Gaswork: Documentary of the hazards of the oil and Gas industry

Gaswork https://vimeo.com/141045811

GASWORK: The Fight for CJ’s law is a powerful new short by filmmaker Josh Fox that investigates the dangerous working conditions in the oil and gas fields.When we hear politicians and gas companies extoll the virtues of fracking, jobs created by drilling is usually high on their list of talking points. But the jobs created by fracking are not the kind of quality jobs American workers deserve.They are extremely dangerous, exposing workers to chemicals whose long-term impacts on human health are yet unknown. In fact, the fatality rate of oil field jobs is seven times greater than the national average.In GASWORK, The Fight for C.J.'s Law, Josh Fox conducts an investigation into worker safety and chemical risk and has interviewed many workers who have been asked to clean drill sites, transport radioactive and carcinogenic chemicals, steam clean the inside of condensate tanks which contain harmful VOC’s, PAH’s and other chemicals and have been told to do so with no safety equipment.

Examples of complete disregard for workers safety reflect the attitude of the industry to environmental safety. The areas of Hancock, Wood, Lucas, and Fulton Counties are under the direct threat of the oil and gas industry. Timeline 21:10 talks about compressor station pollution. The Waterville compressor station at Moosman Dr. will pollute an area of a 5 mile radius. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R403JjaxnTs

No votes yet

Nobody cares since almost everyone greatly prefers to make use of the oil and gas that the industry produces at the prices it produces them at.

I know you don't care but this blog was not aimed at you. Many people catch this on a google search. I post this to update those people of the coming fracking, pipelines and compressor stations for Fulton, Wood, and Lucas Counties. Ohio Farm Buearu Energy Policy guy Dale Arnold predices 8 known pipelines in the near future with more to come later. He also says that in Hancock, Wood, Fulton Counties there will be a revist by frackers in the old oil patch from 100 years ago. This means if you own property in these areas you have a chance of a fracking well or pipeline in the near future. Since almost no one owns the mineral rights to this area they will receive either no compensation or very little while their property turns into a toxic industrial zone. Thanks for writing GZ!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

People generally don't live in close proximity to fracking wells, or energy wells in general. And those who do are generally poor Blacks or Whites. Hence, nobody cares about what you're talking about, and nobody who does care has any political power (like you).

Americans want and need the energy. That over-rides all other considerations. We've already allowed the Congress to exempt fracking from various clean-air and clean-water acts; and the Democrat Congress didn't stop those exemptions when they had the chance. Those prove my statements strongly.

I don't bother speaking on these topics just to have people like you claim or imply that I'm wrong. I've done my research and homework on these topics, and I'm just RIGHT.

Boy Mr Zero you sound like Donald Trump! Facts are Ohio is turning into a third world commodity producer. The Ohio government is bought and sold by Oil & Gas.
https://batchgeo.com/map/f92ae90c328f8349f5d341a809ded836
Frackers are coming to Northwest Ohio to revisit the old oil patch. Estimates of 50% of the oil are still in the ground. So anyone looking to buy in Wood, Hancock and Fulton Counties beware. Your little home in the country could become a industial nightmare!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Good! Fracking means jobs and Ohio can use more.

Fracking is safe and efficient and putting the US on a fast pace towards energy independence. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/congratulations-america-y...

All the US needs to do now is reduce it's reliance on coal through building new nuclear reactors.

MikeyA

Gaswork https://vimeo.com/141045811
\

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You're right MrIndependent.

They are union jobs through the Laborers International Union of North America.

So no I would not describe them as good jobs. That would also explain any safety issues.

MikeyA

Its obvious you didn't watch Gaswork. The documentary will educate.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Why do I need to? I've done independent research on fracking. I've seen both opinions and facts. What I've posted is all fact or current trends.

So why should I watch a documentary based on a director's view instead of facts?

What did I post that you take issue with? Please let me know and we can debate it independently on the merits of each of our facts. Through independent thinking and independent challenges both you and I become smarter on the subjects.

MikeyA


Here it is! In Wood County, south of Toledo.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Mr. Independent, you must remember that debating with MikeyA is a futile gesture. Buffoons cannot comprehend truth or reality.

I can provide multiple independent sources for all I have claimed. If you or Mr.Independent disagree you can post any other sources that would refute my claims.

Of course I don't think you will.

MikeyA

nm

Fracking is neither safe nor efficient. A fracked wellhead requires an unbelievable number of trucked in loads of water and chemicals. Hundreds of them. And if fracking was so safe, why was it exempted from our Congressional clean air and clean water acts? The EPA is specifically forbidden from knowing these chemical brews or testing them for their components. Finally, fracking by its very nature obviously raises the risk of contaminating nearby water tables.

Fracking is really a desperate move to wring out more oil from old exploited deposits. That's it. Don't dress it up as anything other than desperation. Like I said before, Americans need the energy and so they don't care about the costs of getting it. If the majority of the costs are environment, then by common American sentiments, that's OK.

Having said all that, I'm not against fracking. But I'm firmly against exempting it from the most basic laws we have that protect our air and water, and I'm militantly against exempting it from basic regulation that notified the public about the chemicals that are being injected into our ground layers.

ALL government regulations and the bureaucracies created to enforce such regulations?

Hmmm...maybe you're not a true libertarian, Chicken Little.

(ouch, double post)

I hardly ever discuss Libertarianism with Liberals since said Liberals are heavily indoctrinated about the issue to begin with. Libertarianism aims at minimal but functional government, and the minimalism terrifies Liberals, since it naturally means an end to their beloved, extensive welfare system.

Where exactly did you get the idea that Libertarianism means NO government, as implied or focused by "oppose ALL regulation"? You got that idea from Liberalism; note that Liberalism in practice is an ideology that's best described as "push emotional ideas into action until the brown uniforms are put on and then it's 100% Fascism".

The real idea of Libertarianism is to have limited government. A limited government still taxes, still regulates, and still enforces. I'm sure there's even a wiki page on it, which I can only assume you know, being one of those teacher creatures as you've previously claimed. So it's deuced odd that you don't seem to know what Libertarianism is. Well, not odd, more like expected, since you're such a militant (flaming and mouthy) Liberal. You know full well what Libertarianism is, but you don't dare let it become popular since your government gravy train would end.

Want to keep discussing this, Dale? I can see a bit more room in your mouth around the foot you had just jammed inside it. More than enough space for the other foot, methinks.

though you are an authority. Yet, you have no credentials, nor can you cite practical experience. I do NOT claim to be an expert on libertarianism. You do, even though your self-proclaimed expertise has no basis whatsoever.
Here is what Merriam-Webster states. I'll let the readers judge. "Libertarian: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government."
By this definition Chicken Little, you are not a true libertarian. You may call yourself anything you want. That doesn't mean that you're right.
You are just so emotional! And, you are so defensive!

BTW -- I won't state that I never look at Wikipedia entries, but since anyone may place anything on Wikipedia, I try to avoid using Wikipedia for citation purposes. I mean, someone who has neither educational credentials nor practical experience might put something on Wikipedia which their gut tells them is true, even if it has no basis in fact. Just like some folks do right here on good ol' Swamp Bubbles!

I've noticed that when you're losing an argument (which is fairly often) you devolve into squeaking outbursts about credentials. This is only because in the general public and out of an academic environment, you're like a fish out of the water... you can't just silence opposition using specious claims.

Once again, a citizen needs no credentials in order to know his culture and judge it thereby.

I trust I hardly need to mention this again, little man.

As for the dictionary definition, notice well that it implies the government still exists. What does the government do when it exists? It taxes, regulates and enforces. Hence there must be implied limits on "do and say what they want".

Really, Dale, you hold a college degree and yet you're unable to reach such a simple and logical conclusion? Oh wait, it's not about conclusions that follow from logic, with you it's all about ideology and social control via the cancer of Liberalism. You have a clear Communist agenda and will say anything in public to enact that agenda.

you state that you're right because you say you're right.

You're just so emotional, and so defensive, Chicken Little!

Sorry...double post

The Halliburton Loophole
https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/inadequate_regulation_of_...
Despite the widespread use of the practice, and the risks hydraulic fracturing poses to human health and safe drinking water supplies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") does not regulate the injection of fracturing fluids under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials -- unchecked -- directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. This exemption from the SDWA has become known as the "Halliburton loophole" because it is widely perceived to have come about as a result of the efforts of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. - See more at: https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/inadequate_regulation_of_...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

No it doesn't. This is a Yale study. Finds "no evidence" that fracking contaiminates drinking water. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/07/1511474112.abstract

The water in fracking is sent over 1000ft down. In the areas were we do use underground aquifers they are 100-200ft down. Fracking water does not come anywhere close to drinking water.

Contaminates in our drinking water are from surface level pollution according to the study. This is not the first study to show this.

MikeyA

Long-Awaited EPA Study Says Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-pollutes-drinking-water/
Page 2:
"The EPA notes in its executive summary that data used in its assessment of wells came from FracFocus, a publicly accessible website managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission where oil and gas production well operators may disclose information voluntarily or pursuant to state requirements about the ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing fluids at individual wells.
As a result of this limited and voluntary information provided by oil and gas companies for the EPA study, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, pointed out, “The study released today falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect and health and safety of the millions of American people affected by drilling and fracking for oil and gas. It is outrageous that the oil and gas industry refused to cooperate with the EPA on a single ‘prospective case study.’ This reveals the undue influence the industry has over the government and shows that the industry is afraid to allow careful monitoring of their operations.”
Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks, agrees. “Industry data and independent studies tell us that 1 – 6 percent of unconventional fracked wells fail immediately, meaning tens of thousands of failed wells litter our country,” she said. “Despite industry’s obstruction, EPA found that fracking pollutes water in a number of ways. That’s why industry didn’t cooperate. They know fracking is an inherently risky, dirty process that doesn’t bear close, independent examination.”

Also the industry has been quietly buying out affected properties. The lidigents are forced to sign non disclosure agreements. Its estimated that 15% of fracked wells will leak http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/study-points-to-well-leaks-not... .

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

in order to protect the super-rich. And, with The Donald, a billionaire, as the leader for the 2016 POTUS nomination. Is The Donald on his 3rd wife now? And he would like to date his own daughter? Great family values guy, The Donald!

Yep...the GOP -- Empty rhetoric: still the party of the super-rich; with moral hypocrisy to boot!
And with Mikey as a faithful cheerleader!

Please, I referenced the actual study. With the determination given by the actual scientists from Yale. Paul references ecowatch.com. Yeah that's not a biased source.

Here's factcheck on the EPA study. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/clearing-up-claims-on-epa-fracking-study/ Just to save you the time. Cases of contaimination are few (just as is noted in the study I cited) and contamination was from surface contamination not deep well injection (just as noted in the study I cited).

Affects on drinking supply were not answered by the EPA study as there was no comparable base-line study so there's no proof of surface spill affecting drinking water.

So why are you afraid of science Dale? I posted a scientific peer reviewed study. I would expect a learned man to take the word of experts over that of a political group.

MikeyA

At best, the scientific research is contradictory. I'll see your Yale study and raise you with one from Johns Hopkins: http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/21/fracking-premature-births/
BTW -- It took me about 3 minutes to find this study. You can find a scientific study in this area which says about anything you want it to say! Fracking may not be new, but the research into fracking is! Personally, I am NOT opposed to fracking per se, but I think that it's important to get ALL pertinent information out, and I don't trust the oil and natural gas companies to provide truthful information.
Look, Mikey. You and your fellow travelers do not trust government. I have my doubts as well. But, I do not trust giant corporations much more than I do not trust government. You see, the difference is, I have some, albeit very limited, control over government. I can elect other folks into positions of power. However, unless I become as rich as Carl Icahn, I will NEVER have ANY power to get ANY giant corporation to listen to my concerns. To me, THAT'S the basic difference between partisan Republicans and partisan Democrats. Partisan Republicans trust giant corporations more than they trust government; and partisan Democrats trust government more than they trust giant corporations.

As I stated, Mikey, you'll do whatever research is necessary to protect the super-rich.
You're a tool of the modern GOP, which uses empty rhetoric, but is still the political party of the super-rich!

As I pointed out with Paul's ecowatch article, your source is highly biased and misconstrue's the reports findings. The factcheck clearly displays that. Whereas my original source was not a biased reporter with an agenda but a group of learned scholars who conducted a scientific experiment. So no, nothing is contradictory, you're relying upon sources who are misconstruing the data and not relying on conclusions. I've already shown ecowatch's bias on this. Please don't cite them to me again, it's a waste of both of our time.

As for this study all it has proven is a correlation not causation.

A few years ago they came out with a study that said high heels cause UTIs. Again trying to draw a causation from a correlation but truth is there is a significant portion of women who wear high heels who engage in unclean activities. These are strippers and prostitutes. So they also have higher UTIs. It doesn't mean high heels cause UTIs.

There is also a correlation with eating oatmeal and cancer. People who eat oatmeal get cancer more. Does oatmeal cause cancer? Or.... do old people eat oatmeal AND old people get cancer?

So with this. Fracking generally occurs in rural areas or areas with significant industrial processes already going on. Women in rural areas have less access to doctors. Also people are less healthy the closer they live to industrial complexes. Seems highly plausible to me that it's just a correlation and NOT a causation.

MikeyA

Maybe you can be a Republican candidate some day, and get lots of super-PAC money!

Hey I've been involved with this subject for over a year now. The Yale study depends on the industry records that were incomplete. The Republicans have defunded the EPA to such a point where the agency allows for self inspection. Nothing is being ivestigated cause of funding problems. I'm telling you that poor landowners are no matcy to the Oil & Gas industry. You cannot sue and win when endless money can stonewall. Most of the agreve end up signing non disclosure agreements so the public has no record of how many properties are comtaminated.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The EPA is not nor has it been widely defunded.

The Administration runs the EPA. It's telling that the EPA caused a gigantic heavy metal spill which ACTUALLY affects drinking water and has no plan to clean it up or pay for it.

The fact that you cannot post a scientific study that shows drinking water affected is telling.

You rely on biased sources rather than science.

You engage in attacks rather than discussion.

By doing so you and Dale have given tacit agreement that I am correct and fracking is safe enough to be done effectively.

Maybe you should exhaust your efforts on things to actually help the environment.... like firing the head of the EPA!

MikeyA

Kasich: ‘All the above’ energy approach
http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2015/10/20/Kasich-All-the-above-energy...
Quote:
"He proposed working with Canada and Mexico to ensure that North America can meet its own energy needs, and part of that plan would be approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, a position that puts him at direct odds with Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton.
The pipeline would run through the central United States from Canada to Mexico.
“Energy freedom is a matter of national security,” Mr. Kasich said. “We don’t want wars when it’s all about energy when we can do what we need to do in America to be energy independent.”
He called for opening more federal lands to oil and natural gas exploration; research into cleaner coal, smart grid, battery, and other technologies; and letting states regulate hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” operations at home.
He said he would end the ban on exporting domestic oil and gas and would end President Obama’s proposed, stricter regulations on carbon emissions from coal and other fossil fuel power plants."

Here we again have a problem with Republicans not respecting private property rights. Jeb Bush and John Kasich think it alright to steal personal property by international corporations so they can profit by exploiting American energy to export markets. Fracking and their pipelines are an assault on our personal liberty. The only one who profits are the energy companies and their politicians.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Property owners don't necessarily own the mineral rights. This is no infringement up property owners.

MikeyA

Oops!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Oops!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Oops!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Oops!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND ORGANIZING MEETING
HUGE PIPELINES & COMPRESSOR STATIONS!
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 6:30 PM
WATERVILLE LUCAS COUNTY BRANCH LIBRARY
800 MICHIGAN AVENUE – WATERVILLE, OH
Sponsored by
NEIGHBORS AGAINST NEXUS & OHIOANS AGAINST PIPELINES FOR EXPORT (Facebook)
FRESHWATER ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (www.FWAP.org)
FOOD & WATER WATCH (www.FoodandWaterWatch.org)
OHIO COMMUNITY RIGHTS NETWORK (OHCommunityRights.org)

More information: Contact wewantcleanwater@gmail.com or Call (419) 450-7042

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The focus of companies is to make money by any means necessary even if it is unsafe or destroys the environment. There is a company right here in Ohio that claims its products make a more beautiful world, yet the company has a publicly known track record of violating environmental laws resulting in fish kills and the devastation of other wild life. When employees of the company warned them of the devastation that was being caused, they found ways to get rid of the employees rather than protect the public and the environment. Fortunately, the company got caught and paid the biggest fine in the history of the environmental program they had to comply with. The company blamed the environmental mishaps on a low level employee who they said was a renegade employee.

The focus of companies is to make money by any means necessary even if it is unsafe or destroys the environment. There is a company right here in Ohio that claims its products make a more beautiful world, yet the company has a publicly known track record of violating environmental laws resulting in fish kills and the devastation of other wild life. When employees of the company warned them of the devastation that was being caused, they found ways to get rid of the employees rather than protect the public and the environment. Fortunately, the company got caught and paid the biggest fine in the history of the environmental program they had to comply with. The company blamed the environmental mishaps on a low level employee who they said was a renegade employee.

Hey, Mr Not-So-Independent, let's talk about the "Halliburton loophole" shall we?

It was created by this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005

... allegedly due to Cheney's urging. And wouldn't you know, a certain Senator Barack Obama voted for it.

Well, on Jan 20th, 2009, that same Barack Obama took office as President of the United States of America. He had a Democrat-majority Congress, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

So... they must have overturned the soul-crushing evil of the "Halliburton loophole", right?

NOT ON YOUR LIFE. Sure, some representatives introduced this bill in June 2009:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracturing_Responsibility_and_Awareness_of...

Naturally with a real leader like Obama in the White House, and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, passing the FRAC Act must have happened, right?

NOT ON YOUR LIFE. So what were mister leader man Obama and his covey of Democrat majority-meisters in the Congress doing? I dunno, probably NOT thinking about clean air and clean water, and more thinking about things like protecting bankers against liability for their created 2008 banking/housing/automotive industrial disasters. Oh, and fucking over the young and middle class with their health care "reform" fetish.

So what do you say to that, Mr Not-So-Independent? Oh I forgot, you only post your cut-n-paste drivel; you never respond to challenges thereto. Silly me.

Dear American People of Leftist Persuasion:

If you want to have people vote for your side, BOTHER to provide actual leadership and performance and alternatives to the right wing.

Signed,
GuestZero

GZ turns it into a political quagmire I digress to this time tested quote: "I learned long ago, Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

The only "quagmire" here is where you're stuck, unable to defend your assertions.

The bill that couldn't even make its way through a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic President, didn't even change the way fracking fluids are generally handled by the EPA vis-a-vis the various acts that specify we should have clean air and water. The FRAC Act only specified DISCLOSING the chemical components of the fracking fluids.

Get it? The bill didn't overturn the "Halliburton loophole" to any meaningful degree, but even the tiny change it tried to make couldn't be accepted by the Democratic majority.

And the reason for that is clear: The pressing need for cheap energy is bipartisan.

So there's little actual point in talking about Cheney and the "Halliburton loophole", since the Democrats, any Democrats, would have ginned up such a loophole anyway for the fracking industry. Greed and need are driving this, not any idealistic desire for clean air and water.

Democrats are wholly deceitful. And that's why you Liberals are so strongly HATED.

If the Democrats were serious about keeping our drinking water clean they would have fired the EPA head. Not for the heavy metal spill in New Mexico but for the lack of response and cleanup plan.

MikeyA

My God Mikey you have no idea how our country works. Have a nice day! ast Week Tonight with John Oliver: North Dakota (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYusNNldesc

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Oasis Oil. And THAT is the issue! [See the John Oliver video.]
Once government is turned over to Republicans, fueled, literally in this case, by donations to campaigns from giant corporations, in this case mostly oil companies, donations which, BTW, can become personal income if not all spent on a campaign under North Dakota law, this is what you get. (Some might even call such "contributions" bribes.)

Once again, the main difference between partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans is that partisan Democrats distrust giant corporations more than they distrust government; while partisan Republicans distrust government more than they distrust giant corporations. The case of oil companies in North Dakota, at least, shows what usually happens when giant corporations get out of control. After all, Oasis Oil admits that, "Company is only interested in the results obtained." It's there; in writing; in a document carefully crafted by their own lawyers to protect them from all lawsuits. So what if someone dies every 6 weeks or so...collateral damage, right?

With a few notable exceptions, "Company is only interested in the results obtained," is their prayer to the lord of money, the false god, to which most corporate executives bow their heads and bend their knees. How can anyone call himself or herself a Christian and live by the code, "Company is only interested in the results obtained?" WWJD?

Actually I was told midway through my American Government course in college that I didn't need to come to class if I just finished the term paper because of my mastery on the subject. (I even taught him when teaching the line of succession he didn't know that the Secretary of State was not eligible to be President or VP). The professor also tried to get me to change to a political science major because of my knowledge on the subject. So, I think I do understand how our country works.

What I haven't done is search out citations that only support my opinion. As I've displayed your citations are highly biased and misrepresented. Look at the date I cited the Yale paper and look at the date I posted it here. I had already read articles on the study and it held my interest enough to look up the source document. Same thing with the ecowatch article it was easy to debunk.

You are so much on the wrong side of this issue that specifically debunking your claims was some of the easiest things I've ever done. I had literally JUST READ about the study. Dale's ecowatch article was even easier but solely because it was due to sloppy journalism.

Your sources are heavily biased, they reach poor judgements, and are just sloppy journalism. I can prove you wrong and not even break a sweat.

So now I'll give you some tips. Find a better source. Also, know what your opposition is saying so you can counter it preemptively. Place no trust in a writer. Look for bias buzzwords.

MikeyA

plenty of corporate money to support you!
Please keep protecting the giant corporations, Mikey. They rely upon people like you to front for them! After all, they need your help. They're so vulnerable in these times of government interference with their corporate goal of, "Company is only interested in results obtained." Their words!!
What's a death every 6 weeks or so anyway. That's documented, too, Mikey!

And, I'm SO IMPRESSED with your knowledge of government! WOW! Well, at least one Political Science instructor was, in a beginning American Government course! That instructor must have been a superstar in that department, getting to teach such an advanced course and all. [Was it really a "professor?" Or are you so naive that you believe every college instructor is a "professor?" More and more colleges are placing fewer and fewer instructors on a tenured, professorial, track. They are using more and more "adjunct faculty." I would qualify for such a position, since I do have a degree in Political Science.] No wonder. (S)he sounds quite knowledgeable, especially since (s)he didn't know that someone who was a naturalized citizen could not become either the POTUS or VPOTUS under our constitution.
What a great reference for you! Thanks for the citation, Mikey!!

MikeyA, the world is flat.

It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that since you and the other liberals here are ignoring the scientific conclusions reached by scientists.

MikeyA

I've posted a blog called, "The Problem with WSPD 1370." In it I make note of our attempt to give voice to the opponents of the Nexus pipeline/compressor station. WSPD has been receiving ad revenue from American Petroleum Insitute and the Rover Pipeline promoting Oil & Gas projects. Sometimes they were running back-to-back radio spots. We called for equal time and have heard nothing. It appears the ClearChannel station only concerns itself over courting revenue dollars over the areas right-to-know.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

as Oasis Oil states in its very clear, legalistic fashion, "Company is only interested in results obtained." With a few notable exceptions, such a statement is true for most giant corporations, including those in the broadcast media.
Fairness? Truth? Deaths here and there? Ignore that!
It's all about money...duh!

Sorry...double post.

facepalm.jpg - these server hiccups are getting annoying

I feel fortunate that I won't be here when these greedy bastards totally destroy the environment.

Humans couldn't "totally destroy the environment" if they tried. Where you get these stupid ideas from? (Oh yeah, that's right: Liberal academic programming.)

Regardless of Human activity, the lords of our biosphere (bacteria) will keep right on truckin'. They react very quickly to environmental changes and are essentially immune to catastrophe. Lynn Margulis wasn't right about everything.

What you stupid Liberals mean is that the weather won't be so great for the Liberal elite who live on the world's coasts. Boo hoo. We guys in the flyover have been subserviently abused by the ruinous economy of the coastal Liberals for decades. If it's time for a little payback then we're not going to cry about it.

Hey Fred more money for WSPD! New pro-pipeline group forms in Ohio, Michigan http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/new-pro-pip...
Quote:
"A new Ohio-Michigan coalition of businesses, trade groups and labor unions is trying to show a federal agency that there is widespread public support for natural gas pipelines.
The new group is called the Coalition for the Expansion of Pipeline Infrastructure (CEPI).
Ohio members include the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Ohio Chemistry and Technology Council, the Ohio State Grange and the Ohio Hotel and Lodging Association.
Its formation comes at a time when two major pipelines to carry natural gas from Ohio’s Utica Shale to Michigan are seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The new coalition is an an effort to create additional “broad support” for both pipelines and other pipelines, said Charles Willoughby of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
Part of that new effort is show FERC that there is widespread support for new pipelines in Ohio and Michigan, he said."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You really want to kick that hornets nest?

Here I thought Paul had wised up.

MikeyA

Double post

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

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