drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2012 10:55:58 AM
You're welcome CdnLynx
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,018
Points:521,215
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2012 10:40:55 PM
Interesting Dr.Pepper; Tks for the scientific journal, report from this scientific peer to peer journal. This report on Colo. air sampling of natural gas.
This 10 Oct 2012 draft by Mr. Levi; Not being a scientist, hope the final report, will be written for comprehension of the common layman; somehow think it will be scientific peer to peer again.
Curious, if when they say venting, are they speaking of deliberate and or accidental venting of natural gas from well heads.
If this does not add up with amounts in the atmosphere; then does the additional natural gas amounts within the Colo. air, could it be coming from the natural percolation through ground leakage or other wells in addition to the ones tested.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2012 10:33:56 AM
You might find this New Paper interesting. The report finds NOAA’s methane leakage estimates to be “unsupportable”.
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,018
Points:521,215
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 11:48:30 PM
Aquiclude (impermeable layers) are supposed to be an impermeable layer, my assertion (Not, my ascertain - should watch my English) is that when there are disruptions to the earth, either by fracking or earthquakes, this will cause faults and fissures increases to the impermeable layers, resulting in the escape of Natural gas (methane etc) through this layer into the air. Another assertion is that fracking, the human industrial activity will aggravate/increase the migration of gas through the impermeable layers, beyond, just the natural release of natural gas. Air testing in Colo. have found that since the increase in fracking, there has been an increase of methane in the upper atmosphere.
I have never made any comments re: fracking, contributing to earthquakes; reason being, is that the tectonic plates are significantly deeper then the hydro-carbon pockets/formations. Faults can be in other areas and in the shallow areas toward the surface, and they could effect the oil/gas fields; they may have a effect on local faults. I am open to further evidence of whether it contributes or not.
I feel that major/medium earthquakes would be due to the buildup of tectonic plates pressure, placing an increase pressure on faults in a particular area.
USGS earthquakes data, most earthquakes are miles beneath the surface; there are the odd ones, close to the surface.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 1:53:57 PM
"Just want to clarify one thing, about the Aquiclude (impermeable layers), my ascertain is that yes they maybe impermeable; however during times when the ground is disrupted by fracking/earthquakes etc, this may still cause faults/fissures that may allow for lighter then air to migrate up through this not-so impermeable layer) allowing it to escape into the upper atmosphere. Yes, I want energy but not at the expense of the environment; the modern fracking developed around 1998 is far more intrusive then the original fracking that was developed around 1947."
=====================
When you use the word "may", that is an oversimplification of a million maybe's.
There's a lot of confusion over this earthquake hype. Notice that the evidence toward earthquakes is 99% on disposal wells, not as a result of hydraulic fracturing. Yet the headlines always read "fracking caused earthquakes" or some twist to that supposition.
Again, for there to be an earthquake there must already be faults in the earth crust. If those faults are present the chances that methane is contained under an existing fault (conduit for migration) is almost nil, as the gas could not be trapped in an impermeable layer. As to fraccing (older or newer) the length of the fractures created is minimal (less than 300' ft) and those fractures so narrow (millimeters), only enough for the proppant sand particles to wedge and hold open that a conduit for gas migration is not probable.
As to methane, oil and other natural carbons escaping into the atmosphere, land or oceans...this has been and will continue to be a natural event anyway. Nature has always vented these emissions, what we term pollution is actually a part of nature as we are a part of the natural world. WHo are we to say what is good or bad for the planet? We did not have a choice as to being part of the system.
Now, I agree that I want to do what is best for, or what I think is best for the land I own and my family. The lengths I go to manage the habitat, take care of the soil and so on are my choice, a part of the freedom of choice we are supposed to have. Some things are completely out of my control, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes and so forth. We see these as disasters, nature sees them as part of the natural cycle.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 1:33:54 PM
CdnLynx, it is always the case that there will be common ground between people.
I completely agree with your thoughts about the Keystone XL.
A couple of quick responses to "I know you don't like the EPA, maybe you don't like other fed depts, like USGS, NOAA, USF&W; maybe you harbour animosity towards Texas A&M, for participating in these report findings."
============
I do not have problems with the EPA, in the original intent of the EPA. What I have a problem with is the EPA being used by an administration to aid and abet a political position, let's please be clear on that! Take the warbler and toad situations any maany more like them, these should be regionally overseen by the state concerned.
-I recieved my degree from Texas A&M, no animosity there.
-The USGS, NOAA, and the USF&WS- no particular animosity there either as long as they remain non-political.
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,018
Points:521,215
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 12:46:26 PM
I understand there are regional interests, that I would not be privy to; I took a quick cursory look at both the Houston frog and the Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat on my own. Tks for the pdf doc on the Warbler.
I quickly perused the (194 pg) report that was research by Texas A&M Univ and US Fish & Wildlife. This report is all encompassing re: bird, breeding, wintering areas, its life. They are trying to save the bird and its habitat; yes, if the breeding areas in Texas are compromised; suspect they will try to ensure its survivability within the areas of their jurisdiction/influence.
I know you don't like the EPA, maybe you don't like other fed depts, like USGS, NOAA, USF&W; maybe you harbour animosity towards Texas A&M, for participating in these report findings.
Your not the only person affected; earlier this year I was in N. Ontario, there were a nesting pair of bald eagles, that have been returning every yr. Their nest was on the friends, neighbouring property, the owner was not able to do anything w/his property as the B.eagle is a threatened species; could not build anything! The owner might be considering/trying to sell the property. This is only hearsay, from my friend and I have not ck's out the policy myself. Don't believe there is a concerted effort by gov't/organizations of trying to interfere with anything that you and others maybe a supporter of.
Gov't and private agencies/orgs, the world over are trying their best to save the environment as it's that very environment that nurtures/benefits humanity.
Your correct, I can't speak directly about events in Texas; overall I am allowed an opinion that differs from yours as I don't think everything or everybody is out to persecute people of the same mindset as yourself.
It's still my opinion, that the mandate of Gov't agenies, (ie. epa, usgs, noaa and usf&W etc) are there for the benefit of the people they represent. You may disagree, as their policies at time seem to negatively affect the interests you and others support/purport.
Just want to clarify one thing, about the Aquiclude (impermeable layers), my ascertain is that yes they maybe impermeable; however during times when the ground is disrupted by fracking/earthquakes etc, this may still cause faults/fissures that may allow for lighter then air to migrate up through this not-so impermeable layer) allowing it to escape into the upper atmosphere. Yes, I want energy but not at the expense of the environment; the modern fracking developed around 1998 is far more intrusive then the original fracking that was developed around 1947.
Re: another thread here yesterday, you may not have been a contributor however I just thought I would add comment here.
I am also a supporter of Keystone! Its far safer then train; however there is much false rhetoric re: jobs, steel quality, China, and other never ending crap. Canada is not out to get America. It was my understanding that Canada was going to send to oil south; as the gulf coast area had excess refining capacity. Now there are rumblings on this forum re: eagle oil. Originally the U.S was going to refine the Cdn. crude; it has evolved that we will also ship N. Dakota (Balkan) oil, that's an American resource to do with as America sees fit. However Canada should be able to utilized its oil as it sees fit; my understanding that it was for the U.S market; however, over time it seems to have evolved or hijacked, as being exported overseas, including China. It is still an export, if Cdn oil is used/export to the U.S., whether it's crude or refined in America. A lot of this is semantics. When there was talk of keystone failing, Canada considered other markets including China!
[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/18/2012 1:48:39 PM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2012 10:01:37 AM
Now take a look at what the Central Texas landowner faces if he or she owns property with Golden Cheeked Warbler habitat.
194 pages
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 9:06:03 AM
I live between Houston and Dallas. Has no bearing on this anyway.
And wells, conventional or not have the same risk, well casing integrity. And casing failure is very, very rare and an issue already strongly regulated by the TRRC.
Relieved? Hardly. I would welcome oil or gas production on my ranches, it's just too deep for production at this time.
I've brokered the sale of hundreds of ranches with oil and gas production, all wells are tested prior to executing a contract during the inspection period. Never has the been a case of a "poisoned" well.
You're right about one thing, we it agree on the impermeable layers of rock trapping the gas. Just suffice to say that the rock has contained this gas somehow for millions of years or it would not be there today.
I beg your pardon sir! As a a listened Broker in the State of Texas I am bound to be responsible for my agents remarks. Doth by TREC law, and the Realtor code of ethics. And that code of ethics, which I take and honor, firmly entrenches my thoughts that the EPA should be held responsible for their employees statements. Period!
And the EPA has caused more issues for farmers and ranchers than oil or gas. You have no clue what we have faced with habitat issues from the golden cheeked warbler to the Houston toad. Until you have personally witnessed their heavy handed tactics, you have no room to speak.
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,018
Points:521,215
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2012 12:32:49 AM
Think I will summarize now; opposed to later; Naive EH! (just to make you happy and put a smile on ur face {;-) ). I think we agree, to disagree!
Since I know your going to state the following is wrong or even worse.
Curious, where in Texas do you reside, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, etc?
1. Southwest U.S, Texas is not really abundant with potable water, as opposed to other areas of America. Yes, sitting over gas/oil fields is really profitable to the land owner but only for the gas/oil. My point is, that lands that have little water, and if it has been poisoned by oil/gas, then the land loses all value for ranching/farming. Hopefully the land could be used for both, without compromising the land for living off, specifically living/grazing. Conventional gas wells without the fracking, minimises the water contamination of the ground waters.
Your quote as follows "and as luck would have it, there are no recoverable gas or oil fields beneath my ranches."; You, sound relieved that there are no recoverable oil/gas on your property. Yes your right, I agree that it increases land values, for all that you state; Again, my concern is the possible poisoning of the water for the land, as it was intended, for ranching/grazing/farming/living.
2. "Gasland"; my point is, I don't have to watch this to know of the problem, it's been documented all over N. America that people Had potable water; then after the fracking, in close proximity to their water wells, then the water then becomes contaminated with flammable gas. This happed in many areas of N. America, not just in the areas represented by gasland.
3. I have seen the illustrations of the fracking, that show Aquiclude (impermeable layers); this is my contention that they may not be as seal-able as the industry or its supporters attests to.
If the Aquiclude areas are truly impervious to gas migrating into aquifer levels, that would be great; however the water (aquifers) is/are being contaminated with lighter the air natural gas (methane etc). Yes, fissures in the ground are there, however we with fracking are disturbing/disturbing the substrate and may allow for this gas to vent not only into the wellhead but some maybe venting through the substrate into the upper atmosphere; the link previously given was the University of Irvine findings with increase of Methane in the higher altitude of Colo. Methane is not completely being contained, at the well-heads.
4. If one of your ranch-hands or real-estate agents make comments that are not correct, and gives a bad impression of your Ranch or Brokerage firm, and it's not sanction policy or proper comments, and they caused your organization damage; should you be held responsible for their comments or should they? I firmly believe the person uttering the comment should be held accountable for what they say. Gov't employer sanctioned the employee upon uttering a viewpoint not in accordance with policies of the gov't department. This is why I state you should not be blaming the EPA!
[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/17/2012 1:34:53 AM EST]
|
teafortwo
Champion Author
Washington
Posts:22,070
Points:1,382,915
Joined:Feb 2009
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 11:47:47 PM
CdnLynx,
Thanks for posting this article about the additional test results confirming fracking chemical contamination of the Wyoming aquifer. Water is essential to life, therefore, it is a very serious and sad situation for which the industry continues to refuse to take responsibility.
Kudos on your attempt below. Good comments.
Unfortunately, GB allows shills and spin doctors on the site. They pose as members, but as you have noticed they have no interest in discussion of test results or legitimate science news. They are here only to spew industry propaganda and misinformation :0\ As pathetic as it sounds, that is the truth of the matter for several very vocal "members".
This however, may help you to understand why they keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, even when the scientific facts show their claims to be blatantly false.
This may also help you to understand the venom of the attacks on anyone that discusses legitimate science. This goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. The intention is to harass and intimidate into silence any members that prefer legitimate science over industry propaganda.
The good news?
The oil & gas industry has jobs for pathological liars much like the tobacco industry.
Also, many GB members have picked up on the motives of these shrolls and have them on ignore.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 2:36:17 PM
RE: the questions to my occupations. "As per your profile > Not sure why Fracking is so important to a real estate agent, unless your ranches are sitting on enormous gas fields. Fracking is not good for land values. Puzzled and very curious!"
===============================
No sir, as Broker/Owner of a real estate office I do know land values, and as luck would have it, there are no recoverable gas or oil fields beneath my ranches. You could not be more wrong (likely just mis-informed) about hydraulic fracturing and land values! One, if the landowner has mineral and royalty interest, there's going to be a PREMIUM to the price of that person's land. Two, even if the landowner is not selling his property values increase (thereby increasing the ad valorem tax values of the land. Three, the land is now a tremendous income producing asset adding further value to the property. Four, even the drilling itself increases the land value as the companies drilling will build tremendous roads into and out of the property.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 1:00:36 PM
As to the theory posted "Gasland, well I watched something quite some time ago, however flammable gases, which I grant you are natural gas (methane included); what is not natural is human process of physically disrupting the earth to squeeze more out of the gas pockets. Natural gas, being lighter then air will not all migrate to the gas well head, they will also begin to percolate through the earth ground fissures, generated by the fracking. This gas will rise into the upper atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases and global warming."
===================
"Gasland imagery, using tap water burning all the while knowing this has been happening for over a century, has been proven as deception and fraud. As far as gas migration due to fracturing your theory is unworkable, if there were fissures already occurring there would be no need for fracturing, mat gas would have already permeated to the surface and the atmosphere. As to fracturing causing a pathway, an extremely long shot, please look up the length of the tiny fissures created in a frac job. Most are less than 50ft of the well bore, the longest, in rare cases, are 300 ft. The theory of fracced fissures allowing gas to escape to the surface thru thousands of feet of solid rock is not sound.
|
sparky808
Champion Author
Honolulu
Posts:2,986
Points:595,785
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 12:34:29 PM
Thank you for posting.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:8,929
Points:750,035
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 11:51:00 AM
CdnLynx "Mr. Al Armendariz (EPA) area 6 regional director made erroneous comments, (I Do Not condone); Yes he lashed out; people at times when frustrated sometimes say things in the heat of battle, its a human failing. He paid the price with his dismissal. He is one man, and those were his personal views when he was frustrated. It is unfair to hold the EPA to his comments."
==========================
Frustrated? Lashed out? Really? At what? You may not "condone" it but you'll apologize for him??? People get frustrated and lash out when they are emotionAlly charged ideologues, period.
Armendariz was a prototype Obama appointee, ideological, an "academic" with ties to radical 'environmentalists'. He garnered over $540,000 in public grants, had Almost no private work experience and zero managerial experience, sounds just like Obama eh?
Armendariz did not just talk about "crucifying" oil companies, he attempted it just a few months after uttering that statement. See Range Resources vs EPA, later the EPA was forced to withdraw Armendariz' emergency order and the Federal Court dismissed the case.
No sir, it is in no way unfair to hold the EPA to his comments, they knew EXACTLY what they were getting when he was appointed, to claim differently is naive at best.
|
gas4433
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:2,342
Points:542,725
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 11:42:06 AM
Ok
|
jrs4125
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:2,743
Points:588,820
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 16, 2012 5:45:22 AM
Money is always right in the US.
|
CdnLynx
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:1,018
Points:521,215
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:37:05 PM
Late response to some of your earlier comments.
Mr. Al Armendariz (EPA) area 6 regional director made erroneous comments, (I Do Not condone); Yes he lashed out; people at times when frustrated sometimes say things in the heat of battle, its a human failing. He paid the price with his dismissal. He is one man, and those were his personal views when he was frustrated. It is unfair to hold the EPA to his comments. Even I become frustrated!
Gasland, well I watched something quite some time ago, however flammable gases, which I grant you are natural gas (methane included); what is not natural is human process of physically disrupting the earth to squeeze more out of the gas pockets. Natural gas, being lighter then air will not all migrate to the gas well head, they will also begin to percolate through the earth ground fissures, generated by the fracking. This gas will rise into the upper atmosphere increasing greenhouse gases and global warming.
EPA Site > This is an EPA repository site for all docs including USGS followup report.
As per your profile > Not sure why fracking is so important to a real estate agent, unless your ranches are sitting on enormous gas fields. Fracking is not good for land values. Puzzled and very curious!
BLM, I suspect your mean Bureau of Land Mgmt; not sure what their involvement is in these circumstances.
Dear DrPepper (I did not use EH!, yes I noticed previous comments/mock, to Cadillac and myself)- Your killing me w/semantics. EPA is not the problem; it's been hijacked; its being used as a rallying cry, as to all that is wrong; by its opponents for their own nefarious reasons.
Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field
You may not agree, but Mother Earth is being ravaged by its inhabitants; some unwittingly, others, deliberately and for their own gain!
[Edited by: CdnLynx at 10/16/2012 12:42:50 AM EST]
|
camel1
Champion Author
Minnesota
Posts:8,260
Points:2,264,665
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:32:33 PM
ok
|
PDQBlues
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,059
Points:1,445,400
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:27:40 PM
crashintuc34: I'm all for energy independence and getting at our natural resources, but in a way that doesn't cause long term damage.
Everyone will agree to that. It's the amount of damage and pollution we're willing to accept.
Thanks for posting, CdnLynx.
|
us4usa
Champion Author
Missouri
Posts:5,976
Points:1,109,385
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:15:49 PM
Time will tell...
|
rahcat
Champion Author
Grand Rapids
Posts:2,453
Points:660,025
Joined:Jan 2010
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:08:23 PM
Pull funding for the EPA. Maybe it will quietly go away.
|
diesel8888
Champion Author
Salt Lake City
Posts:1,181
Points:356,590
Joined:Nov 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:04:22 PM
Ok
|
crashintuc34
Champion Author
Tucson
Posts:4,037
Points:808,965
Joined:May 2010
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:02:08 PM
I'm all for energy independence and getting at our natural resources, but in a way that doesn't cause long term damage.
|
PrinceLH
Champion Author
Ontario
Posts:2,677
Points:535,120
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:00:25 PM
Only 3 more weeks to go!
|
getalong
All-Star Author
California
Posts:786
Points:147,240
Joined:Aug 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 11:00:01 PM
does it never end?
|
radiorumor
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:2,797
Points:750,935
Joined:Feb 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:58:45 PM
What…Objections to injections?
|
IUVidiot
Champion Author
Indiana
Posts:3,575
Points:706,410
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:57:49 PM
k
|
bsg75
Veteran Author
Chicago
Posts:422
Points:133,645
Joined:May 2010
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:57:23 PM
End the EPA! Never mind that it was created by a Republican. The last thing good conservatives should do is conserve. If we are going to be concerned about future generations we might as well have left the country to the Injuns. Live for NOW, tomorrow may never come. Rapture, harpazo, these are the end of days, praise Jesus, herp derp.
|
jrsva
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:9,835
Points:1,610,075
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:54:53 PM
We are carrying out a nationwide experiment to determine if fracking using toxic chemicals is safe. If it is we win and get a lot of cheap oil and gas. If it is not we lose and get a lot of contaminated water from which people will get sick and die. Wouldn’t it be better to slow down the headlong rush to frack and do some controlled studies in limited areas? What we don’t know CAN hurt us.
[Edited by: jrsva at 10/15/2012 11:55:11 PM EST]
|
fullauto
Champion Author
Reading
Posts:5,305
Points:1,469,140
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:48:50 PM
ugh!
|
nehemiah
Champion Author
Portland
Posts:4,746
Points:927,590
Joined:Jul 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:45:17 PM
we need other alternatives
|
veemotors
All-Star Author
Alberta
Posts:699
Points:65,870
Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:44:44 PM
oh frack.. thats terrible
|
blazerbob91
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:6,125
Points:1,880,270
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:42:01 PM
Frackin is no frackin good for ground water
|
Blue48
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:7,295
Points:1,635,995
Joined:Feb 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:37:22 PM
OK!
|
bonzoonfmb
Champion Author
Florida
Posts:1,767
Points:641,660
Joined:Feb 2010
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:36:37 PM
It is too late to turn back now.
|
AnObserver
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:8,344
Points:2,255,830
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:36:26 PM
We really need to understand the long term implications of fracking.
NedW: Here's a quarter, go out and buy a clue
|
menagerie1013
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:2,365
Points:687,265
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:34:42 PM
Fracking is bad.
|
NedW
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:5,599
Points:1,139,320
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:33:36 PM
The EPA has outlived its usefulness. It now is facilitating Obama's mission promise to "fundamentally change" America;" read that, lower its living standard.
|
carinthuist
Champion Author
San Francisco
Posts:2,233
Points:327,310
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:31:58 PM
ok
|
mcmonsta
Champion Author
Honolulu
Posts:3,212
Points:815,520
Joined:Sep 2009
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:28:31 PM
double check now or suffer later!
|
Jeeputtputt
Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:3,002
Points:677,465
Joined:Aug 2009
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:25:14 PM
costly?
|
pgerassi
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:10,882
Points:2,129,500
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:19:24 PM
OK
|
clermont40miles
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:10,548
Points:1,768,870
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:16:57 PM
Greenies behaving badly. GO AWAY.
Let the greenies walk. Let them freeze. Let them go broke. Let them go first.
Green is red.
|
REKEY
Champion Author
South Carolina
Posts:8,564
Points:1,696,490
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:15:28 PM
Nothing wrong with fracking if you hate water.
|
DeeLA
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:4,802
Points:1,362,405
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:15:06 PM
Okay.
|
biggyhy
Champion Author
Milwaukee
Posts:1,461
Points:471,630
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:13:05 PM
ok
|
toadNY
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:7,027
Points:1,510,225
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:10:28 PM
Need different ways to do it.
|
SUPPER
Champion Author
San Bernardino
Posts:2,462
Points:1,285,695
Joined:Dec 2004
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:10:13 PM
Ok
|
aggietim
Champion Author
Fort Worth
Posts:1,751
Points:691,800
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2012 10:09:26 PM
ok
|