Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

GreenHunter: City Using ‘Stall Tactic’

Jack says Wheeling trying to prevent plant construction

July 22, 2013

WHEELING — Planning Commission members want to see proof of state and federal approval before allowing GreenHunter Water to build its natural gas frack water recycling plant in Warwood, but company......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

TrollSlayer

Jul-22-13 8:05 AM

Next the commission will tell him he needs a letter from Santa Claus assuring them no reindeer will be harmed...

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

Jul-22-13 8:12 AM

I think the main attraction is that the site has tanks already in place. He needs to get his money back from Siedler snd go across the river, everyone else does. Or to Wetzel or Marshall Counties where they are used to successfully dealing with hazardous materials. Frack water is nothing compared to TDI, Chlorine and the other things produced there. Maybe they don't have an out clause in their deal and cannot get their money back, but if they can they need to simply move their operation 10 miles one way or the other. In Ohio County if you are not going to make nerf products or are offering retail clerk jobs you are never going to find a place to operate. Its really that simple.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Jul-22-13 8:38 AM

the fall weather here is almost always the driest time of the year mr.jack.wheeling loses nothing by not having this recycling plant.it's not going to generate that much money.for some of us that is the bottom line and for some it isn't.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Blackrock

Jul-22-13 10:35 AM

Howard Monroe. Head of the Planning Commision. Enough said.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Jul-22-13 1:47 PM

Blackrock, you beat me to it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RRafael2

Jul-22-13 2:25 PM

WE THE PEOPLE have both the right and the responsibility to safeguard the health, safety and security of our citizenry. Hurrah to our city officials for not rolling over to GreenHunter!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jul-22-13 3:15 PM

Again the weasel statement: "Though radium, uranium and radon are considered radioactive". They aren't "considered radioactive", they ARE radioactive. And, a number of studies, including a recent one from the University of Pittsburgh: "Fate of Radium in Marcellus Shale Flowback Water", demonstrate that radium, which is a toxin that will, through damaged genetic material, poison future generations who don't even drink the water, can be present in frack flowback in amounts thousands of times higher than that allowed in drinking water and hundreds of times higher than that allowed in industrial effluent. Radium in frack flowback will be present in amounts far higher than this article's dismissive and casual "minuscule".

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

HercX007

Jul-22-13 3:20 PM

Oh yes! Hurrah! Hurrah! Stall tactics and citizens marching in protest to protect our water! We don't want trucks driving through our little town but we'll say it's because of the water that we want to make safe. The city IS using stall tactics and that's the bottom line. It's ridiculous. Grow a backbone and tell this guy yes or no and quit twiddling your thumbs. OR stop appeasing the tree huggers and tell this guy yes! What's the old saying that my grandma used to use? Ummmm...yes, "Crap or get off the pot! There's someone else that has to go next!"

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RRafael2

Jul-22-13 3:55 PM

Herc, we are not just concerned about trucks on our streets, although they've been pretty bad. For example, see today's accident on Dallas Pike! We're concerned about the possibility of fracking wastewater being spilled in the area of the River, and the possibility of this toxic water being barged on the Ohio River. There have been 4 barge accidents between Pittsburgh and here in the last 2 years. If one of those barges was to go down in the River with millions of gallons of toxic and radioactive wastewater, it would be an environmental disaster of epic proportion. You can clean up a truck spill. You can't separate toxic water from our drinking water.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jul-22-13 4:22 PM

Again recently, in the report/presentation: "Marcellus Shale-Gas Development and Water-Resource Issues", US Geologic Survey scientist John Williams, at the USGS New York Water Science Center, confirmed that Radium can be present in "Brine from a Marcellus Shale-Gas Well" in amounts as great as "11,450 picoCuries per Liter". Again, the legal limit for Radium in drinking water is 5 picoCuries per liter. Is that "miniscule", as this article states?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-22-13 5:22 PM

WVUGEO, now use your WVU GEO math skills and tell us the concentration when that 11,450 picoCuries/liter is diluted in the 27 BILLION liters/hour flow rate of the mighty Ohio River. Here, I’ll help. Mix an entire tanker truck of that fluid with one second of Ohio River water flow and it’s radium concentration is BELOW the standard for drinking water.

And your comparison of fracking flowback with drinking water is a red herring, anyway. Nobody will be drinking it. It will be recycled and reused a mile underground, or disposed of in even deeper disposal wells. Why all the fear mongering and disinformation? Still having trouble finding a SINGLE documented example of harm from fracking at any of the THOUSANDS of OV wells fracked already? Well, keep trying...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jul-22-13 5:33 PM

Troll: There really is no safe level. Radium bio-accumulates by displacing calcium in your skeleton. And, your dilution numbers are speculative beyond rationality. The density of radium salts will render them relatively cohesive; and, they will tend to settle into more or less cohesive flows. And, how far downstream is the city water intake from the proposed frack facility? How much dilution will take place? What about spills on the ground? Will not the soil, then, and the immediate area, constitute a toxic dump? Swallow your camels, boy, it ain't gnats we're straining at.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-22-13 6:17 PM

GEO, you’re the one arguing picocuries. Tell us how the weight of a picocurie of radium compares to the weight of a gnat and then tell us who’s straining at gnats. LOL

And how many spills would be required for bioaccumulation to be a factor? Will Green Hunter be spilling a truckload of fluid every hour? You flow doesn't seem cohesive to me.

And since there’s no safe level, remind us again how you want to use radium and uranium-contaminated fly ash in the concrete we put in schools and playgrounds. Seems like the camel got its nose under your tent. LOL

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-22-13 6:37 PM

A curie of radium is one gram. A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie. So one picocurie of radium is one trillionth of a gram.

The atypically high concentration of fracking fluid you cited was 11,450 picocuries/liter. The typical tanker truck carries 20,000 liters of flowback fluid. That means there are 0.0002 grams of radium in the entire contents of a worst-case fracking flowback truck.

0.0002 grams of radium in an entire truckload, worst case. A typical gnat weighs 2 milligrams, or 0.002 grams. That means the weight of radium in TEN FULL FRACKING FLUID TRUCKS equals the weight of one gnat.

So who’s counting gnats, GEO? Because if you’re counting, every TEN truckloads of fluid count as one gnat of radium. Just so we know how minuscule the quantity of radium is that we’re talking about here...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcellus

Jul-22-13 10:39 PM

The so called "X-Spurt" TROLLSLAYER wanted to know about water well contamination from shale gas drilling, CALLING OUT for facts, while just PARROTING the gas industry (who he probably works for) B.S. line of 'no cases of well contamination.' WAKE-UP you failed guru of this message board and do some research on the FACTUAL 161 documented cases of water well contamination in Pennsylvania, discovered by the Scranton Times-Tribune during a Right-to-Know investigation. "He huffed and he puffed and he made himself a fool"... AGAIN! Bwwwaahhasss!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-23-13 12:10 AM

Marcellus, first thing is that I said in the Ohio Valley, not Scranton. Pay attention, and huff-puff your way back to the good old OV and find me a fracking fluid contaminated well here, Marcy.

Second thing is an article in the Scranton Times isn’t a study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Do you consider everything you read in this newspaper a valid scientific fact? Seriously? LOL

Third thing, “so called X-Spurt” by whom? You? I’m flattered, but considering the source, not that flattered.

Finally, you call this evidence? “the company was presumed responsible for the contamination based on the timing of the impact and the distance from the gas well” So coincidence implies causation in your “scientific study”? As you so eloquently put it, “Bwwwaahhasss!!”

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcellus

Jul-23-13 7:18 AM

TROLLSLAYER: The news article was published by a Scranton newspaper, but the 161 contaminated water wells were from across PENNSYLVANIA, including some in the tri-state area. What, now you want to split hairs?? Shows how desperate you are to perpetuate gas industry LIES!

And as you further try to wiggle your way out from under the TRUTH, doesn't the Ohio River begin in Pittsburgh?

You will continue to look like a FOOL as long as you try to defend this EXTREME form of energy extraction.

GOTCHA!

Bwwwaahhasss!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-23-13 7:34 AM

Well then Marcy, you get right on digging into the details of that study instead of relying on the Intelligencer’s sister newsrag for your STILL non-documented facts about wells that you STILL have no proof of fracking fluid contamination for, and when you find one ACTUALLY in the Ohio Valley, with actual fracking fluid in it, let us know. yawn...

In the meantime...

“including some in the tri-state area” Prove that desperate stretch of the imagination, Marcy. Because right now all you have is a very non-scientific newspaper article and the number 161 from Casey Junkins’ cousin... LOL

“doesn't the Ohio River begin in Pittsburgh” Pittsburgh’s a LOOOOONG way from Scranton for fracking fluid to flow, Marcy. Keep trying... LOL

And that’s still REALLY all you got, Marcy? Really? You got nothin’, fool. LOL

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Jul-23-13 9:49 AM

nobody knows what is in fracking fluid so if it contaminated a well, how would you know?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-23-13 3:43 PM

If nobody knows what's in fracking fluid, how did Marcellus's Scranton study find it in 161 wells?

Derrrrrrr....

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whgfeeling

Jul-24-13 4:25 AM

guess the promise of a new store didn't fool people this time like the promise of a water park while gaming was sneaking in. guess we could go rafting in the frack water plant.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

whgfeeling

Jul-24-13 4:27 AM

can tell toolslayer sold out to fracking. must really need the money.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-24-13 7:11 AM

can tell whgfailure sold out to the loons. must really need all the “free” stuff. and a shift key.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcellus

Jul-24-13 9:46 PM

MOLESLAYER just doesn't seem to get it, he is just so fixated on spewing out PROPAGANDA that he can't comprehend anything else...

LISTEN UP BONEHEAD: The documented 161 contaminated water wells were from PENNSYVLANIA DEP documents. The newspaper that turned those documents up through a RTK request is based in Scranton.

Remember MOLESLAYER, you never learn anything when you are talking (or blogging).

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jul-24-13 11:22 PM

Ok, Marcymole, where exactly were those 161 wells? Have you actually read that study you’re so excited about? Or are you just regurgitating babble from the Scranton Times? Yep. Otherwise you could cite even one of those wells, give me a location and proof there was fracking fluid found in it. But you can’t. As usual.

Show me the documentation, Marcymole. Otherwise you’re just desperately babbling the usual Marcybabble. LOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: