U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-30-2014, 12:23 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,357,829 times
Reputation: 2633

Advertisements

“They have no proof that they had the right to exclude her,” Kinchy said. “They didn’t present evidence of leases that gave them the right to treat the property as their own.” [1]



There is little doubt that Vera Scroggins is an activist and in her protests against fracking in her community has taken it to the line of the law, and perhaps beyond. That is difficult to discern at a distance.

Although it might be noted that Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation has not been shy in having her tailed by operatives, or in taking legal remedies many might consider draconian. It often had a quite good idea of her activities and location, and yet she has never been charged with trespassing. This corporation only complains of that now in seeking this injunction—instead of simply having her arrested on the spot for actual trespass?

It could be they've done all they can, and more, as with a weak case. Or indeed could the constitutional rights (as in of free speech and protest) of most Americans be circumvented due expansionist theory and law of what mineral rights mean?


1) 'Court prohibits vocal fracking critic from entering 40% of Pennsylvania county,' RT
Court prohibits vocal fracking critic from entering 40% of Pennsylvania county ? RT USA
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2014, 03:34 PM
 
9,840 posts, read 20,491,328 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
There is little doubt that Vera Scroggins is an activist and in her protests against fracking in her community has taken it to the line of the law, and perhaps beyond. That is difficult to discern at a distance.

Although it might be noted that Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation has not been shy in having her tailed by operatives, or in taking legal remedies many might consider draconian. It often had a quite good idea of her activities and location, and yet she has never been charged with trespassing. This corporation only complains of that now in seeking this injunction—instead of simply having her arrested on the spot for actual trespass?

It could be they've done all they can, and more, as with a weak case. Or indeed could the constitutional rights (as in of free speech and protest) of most Americans be circumvented due expansionist theory and law of what mineral rights mean?

1) 'Court prohibits vocal fracking critic from entering 40% of Pennsylvania county,' RT
Court prohibits vocal fracking critic from entering 40% of Pennsylvania county ? RT USA
Idunn, I don't think you are getting it, but then I'm not surprised.

Private property is private property and she has not been charged with trespassing, yet. But that could happen. I have dealt with trespassers myself and I have not asked police to press charges, but that doesn't mean I can't press them in the future if they ignore verbal warnings. Right now people are doing her a favor so she doesn't end up in jail.

If you are vague on this then you need to read the Pennsylvania code.

18 Pa.C.S. § 3503: Criminal trespass

Tailed by "operatives"? Is that an established fact or just nonsense concocted to create more drama and attention?

She can be an activist all she wants but not on property she doesn't own or lease. Simple as that. We have private property rights in this country. You can assemble and freely talk all you want, just not on my land and I'm sure many other property owners feel the same.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2014, 03:55 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,357,829 times
Reputation: 2633
Wink Particulars?

I am not advocating trespassing, only questioning whether it occurred in this situation—and as well how that might be defined. I am going by news accounts which are not specific. Should someone have more exact knowledge of the situation, certainly welcome.

In conjecture, though, one might wonder why Cabot has not simply had Ms. Scroggins arrested for trespass, if they could make such a legal case. They have complained about her being on public roads, so perhaps this their fiefdom as well?

The broader question in this matter—and why of any interest to begin with—is why an oil corporation would go to the extremes of legally barring someone from the better part of her community, including grocery stores and the county hospital. Moreover, how mineral rights on leased land could ever allow them such latitude, let alone a judge condone it.

There seems a broader issue here than simple trespass, and if so then something that could easily have been dealt with otherwise, and hardly newsworthy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2014, 06:19 PM
 
9,840 posts, read 20,491,328 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
I am not advocating trespassing, only questioning whether it occurred in this situation—and as well how that might be defined. I am going by news accounts which are not specific. Should someone have more exact knowledge of the situation, certainly welcome.

In conjecture, though, one might wonder why Cabot has not simply had Ms. Scroggins arrested for trespass, if they could make such a legal case. They have complained about her being on public roads, so perhaps this their fiefdom as well?

The broader question in this matter—and why of any interest to begin with—is why an oil corporation would go to the extremes of legally barring someone from the better part of her community, including grocery stores and the county hospital. Moreover, how mineral rights on leased land could ever allow them such latitude, let alone a judge condone it.

There seems a broader issue here than simple trespass, and if so then something that could easily have been dealt with otherwise, and hardly newsworthy.
Read the PA code. It is well defined.

If Cabot or more likely the private property owners in question as likely in most cases she is trespassing on property that is not Cabot's, if the property owners push to get criminal law involved, she will end up in jail or with a fine.

The oil corporation did not bar her from the community, any private properties she was banned from, if that is the case, is a decision the courts made. In any case just because there is a grocery store or restaurant, that's private property and the management can ask you to leave at any time.

Mostly when it comes down to it, like many of these "activists", she is merely seeking attention, negative or positive and to get views for her youtube vids and in addition to portray herself as the poor victim by some big meanie company. These "activists" all use the same Rules for Radicals agenda, stir the pot, break the law and then when action is taken against them for interfering with private property or whatever it might be, step back and play the poor victim. It's a game children even play.

If you want to be an activist, you can be one on public property, in public meetings, online, on your blog or newsletter or youtube vid, in your own house, on your own property, you just aint bein' one on my property.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2014, 11:57 AM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,357,829 times
Reputation: 2633
Wink If enough for fracking

"Of the nearly 40,000 oil and gas wells drilled since 2011, three-quarters were located in areas where water is scarce, and 55% were in areas experiencing drought, the report by the Ceres investor network found.

Fracking those wells used 97bn gallons of water, raising new concerns about unforeseen costs of America's energy rush."
[1]




While hardly new news to members of this forum, this article still adds something to the discussion. This post could as well be placed in one of the threads concerning the serious water situation in Colorado and the West.

Half of the cited 97 billion gallons of water used for fracking is in Texas. With various communities in fracking areas there in danger of running out of water within 90 days. The situation is no less dire in California, and as with other western states fracking operations almost universally within areas of high water stress. Colorado is only second to Texas in this regard, and nearly as high in extreme water stress, with virtually all fracked areas so.

Moreover the water so used ends up with a who's who of chemical toxins introduced in the fracking process. Much of this was initially dumped into the environment and rivers, then more often injected back into the ground (and unknown consequences to groundwater). But as high in salts (and—not publicized—radioactivity) also repurposed and "recycled" as brine spread on roadways. Any "recycling" is customarily only done for the first few months of a wells life, but resultant oozing discharge continues for decades. [2]

Fracking operations, despite their obviously high environmental impact, are exempt from EPA clean water rules (by design and political payoff).


1) 'Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows,' The Guardian
Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows | Environment | theguardian.com

2) 'Wastewater Recycling No Cure-All in Gas Process,' The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us...ntl+News)&_r=0
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,794 posts, read 17,550,759 times
Reputation: 9424
If TEXAS ( yeah you heard right...TEXAS of all places ) can ban fracking, what the heck are we the people of Colorado waiting for?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 03:21 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,357,829 times
Reputation: 2633
Wink Governor Frackenlooper

"But what has been lost in the discussion of Hickenlooper’s new stricter regulations is how the enforcement of these new rules will actually be accomplished." [1]



Coloradoans may have been so busy commiserating over the inexplicable performance of the Broncos on Super Bowl Sunday that they overlooked the environmental threat in their backyard that day. Or one, related, having occurred the very same day in distant North Carolina.

And something perhaps easy to miss, even if paying attention. As still now downplayed in the media, if now a federal matter.[2] On Sunday, February 2, 2014 a coal ash pit of Duke Energy failed, having since released some 82,000 tons of toxic coal ash and 27 million gallons of contaminated water into the adjacent Dan River. For several days after this breach they had no solutions towards stemming the ongoing tide of highly toxic sludge into this river, and only at last halting it by accident.

If an environmental catastrophe, perhaps somewhat excusable if a one off event and unforeseen. Neither being the case. Among other incidents of note, on December 22, 2008 the community of Kingston, TN suffered the sudden release of 1.1 billion gallons of highly toxic coal ash. [3] These are not unknown events, yet coal ash basins are often situated in environmentally sensitive areas and next rivers. Moreover they are prone to leaking their contents into the groundwater, even if not totally collapsing. Duke Energy has 31 such coal ash basins scattered throughout North Carolina.

That until quite recently—and, basically, still—no governmental authority in North Carolina took much interest in the threat posed by coal ash or the environment in general is little surprise, considering that now North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory worked for 28 years at Duke Energy until his retirement there. Compounding that, his appointed top environmental official in the state doesn't much believe in environmental science, global warming, you name it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Colorado, we have a governor from much the same school of thought. Fortunately Colorado isn't exactly swimming in coal ash, yet it exists in this state, the residue from coal-fired energy plants.[4] But Governor Hickenlooper's stewardship extends to the issue of fracking as well.

Of late our poor governor has been fighting a losing rearguard action in preventing communities such as Longmont and Broomfield in passing ordinances to protect their environment and citizens against the harm possibly done by fracking. In this not going at all well our petroleum man and governor has since switched gears and now suggesting various 'improvements' and stricter 'regulations.' On paper this sounds good, as some of these new fracking regulations have stricter standards than even imposed by the federal EPA. Where it all falls apart however is in the intended implementation—or decided lack thereof.

It turns out that gilt-covered regulations do not mean much when never intended to be viably enforced. Our Governor Hickenlooper has specifically seen to that. He giveth with one hand (that publicly visible) and taketh with the other (out of sight). The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, our oversight body, is a dubious proposition to begin with, seemingly more concerned with not placing burdensome oversight on oil companies than on what they might do to Colorado's environment. But even if with the best of intentions they remain stymied by a paucity of inspectors—by design. Even a proposed 60 plus new inspectors would have had a difficult time overseeing Colorado's existing 52,000 oil wells. But that legislative initiative was squashed by the governor and his pals. So Colorado can continue with the 8 inspectors it has. Thus the CAQCC cannot enforce EPA air quality standards at even just the new wells being drilled at any given time.

