January 2014


This is a sad video. But this is the current situation without the fracking. Stuff is gonna be gushing everywhere once they start. Now you know how bad I am with videos, so you may have to follow the links to see it, but I will try. It is worth seeing. It is only 10 minutes long.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110808212122AAiL2CT

Greenpeace Releases Video of Contaminated Water in Southern Illinois

The international environmental watchdog, Greenpeace, a several decades old nonviolent direct action organization, is now shining a light on our southern Illinois fracking issue. On Tuesday, January 28th, Mitch Wenkus, a Greenpeace filmmaker, just released Fracking in The Land of Lincoln. The short 10:53 minute video features a former oil worker, whose water became contaminated by local southern Illinois oil production. Now the man is a whistleblower on malfunctioning oil wells in our southern Illinois region.  The former oil worker is very concerned about the new threat of fracking and the safety of our water supply. While watching the video, you will note that residents around Crossville, IL must buy water because their well water is polluted with toxic chemicals. Crossville currently buys water from Carmi, IL, which is in White County that may soon be fracked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3Jf9OBo_1w

http://youtu.be/K3Jf9OBo_1w

OK, so I tried and the video did not show up. So please go to Youtube and watch it. It is recorded by Green Peace.

:}

Go there and see more. More next week.

:}

I get this question all the time. The argument is always the trade off argument. We get jobs and cheap fossil fuels but  the environment is degraded. And boy and how. Destroyed is more like it but we do not even get the results that the fracking industry promised. Did I mention it is cold outside?

http://www.startribune.com/business/241382091.html

Record high prices for propane, natural gas in some markets as cold snap saps fuel supplies

  • Article by: JONATHAN FAHEY , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 21, 2014 – 6:12 PM

NEW YORK — A second fierce blast of winter weather is sapping fuel supplies in many regions and sending prices for propane and natural gas to record highs.

Higher natural gas prices are also leading to sharply higher wholesale electricity prices as power utilities snap up gas at almost any price to run power plants to meet higher-than-normal winter demand.

Propane users will get pinched the most. Those who find themselves suddenly needing to fill their tanks could be paying $100 to $200 more per fill up than a month ago. Homeowners who use natural gas and electricity will see higher heating bills because they’ll use more fuel. But prices won’t rise dramatically because utilities only buy a small portion of the fuel at the elevated prices.

A swirling storm with the potential for more than a foot of snow clobbered the mid-Atlantic and the urban Northeast on Tuesday. The snowstorm will be followed by bitter cold as arctic air from Canada streams in, causing homeowners to crank up the thermostat.

Record high prices for propane, natural gas in some markets as cold snap saps fuel supplies

  • Article by: JONATHAN FAHEY , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 21, 2014 – 6:12 PM

NEW YORK — A second fierce blast of winter weather is sapping fuel supplies in many regions and sending prices for propane and natural gas to record highs.

Higher natural gas prices are also leading to sharply higher wholesale electricity prices as power utilities snap up gas at almost any price to run power plants to meet higher-than-normal winter demand.

Propane users will get pinched the most. Those who find themselves suddenly needing to fill their tanks could be paying $100 to $200 more per fill up than a month ago. Homeowners who use natural gas and electricity will see higher heating bills because they’ll use more fuel. But prices won’t rise dramatically because utilities only buy a small portion of the fuel at the elevated prices.

A swirling storm with the potential for more than a foot of snow clobbered the mid-Atlantic and the urban Northeast on Tuesday. The snowstorm will be followed by bitter cold as arctic air from Canada streams in, causing homeowners to crank up the thermostat.

Michael McCafferty, a propane expert at Platts, an energy information provider, said the wholesale spot price of propane rose 70 percent between Friday and Tuesday to a record $2.45 per gallon. Both the size of the jump and the price itself he called “unprecedented.”

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

 

:}

But do not ask this guy. He thinks it all is in Paul Ehrlichs head. I believe it to be real and that It started sometime around the year 2000. Furthermore this whole artificial fight is capitalism’s attack on a concept that would be its death knelll.  The “no growth” concept that it predicts would end capitalism as we know it, and that is why a Chicago economist attacked it. The problem of making predictions (as Ehrlich did) is that if they don’t come true then the nah sayer can come back and say, “see I told you so”.  It is also so first world centered, nor does it take into account the wars created by our trying to squeeze more people into a tighter spaces. The best estimate is 5 million people have died of starvation from global warming alone. But it isn’t happening here so it “ain’t happening”…in a dumb ass sort of way…

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/remember-future_774768.html#

Remember the Future?

The population bomb was ticking, and apocalypse was next in line .??.??.

Jan 27, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 19 • By PATRICK ALLITT

(excerpted from below the 4rth paragraph)

Julian Simon, meanwhile, became a professor of business at the University of Illinois. In the late ’60s, he, too, worried about overpopulation; but a closer look at the issue led to a change of heart. He discovered that population growth and economic growth usually went together and that there was no evidence of food shortages. The chronic problem of American agriculture, in fact, was overproduction. Population was rising because fewer children were dying and life expectancy kept increasing. That was good news, surely. Quite apart from a decline in agonizing bereavements, said Simon, children once doomed but now destined to survive might go on to be the next Einstein or Beethoven.

Simon also believed in the free market, whose long-term effect was to make products and raw materials not costlier and rarer but cheaper and more abundant. Occasional shortages stimulated increases in efficiency, the invention of better techniques, and the use of new materials.

Irritated that Paul Ehrlich was making a fortune with his apocalyptic prophecies while he, Julian Simon, labored in obscurity, Simon issued a challenge in 1980: Let Ehrlich choose any five commodities and then watch their prices either rise or fall over the next decade. If the prices rose, Ehrlich would seem to be right about shortages; if the prices declined, Simon would seem to be right that things were becoming more plentiful. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and the two men agreed on $1,000 worth of five metals: copper, chromium, tungsten, nickel, and tin. They agreed that, 10 years later, the loser would mail a check to the winner for the difference above or below $1,000.

The Chronicle of Higher Education called it “the scholarly wager of the decade,” and Ehrlich had some cause to feel confident. In the two recent oil crises of 1973 and 1979, gasoline prices had risen sharply while drivers fumed about shortages and long lines at the pump. Copper was in short supply and costlier every year. President Carter had donned a chunky sweater in the White House and ordered federal thermostats turned down to a chilly 65. Believing Ehrlich’s claim that the age of austerity was here to stay, the president had also commissioned the Global 2000 report, whose prognosis for the future was even grimmer than that of The Limits to Growth.

 

 

 

 

:}

No Frackers will go to jail if they violate WHAT LAWS? IDNR might as well give away the state of Illinois to being totally trashed. Where will the Fracking start? In our State Parks?

Day 49   1/2/13

Topic:  Fines penalties, suspensions and revocations

For regulations to work, levied fines must exceed the financial benefit a company gains by violating the rules. None of the rulemaking sanctions meet this criterion. This results in the other 150 pages of rules being essentially meaningless because they will be ignored.   The draft rule sanctions place the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act (HFRA)  on the road to failure before the first permit is issued.

Examples:

  1. Section 1-100(b) of the law specifies misdemeanor and felony criminal charges for a number of violations of the law.  Yet there are NO criminal charges in the rules
  2. In Section 1-60(a)1-6 of the law, there are six (6) grounds for suspension or revocation of a permit.  These are re-listed with a 7th in section 245.1100 of the rules.  But the very next  section of the Rules–245.1110–reduces the grounds for an immediate permit suspension to one: “an emergency condition posing a significant hazard to the public health, aquatic life, wildlife or the environment.” This is the most stringent requirement of the seven grounds listed in section 245.1100.  Why bother to list seven possible grounds for permit suspension or revocation in section 245.1100 if you then require the Department to identify the most stringent criteria for an immediate suspension.
  3. Section 1-60(b) of the law requires a much lower standard of proof to suspend, revoke or deny a permit than the rules (245.1110).  Under the law, the Department need only serve notice of its action (to suspend, revoke or deny), including a statement of the reasons for the action.
  4. In the law, if a well operator’s permit has been suspended, the burden of proof is on well operator to prove that the identified problem is “no significant threat to public health, aquatic life, wildlife, or the environment” [Section 1-60(d)].  In the rules, this phrase becomes something IDNR must prove before ordering a permit suspension [Rule Section 245.1100(b)3A].
  5. Sections 1-100 and 1-101 of the law have some stiff penalties that accrue on a daily basis until the reason for the fine is corrected.  These fines can go as high as $50,000 per violation and up to $10,000 per day.  These are replaced by fines so trivial ($50-$2500) that it will cost the IDNR more to impose and collect a fine than the dollar value of the fine itself.

Revisions Needed:  Return to the standards of the law with regard to fines, penalties and revocations.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}
Go there and comment. We are done with this.
:}

Everyone needs to move to Iowa.

 

Happy New Year!

Day 48,  1/1/2014

Topic:  Rules Deprive Property Owners of Their Property Rights Without Notice and Without Compensation  

Comment:

The rules unconstitutionally deprive many property owners of their property without notice and without compensation–thus, without due process of law.

Under Illinois law, a person who owns the full bundle of rights in land owns the surface and all that is below it.  So, when a landowner owns the full bundle of rights in the land, any drilling on, under, or without the landowner’s consent is an illegal trespass and an unconstitutional taking.  Similarly, any access to the surface without the landowner’s consent is a trespass.

The proposed rules would allow a trespass and a deprivation of property without due process of law, more specifically as follows:

  1. The rules not require a permit applicant to show that it has obtained the consent of the owners of the surface on which the vertical well will be drilled.
  2. The rules do not require a permit applicant to show that it has obtained the consent of the owners of the subsurface property through which the horizontal leg of the well will be drilled, nor even require notice to those property owners.
  3. In Section 245.110, DNR’s proposed rules redefine real property rights in a manner inconsistent with current law.  Specifically, the proposed rules would create an entirely new definition–“real property surface interest”–that is inconsistent with Illinois law in at least two respects.  First, even when mineral rights are severed, the surface owner does not typically relinquish all rights in the subsurface.  Second, the new definition narrows the intent of the law because the law uses the term “owner of real property” while the DNR’s new definition excludes any property owner who owns the surface along with the subsurface and also excludes any property owner who owns the surface along with a controlling interest in the subsurface.

Revisions Required:

  1. Delete the definition of “real property surface interest” in Section 245.110.
  2. Revise Section 245.210(A)(16)(A) & (B), on permit-application requirements, to require that the applicant show that it has obtained the consent of all the owners of real property on which, under which, or through which the vertical and horizontal wells are to be drilled.
  3. Revise Section 245.250(a)(1)(A), on public-notice requirements for permit applications, to require that permit applicants personally notify all owners of real property on which, under which, or through which the vertical and horizontal wells are  to be drilled.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. The last post on Illinois Fracking Rules today.

:}