2 votes

Oops! Reporter on scene of tanker accident parrots HAZMAT workers and leaks truth about 'radioactive' frack water spill!

So I guess frack water does really contain radioactivity?
Not just a conspiracy theory?

Video:
http://www.wtae.com/news/tanker-trucks-crash-on-route-18/255...
Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/tanker-trucks-crash-on-route-18/255...

Transcript excerpt: "...THEY'RE TESTING FOR RADIOACTIVITY AND PERFORMING AN OIL ANALYSIS. OFFICIALS SAY THERE'S NO THREAT TO THE DRINKING WATER, BUT THERE IS SOIL AND STREAM CONTAMINATION."

For the 'gashats'...

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Excerpt from page 26 of Range Resources' annual 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013:
http://www.rangeresources.com/rangeresources/files/6b/6b2a70...

"Our business is subject to operating hazards that could result in substantial losses or liabilities that may not be fully covered under our insurance policies.

Natural gas, NGLs and oil operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, pipe or cement failures, pipeline ruptures or spills, vandalism, pollution, releases of toxic gases, adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, and other environmental hazards and risks.

If any of these hazards occur, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of: injury or loss of life; severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment; pollution or other environmental damage; investigatory and cleanup responsibilities; regulatory investigations and penalties or lawsuits; suspension of operations; and repairs to resume operations.

We maintain insurance against many, but not all, potential losses or liabilities arising from our operations in accordance with what we believe are customary industry practices and in amounts and at costs that we believe to be prudent and commercially practicable. Our insurance includes deductibles that must be met prior to recovery, as well as sub-limits and/or self-insurance. Additionally, our insurance is subject to exclusions and limitations. Our insurance does not cover every potential risk associated with our operations, including the potential loss of significant revenues. We can provide no assurance that our coverage will adequately protect us against liability from all potential consequences, damages and losses."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leftist crap.

Don't frack my mother.

http://youtu.be/I5s0yzqRHrA

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

This is the most frustrating part of trying to expose

the reality of fracking.
Being associated with leftist enviroweanies and the enviro terrorists.

I'm no tree hugger.

egapele's picture

Come on baby, light my fire

What? Me Worry? This is for the 'gasshats'.

Excerpt from page 26 of Range Resources' annual 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013:
http://www.rangeresources.com/rangeresources/files/6b/6b2a70...

"Our business is subject to operating hazards that could result in substantial losses or liabilities that may not be fully covered under our insurance policies.

Natural gas, NGLs and oil operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, pipe or cement failures, pipeline ruptures or spills, vandalism, pollution, releases of toxic gases, adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, and other environmental hazards and risks.

If any of these hazards occur, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of: injury or loss of life; severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment; pollution or other environmental damage; investigatory and cleanup responsibilities; regulatory investigations and penalties or lawsuits; suspension of operations; and repairs to resume operations.

We maintain insurance against many, but not all, potential losses or liabilities arising from our operations in accordance with what we believe are customary industry practices and in amounts and at costs that we believe to be prudent and commercially practicable. Our insurance includes deductibles that must be met prior to recovery, as well as sub-limits and/or self-insurance. Additionally, our insurance is subject to exclusions and limitations. Our insurance does not cover every potential risk associated with our operations, including the potential loss of significant revenues. We can provide no assurance that our coverage will adequately protect us against liability from all potential consequences, damages and losses."

what if fracking was a trojan horse ?

Q. what if destroying ground water for 1,000 years is the goal?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0932813887/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=...

Nice Work Barracuda

...Fracking is not as productive as many would lead us to believe.

And considering the risks associated with this, it simply is NOT a feasible "energy-solution".

You'd be surprised how many well-drillers, perhaps being out-of-work, that are floating this BS as safe, simply to attempt to cash-in on an environmental nightmare.....yeah, they're out there.

Some people have no principles.
They'll do anything for a buck...no better than whores.

Good to see a court case won by the good guys.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Breaking: $3 Million Jury Verdict in Texas


http://youtu.be/m_6klz1bwcY
Lisa’s presentation begins at the 3:30 mark of this video. Imagine having your dream home surrounded by gas drilling and fracking,
and then ending up with 19 chemicals in your body. When it’s your daughter in the bathroom with a nosebleed in the middle of the night everything comes sharply into focus.

Breaking: $3 Million Jury Verdict in Texas Fracking Nuisance Case
A jury in Dallas, TX today awarded $2.925 million to plaintiffs Bob and Lisa Parr, who sued Barnett shale fracking company Aruba Petroleum Inc. for intentionally causing a nuisance on the Parr's property which impacted their health and ruined their drinking water.

The jury returned its 5-1 verdict confirming that Aruba Petroleum “intentionally created a private nuisance” though its drilling, fracking and production activities at 21 gas wells near the Parrs' Wise County home over a three-year period between 2008-2011.

Plaintiffs attorneys claimed the case is “the first fracking verdict in U.S. history.”

The trial lasted two and a half weeks. Aruba Petroleum plans to appeal the verdict.

The pollution from natural gas production near the Parrs' Wise County home was so bad that they were forced to flee their 40-acre property for months at a time.
Parr - 11th Amended Petition.pdf
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Pa...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/22/breaking-3-million-jury...

Shale has elevated levels of radioactivity

Compared with surrounding sedimentary rocks. In fact it's one way to do borehole testing and find the location of the shale. That being said, the radio activity is pretty minor. This post is dumb. Fracking conspiracy??? You know we have fracked over a million wells in the USA by 100s of different companies. Do some research outside of activist websites please, that way you might not look as dumb

Everything you say is

industry propaganda and has been -- is being debunked everyday.
Half truths and lies.
Congratulations. You're a 'useful idiot'.

Misleading

Everything brought up from the Earth's crust is potentially radioactive, because the Earth's core is constantly producing radioactive material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturally_occurring_radioactive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
(wiki was the easiest thing to reference)

Southern Agrarian

:|

Frac-fluid is about as radioactive as orange juice.
If you sent Ginseng Tea down a borehole 14,000 feet then brought it back up in cuttings, it too would be radioactive.

Southern Agrarian

Genius

Frac-fluid and frack waste water are two different things.
Learn it.

The EIA is Seriously Exaggerating Shale Gas Production

The EIA is Seriously Exaggerating Shale Gas Production in its Drilling Productivity Report

The oil+gas industry spend MILLIONS on corporate PR...
So how do they manage to screw up this badly?

I got a hot tip on this one.

At first, I said NO WAY!
But it's true!!!!

John Krohn, formerly of Energy in Depth
is now Communications Manager at the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
(under Obama)

NO WAY!
WELL, THAT EXPLAINS A LOT:

Reference the recent report that EIA is overstating Shale Gas production by 34%
http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/2187917-the-eia-is-serio...
The EIA is Seriously Exaggerating Shale Gas Production in its Drilling Productivity Report
Posted Apr 21, 2014 by David Hughes

“Natural gas output from US' Marcellus edges closer to 15 Bcf/d: EIA” declared the headline in Platts that attracted my attention, since the latest data on the Marcellus shale gas play of PA and WV indicated production was less than 12 bcf/d. This headline was based on the latest issue of the EIA’s new monthly Drilling Productivity Report published April 14. Reading further, the article claimed that the Haynesville shale play “peaked at about 10 Bcf/d in 2012”, when in fact it had peaked at closer to 7 bcf/d in 2011. These errors are serious exaggerations of reality and bear further investigation, as the EIA Drilling Productivity Report is widely read and quoted in the media.

Fortunately the EIA also publishes independent production data by shale play in its Natural Gas Weekly Update. A check of production data for the Marcellus revealed that it was at 11.8 bcf/d in February and that the Haynesville had indeed peaked at 7.2 bcf/d in November 2011. These figures are also corroborated by Drillinginfo, a commercial database which is used by the EIA.

I didn't read the article,

I didn't read the article, but the first thing that comes to mind in relation to fracking & radiation is radon. Could that be what causes the radioactivity in fracking water?

...

It's a little more complicated than just

radon.

In different areas we have uranium deposits which are highly radioactive.

Pennsylvania is the mother load of shale gas and it's also a state where there are uranium mines.

In PA we are bringing 'hell' to the surface where living things are.

Energy company Cuadrilla has

Energy company Cuadrilla has withdrawn applications for permits to frack in Lancashire after issues with radioactive waste.

Fracking produces large volumes of water contaminated with low level naturally-occurring radiation.

The Environment Agency (EA) said it would not grant a radioactive substances permit until it was sure the water will be disposed of safely.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-25902272

Fracking linked to

Fracking linked to radioactive river water in Pa.
Has fracking contaminated water supplies? A Duke University study says its wastewater wasn't adequately treated before being released into a Pennsylvania river, causing elevated levels of radioactivity.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/02/frackin...