining. The decline accelerated during the CR movement of the 60s. The old government sponsored race laws were eliminated. Unfortunately we instituted reverse racism in the form of quotas and also economic racism in the form of the Great Society. These latter two were to fix the problem but they only made things worse. We now have mulch-generational welfare kids with no father figures, more poverty than ever, hordes of youth who disrespect everybody, which you have even commented on, poor educational systems because of the disrespect for authority and the lack of parental involvement, and a host of other problems. I brought up Bill Cosby not because of what he has accomplished in his life but because of the message he sends. The black community squandered the opportunities that the CR movement won. Dr. Ben Carson basically says the same thing but in a nicer fashion.

        Charlie, it is time for you to forget the past and think into the future. The past is water over the dam. Nothing can be done to change it. To continually bring it up serves only the purpose if it being used as an excuse for future failure. By bringing it up, you become an enabler. Slaver is gone in the this country. It has been gone for 150 years. My ancestors and relatives helped bury it. There is no one alive today who was a slave or who owned slaves. It is history, a lesson hard learned.

    • “Like many such emotional subjects it was probably over blown.”

      Sweet Jesus … I have nothing else to say … emotional subjects … and I hate to clue you in to race relations as a whole, but lynchings were the ultimate form of racism … do you also discount all the other forms of racism? At least skip to the voting rights act before you respond (1965) … like I said, Sweet Jesus, are you showing YOUR age.

  4. Some of you might find it interesting that I got into a little ” snit ” with a Huffpo blogger who obviously hates Texas and Texans. His comment was that Texas is a “backwater, bible thumping, gun toting state, that does not have the faintest idea of what freedom is. If any state has a balanced budget and no unfunded liabilities, they are racist because you cannot balance a budget without being racist.”

    There was no use in arguing further and like Mathius says… is entertaining.

  5. @ Mathius (bringing forth a statement you made) “Stand Your Ground is a terrible law. It states that you do not have any obligation to retreat or attempt retreat in order to utilize lethal force in self-defense.”

    Why do you feel this terrible (You may have stated this before, sorry if I missed it) but why do you feel I would owe ANY obligation to retreat?

    • Mathius says:

      It’s a recipe for escalation.

      Any and every effort should be made to avoid situations wherein lethal force becomes necessary. If that means that your rights get (slightly) trampled because you have to run from a fight, that’s better than a situations wherein people shoot first and ask questions later because they felt threatened.

      Charlie posted an example the other day.. two guys in separate cars were arguing. One guy (thought) that the kid in the other car was reaching for something (read: gun). Rather than speeding off, he chose, instead, to shoot the guy on the grounds that he had no obligation to retreat. There was, of course, no gun. But that’s not really the point, is it?

      Lethal force is an irreversible error: if you’re wrong, the damage is done and the guy stays dead. Running away.. yeah, it sucks, yeah, in a perfect world you wouldn’t have to. But if you’re wrong, it’s a little egg on your face, not an innocent dead body on the floor.

      • Alrighty then..bullies get to rule..yep…good guy has to retreat while the bully goes unchecked… ever! That’s not working too well in Detroit at the moment. Good guys end up dead. Now what?

        • Wait a minute, Anita my love … I thought the bad guys were shooting the bad guys in Detroit … black and black crime (and all that strawman arguments) … the fact is, SYG is now giving permission to gang violence in sunny Florida … gangbangers get to shoot one another and get off because they “feared for their life” and didn’t have to retreat. Great. Wonderful! And when some innocent gets whacked by a stray bullet, it’s collateral damage. Hell, let them use rocket propelled grenades … go crazy!

          Come on, Anita my love … the Colonel said he’d whack somebody for stealing his garden hose (and I still don’t believe him–I know he’s better than that–that’s just macho nonsense) … but would you agree that is right (to kill someone for stealing your favorite flower/garden tool, a hammer from your garage, etc … where clearly the only offense is you lose something that IS NOT in your house (where you are)?

          • re:black on black crime in Detroit…they both have guns in the D..let them kill themselves if they want. I’m talking about the outsiders who want to go to Detroit, whether to visit or to get to court, or go to the great bakeries in the Delray’s not safe down there.Or let’s consider the guy breaking into some stay at home mom’s place. He knows she’s there alone, she’s supposed to run? From her own home? She won’t get 10 feet.

            What about the good guy Charlie? You won’t let him defend himself. Whatsupwiththat? If the bad guy was a wild animal, you would shoot, no? Why? TO DEFEND YOURSELF. Same thing with have to be able to defend yourself.

            No I wouldn’t shoot over a garden hose..but I did chase a guy 2 blocks for running with my neighbor’s lawn mower..cussed him out, yanked the mower back from him and went about my business. I think I scared his ass off from bitching so much 🙂

            • Sorry, I see you sorta covered this below…but

              Sorry good guy, I know your life is in danger, but Charlie won’t let you shoot because you may shoot an innocent with a stray bullet. You must now die.

          • I thought the bad guys were shooting the bad guys in Detroit … black and black crime
            That’s your problem charlie, you think someone is a “bad guy” just because of their skin color. Sorry for exposing your racism again.

            (and all that strawman arguments)
            Are you saying that there is no black on black crime in Detroit (or anywhere in America)?

        • Also remember part why stand your ground & Castle laws were enacted, that the victims frequently faced prosecution for the crime of defending themselves. Was their defense proportional? Yep, a five foot woman needs to be careful not using too much force against a six foot rapists….need a level playing field and all that!!!

      • What you are doing Mathius is encouraging aggression. If bullies know that they can intimidate you to run then there is no incentive for them to act peaceably. Instead, knowing their victim will run instead of standing their ground, the bullies will continue to harass the real innocent people. If you don’t want to get shot then don’t get in my face.

        If I am going about my day being nice to those around me and some bully want to start trouble, why should I be the one to retreat? Will I shoot first and ask questions later? No, that’s a stupid mindset. Will I defend myself? Of course.

        Before charlie starts building his strawmen, this example is not related to the Zimmerman incident, so leave him and Trayvon out of this discussion.

        • “What you are doing Mathius is encouraging aggression. If bullies know that they can intimidate you to run then there is no incentive for them to act peaceably. Instead, knowing their victim will run instead of standing their ground, the bullies will continue to harass the real innocent people. If you don’t want to get shot then don’t get in my face.”

          This (above) is why STephen’s suggestion, I think, is a good one. Show you’re carrying (forget concealing) … there aren’t many “bullies” who will approach someone wearing his gun (or an insignia that proclaims he has one).

          • I am all for open carry, but wouldn’t it be better if bullies just get the message and leave everyone alone because you never know which one is carrying? I understand we live in a sinful world and bullies will always be around, I prefer to live in a world were honest people can defend themselves.

            • My problem with honest people defending themselves is the GZ case. Probably a dopey guy (honest as the day is long) who gets in over his head. I’m pretty sure if TM saw GZ had a gun, he would’ve kept his distance (assuming it wasn’t GZ who started the actual confrontation) … just too much room for potential disasters … why SYG is kind of asking for more of the same (see Jordan Davis case–absolutely over the top … and even though the shooter will probably go away for life, that doesn’t change the fact he killed some kid for no good reason under the sun … and immediately ran to SYG (which was absurd in his case).

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Open carry has its places, but no way would I venture into a hi crime area advertising I have a gun. That’s asking for trouble.

              I will stick with what I have, conceal carry and SYG/Castle doctrine. If the thugs don’t want shot, then don’t give me a reason. SYG has its faults , so what.

  6. Guys and gals, have a good discussion. I gotta go make like a capitalist.

  7. @ Mathius…….Texas has a “Castle Doctrine” law, Senate Bill 378,

    The “Castle Doctrine” comes from the common law principle that people’s homes are their castles, and they have the right to defend themselves from criminal intruders.

    The Texas law presumes that the use of force is reasonable and necessary when someone is unlawfully and with force entering or attempting to enter your occupied home, car, or place of business, or when someone is committing or trying to commit a crime against you.

    But Texas law states that if a person has a right to be present at a location where force is used, has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used, is not required to retreat before using force to protect themselves.

    This means that if we are standing in our front yard, a mall, a grocery store, or any place we have a right to be legally, we are not required by law to retreat but may defend ourselves if attacked.

    Our law clarifies that people are entitled to the presumption of reasonable use of force to protect themselves. This law was needed because many Texans believed that they already had the right to use force in these situations. The Senate Bill 378 clarified that right and shifted the burden of proof under the law to favor the intended victim instead of the criminal intruder or attacker. Police may still investigate, and prosecutors may still bring charges against a homeowner, driver, or business owner if the facts surrounding a self-defense case are in question.

    Under the old Texas law, we had a duty to attempt to retreat first if we were attacked. Under our current “Castle Doctrine” law, we may certainly retreat if we choose to do so, but there is no longer a requirement to do so.

    Finally, Texas law offers anyone who uses force authorized by law some additional protection from civil lawsuits that could be filed by injured criminal attackers or their families.

    The law provides the crime victim immunity from civil liability from lawsuits brought by the intruder or attacker for personal injury or death that results from the lawful use of force.

    Do you have a problem with this one?

    • Mathius says:

      The “Castle Doctrine” comes from the common law principle that people’s homes are their castles, and they have the right to defend themselves from criminal intruders.

      Seems fine to me..

      I think someone breaking into your home is very different than someone arguing with you on the street. The again, sometimes people are a little too trigger happy and things like Castle law only make this worse..

      or any place we have a right to be legally

      This is where I see the problem I mentioned earlier.. it’s just a recipe for escalating violence. And an error where you retreat from something that wasn’t a threat is much better than an error where you kill someone who wasn’t a threat. But I doubt we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on this.

      Finally, Texas law offers anyone who uses force authorized by law some additional protection from civil lawsuits that could be filed by injured criminal attackers or their families.

      I don’t think someone who attacks you should be able to see you for harm that befalls them..

      Then again, if they suffer extreme or unreasonable harm.. say, after they’re down, you kick them in the ribs repeatedly.. yea, I think they should have a case.

      I suppose it depends on how this was worded.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        On the subject of escalating violence . People who are law abiding citizens and conceal carry will not just shoot someone . We don’t want to ever be in a situation where we need to shoot. Your assumption of escalation do to SYG is a fairy tale .

      • @ Matt: Yep, those law abiders sure do know how to discriminate the good from the bad guys … unless it happens in florida … then it’s simple math: Black = bad; White = good.

      • The Castle Doctrine in Texas extends to the car, the office, and/or any other property. But…that was the synopsis…..I might add….that, in Texas, if you pull without reason, you will be prosecuted. We have precedent in that. Thanks for your input.

        • So, Colonel … if some natural gas company decides to drill on your land, what do you do? Will you shoot at them (this time I’m hoping the answer is yes … I’ll even join your efforts in that)!


    Kinda interesting how it’s always a mob, gang, etc…cannot say a bunch of black kids beat a guy up for being white……

  9. Mathius says:

    This interview was horrific. I’m sure you all will see nothing wrong.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Why would you make such a statement??

      • Mathius says:

        Just a hunch.. though, to be fair, you’re not who I had in mind when I mad that statement.

        What was your take, JAC, old boy?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Confirms what I think of all “supposed” news people. If you pay close attention you can tell their questions are pre-cooked and also fed by the producer in their ear.

          I did not listen to the interview because I read excerpts earlier this AM.

          So besides the conclusion above, pretty obvious the producers aren’t very bright either or they would have known their shallow attempt to jab at the Muslim for their audience’s benefit would backfire.

          Like maybe, just maybe you should understand who your interviewing??? Maybe???

          Reading my comment I apologize for using so many words. Could have summed it up with:


    • Only made it to 7 minutes, couldn’t take the interview another second … but, some gems!

      Fox Interviewer (subtext): How dare you have interest in Christianity! (you Muslim, you)
      Best part? Jesus was concerned with the downtrodden, the greater good. He was aa Marxist!!!!!!! I love it!
      The interviewer? Brings up Reagan … gotta love that too!
      Fox Noise … never fails to disappoint.

      Yes, Matt … they’ll see nothing wrong AT ALL 🙂

      • The right will argue that Jesus advocated for SYG … then again, I didn’t watch the last 2 minutes! Maybe he switched from Marxist to Governor Perry and did!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree, the female was horrible . The. Author spoke very well and was polite.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Mathius, please re send your email to me. I had a ID 10 T error and it was deleted.

        • Mathius says:

          Ha, sure.. I thought for a second you were telling me that you deleted my email because I am idiot. 😉

    • Not sure if I would call it horrific but it certainly is a bad interview. How did that interviewer get a job on TV? and that professor is a snotty punk that was looking for an argument no matter what was asked. More evidence to why I don’t watch cable “news”.

      It did do one thing right, I may read this book that I never heard of now.

  10. Right now, on my television … The Passion of Ayn Rand … they made a movie of this whackjob’s whacko marriage … she had the hots for a younger guy? Good, the only “reasonable” thing about this broad … I hear the accented voice (by the actress behind me) and can’t help but think of William F. Buckley saying “he had to flog himself to finish Atlas Shrugged” … 🙂

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    The is guilty as hell, you can’t just start shooting at people and I don’t think the law will protect him. In this case , he will pay heavily. , as he should .

  12. July 28, 2013
    Please, Let’s Have that Honest Conversation about Race
    By Eileen F. Toplansky

    So let’s have that honest discussion about race that people keep clamoring for.

    Someone please explain the brainwashing of a 5th-grade African-American girl who, when she was introduced to Duke Ellington’s music, said, “I don’t wanna hear no white man’s music.” She was merely echoing the implacable hatred that she learned at home. Any way that the teacher responded would only reinforce this young child’s racist predisposition.

    Why in a New York City high school of 5,600 students, with 36 white students, was there only one black honor student? While many of these students were not planning on going onto college and many did succeed in vocational jobs, it puzzled the white students that there were such disproportionate numbers among the black and Hispanic students.

    What is one to make of the “don’t talk white” attitude? It demeans those black students who aspire to a good education. And the difference between “nigger” and “nigga” is cogently explained in this piece by Cornell Dews.

    Then there is Alice Walker. Best known for The Color Purple, Walker’s latest book, The Cushion in the Road, is “replete with an abundance of anti-Jewish rhetoric.” Will English departments ever discuss why so many literary luminaries hold anti-Jewish sentiment as they gush over Walker? Why should whites accept the obvious contempt that a Jaimie Foxx demonstrates? I would be aghast if a white actor made a similar comment about black people, yet Hollywood smugly smiles when Foxx says that he enjoyed “killing” whites in Django Unchained.

    Of course, a white person will be wary when black Muslims repeat the hateful remarks of Farrakhan and behave in a militant manner, demonstrating their disdain for the entire white race. Why is detestable black militancy accepted? Is it not as bad as KKK hate speech? Will anyone demand an explanation of the hypocrisy consistently used by Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama? And what of the shameful behavior of the NAACP in their shabby treatment of conservative black speakers?

    Why is there no call for investigating the New Black Panthers’ public display of inappropriate behavior during the 2008 and 2012 elections? Why does it appear that illegal black behavior is given a pass? Why the double standard?

    When something does not go well, why is the race card immediately dangled? David Dinkins was the first black mayor of New York City. His term was an unmitigated disaster because of “his inability to understand that it was his performance rather than prejudice that [ultimately] soured many New Yorkers[.]” And yet, even now, he trots out the racism card. Obama appears to be a lineal descendant of this attitude.

    Why, after any well-publicized trial of a black person, do neighboring communities brace themselves against possible violence by young black people? During the 1967 Newark riots, Governor Hughes stated that “[t]his is a criminal insurrection by people who say they hate the white man but who really hate America.” Race-baiters of today benefit greatly from America while spewing their bile under the guise of a quest for racial justice.

    When a verdict comes down upon a Jew or an Asian, no one expects the respective communities to burst into violence. Why does it happen in so many of the black communities? Instead of comprehending that such wanton violence will deter any business from establishing itself in such a community, cries of racism are immediately hurled.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  13. @ FLP … oy vey

  14. Okay, so now I’m interested in you Wingies have to say about this:

    Texas, Colonel … PA, Gman … this documentary was pretty horrific … and you even get to blame Obama! I sure do … him and the root cause–das kapital!

    • I’m even curious what my half-lefty friend, Matt thinks about the root cause of this “fracking” … I know he knows it’s bad for the environment (and humans) but to what does he attribute its power in Congress and the White House? Profit, maybe, humans be damned?

      • Mathius says:

        I’m even curious what my half-lefty friend, Matt thinks about the root cause of this “fracking”

        Matt thinks that energy isn’t free. You can have oil (sends money to the middle east, messy, pollutes), you can have nat gas (fracking supposedly causes earthquakes, releases methane greenhouse gas, pollutes), you can have solar panels (an eyesore, materials are toxic, pollutes, short-ish lifespan, assembled in China), you can have nuclear (risk of leak, spent fuel rods). Pick your poison.

        In a perfect world, would I support fracking? No. But that’s because, in a perfect world, energy would be safe, pollution-free, cheap, and ubiquitous. If I had my druthers, I’d opt for nuclear power (at least until we can figure out this cold fusion thing). But tree-huggers on the left have pretty much destroyed any chance of building new plants – and beside, that’s just in America – it’s not really practical for Sub-Saharan Africa, now is it?

        So yea, I’m sure fracking has its issues. I’m sure we don’t even know them all. But it’s still probably better than oil.

        There are also a few other ideas out there which I like – tidal wave generators, et cetera, but there’re all new and untested.


        Then again, there is one source of unlimited energy no one has tapped yet: hot air from politicians.

        to what does he attribute its power in Congress and the White House? Profit, maybe, humans be damned?

        The same usual mix.. greed, political optics, financial interest, lobbying, et cetera. There might even be one or two politicians who are actually up to date on the science and have informed opinions ad who want to do the right thing for the country.

        • Wow, Matt … scary where you are on this. Have you seen the documentary? Invest a couple of hours (you’ll learn more there than here).

          • I don’t have “a couple of hours” to invest in this.. I know it’s bad. I know it’s very bad.

            But America is addicted to oil and oil is also very, very bad.

            Just because we’re messing up the environment “over here” doesn’t mean it’s more responsible to than messing up the environment “over there.” I don’t have to like to know there’s no good way around it.

            Fine, let’s call a moratorium on oil, nat gas, solar, and nuclear power.

            Now what? We are now members of the cast of Revolution on NBC.

            You tell me: what is the right answer then?

            • You seem to have more than a couple of hours to invest here, but, hey, you’ve got your priorities. For you, I’d say join the Libertarian Party and have a blast.

              • Don’t get me wrong, Chaz, I have a strong libertarian streak. There’s a Dread Pirate locked somewhere in my basement.

                But that doesn’t mean I ignore ecological issues.

                And, frankly, you may be more left than I am, but you do not get to define my political positions for me. Just because I do not have a strong stance on an issue you personally hold as some kind of litmus test doesn’t mean you get to unilaterally exile me to another camp and declare that I’m somehow not a true liberal because of it. That’s not really fair.

                I’d love to protect the environment, but I don’t see how we do so with the current state of technology AND the unquenchable demand for energy in this country. Fracking may be bad, but there is worse, and at least it keeps the money in the country and the harm in front of our faces – it’s too easy to ignore the environmental damage we cause when we’re poisoning someone else’s water.. at least this way, we will live with the results of our choices. And maybe, hopefully, that provides the incentive to solve the issues in a more responsible way.

                But you didn’t answer my question: What is the “right” answer?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      As iss common with the environuts, fracking has been happening around here since the eighties. No problems have occurred qnd no wildlfe harmed. I don’t know what all the whining is about, maybe sleeping with owls in the Northwest is too hard for the young econuts today. 🙂

    • Ok, Charlie, I will get into it but first I will consult my brother and the engineer we have on staff. As you know, we are what is called wild catters…we lease land and drill for oil and gas. Our average well produces 8-25 bbls per day…..something the big boys wont even toy with, but we are very up on fracking and its pros and cons….however, I cannot speak as intelligently about it as my brother. I will be back to you sometime today with his first blush. I will tell you this, that the picture that shows water igniting is hog wash and has been proven to be false in most situations. BUT……..allow me to get the experts involved, ( For the record, we do not frack…it is too expensive.

      • So the towns showing fire coming from faucets and hoses in the documentary are hollywood sets? Come on, Colonel … water supplies were completely poised … in your state as well … self made millionaires (former Republicans) were “told” and then shown that drilling would be engaged on their “private property” like it or not … watch the documentary, Colonel …

        • Don’t like fracking.

          Buy oil from the ME but do not complain about a having to send troops to defend the oil fields with subsequent loss of life, or the negative balance of trade as we spend or wealth.

          Invest in nuclear, but do not complain about the danger of mining and refining uranium, the danger of a melt down or release, or the burying of waste in Yucca Mt.

          Invest in coal, but do not complain about black lung, mine disasters, acid rain, pollution, and ash disposal.

          Invest in solar, but do not complain about its cost, the long transmission lines to get it to market, the environmental concerns with refining rare earths to make it, the money sent to China to build them or the backup generator when the sun is not shining.

          Invest in wind, but to not complain about the eyesore of thousands of huge windmills on the horizon, the dead birds, the noise, the danger when one flies apart, the cost, the backup generator needed when the wind is not blowing.

          Invest in corn alcohol, but to not complain about the cost, the erosion of top soil, the increased use of fertilizer and pesticides, the depletion of soil vitality from cropping corn on the same land year after year, or the fact that it has very little energy gain vs expenditure to produce.

          Invest in biofuels, but do not complain about the cost, the lack of raw materials, the stink,….

          Don’t like any of these, then let’s bring back bicycles, the horse, walking, wood stoves for heating and cooking, oil lamps and candles for lighting. Why were most streets mud in the old days? Because horse urine soaks in. Watch were you walk though. It happens.

          • “Don’t like any of these, then let’s bring back bicycles, the horse, walking, wood stoves for heating and cooking, oil lamps and candles for lighting. Why were most streets mud in the old days? Because horse urine soaks in. Watch were you walk though. It happens.”

            The most intelligent thing I’ve read on here in a long while … Stephen, do you agree?

            • Well, how could I disagree. Used to work on West 89th Street in Manhattan, next to the Claremont Stables, the last such stable in Manhattan. They boarded carriage horses for Central park, Police Horses, Rental horses for the Central park Bridle Paths and rich people (like the Kennedy’s )horses. Man. that place was something in mid-July. Flies the size of sparrows and that wonderful smell, I can dredge it up even now.

              Unfortunately, our problem was the 20th century. If we could just get back to the 19th and reduce the lifespan back to 40, just think of all the problems we’d solve.

        • Charlie, read what I said closely……”for the most part”……..tch tch, sir.

          • OH, I did see the has my brother as has our engineer.

            • So, I’m confused, Colonel. Which part doesn’t bother you (or is “hogwash”)
              a) That they ran people off their private property?
              b) That they poised their water sources?
              c) That their water was flamable?
              d) That they demanded non-disclosure contracts when they reimbursed them for (most times) peanuts on the value of the homes they had to walk away from (some after 5 generations)?
              e) Former Republicans/conservatives suddenly had a use for the EPA, until the Obama administration backed the EPA off (for the sake of contributions towards his election)?

              Let’s start with those for now, but I’m really curious.

        • I keep writing poised for poisoned … what’s up with that? Denial?

  15. Bottom Line says:

    Being aware and indulging into the finer points of political science and sociology is a good thing. But if you do so in the interest of changing things, it is a wasted focus. At this point, the only way to fix anything is to destroy it and rebuild.

    People are too attached to the current system and will reject any answer that does not include current inadequate means.

    It takes numbers…like global, ..and the masses will not wake up until they are desperate enough, either because of self induced enslavement or threat of starvation/demise/destruction.

    So we either wait until the system collapses of its own weight, or we figure a way to break it down. But before it is broken down, we need an answer as to what to rebuild.

    I recommend global Libertarianism – free market libertarian base structure with strictly voluntary socialist/communist programs for things like infrastructure, education and healthcare, food and housing.

  16. CONGRATULATIONS UNITED STATES…….you now have the highest corporate income tax rate in the entire world….bar none.

    • Maybe the trade-off was fracking, Colonel … or Monsanto … or the bailouts! Good grief, which is it you oppose (all you wingies) corporate welfare/unions/welfare in general … or corporatations being so burdened with taxes? Yous don’t trust the government, yet some are willing to fight and die for it … I’m soooooooooooooooooooooo confused … 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Yes you are.

        • 🙂

          You do realize its the ones who are cock sure of everything that are ultimately proved wrong, right?

          Hey, I watched the end of that Ayn Rand movie yesterday … what a psycho! I went and researched a little and saw it was mostly VERY true … imagine that?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            July 30 • Henry Hazlitt
            The envious are more likely to be mollified by seeing others deprived of some advantage than by gaining it for themselves. It is not what they lack that chiefly troubles them, but what others have. The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge

  17. I have a f’ckin problem of a different kind to handle today. Got a plug sewer line.

    • Frack it.

      • This is what you get with state (enviro) mandated low volume flush toilets. Never had the problem until I installed one. Tis a none moving experience.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          My foothills friend………… easy solution and the most GREEN.

          The ultimate LOW FLOW toilet that is completely Enviro Friendly………… one word.