And even if able to oversee all this, the enforcement is, to put it kindly, weak. Hickenlooper oversaw the defeat of the law that would have raised the penalty for infractions of state and federal oil laws to $15,000 per day. Such fine at present remains at $1,000 per day, with that often reduced or entirely forgiven by a munificent Colorado.

Yet never fear, our governor will have one looking elsewhere in pointing to his new 'improved' regulations being implemented in conjunction with some tree-huggers, as in the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Finally some credibility and someone we can count on to look after Colorado's best interests. Well, sort of, and not really. For instance:
"A consensus was growing across the country — at least it was growing until the EDF joined with the oil and gas industry to fund its own emissions study. The steering committee for the EDF study consisted of the study’s author, University of Texas professor David Allen, nine representatives from the oil and gas industry — including lobbyist and public relations personnel from Shell, Southwestern Energy, ExxonMobil and others — along with two EDF employees." [1]
It turns out the EDF has uncomfortably close ties with the oil and gas industry. In fact a large part of their funding is derived from the same industry that they supposedly keep a keen eye on.

So what might one make of all this? Perhaps that various entities which we assume are looking out for our and the environment's best interest have been perfecting certain techniques best known to the Wizard of Oz. And that in this shell game one's best bet is not to take their advice for where the ball is but watch it closely oneself. Better yet, maybe not play it at all, and begin that with not re-electing an oil man to oversee the massive amount of fracking ramping up in this state.

Or that Colorado's environment and its citizens will be best served by those who actually care about them.



1) 'Hickenlooper's new oil and gas regulations: Real substance or fracking greenwash?,' Boulder Weekly
Hickenlooper's new oil and gas regulations: Real substance or fracking greenwash?

2) 'U.S. widens inquiry of Duke Energy's coal ash spill in North Carolina,' Los Angeles Times
U.S. widens inquiry of Duke Energy's coal ash spill in North Carolina - latimes.com

3) 'Tennessee coal ash spill,' Mother Nature Network
America's worst man-made environmental disasters: Tennessee coal ash spill | MNN - Mother Nature Network

4) 'Coal Ash in Colorado,' Clean Water Action
Coal Ash in Colorado | Clean Water Action
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 03:25 PM
 
22,960 posts, read 42,049,100 times
Reputation: 23383
Default Fracking Boom Leaves Texans Under a Cloud

Energy independence comes at a price....independence of any sort usually does... Story in Bloomberg today

Excerpt: "When Lynn Buehring leaves her doctor's office in San Antonio she makes sure her inhaler is on the seat beside her.... About 40 miles down the road, ... drilling rigs, crude oil storage tanks and flares trailing black smoke appear .... Depending on the speed and direction of the wind, a yellow-brown haze might stretch across the horizon, filling the car with pungent odors. Sometimes Buehring's eyes burn, her chest tightens and pain stabs at her temples. ... the days when the Buehrings could sit on the deck ... and lull away an afternoon are long gone. The fumes won't let them."

I've not been north of Denver for a while, is there a haze up there, or anywhere in COLO, from fracking?
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 03:42 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,357,829 times
Reputation: 2633
Wink Decidedly murky

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
Energy independence comes at a price....independence of any sort usually does... Story in Bloomberg today

Excerpt: "When Lynn Buehring leaves her doctor's office in San Antonio she makes sure her inhaler is on the seat beside her.... About 40 miles down the road, ... drilling rigs, crude oil storage tanks and flares trailing black smoke appear .... Depending on the speed and direction of the wind, a yellow-brown haze might stretch across the horizon, filling the car with pungent odors. Sometimes Buehring's eyes burn, her chest tightens and pain stabs at her temples. ... the days when the Buehrings could sit on the deck ... and lull away an afternoon are long gone. The fumes won't let them."

I've not been north of Denver for a while, is there a haze up there, or anywhere in COLO, from fracking?

There may not be a visible haze, yet no doubt that Colorado's air quality is being negatively affected by fracking operations.

In example, one area I can point and personally attest to is near the Wyoming state line and close to the Pawnee National Grasslands. There are any number of fracking wells there that only last summer, and presumably now, were flaring off residual gas. These large flames are visible from a long distance off, continuing 24/7. I'm not even sure there are not ongoing gas operations within Pawnee National Grasslands; if whatever natural grassland there has long since been subsumed by the many privately controlled cows allowed to make this (national prairie, resource?) their home.

Air quality has been an increasing concern and growing problem in Texas. If memory serves, the community of Denton, TX recently took it upon themselves to address this issue—since the state refused to.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,794 posts, read 17,550,759 times
Reputation: 9424
Get the fr*ck out of Colorado!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:28 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top