Category Archives: evil polluters

Snap, Crackle And Pop – Radiation from fracking makes the kids glow in the dark

Posted on by
Reply

Rice Krispies!  But you could find your kids in the dark.

 

Today (Wednesday, 12/4/13) is Day 20 of the IDNR Comment Period on Fracking. 

Day 20 

Topic – Radioactivity in fracking operations:  Rules need to include testing for all types of radioactive material, including depleted uranium, and set requirements and standards for when radioactivity is found.

  • Go to: http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx
  • Click the button: Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click 245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Comment/Problem(s)/Revisions Needed:

Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing of fracking fluids only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials.”

Problem:  The limited radioactivity testing requirement in this section does not adequately protect Illinois residents from the spread of dangerous radioactive materials.  The statute and the proposed rule call for the testing of flowback (and not produced water) for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”.  However, the term “naturally occuring” is not defined in the statute or the proposed rules;  DNR could interpret the quoted term so that testing will be required only for the specific radioactive materials that are expected to be found naturally in the subsurface at the well site.  Depleted uranium would not be “naturally occurring” at the well site, so it will be undetected by the proposed testing.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a highly dangerous radioactive material with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.  It is a waste product left over when uranium is modified to produce fissionable material for nuclear reactors and weapons.

We know that at least one of the major actors in the fracking industry has incorporated Depleted Uranium into its plan for perforating the gun assembly (for use in a wellbore) in horizontal fracturing operations. (See U.S. Patent No. 2011000069, “perforating gun assembly for use in a wellbore *** wherein the secondary pressure generator is selected from the group consisting of *** depleted uranium”; assignee of patent: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.)   Note that, in this case,  radioactive material would be “added” radioactive material, not “naturally occuring.”

Revisions Needed:

In order to protect the public health and safety and to preserve the health of our environment, DNR must require specific testing for DU among other types of radioactive material in flowback and in produced water and set standards and requirements for when radioactivity is found.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

:}

What Toxics Are In That Fracking Soup – Under this regulation we may never know

Posted on by
Reply

Seriously, this means that they can brink “stuff” into this state with no inspection and inject it into our soils? That is off the charts.

 

Today (Sunday, 12/1/13) is Day 17 of the IDNR Comment Period on Fracking.  Thanks for hanging in there with us even on this holiday weekend!
Day 17 
Topic – The term “Competitive Value” is not defined but affords fracking operators the right to withhold chemical disclosure
Section 245.720(d) of the Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act administrative rules, states: IDNR allows permit applicants to withhold chemical disclosure information under a claim of “trade secret” if they can establish that (1) the information has not been published, disseminated, or otherwise become a matter of general public knowledge, and (2) the information has competitive value.
Problems with this section:
  1. “Competitive value” is not defined in the various administrative code definitions.
  2. There is no IDNR administrative criteria provided which is the basis of “competitive value” other than, apparently, a self-identified one provided by the fracking operator.
Why these are problems:
  1. Undefined and catch-all allowances for generic “competitive value” open the door for any and all dangerous chemicals to be undisclosed simply based on the operators desire to do so.
  2. Individual ingredients in the various chemical products used during hydraulic fracturing cannot be considered trade secrets under the criteria “competitive value”. The regulations should be revised to state that information on file with IDNR must be disclosed to the public.
  3. Raising such an allowance for a fracking operator to not disclose potentially dangerous chemicals based on “competitive value” automatically gives them more power than the basic claim of the law which is to protect the environment of Illinois.
Revisions Needed:
  1. “Competitive value” must be fully defined within the rulemaking.
  2. Competitive value must not in any way supersede a determination of the public right to know and the basic legislative and Illinois Constitutional provision of a healthy and safe environment for its citizens.
  3. Any conflict between “competitive value” and the public right to know must be decided on the inherent protection of the citizens and the environment.
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

 

 

 

 

:}

Illinois Will Glow In the Dark – After Frackers scatter radiation all over the land

Posted on by
Reply

All fossil fuels contain radiation somewhere in their masses. In other words in any given coal deposit there will be radioactive hotspots. The same is true of oil and natural gas. So with Fracking you can never tell when you will hit on of those hotspots in the shale. What this means is that all disposal sites for all the debris from the fracked wells must have radiation detectors to guarantee that any radioactive materials are deposited in sites designed for such materials.

 

Today (Wednesday, 11/27/13) is Day 13 of the 45-day Comment Period on Fracking.  We hope you’ll take a minute out of your holiday preparations to submit a comment to IDNR about fracking and radioactivity.

Topic – Radioactivity in fracking operations: More loopholes

  • Click the button: Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click:  245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Comment:  Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing radioactivity only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”.  The problems with this are identified below.

Problems:

  1. The proposed rules do not include any standards or protocols to follow if testing of flowback water shows unacceptable levels of radioactivity.
  2. The proposed rules do not require the testing of “produced water”, which is the water produced from a well in conjunction with oil or natural gas production.  This is where radioactivity is most likely to show up.  It should be noted that while these Rules have been purported to be the strongest in the nation, PA law requires the testing of produced water at two separate intervals.
  3. The proposed rules do not require testing for added radioactive materials, like depleted uranium, which can be used in the perforation/fracturing operation.
  4. The proposed rules do not test work areas for levels of radioactivity that would call for OSHA standards of occupational safety.

These deficiencies, cumulatively or singly, would pose a significant risk to the public health and safety, property, aquatic life, and wildlife, in violation of section 1-75(a)(2) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.

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, IL61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Fracking And Water Quality In Illinois – We don’t want any burning drinking water here

Posted on by
Reply

For now I have run out of thoughts about how bad the original law was and how terrible the rules coming from it are now.

 

Today (Tuesday, 11/26/13) is Day 12 of the 45-day Comment Period on Fracking.  We’re receiving great feedback from so many of you.  Thank you for writing comments and enlisting others to write too.  You rock!

You know the drill.  Here’s what to do to make today’s comment:

  • Go to: http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx
  • Click the button: Subpart F: Water Quality (245.600-245.630)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click 245.600 Water Quality Monitoring
  • Submit your comments (below)
  • Click “Submit”

Section 245.600(b)(1) of the proposed rules provides for the testing and monitoring of water sources within 1,500 feet of the well site.  Among the many problems with the monitoring provisions, the proposed rules do not provide for testing along the horizontal leg of the well bore, which can extend for up to two miles from the well site.  This is a reckless disregard of the known risk of the underground migration of toxic fluids from a horizontal well bore, especially when hydraulic fracturing involves the use of explosive charges and especially in areas known for the risk of higher-magnitude earthquakes.

In a report issued on September 5, 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office acknowledged this risk:

“Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects.”–From: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-12-732 (2012), “What GAO Found”.

The agency mentioned specifically the risk of underground migration of toxic gases and chemicals:

“[A] number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals.”  (Emphasis added.)

Water testing and monitoring should be required all along the length of any horizontal well bores.

(The Government Accountability Office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.)

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. More today.

:}

Frackers Could Take Over Your Town – Illinois cedes sovereignty to the extraction industry

Posted on by
Reply

City and county governments?  We don’t care about your stinking City and County governments. Drill baby drill.

 

 

Today (Saturday, 11/23/2013) is Day 9 of the IDNR 45 day comment period on fracking.  You’re all doing a great job sending in your comments.  We’re a fifth of the way through the comment period.  Let’s keep the pressure on. 

Today’s comment is on the Local Control

Here’s what to do to make your comment today:

·         Click the button: Subpart A: General Provisions

·         In the “Section” dropdown box, click 245.210 Permit Application Requirements

·         Submit your comments (below)

·         Click “Submit”

Comment:

This section states that “when an application is made to frack a well site located within the limits of any city, village or incorporated town, the application shall state the name of the city, village, or incorporated town and be accompanied with a certified copy of the official consent for the high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations to occur from the municipal authorities where the well site is proposed to be located.  No permit shall be issued unless consent is secured and filed with the permit application.”

This is excellent for municipalities but what about counties???

*  The intent of the legislation was to recognize that local units of government should have decision-making power regarding whether to allow fracking in their jurisdictions.  

*  This section demonstrates blatant disregard for the realities of the geography of fracking in Illinois regarding cities compared to counties.  Little if any fracking is anticipated within the cities of Carbondale, Marion, Decatur or other metro areas affected by the majority of fracking land leases.  If prior notification and an intentional process of permitting is important for metropolitan communities, why are the proposed rules silent regarding neighborhoods in counties and the families living there?

*  There is no substantive difference between a municipal or county government in Illinois in its powers other than the issue of Illinois Constitutional Home Rule.  However, the lack of county Home Rule has never preempted a county power to issue permits on mineral or oil extraction.  Numerous county governments have long histories and traditions in the permitting process regarding mineral and drilling industries. As the current fracking law is largely silent on the issue of county control, IDNR rules should err on the side of history and citizen decision-making. 

*  Counties and municipalities of government tax, employ law enforcement, provide social services and infrastructure.  The rules provide no explanation why citizens residing in counties of Illinois should have less input regarding fracking permits.  The regulatory differentiation between the rights of residents in municipalities vs. counties creates a group of second class citizens. These second class citizens have fewer rights in their ability to participate and ultimately determine the type and quality of energy extraction allowed in their neighborhoods.

*  There is no reasonable expectation that the personnel at IDNR have any better or more clear understanding of the will of citizens in counties regarding fracking permits than the residents themselves.  As the proposed IDNR rules envision municipalities empowered to decide fracking sites, what possible argument does IDNR have that it is better equipped or knowledgeable on the needs of residents living in Illinois counties? 

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow.

:}

Frackers Free To Violate Illinois – According to the State of Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

This was supposed to be the toughest set of regulations in the United States. This is an outrageous lie created by The Chicago Sellouts, better know as the gang of 5, the IEC, the NRDC, ELPC, the Sierra Club, and Faith in Place. They shall pay for this.

 

Today (Sunday, 11/24/2013) is Day 10 of the IDNR 45 day comment period on fracking.  Thank you for all of the comments you’re making!

Today’s comment is on what constitutes a “serious” violation.

Here’s what to do to make your comment today:

This section of the rules states that every applicant applying for a permit must disclose to the Department  “all findings of a serious violation or an equivalent violation under federal, Illinois or other state laws or regulations in the development or operation of an oil or gas exploration or production site via hydraulic fracturing by the registrant or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the registrant within the previous 5 years.”

  • What does IDNR define as a “serious” violation?  There is no guideline here making it easy for violators to claim that they didn’t report a violation because “we didn’t think it was serious.”  Instead, applicants should be required to disclose ALL violations alleged by public authorities and any fines or findings therefrom.
  • What is the reason for the 5 year time limitation?  When fracking violations potentially pose a threat to public health and safety, all previous violations and alleged violations should be considered when issuing a permit, regardless of how long ago they occured.

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, More tomorrow.

:}

IDNR Says Your Are Not Sick From Fracking Unless You Can Prove It

Posted on by
Reply

So this regulation says essentially that you are never sick from fracking unless the Frackers and the IDNR agree that you are sick from fracking AND your doctor can prove it. Now of course you can’t prove it because they will not release a list of the chemicals  that they are using so you can test the environment for the chemicals so they can not say that they are naturally occurring. Got that?

 

Today is Day 8 of the 45 day Comment period on fracking in Illinois.  We start week 2.

Today’s comment is on the circular definition of an “affected patient.”

Here’s what to do to make your comment today:

IDNR identifies the definition of an “Affected Patient” as “a person receiving health care services from a health professional for an illness or injury diagnosed by the health professional to be caused by exposure to any chemicals used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations that are subject to a claim of trade secret by a permittee or contractor.”

PROBLEM:  This definition is circular: in order to learn what chemical was used, a physician must first test for that chemical so s/he can prove s/he has a right to disclosure of the proprietary chemical.  How can a doctor diagnose exposure to a secret chemical used in high volume fracking before s/he knows what the secret cheemicals are to test for?

Thank you!

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. More tomorrow.

:}

IDNR Cancels Hearing In Effingham – Day 7 of comments released here

Posted on by
Reply

The weather outside is frightful. Especially in Southern Illinois. So now you have all the time in the world to post comments to IDNR’s website.

 

Effingham, December 5, Holiday Inn 6:30 PM – CANCELED
• Decatur, IL December 17, Decatur Civic Center 6:30 PM
• Carbondale, December 19, SIUC Student Center 6:00 PM

Today is Day 7 of the 45 day Comment period on fracking in Illinois.  You’ve made it to the end of your first week.  Thank you for your comments!
Today’s comment is on the lack of provisions to address fracking in a tornado-ridden state.
Here’s what to do to make your comment today:
Comment:  Number of draft regulations proposed by Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources describing safety measures regarding tornado strikes on fracking sites: ZERO.  Number of tornados in Illinois in the last 10 years: 674.
Historically, the number and intensity of tornadoes in IL is very high.  “In fact, Illinois has experienced some of the worst tornados in US history.” Dr. Jim Angel, Illinois State Climatologist.
Every county in Illinois has had multiple tornados as demonstrated by the maps in the following links:
A big swath of Washington IL was flattened by a tornado on Sunday, 11/17/13. What would have happened if this tornado had hit an area of the state covered in fracking sites?  Debris from the tornado has been found over 150 miles away.  Imagine if that debris had included “temporarily” stored flowback water or tanks filled with frack fluid or produced water?
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
:}

altGo there and comment. More later.

:}

Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Is Incompetant – But we kinda knew that

Posted on by
Reply

This was forwarded to me by Doctor Lora and other people have pointed out that this has been going on. This is why in my first post I said go to  this website:

http://www.ilagainstfracking.org/

They will deliver a printed copy to IDNR which gets you around the whole computer/internet thing.

AND Dr. Laura is suggesting that you send your comments to JCAR who must approve the final regulations before they become law. I am not sure how effective that would be but it takes so little time it can’t hurt. But still run them through IDNR repeatedly if you have to.

If you want to echo my remarks at JCAR, I think it would be very helpful, thanks,  L

 


Urgent — After two days of complaints from many residents concerned about fracking that their comments to the IDNR on the fracking rules weren’t going through, we learned that NO COMMENTS ON RADIOACTIVITY HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH!   According to IDNR, there was a technical problem that has now been fixed, but that doesn’t address the fact that Comments from last Wednesday, yesterday and today did not get registered.
If they can’t get their website right, how are they going to get the rules right? 
Please share the comments below that were sent in by hundreds of residents with JCAR members, just in case the IDNR is trying to suppress comments about radioactivity in all fracking waste water and debris,

— General Summary of Rules on Radioactivity
Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
245.850 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements

Comment: Subsection (d)(1) of Section 245.850 provides for testing radioactivity only one time–during the early flowback stage–and only for “naturally occurring radioactive materials”. The problems with this are identified below.
Problems:
The proposed rules do not include any standards or protocols to follow if testing of flowback water shows unacceptable levels of radioactivity. 
The proposed rules do not require the testing of “produced water”, which is the water produced from a well in conjunction with oil or natural gas production. This is where radioactivity is most likely to show up. It should be noted that while these Rules have been purported to be the strongest in the nation, PA law requires the testing of produced water at two separate intervals.
The proposed rules do not require testing for added radioactive materials, like depleted uranium, which can be used in the perforation/fracturing operation.
The proposed rules do not test work areas for levels of radioactivity that would call for OSHA standards of occupational safety. 
These deficiencies, cumulatively or singly, would pose a significant risk to the public health and safety, property, aquatic life, and wildlife, in violation of section 1-75(a)(2) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act.

— Produced Water Needs to Be Tested for Radioactivity (same subpart-H, and section: 245.850)
Notably absent from this section is a requirement for the testing of “produced water”, the fluid that returns from the well later during production and is most likely to contain radioactivity. Under the proposed rules, “produced water” can be stored on site and/or can be “recycled”, yet there is no testing requirement.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and technologically enhanced naturally occuring radioactive material are both found in “produced water”. See Technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials in the oil industry (TENORM), Nukleonika 2009; 54(1):3?9, and sources cited therein, especially for TENORM in produced water in the U.S., available athttp://www.nukleonika.pl/…/full/vol54_2009/v54n1p003f.pdf. See also
NORM is also found on scale in oil pipes and on fracking equipment. (See Kentucky Resources Council Proposes Comprehensive Plan For Investigating Radiological Contamination In Martha Oil Field. August 11, 2005.http://www.kyrc.org/webnewspro/112381723236086.shtml.)
IDNR’s definitions of “flowback water” and “produced water” are different. They are treated differently by both the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act and by the DNR Rules. The Department knows that produced water will be in contact with the naturally occurring radioactive elements in the ground for a longer period that the flowback and that it is much more likely to be radioactive. Therefore it should require it to be tested and handled accordingly.
Problems: Failure to test produced water for radioactivity is problematic for a variety of reasons including:
The health and safety of workers on the site who will be unaware of the levels of radioactivity they are being exposed to.  The health and safety of workers transporting produced water who will also be in the dark regarding the levels of radioactivity they will be exposed to. 
The risk of storing radioactive material in tanks not created for storing radioactive materials.
The risk of “recycling” produced water—radioactivity cannot be removed by recycling.
The risk to the public in transporting radioactive materials
Argonne National Laboratory recently cautioned about radiological doses: “It is commonly accepted that efforts should be undertaken at all times to keep radiological doses ‘as low as reasonably achievable,’ which is referred to as the ALARA principle or requirement.” Overview of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment (April 2011). DNR is failing to even adequately test for radioactivity and therefore, will not know the levels of radioactivity. How, then, can DNR adequately protect workers and the general public?
Revisions needed:
At a bare minimum, the rules should require that “produced water” be tested at two separate intervals across time for radioactivity. This is already required in Pennsylvania. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed. 

— Rules need to include requirements or standards when radioactivity is found (same subpart-H and section:245.850)
The proposed rules include no follow-up requirements or standards if testing shows radioactivity levels in flowback to be high. In other words, these proposed rules treat flowback the same whether it is highly radioactive or not! DNR knows that naturally occurring radioactivity material occurs in Illinois oil and gas operations. See 62 Ill. Admin. Code secs. 240.860(e)(3), 240.861(k)(1)(C).
Revisions Needed: The rules must specify how flowback AND produced water will be treated if they test positive for radioactivity. The rules should also require that the requirements of the Illinois Low Level Radioactivity Waste Management Act be followed.
 
Sincerely, 
Frack Free Illinois
contact, Dr. Lora Chamberlain
drlora2@yahoo.com
773-486-7660

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Fracking Will Set Off The New Madras Fault – In Illinois a whole lot of shaking going on

Posted on by
Reply

This whole earthquake thing has me shaking in my boots. No really. The last time New Madras went off the Mississippi River ran backwards and two mammoth lakes in Kentucky were created. There was no St. Louis or Memphis to be devastated. This is a big deal.

USED on Day 2 on 11/16/13

Topic:  Fracking and Seismic Activity (Earthquakes) 

Radio button: Part 240 : Seismicity (240.796)

Use any of the comments below related to when fracking causes earthquakes (“induced seismicity”)

NOTE: Every topic address must be entered as a separate comment.

·         COMMENT:  The Rules contain language about earthquakes and, on a broader level, they also assume that fracking indeed causes earthquakes.  The rules describe a whole series of fracking created earthquake levels of intensity. Why would the state allow any business activity that includes the real possibility of it creating earthquakes when done in an otherwise proper manner – especially in a geography known for major earthquakes?

·         COMMENT:  The rules are silent regarding broader concerns regarding how fracking created earthquakes will affect existing earthquake prone communities.  There is no mention of scientific review or study of the effect of fracking earthquakes within the Wabash Valley and New Madrid Seismic Zones.  The Illinois Emergency Management Agency identifies southern IL with its most severe earthquake zone ratings of “Destructive “and “Ruinous”.  How does IDNR justify allowing any fracking in these areas when industry best practices say there should be no fracking in seismic zones?

·         COMMENT: Rules define various intensities of fracking caused earthquakes by a color code system.  Enforcement doesn’t begin until “yellow light alert”, (a magnitude of at least 3.0 but less than 5.0).  This color coding system does not appear to be used by the federal USGS, the federal agency responsible for monitoring earthquakes. Why would IDNR use a system not used nationally?  What is the purpose of IDNR’s color coded system and what value does it add to protect citizens who might be affected by said quakes?

·         COMMENT: A fracking site can be responsible for creating up to 4 earthquakes up to a level of 4.9 magnitude WITHOUT a mandatory shut-down order by the state. A 4.9 earthquake is a serious and newsworthy event – (USGS description: “Sensation like a heavy truck striking building.  Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.”)  What justification does IDNR to allow this?

·         COMMENT: Mandatory shut-down of a site is based on a patchwork of multiple earthquakes at multiple times with varying intensity.  For example, if an earthquake caused by fracking “causes significant damage” or a magnitude of 5.0 or greater the state will shut-down the frack site.  A 5.0 earthquake is described by USGS as “Felt by all, many frightened.”   The rules use a dangerous, high threshold of earthquake intensity for a mandatory shut-down.  The fracking caused earthquake literally has to frighten people or break something before the state will step in.  What is the justification for such a high threshold?

·         COMMENT: If a shut-down order is made, the fracking company gets a hearing, the purpose of which is to “mitigate induced seismicity events near the permitted well”.  To “mitigate” is to minimize, not eliminate earthquakes caused by fracking.  As with the overall message of the earthquake rules, the intent appears to not eliminate earthquakes caused by fracking but actually permit them.  What does IDNR have to say to justify this?

·         COMMENT:  The penalty for failing to attend an earthquake hearing or continuing to frack after causing a serious, reported earthquake is $50 for a first time violation.  The rules define these violations as “Administrative penalties”.  This amount is a little less than the cost of a dinner and a movie.  Even with 4 or more earthquake violations, the maximum fine is only $500, arguably an acceptable business expense.  How is this justifiable? 

·         COMMENT:  Will fracking companies be held responsible for all monetary damages caused by earthquakes?

·         COMMENT: If the frack site continues to operate in violation of a state order regarding it creating earthquakes the minimum fine is $100.  Who is making up these ridiculously industry-slanted rules?

 :}

Go there and comment for God’s sake. More today.

:}