          • I do remember them. Can be a bit cold in the middle of January in the upper Midwest. The best ones are brick. We did not have indoor facilities until I was about 5. Does yours come equipped with a Sears Roebuck?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Nah, we went MODERN. Real TP.

              If you orient the door properly you don’t need a magazine, Just use your time for reflection.


          • Ahhhhh…..JAC, my intrepid West Coaster… problem……..septic tanks and outhouses… controlled by the EPA……especially if you are using lateral lines and lime.

  18. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: environmental issues.

    You have touched upon a key point which is rarely understood or admitted.

    We have been taught for far to long that we can have our cake and eat it to. I spent years trying to teach people the same, per the instruction I was given and the policies of my employer.

    Then one day I realized it was mostly BS. EVERY decision we make creates TRADEOFFS. There is always another something to be impacted. Something will ALWAYS have to suffer while others will benefit.

    There are certain things we can do that have LESS impact on SOME THINGS. But the notion that we can save or protect ALL simply is not true.

    The only correction I would make to your above comment to Charlie is that the thirst for energy is GLOBAL. It is not limited to the USA nor will the USA be the largest consumer of energy in the long run. Not if the rest of humanity continues its quest for a better lifestyle.

    Now some history, for those who are always crying the blues about our energy consumption. A little over 100 years ago our population was much smaller. But the volume of toxic particulates in the air was greater in many areas. We forget that our primary sources of life saving HEAT were WOOD and COAL.

    The extension of our lifespans can be tied to the elimination of these as primary sources of cooking and heating.

    Best to you and DPM this fine morning.

  19. @ Matt:

    That’s not really fair.

    Yeah, but it’s fun and it gets you steamed 🙂 … but, true … and fair enough.

    But you’re still half a left 🙂

    I’d love to protect the environment, but I don’t see how we do so with the current state of technology AND the unquenchable demand for energy in this country. Fracking may be bad, but there is worse, and at least it keeps the money in the country,

    Probably why you need to see the documentary – all the ports along the coast being built to export … natural gas …

    and the harm in front of our faces – it’s too easy to ignore the environmental damage we cause when we’re poisoning someone else’s water.. at least this way, we will live with the results of our choices. And maybe, hopefully, that provides the incentive to solve the issues in a more responsible way.

    Are they really “our” choices? Or choices made for us by oil companies? I suggest you see the documentary and if you still feel that way afterward, so be it. The number of wells being drilled is quite frightening. I’m in a suburban area that is kind of safe (for now) … but even LA is being drilled (middle of the city, on the fault line) … PA is being completely overrun wherever the deposits exist.

    But you didn’t answer my question: What is the “right” answer?

    You won’t like my answer, my brother. It would call for redistribution of wealth and a genuine debate between scientists (not on company payrolls) … and we’d go with the least harmful to the environment/humans/animals … and unless this documentary is a total propaganda push, it cannot possibly be fracking.

  20. Ok Charlie, fracking……first, I did not tell the truth….we do frack with low pressure..not high pressure. The reason for fracking, as you probably know, is to extract oil and natural gas from formations. Do NOT get your information fro Wiki… is incorrect. Oil and natural gas gets caught in strata and pockets of formations. The introduction of water and sand into the formations forces them (the formations) open to facilitate the flow of the trapped oil and gas. Sometimes, certain non toxic chemicals are added to the water and sand to breakdown heavier oil to facilitate easier flow.

    Methane gas, which is what you see in these very selective films, is a natural product NOT as a result of fracking. Fracking does not produce methane gas. Many cities and towns are built upon water formations (aquifer) that contain methane gas, IF and that is a big IF, a contractor does not follow proper procedure and set the concrete correctly or uses substandard pipe, say from China, it is possible for the pressure of fracking to leak around the piping and produce a fracturing of the natural methane gas deposits. Sometimes, and it is more rare than being struck by lightning, methane gas has been released into the aquifers creating some poisoning of the water in high concentrations. This is caused by the cities and towns selling their water to the fracking operations… takes millions of gallons of water and is very lucrative for the city. What most cities do not tell the public is the amount of methane gas associated with many aquifers. I am sure you have heard of arsenic wells, sulphur wells, iron wells…..etc. Many of these wells can also be ignited. Oklahoma, for example, has many sulphur wells. I am sure that you have smelled water that had faint odors of sewage,,,,this is natural methane that leaks into the water system of many large cities and towns but not in high enough concentrations to ignite.

    The left side of the equation wants people to believe that methane gas is a product of fracking and it is not. NO fracking operation introduces methane gas OR toxic chemicals into any aquifer that is not already there. The left would also have you believe that increased earthquakes are the creation of fracking. Nothing proven….but there is big money in the left by killing drilling.

    Now, you get on an airplane to fly to certain destinations. When a plane crashes, it usually wipes out 200-300 people but it is still the safest transportation per capita. There are more plane crashes than cities set aflame by methane gas…..accidents do happen. The left would also have you believe that the drilling companies, who hire independent contractors to do their fracking, are intentionally poisoning water and creating these problems. Remember the left has a money agenda as bad or worse than any drilling outfit. Most fracking operations are taking place in shale deposits which are 2,000 feet or greater….far removed from aquifers. Those that frack shallow are using low pressure 800-1000 psi and that low pressure has a one in million chance of rupturing natural methane pockets, if and only if, inferior products are used. I am also informed that there are so many checks and balances going on from city, state, and federal inspections, that the possibility of doing this same thing is remote…..I did not see a date on when these so called poisonings took place or the methane burning but I am willing to bet this was a long time ago.

    • Sometimes, certain non toxic chemicals are added to the water and sand to breakdown heavier oil to facilitate easier flow.

      No, Colonel. According to this documentary and everything else I’ve since read, toxic chemicals are always added to the water …ALWAYS

      IF and that is a big IF, a contractor does not follow proper procedure and set the concrete correctly or uses substandard pipe, say from China,

      Oh, boy, Colonel, are you drinking the cool aid … non-payroll scientists show how 5% of ALL wells are corrupted at the very start of the process by cement failures. That’s 5% of ALL WELLS upon the start of drilling. Those failures cause the water/chemical mixture to seep into aquifers …

      Sometimes, and it is more rare than being struck by lightning,

      The documentary mentions how military propagandists were used (as well as the same advertising company that told America cigarettes were “healthy” for them) … were you one of them?

      No need to go further … once you start using “the left” … I can tell where it’s going.

      Oy vey …

      • Charlie……this is simply not true,,,,there are no toxic chemicals added to the water….none. This is a lie. Key word is TOXIC. We are in the business, albeit on a small scale…and it does not happen. Substandard cement, at one time, was a problem years ago,,,,,it is not now. but believe what you want….it does not happen now on 5% of wells. I will never believe that….not today.

        You said you could tell where it is going……then ask yourself…..who benefits from this?

        But I can also check out military propagandists….that is easy for me to do.

      • Charlie,

        Can we assume that your documentary has, err. and agenda? That doesn’t make it “wrong” or suggest that it’s “lying” per say, but that we should, at the very least, consider its claims with a grain of salt?

        Now, the colonel may be an old fart who doesn’t know his keister from a whole in the ground half the time, but I’d wager he knows a fair amount about the topic at hand.

        If you’re going to have this debate, it seems only fair to take neither your video nor D13’s experiences as gospel.

        • “whole” ?……..sigh….Mathius……. Half of the time….really? I know enough about it to admit that I don’t know all of it……BUT… our meetings and since we are in the business….I think I know what goes on. I know the exact chemicals that we add…..none are toxic. All are designed to make the oil “slick” to mean, that it comes out easier and cleaner. I was unaware that when we take over old fields….(fields that have been abandoned because the flow was under 50 bbls per day)….we “shallow frack”….then we replace the oil and gas with the same water and sand that we fracked with…this is also common now….even using some thicker polymers to fill the cracks left. This is for shallow wells….When we run into methane gas deposits, we always abandon the well. It is too dangerous even to vent it. Blowouts can occur and that is more dangerous.

          Now, when we rework some of the older fields and we pressure test the pipe before perforating and fracking, we have found some instances, in fields that are over 50 years old, used a different type of cement and we had to plug from the bottom of the hole to the area where we were going to rework and then set new pipe. Technology has changed and this documentary has an agenda, obviously and it used half truths.

          But Charlie is Charlie…..he and I understand each other well and will still share tamales and canoli.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I think you guys are mixing types of wells and development. You are talking about YOUR wells which you admit are OIL and much of which you stated were low pressure.

            Much of the Fracking debate is also mixed, but used to group ALL wells. All wells and all failures are NOT the same and are not caused by the same problems. Although it does appear that failure of the well hole, casings/cement etc,, itself was the primary problem.

            I am with Mathius on this one. Most are probably safe, some are not and BOTH sides have their own agendas.

            I do find it ironic however that those people who say we should just follow the scientists and engineers on Global Warming dismiss the many scientists and engineers who claim fracking is not dangerous in most cases.

            Now with that said, in the Libertarian Spirit, if a company fracks up the water supply they must replace that bad water with GOOD water in perpetuity. That is their “just” restitution for damaging another’s property.

            • “That is their “just” restitution for damaging another’s property.”

              How about them compensation landowners for the “private property” when the drill in the back yards (literally) … or how about the fact they do not compensate for poisoned water … or the fact the house values are destroyed because whose gonna buy a house with flamming water? and what’s up with the non-disclosure contracts for any form of compensation? Who has the bigger agenda, JAC … the tree hugging left or the oil companies … i.e., who stands more to gain?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Is the well on your property? Did you get royalty for such? Then no restitution for the well.

                Is it on your neighbors property? If so your out of luck. You don’t own the property you don’t own the view. Unless of course you purchased it in advance.

                I just covered the restitution for screwing up the water. Or was your eagerness to have a snarky reply greater than your willingness to read the statement?

                What makes you think the agendas are different Charlie??

            • JAC…we have both oil and gas, however shallow fracking is not subject to the same rigors as the deep fracking beyond 2,000 feet….some as deep as 20,000 feet…shale fracking in the Texas and California areas is normally less than 2,000 feet.

              We have had one failure that resulted in a blowout and we have been dong this since 1954. The blowout was due to a faulty head made in China but represented as USA made. Cement has had many quality problems, especially in deep wells which are “plugged”. Deep earth pressures can crack even the best of concrete. Used to be plugging was done as one initial plug of only somewhere round 10 foot plug. Now the requirements are complete hole. A 5,000 foot deep well 4 to 6 inches in diameter is totally plugged. That is a lot of expense and cement.

              • Mathius says:

                ::bangs away at calculator::

                The area of a cylinder is pi * r^2 * h..

                That’s 5000 ft * pi * (6 in) ^2…

                That’s 111 M^3..

                That’s 145 Yd^3..

                Assuming (wild guess from some brief Googling) $1.50 / ft^3..

                That comes out to… ::drum roll::

                Approximately $5,890.

                Eh.. that’s not so bad in the scheme of things..

          • Mathius says:


            ::slaps forehead::

        • Did I tell you to take the video at gospel, son?

          Yes, i’m being condescending.

          I said view it. The agenda for the guy who made it was his house in PA was being surrounded by fracking wells (whether he liked it or not). What harm does it do to watch the documentary and form your own opinion, rather than listen to the BS of Barrack (I owe my ass to big money) Obama? Interesting how Gman, the Colonel, JAC, et al … and apparently YOU, are fine either denying the problem (which you don’t do, yet you seem fine with ignoring it) … and all are in agreement with the oil companies.

          Talk about an Agenda!

          Sweet Jesus on a vespa …

          • I meant to write: Interesting how the wingies are goose stepping right along with Mr. Obama on this one … no agenda there, fellas … the oil companies never have an agenda. oy fracking vey

            • Just A Citizen says:

              “goose stepping”???? Really, that is your comment??

              Who is throwing the rocks first in this case?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You know full well it is NOT THE SAME. Both are ignorant given the many comments here but was is intentionally used to cause angry reactions or to denigrate others.

              The very thing you have accused others of doing.

              • Oh, please … suddenly the libertarians are Politically correct? If so, then please change it back to goostepping. Yes, as in fascism … money talks in the land of capitalism … we want to expand and will do it by any means necessary … we have to buy the gov’t, done deal … we have to move you off your land, done deal … we drill next to your land and your water is poisoned, tough noogies (remember noogies?) … you use your hose to barbecue, cool beans! You don’t like it, move. Sell your house (even if nobody will buy it because there’s no longer a water supply) … pick up and shut up …

                Heil! Heil! Heil!

                Grouch voice: That’s the silliest Heil I’ve ever heard.

          • Charlie….quite the contrary…I am not denying the problem whatsoever…..not at all…..I am looking up the dates to that commentary…meaning the information used. There is no question that fracking, which has been around since the 1940’s, and with no safety regulations, had problems. Inferior piping, cement degrading, etc were horrible problems. Fracking, some time ago, also known as perforation where huge slugs were exploded into a formation caused problems.

            Today, these types of issues do not normally exist UNLESS you are assuming that oil companies, big and small, simply donor care and I will take exception.

            You also need to know that any one who leases land is totally responsible for it. You must be in compliance with all regulations, repair roads, fences, make land owners harmless from contamination, loss of livestock, etc. clean up is the responsibility of the oil company as well. But, in those same contracts and lease agreements, there is also a clause that protects against natural environment hazards…..methane pockets, etc. if ground water is contaminated due to the negligence of the drilling or casing process, the oil company is liable. If chemicals are used in lethal or negligent quantities, they are also criminally liable.

            In addition, there are several side agreements with individual landowners, who are no less greedy than their counter parts……these agreements can either replace or add to an original lease. I have seen some real doozies where they wanted new fences, paved roads, electronic equipment, etc. Also, if fracking is to done around a town, where the land owner does not own mineral rights, he/she has absolutely NO say if fracking is to be done. Each and every landowner, before they buy raw land or a home in and around any municipality should never be so stupid as to not research typical things…..such as, The 100 year flood line, faults, property rights, lines of demarcation, mineral rights, easements, and eminent domain. I will never accept as an excuse any property owner being unaware of such. So called “hidden agreements” are not really hidden.

            I am willing to wager Mathuis’ first born that the information used in that documentary is decades old.

            • Mathius says:

              I am willing to wager Mathuis’ first born

              I’m rather attached to my first born.. I’d rather you not wager her, if you don’t mind. I don’t want her being raised by such a communist.

              Can’t you wager something else? I’d be much obliged.

              • Request accepted……you will change your mind in 12 or 13 years….but for now, request accepted. When the estrogen starts flying in all directions, you will think back to this request you made.

            • “In addition, there are several side agreements with individual landowners, who are no less greedy than their counter parts……”

              Yes, Colonel … talk about greed, in the documentary (I’m thinking you didn’t see it now) … some town in PA or Texas had the unmitigated gaul to accept cable television for leasing their lands …

              • Kids, oy vey … been there, done that.

                The documentary, Colonel, is as recent as 2010-11-12 … even after the Obama election …

              • Yes, Charlie, saw it in full…twice. I do not dispute that the documentary was made in in 2010….I have great concern that the facts in the documentary while possibly true, and I know of places where methane gas has been released into water supplies, as well as hydrogen sulfide, and I am aware that there have been faucets where tap water burned as a result of same…..fully aware. I am also aware that methane gases have been released into water tables by cities burying cables and electric lines.

                Let me ask you a question, how do you approach the issue of a township or city that owns land….ie., so called public land……and that city signs away its mineral and drilling rights….do you hold the city responsible or the leasing agent that bought the rights?

      • Do not believe it anymore than you would believe Farenheit 911. Coal mines explode from methane gas. There are places in PA that I know where the methane gas bubbles up to the surface. This one requires research rather than believing something because it seems to sound right.

        • And then there’s empirical proof, but that would require watching the documentary (and not believing it was “staged”) … because you know those tree huggers and all their money … the oil companies wouldn’t stand a chance (sarcasm intended).

    • not even a nuclear bomb can trigger an earthquake!

      With all of the activity at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s and ’60s, you’d expect California to drop into the ocean. Yet dozens of nuclear bombs did not cause any earthquakes on the San Andreas fault.

      There is even documented proof of government experiments where nuclear bombs were used in an attempt to trigger earthquakes.

      On January 19, 1968, a thermonuclear test, code-named Faultless, took place in central Nevada. Seismograph records showed that the waves produced by the fault movement were much less energetic than those produced directly by the nuclear bomb.

      Posibly the DOE should have tested a more active fault. So the feds conducted nuclear bomb tests in Alaska in an attempt to generate a seismic event in one of the most active seismic zones in the world. Again, no earthquake happened.

      The largest underground thermonuclear tests conducted by the United States were detonated in Amchitka at the western end of the Aleutian Islands, including a 5-megaton test named Cannikin detonated on November 6, 1971. Good news: the project failed to trigger any earthquakes.

      USGS and DOE scientists agree that even large nuclear explosions have little effect on seismicity outside the area of the blast itself.

      Yet, without any scientific basis whatsoever, the anti-fracking lobby will still conjure up images of cataclysmic earthquakes to further their cause.

      Read more:

  21. This was so funny, I nearly cried.. Charlie, you’re going to want to click this one too..


    Honestly, I thought it was an Onion article at first..

    • 🙂 … I thought Onion too … funny yet scary … I’m in one of those dumpsters, some pastyskinned white boy’s losing some teeth, boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    • LOL…….now it turns on the white population…..but that does not change anything….a breakdown of family can take place in any culture….is this a normal thing at surfing venues out there?

      • Mathius says:

        Not in my experience.. I used to spend a lot of time surfing in my younger days (back when I had a functional lower back and lived in warmer climates). I might have seen a few arguments here and there, but nothing like what was describe here.

        Frankly, most of them were way too stoned most of the time to be aggressive.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I give the guy credit for the sarcastic artistry in his editorial. However, he seems to have missed all the NOT WHITE people in the video. I wonder why that missed his attention?

      This is YOUR part of the country so perhaps you can add something to the story. I noticed several very critical comments about the “hate” in that part of CA. Which is strange since I went to college with several guys from Huntington Beach. Way laid back pot smoking dudes, to say the least.

      • Mathius says:

        I give the guy credit for the sarcastic artistry in his editorial.

        You should.. it was very well done.

        I noticed several very critical comments about the “hate” in that part of CA. Which is strange since I went to college with several guys from Huntington Beach. Way laid back pot smoking dudes, to say the least.

        My take as well. Everyone I used to know in those kinds of scenes was a love-your-neighbor stoned neo-hippy type. (Though, to be fair, I didn’t frequently go down to Orange if I could help it.. we Angelinos are kind of snobby that way).

  22. Just A Citizen says:


    These include water, oxygen, CO2, CO1, ethanol, methanol, etc, etc, etc..

    Of course their affect on health depends on the Concentration and Duration of exposure.

  23. Just A Citizen says:


    You had a comment stuck in pending, it is now released from bondage.

    I have a present for you but need your mailing address. Let me know and I’ll contact you via email.

  24. @JAC:

    I just covered the restitution for screwing up the water. Or was your eagerness to have a snarky reply greater than your willingness to read the statement?

    You covered nothing. The wells were drilled without permission. So much for snarkiness, eh, old man?

    What makes you think the agendas are different Charlie??

    Oil vs. tree huggers? You’re joking, right? Tree huggers have the same power as big oil? The almighty capitalistic dollar is Big Oil’s agenda (and power) … tree huggers … you’ll have to show me their power, because I don’t see it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yes, your snarky replies ignore all that has ever been said here about restitution and property rights. You assign beliefs to people here that are simply not supported by their many, many comments. You seem intent on having some emotional tirade over fracking about issues you got from A MOVIE.

      Wasn’t it you the other day that told someone to chill because it was ONLY A MOVIE??

      Now tell me how a company drills a well on YOUR property without YOUR permission??

      • I guess, JAC, you’ll have to watch the documentary to see how a company drills on YOUR property without YOUR permission.

        I assign beliefs? Oy vey … do you clowns ever have an original strawman argument?

        Scratch that, I know you don’t.

        Actually, JAC, you need to reread the posts … it’s a documentary … 🙂 … and unless they built some really big-ass sets in Hollywood, it appears as though large portions of PA and Texas are in this documentary …

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Your talking to the guy who called out NBC for their “documentary” showing how logging was killing fish on the Clearwater River in Idaho. It was ALL BS and the fake footage was provided by the “tree huggers”.

          So excuse me if I am less than anxious to believe something just because it has the word “documentary” attached.

          Now answer the question please. How do they drill on YOUR property without YOUR permission.

          • Mathius says:

            Slant drilling perhaps? There have been some of historical examples of such. Further, when you pump stuff into the ground *near* point A, it doesn’t necessarily stay exactly where you put it and it can easily end up under point B, where point B is Charlie’s house.

            That’s not to say they barge into his back yard and set up a drill, but yea, there have been cases where they mine under you without your permission (or even knowledge) – and, for what it’s worth, it’s not always that they’re being sneaky.. sometimes they don’t even know it themselves and only find out afterward.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I doubt they drilled without knowing where they were. Maybe a few feet off but there is much more accuracy than someone is claiming.

              The “impacts” you refer to would be a violation of the property rights of the owner, if said owner in fact holds those rights over 1) surface, 2) air space and, 3) subsurface minerals, oil and gas.

              There would be two offenses possible. One would be harming the persons property and/or health for which restitution is appropriate. The other would be outright theft. Restitution along with some jail time seems appropriate here.

            • Slant drilling has been around for awhile… was started as a way to tap into oil reserves on someone’s land where they owned the mineral rights but refused to lease the land. When this was discovered, slant drilling became illegal without the owners permission. Today, the law requires a schematic to be filed and the depth. This is cross checked by the amount of tubing that you purchase and have to attach and show documents. The amount of tubing had better not exceed the amount required for the depth. Now, with the thermograph in technology today, illegal slant drilling is easily discoverable.

              However, now it is legal to slant and horizontal drill on land that is leased. One well can now “octopus” in various directions. This allows for land preservation.

            • The short of it, JAC: That means a private energy company, or even the government in cases of publicly owned mineral rights, is authorized to march onto private (or public) property and start drilling. The most offensive part is that not only can a landowner do nothing to stop them (though by all means they should try), there are also dangerously few regulations on how the process is carried out—and it’s one that is both toxic and resource-intensive. Not to mention noisy and smelly.

              • So, GREAT and POWERFUL OZ of the private ownership rights … what say ye now?

                Like I don’t know what he’ll say … geesh …

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes Charlie, idiots give up their mineral rights the save money when buying property. They are idiots and deserve to be treated as such. Never, ever buy property and sell your mineral rights to save money. Really dumb, and pay for it, but quite rare, not a common thing.

              • This is only partly true. Texas landowners have been quite successful in stopping drilling on their land. This article does not go on to say how to stop it and it should have. If you own the surface rights and do not own the mineral rights, all you have to do in Texas… your property. However, if you are not on good terms with your neighbor, he/she can lease the surface rights and then they can horizontal drill.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              So it really wasn’t YOUR property was it!!

              Your citation is filled with BS by the way. The surface owner does have some say in the drilling but cannot out right stop it. They DO NOT OWN anything but the surface and that ownership is contingent upon access to the minerals.

              So this claim that they are just drilling without permission is very misleading and not accurate.

              Furthermore, there are a multitude of other regulations governing oil and gas exploration. The exemptions mentioned were to short cut the EPA’s years long review process for use of fracking. That doesn’t mean that the others aspects of clean water and State laws do not apply.

              It is a favorite trick of the “tree huggers” to claim environmental degradation because an activity isn’t handled under some particular “environmental law”. Most times that law is irrelevant to the question of protection. They use it to incite an emotional response. “Oh my God, look. They don’t have to comply with Clear Air and Clean Water laws”.

              Yes, Charlie there is a great OZ involved in this. But it is not I.

              • JAC, you’re so full of shit, I can see it coming out of your ears (like pillsbury doe stuffing) 🙂

                If you’re confronted with FACTS, make up your own … what a crock of shit you spew, my friend … what a crock.

              • They DO NOT OWN anything but the surface and that ownership is contingent upon access to the minerals.

                A small detail, I’m sure every homeowner (going back as much as 5 generations) took into account … gee, I wonder why they don’t own the land they live on/paid for/developed … so much for private property, eh, tea baggers? So, the Jed Clampett story is all hogwash after all … he shot at some bubbling crude and got fracked …

                The horror … the horror …

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Tthey don’t , not in Pa. Anybody that says they is a liar, plain a simple . Can the Lefties lie any harder? Sure they can, only to be proven wrong ,

    • You would be surprised how much power the tree huggers have. They earn their money by suing the government and using the proceeds to do it again. They are locking up the resources in the Sierras just up the hill from me. There are huge fights out here over water. Our water rates have tripled in the last 2 years.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If not for BIG OIL you would freeze in the winter, cook in the summer, and have to walk everywhere you wanted to go.

      Horses would be outlawed due to their environmental impact.

      No more beef either. Only TOFU TURKEY and Rice Noodles. Wheat would be banned of course, along with corn. Simply to impactive to the environment.

      • Mathius says:

        Horses would be outlawed due to their environmental impact.

        Prior to the advent of the automobile, they very nearly were in some major cities.

        Horse shit leavings were so ubiquitous that there were special jobs for people to rake (RAKE!) the poop up and pile it on the sides of the roads.

        But think about that.. what happens when you take a pile of poop and leave it out in the sun all day.. of course, it will generate it’s own head, plus the sun, and it will stink to high heaven. Then, on top of that, if it rained, the streets would flood with it. Beyond this, of course, was the disease it fostered.

        Farmers were paid – actually paid – to take it away for use as fertilizer (picture that.. unlimited free fertilizer that someone will pay you to take). But because there was no good way to schlepp it around, demand couldn’t keep up with supply. Much of it was simply dumped in the local rivers.

        And, of course, nothing good could come of that.

        Now, just imagine what the world would be like if everyone traded in their SUV for a horse or two… what a world that would be.. Imagine gridlock on the 405 in 110 degree weather on horseback surrounded by mountains of horseshit.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Omy, the economy would explode and jobs would be plentiful , no more welfare ! The end of GMO’s too! Fertilizer and jobs , yet you complain .

      • Mathius says:

        Only TOFU TURKEY

        I refuse to believe that is a real thing.

      • If not for BIG OIL you would freeze in the winter, cook in the summer, and have to walk everywhere you wanted to go.

        Somehow, JAC, civilization survived before Big Oil … so there goes that argument 🙂

        Horses would be outlawed due to their environmental impact.


        No more beef either. Only TOFU TURKEY and Rice Noodles. Wheat would be banned of course, along with corn. Simply to impactive to the environment.

        Trust me, eye-talians would survive this. We’d figure it out.

        • Mathius says:

          Somehow, JAC, civilization survived before Big Oil … so there goes that argument 🙂

          Not 7+ billion of us…

          Just saying…

  25. Mathius says:

    Here’s a fantastic drilling disaster from ye olden tymes (way back in 1980). I had to read it several times – if you google it on youtube, there is some footage which is just amazing.

    Short version: An oil rig was drilling into a freshwater lake. They, err, miscalculated, and drilled into a salt-mine located below the lake. The fresh water drained into the mine, dissolved the support columns (made of salt, of course), filling the caverns left from years of removed salt, and emptied out the lake. The oil rig, a dozen barges, and 65 acres of surrounding land were literally sucked down into the hole. One of those barges never resurfaced and is presumably stuck somewhere down in the hole – the rest eventually popped out like corks in a bottle. Amazingly, no one was harmed.

    Meanwhile, this left a giant crater. It then reversed the flow of its outlet canal and created, temporarily, the largest ever waterfall in the state of Louisiana.

    The incoming water was salt water, not fresh. The end result was that, after three days or so, a shallow fresh water lake vanished and was replaced with a much larger and deeper salt water lake. The new lake came stocked with lots of fish and, other than the missing barge and oil rig, there was no sign that anything had ever happened there.

    Ok, not such a short version.. but a great story nonetheless, no?

    • Pretty interesting, you ask me … 🙂

    • Yep….salt domes are a huge problem in Kansas, Louisiana, Texas ……Grand Saline, Texas to be exact…..Morton’s Salt. Huge caverns underneath and it has happened that an underground river or runoff has created what is called sink holes. Been known to swallow entire blocks of homes.

  26. First one to spot the problem in the host’s thinking..wins! First half only, the other girl has a different point.

  27. Just A Citizen says:


    Land ownership………… Yes, if people aren’t smart enough to know the laws in their state then bad on them. It is not my fault.

    Surface vs. subsurface rights differ by state. Another fact ignored by your sources. How surprising!!

    You can yell at me and call me names it doesn’t change the FACTS of the situation. It was NOT YOUR LAND entirely. So the Drillers did not TAKE YOUR LAND. You own the surface now and you will own the surface when they leave.

    • Mathius says:

      Time for a homework assignment: Everyone go home tonight and pull out your purchase docs from your home. Try to find a section on mineral rights (subsurface rights).

      If memory serves, mine specified that I acquired all rights held by the previous owner, but that the previous owner cannot warranty that they, themselves, owned the surface rights. As such, they may be owned by a third party or government.

      There could be an oil company out there somewhere with my property on record with a sub-surface deed signed 100 years ago for which someone paid $1. And any minute now, they could knock on my door, show me that paper, lay claim to the massive oil reserve under my house.

      • JAC: how many homeowners in the U.S. do you think ever gave a second thought to what they had saved (probably) their entire lives for? How many lawyers knew enough to point it out to them? It’s a bullshit answer and you know it. No yelling, no screaming, just fact. Absolute corporate bullshit. Isn’t capitalism wonderful? Private property … yeah, right.

        Good play I just listened to … saw the original many many moons ago .. this was the cast … cool beans.

        • Mathius says:

          Charlie.. I’m sure you’re going to kick me out of the club for this one… but if you sign a contract, you should know what you’re signing.

          If you didn’t buy the sub-surface rights, you don’t have them. If the guy selling you your home did have them, he couldn’t have sold them to you.

          Rights are severable.

          Now, you could make an argument that it should be clearer, or that there should be a national clearinghouse so that you can digitally confirm ownership of various rights regarding your home. Or you could argue that all the lawyers should be rounded up and hanged (yes: hanged, not hung).

          But to suggest that people should own their rights because they were too lazy to bother to read their contract? No sir. If you put your signature on something, that’s it. If you don’t understand it, you should hire a lawyer to explain it to you. Can’t afford a lawyer? Too bad, then read it yourself, slowly and carefully until you’re confident.

          Essentially your argument says: I thought I bought certain rights, therefore I demand that whoever legitimately owns them (and paid for them) should have to forfeit them to me.

          What kind of a world is that?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            That is the essence of Charlie’s world.

          • Rights are severable……….you are correct, friend Mathius. Most people do not own their minerals……especially in the cities. Ranchers and farmers sell off land to developers all the time and keep the minerals. When the developers sell land and homes to homeowners, there are no mineral rights. The farmers and ranchers can sell or lease those minerals to whomever wants them…often times to third parties. In those neighborhoods that own their minerals, companies will come and try to lease blocks of them. Homeowners get paid a lease rate plus an override. These companies know how to appeal to the material side…they offer large chunks of money up front and people get tv’s or new cars on their minds and sign away their rights.

            The buying and leasing of mineral rights is nothing new. It has been around since the 1800’s. Any person that does not do due diligence deserves what they get and it does not just apply to minerals……there are some people that will sign away water and grazing rights. It is crazy.

            I know I am preaching to the choir here, Mathius, and this is intended for Charlie as well. Also, Charlie, generations of family owned ranches and farms have only owned surface rights with minerals having been signed away years ago and children would not even know it. This is not the fault of oil companies…it is the fault, in total, of the land owners.

            • Mathius says:

              Would you be opposed, sir, to an electronic national registry of various land rights?

              That is, I could punch up my address (1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC), and it will tell me what name is on the deed, who owns the sub-surface rights, if there are any easements, et cetera?

              Right now, there’s really no good way for me to know if I own certain rights or if they were signed away 100 years ago. You set up this registry, give everyone a 10 year grace period in which to sign up and verify their claims, after which any unclaimed rights revert to the surface owner.

              How’s that sound to you?

              • No, I would not, since land is already registered and filed with the Land Bureau. The problem, as I see it now, is setting it up. How would you do that now and how would you settle any dispute, if there was one? Most land is already bought up and settled and surface and subsurface rights already determined. In Texas, you cannot get a free title to land with out mineral rights determined. This could be for two reasons….(1) it is an oil and gas state and (2) it is a homestead state. To the best of my knowledge, any state that is a homestead state already has a national registry.

              • Sorry…that reads funny… answer ” No I would not” pertains to your first question….the answer to your second question as to how does it sound….to me it sounds great once you have a starting point.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I own all rights above and below the ground I stand on. That was a condition of purchase !

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    “Trapped” in Rental Contracts

    By Peter G. Klein

    Tuesday, July 30th, 2013

    In today’s feature on the US housing market, an NPR correspondent sadly notes that foreclosure victims are “trapped” in rentals. Why, those poor, unlevered souls, choosing to purchase a flow of housing services over time, rather than buying a huge, illiquid housing asset outright, using borrowed funds. Tragic!

    It made me think of similar tragedies:
    •Mercedes and BMW drivers trapped in lease contracts, rather than buying their cars with cash or credit
    •Individuals trapped in wage and salary contracts, rather than raising the capital, arranging the inputs, and bearing the uncertainties to be sole proprietors
    •Companies trapped in outsourcing agreements, rather than owning all upstream and downstream production processes directly, as vertically integrated firms
    •Vacationers trapped in resort hotels, rather than owning their own vacation condos or timeshares
    •Readers trapped by downloading and reading books on their Kindles, essentially “renting” them from Amazon, rather than buying physical books
    •Movie fans trapped in DVD rental agreements with Netflix, rather than owning massive DVD libraries

    Don’t these suckers know that goods and services should always be purchased outright, rather than rented or borrowed?

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Plutocracy in Action

    By Joseph Salerno

    Saturday, July 27th, 2013

    Those who still believe the hogwash that the the United States is a two-party, representative democracy should ponder the following. On Wednesday, the amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 proposed by libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) was narrowly defeated in the House by a vote of 217-205. The amendment would have ended the authority for the unconstitutional, police-state metadata-phone call spy program carried out by the NSA whose existence was leaked by the heroic whistleblower Edward Snowden last month. Interestingly, the amendment had bipartisan support, with 99 Republicans and 111 Democrats voting for it. Its opponents included the leadership of both parties, as both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) voted against it. This seeming paradox is easily unraveled if one follows the money. According to an analysis commissioned by Wired, over the past two years those representatives who opposed the amendment and supported the spy program received more than twice the amount of cash contributions from defense and intelligence firms (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, etc.) as those who did not. On average, House members who voted to uphold the domestic spy program received an average of $41,635 whereas those who voted to revoke authority for the program averaged $18,765. By the way, the leaders of the two “opposing” parties in the House, Boehner and Pelosi received $131,000 and $47,000, respectively, from the defense-intelligence establishment.

    This is just another reminder of the thesis of the great Italian sociologist and classical liberal Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) that every democracy is inevitably transformed into a “demogogic plutocracy” that is run by a ruling elite of “fox-like” politicians and their corporate capitalist cronies.

  30. Mathius is coming!

    • Mathius says:

      Hey, there’s a typo. It should say “inseverable,” not “unsaleable”… any chance you could switch that? It’s sort of confusing..

  31. On vacation, have fun but be nice until I come back.


    I don’t believe it. Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate. Must be some catch.

    • He owes his corrupt party … and it’s always good to have the money on your side. Come on, you Repubicans (Levin word) should know all about that.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      That catch is a massive increase in SPENDING on Govt STIMULUS.

      In other words, nothing but BULL SHIT again from POTUS.

      • The Dems have complained for a decade about Bush lowering taxes and raising spending especially for 2 wars. So now the president offers the same plan, lower taxes and raise spending. I get it. When a Repub does it, it is bad, when a Dem does it, it is good. Oh, wait that is extramarital sex. But my preference is still to lower taxes and spending.

  33. Well I got my septic tank 80% uncovered. I hate this stuff they call dirt here in CA. It is more like adobe bricks mixed with decomposing granite.

    On the gardening side, over the last 10 days I have put in the freezer 13 qts of apple sauce, 3 gal cider and 4 doz ears of corn.

    • Yuk on the septic duties!

      You southerners have a jump on us in the north. I’m proud to have just eaten the first 12 beans from my humble garden. Picked 3 cukes and 9 peppers too. Have dozens of green tomatoes but need some more heat and sun to ripen them up. Didn’t plan on canning but may have to if they all ripen at the same time. Home grown veggies..can’t beat them. Fresh corn is just now getting to the roadside stands. Pricey though! $4.50/dz Sheeesh!

      • We don’t say you’al here in CA but howdy, I had all the lettuce we could eat plus enough to give it way. Have also harvested onions, potatoes, garlic, radishes, a few beans, and am starting to pull carrots as needed. The deer got my melons, tomatoes, most of the beans, a lot of the peppers although I have harvested a few. There are at least 5 bucks hanging around my apple trees daily plus 2 or 3 does. They stand on their hind legs to pick apples and pears.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        36 quarts of spaghetti sauce, 19 quarts and 26 pints of beans so far. All the sweet corn we want when it’s ready. Life is good in Pa!

        • Wow! You’re not too much south of me…I’m jealous..I’m dying to try my tomatoes

  34. Regarding property rights: So those who bought their property and passed it down through generations (several in the PA town in the documentary) but even those who bought prior to fracking (1980’s or so) … why would they consult geologists? Engineers inspecting houses do NOT look for methane in the water … your expectations are completely bogus … you blame the buyer (true capitalists that you are) rather than accept the facts. Nobody was asking about methane in their water, toxic chemicals, etc. prior to the discovery that it was destroying their water supplies and immediate environment … nobody knew there was natural gas to extract when those homes were built and sold … more inconvenient truths … so for those who bought earlier than fracking, fuck them too? Well, here, sure … they’re just another bunch of parasites!

    Once again, yous guys kill me.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      When they bought their land is IRRELEVANT.

      Did they purchase surface AND subsurface rights??? If not then to fracking bad for them.

      Your whole line of attack was BULL SHIT and you have been caught on it. Now you accuse us of ignoring facts. What facts? Like they did not own the mineral rights??

      Communist propaganda never stops.

    • Charlie, first….fracking is really is not new. Secondly, we are not talking about just oil and gas……minerals also included gold and silver……..many ranchers sold off their rights a century ago…..and allowed mining on their property for a percentage….when the gold or silver ran out, the ranchers did not get their rights back……ALL minerals were sold…..sub surface rights. You are acting like this is something new….it is not.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    So privatizing the prisons has REDUCED the incarceration rate??

    Interesting. Guess we should privatize more.

  36. I am Bam
    I am Bam
    Bam I am
    That Bam-I-am!
    Than Bam-I-am!
    I do not like
    that Bam-I-am!
    Do you like
    A free health exam?
    I do not like them,
    I do not like
    A free health exam.

    Would you like it
    here or there?

    I would not like it
    here or there.
    I would not like it
    I do not like
    a health exam.
    I do not like it,

    Would you like it
    with a cup of tea?
    Would you like it
    if it were free?

    I do not like it
    with a cup of tea.
    I do not like it
    if it were free.
    I do not like it
    here or there.
    I do not like it
    I do not like a health exam.
    I do not like them, Bam-I-am.

  37. Chew on this till I get back. This may very well be a propaganda piece put out by people who make money off the procedure. Then again, on the other hand, “Gasland” may be a complete propaganda piece put out by people who make money off it.

  38. @Mathius……just for your knowledge…..average plugging costs in Texas runs $4.80 – $5.25 per foot…..for a simple vertical well with no problems. Since the water tables below 5,000 feet are mostly salt water, you have to make sure that the plugging contains the bottom pressure and keeps salt water from fresh water tables and aquifers.

    The average cost for shale fracking plugging runs $15.625 per foot. Assume you have a vertical well that runs to 8,000 ft and you have fracking horizontally that runs out to 5,000 feet in three directions….the cost of plugging that one well will be somewhere in the area of $360,000.

    Texas is very strict. When you drill, you must state how you will plug it. Then you have to file for a plugging permit. The RRC (Railroad Commission) of Texas then supervises the plugging to ensure no short cuts are used…, proper cement, pulling casing if necessary, air quality and water quality testing.

    That documentary that Charlie wanted us to watch, made it seem that oil companies and the like have no regulations that are enforceable…..while in the early stages (pre 1950’s) this was true. There were no plugging regulations, salt water waste and sludge was poured into rivers or left on the ground and it was an ecological nightmare killing livestock 100 miles away that drank water. Every time there was a thunderstorm, surface runoff would pick this up and deposit it into potable drinking lakes and rivers. This does not happen now. Companies, even very small ones like ours, have to be H2S (hydrogen sulfide) certified and certified MSDS compliant. In addition, we are required to detain all surface runoff from rain and or flood. Even in the dry desert of Texas, all our wells have berms that are a minimum of three feet high to prevent runoff from thunderstorms. Also, if you are drilling in a flash flood area, you must have redirection berms to prevent contamination runoff.

    What that documentary also DID NOT say was that there are far more contamination aspects of cities releasing H2S due to explosives and laying of underground sewers and electrical lines than there is of fracking shale that is thousands of feet below the surface. To be H2S compliant, there are sniffers that are inserted into well casings during drilling or at certain depth intervals to detect H2S. If detected, procedures have to be followed to prevent release up the casing or cement to potable water aquifers. Cities do not have this requirement. In addition, rig crews all must wear badge detectors on their clothes at all times in the event the sniffer malfunctions. These litmus type detectors turn colors immediately and sound off even when non lethal amounts of H2S is discovered.

    Meaning no disrespect to Charlie….it is what is not in he documentary that is paramount here. It matters not if the documentary was made yesterday……it does matter the type and age of data used for the documentary, I feel that the documentary was agenda driven and not factual as it relates to today.

%d bloggers like this: