New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL

Author Topic: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL  (Read 40314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« on: September 15, 2010, 09:17:01 PM »
http://gaslandthemovie.com/

Download here

I saw this the other day.  Pretty damning sh*t that exposes these scumbag criminals who are deliberately poisoning underground water supplies nationwide.  Unconstitutional, and high treason terrorist organization DHS has the audacity to call the pro-feudalism corporations gas drill equipment "critical infrastructure".
 
http://www.centredaily.com/2010/09/14/2206710/documents-show-homeland-security.html


If the film is exposing enough of these criminal scum to get the attention of the elites false flag terror Hitlerland security organization, then it is worth watching IMO.

Offline birther truther tenther

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,726
  • Against all forms of tyranny
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2010, 05:46:04 PM »
Pennsylvania Intelligence Bulletin NO 131

Read the Intelligence Bulletin here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8193/pennsylvania-intelligence-bulletin-no-131-aug-30-2010.pdf


Excerpts:





I obtained the document from a group called ProPublica.
Read their article here:
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/pa-govenor-apologizes-for-tracking-enviro-extremists-but-questions-remain

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2010, 07:18:23 AM »
Watch the movie "Gasland"
Here's a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwT_H9XDYQQ

- the process of 'frac'ing, extracting natural gas from underground by pumping hundreds of highly toxic chemicals into the earth, consequently poisoning the ground water, is exposed in this excellent documentary made by one guy who saw what was happening and filmed it. We need a million more of these people out there videotaping the reality we will never see if we depend on our corporate-controlled media.

Pennsylvania is sitting on top of one of the largest natural gas deposits in the US; the Marcellus Shale Formation.

These deposits are all over the country, as you will see in the film. The extraction of natural gas by this particular method, 'frac'ing' is poisoning peoples' water, so much so that the gases emitted come up through their kitchen faucets and can be lit on fire. Fire pouring out of their faucets.

Think they care if your drinking water is safe?

This is why anyone standing up for clean drinking water
in the state of Pennsylvania is considered a Terrorist!!!



And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2010, 07:23:44 AM »
Pennsylvania Intelligence Bulletin NO 131

Read the Intelligence Bulletin here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8193/pennsylvania-intelligence-bulletin-no-131-aug-30-2010.pdf


Excerpts:





I obtained the document from a group called ProPublica.
Read their article here:
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/pa-govenor-apologizes-for-tracking-enviro-extremists-but-questions-remain
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/14-6

Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 by Democracy Now!
As Regulators Weigh Drilling in Marcellus Shale, EPA Opens Public Hearings on Health and Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing

The Environmental Protection Agency has begun public hearings in Binghamton, New York on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a controversial technique that mining companies use to extract natural gas from rock formations thousands of feet underground. The hearings are part of a broad investigation by the EPA into the human health and environmental effects of fracking. We speak to Josh Fox, director of the Sundance award-winning documentary Gasland, which opens in theaters across the country this Wednesday, and ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, who has written extensively about natural gas drilling.

***
 

New York Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey urged the EPA Monday to regulate the practice, pointing to numerous reports of water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing in states across the country. He’s one of the authors of the so-called FRAC Act in Congress that would regulate natural gas drilling. Supporters of gas drilling, including the Independent Oil and Gas Association and the African American Chamber of Commerce, noted that drilling could bring tens of thousands of badly needed jobs to the area.

The hearings are part of a broad investigation by the EPA into the human health and environmental effects of fracking. The agency has sent letters to nine companies that employ the process, asking them to disclose the chemical composition of fracking fluids used. The agency also asked for information data on standard operating procedures at hydraulic fracturing sites and a list of sites where companies have carried out the process.

For more on the public hearings upstate as well as the nationwide impacts of gas drilling, I’m joined here in New York by two guests. Josh Fox is the director of the Sundance award-winning Gasland, which opens in theaters across the country this Wednesday. He was at Monday’s public hearing. We’re also joined by ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, who has written extensively about natural gas drilling.

Welcome you both to Democracy Now!

JOSH FOX: Thank you.

ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN: Thank you.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Josh, what happened at the hearing?

JOSH FOX: Well, at the hearing, we saw—I think it was probably a couple of hundred citizens come out and weigh in about what they thought should happen in the EPA scoping study. The EPA has been asked to study hydraulic fracturing by Congress over the next two years. And what they’ve done is they set up several public comment sessions: one in—I think it was in Dallas, and one in Denver and one of Pennsylvania, and this was the last one in New York. There’s another opportunity to testify on September 15th, which is Wednesday. And you saw people come out voicing their concerns. You also saw people come from Pennsylvania who had firsthand experience in this problem, and some rather astounding information came out, I think, yesterday about new results from water contamination in Dimock. So it was actually—there was a rally, there were protests, and there was a lot of testimony. It was actually really exciting.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what was some of that astounding information from Pennsylvania?

JOSH FOX: Well, one of the residents in Dimock who had not disconnected her water supply, Victoria Switzer, came out, and she had found confirmed fracking fluids in her water, including propylene glycol and glycol ethers, and two undisclosed contaminants. This hasn’t come out so far that the actual fracking fluid was in people’s water in Dimock. They had drilling muds in their water, they had gas in their water, but this, to me, was really a shocking moment.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Abrahm, you’ve been covering this. You’re one of the experts in the journalist community on fracking. Give us a quick summary of what the process is and what the concerns are about it.

ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN: Hydraulic fracturing enables gas companies to access a deeply buried reserve that’s trapped thousands of feet underground, like tiny little bubbles frozen in rock. And the fracturing is essentially to stimulate that rock. And they pump, in the case of East Marcellus Shale, millions of gallons of a fluid mixture, that’s chemicals and water and sand, down there under enormous pressure, and it literally fractures the rock and releases all those little bubbles of gas so they can flow back up and be produced. The question is, what happens to all of those chemicals as they’re being mixed on the ground, when they get pumped underground, and when they’re taken back out as waste as a byproduct from the drilling?

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what has happened in some of the areas, especially out west, that you have reported on?

ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN: Well, anecdotally, as you travel around the country, you see consistent patterns of contamination. People have methane in their drinking water. People are able to light their tap water on fire. Numerous folks that I met with had their wells explode. There are contaminants in drinking water wells in some places, and there have been hundreds, thousands of spills involving fracture fluid or fracture fluid waste that have left benzene and other carcinogenic contaminants in streams, in small lakes and in drinking water supplies.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Josh, in New York state, especially here in New York City, there’s huge concern because so much of the New York City drinking water comes from upstate and has always been known as an extremely clean water supply for the people of New York City.

JOSH FOX: Well, for New York City, it’s the largest unfiltered water supply in the world. And I wanted to draw attention to what’s actually happening in New York. New York State Senate passed a moratorium bill at the eleventh—actually, it was at 2:00 in the morning. The Assembly had gone out of session. This was in, I think, the beginning of August. And this is the only state government or significant government that’s moving towards passing a moratorium. And the pressure is right now on Sheldon Silver to bring that bill to the floor in the Assembly and on Governor Paterson to sign it. It would be the first time that something like that has happened. And I think all eyes are on New York right now.

And there were a lot of calls for that at the EPA hearings yesterday about the moratorium bill in the Assembly, but also to ask the EPA to step in now to start regulating this process now, even before their study, because what I’ve seen in touring with the film all over the country—and as I’m sure we’ll get more this week in New York—is that people are incredibly concerned, and there are contamination stories, and there is a frustration that there hasn’t been enough science, that this detective mission, which is taking place in so many places around the country, especially in Pavilion, Wyoming, and in independent citizens investigating like in Dimock, that there is the need for this federal investigation to speed up and to stop the suffering that’s been going on around the country. So that’s—there were a lot of calls for that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Josh, let’s turn to a clip from your documentary Gasland about the chemicals used in fracking. This clip features Dr. Theo Colborn.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: We’ve begun to look at what’s being used to drill a well—data that the government should be collecting, but isn’t collecting. We’ve been able to get our hands on some of that.

      NARRATOR: Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary, like the special sauce for a Big Mac or the secret formula for Coca-Cola. The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn. By chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples, Theo has identified 596 different chemicals in 900 chemical products.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Every environmental law we wrote to protect public health is ignored. But the neurological effects are very insidious.

      VICTIM 1: Three years ago, I started getting really dizzy.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: At first, you may just have headaches. Then, the next thing, you might have ringing in your ears.

      VICTIM 1: I thought I had an inner ear infection, and I went to my doctor. And she’s kind of, "Your ears are clean."

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Or you may be a little disoriented, or you may feel a little dizzy.

      VICTIM 1: So they sent me down for a CAT scan.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: But eventually, you may feel what is called peripheral neuropathy. And when you get to this stage, you have irreversible brain damage.

      VICTIM 1: Over the last four years, I have these lesions in my brain. Don’t know where they came from.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: You may begin to get swelling.

      VICTIM 2: I hurt everywhere in my body—my legs, my feet. Everywhere.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: Your extremities, especially the arms and the legs.

      VICTIM 3: I couldn’t move. I couldn’t reach my face to eat.

      DR. THEO COLBORN: And never know where the pain is going to be. The pain can be excruciating.


JUAN GONZALEZ: A clip from Josh Fox’s film Gasland. Josh, the issue of the chemicals and the reluctance of the industry to divulge what it’s using?

JOSH FOX: Yeah, well, this is the big detective story here. I mean, it’s very hard to test for something that you don’t know what—if you don’t know what it is. The EPA has actually had to invent tests to find chemicals of a certain chemical class in Pavilion, Wyoming, where results have just come out that there are these fracking chemicals in people’s water wells. It’s been very frustrating that the industry actually is not required to disclose what they’re injecting in the ground, because of the exemptions of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005. And that’s part of what the FRAC Act would do. The other part of the FRAC Act would bring hydraulic fracturing under EPA permitting. So there is this investigation, this hunt for the chemicals in groundwater, even when they’re not being disclosed as to exactly what those chemicals are. But you’re still finding them turning up. And this is why it was so significant that this came out yesterday at the EPA in Dimock. And I think that was planned to be a kind of opening moment of Victoria Switzer’s testimony yesterday.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Abrahm Lustgarten, are you seeing in the EPA under Obama a new willingness to investigate this issue of fracking, and especially the issue of the unwillingness of the industry to divulge the chemicals it’s using?

ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN: Absolutely. There’s a fresh willingness on the part of the Obama administration to investigate what’s happening with fracturing. The study that they’re undertaking nationally now is the first since they published a 2004 literature review, which was never a complete scientific study. It’s the first time the federal government would really investigate all the causes and possible effects of the fracturing process from a life cycle standpoint. The research that they’re undertaking in Wyoming at this point is a separate process, actually, and it’s also extremely significant, because it’s a local endeavor to investigate local complaints of water contamination there. It’s not clear yet. The EPA has been very careful to say whether the contamination they’re finding in Pavilion, Wyoming, is due to drilling. But everybody seems to think that that’s what they’ll ultimately arrive at, and there are, at this point, some very surprising consistencies. And the EPA is pursuing both of those pretty aggressively.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’d like to turn to another clip from your film. This is one of Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado at a hearing.

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: Out west, we’ve had a lot of experiences with different kinds of mining techniques that have caused human health risks and severe environmental damage. Now, Mr. John, you say that hydraulic fracturing absolutely does not pose a threat to drinking water. So if that’s true, why would you object to the disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act?

      MIKE JOHN: As I mentioned earlier, the information packets that we provide to the—provide to the—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: No. Why would you object? If it’s perfectly safe, why would you object to disclosure of the chemicals that are used?

      MIKE JOHN: What I was saying was that we have disclosed today and prior to the hearing—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: Which chemicals are used?

      MIKE JOHN: Yes, Ma’am.

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: In each process?

      MIKE JOHN: They’re listed in a frack fact sheet that’s been provided by Chesapeake—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: Well, so, in that case, you would have no objection to my bill.

      MIKE JOHN: We’ve supplied that information as part of our—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: So would you have an objection to my bill then, since you’ve already supplied that information?

      MIKE JOHN: I’m not personally familiar with your bill, ma’am.

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: It makes chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing subject to the reporting requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

      MIKE JOHN: As stated earlier, we believe that the current regulatory framework—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: Yes or no?

      MIKE JOHN: We believe the current regulatory framework—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: So, yes, you would object to my bill, because you don’t think we would need to report it under the Safe Drinking Water Act, even though you say the chemicals are safe. Correct?

      MIKE JOHN: Correct.

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: OK, how about you, Mr. Kell? Are you saying that hydraulic fracturing fluids cannot possibly be to blame for water contamination seen in cases across the country?

      SCOTT KELL: Allegations that were presented through certain media outlets relative to six specific states. We did not survey all states that have oil and gas activity, and therefore would not make the statement that no one has ever—

      REP. DIANA DeGETTE: OK, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Another clip from the documentary Gasland. Josh, your reaction, obviously, for that part of the film? But also, I wanted to ask you about a bulletin put out by the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security that some critics say is casting aspersions on the critics of this drilling as possible criminals and threatens to stifle open debate. Could you talk about that criticism, which actually mentions your film?

JOSH FOX: Yeah, this is in the memo—the Homeland Security memo about environmental extremists?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes.

JOSH FOX: Which I think is way out of line. I mean, this movement, as I’ve seen it across the country, and as I’ve hundreds of thousands of people come out on this, literally, because we’ve been touring every day to different places—and those are very peaceful, nonviolent, not the bottle-throwing crowd, exactly. I think they’re listing that in an FBI memo because we were doing this outdoor screening tour. At the same time, it’s disturbing that the Pennsylvania Homeland Security, or whoever it was that posted this memo, accidentally sent it to an activist, alerting them to the fact that they were going to look into this or investigate this. And, you know, to me, it’s unfortunate.

I think what’s happening here is that you have citizens who have been so frustrated by the lack of investigation of this that you actually had people doing the science themselves, doing the—compiling their own research, following around Halliburton trucks to see where they’re illegally dumping waste fluid. And if the EPA is the new sheriff in town and this is the Wild West, we should be deputized. That’s what I think. Rather than treat the environmental movement as—or the concerned citizens movement as extremists, deputize them so that the information can come across more readily by the people who are gathering on the ground, who are simply trying to figure out what is being—what they’re being exposed to in their own neighborhoods.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there, but we’re going to continue obviously to cover this story. Abrahm Lustgarten has been with us, a reporter at ProPublica. Josh Fox is the director of Gasland. It won the Special Jury Prize for Documentary at the Sundance Film Festival, and it opens in theaters nationwide starting September 15th.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2010, 07:36:17 AM »
Quote
A secret corporate police force that monitors dissent and collects information on dissenters and organizers.

This has to be stopped.  Now

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/16/1242/87475

Domestic surveillance program exposed as corporate tool

by Deep Harm
Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:02:10 PM PDT

Those who read my 2008 diary about USDA domestic spying will not be surprised to know that another such program has just been outed.

Quote
Gov. Ed Rendell apologized Tuesday after the disclosure that the [Pennsylvania] state Office of Homeland Security paid the institute $125,000 for weekly reports the agency used to put Marcellus shale hearings and a gay and lesbian festival on terror watch lists for law enforcement.

Gov. Rendell promises to end Pennsylvania's program, but the USDA program has never been addressed. Moreover, the Pentagon, USDA and other agencies have seeded the  domestic surveillance concept, like dragon's teeth, throughout the federal government and the country.

Deep Harm's diary


In the above-mentioned cases and others (here, here and here), government surveillance targeted citizens who clearly posed no terrorism threat.  But, an engaged public does threaten the status quo artfully orchestrated by the corporatocracy.

The domestic surveillance partnership, like all durable partnerships, offers benefits to both parties. Corporations gain access to intelligence that helps them thwart citizen efforts that might restrict profits, expansion and control.  Government officials gain access to the generous perks that come with subservience to rich corporations. Best of all, taxpayers bear all of the costs.

The surveillance "product" generated by the joint venture is shared through corporate-government networks, such as Infragard,  that operate in secrecy with the blessing of Congress, which passed the Critical Infrastructure Information Act after the 9/11 attacks.  "Critical infrastructure" includes utilities, transportation networks and potentially explosive stuff like nuclear facilities.  In this homeland security fraternity, membership typically is by invitation, only.  If there is an initiation rite, probably it consists of roasting the Constitution in an executive suite fireplace.

Quote
At least 350 of the Fortune 500 companies have representation in InfraGard, this according to their website. These representatives have access to most of our private records, including phone and Internet use, health records, and banking and finance records.

Unquestionably, there is a need to protect critical infrastructure from terrorist attack.  But, the expansive secrecy surrounding these programs is harder to justify. The official story is that secrecy prevents Osama bin Laden from blowing up a chemical plant or poisoning a public reservoir, although security gaps persist that a terrorist could drive a cargo ship through. To greedy corporations, Osama bin Laden appears to be less a threat than a gift that keeps on giving.  CIPP secrecy allows corporations to deliver toxic chemicals directly into the drinking water supply, minus the middle man and accountability.

Common sense suggests that Americans should demand investigations in all 50 states to root out all surveillance abuses.  But, government officials will tell you not to look behind that curtain.  Osama bin Laden is still out there...somewhere...looking for his next terorrism gig.  Therefore, give up your democracy, now, America, and rest safely in the knowledge that no possibly dead terrorist can ever take it from you.

[This message was funded by anonymous donors and the Perpetual Crisis Investment Fund.]
____________________________________
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100914_Pa__acting_as_security_agent_for_energy_interests_.html

Posted on Tue, Sep. 14, 2010

Pa. acting as security agent for energy interests?

By Angela Couloumbis

INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU

HARRISBURG – Gov. Rendell said Tuesday that he was "appalled" and "embarrassed" that his administration's Office of Homeland Security has been tracking and circulating information about legitimate protests by activist groups that do not pose a threat to public safety.

Rendell said he did not know that the state Office of Homeland Security had been paying an outside company to track a long list of activists, including groups that oppose drilling in the Marcellus Shale, animal-rights advocates, and peace activists.

The office then passed that information on to large groups of people, including law enforcement and members of the private sector.

In doing so, Rendell said, the Homeland Security Office had distorted and made a mockery of the state's responsibility to protect "critical infrastructure," and collect and share credible plots to harm it.

"Let me make this as clear as I can make it," the governor said at news conference Tuesday night, pounding his fist on the podium. "Protesting against an idea, a principle, a process, is not a real threat against infrastructure. Protesting is a God-given American right, a right that is in our Constitution, a right that is fundamental to all we believe in as Americans."

Rendell said that he will not fire or discipline anyone in the Office of Homeland Security, headed by director James F. Powers Jr., for the lapse. But he said he ordered the office to terminate its contract with Philadelphia-based Institute of Terrorism and Research Response, which he said has been paid $125,000 in the last year to gather data about possible security threats.

Instead, the governor said, the company passed on alerts about legitimate protests - and the state Homeland Security Office then disseminated them in an intelligence bulletin that it publishes three times a week.

The bulletin included information about a PrideFest by gays and lesbians; a rally that supported his administration's education policy; and an anti-BP candlelight vigil.

"Tell me, what critical infrastructure does the gay and lesbian PrideFest threaten?" Rendell asked. "How in the Lord's name can we consider them to be terrorists?"

Reached last night for comment, Mike Perelman, the institute's codirector, said he "respects the confidentiality of our clients," and does not discuss them.

The controversy over the Homeland Security Office's intelligence bulletins came to light after one became public last week. The August bulletin included a list of forthcoming - and mostly public - hearings involving Marcellus Shale natural-gas drilling, and noted that they would be attended by anti-drilling activists. It also listed a planned screening of the controversial movie Gasland in Philadelphia.

The bulletin also mentioned planned demonstrations and activities by several other groups, including antiwar and antinuclear activists; anarchist groups; and a Philadelphia-based animal-rights group that is planning a protest against a rodeo in Montgomery County this month. The bulletin was disseminated to law enforcement as well as a number of drillers and others in the private sector.

That quickly sparked an outcry from anti-drilling and other environmental and activist groups, who raised the question of whether state government was acting as a security agent for private energy interests. They also raised concerns about whether there was any evidence that the groups being tracked posed a real threat.

"I remember when Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were enemies of the state," said Eric Epstein, a Harrisburg activist and founder of RockTheCapital.org. "When did Lassie, Mother Nature, and vegetarians become the Axis of Evil?"

Added longtime Harrisburg activist Gene Stilp: "What you have is the government of Pennsylvania aligning with the drillers - and that's not the way Pennsylvania should be."

Powers told the Patriot-News of Harrisburg earlier this week that there recently have been several acts of vandalism against the natural-gas industry. But state officials would not provide details Tuesday about those acts or evidence they were committed by anti-drilling groups in the state.

The Homeland Security memo cites an extract from an August FBI bulletin that states that "environmental extremists continue to target the energy industry." Although the incidents have mostly involved "vandalism, trespassing and threats by environmental activists . . . this pattern is beginning to morph - transitioning to more criminal, extremist measures."

When the memo was made public, Powers e-mailed a person he believed had posted it on the Internet and wrote that it was meant only for those "with a valid need to know."

"We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders, while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies," Powers wrote.

According to state officials, the state's intelligence memo is sent to a large list of people, including law enforcement. It is also sent to people in private industry - such as the gas industry - if their sectors are included in the memo. Providing that information to those entities helps "increase situational awareness for public safety officials," said Maria Finn, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, which oversees the Homeland Security Office.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Blast from the past:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_256277.html

FBI educates business leaders
By Chris Osher, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, September 29, 2004


Actions that used to seem innocent now need a new set of eyes and ears in the post-9/11 landscape, the FBI warned business leaders and academicians Tuesday.

FBI Agent Michael McKeown said seemingly innocuous actions now stand to have great importance because of the risks of terrorism. He asked those attending yesterday's seminar at the FBI's Pittsburgh offices to alert the FBI of any suspicious activity.

As an example, he pointed to the recent arrest of Kamran Akhtar. A police officer spotted him videotaping skyscrapers in Charlotte, N.C. After Akhtar was detained July 20, federal authorities found a videotape in his camera that showed the 60-story Bank of America tower and the former Wachovia Center, which housed the FBI's offices in Charlotte.

Akhtar has pleaded innocent to charges of refusing to leave the country, making false statements and possessing false identification documents.

About 60 people from local universities, businesses and federal agencies attended yesterday's seminar, one of four held annually. The FBI holds the seminars in conjunction with an outreach effort known as InfraGard, which allows the federal agency to network with area leaders.

"We want to get people interested and talking," McKeown told those at the seminar. "We don't want to be deer-in-the-headlights type of people."

McKeown suggested a series of security tips for businesses:

# Businesses should strive to store crucial data offsite to ensure it's protected if there is a terrorist attack, flood or fire.

# Many firms use adhesive badges to identify visitors. Such badges can be retrieved from the trash and reused, he cautioned. Time specific identification offers more protection, McKeown said. For instance, the U.S. Attorney's office uses visitor ID badges that after a day has passed reveal the time to visit has expired, he said.

William Shore, a supervisory special agent for the local FBI office, said in an interview that such seminars are crucial to proper law enforcement. By opening up the lines of communications and ensuring FBI agents meet area leaders, he says the FBI stands a better chance of catching criminals.

Shore said a business leader who attends will know which FBI agent to call to report criminal activity. An FBI agent also will have more success in serving a search warrant if that business leader knows the agent, Shore added.

"We want to establish a relationship with businesses so we can streamline and push information through," Shore said.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2010, 08:03:04 AM »
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100126/NEWS/1260328/-1/SITEMAP

Both sides in gas-drilling dispute rally in Albany
Fracking's foes and proponents equally adamant


Thilde Jensen of Truxton protests against natural gas drilling during a rally in Albany on Monday. Opponents and fans of a form of horizontal drilling called “fracking” convened at the Capitol. Jensen said she wears the mask because she is chemically sensitive.

By Steve Israel
Times Herald-Record
Published: 2:00 AM - 01/26/10

ALBANY — The gap between opponents and supporters of gas drilling may be as massive as the gray Capitol that was the site of Monday's opposing rallies on the issue.  But the two sides do have one thing in common. It's the reason why some 500 folks against drilling and about 250 drilling proponents, according to police, braved the battering rain, until opponents moved inside the Capitol complex.  Both camps agree that drilling the gas-rich Marcellus shale, which sits beneath Sullivan County and the Southern Tier, would be the biggest thing the state has seen.

"It's going to forever change the way New York does business," said Ramsay Adams, executive director of the Catskill Mountainkeeper environmental group. "It'll make it an energy state, like Texas, Colorado and West Virginia, and those aren't pretty places."

Douglas Lee of Livingston Manor, who works with computers, agrees that extracting gas with the controversial horizontal drilling method called "fracking" would be life-changing. But he thinks it could turn poor Sullivan around.  "It would be the biggest thing, bigger than casinos," he said. "The jobs and money could solve economic problems."

As the rallies progressed, it was clear the two sides shared little else except the land above one of the richest deposits of gas in the country.  Although opponents came to Albany to ask the state to delay new drilling regulations, most want it banned, at least for now.

"It will destroy the water and destroy the land, no question about it," Chief Oren Lyons of the Onondaga Nation said to cheers.  "A frightening, destructive process," is how Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, D-Ithaca, described fracking.

Across the street, proponents of drilling disagreed, big-time.

Assemblyman William Parment, D-North Harmony, pointing to scores of wells in his western New York district — on golf courses, school grounds, even in Jamestown's aquifers.

"It's proven and safe," he said to a crowd of landowners, like Long Eddy's Noel Van Swol and Bethel's Al Larson, who head leasing groups.

"Extremists," is what state Sen. Tom Libous, R-Binghamton, called opponents.

It was hard to find anyone looking for middle ground — except, perhaps, Broome County horse farmer Steve Herz, at the pro-drilling rally.

"Drilling is going to happen, and the environment is just as important as money," he said. "If we could work together ..."

Monday, the obstacles to that loomed as large as the Capitol.
_____________

Water For Oil: The Devil's Bargain For Natural Gas


Alice Joyce
SOTT.net
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:22 UTC
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/191937-Water-For-Oil-The-Devil-s-Bargain-For-Natural-Gas

Dirty water cannot be washed-African proverb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

If you had a choice between filling your car of the future with natural gas (now being promoted as a viable, green, clean, future alternative to oil), or quenching your thirst with unpolluted water which would you choose? This is not a hypothetical question. If the natural gas lobby continues to have its way, natural gas - the supposed safe, ecologically friendly fuel source - may do some serious damage to the earth's water.

In 2002 advances in horizontal drilling (a technology invented by Halliburton in 1949), drastically reduced the costs previously required to extract natural gas from rock and shale located miles deep within the earth. Although the industry asserts that the process is safe, does the following industry summary from a Halliburton January 17, the following found on slide 65 of its 2008 power point presentation entitled A Historic Perspective of Hydraulic Fracturing inspire confidence? http://spemc.org/resources/presentation_011708.pdf

After 60 years of hydraulic fracturing research technology and experience, we can safely say that we know about hydraulically created fractures

EXCEPT

    * How Deeply They Penetrate

    * Their Vertical Extents

    * Their Symmetries About the Wellbore

    * Whether They are Planar or Multistranded

    * Their geometries at the Perimeter

    * Which Directions They Go

    * What Their Conductivities are

Other than that, we've got it down pat!

But they still make a lot of money

    HYDRAULIC FRACTURING; GO FOR IT!

And does this promotional video distributed by Baker Hughes, a competitor of Halliburton, which presents as an advantage of its technology the need for fewer highly trained technicians to be on site allay concerns about industry commitments to the safety of the general public?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxrRJJ2Hasc

Horizontal drilling involves numerous lateral wells which branch off from a main shaft drilled up to 10 miles into the earth. Each well is then injected with several millions of gallons of water and sand under high pressure to create fissures that fracture or "frack" the rock in which the gas is trapped. Unfortunately, while the process does liberate gas from the rock it is trapped within, it also infuses the millions of gallons of water that free it with the ingredients of a chemical cocktail which energy companies insist is safe while refusing to release data concerning its contents. The secrecy, they say, is necessary to protect company proprietary rights to the formula from being copied by competitors, not to cover up any health risks to the public.

Lending credibility to the industry's reassurances is a 2004 EPA study whose conclusion ruled that the fluids used in the fracking process are without risk. However, the concerted efforts of then Vice President Dick Cheney and energy lobbyists to weaken environmental regulations in the 2005 Energy Bill the following year does raise some red flags.

If the EPA's 2004 ruling was accurate, why did Dick Cheney and energy lobbyists feel the need to push through amendments to the 2005 Energy Bill that gave energy companies exemptions from The Clean Air Act, The Safe Drinking Water Act, The National Environmental Policy Act, The Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, The Compensation and Liability Act, The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and The Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act?

Was there something that Cheney and the lobbyists knew that they wanted to keep hidden from the rest of us? http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/PetroleumExemptions1c.pdf

In October 2004, Wes Wilson, an environmental engineer and 30 year employee of the EPA who requested whistleblower protection, submitted an 18 page document to members of Congress and the EPA's Inspector General which claimed that the study was inaccurate, that the fluids posed health risks , and that the report was written by a panel linked to the industry that included an employee of Halliburton.

The following is an excerpt from the transcript http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=04-P13-00043#feature1 of an October 2004 segment from the NPR Living on Earth Series, entitled "The Costs Of Fracking."

Wes Wilson is the whistleblower involved in 2004 EPA study who has criticized the report as being scientifically unsound.

Tom Hamberger is one of the LA Times reporters who uncovered this story.

    Curwood: Now, the EPA study concluded that fracking poses no threat to drinking water and therefore it doesn't have to be regulated under federal drinking water laws. But, Wes Wilson, you filed a statement under whistleblower protection that says that the study was scientifically unsound. This puts you in a somewhat vulnerable spot, I'd guess right now. Why did you decide to take this action?

    Wilson: Well, I did this for three reasons. First, EPA did not follow its own science policy, which required EPA to obtain water quality data in each one of these basins to determine whether the water, the groundwater, remained safe for drinking. Second, EPA's decisions are not consistent with the law, they're not consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act. And third, EPA relied upon a peer-review panel which itself had conflicts of interest.

    Curwood: Let's look at those one at a time. First, the peer-review panel. What was the problem there?

    WIilson: Well, EPA didn't follow its own science policy. This policy that EPA has is that reviewers should be free of real or even perceived conflicts of interest. Yet five of these seven-member panels appear to have a conflict of interest. They include an engineer who worked at Halliburton; a manager who worked at the Gas Technology Institute, an organization of the industry; an engineer of BP Amoco; and two professors who had worked for the oil and gas industry. The sixth member was a state regulator who worked for Amoco in the past, and the seventh member worked at the Department of Energy's Sandia Lab. Well, in my view, this is not a peer-review. This is simply, I think, a thin veneer cover over what is a scientifically unsound study, while the scientific process of peer review was abandoned.

    Curwood: Seems to me it would be simple enough just simply to test the water. Why did the EPA choose not to test the water?

    WIilson: Well, that was one of my first reasons for objecting. EPA has no data on the amount of fluids injected, what remains in the ground, whether the groundwater will be unusable to drink, or what those health risks are. Yet EPA reached this unsupportable and scientifically unsound conclusion that hydraulic fracturing of coal bed methane poses little or no threat to drinking water supply.

    Curwood: Tom Hamberger, you've been working on this case for a while. What's your sense of what the risk might be to the public?

    Hamberger: Well, fracturing generally occurs safely in most cases. It's been widely used and is widely used without incident in most cases. However, we ran across in Alabama, and in numerous other states, accounts that fracturing may, in some cases, have inadvertently fouled drinking water supplies. We did talk with some of the Alabama plaintiffs who brought suit against EPA saying this must be regulated. And while their case was not proven because there wasn't a timely investigation of their claims, what they described was quite dramatic. Which is, almost immediately after wells near their property were fractured, they turned on their taps at home and discovered literally carbonated water coming out. It was bubbling and it contained small specks that looked like maybe coal specks, and also a gelatinous fluid that appeared, one of them said--if you'll forgive me for saying it on air - it seemed just like snot but it was running all through the water. Unfortunately, there were not scientific tests, lab results available to show exactly what was in this stuff. But I can tell you that the residents of Alabama that we talked with feel very strongly that it was fracturing that led to this strange results when they turned on their taps.

    Curwood: And I guess the number one lesson in any investigative reporting is to follow the money. So I'm wondering, what kind of money trail did you find in this story?

    Hamberger: Well, that's the old investigative reporter's moniker, you got it. And what we wanted to see, indeed, was this technique important to Halliburton? And we found the technique was pioneered by Halliburton. The first test of hydraulic fracturing commercially was done by Halliburton in about 1949. And we learned subsequently that three companies dominated the business worldwide, and that for Halliburton the hydraulic fracturing business brings in about $1.5 billion annually - about a fifth of its energy-related revenues.

Yet, despite the concerns raised in the 2004 EPA Report, The 2005 Energy Bill http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980 was passed by an overwhelming majority.

    On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill; on July 28, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 275 to 156 to approve the energy bill; and on July 29, the U.S. Senate voted 74 to 26 to approve the energy bill which was in large part written by the industry.

Sixteen companies spent $70 million lobbying Congress and $15 million in donations given to federal candidates - most of it going to Republican politicians. PublicCitizen identifies these companies as:

    Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO.

The implications of passage of these amendments on the environment is evident in the following analysis of the effects the exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act would have on the integrity of the water supply.

    Oil and Gas Regulatory Rollbacks

    Section 322 exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called "hydraulic fracturing," a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s.

    This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground

The victory for the energy companies proved to be disastrous for those affected by it. Since publicizing the ingredients in proprietary leases is not mandated by law, the public has had no recourse for mandating that energy companies release the contents of their fracking fluids.

Despite this lack of transparency TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) has compiled an incomplete list of the names of products and their chemicals indirectly from industry Material Safety Sheets, state Emergency Planning and Community-Right-To-Know, (EPCRA), Tier II Reports, Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment Statement disclosures, rule-making documents and accident and spill reports which can be viewed here http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/ProductsandChemicalsUsedinFracturing2-16-09.pdf

As more communities experienced adverse effects from horizontal drilling, there have been calls to regulate the industry. Ironically, in an Orwellian twisting of the truth, the industry counters by arguing that the EPA 2004 report, (which we have already seen was heavily influenced by the industry), is proof enough that the process is safe and needs no regulation.

This argument is used in the industry website Energy in Depth http://www.energyindepth.org/press-release-archive/ to refute The Center for American Progress's http://www.americanprogress.org/ (CAP) demands for legislation revealing the ingredients of fracking fluids.

Calling CAP "an influential, left-of-center public policy organization based in Washington, D.C.", and describing its support of The Frac Act http://www.energyindepth.org/press-release-archive/ of 2009 as support for "legislation that seeks to impede the development of America's abundant shale gas resources by targeting the critical tools needed to bring those resources to market," Energy in Depth goes on to refute the need for regulation by citing the 2004 EPA report:

    In 2004, no less an authority than the EPA http://www.energyindepth.org/press-release-archive/ itself undertook an exhaustive research project aimed at finding out, once and for all, whether hydraulic fracturing posed a legitimate risk to ground and drinking water. It found "no evidence" of any such risk.

Instead, a rosy picture of job creation, millions of dollars in revenue for states and municipalities, and the continued availability of safe water which defies all fact and experience is used to convince lawmakers already desperate for funds in this worsening recession that horizontal drilling is just what is needed to bring the economic relief they need.

As a result of such misleading reassurances, Energy in Depth has announced that New York's Governor Paterson is leaning towards having his state avail itself of this technology. Energy in Depth's Lee Fuller applauds this decision in the following statement: http://www.energyindepth.org/press-release-archive/

        "Governor Paterson's initial energy proposal is a step in the right direction. He rightly acknowledges that the Marcellus region offers enormous economic opportunity for his state and its citizens at a time when it's needed most, and also notes the important role that hydraulic fracturing will play in safely and responsibly delivering those natural gas resources to the people who need them.

        The governor also highlighted the fact that New York has lost more than 200,000 jobs over the last year, producing an unemployment rate higher now than it's been in 15 years. His report comes just weeks after a study found that natural gas production in Broome County could create 16,000 new jobs, nearly $800 million in wages, and more than $15 billion in economic activity - every bit of it made possible thanks to the safe and steady deployment of hydraulic fracturing technology."

    Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York, said this in a release:

        "It cannot be overstated; the Marcellus Shale formation holds tremendous economic potential for New York. Increasing the production of this clean-burning and abundant natural resource will improve the economy, result in increased tax revenues and jobs, and improve New York's and America's energy independence."

If Governor Paterson does unleash horizontal drilling on the unsuspecting citizens of New York City and State, one day soon they may find themselves experiencing situations like the ones below.

In 2001, the Canadian gas company Encana fractured a well 1,000 feet from the home of Larry and Laura Amos in western Colorado. Eighty two thousand gallons of fluid were pumped thousands of feet into the drill hole at 3,600 pounds of pressure. This is what happened next: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/169782-Buried-Secrets-Is-Natural-Gas-Drilling-Endangering-U-S-Water-Supplies

    Suddenly the Amos' drinking water well exploded like a Yellowstone geyser, firing its lid into the air and spewing mud and gray fizzing water high into the sky. State inspectors tested the Amos well for methane and found lots of it. They did not find benzene or gasoline derivatives and they did not test fracking fluids, state records show, because they didn't know what to test for.

    The Amoses were told that methane occurs naturally and is harmless. Inspectors warned them to keep the windows open and vent the basement, but they were never advised to protect themselves or their infant daughter from the water. It wasn't until three years later, when Laura Amos was diagnosed with a rare adrenal tumor, that she started challenging the state about the mysterious chemicals that might have been in her well.

    Even after the company paid a mulitmillion suit to Laura Amos, it continued to claim that the facturing fluid was not to blame for her health issues.

The following video posted by Abrahm Lustgarten of ProPublica on January 31, 2009 describes the effects of hydraulic fracturing on Sublette County, Wyoming and gives a sense of the impact this technology has on land, water, quality of life, and the health of communities subjected to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy556ACxJ2I

In addition to the mysterious illnesses that just happen to break out in areas which have been exposed to fracking fluids, is the phenomenon of sudden explosions which also occur in areas that have been recently drilled. These explosions are significant in that they directly relate to the contamination of the water supply by the leakage of methane gas into wells and aquifers.

Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supplies? http://www.sott.net/articles/show/169782-Buried-Secrets-Is-Natural-Gas-Drilling-Endangering-U-S-Water-Supplies

    In December 2007, a house in Bainbridge, Ohio exploded in a fiery ball. Investigators discovered that the neighborhood's tap water contained so much methane that the house ignited. A study released this month concluded that pressure caused by hydraulic fracturing pushed the gas, which is found naturally thousands of feet below, through a system of cracks into the groundwater aquifer.

Other concerns are the corruption of the integrity of watersheds and other water sources. The plan to drill in the Marcellus Shale Formation in upstate New York threatens the watershed http://www.sott.net/articles/show/185279-Clean-Energy-and-Poisoned-Water which supplies pure, unfiltered water to 10 million New York City residents as well as water to farmers and other residents of the state.

Despite safety assurances for the chemicals used in the fracturing fluids, there have been reports of animal deaths http://www.sott.net/articles/show/183518-16-Cattle-Drop-Dead-Near-Mysterious-Fluid-at-Gas-Drilling-Sites near drilling sites using such fluid.

There have also been reports of sinkholes  http://lubbockonline.com/stories/073009/loc_472749121.shtml developing on drilling sites. In Denver City, a sinkhole suddenly appeared on a drilling site owned by Occidental Permian Limited which measured 76 feet by 70 feet and was 48 feet deep.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of gas drilling gone awry is the mud volcano that erupted on the island of Java, Indonesia. The mud began to erupt in 2006 following an exploratory drilling procedure, and it hasn't stopped since. Experts are 99% sure that the eruption was caused by drilling. http://www.physorg.com/news132233433.html

The mud continues to erupt and flow at a rate of about 100,000 cubic meters a day. There is no way that experts can predict http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/asia/19mud.html?_r=2 when or where these eruptions will next occur. Some of them have even taken place in people's living rooms!

To make this story even more bizarre, and to add to its horror movie quality, it is estimated that the mud will continue to flow for at least another 30 years! http://www.sott.net/articles/show/187199-Indonesia-mud-volcano-may-last-30-years-expert

Here is a Time video that gives a sense of the magnitude of the catastrophe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MxaHwpFBWk

In the frenzy that has been generated around the media-generated energy crisis raising fears that we will run out of fossil fuels, we seem to have lost our perspective about which resources are truly necessary to sustain life. Clean air, healthy soil, and of course uncontaminated water are elements upon which all life depends. Generations have lived without fossil fuels, but none have lived without air, soil, and water. These resources must not be allowed to devolve into commodities, for if they do, those who provide them will have the power of life and death over all living things.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
DHS: "You're a terrorist if you object to being soft-killed by poisoned water"
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2010, 09:02:59 AM »
The elite are freaking out over the Gasland documentary and how the creator of that has sparked some pretty serious activism.

Like Dig said, if 300 million Americans did what he did--there would be no Illuminati, period.

It is the physical action that the documentary is facilitating that is freaking them the f**k out.  From their point of view, they just want everyone sitting in their homes even if they get a hold of such documentaries, and sit back and STFU about it, keeping it to themselves.  

Well when you clearly have the most essential thing in life next to Oxygen necessary for life--clean water--massively poisoned to even the extent in which f*cking reverse osmosis filter membranes themselves are ATTACKED by deadly glycol ethers, destroying the f**king main filtering mechanism-allowing everything else to then pass through as well--people are going to freak the f**k out and defend their life, because their lives are being directly attacked in no uncertain terms.

Thing is with all this shit is that they run multiple what I would call "honeypot narratives", which are designed to "scoop you up" along the way as the MSM and govt. debate steers you like Glenn Beck on any issue.  

Think of this in reference to Al Gore the fake truthful who is calling for "civil disobedience"--see how that fits in here.  Again this whole thing can build up their case for the new Al-Qaeda threat of non-existent eco-terrorism (from the NWO's point of view), but whose only existence is real from the standpoint of fascist, pro-eugenics and pro-genocide, pro-feudalism, pro-Agenda 21, elite run corporations.

People need to understand that this method of gas drilling is 100% unacceptable and must be stopped.  There has to be a truly NON-environmentally destructive way of doing the same thing.  People must not be psyoped also into thinking that this builds the case for any other so-called "smart-grid",  "clean energy" technologies.

We need an energy grid that is NOT in any way connected to the Internet--PERIOD, because otherwise that ushers in FRAUDULENT "cyber security", which is nothing more than implementing the feudalist cybernetic Gaia Earth extortion/total enslavement grid against 6.7 billion people.

We need a thread telling everyone to make this documentary go mega-viral.  Because it exposes to the sheep that DHS is in fact, a terrorist organization because they are allowing REAL eco-terrorism to take place nationwide with insanely destructive, water poisoning fracking, and having the incredibly offensive audacity to say that anyone who opposes being soft-kill MURDERED, and severely physically harmed, is an "extremist" (according to a scumbag puppet Senator) as well as the same as CIA created fake Al-Qaeda boogeymen who made Project Mascal, and the NRO's "Plane into building exercise" go live on 9/11.

"DHS" is an ANTI-GOVERNMENT organization, because the only LEGITIMATE government is the Constitutional Government.  They illegally derive their power from the Unconstitutional foundation of the Shadow Government, which is the high treason 1947 "National Security Act", which must be abolished, as well as DHS, and ALL "NSPD/HSPD" directives, which are illegal, high treason, Unconstitutional on their face.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2010, 10:56:36 AM »
Gasland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland

Gasland is an American documentary film written and directed by Josh Fox. The film focuses on communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing.



Synopsis

In May 2008, Fox received a letter from a natural gas company interested in leasing his family’s land in Milanville, Pennsylvania for drilling.

Following the lease offer, he looked for information about natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale under large parts of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and West Virginia. He visited Dimock, Pennsylvania where natural gas drilling was already taking place. In Dimock, he met families able to light their tap water on fire as well as suffering from numerous health issues and fearing their water wells had been contaminated.

Fox then set out to see how communities are being affected in the west where a natural gas drilling boom has been underway for the last decade. He spent time with citizens in their homes and on their land as they relayed their stories of natural gas drilling in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Texas, among others. He spoke with residents who have experienced a variety of chronic health problems as well as contamination of their air, water wells or surface water. In some instances, gas companies are replacing the affected water supplies with bottled water[citation needed].

Throughout the documentary, Fox reached out to scientists, politicians and gas industry executives and ultimately found himself in the halls of Congress as a subcommittee was discussing the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, “a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing.” [1] Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.[citation needed]

Making appearances in the film are: Dr. Theo Colborn, founder of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX); John Hanger, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); Dr. Al Armendariz, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator for Region 6; Wilma Subra, MacArthur Award-winning chemist; Calvin Tillman, Mayor of Dish, Texas; Weston Wilson, EPA scientist; members of Congress Diana DeGette (Colorado), Dan Boren (Oklahoma), and Maurice Hinchey (New York); Albert Appleton, former New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner; Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President; and James Gennaro, New York City Council Environmental Board Chair.



Production

Gasland was conceived of, directed, primarily filmed and narrated by Josh Fox. This is his second documentary. His first was entitled Memorial Day. Gasland's executive producers are Debra Winger and Hunter Gray; producers are Trish Adlesic, Fox and Molly Gandour; co-produced by David Roma; cinematographers are Fox and Matthew Sanchez; editor is Matthew Sanchez; animators are Juan Cardarelli and Alex Tyson; consultants are Morgan Jenness and Henry Chalfant and researchers are Molly Gandour, Barbara Arindell, Fox and Joe Levine.[2] The film is dedicated to the non-profit organization Damascus Citizens for Sustainability (DCS).

The documentary was made in just about a year and a half. Fox began the project as a one man crew, but was joined by three other cameras at different points.[3] Matt Sanchez is credited with the structure of the film and together with Fox edited roughly 200 hours of footage to about 100 minutes.[4]

Gasland premiered at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. The film is currently on the film festival circuit and premiered on HBO on June 21.



Reception

Eric Kohn of IndieWire wrote, “"GasLand" is the paragon of first person activist filmmaking done right… By grounding a massive environmental issue in its personal ramifications, Fox turns "GasLand" into a remarkably urgent diary of national concerns.”[8]

Stewart Nusbaumer of the Huffington Post wrote "Gasland... just might take you from outrage right into the fire of action.”[9]

The Denton Record Chronicle said “Fox decides that his own backyard in Pennsylvania isn’t his exclusive property... Set to his own banjo music and clever footage, GasLand is both sad and scary... if your soul isn’t moved by the documentary, yours is a heart of shale.”[10]

Fort Worth Business Press writer John-Laurent Tronche talks about the growing number of documentaries “that aim to shed a light on what they call a dirty, destructive practice: shale gas exploration. And although oil and gas supporters have labeled the motion pictures as radical propaganda, a local drilling activist said they’re part of a larger, critical look into an ever-growing industry.”[12]

Bloomberg News critic Dave Shiflett wrote that Fox "may go down in history as the Paul Revere of fracking."[13]
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2010, 11:11:31 AM »
Here is the deal...

Fracking is a Halliburton refined process for which they have several patents. The goal by Halliburton as in with most of the countries they operate is to destroy the natural resources within a country they go to.  In the United States they are doing it through the fracking process which involves the dumping of some of the most toxic chemicals ever found. It is like Corexit x1,000. They push these chemicals into the area they wish to "frack" and create a mini earthquake from which natural gas escapes upward. This technique allows for new gas wells to spring up all over the natural gas basins in many states. These areas that they are fracking are also areas that have have water basins and resavoirs which give water to tens of millions of American citizens. The use of these chemicals into the heart of the United States supply of water has caused a biona fide act of bio and chemical terrorism by the companies doing it.

But, instead of any government agency doing its job, the state is targeting people who see this movie as a National Security risk.

The blatant hypocrisy would be laughable if it was not actively destroying large parts of the United States' ability to be self reliant as far as water and other resources are concerned. Halliburton and others' goal seems to be to create manufactured dust bowls and force an end to local natural resources. This is in line with the apocalyptic movies we have seen like "The Road" and Rockefeller Foundation documents. It also exposes that the environmental movement has been fully hijacked as discussed in the following article by PP Forum Member and dynamite truther Jamer Corbett:



A Message to the Environmental Movement
Your movement has been hijacked

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
25 November, 2009


The Corbett Report has released a new video message to the environmental movement. Watch the video by clicking here or in the embedded player.


Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.

You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.

You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.

This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

You have suspected as much for years.

You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.

You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.

You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.

You disagreed when the slogans--and then the science--were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.

You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.

You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.

Your movement had been hijacked.

The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome's 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:

And when you looked at the Club of Rome's elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.

Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.

Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.

Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.

We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.

We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists' wishes, not reality.

We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.

We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.

We now know, in short, that they were lying.

It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.

With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.

Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.

We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.

We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.

In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.

Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.

We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.

We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.

We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.

We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.

Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support 'our' side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.

It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.

We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?

For The Corbett Report, this is James Corbett in western Japan.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline xereau

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Thread Killer
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2010, 01:05:29 PM »
Got it, downloaded, burnt it, passed it out.
Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex. --  Frank Zappa

Offline xereau

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Thread Killer
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2010, 01:06:04 PM »
BTW, the film maker sounds like Eddie Vedder ;)  (its not him)
Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex. --  Frank Zappa

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2010, 01:35:33 PM »
I'm about half way through watching it right now and have almost thrown up a few times with disgust.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2010, 09:24:30 PM »
I love how they expect the people who complain about the drinking water to just STFU and drink it.
But not a single 'official' would take a sip.

Another unforgettable moment: When the 100% 'owned' legislator said, "I stand with the oil and natural gas industry", and explained that these fine companies had contributed to his campaign. Now THAT's DUMB...  he may as well have said, 'I'm completely owned by the corporate interests, I hire myself out to the highest bidder; and they leave the money on the night stand.'  But it is so commonplace, so deeply ingrained into the culture that he saw no problem with that position. He is working for the corporations, he's not representing the people. Completely corrupt.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2010, 09:51:24 PM »
At the moment i call this the other way

have you any idea how much energy is in Shale gas
Its enormous
Our society needs energy
elite want to use wind and solar only

if you campaign to have Shale drilling shut down recognise the consequences.
Dont go pushing peak oil when oil reserves are blocked from being drilled
dont go pushing limited fossil fuels arguments if you got enormous fossil fuel reserves locked in the ground.

The corporate media tried to link the recent San Francisco gas explosion to fracking. That was when i first head that term, and immediately became suspicious.
Now i find there is this film exposing fracking.
could be a coordinated campaign by ecofascists, watch out.

key fact to know that environmentalists probably dont want you knowing and wont tell you
There is hundreds of years worth of fossil fuel energy in Shale oil

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,406
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2010, 09:54:40 PM »
At the moment i call this the other way

have you any idea how much energy is in Shale gas
Its enormous
Our society needs energy
elite want to use wind and solar only

if you campaign to have Shale drilling shut down recognise the consequences.
Dont go pushing peak oil when oil reserves are blocked from being drilled
dont go pushing limited fossil fuels arguments if you got enormous fossil fuel reserves locked in the ground.

The corporate media tried to link the recent San Francisco gas explosion to fracking. That was when i first head that term, and immediately became suspicious.
Now i find there is this film exposing fracking.
could be a coordinated campaign by ecofascists, watch out.

key fact to know that environmentalists probably dont want you knowing and wont tell you
There is hundreds of years worth of fossil fuel energy in Shale oil

That's a good caveat.
"Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
"Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
"To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
"People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2010, 10:21:09 PM »
At the moment i call this the other way

have you any idea how much energy is in Shale gas
Its enormous
Our society needs energy
elite want to use wind and solar only

if you campaign to have Shale drilling shut down recognise the consequences.
Dont go pushing peak oil when oil reserves are blocked from being drilled
dont go pushing limited fossil fuels arguments if you got enormous fossil fuel reserves locked in the ground.

The corporate media tried to link the recent San Francisco gas explosion to fracking. That was when i first head that term, and immediately became suspicious.
Now i find there is this film exposing fracking.
could be a coordinated campaign by ecofascists, watch out.

key fact to know that environmentalists probably dont want you knowing and wont tell you
There is hundreds of years worth of fossil fuel energy in Shale oil

And if you look just a little deeper you will see that the energy companies make more money, the more scarce things are. so, they purposefully ruin the gas well industry and create a problem that they must fix by providing more expensive energy sources.

The documentarian is exposing how to tap into shale with the minimum of regulation which Halliburton will not do. It is almost like they want to get it shut doen.

Now where have we seen this before?

Oh yeah...BP in the gulf of Mexico also with...

HALLIBURTON.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Pennsylvania Intelligence Bulletin NO 131

Read the Intelligence Bulletin here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/8193/pennsylvania-intelligence-bulletin-no-131-aug-30-2010.pdf


Excerpts:





I obtained the document from a group called ProPublica.
Read their article here:
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/pa-govenor-apologizes-for-tracking-enviro-extremists-but-questions-remain
http://theglobalrealm.com/2010/07/14/investigation-confirms-pennsylvania-fracking-well-blowout-was-easily-preventable-potentially-catastrophic/

Investigation Confirms Pennsylvania Fracking Well Blowout Was Easily Preventable, Potentially Catastrophic
Posted on July 14, 2010 by The Global Realm

by: Mike Ludwig
t r u t h o u t
14 July 2010

Pennsylvanians are wondering if their state could become the next environmental ground zero after officials confirmed Tuesday that irresponsible drilling practices and a failed “blowout preventer” caused the June 3 blowout of a gas well in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Well operator EOG Resources uses controversial “fracking” techniques to harvest gas from the massive Marcellus Shale reserve, where the state has permitted thousands of wells.

No one was injured, but the busted well spewed highly-combustible natural gas and an estimated 35,000 gallons of wastewater that contaminated a nearby spring and stream, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

First responders used cell phone cameras to photograph natural gas and wastewater spewing from the EOG Resources “fracking” gas well during the June 3 blowout in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.


(Photo Courtesy of the PA Department of Environmental Protection)

DEP Secretary John Hanger announced that an independent investigation confirmed that the incident was preventable and EOG Resources ignored industry standards by failing to install proper barriers in the well and hiring uncertified operators. Hanger also said that EOG Resources failed to alert emergency authorities until several hours after the blowout, which hindered the state’s response.

“Make no mistake, this could have been a catastrophic incident,” Hanger said. “Had the gas blowing out of this well ignited, the human cost would have been tragic, and had an explosion allowed this well to discharge wastewater for days or weeks, the environmental damage would have been significant.”


John Vittitow, an experienced petroleum engineer hired by the DEP to conduct the investigation, made an eerie comparison to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the gulf as he described the failed blowout preventer that led to the incident. Vittitow said that EOG Resources only installed one pressure barrier during a well clean-out procedure, while industry standards call for at least two barriers in case of failure.

Hanger admitted that state regulations on well operations are broad and regulators would have to be “more prescriptive” to ensure that well operators use at least two barriers in the future.

Vittitow’s investigation also revealed that the C. C. Forbes operators lacked industry certifications that are mandatory in most companies.

The DEP fined EOG Resources and C. C. Forbes a total of $400,000 collectively, lifted a suspension on activities at the well and ordered the firms to follow nine procedural rules in the future. When asked why EOG Resources’ drilling license was not revoked, Hanger said that the order “had teeth,” and explained the company has the potential to be a “first class” natural gas producer as the state seeks to benefit from massive gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale formation.

The Marcellus Shale, which spans hundreds of miles across Pennsylvania and New York, has become the battleground in a controversy over hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves pumping a cocktail of liquids – some of them toxic – into the earth to force natural gas to the surface. Proponents claim fracking is an efficient way to take advantage of the massive amounts of clean energy to be found in the Marcellus Shale region and elsewhere, but researchers and environmentalists blame fracking for hundreds of instances of water contamination in Pennsylvania and across the country.

EOG Resources operates 139 of its 297 active Pennsylvania wells in the Marcellus Shale formation, according to the DEP.

The public outcry against fracking and a Congressional mandate included in an appropriations bill last fall prompted the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin a massive scientific study on how the practice affects water supplies, according to ProPublica.

The EPA investigation, to be completed by 2012, could help push Congress to approve the FRAC Act, which was introduced into the House last year. The FRAC Act would allow the EPA to regulate fracking and demand that drilling companies reveal what chemicals they pump into the ground, information the industry often attempts to conceal as “trade secrets.” ProPublica recently reported that 50 House representatives have co-sponsored the act since last year.

http://www.truth-out.org/investigation-confirms-pennsylvania-fracking-well-blowout-was-easily-preventable-potentially-catastr

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2010, 12:10:35 AM »
Pennsylvania cattle quarantined from gas fracking contamination
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_60575.shtmlBy Tom Laskawy
Grist
Friday, Jul 9, 2010

Agriculture officials have quarantined 28 beef cattle on a Pennsylvania farm after wastewater from a nearby gas well leaked into a field and came in contact with the animals.

The state Department of Agriculture said the action was its first livestock quarantine related to pollution from natural gas drilling. Although the quarantine was ordered in May, it was announced Thursday.

A mere taste of what's to come from natural-gas fracking in the Marcellus Shale, folks.

With fracking, or hydraulic fracturing of rock formations to extract natural gas, we're setting ourselves up for an environmental disaster of epic proportions -- and much of it the result of an inability to develop rural economies. Residents in upstate New York and central Pennsylvania are desperate for income, and the gas companies are happy to write checks for mineral rights. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania and New York are in the middle of state budget crises. The prospect of tax revenue from fracking is apparently more than enough to offset environmental concerns.

In fairness, both states are paying attention to the risks of water contamination, but they may both conclude that a little water contamination is a small price to pay for a balanced budget and increased rural incomes (at least for leaseholders). Pennsylvania is already experiencing pushback from gas companies who say the state's drilling regulations for drinking water protection in Marcellus Shale regions are unreasonably high. Complicating matters further is that both the New York City and Delaware Valley watersheds are likely to gain special protections, which leaves areas outside those regions more vulnerable to lenient standards. Ya gotta drill somewhere!

Nightmare scenarios abound. As High Country News summarizes, fracking has brought the West "polluted wastewater problems, large scale habitat disturbance, methane leaks from pipelines, and potentially serious health impacts that come along with the use of toxic chemicals in hydraulic fracturing." And as this article on Civil Eats suggests, even heavily regulated fracking could be enough to destroy much of New York's Hudson Valley farmland. After all, how many cattle quarantines or lost crops does it take to put a farmer out of business? Answer: not many.

Indeed, this latest episode, despite the fact that the cattle don't yet seem to have been harmed, will give little comfort to those who have to listen to industry assurances of safety. Would you want to eat cows that have been dining in fields covered in benzene and diesel fuel?

My hope is that the tactics the energy industry have used to exploit natural resources to great success out West won't work back East, where they are operating much closer to media and population centers. But betting on the strength of politicians' spines to resist doing the bidding of the energy industry never made anyone any money ...
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2010, 12:15:08 AM »
http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2010/7/News+%26+Politics/What-the-Frack

What the Frack?
Welcome to Gasland
by Brian K. Mahoney, June 24, 2010


The largest natural gas drilling boom in history is sweeping across the United States. A new method of drilling, hydraulic fracturing, has opened up previously unavailable deposits in 34 states, including New York. Industry officials contend the practice is safe, though critics cite numerous instances of groundwater contamination as a by-product of drilling. the concerns over “fracking” heats up as state legislators debate a drilling moratorium and an anti-fracking film, Gasland, is released.

“This is the rhythm that we’ve gotten into in this country: A reporter, a muckraker, or a filmmaker goes in and bunks. Then the industry debunks. Then the regulators come in and say, ‘We did our part.’ Meanwhile, there are all these people who are suffering, and they have nowhere to turn and no one to trust. Is this just a matter of, are we expecting too much that sucking something out of the earth is going to be a harmless process?”
—John Stewart, interviewing Josh Fox, director of Gasland,
on the June 21 “Daily Show”

The US has proven natural gas reserves of 20 trillion cubic feet, placing it seventh on the world list behind Russia, Iran, Qatar, Turkmenistan, and Saudi Arabia. In 2009, for the first time in 10 years, the US extracted more gas than Russia. This was due to a recent drilling boom in the US of previously inaccessible rock formations. The method used to get at the hard-to-reach gas is hydraulic fracturing.

Here’s how hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, works: A horizontal well is drilled into a gas-bearing rock formation. The wells are usually quite deep, and can be as far as 10,000 feet below the surface. Once drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into the well. The pressure fractures the rock and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.
Fracking is especially good at getting gas out of “tight” rocks like shale. One such shale formation that has begun to be drilled in this manner is the Marcellus Shale, which stretches deep underground from Ohio and West Virginia into Pennsylvania and south-central New York. Energy companies have referred to the Marcellus Shale, estimated to contain between 200 and 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as a “Saudi Arabia of natural gas.” Texas oil- and gas-millionaire T. Boone Pickens has suggested using this new surfeit of energy to help wean the US off foreign oil, turning it into vehicle fuel. (Natural gas currently supplies the US with 20 percent of its electricity needs. Viewed as a “clean” alternative to coal—coal provides 50 percent of US electricity—natural gas is expected to supplant coal as the majority electricity supplier in the US by 2034.)

Not only is the Marcellus Shale (in addition to other shale deposits across the US) seen as a possible answer to our dependence on foreign oil, in rural communities, it’s seen as economic salvation. Proponents of drilling in New York claim that Pennsylvania, where hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale is underway, has created over 40,000 jobs and had a positive economic impact of almost $2 billion. Many upstate landowners and farmers see drilling as a heaven-sent way for them to be able to afford to stay on their land in an increasing difficult economic climate.

The environmental problems associated with fracking, however, have led critics of the procedure to wage a campaign which has stalled approval of drilling in New York. State legislators are currently considering two bills that would enshrine the de facto moratorium on fracking in law. The first bill would delay fracking for at least a year, and the other would predicate any approval be based upon the release of a study by the Environmental Protection Agency into how natural gas drilling processes affect drinking water supplies. At year’s end, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is expected to release its own set of guidelines on gas drilling.

Natural gas drilling isn’t new in New York; there are 13,000 active wells in the state. Critics claim, however, that fracking is fundamentally different from regular gas drilling. The intensive fracking process requires millions of gallons of water, and uses a proprietary mixture of chemicals that contain many known volatile organic compounds. A study by ProPublica has documented more than 1,000 cases of groundwater contamination from fracking.

Part of the reason that fracking exists at all dates back to 2005, when Vice-President Dick Cheney crafted the Halliburton Loophole, which was then inserted with little fanfare into that year’s energy bill. The Halliburton Loophole authorizes oil and gas drillers, exclusively, to inject known hazardous materials directly into, or adjacent to, underground drinking water supplies, bypassing the regulations required by the Clean Water Act, the Clean Water Drinking Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Superfund.

In June of last year, two identical bills—the FRAC Act—were introduced to both the US House and the Senate. FRAC stands for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. The House bill was introduced by Diana Degette (D-CO), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). These bills are designed to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hydraulic fracturing and require the energy industry to reveal what chemicals it uses in the process.

The debate about how and whether to extract natural gas from deep underground, and the environmental toll of hydraulic fracturing is the backdrop for Gasland, a film by Josh Fox that was shown on HBO on June 21. Fox travels through 25 states during the course of the film, meeting homeowners who’ve leased their land for hydraulic fracturing. Most can see the wells from their front porches. Amazingly, some of the people can set fire to their tap water, due to—among other carcinogens and neurotoxins—natural gas leaking into their water supply. Some complain of neurological ailments, some of respiratory conditions. Most conspicuously, in the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 50 miles from Fox’s home, state officials permanently shut down some wells run by Cabot Oil and Gas and fined the company $250,000, in addition to providing drinking water in perpetuity for 14 families whose water was ruined by drilling.

I spoke with Josh Fox in late June, as he was barnstorming across Pennsylvania and New York to build support for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. On July 17, at 7:30pm the Woodstock Film Festival will present a screening of Gasland at Onteora High School in Boiceville. Tickets are $5 at the door. A discussion with director Josh Fox and Rep. Maurice Hinchey will following the screening. www.woodstockfilmfestival.com; www.gaslandthemovie.com.

Protesting hydraulic fracturing.

How did you first get involved with the issue of hydraulic fracturing and come to make Gasland?

We got a letter in the mail about leasing our land for gas drilling, and I started to look into it. The narrative from the gas industry was very different from the story I was hearing from the environmental groups in my area. I was wondering what the truth was, as it seemed to be the future of our land on the line.

So I went to a nearby town where fracking was taking place, Dimock, and I found the whole place was a disaster. Water contamination left people feeling extremely betrayed, confused, and the children getting sick. The water tests I saw were very disturbing, with quantities of natural gas in the water capable of being lit on fire. There were also heavy metals in the water. The big impression I got, back in 2009 before there was a lot of reporting on Dimock, was of a place that had almost been erased from the map. The people were afraid and had no idea who to trust. The atmosphere of fear was palpable because they had been overrun and they weren’t getting any help. They were very frustrated with the Department of Environmental Protection and they felt that there was very little recourse for them to undo the damage to their homes and their water supply. The residents are currently engaged in a class-action lawsuit. The State of Pennsylvania fined one of the energy companies $250,000 for fracking-related violations in Dimock.

Has the drilling stopped there?

No, the drilling has not stopped. The drilling has doubled. One company was partially shut down for a time, but other companies keep drilling.

Are there other instances of drilling close to your home?

In my area, in the Upper Delaware River Basin, there are exploratory wells that have been allowed to go in. Currently in my county, Wade County, there is drilling. The process is starting and it’s very upsetting.
In New York, there is a moratorium bill that is very close to passage in the State Senate, and that’s because of the disaster that is unfolding around the country.

Why is the Marcellus Shale so important to protect from hydraulic fracturing?

The Marcellus Shale is 50 percent of New York State, 65 percent of Pennsylvania. If they were to develop the Marcellus Shale to the degree to which the industry is proposing, there would be a wholesale redefinition of New York and of Pennsylvania. New York State’s chief industries currently are agriculture and tourism. Both of those industries would be decimated by fracking.

The other reason why it’s so important is because there are so many people near the proposed drilling. This is a wholesale invasion of drilling companies in that area with a process, hydraulic fracturing, which has never been proven safe and has a disastrous track record across the US. It’s unconscionable to me that state governments permit this process without really thorough ecological and health studies. There should be a five-year moratorium while the government conducts ecological and health studies.

If the health studies you suggest came out five years from now stating that hydraulic fracturing was safe, would you give it your blessing?

I think that’s a rather far-fetched hypothetical question. The industry sells fracking as a very sophisticated, high-tech process, but it’s basically brute force and a huge number of toxic chemicals pumped under the ground. In the current state of hydraulic fracturing, we know that it’s incredibly contaminating.

You visit many towns with fracking wells in the movie. They all seem to have problems. Did you visit anywhere that wasn’t experiencing problems related to hydraulic fracturing?

No, I didn’t. In fact, I’ve put out a challenge to the industry: If you’ve got a town where there are 100 wells or more and everything’s going fine, and everybody’s rich and happy, and there aren’t water contamination issues and air pollution problems, take me to that town. So far, no response.

The gas industry refused to sit down with us during the entire year and a half we were making the film.

What were the people like who you interviewed for the film?

The resilience and character of people that I found was remarkable to me. First of all, they’re cornered; they have no options, no way out. When your property is unsalable because of water contamination, you’re trapped. You have to make the best of what’s in front of you. What I found was so unbelievably moving about the people featured in the film was that they had found a way to think about their situation that was very articulate and clear, and not angry.

If we don’t frack today, we may end up fracking tomorrow, when easier stores of gas are gone.

The natural gas industry has forced us all into a very difficult conversation. We have a problem on our hands, and we need to look at it in a sophisticated way, and not one that says, “We’re going to pulverize the landscape and contaminate at will in order to get our energy.” We have to look at a shift to renewable energy, which is not only possible but absolutely necessary. We have to look at an energy profile that combines renewables and conservation to address the problem, because we’re talking about the water supply. Once you contaminate an aquifer, you can’t go back. We know we’re going to need water forever.

We’re not here to talk about energy solutions. We’re here to talk about gas company profits. They’re allowed to make a buck off of natural gas because they’re forcing us to pay for the cleanup.

Now that you’ve made Gasland and it’s been shown on HBO, what would you like the movie to achieve?

I’m hopeful that this will help effect change. It’s not just me who’s getting this right now. When I first started making the film, there was very little consciousness of the issue in the East. In the West they knew all about it, but they weren’t getting the kind of media attention the problem merited. In the last year and a half, there are hundreds of grassroots organizations that are springing up all over New York State and Pennsylvania. People are enormously concerned, and not just because of the film but because of the thorough research that’s documenting what’s happening in 34 states.

Think about what’s happening in the Gulf of Mexico. It’s very easy to see what’s happening in the Gulf—there’s a camera down there. But when chemicals are being released underground, you don’t have those kind of stunning visuals. And natural gas wells have lots of blowouts. There are 450,000 wells in America right now and there are blowouts every day.

We’re at a stage right now where we’ve seen so many problems with fracking that there needs to be moratorium. With the water supply on the line, we have to employ the precautionary principle. As my good friend Victoria Sweitzer [a resident of Dimock, whose water was contaminated by fracking] is fond of saying, “We have to hit pause, because there is no rewind.”

The natural gas industry has done a mind-boggling job of promoting gas as clean energy. It’s not clean energy. It’s a dirty fossil fuel that contaminates when it’s extracted and the hydraulic fracturing process is so labor intensive and vents off so much gas into the atmosphere, it’s debatable as to whether or not natural gas is cleaner than coal.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2010, 12:31:29 AM »
Dick Cheney & Christine Todd Whitman (of 911 "The Air is Safe to Breathe" fame) were collaborators in allowing the oil and gas companies free rein to pollute the ground water and air while drilling for oil dollars....

The "Halliburton loophole" for Methane Gas Drilling
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton_Company

In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called
"Halliburton loophole" to clean water protections in federal law
to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process,
despite serious concerns that were raised about the chemicals used in the process
and its demonstrated spoiling and contamination of drinking water.


In 2001, Cheney's "energy task force" had touted the benefits of hydrofracking, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with hydrofracking. Halliburton, which was previously led by Cheney, reportedly earns $1.5 billion a year from its energy operations, which rely substantially on its hydrofracking business.)[1]

According to Pro Publica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, the EPA under Christine Todd Whitman's tenure as Administrator engaged in secret negotiations with industry, while purportedly addressing drinking water issues related to "fracking."[2]

In 2004, the EPA undertook a study on the issue and "the EPA,
despite its scientific judgment that there was a potential risk to groundwater supplies,
which their report clearly says, then went ahead and very surprisingly
concluded that there was no risk to groundwater,"


Lustgarten noted in September 2009. "[P]art of my reporting found that throughout that process the EPA was closer than seemed comfortable with the industry. I filed FOIA requests for some documents and found conversations between Halliburton employees and the EPA researchers, essentially asking for an agreement from Halliburton in exchange for more lax enforcement. The EPA, in these documents, appeared to offer that and agree to that. And it doesn’t appear, by any means, to have been either a thorough or a very objective study." [3]

In June 2009, U.S. Representatives Diana DeGette, John Salazar and Maurice Hinchey and Senators Robert P. Casey Jr. and Chuck Schumer introduced the Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC ACT).[4] The proposal is aimed at closing the 'Halliburton loophole' and requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose the chemicals used in drilling projects which can contaminate ground water and drinking water.

In late October 2009 the House of Representatives agreed to include a statement in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2010 urging the EPA to reassess the impact of fracking on water supplies. The report stated:

    "The conferees urge the EPA to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, and it should be prepared in accordance with EPA quality assurance principles."[5]

On March 18, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would lead a $1.9 million for this comprehensive, peer-reviewed study on the impacts hydrofracking would have on water quality and public health.[6] Despite the study, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) has expressed that it is crucial to continue the push forward for the passing of the FRAC Act[7]

More information about other legislative proposals can be found in the main page on this topic, Marcellus Shale.

Hazardous Substances, Drinkable Water, and Hydrofracking

To force natural gas out of shale or rock, millions of gallons of fresh, drinkable water are forced through a pipe drilled into the shale. A variety of chemicals are added to the water to keep the fractures in the shale open and keep the gas flowing to the surface. While there is no complete list of the cocktail of chemicals used in this process, information obtained from environmental clean-up sites demonstrates that known toxins are routinely being used, including hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel (which contains benzene, tuolene, and xylene) as well as formaldehyde, polyacrylimides, and chromates.[8] These chemicals include known carcinogens and other hazardous substances.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"When an EPA study concluding that hydraulic fracturing "poses little or no threat" to drinking water supplies was published in 2004, several EPA scientists challenged the study's methodology and questioned the impartiality of the expert panel that reviewed its findings. The Bush administration has strongly supported hydraulic fracturing, an oil extraction technique developed by Halliburton Co., but environmental groups as well as scientists within the EPA have warned that the practice may contaminate drinking water and needs to be regulated."[9]

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2010, 12:34:29 AM »
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/fracking_EPA.fortune/?section=money_latest

EPA on fracking: "we can only do so much"


Fred Hauchman, EPA Director of Science Policy


by Shelley DuBois, reporterSeptember 17, 2010: 1:17 PM ET


FORTUNE -- In Binghamton, New York on Wednesday, hundreds of locals filled the Broome County Theater to speak their minds, two minutes a time, to four members of the Environmental Protection Agency. They voiced opinions about a controversial process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to tap into huge reserves of shale gas thousands of feet below ground. New York sits on one of the largest known reserves of natural gas, which many people, including President Obama, have called a new, crucial resource for the country.

But residents in places where fracking occurs have raised concerns that the process isn't regulated enough -- that it leaches dangerous chemicals into groundwater and contaminates it with methane gas. Proponents believe that natural gas development can be a huge boon for the area, and drilling needs to happen as soon as possible.

Fracking, which is state regulated, isn't legal in New York yet, and there was enough of an uproar about these issues that locals called for the EPA to step in and study the process. (Fracking involves injecting fluids into cracks in rock thousands of feet underground to increase the volume of gas collected. It's long been legal in New York to do this along a vertical well column. But the more controversial horizontal fracking, which creates fractures on either side of a well drilled horizontally through a layer of gas-rich rock, remains illegal in New York for now.)

People on all sides are clamoring for the study, which is expected to be completed by 2012. The pro-fracking camp believes that good science will exonerate the practice. Anti-frackers want to know the process is safe before companies start drilling for shale. The EPA is under pressure.

After the hearing, Fortune spoke with Fred Hauchman, the Director of Science Policy about the task ahead of him. He offered insight about how to get good scientific results in a short timeframe, the EPA's communication challenge and the benefit of getting face time with the people.

Why did the EPA agree to study this?

Natural gas is important to the country, but at the same time a lot of concerns have been expressed. And the public deserves to have answers to their questions.

How do you design a study that's going to yield answers in just two years?

Unquestionably it will take resources and it will take a lot of focus and energy. I don't think any of us have any illusions that we'll have all the answers in two years. But we're convinced that we can do research over this period of time that will be very informative.

What's going to be the main focus?

We were directed by Congress to focus our efforts on drinking water. But people have said, several times, take a comprehensive look at hydraulic fracturing -- you can't just look at one part of it. We see a challenge there -- obviously, we can only do so much with the resources we have and the time we have. But we need to consider those comments.

How long will it take?

We have this two-year timeframe, during which we expect to get good results, which we would characterize as preliminary. We know that there are going to continue to be questions. Any researcher will tell you we have to keep studying this. This is a big task we've taken on, and we anticipate that research will have to go on beyond that two-year period.

How many people in the EPA will work on this?

We've not fully resourced it. Right now we just know it's going to take a sizeable effort.

It's been identified as one of the top priorities for our Office of Research and Development. That came right out of the assistant administrator's mouth.

Do you have an idea of the plan of attack?

We're going to propose to the Science Advisory Board that some part of the study look at operations before they begin, in addition to testing sites during development and after drilling has started. We're also looking retrospectively because the states have information through their regulatory activities. We're looking at existing data that we have in hand that can help us, but we're also looking at doing studies alongside fracturing operations.

People on both sides are so passionate about this. Is drilling for natural gas getting more scrutiny than methods of producing other kinds of fuels?

Everybody's looking at this study. I think it's fair to say that this administration has come in and told us from the get go that transparency is the hallmark of everything we do. I think this is a great example of that. It's to our benefit. Venues like this with input from the public are very, very helpful.

Do you consider it the EPA's responsibility to keep educating people once the results come out?

Sure, we're going to need to go to great lengths to help with the interpretation of what's likely to be a very complex study in the end. There are a lot of technical issues, and unless you're an expert in that area, it's difficult to get your head around it. We're going to need to go the extra mile to translate and respond to questions.

You've sat through four four-hour sessions within the past two days. You must be exhausted.

Actually it's good. It's important for us to hear real concerns. What a great opportunity for science to really inform some very important decisions.

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2010, 12:36:21 AM »
bump, downloading and will be seeding
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2010, 12:38:39 AM »
Concerns about the New York City Water Supply
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marcellus_Shale


Click on image to view the video in YouTube.

Citizen groups have mobilized in New York to oppose hydrofracking. This opposition has deployed several tactics, including a class action lawsuit.[12] New videos have also been produced to educate the public about the dangers of fracking the Marcellus shale. In the video to the left, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer calls massive proposed drilling operations in the watershed that provides New York City with its drinking water is the "most alarming environmental news he has heard in a long time, and makes this the number one environmental crisis" they face in the city.

In response to these and other concerns, New York City urged the state to ban methane gas drilling in its watershed on Wednesday, December, 23, 2009. Steven Lawitts, the city's top environmental official, called fracking techniques "unacceptable threats to the unfiltered fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers," putting the City at odds with the methane gas industry, which considers shale drilling completely safe. Marc LaVorgna, spokesman for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated, "Based on all the facts, the risks are too great and drilling simply cannot be permitted in the watershed."[13]

The New York Times noted that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which was tasked with "going through a public review of its new rules on hydraulic fracturing," was looking into reports that "gas companies use at least 260 types of chemicals, many of them toxic, like benzene. These chemicals tend to remain in the ground once the fracturing has been completed, raising fears about long-term contamination."[14]

Facts about Drilling

American Rivers, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group, announced on June 3, 2010, that hydrofracking poses a huge threat to the Delaware River, which is the drinking source for nearly 17 million people across New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In the America's Most Endangered Rivers Report: 2010 Edition report, the American Rivers advocacy group named the Delaware River the number one most at-risk river, due to the threat of extensive drilling into the Marcellus Shale.[15] Here is a great link to a Factsheet produced by the American Rivers Group on the threat faced to the Delaware River by drilling into the Marcellus Shale: http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-2010/upperdelaware_factsheet_2010.pdf


http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-2010/upperdelaware_factsheet_2010.pdf

The River

The Upper Delaware provides drinking water for over 17 million people and forms the boundary between New
York and Pennsylvania as it winds through deep forests and farmland, past towering cliffs and historic towns.
In 1978, Congress designated roughly 73 miles of the Upper Delaware River between Hancock, NY and Mill
Rift, PA as one of the original National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and made it a unit of the National Park System.
The river is a popular destination for sightseeing, boating, camping, hunting, fi shing, hiking, and bird watching.
Additionally, several endangered, at-risk, or rare species live in the river and along its banks.

The Threat

The entire Upper Delaware River and its watershed are located over a geological formation known as the
Marcellus Shale. In order to access the reserves of natural gas in the shale, multinational energy corporations
have acquired drilling rights to large tracts of land in the watershed. Two companies alone, Chesapeake
Appalachia and Statoil, have a stated goal of developing 13,500 to 17,000 gas wells in the region in
next twenty years.

Energy companies have requested permits to take clean water from the river to mix with over 650
chemicals (some toxic, undisclosed, and proprietary), to make hydraulic fracturing fl uid for injection
into wells to release the gas. Each well requires between three and nine million gallons of water for
fracturing. Thousands of truck trips per well are required to transport this water, contributing to
greenhouse gas emissions, and possibly leading to contaminated water spills.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2010, 12:45:43 AM »
My aunt has a cabin in rural Pa, they allow fracking under their property.  Last time I visited she was telling about some annoying guy printing stuff from the internet about how dangerous it is...maybe she should have a look at this movie>

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 01:09:36 AM »
http://americanbadass607.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/marcellus-drilling-is-fracking-up-our-communities/

Marcellus drilling is Fracking Up Our Communities
May 24, 2010

by americanbadass607


Last night as I laid in my bed, I could hear a sound that I had not heard before around this area. So I turned down the TV, (Nick is have a, “That 70s Show marathon) I knew the sound from my work in construction, it was the sound of a diesel generator. The sound is coming from a Marcellus drill site not more than 2 miles from my house, (as the crow fly’s). I say is running because, the damn thing is still running as I type this!

This has been happening off and on, about two weeks now. I have not had a good nights sleep in the past three nights. Before the generator, it was the constant vibrations they sent through the ground. I believe they are seismic testing. I cannot wait for the burn offs of the Co2. This close to the site, it will light the night sky as if it were day. (That’s sarcasm if you couldn’t tell.)

When I talk to people in town, they are under the impression that it is a little inconvenience for the benefits it will provide for the area. So, I ask them what they felt would be the benefit would be. Some said, that it would be a step in reducing the cost of natural gas, and dependence on foreign sources for our energy needs. However, the most popular answer was, the money.

Now it is true, people are making lots of money buy allowing the companies to drill on their land, or run pipelines through their property. However, the cost is, or could be their health, the health of the families, and neighbors in the future. Like many of chemicals used in industry, the side effects don’t show up for years.

Now if you read the stories on line, farmers that have leased to the gas companies, they are sorry they did. Spills have killed the vegetation, and sickened or killed livestock.

Source

Quote
    AVELLA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -

    A Pennsylvania landowner is suing an energy company for polluting his soil and water in an attempt to link a natural gas drilling technique with environmental contamination.

    George Zimmermann, the owner of 480 acres in Washington County, southwest Pennsylvania, says Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his land with toxic chemicals used in or released there by hydraulic fracturing.

    Water tests at three locations by gas wells on Zimmermann’s property — one is 1,500 feet from his home — found seven potentially carcinogenic chemicals above “screening levels” set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as warranting further investigation.

    Jay Hammond, general counsel for Atlas, said Zimmermann’s claims are “completely erroneous” and that the company is in compliance with Pennsylvania’s gas-drilling regulations. Hammond said Atlas will “vigorously” defend itself in court and declined further comment.
    But Zimmermann says he has evidence that chemicals used by Atlas contaminated his land.

    “There are substances that can’t be made by nature and that’s what’s in the ground,” he told Reuters during an interview in his 12,000-square-foot house on a remote hilltop.

    Atlas is exploiting the Marcellus Shale, a vast gas reserve that underlies about two-thirds of Pennsylvania and parts of West Virginia, Ohio and New York State. Experts estimate it contains enough natural gas to meet total U.S. demand for at least a decade.

    The gas is being extracted by hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is forced a mile or more underground at high pressure, fracturing the shale and causing the release of natural gas.

    Development of the Marcellus, together with other major shale fields in Texas, Louisiana and other states, is being aided by advances in fracking combined with horizontal drilling, which provides more exposure to a formation than a vertical well and leads to less surface disturbance.

    If Zimmermann wins his case, it would be the first in America to prove that hydraulic fracturing causes water contamination. Such a finding could slow the development and use of cleaner-burning natural gas that would reduce American dependence on overseas energy.

It should be noted that the chemicals that are used in Fracking were removed off the DEPs’ list and allowed for use by Halliburton. This was done while Dick Cheney was Vice President in 2005.(Dick Cheney sits on the board of Halliburton.) The tankers that deliver the chemicals around the Avella sites are Halliburton tankers.

Quote
    Baseline tests on Zimmermann’s water a year before drilling began were “perfect,” he said. In June, water tests found arsenic at 2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits and naphthalene five times the federal standard.

    Soil samples detected mercury and selenium above official limits, as well as Ethylbenzene, a chemical used in drilling, and Trichloroethene, a naturally occurring but toxic chemical that can be brought to the surface by gas drilling.

    The chemicals can cause many serious illnesses including damage to the immune, nervous and respiratory systems, according to the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a researcher of the health effects of chemicals used in drilling.

This is only one of hundreds of stories, on what Fracking has done to the farm land that it has used. However, it is not only the farmland that is effected by the processes. Because of the enormous amount of water that is required for the process, creeks and streams are being sucked dry, and the aquatic live is being effected.

A very informative site with photo documentation is Bob‘s Blog

Below is a notice that was sent out to costumers of American Water. (I am guessing, because I nor anyone I have talked to around here received this.)

Quote
    Pennsylvania American Water

    Alert Notifications

    PWSID: Total Dissolved Solids in the Monongahela River

    Issue Date: 11-10-2009

    Attention Pennsylvania American Water Customers Living in Southern Allegheny and Washington Counties

    The Monongahela River is Pennsylvania American Water’s primary source of supply for drinking water. The river has been periodically experiencing increased levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), which have been affecting the quality of your drinking water. Our water plants, as well as other water treatment facilities in the Monongahela River basin, do not have treatment to remove TDS from the Monongahela River source.

    Although noticeable TDS levels are usually temporary, Pennsylvania American Water is dedicated to providing you with the highest quality water service, and we are working with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to monitor this condition and the community’s water quality.</p?

I will be writing more on this because, it is about to consume the Town of Avella. One thing that everyone who owns land should learn, especially if you bought it bought it with in the last fifty years, (Who owns the mineral rights?)  There are many stories of land owners, who have had their land ruined because they could not fight the gas companies, don‘t become one of them.

ABA

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 01:16:57 AM »
Thinking about Agenda 21, and how the destruction of the ground water might be seen as an 'opportunity' arising out of the crisis created by fracking. If you need to move because the ground water is contaminated, then the land you once occupied becomes available for 'rewilding'. It fits the modus operandi of the same group who would fly planes into buildings. And remember, these people have their own water supplies; what's a little contamination if it means furthering their agenda? These are utopian-minded psychopaths; the end always justifies the means.

Bush Paraguay Land Grab Incites Unease
http://agonist.org/20061024/bush_paraguay_land_grab_incites_unease
Asuncion | Oct 18

Prensa Latiina - The land grab project of US President George W. Bush in Chaco, Paraguay, has generated considerable discomfort both politically and environmentally.

The news circulating the continent about plans to buy 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay) is the talk of the town in these countries. Although official sources have not confirmed the information that is already public, the land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border.

Alto Paraguay Gov. Erasmo Rodriguez Acosta revealed he heard that part of the land purchase consists of an ecological reserve (Fundacion Patria), with which Bush is affiliated.

In its interview with Rodriguez Acosta, neike.com.py reported that he does not have documentation of this affiliation and it could not communicate either with the foundation or with the National Rural Development and Land Institute, in charge of these state lands. Concern increased last week with the arrival of Bush" daughter, Jenna, and a source from the Physical Planning Department saying that most of the Chaco region belongs to private companies.
Luis D"Elia, Argentina´s undersecretary for Land for Social Habitat, says the matter raises regional concern because it threatens local natural resources.
He termed it “surprising” that the Bush family is trying to settle a few short miles from the US Mariscal Estigarribia Military Base.

===========================

Bush bought land that sits on a huge aquafer. He won't have any problem getting clean drinking water.
I suspect the entire top levels have pre-arranged for water stores in the coming years.

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline trailhound

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,722
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 01:24:22 AM »
Thinking about Agenda 21....facepalm :P

"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression." Qur'an 5:2
At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value..." -RFK

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 07:05:18 PM »
@ 1:38:30 of the film GasLand
"my backyard wasn't my backyard anymore, it belonged to everyone else to"

what??  ??? 

finished with the film and it left a dirty taste in my mouth

now, to look at who was backing this film and who is associated with it

Sierra Club, NEPA, Audubon Society, Sustainability this and that org which all use the consensus model of controlling dialog

this is Agenda 21 in full effect all the while delusional eco fascists who want your control of your backyard sell it as people friendly

both sides are part of the eugenics operation, another false left right paradigm in operation, what team are you wearing your foam number one finger in support of?



ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 07:40:27 PM »
@ 1:38:30 of the film GasLand
"my backyard wasn't my backyard anymore, it belonged to everyone else to"

what??  ??? 

finished with the film and it left a dirty taste in my mouth

now, to look at who was backing this film and who is associated with it

Sierra Club, NEPA, Audubon Society, Sustainability this and that org which all use the consensus model of controlling dialog

this is Agenda 21 in full effect all the while delusional eco fascists who want your control of your backyard sell it as people friendly

both sides are part of the eugenics operation, another false left right paradigm in operation, what team are you wearing your foam number one finger in support of?

Oh yeah, I forgot...

Do not watch the last 2 minutes of the movie...total NWO conditioning. The movie is not NWO, but it is being used to support the agenda as you say. However it is "too real". And the NWO cannot cope with anything that is "too real". Similar to the movie "The Soviet Story". The backers of the movie were on the right side of the aidsle, but the movie was "too real".

"Use their weapons against them." -Sun Tzu
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,939
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2010, 08:32:33 PM »
Oh yeah, I forgot...

Do not watch the last 2 minutes of the movie...total NWO conditioning. The movie is not NWO, but it is being used to support the agenda as you say. However it is "too real". And the NWO cannot cope with anything that is "too real". Similar to the movie "The Soviet Story". The backers of the movie were on the right side of the aidsle, but the movie was "too real".

"Use their weapons against them." -Sun Tzu

Yes, they give the NWO pitch at the end: also, I think, why this film is getting so much press.
What I zeroed in on was the fact that the use of fracking is contaminating the ground water, and contaminating the air around these wells. And these wells are being dug in peoples' back yards. And the companies have no liability: you are on your own, and too bad for you.

So they are pushing it for the 'green' agenda.

And the same people who are behind the green agenda are the people behind Halliburton, having created the problem to begin with.
But I'm left with the images of the people affected by this; of the animals losing their hair - and with the almost certain knowledge that some day down the road, these people with serious health issues as a result. This is not a documentary about bullshit global warming 'effects' (no Al Gore inconvenience here); it's the real result of corrupt government/corporate fascists and their 'f*ck the people' policies.
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
  • SHOW HOST WANTED!
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2010, 10:20:06 PM »
Documentary Shows Water That Burns, Toxic Effects Of Natural Gas Drilling (VIDEO) http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/g-a-s-l-a-n-d
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!
http://12160.info/

RADIO HOST WANTED!!! 
Trolls R People 2

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2010, 02:27:57 PM »
Chatham House/RIIA is against Shale Oil/Gas

The 'Shale Gas Revolution': Hype and Reality
Chatham House Report
Paul Stevens, September 2010

The 'shale gas revolution' - responsible for a huge increase in unconventional gas production in the US over the last couple of years - is creating huge investor uncertainties for international gas markets and renewables and could result in serious gas shortages in 10 years time.
This report casts serious doubt over industry confidence in the 'revolution', questioning whether it can spread beyond the US, or indeed be maintained within it, as environmental concerns, high depletion rates and the fear that US circumstances may be impossible to replicate elsewhere, come to the fore.
Investor uncertainty will reduce investment in future gas supplies to lower levels than would have happened had the 'shale gas revolution' not hit the headlines. While the markets will eventually solve this problem, rising gas demand and the long lead-in-times on most gas projects are likely to inflict high prices on consumers in the medium term.
The uncertainties created by the 'shale gas revolution' are also likely to compound existing investor uncertainty in renewables for power generation in the aftermath of Copenhagen. The serious possibility of cheap, relatively clean gas may threaten investment in more expensive lower carbon technologies.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/947/

Offline OpticalOut22

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #33 on: November 10, 2010, 04:24:02 PM »
I remember watching something about this on PBS not too long ago.  Very interesting how the people are being put at fault for the oil companies problem.
Exactly How to Build a 72 Hour Kit And Seriously Prepare For The Worst...

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2010, 02:18:49 AM »
Bumping this because some other thread had me look for it, but then I lost the original thread! Aaaargh. For some reason, Gasland relates to something posted today so frack away.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline infowarrior_039

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • explosions in the sky
    • Truth Archive
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2010, 02:25:21 AM »
you know its bad when you can light your tap water on fire.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2010, 02:39:54 AM »
you know its bad when you can light your tap water on fire.

It's definitely one of the indicators!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline apple123

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2010, 09:07:37 PM »
I think,,this information is good

Offline mstruble

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: New film Gasland needs to go MEGA-VIRAL
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2011, 09:47:54 AM »
How the NWO is destroying us:  http://wildpackoffamilydogs.blogspot.com/

worcesteradam

  • Guest