Chesapeake Energy (CHK) says workers have stopped the flow of drilling fluids from a natural gas...


Chesapeake Energy (CHK) says workers have stopped the flow of drilling fluids from a natural gas well in Pennsylvania that leaked the chemical-laced water for two days. Critics say hydraulic fracturing - "fracking" - could poison water supplies; the company claims the incident posed "minimal" environmental impact.
From other sites
Comments (59)
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
     
    "Critics say hydraulic fracturing - "fracking" - could poison water supplies..."

     

    Sloppy journalism. Name these "critics."

     

    Yeah, I know there's a link.
    22 Apr 2011, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2278) | Send Message
     
    Since you're clearly not the reading type, watch the movie "Gasland" -- pretty interesting stuff, with people lighting their water faucets on fire after fracking operations, gas company reps refusing to drink local water supplies, etc.

     

    Sure, it's just a couple hippies making a low budget documentary, but it clearly demonstrates that there are definitely some problems with how natural gas gets collected, and that at minimum, some investigations and studies are warranted..
    22 Apr 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    Virgina, that's like claiming one should watch Gore's movie about global warming to get the facts about AGW.

     

    I suggest you take your own advice, do a search on "gasland debunked," and start reading.

     

    You can start here:
    www.scribd.com/doc/333...
    22 Apr 2011, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    Also look up oil and gas seeps. Pennsylvania's famous for them, which is why the industry in the US got it's start there. You're operating out of ignorance and the Gasland promoters are taking advantage of that. Don't you think that if they're finding this at the surface, that someone drilling a well for water just might find it as well in their water?

     

    The first oil "well" in North America was in Oil Springs, Ontario, Canada in 1858, dug by James Miller Williams. The US petroleum industry began with Edwin Drake's drilling of a 69-foot (21 m) oil well in 1859,[23] on Oil Creek near Titusville, Pennsylvania, both named for their petroleum seeps.
    22 Apr 2011, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (9528) | Send Message
     
    Great information. I must add this one to the list: Oil Srings, NY (about a mile outside Cuba, NY)- 1627- the first petroleum discovered in North America- (this is what the monument on the Oil Springs Indian Reservation states) I live in Wellsville, NY, old oil region in WNY.
    Thought this might interest you, the date not the personal data.
    22 Apr 2011, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Should we also read Mein Kampf while we're at it?
    22 Apr 2011, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • linenoise
    , contributor
    Comments (215) | Send Message
     
    Just researching the very first bullet point in the debunking link you posted shows that the movie is correct. Fracking is not regulated under the EPA clean water act by virtue of various exemptions, including the 2005 one cited by the movie.

     

    ETA - The down thumbs are hilarious. I mean seriously. It's right there on the epa's website:

     

    "The 2005 Energy Policy Act excluded hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act"

     

    "EPA has no regulatory oversight authority over hydraulic fracturing except in cases where diesel fuel is used as a constituent in fracturing fluids"
    22 Apr 2011, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • linenoise
    , contributor
    Comments (215) | Send Message
     
    water.epa.gov/type/gro...

     

    Don't let reality bother you. Laughable.
    22 Apr 2011, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • zmcmahon
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    You used to be able to find standing pools of oil, on the surface. If oil can be found on the surface, gas could be naturally found in groundwater. Gasland was a sham. Take me to any American gas field and I will chug water from any tap. Stick to trading.
    22 Apr 2011, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    "From what the link provides, it states the EPA only has authority to regulate fracking when diesel fuel is used as the fracking fluid."

     

    No, that's not what the link states. I pulled that quote directly from the link. Fracking is fully regulated as fracking falls under underground injection control. The regulations are numerous.
    water.epa.gov/type/gro...

     

    What they don't regulate is the fluid constituents injected thousands of feet into oil and gas bearing shales, which wouldn't make much sense for the EPA to do, because if you're trying to drill down there, frack, and pull and drink water from such formations, the EPA isn't really in the position to prevent such stupidity to begin with.
    23 Apr 2011, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (593) | Send Message
     
    Fracking DOES NOT fall under UIC unless the fluid being used is diesel, it is excluded-
    "While the SDWA specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from UIC regulation under SDWA § 1421 (d)(1), the use of diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing is still regulated by the UIC program."
    This is from your own link!
    Here are 3 others discussing how there is no EPA/Fed oversite of fracking-www.propublica.org/art...
    www.post-gazette.com/p...
    www.frackinginsider.co.../
    24 Apr 2011, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
     
    That's from the link provided by linenoise and I already quoted it above in making the point that the processes involved in fracking that have to do with fracking byproducts and disposal are regulated by the UIC. The point that the EPA doesn't have authority to regulate the fluid constituents used in fracking has been made. If the EPA had no authority to regulate fracking overall then there'd be no need to have the exclusion. Your claim is logically incongruous.

     

    Here's the law text below. Note the word "excludes" there, and that this applies to injection at depth into oil and gas bearing shales pursuant to the fracking operation itself. No one in their right mind would drill for water in such locations. Injecting these fluids and other fracking wastewater into underground sources of drinking water is absolutely regulated and prohibited.

     

    ‘‘(B) excludes—
    ‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for
    purposes of storage; and
    ‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping
    agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic
    fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
    production activities.’
    24 Apr 2011, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • Micah
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
     
    For all of us, I just wish industry could get this one right. We need the nation's best and brightest to extract this powerful resource without trashing the environment and people's health. Is that too much to ask?

     

    I have this sinking feeling however, that industry is going about this in the cheapest/quickest way possible. They are going to attempt to cover up any and all negative externalities leaving the locals to fend for themselves in cleaning-up the mess after the last rig has left...
    22 Apr 2011, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    This is an inherent part of capitalism and why we need regulations even if they are inefficient.

     

    economic efficiency isn't the end all when you are dealing with pollution of the commons .

     

    We need to be reasonable
    22 Apr 2011, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    But when regulations get to the point where they strangle our own energy independence and fund world wide terror? Yes, the EPA indirectly funds global terrorism. Think about it.
    22 Apr 2011, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (9528) | Send Message
     
    This is another reason, that while a large section of New York State could be drilled, the state has continued to "review" the process. No permits have been issued and the state continues its moratorium on fracking. Living several miles from PA where drilling is happening at an alarming pace, I was hopeful that NY would get in game and use its natural resources to offset our outrageous property taxes. I am not sure if I should thank CHK or be very, very upset.
    22 Apr 2011, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (593) | Send Message
     
    Unfortunately for NY, deposits don't follow state lines. There is already plenty of "NY" owned gas flowing out of Pa mines.
    22 Apr 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    kcr, could you explain your post, i may be dumb, but i don't get your point....
    23 Apr 2011, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (593) | Send Message
     
    Ok, say a nat gas company approaches you and wants to buy mineral rights to your property because they believe it contains nat gas. You deny them; however, your neighbors all sell their rights and the co. now has bought up enough land rights to start mining. There is nothing keeping the nat gas that is under your property from coming out with the gas under your neighbors' property(It's a gas, after all.). You lost the gas and you lost out on money when you didn't sell.
    I am not a lawyer or geologist, but I do have family with nat gas on their property and this is what has surfaced so far.
    23 Apr 2011, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    I dont think you understand how this formation works, the gas is trapped in a very tight shale layer and has to be Fractured for the gas to flow back to the well bore. In Pa. the gas companys drill down 5000ft to the kick off point then turn the bit and drill 2000ft. to 5000ft. horizontally so they intersect as much gas bearing shale as possible then the drill rig is removed and the completion co. moves in and forces water carrying sand under very high pressure to make small fractures in the shale, the sand stays behind to prop open the fracture so the gas can flow. These cracks extends 200ft. to 500ft around the well bore, the state sets setback regulation to protect property outside of a drilling unit form having their gas removed. A drilling unit is about 640 acres or one sq. mile. Up to eight and sometimes more laterals can be drilled from a single well pad and drain the gas from a unit. Just like in the gulf where bacteria ate most of the oil spill, frac fluid has chemicals to kill bacteria that can grow and block the gas from flowing up the well bore, that is the part of fracking that gets a lot of attention and the gas company counter that this stuff is in everyones homes. Think anti-bacteria soap.
    23 Apr 2011, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • chill7
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    kcr357 "There is nothing keeping the nat gas that is under your property from coming out with the gas under your neighbors' property(It's a gas, after all.). You lost the gas and you lost out on money when you didn't sell. "
    This statement is 100% correct. In the industry and this is the dumbest move any landowner can make. They will get the gas and you will get nothing. That is exactly how it works.
    24 Apr 2011, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    chill7 you have no clue how this play works, do you picture this formation as a large cavern, then why not just stick a straw down one hole and remove all the gas at one spot. Please take a moment and think this thru before giving people bad info.
    24 Apr 2011, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tony Petroski
    , contributor
    Comments (6356) | Send Message
     
    D Virginia: "...but it clearly demonstrates that there are definitely some problems with how natural gas gets collected, and that at minimum, some investigations and studies are warranted."

     

    I would be prepared to concede that there are "definitely some problems" with:

     

    Taking a shower.

     

    Travelling on a plane.

     

    Putting gas in my car.

     

    Stepping out of bed and onto the floor.

     

    Spraying a field with chemicals.

     

    Not spraying a field with chemicals.

     

    Building a bridge.

     

    Climbing to the top of a ladder.

     

    Cutting down a tree.

     

    And etc...

     

    We've become a nation of people curled up in the fetal position with no solution to our problems other than to stop any activity and study it, hopefully on a government grant. This rot is now showing badly in our economic non-performance. We're a nation with a can't-do attitude.

     

    The irony of "hope and change" is that it's a program designed to shut down all innovation and cement-in the status quo only with slightly better pay and more benefits.

     

    It's time for real hope and change, that's why I react when "critics" appear anywhere enterprise is taking place.
    22 Apr 2011, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2278) | Send Message
     
    Do you know why travelling on a plane is safe? Because it's heavily regulated, and because its safety was studied ad nauseum -- mostly on government grants.

     

    Same with spraying chemicals on fields, building bridges, and putting gas in cars.

     

    However, you're on your own with the the bed, the ladder, and the tree. Do proceed. A little risk and the occasional bump on the head might do you some good.
    22 Apr 2011, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • Retired User
    , contributor
    Comments (1790) | Send Message
     
    D_Virginia asked: "Do you know why travelling on a plane is safe?"

     

    Sure. Pilots and airlines have a positive free market desire to stay alive and make money, instead of buying junk and killing themselves.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    Well said. Virgina...you're making rational points...but don't expect this guy to acknowledge it. He seeks to one-up you...he cares nothing about the truth.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Burtchaell
    , contributor
    Comments (413) | Send Message
     
    Losing a plane full of passengers is far more damaging to an airline than any regulation could ever be. Delivering passengers to their destination with service, value and safety.
    A quality reputation, built on customer satisfaction in a competitive market place is much more of a protection for customers, than regulations by a bloated ever growing, paid bureaucratic agency.
    22 Apr 2011, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • jackdeaton
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    We should immediately stop driving cars and heating our homes until the government does a thorough study but since the gov't inspectors wont have cars to drive to the well sites it may take awhile
    22 Apr 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4587) | Send Message
     
    Right because exaggeration and parody are clearly the hallmarks of intelligent discourse.
    22 Apr 2011, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    Common now...using exaggeration to ignore the point. Too typical...and juvenile.

     

    Poisoning our water supply is not something that should be taken lightly. I know...we need the energy. We need to make money. But none of the matters if we can't even survive drinking the local water!
    22 Apr 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Its definitely bad timing, though we all knew it would happen eventually.

     

    The industry better get far ahead of the game, and start to use non-toxic fluids only. Yes, it will cost a little bit more (and I'm an investor in natural gas companies so its not a case of wanting others to pay), but in the long run it will allow the industry to drill with fewer government regulations and burdens placed on it. I know this isn't a popular stance, but I believe I'm correct on this one. Sometimes doing the hard work up front pays off rather than looking for the easy way out. It may not be fair, it may not be factual, but as long as they are pumping toxins into the ground there will be public outcries against the activity - and that activity generates a lot of dividends and distributions for investors. So replace the toxins, accept the extra cost and publicize the heck out of the environmentally friendly way to reduce foreign oil dependency.
    22 Apr 2011, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    NO!!!!

     

    Looking for the easy way out is what business is all about! Jesus, I thought this was an investment site, what is WRONG with you people????//

     

    Frack the environment, there's money to be made here!
    22 Apr 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Micah
    , contributor
    Comments (498) | Send Message
     
    This is where we are drilling. Is water not a resource we should protect? (Copied from NJ State website)

     

    Over 15 million people (approximately five percent of the nation's population) rely on the waters of the Delaware River Basin for drinking, agricultural, and industrial use, but the watershed drains only four-tenths of one percent of the total continental U.S. land area. The 15 million figure includes about seven million people in New York City and northern New Jersey who live outside the basin. New York City gets roughly half its water from three large reservoirs located on tributaries to the Delaware.
    22 Apr 2011, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    I can't stand to listen to people from New York city telling us bumkins to protect our environment when they have completely eliminated theirs.
    22 Apr 2011, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Yes, we all know that sand, water and corn syrup are bad for the environment when DEY FRACK.

     

    That's why they should use alar. Remember that? It was gonnuh keeeeyul us all. Who knew? It was a vitamin the entire time! Better than Brawndo!
    22 Apr 2011, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Not_a_planner
    , contributor
    Comments (183) | Send Message
     
    Without the threat of regulations imagine how polluted our environment would be.

     

    And please don't tell me about the fantasy land where air is "owned" and everything is adjudicated based on property rights on earth
    22 Apr 2011, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Please, hippie, shut up.
    22 Apr 2011, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • William Henson
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure how you define "pollution", but when I don't have to walk down the street and worry about stepping in horse manure and human waste every block or the threat of lice infecting my children with various diseases every day or indoor fires causing long-term lung disease and starting house fires that were one of the number one killers of humans in the 1800s, that makes me kind of happy.

     

    Are things perfect? Of course not. But they're a hell of a lot better than they ever were. And you have capitalistic enterprise to thank for that. Not your vague and non-descript "regulations".

     

    Please see Matt Ridley's "The Rational Optimist" for the evidence and the (much more concise and well-written) argument.
    22 Apr 2011, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    Well said. Some folks just don't see the big picture:

     

    If you can't breath the air, or drink the water, what use is wealth? Quality of life requires a clean environment to live in. Everything else must come secondary.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Speaking as someone who is leased to chk, I want them to do it without destroying the place. Speaking as a chk investor, I expect them to go beyond the regulations and do what is right; in this political climate, to do otherwise is bad business. If you go to Hal's website you can read about the new Clean Sim process, which is based on food industry ingredients; it's an improvement but I dont want to drink it. Gasfrac uses propane to carry the sand into the fractures that they create with very high pressure, this eliminates frac water flow back, but there is questions about it's effectiveness in this play. The formation that they frac in Pa. is 6000 to 7000ft below the ground water, so just like in the gulf, the problems happen in the casing string, not water flowing up thru a mile of rock, this is the most important part of any well; water, gas, or oil.
    The latest problem in Pa. was a split in the casing just below the blow out preventer, probably a bad section of pipe. I hope to see a report from the State. We are all in this together here and we only have one chance to do it right.

     

    long chk hal

     

    short gasfrac
    22 Apr 2011, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • EnvestorFirst
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Great info here
    22 Apr 2011, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • jackdeaton
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    Having worked for Chesapeak and others similar I am sure they are doing their best to not harm the environment. Almost any industry can potentially harm the environment, sad to say. (in a collateral damage sort of way)
    I dont think anybody really likes to see good land messed up for any reason.
    Oil, gasoline, diesel and other fuels are for the most part hazardous to human health but until we are able to drive cars using water we are stuck with these.
    Another writer mentioned that from the beginning of time oil has seeped into groundwater. That was how we discovered oil in the first place in America. I would venture to say that nature has caused much more of the chemicals found in water than any drilling has or ever will.
    22 Apr 2011, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    Just because "oil has seeped into out groundwater" natural does not make it okay.

     

    Forrest fires happen naturally too. Does that mean it's okay to start them on purpose?
    22 Apr 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    "Forrest fires happen naturally too. Does that mean it's okay to start them on purpose? "

     

    Yes. Forest fires are started on purpose all the time to contain brush build up. Its called land management. Look it up.

     

    I do a lot of burn clearing to remove thatch and create pocket space and fire breaks.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • Paul H. M.
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    If you think the oil companies care about the locals, just ask people on the Gulf Coast. We need to regulate the shit out of these companies so they don't kill our families and livelihoods by poisoning the region.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    You're insane. Please go away.
    22 Apr 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • CharlieM
    , contributor
    Comments (149) | Send Message
     
    Paul H.M.,
    I have some VERY vested interests in the gulf region. (I own property and a house there in Texas.) I would REALLY like to point out that we have been drilling in the Gulf for YEARS without the kind of incident that occurred last April. Having worked in many industries I have always been amazed at the regulations imposed on oil companies and drillers working in the Gulf. We have more stringent regulations on drilling there than exist anywhere else in the world. Our problem is NOT that we need more regulation. We NEED honest government. Where were the regulators that were supposed to be overseeing what was going on? Why have they been excused from any persecution? In the events that have followed the failure in the gulf last year I have been VERY impressed with all that was done in a very difficult situation. I would really like to point out that B.P. and Transocean are not the only oil companies and drillers in the Gulf. YET, the entire industry has been punished for an incident by one. This I find akin to my neighbor shooting his wife and all in our city that are married being arrested.
    I have found that our oil companies, drillers and refineries are pressured more by publicity than incompetent government regulations and regulators. I am more in favor of finding root cause for the blow-out preventer failure, corrections as needed to the design for that working depth and contingent preparation for control and cleanup of a spill. Not more inane regulation!
    24 Apr 2011, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • jackdeaton
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    We need to regulate the government before we are as extinct as the dinosaur that made the carcinogenic oil in the first place
    23 Apr 2011, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • Witchy
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    These regulation-addicted, crybaby environmentalists! We've all seen the scientific evidence on Jeopardy: machines are now smart enough to run the corporations and keep the profits up, margins wide, even if and especially if all the wetware lifeforms are extinct. Face the truth: the problem is us carbon lifeforms with our incessant addiction for oxygen, water, and other wimpy expenses. Eliminate these expenses by putting Watsons in charge and watch the capital gains soar!
    23 Apr 2011, 02:46 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    You've summed up the church of Al Gore rather nicely. Carbon life forms = enemy of the earth.

     

    Your attempt at sarc kind of failed.
    23 Apr 2011, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Update: chk says a flange failed below the blow out preventer not the casing. chk has stoped all completion work (fracing) in Pa. and WV. until the cause is determined. Seems like chk is taking this seriously. This spill is what the anti-drillers have been praying for.
    23 Apr 2011, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Grand Nagus Kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1837) | Send Message
     
    Why do we need any laws if the free market is so wonderfully self regulating? All ceo's are just and fair and would never allow a plane that wasn't properly maintained to fly. No burglars would ever break into our houses. Bernie Madoff would have been honest.

     

    23 Apr 2011, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, regulators sure stopped Bernie didn't they? And cops don't stop burglars, they come afterward and fill out the report(if you're lucky) or forensics(if you're not). And CEOs don't consider what's 'just' and 'fair'. Neither should bureaucrats. For bureaucrats 'just' and 'fair' are what we call pandering. CEOs only try to generate a p-r-o-f-i-t or better, create shareholder value. I know this is hard for you to understand, child, but if you need more education I can provide it.
    23 Apr 2011, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Grand Nagus Kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1837) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for the education Wyatt. It's good to know thanks to you laws are unnecessary and we're wasting money on cops and prosecutors.

     

    And all those ads about how nice Walmart is to associates and communities, and the people of the energy industry being so concerned about us are just bullshit because you tell us all they care about is profit.
    23 Apr 2011, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Today's law enforcement is an enormous waste of money. You could achieve better results through a non-government agency. The agencies would obviously have to abide by state laws like you or I would, and like cops right now are supposed to. But, if they broke those laws, you would actually have a shot at getting a better result or, you could fire the entire agency and scrub them, then start over. Put a ballot initiative on the counties for mandatory coverage and every four years you could vote to retain the agency or hire a new one that you felt was more responsible or efficient and cost your county less. It would improve community repoire by helping them feel empowered and build trust. Put 'the people' back in charge. Are you against that kind of freedom, or is that just too much for your little brain to handle? Do you have a problem with empowering 'the people'?

     

    Same for DAs and prosecuting attorneys. Put the power back into the hands of 'the people', get rid of cronyism and insider appointments all the way around. Yeah, you're probably against that too.

     

    As for Wal Mart, they help stabilize communities by employing thousands and providing for their dental and health insurance. They remove blight, gentrify via helping the poor rise up into the middle class and provide cheap prices to consumers who otherwise couldn't pay their bills. Most of the lawsuits, not all, are union agit-prop sponsored by DC lobbyists with Washington affiliates who have an ideological axe to grind. Indeed, Obaman's first law he signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Act was a form of community terrorism aimed straight and unabashedly at Wal Mart to drain it of life, removing common legal precedent by removing statute of limitations. This is straight up gangsterism.

     

    I could go on, but I doubt you'd be able to keep up. Your brain is filled with hatred and lies.
    23 Apr 2011, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • Grand Nagus Kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1837) | Send Message
     
    Or I could read any goofball right wing propaganda site and get the lies and crap from there instead of reading your parroting Wyatt.
    24 Apr 2011, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    Parroting? Who's talking about privatizing public johns? I'm the only one I know. What's wrong Joe? Can't debate the ideas? I made too much sense? Or, do you hate freedom? Is freedom just too scary for weak slaves like you to consider?

     

    Yes, we know, Joe. Government is the answer to all our problems. We get it. You know better.
    24 Apr 2011, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • Bill Burtchaell
    , contributor
    Comments (413) | Send Message
     
    Interesting to read all the advocates for more regulations. Seems that some are content to delegate all of the expertise and enforcement to a government agency. The oil industry is "regulated" by 12 different agencies now. One of those agencies was responsible for granting an exception to BP, that exception was associated with the accident that occurred. I'm sure that all the bureaucrats involved were fired forthwith. Ummm maybe not! In fact no one is ever fired from the government for any reason. Marcopolis delivered 5 detailed evidence packages to the SEC, describing the Maddoff Ponzi scheme, NO action ever taken. How many of the SEC investigators lost their job?
    I can take back anything I buy from a free market company for any reason. I can go on line and look at the financial picture of any traded company right down to the detailed expenditure, where the revenue came from and where it went. If a business misses it's projections by pennies there is a resulting negative penalty to the stock, the executives and the shareholders always quick and certain.

     

    There is NO accountability in these agencies they just grow and constantly demand more money , that is the only solution they recommend to any problem, more money. Jimmy Carter created the department of energy, a small agency with the express purpose of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, at the time we were importing about 40%. That little agency now has 16,000 employees and a 78 Billion budget we are now importing 70%. Where is the accountability for all these agencies. This administration will create hundreds more entities. It's time to create a committee to study this problem and see if we really want a solution or will be continue to be happy to just have the issue!
    24 Apr 2011, 02:16 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs