Grim News on the Oil Front!

[TylerDurden]

edit: moved to below.

 

[DrkAngel]

USA

Gasoline prices were $3/gallon in December. 4 months later, (April), price is reaching $4.50, a 50% increase.
Projections are now for $6/gallon, by the end of Summer. A 100% increase in 2/3 of a year. Which suggests a 150% gas price increase for 2011! ........ ($7.50/gallon, by December???)

I've built many eBikes, I guess it's time for my eCar conversion.

Vehicle priorities include:

Small size
Manual steering
Manual brakes
Transverse mounted engine

Component priorities include:

Permanent magnet motor, as opposed to induction motor (heavier and less powerful, but more efficient)
Recycled batteries, (Li-ion, from notebook batteries are becoming readily available)
Homemade Battery Packs

Also, new cells are becoming increasingly affordable:
18650 Li-ion at $145 per KiloWatt Hour!

Will begin with limited range and add, as recycled cells become available.
Hybridization, a definite possibility!

eCar Hybridization

As gasoline prices continue to increase, and people can no longer afford to run their vehicles, the demand for limited range delivery vehicles should skyrocket. Food - grocery deliveries, could top-off their charge between every, 5 - 10 mile?, in town, delivery.

 

[TylerDurden]

I've built many eBikes, I guess it's time for my eCar conversion.

Vehicle priorities include:

Small size
Manual steering
Manual brakes
Transverse mounted engine

Component priorities include:

Permanent magnet motor, as opposed to induction motor (heavier and less powerful, but more efficient)
Recycled batteries, (Li-ion, from notebook batteries are becoming readily available)
Homemade Battery Packs

Also, new cells are becoming increasingly affordable:
18650 Li-ion at $145 per KiloWatt Hour!

Will begin with limited range and add, as recycled cells become available.
Hybridization, a definite possibility!

eCar Hybridization.

I suggest LiFePo4 or LiMn from toolpacks: abundant and a bit safer.

A new paradigm of modular, scalable power would be nice: Add as many little motors as you need... add more when desired.

 

[dnmun]

the big unknown is war between iran and saudi and iraq in civil war at the same time.

some of us recognize that the saudis have decided not to continue overproducing to maintain the discount that was available to the US, it now goes to china, and they need a strong price of oil to balance their domestci budget because they have huge new guvment payments to the population that is poorest and most likely to rebel, the shia.

fiat is expected to increase their position in chrysler over 51% when they introduce a car here using fiat technology that gets 40mpg. that should be easy for them, and they are essentially gonna be one company now. in the future anyway. i expect fiat/chrysler to actually take a leading position in CNG for heavy vehicles and their RAM brand trucks too, and in diesel hybrids around 2400lbs to help balance the lineup to the new himilage standards. that will push their top mpg lineup far ahead of where chrysler could have gone with the old union and management. time will tell.

i expect $5.23 in major markets by sept.

 

[Kingfish]

i expect $5.23 in major markets by sept.

Closing in the the price of smokes :wink:
Just as harmful too.

TGI don't spend a nickel on the stuff anymore.
Lurking for a Pepsi machine, KF

 

[wineboyrider]

TGI don't spend a nickel on the stuff anymore.
Lurking for a Pepsi machine, KF

When I get my meanwells I'll be looking for a Pepsi machine too. LOL. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[dnmun]

wow whatta lotta uninformed crap about hydraulic fracturing. too bad you cannot overcome your bigoted views, ignorance does not cure anything. people have been fracking wells for 40 years. at least it is up to the property owners and not the tourists to decide what they do with their own property.

IMF predicts 60% climb in price this year: http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=3054

 

[Lock]

wow whatta lotta uninformed crap about hydraulic fracturing.

Ya got my vote for Official Fracking Spokesperson.

The air I breath comes from the Ohio valley... am I only a "tourist" to decisions made there about coal power generators? EVerytime I flush my toilet, the outflow becomes drinking water for my neighbours in Rochester. Are they only "tourists" to the decisions we make about treating our effluence? Should we step aside as "tourists" and let the Ukraine deal with Chernobyl on their own? The best neighbours I know try and help one another...

Lock

 

[dnmun]

you don't help anyone by remaining so ignorant and under the influence of this mass hysteria about hydraulic fracturing.

there is no, i repeat no, proven contamination of drinking water by fracturing the shale layers to produce gas and oil from them.

I REPEAT!!!!

NONE!!!!

popular movies are not fact. grow up and study it so you know something truthful, and quit insulting the people who do know and the guys who have to do it for a living.

 

[TylerDurden]

Pa. official: End nears for wastewater releases

By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press – Mon Apr 25, 2:41 am ET
Pennsylvania's top environmental regulator says he is confident that the natural gas industry is just weeks away from ending one of its more troubling environmental practices: the discharge of vast amounts of polluted brine into rivers used for drinking water.

On Tuesday, the state's new Republican administration called on drillers to stop using riverside treatment plants to get rid of the millions of barrels of ultra-salty, chemically tainted wastewater that gush annually from gas wells.

As drillers have swarmed Pennsylvania's rich Marcellus Shale gas fields, the industry's use and handling of water has been a subject of intense scrutiny.
The state's request was made after some researchers presented evidence that the discharges were altering river chemistry in a way that had the potential to affect drinking water.
For years, the gas industry has bristled and resisted when its environmental practices have been criticized.
But last week, it abruptly took a different tone.
Even before the initiative to end river discharges was announced publicly, it had received the support of drillers. By Wednesday evening, a leading industry group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, had announced that its members were committed to halting the practice by the state's stated goal of May 19.
"Basically, I see this as a huge success story," said Michael Krancer, acting secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection. "This will be a vestige of the past very quickly."
After May 19, almost all drillers will either be sending the waste to deep disposal wells — mostly in Ohio — or recycling it in new well projects, he said.
While the movement to end the wastewater discharges followed years of environmentalists' criticism, the most influential push may have come from within the industry itself.
Among major gas-producing states, Pennsylvania is the only one that allowed the bulk of its well brine to be treated and dumped in rivers and streams. Other states required it to be injected into deep underground shafts.
Publicly, the industry — and the state — argued that the river discharges were harmless to humans and wildlife.
Just months ago, the industry was actively opposing new state regulations intended to protect streams from the brine, saying fears about the river discharges were overblown.
But simultaneously, some companies were concerned.
John Hanger, Krancer's predecessor as Pennsylvania's environmental secretary, said that as early as 2008 he had been approached by two of the state's most active drillers — Range Resources, of Fort Worth, Texas, and Atlas Energy, now a subsidiary of Chevron, warning that the state's permissive rules had left rivers and streams at risk from the salty dissolved solids, particularly bromides, present in produced well water.
"They came to me and said, if this rule doesn't change, there could be enormous amounts of wastewater high in (total dissolved solids) pouring into the rivers," Hanger said.
Almost since then, the companies have been working on alternative disposal methods.
"We never thought that it was a good practice to begin with," said Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella.
For months, drillers have been introducing technology that returns brine to deep wells, rather than discarding it as waste. By the end of last year, this reuse was being considered by most big drillers as the industry's future.
Efforts to curtail the waste flow accelerated, though, after a series of critical media reports, increased pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, and new research that raised questions about whether drinking water was being compromised.
After reviewing that research, Range Resources began lobbying other drillers to confront the problem once and for all, and to do it publicly, Pitzarella said.
"I don't think that it's a stretch to say that the traditional way this industry has operated isn't going to work in the long run," he said. "We aren't going to fly beneath the radar, nor should we. And when we don't talk about these issues, someone else does."
The water that flows from active wells is often contaminated with traces of chemicals injected into the wells during a drilling procedure called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which breaks up the shale and frees natural gas. The flowback water also brings back from underground such naturally existing contaminants as barium, strontium, and radium.
Worries about the contaminants took on added urgency after the Monongahela River, a western Pennsylvania waterway that serves as a major source of drinking water for Pittsburgh and communities to its south, became so salty in 2008 that people began complaining about the taste.
The Department of Environmental Protection responded by curtailing the amount of wastewater sent to plants on the Monongahela. It also wrote new rules barring wastewater treatment plants from accepting more drilling wastewater than already permitted unless they were capable of turning out effluent with salt levels that met drinking water standards.
Those rules, though, left most of the existing wastewater treatment plants alone, and between 15 and 27 continued to pump out millions of gallons of water that scientists said was still high in some pollutants.
Over the past year and a half, a handful of researchers, including Jeanne VanBriesen, a professor of civil engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, and Stanley States, director of water quality at the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, have been collecting evidence on an increase in bromide in rivers that were being used for gas wastewater disposal.
By itself, bromide is harmless, but when combined with the chlorine used to sanitize drinking water supplies, it can produce substances called trihalomethanes that have been linked in some studies to increased human cancer rates after years of exposure or consumption.
The industry has, until now, expressed mostly skepticism about any possible link between drilling waste and water quality problems.
When The Associated Press reported in January that some drinking water systems close to gas wastewater treatment plants had struggled to meet EPA standards for trihalomethanes, the article was written off by industry groups as irresponsible, as was a similar report by The New York Times in February that focused on the presence of radium in drilling waste.
But in recent weeks, Range Resources arranged for VanBriesen and States to present some of their preliminary findings on bromide to a gathering of industry representatives.
VanBriesen said she cautioned that her own findings didn't necessarily point the finger decisively at natural gas waste as the main culprit behind rising bromide levels.
Only one of the waterways where she documented high bromide levels, the South Fork Tenmile Creek, even has a gas wastewater plant. It is equally possible, she said, that the majority of the pollution is being caused by wastewater discharges from coal-fired power plants.
"There are lots of power plants, and only a few brine treatment facilities," she noted.
Still, her presentations had an impact, she said.
"I think what you are seeing is a realization that the problem isn't going away," VanBriesen said. "I'm not pushing the panic button ... but it's a directional change that you don't want to continue."

Marcellus Shale Coalition President Kathryn Klaber said that after reviewing those findings, her group now believes the industry is partly responsible for the rising bromide levels.

In her letter to Krancer on Wednesday, she promised that the industry was taking action, but also encouraged state officials to evaluate whether other "sources" were contributing to the problem.
Krancer promised that evaluation would indeed happen, but he said he believed the gas industry's actions would lead to immediate improvements in river bromide levels.
"The proof will be in the pudding," he said.
He added that advances in recycling technology had positioned the industry to wean itself from treatment plants that do river discharges.
Recycling wastewater also makes business sense. It saves companies the expense of purchasing vast amounts of clean water to use in hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves injecting fluid deep underground at high pressure to shatter shale beds and free trapped gas.
It also brings substantial public relations benefits.
Gas companies can only drill if they can persuade landowners to lease their rights to the shale, buried deep beneath their properties. And people who think the drilling is going to contaminate their water supply are reluctant to lease.
"More than being a public health issue, it is a public trust issue," Pitzarella said.
Whether the action will lessen overall criticism of the industry, and the practice of hydraulic fracturing, is unknown.
Environmentalists continue to have concerns that methane gas loosed by the process can migrate into aquifers underground and get into people's water wells and homes. There have also been instances in which the high volumes of chemically tainted water injected into the ground during the fracturing process have escaped into the environment.
Last week, an equipment failure in a wellhead connection caused a blowout at a Chesapeake Energy Corp. well in Bradford County, resulting in a spill of several thousands of gallons of tainted water into a farm fields and streams.
Krancer said he didn't believe the industry, overall, was environmentally hazardous.
"I continue to believe that fracking is safe," he said.
___
Associated Press writer Marc Levy contributed to this report.

 

[dnmun]

again i repeat, the fracturing did not cause contamination of the drinking water.

disposal of the recovered fluids into the river through the treatment plants is different from the argument all you guys make that the fracturing process is contaminating the aquifers that drinking water is taken from.

again more distortions which are sufficient for soft minds, but do not prove anything.

hydraulic fracturing does not and has not contaminated the underground aquifers, no matter how much you guys think you can twist something to fit your preconceived responses.

 

[DrkAngel]

again i repeat, the fracturing did not cause contamination of the drinking water. ...

I debated with myself on whether or not, to offer my response. Finally, I decided to say that:

I'm sure there are hundreds, probably thousands, of, independent owners of, Fracking altered, wells, willing to send you water samples, and daring you to drink.

 

[Lock]

...again more distortions which are sufficient for soft minds, but do not prove anything.

Yes, for any real proof we need to wait for stuff like funny-looking Thalidomide babies...

How long do YOU think we should wait? Below watt threshold is it positive to pump poisons into our environment? Do insurance actuaries provide the only "real" context? In this "new age" is there nothing we can learn from the past?
Lock

 

[dnmun]

so ignorant. no toxins were dumped into the environment. none at all. the only thing the state can fine CHK on over the braddock blowout is that they said they did not notify them for 12 hours, and that they did not have response for 12 hours, which was a lie, since CHK had a team on site and dealing with the blowout in 30 minutes. no horrible toxins got into the drinking water or the creek adjacent. just water reflowed back up outa the well no oil or anything toxic.

like i said, you can study it and learn how it is done, no need to remain an ignorant stooge of the luddites who think they can intimidate others into thinking their way.

like i said, i am glad none of these decisions would ever be left to you because you do not own property with oil or gas to produce.

what is so hard about just reading the information available and educating yourself so you don't have to be ignorant? it is only your side that is creating lies and false distortions, as is clear from these two even more ignorant comments.

 

[DrkAngel]

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals
- Coalbed fracture treatments use anywhere from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of various stimulation and fracturing fluids, and from 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of proppant during the hydraulic fracturing of a single well.[6] Many fracturing fluids contain chemicals that can be toxic to humans and wildlife, and chemicals that are known to cause cancer. These include potentially toxic substances such as diesel fuel, which contains benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide.[7] Very small quantities of chemicals such as benzene, which causes cancer, are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water.

Hydraulic Fracturing 101

 

[dnmun]

more distortions. we are not talking about coal beds.

 

[DrkAngel]

"Chemical Constituents in Additives/Chemicals" used in Fracturing (New York State list)

(Extracted from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap5.pdf)
CAS Number↓ Chemical Constituent↓
2634-33-5 1,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one
95-63-6 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane
3452-07-1 1-eicosene
629-73-2 1-hexadecene
112-88-9 1-octadecene
1120-36-1 1-tetradecene
10222-01-2 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, a biocide
27776-21-2 2,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride
73003-80-2 2,2-Dobromomalonamide
15214-89-8 2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer
46830-22-2 2-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride
52-51-7 2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
111-76-2 2-Butoxy ethanol
1113-55-9 2-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)
104-76-7 2-Ethyl Hexanol
67-63-0 2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol
26062-79-3 2-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer
9003-03-6 2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt
25987-30-8 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate
71050-62-9 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)
66019-18-9 2-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite
107-19-7 2-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol
51229-78-8 3,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,
115-19-5 3-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol
127087-87-0 4-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol
64-19-7 Acetic acid
68442-62-6 Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine
108-24-7 Acetic Anhydride
67-64-1 Acetone
79-06-1 Acrylamide

Chemicals Used in the Hydraulic Fracturing Process in Pennsylvania
Prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Oil and Gas Management
Compiled from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) obtained from Inustry

Updated June 10, 2010
Chemical Product Name
2,2-Dibromo-3-Nitrilopropionamide Bio Clear 1000/Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200/BioRid20L/ EC6116A
2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one X-Cide 207
5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one X-Cide 207
Acetic Acid Fe-1A Acidizing Composition/ Packer Inhibitor
Acetic Anhydride Fe-1A Acidizing Composition
Acetylene GT&S Inc./ Airco
Alcohol Ethoxylated C12-16 NE-200
Alkyl benzene sulfonic acid Tetrolite AW0007/ FR-46
Ammonia (aqueous) FAW-5
Ammonium Bifluoride ABF 37%
Ammonium Persulfate AP Break
Ammonium Bisulfite Techni-Hib 604/ Fe OXCLEAR/ Packer Inhibitor
Ammonium chloride Salt Inhibitor
Ammonium Salt (alkylpolyether sulfate) Tetrolite AW0007
Amorphous silica TerraProp Plus/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
Benzoic Acid Benzoic Acid
Boric Acid BC-140/ Unilink 8.5
Boric Oxide XLW-32
Calcium Chloride Dowflake
Calcium Oxide Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar blend Unigel CMPHG
Choline Chloride Clay Treat-2C
Cinnamaldehyde ENVIROHIB 2001
Citric Acid Ferrotrol 300L/ IC-100L
Complex polyamine salt Clay Master-5C
Crystalline Silica: Cristobalite
Crystalline Silica: Quartz Silica Sand/ / Atlas PRC/ Best Sand/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
Cupric chloride dihydrate Ferrotrol 280L
Cured resin LiteProp 125
Cyclohexanes CS-2
Dazomet ICI-3240
Diethylene Glycol Scaletrol 720/ Scaletrol 7208

d-Limonene
MA-844W
Enzyme GBL-8X
EO-C7-9-iso-, C8 rich-alcohols NE-940/ NE-90
EO-C9-11-iso-, C10-rich alcohols NE-940/ NE-90
Ethoxylated Alcohol FRW-14/ SAS-2/ Flomax 50/ WFR-3B
Ethyl Acetate Castle Thrust
Ethyl Alcohol FAW-5/ Castle Shop Solv/ Dallas Morris
Ethylbenzene NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II
Ethylbenzene NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II
Ethylene Glycol ENVIROHIB 2001/ ICA-2/ LEB 10X/ Scaletrol
720/ Sceletrol 7208/ CC 300/ Clachek A/ Clachek
LP/ Ironsta II B/ NCL-100/ BC 140/ NCL-100/
Flomax 50/ NCL/ Scalehib 100/ Unihib O/ Unilink 8.5
Formic Acid ENVIROHIB 2001
Gluconic Acid Interstate ICA-2
Glutaraldehyde Alpha 114/Alpha 125/ ICI-150
Glycerol Bio Sealers
Glycol Ethers ENVIROHIB 2001/AMPHOAM 75/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II/ Unifoam/ WNE-342LN
Guar Gum PROGUM 19 GUAR PRODUCT/ Unigel 19XL/ Benchmark Polymer 3400/ WGA-15/ Unigel 5F
Hydrochloric Acid Hydrochloric Acid (HCL)/ TETRAClean 542/ Muriatic Acid
Hydrochloric Acid 3% – 35% Hydrochloric Acid 3% – 35%
Isopropanol AFS 30 Blend/ FAC-1W/ FAC-3W/ MA-844W/ NE-23/ NE-940/ Flomax 50/ Tetrolite AW0007/
FMW25 Foamer/ CS-2
Isopropyl Alcohol NFS-102/ WFT-9511/ LT-32/ AR-1/ Flomax 50/ NDL-100/ Unibac/ Uniflo II/ Uniflo/ Unihib O/
WNE-342LN
Methanol

AFS 30 Blend/ NE-200/ Activator Superset-W/ CI-14/ FAW-5/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W/ LT-32/ NE-940/
XLW-32/ Tetrolite AW0007/ FMW25 Foamer/ 40 HTL Corrosion Inhibitor/ NE 100/ HAI-OS Acid
Inhibitor/ Unibac/ NE-90/ Packer Inhibitor
Methyl Alcohol Clearbreak 400/ Super Surf/ Castle Shop Solv
Methyl Salicylate Bio Sealers
n-butanol AirFoam 311
Nitrilotriacetamide Salt Inhibitor
Phenolic Resin Atlas PRC
Polyethylene Glycol NE-940/ EC6116A/ NE-90
Polyethylene Glycol Mixture Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200
Polyoxylalkylene sulfate FMW25 Foamer
Polysaccharide Blend GW-3LDF
Potassium Carbonate BF-7L
Potassium Chloride Dowflake
Potassium Hydroxide B-9, pH Increase Buffer/ BXL-2
Propargyl Alcohol CI-14/ HAI-OS Acid Inhibitor
Propylene Glycol SAS-2/ WFR-3B
Silica S-8C, Sand, 100 mesh/ Montmorillnonite clay
Sodium Bicarbonate K-34
Sodium Bromide BioRid 20L
Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda/ ICI-3240/ BioRid B-71
Sodium Persulphate High Perm SW-LB
Sodium Xylene Sulfonate FAC-2/ FAC-3W
Sulfuric Acid Sulfuric Acid
Surfactants AFS-30/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W
Talc Adomite Aqua
Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate Magnacide 575 Microbiocide
Tetramethyl ammonium Chloride Clay Treat-3C
Trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride FAC-1W/ FAC-3W

Impressive lists of Toxic (poisons) and Carcinogenic (cancer causing) chemicals!

 

[wineboyrider]

Wonder what the list is for lithium battery production? I am sure it includes some toxic ones...?
Fear mongering doesn't persuade me, but science does...?

 

[Lock]

Wonder what the list is for lithium battery production? I am sure it includes some toxic ones...?

Probably... I was interested to see this claim from GBS:
http://www.gbsystem.com/index_en.asp

Zhejiang GBS Energy Co., Ltd. is a high-tech manufacturer who specializes in developing and manufacturing of LiFeMnPO4 power battery pack. Our company owns patented environmental friendly solvent binder (which replaces “PVDF”) and unique scalable battery cell design...

"PVDF" being Polyvinylidene Fluoride... One MSDS here:
http://www.yipengchem.com/msds_24937-79-9.htm

Caution:
Toxicity and hazard information unavailable.
Exercise due care.

Section 8. - - - - - - Exposure Controls/Personal Protection- - - - - -
Chemical safety goggles.
Compatible chemical-resistant gloves.
Niosh/msha-approved respirator.
Safety shower and eye bath.
Mechanical exhaust required.
Avoid inhalation.
Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing.
Avoid prolonged or repeated exposure.

Doesn't sound very pleasant...
LocK

 

[wineboyrider]

It's amazing to me how quoting a bunch of chemical compounds can scare the bejeezus out of some people.
There are compounds in wine that to the uninformed would sound like a toxic mix, but it is totally safe in moderation. 8) 8) 8) 8)

 

[Hillhater]

It's amazing to me how quoting a bunch of chemical compounds can scare the bejeezus out of some people.
There are compounds in wine that to the uninformed would sound like a toxic mix, but it is totally safe in moderation. 8) 8) 8) 8)

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1775

There is convincing evidence that alcohol use increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, bowel (in men) and breast (in women), and probable evidence that it increases the risk of bowel cancer (in women) and liver cancer. (Convincing and probable are the highest levels of evidence as determined by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research and denote that the relationship is causal or probably causal in nature).

 

[zombiess]

The sky is falling.

 

[wineboyrider]

It's amazing to me how quoting a bunch of chemical compounds can scare the bejeezus out of some people.
There are compounds in wine that to the uninformed would sound like a toxic mix, but it is totally safe in moderation. 8) 8) 8) 8)

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1775

There is convincing evidence that alcohol use increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, bowel (in men) and breast (in women), and probable evidence that it increases the risk of bowel cancer (in women) and liver cancer. (Convincing and probable are the highest levels of evidence as determined by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research and denote that the relationship is causal or probably causal in nature).

DRINK WINE DIE LATER! People who drink moderately live longer than tee totalers!
Even heavy drinkers live longer!http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html
I'll drink to that!
Alcohol is a carcinogen, but your supposed to drink it not bathe in it!
Lies, damn lies and statistics. Mark Twain.

 

[Lock]

http://delawareriverkeeper.org/act-now/urgent-details.aspx?Id=74

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) plans to vote on a water withdrawal application by XTO Energy (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil Corp.) for natural gas development in Broome and Delaware Counties, New York at their regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, May 11, 2011. They have set a public hearing on the application at the 1:30 pm meeting, West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company, 40 W. Upper Ferry Rd., West Trenton, N.J.

XTO Energy wants to take 0.25 million gallons of water per day from Oquaga Creek, a trout stream that flows to the West Branch of the Delaware River in Broome and Delaware Counties to develop gas wells they plan to drill there. The withdrawal site is on land owned by the Town of Sanford, which has given them access. There is no permit required by NY State; the DRBC provides the only review of this withdrawal.

Approval of this application is SO WRONG for many reasons including: wrong for the Oquaga Creek and the Delaware River; wrong because there is a moratorium on drilling in the Delaware River Watershed and on horizontal drilling/hydrofracking in New York; wrong because the public is shut out of the process...

Please ATTEND the DRBC May 11 Hearing, tell DRBC to hold a Hearing in the Broome County area andextend the public comment period to at least 60 days, and send a letter NOW to the DRBC by going to our website – we only have a few days!

How can the DRBC approve this water withdrawal during its gas drilling moratorium, while its draft gas rules are pending and while New York has a hold on its generic permit for hydraulically fractured-horizontally drilled gas wells while it completes its environmental review? How can they justify pushing this approval ahead when the rules could very well change how this application will be treated? XTO has no permits for gas wells and has not justified its need for any water, much less 250,000 gallons of water every day from this cold water stream. What’s the rush?

DRBC is ignoring the communities who will be most immediately affected by this withdrawal. There is no hearing scheduled in the Oquaga Creek area, in Broome or Delaware Counties where the water would be taken from and the wells would be drilled. Trout fishermen who love this creek and spend lots of time on it have no idea what’s coming. It takes 4 hours to get to West Trenton from Sanford, NY; it not reasonable to expect people to make this trip.

The only other DRBC approved water withdrawal for gas development had a 60+ day public comment period and a Public Hearing in the Upper Delaware last year, near the withdrawal location. One daytime Hearing in West Trenton with only 10 working days notice before a vote is cast deprives everyone, all 15 million of us who drink Delaware River water, of a way to meaningfully participate. We must demand fairness!

New York State is supposed to protect Oquaga Creek, a trout stream, by applying “special requirements to sustain waters that support these valuable and sensitive fisheries resources under NYSDEC Protection of Waters regulations” (DRBC Docket D-2010-022-1, XTO, p. 2). Where is this protection? How will this withdrawal affect the trout, benthic life, and water quality of this richly diverse creek and of the downstream West Branch and main stem Delaware that need the cold fresh flows of the Oquaga to support stream life and water supplies downstream? Neither New York nor the DRBC has analyzed this or supplied an answer. This is flat out wrong.

Speak out now to demand: No water withdrawal, a fair hearing and comment process for all those affected, and protection for the Oquaga Creek!

To sign up in advance to speak at the May 11 Hearing contact paula.schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us or phone Ms. Schmitt at 609-883-9500 ext. 224 and say you want to speak on the XTO proposed Docket.

Public comment can be submitted now by email or hard mail and verbal comment can be made at the Public Hearing. You can send the sample latter below with a click or write your own in the space provided. But please act now as the time is very short!

Draft of the submission from XTO here:
http://199.20.64.195/drbc/dockets/D-2010-022-1.pdf

For the period of record from 1941 to 1971, the lowest average, consecutive 7-day flow that would occur with a frequency or recurrence interval of one in ten years (7Q10) for
the 67.5 square mile drainage area at the Deposit gage is 1.7 cubic feet per second (cfs). The
proportional 7Q10 statistic for the 34.8 square mile drainage area at the withdrawal site is 0.9
cfs. The average daily flow (ADF) over the period of record from 1941 to 2008 is approximately
118.6 cfs at the Deposit gage and 61.1 cfs at the withdrawal site. The docket holder requested a minimum pass-by flow of 8 cfs or approximately nine times the calculated 7Q10 flow at the withdrawal site.

 

[Lock]

Bit of a new twist to drilling the shale:
Little aid for Pa. archaeological sites near wells
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/a...eological-sites-near-wells-1371086.php#page-1

"A bulldozer can destroy 9,000 years of history in 15 minutes,"