Fracking - A Libertarian's Wet Dream

[macdoc]

The usual whitewash
What don't you understand with benzene there is practically no safe level. Fucking don't read do you.
Hard rock mining tailings are not particularly toxic nor a watershed threat compared to this but the cost of restoring Sudbury was not cheap either.

That said the hard rock industry are hardly immune either

Hard Rock Mining Reform
The General Mining Law of 1872 promotes the development of western lands. The law waives royalties on extracted minerals and sells public land at between $2.50 and $5.00 per acre to mining corporations. This unfettered giveaway has left behind more than half a million abandoned hardrock mines that will cost taxpayers a conservatively-estimated $32 billion to clean up.

Over the last year, the public health impacts of fracking have gained increasing attention. Scientific American, June 2011, published an article titled “Science Lags as Health Problems Emerge Near Natural Gas Fields.” “In some communities it has been a disaster,” states Christopher Portier, director of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Center for Environmental Health. “

http://preventcancernow.ca/fracking-sha ... every-step

of course what does he know.....

The main points of the letter are excerpted below. Numbering was inserted by An Ounce.

1. Hydraulic fracturing introduces cancer risks from the start and into perpetuity. Cancer-causing chemicals are associated with all stages of the high-volume hydraulic fracturing process, from the production and use of fracking fluids, to the release of radioactive and other naturally hazardous materials from the shale, to transportation and drilling-related air pollution, to the disposal of contaminated wastewater. The potential for accidents during the injection and transportation of fracking chemicals concerns us deeply. And, as data from other states clearly demonstrate, the storage, treatment and disposal of the contaminated water can be a source of human exposure to chemical carcinogens and their precursors (Volz, 2011). In addition, the industrialization of the landscape and congestion of small communities with truck traffic impairs the safety and healthfulness of outdoor exercise. Regular exercise is an important, established risk reducer for many cancers, including breast cancer (Bernstein, 2009). Outdoor exercise is associated with a greater intent to continue the activity, along with other positive health indicators.

2. Fracking fluids contain carcinogens and cancer-promoting chemicals. More than 25% of the chemicals used in natural gas operations have been demonstrated to cause cancer or mutations (Colborn, Kwiatkowski, Schultz, & Bachran, 2011). Between 2005 and 2009, according to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, hydraulic fracturing companies used 95 products containing 13 different known and suspected carcinogens. These include naphthalene, benzene, and acrylamide (Committee Staff for Waxman, 2011). Thirty-seven percent of chemicals in fracking fluids have been identified as endocrine-disruptors. By definition, these substances have the power, at minute concentrations, to alter hormonal signaling pathways within the body. Many can place cells on the pathway to tumor formation. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals has been implicated in cancers of the breast, prostate, pituitary, testicle, and ovary (Birnbaum & Fenton, 2003; Soto & Sonnenschein, 2010). These exposures may alter gene expression in pregnancy and early life (Colborn, et al., 2011).

3. Fracking operations release from the earth radioactive substances, carcinogenic vapors, and toxic metals. The shale bedrock of New York State contains many highly carcinogenic substances that can be mobilized by drilling and fracturing. Among these are arsenic, chromium, benzene, uranium, radon, and radium (Bishop, 2011). Drill cuttings and flowback waste are typically contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive substances and cancer-causing metals, which would otherwise remain safely entombed underground. Flowback waste can contain up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226, this is more than 200 times higher than the discharge limit in effluent (60 pCi/L) and more than 3,000 times higher than the US EPA drinking water standard (5 pCi/L) (NYSDOH Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, 2009). Traditional water filtration cannot remove these contaminants. We are especially alarmed by the ongoing practice of burying radioactive drill cuttings on-site (Bishop, 2011) and of using radioactive production brine from (currently out-of-state) fracking operations on New York State roads, for purposes of dust control and de-icing (NYSDOH Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, 2009). This practice exposes unknown numbers of people, without their consent, to unknown amounts of a known human carcinogen.

There is much more
http://preventcancernow.ca/fracking-sha ... every-step

and people are scared of nukes....

[Warren Dew]

a) there is good reason that the industry invokes the "proprietary clause" and
b) you did not read the article did you?

start with benzene which is seriously toxic and ANY concentration and many others ...in fact 100s of others...

A New York Times report last year found a number of waste-water wells to be radioactive, and a House of Representatives study of the same year claimed that of 750 compounds used, 680 contained possible carcinogens.

Here is one test from one town

The community-funded test results, which detected twenty-six chemicals, also showed carbon disulfide, a neurotoxin at twice the state level for short-term exposure. Benzene, a known carcinogen, and Naphthalene, a suspected carcinogen, were both over state long-term exposure levels by more than 9 times and more than 7 times, respectively. Carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide and Pyridine were all detected above safe limits for long-term exposure.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/155 ... chemicals/

Now every bore hole is going to be different and the waste in the holding pits will simply get more concentrated for non-volatiles. Some regions are considering mandating metal tanks.
The risk of open holding pits is overflow into the local watershed when it rains.

It's not clear to me exactly where these samples were taken, but to be honest if the waste water pits are at levels less than 10 times that allowed for drinking water, that doesn't seem to me to be a big concern. Presumably no one is drinking the waste water directly, and any overflow when it rains will be highly diluted by the rain, as well as filtered through the soil.

[mistermack]

It's not clear to me exactly where these samples were taken, but to be honest if the waste water pits are at levels less than 10 times that allowed for drinking water, that doesn't seem to me to be a big concern. Presumably no one is drinking the waste water directly, and any overflow when it rains will be highly diluted by the rain, as well as filtered through the soil.

I absolutely agree. I was surprised how low those levels are. If you don't swim in it, or drink it, I can't see how levels this low can harm anything.
The recommended safety level have a margin of error built into them anyway. I doubt if my pee would be any less hazardous. Probably much worse.

[maiforpeace]

Do you pro-frackers honestly believe that pumping 596 different chemicals (many of which that are KNOWN carcinogens, in addition to some surfectants and lubricants) mixed with 1 to 7 million gallons of water, under enough pressure to essentially create a small earthquake that pulverizes solid bedrock 5000 ft underground is not going to have any negative effects?

Ooooh..."earthquakes!" Gives one visions of San Francisco in 1906...buildings collapsing, fires, mass destuction...

Utter horseshit. Where injection of fluids underground has been identified as the culprit in "earthquakes," they are virtually all tiny, harmless tremors that do no damage to homes on the surface.

And since the chemicals are being injected 5000 or more feet underground, as long as the cementing of the well is done properly, which is the goal of gas companies so that they can sell it, the chemicals are not a problem, and when the fracking fluid is extracted and properly disposed of it's still not a problem.

Are there "negative effects" from oil and gas drilling? Of course there are. But the question is whether or not the need for domestically produced energy outweighs the negative impacts. If you want to heat your house and have electricity, it's necessary to drill gas wells because the EPA has made it functionally impossible to build a new coal-fired powerplant in the US.

So, you can freeze in the dark, or you can put up with the short-term, temporary negative effects of gas well drilling and fracking, and the long term minor negative effects of having well heads in your area in return for cheap electricity and heating fuel. Take your pick because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

According to 21st Century Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, Underground Injection, Fracking, Hydrofrac, Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Production Controversy, Environmental and Safety Risks, Water Pollution the amount of natural gas that is estimated that can be extracted from known sources amounts to no more than enough natural gas to supply the needs of the US for one year. At the rate we consume fossil fuels, that’s just a drop in the bucket of what we need in terms of energy. I am all for finding alternative energy sources that reduce our dependence on oil. But why the urgency to drill it all now before we are certain all the environmental protections are in place? And why aren't they pursuing other alternate sources of energy with the same urgency? Because they aren’t nearly as profitable as extraction sourced fuels, and with minimal regulations in place currently they are even more profitable, so they better make hay while the sun shines.

The environmental whackos who made "Gasland" don't give a flying fuck about energy needs, they are brainless Luddites who would have us living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground with sharpened sticks for nourishment, so who cares what they have to say?

Well you don’t, that’s certainly clear. But I wouldn’t underestimate those Neanderthal, long haired, pine nut eating, barefoot heches yet . I am grateful to them for bringing fracking to the attention of the public. I have no problem with fracking if it's as safe as claimed, just prove to me that it’s being performed safely HERE IN THE US. If the claims of no harm are true, then full disclosure, transparency and a clean bill of health by the EPA should be a walk in the park. But apparently that's not the case. From the report are numerous citings of violations by Halliburton in regards to the use of diesel in fracking operations. They are also the one corporation unwilling to provide the key information needed to finish an important and comprehensive report on fracking. They have yet to respond to the subpoena served for that information, basically holding the whole enchilada up.

Do you know how many wells there already are, and at what alarming rate they are being drilled at?

Many, and not nearly fast enough. We need to exploit ALL of our available oil and gas reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources as a matter of national security and economic common sense.

Again, why the hurry, especially when these resources are actually quite limited?

Do you know that only half of the "cocktail" of chemicals and water pumped in is actually reclaimed for purification?

Did you know that the other half remains 5000 or more feet underground and is utterly harmless to shallow aquifers?

Not according to industry reports. There's enough migration of fracking fluid to aquifers to be of valid concern.

And, for the purification that occurs, there are little, if any measures in place should there flooding in areas where the percolation ponds exist?

Lie. Such facilities are closely regulated by the EPA against water quality violations. They are permitted and licensed by state governments and are required to have mitigation and protection plans. You're relying on information that is no longer valid for your argument. In the past, frac pits were simply buried and they did not have mandatory liners. Today, pits must have liners, the frac fluid must be recycled or properly disposed of, and the pit liners must be removed and disposed of and all contaminated soil remediated.

I was referring specifically to disaster situations, like for example, the flooding in New Orleans due to Katrina The fracking pollution ended up becoming part of the larger mix of the toxic soup that poisoned New Orleans in the aftermath but it was there and just made it ultra toxic.

But hey, the industry has copped to 6% leakage which was voluntary, and it sounds good and honest so here you go folks, here's a pig in a poke. We promise that the benefits realized will far outweigh the cons. What they failed to add at the end of that last sentence was FOR THE INDUSTRY.

How, exactly, do you think it's beneficial to the "industry" if it's not beneficial to consumers. "The industry" sells oil and gas to meet the needs of consumers for gasoline, oil products, heating fuel, tratnsportation fuel and electrical production. How the fuck do you expect all those demands to be met without oil and gas exploration and extraction?

Not bearing the true costs of production when they don't clean up properly after themselves and then that cost gets passed onto the public in immediate, and long term costs. As long as they are exempt from the same rules all other industries have to comply to, we have to just trust them? To be thorough, 100% honest and ethical? With their track record? Show me the full process, show me exhaustive reports of years of testing, and show me all the safety measures in place.

[macdoc]

Lie. Such facilities are closely regulated by the EPA against water quality violations.

[rainbow]

a) there is good reason that the industry invokes the "proprietary clause" and

What is this "good reason"?

b) you did not read the article did you?

I did. Where did they list the chemicals, and give the concentrations?

start with benzene which is seriously toxic and ANY concentration and many others ...in fact 100s of others...

OK, benzene. It is a natural chemical found in the air we breathe and the water we drink. It doesn't kill us because it is at a low concentration.

...to say that it is "seriously toxic and ANY concentration" is simply untrue.

Please if you wish to make a case against fracking, stick to the facts.

[Seth]

Do you pro-frackers honestly believe that pumping 596 different chemicals (many of which that are KNOWN carcinogens, in addition to some surfectants and lubricants) mixed with 1 to 7 million gallons of water, under enough pressure to essentially create a small earthquake that pulverizes solid bedrock 5000 ft underground is not going to have any negative effects?

Ooooh..."earthquakes!" Gives one visions of San Francisco in 1906...buildings collapsing, fires, mass destuction...

Utter horseshit. Where injection of fluids underground has been identified as the culprit in "earthquakes," they are virtually all tiny, harmless tremors that do no damage to homes on the surface.

And since the chemicals are being injected 5000 or more feet underground, as long as the cementing of the well is done properly, which is the goal of gas companies so that they can sell it, the chemicals are not a problem, and when the fracking fluid is extracted and properly disposed of it's still not a problem.

Are there "negative effects" from oil and gas drilling? Of course there are. But the question is whether or not the need for domestically produced energy outweighs the negative impacts. If you want to heat your house and have electricity, it's necessary to drill gas wells because the EPA has made it functionally impossible to build a new coal-fired powerplant in the US.

So, you can freeze in the dark, or you can put up with the short-term, temporary negative effects of gas well drilling and fracking, and the long term minor negative effects of having well heads in your area in return for cheap electricity and heating fuel. Take your pick because there's no such thing as a free lunch.

According to 21st Century Guide to Hydraulic Fracturing, Underground Injection, Fracking, Hydrofrac, Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Production Controversy, Environmental and Safety Risks, Water Pollution the amount of natural gas that is estimated that can be extracted from known sources amounts to no more than enough natural gas to supply the needs of the US for one year. At the rate we consume fossil fuels, that’s just a drop in the bucket of what we need in terms of energy. I am all for finding alternative energy sources that reduce our dependence on oil. But why the urgency to drill it all now before we are certain all the environmental protections are in place? And why aren't they pursuing other alternate sources of energy with the same urgency? Because they aren’t nearly as profitable as extraction sourced fuels, and with minimal regulations in place currently they are even more profitable, so they better make hay while the sun shines.

Bullshit propaganda. Do you have any idea what the break-even is on a single well? It's not one year, it's decades. No gas company is going to spend millions drilling a hole in the ground to get at one year's worth of gas.

As for "other alternative sources of energy"... well, the reason they aren't pursuing them is twofold: first, they are oil and gas exploration and extraction companies, and second THERE ARE NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES OTHER THAN NUCLEAR THAT CAN MEET THE DEMAND. Neither solar nor wind will EVER be able to economically replace fossil fuels for transportation fuel needs absent some miraculous breakthrough in both battery technology and vehicle design.

It's just that simple.

The environmental whackos who made "Gasland" don't give a flying fuck about energy needs, they are brainless Luddites who would have us living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground with sharpened sticks for nourishment, so who cares what they have to say?

Well you don’t, that’s certainly clear. But I wouldn’t underestimate those Neanderthal, long haired, pine nut eating, barefoot heches yet . I am grateful to them for bringing fracking to the attention of the public.

I don't either, except that they are a bunch of hysterical fucking liars.

I have no problem with fracking if it's as safe as claimed, just prove to me that it’s being performed safely HERE IN THE US.

Do the research and you'll figure out that the econut Luddites are lying through their teeth. They find one frack pit that's overflowed or been left behind and characterize it as an industry-wide enormous environmental threat when it's not. Like any industrial operation, accidents happen, people do bad things, and contamination occurs. Vigilance, good regulation and forcing industry to clean up after itself is all entirely reasonable and proper, but THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANT. They want the whole thing shut down not because it's a terrible blight but because they are AGW zealots and they don't want the gas extracted AT ALL, EVER, BY ANYONE. They are using this stalking horse of the pretend dangers of fracking as just another attempt to garner public support for banning the use of fossil fuel carbon-based energy resources.

If the claims of no harm are true, then full disclosure, transparency and a clean bill of health by the EPA should be a walk in the park. But apparently that's not the case. From the report are numerous citings of violations by Halliburton in regards to the use of diesel in fracking operations. They are also the one corporation unwilling to provide the key information needed to finish an important and comprehensive report on fracking. They have yet to respond to the subpoena served for that information, basically holding the whole enchilada up.

Well, it wasn't illegal to use diesel in a fracking compound before. And why should Halliburton participate in an "important and comprehensive report on fracking" that's detrimental to their industry?

Do you know how many wells there already are, and at what alarming rate they are being drilled at?

Many, and not nearly fast enough. We need to exploit ALL of our available oil and gas reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources as a matter of national security and economic common sense.

Again, why the hurry, especially when these resources are actually quite limited?

Because there's demand for the energy, of course. Oil and gas companies don't drill ten thousand foot deep holes in the ground for fun.

Do you know that only half of the "cocktail" of chemicals and water pumped in is actually reclaimed for purification?

Did you know that the other half remains 5000 or more feet underground and is utterly harmless to shallow aquifers?

Not according to industry reports. There's enough migration of fracking fluid to aquifers to be of valid concern.

Rolling Stone as a source of reliable information on fracking?

As I said, there has been only ONE EPA verified "migration of fracking fluid to aquifers." It occurred in Wyoming. And while it's a valid concern, it's not at this point a valid reason to shut down fracking, which is what the activists are demanding. This is about preventing extraction of carbon-based mineral resources and very little else.

And, for the purification that occurs, there are little, if any measures in place should there flooding in areas where the percolation ponds exist?

Lie. Such facilities are closely regulated by the EPA against water quality violations. They are permitted and licensed by state governments and are required to have mitigation and protection plans. You're relying on information that is no longer valid for your argument. In the past, frac pits were simply buried and they did not have mandatory liners. Today, pits must have liners, the frac fluid must be recycled or properly disposed of, and the pit liners must be removed and disposed of and all contaminated soil remediated.

I was referring specifically to disaster situations, like for example, the flooding in New Orleans due to Katrina The fracking pollution ended up becoming part of the larger mix of the toxic soup that poisoned New Orleans in the aftermath but it was there and just made it ultra toxic.

Who the fuck cares what happens to New Orleans? Live in a sewage basin below sea level, get covered with sewage. Note that the article you cite has a title that demonstrates the true intent of the anti-fracking zealots: preventing oil and gas extraction because it is a "bridge to more global warming." That's what this is actually about. It's a mountain made out of a molehill with a completely different and concealed agenda. They are fucking liars who are using propaganda to stir up the ignorant lumpen proletariat, nothing more.

But hey, the industry has copped to 6% leakage which was voluntary, and it sounds good and honest so here you go folks, here's a pig in a poke. We promise that the benefits realized will far outweigh the cons. What they failed to add at the end of that last sentence was FOR THE INDUSTRY.

How, exactly, do you think it's beneficial to the "industry" if it's not beneficial to consumers. "The industry" sells oil and gas to meet the needs of consumers for gasoline, oil products, heating fuel, tratnsportation fuel and electrical production. How the fuck do you expect all those demands to be met without oil and gas exploration and extraction?

Not bearing the true costs of production when they don't clean up properly after themselves and then that cost gets passed onto the public in immediate, and long term costs. As long as they are exempt from the same rules all other industries have to comply to, we have to just trust them? To be thorough, 100% honest and ethical? With their track record? Show me the full process, show me exhaustive reports of years of testing, and show me all the safety measures in place.

It's none of your business. If they pollute something, THEN you can get them fined. But their business practices are "private papers" and are protected by the Constitution just like yours are.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't you go to college and become a petroleum engineer with a master's degree and go to work for the oil and gas industry for a couple of decades to research how they do stuff and THEN you can comment upon it with authority.

We need the energy. The regulatory burden is already so large that entire segments of the industry find it uneconomical to proceed. A good friend of mine who works welding pipe for a gas contractor just got laid off because the field he was working has been shut down. Regulatory compliance has a lot to do with whether or not the gas can be economically extracted. The more regulatory burdens you impose, the less profitable it is, and the less likely it is that the energy will be available when YOU need it.

Oil and gas exploration are speculative. It takes YEARS to drill and produce from a field, and hundreds of millions or billions in long-term investment in the costs of getting at and then producing the oil. Obama's eco-zealot shutdown of the Gulf drilling will cost Americans billions in unnecessary fuel costs because many of the rigs that were shut down were moved to places like Venezuela, where they are drilling in water twice as deep as the Gulf, using OUR TAX MONEY given to them by Obama, for the benefit of Petrobras, George Soros, and Venezuela, not the people of the United States.

It will be many years before those rigs come back to drill OUR oil and gas, and we'll pay the price with higher gas and oil prices for energy imported from the fucking communists of Venezuela. And that's exactly what Obama wants... to shut down US domestic production and beggar our economy so as to bring us in line with his socialist/progressive agenda for one-world government.

Fuck that. I'd rather have frack fluid in a few wells. We can always have the gas companies put in potable domestic water systems for those affected.

[maiforpeace]

a) there is good reason that the industry invokes the "proprietary clause" and

What is this "good reason"?

b) you did not read the article did you?

I did. Where did they list the chemicals, and give the concentrations?

start with benzene which is seriously toxic and ANY concentration and many others ...in fact 100s of others...

OK, benzene. It is a natural chemical found in the air we breathe and the water we drink. It doesn't kill us because it is at a low concentration.

...to say that it is "seriously toxic and ANY concentration" is simply untrue.

Please if you wish to make a case against fracking, stick to the facts.

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

[maiforpeace]

I don't either, except that they are a bunch of hysterical fucking liars.

...Ooooh..."earthquakes!" Gives one visions of San Francisco in 1906...buildings collapsing, fires, mass destuction...

...Utter horseshit.

...Bullshit propaganda.

...The environmental whackos who made "Gasland" don't give a flying fuck about energy needs, they are brainless Luddites who would have us living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground with sharpened sticks for nourishment, so who cares what they have to say?

...the econut Luddites are lying through their teeth.

...We need to exploit ALL of our available oil and gas reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources as a matter of national security and economic common sense.

...Lie.

...Who the fuck cares what happens to New Orleans?

...They are fucking liars who are using propaganda to stir up the ignorant lumpen proletariat, nothing more.

I could go on, that was only a portion of your one post.

Seth, Seth, Seth.

[Seth]

I don't either, except that they are a bunch of hysterical fucking liars.

...Ooooh..."earthquakes!" Gives one visions of San Francisco in 1906...buildings collapsing, fires, mass destuction...

...Utter horseshit.

...Bullshit propaganda.

...The environmental whackos who made "Gasland" don't give a flying fuck about energy needs, they are brainless Luddites who would have us living in wattle-and-daub huts and grubbing in the ground with sharpened sticks for nourishment, so who cares what they have to say?

...the econut Luddites are lying through their teeth.

...We need to exploit ALL of our available oil and gas reserves and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources as a matter of national security and economic common sense.

...Lie.

...Who the fuck cares what happens to New Orleans?

...They are fucking liars who are using propaganda to stir up the ignorant lumpen proletariat, nothing more.

I could go on, that was only a portion of your one post.

Seth, Seth, Seth.

Meh. A bunch of Chicken Littles running around screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING."

Compared to the benefits of increasing domestic oil and gas production to meet our energy needs and reducing our reliance on foreign oil all the actual, verifiable (and small amount of) damage from fracking falls under the definition of "acceptable casualties."

Good industrial practice is necessary, should be mandatory, and fines for violations should be heavy, but fracking can, should, and will go on because we need the resources more than we need to listen to hysterics spouting propaganda and trying to scare the credulous lumpen proletariat.

[maiforpeace]

Seth where did I say fracking should be stopped entirely?

But you certainly made a point about the hysterical types - in this case the ones who engage in insulting, and fear mongering to make a point, all the while providing zero sources for backing up their claims. Ah, the irony.

[rainbow]

a) there is good reason that the industry invokes the "proprietary clause" and

What is this "good reason"?

b) you did not read the article did you?

I did. Where did they list the chemicals, and give the concentrations?

start with benzene which is seriously toxic and ANY concentration and many others ...in fact 100s of others...

OK, benzene. It is a natural chemical found in the air we breathe and the water we drink. It doesn't kill us because it is at a low concentration.

...to say that it is "seriously toxic and ANY concentration" is simply untrue.

Please if you wish to make a case against fracking, stick to the facts.

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

Thanks, mail.

The link doesn't however give any idea of concentration.
It is interesting that most of the mixtures do not contain any benzene at all.

[maiforpeace]

Thanks, mail.

The link doesn't however give any idea of concentration.
It is interesting that most of the mixtures do not contain any benzene at all.

It's "Mai" not "Mail".

You aren't the first person who saw an "L" there when there isn't one. If it wasn't my real name, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

[rainbow]

It's "Mai" not "Mail".

You aren't the first person who saw an "L" there when there isn't one. If it wasn't my real name, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

[maiforpeace]

It's "Mai" not "Mail".

You aren't the first person who saw an "L" there when there isn't one. If it wasn't my real name, I wouldn't bother saying anything.

OK, if you want to call me "Mail" I'll wear a strap on.

FYI - I wrote an email to my best friend in high school, she has a degree in geology as well as a law degree, and she also happens to be a VP for PGE. I asked her if she had any good resources to share on the subject of fracking, including any information about the amounts and/or concentrations the carcinogenic chemicals used in fracking are.