Blackjack Dealer Stabs Another Blackjack Dealer In Las Vegas

Get Crime Alerts:Sign Up Follow: Blackjack Dealer Stabbing, Blackjack Stabbing, Blackjack Stabbing Vegas, Las Vegas Blackjack Stabbing, Las Vegas Stabbing, Women Blackjack Stabbing,Crime News #news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img

View the Original article

Another Fracking Strawman, Up In Smoke

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, telling Reuters on Monday that state regulation of hydraulic fracturing isn’t enough:

"There are some who are saying that it's not something we ought to do, it should be left up to the states. That's not good enough for me because states are at very different level, some have zero, some have decent rules."

Bold, to be sure. So we wonder about the “some who are saying” in Salazar’s comment. Who’s he talking about? Perhaps EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who said this in an interview last fall:

"The vast majority of oil and gas production is regulated at the state level. There are issues of whether or not the federal government can add to protection and also peace of mind for citizens by looking at large issues like air pollution impacts, which can be regional. ... So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role. We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process."

Worth repeating: The chief of the federal agency charged with protecting the environment says they’ve got nothing indicating that there needs to be “specific federal regulation of the fracking process.” More Jackson, a few days later on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. I always say it doesn't have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in."

Now, about the last part of Salazar’s comment, that some states have “zero” hydraulic fracturing regulation. We’ve checked around, and it looks like the secretary succumbed to a bit of Washington hyperbole there. A 2009 report by the Groundwater Protection Council, funded by the Energy Department for its National Energy Technology Laboratory, didn’t detect any oil and natural gas-producing states with ZERO rules.

Meanwhile, state officials sure sound deserving of Jackson’s confidence.

Oklahoma Corporation Commission Chairman Dana Murphy, before Congress last fall:

"My fundamental point would be to encourage that the states are the appropriate bodies to regulate the oil and gas drilling industry. Protection of water and the environment and the beneficial development of the nation's resources of oil and gas are not mutually exclusive goals. Oklahoma is proof of that."

And Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer:

“Simply put, because of our long history of oil and gas development and comprehensive regulatory structure, Pennsylvania does not need federal intervention to ensure an appropriate balance between resource development and environmental protection is struck.”

And Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper:

“I was personally involved with 50 or 60 (fracked) wells. There have been tens and thousands of wells in Colorado … and we can’t find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted groundwater. … There is a lot of anxiety out there certainly with hydraulic fracturing. But often times that anxiety is not directly connected to facts.”

If Secretary Salazar is dissatisfied with state-centered regulation of fracking – which is closest to and most responsive to individual industry operations – he should check with Administrator Jackson. And also with officials in the states, who clearly take the responsibility to oversee fracking within their borders seriously.

View the original article here

Another Study ‘Showing’ No Contamination from Fracking

Where to begin in a review of Pro Publica’s article on new research into the migration of subterranean brine to shallow water above? The inflammatory, overreaching headline? The leap from Duke University’s study to conclusions suggesting to the public that hydraulic fracturing is polluting drinking water?

Let’s start there. On that point the article is self-rebutting. See the fourth paragraph:

"No drilling chemicals were detected in the (shallow) water, and there was no correlation between where the natural brine was detected and where drilling takes place."

Then, near the end of the article:

"Nevertheless, (Robert) Jackson, one of the study's authors, said he still considers it unlikely that frack fluids and injected man-made waste are migrating into drinking water supplies. If that were happening, those contaminants would be more likely to appear in his groundwater samples, he said. His group is continuing its research into how the natural brine might have travelled, and how long it took to rise to the surface. 'There is a real time uncertainty,' he said. 'We don't know if this happens over a couple of years, or over millennia.'"

As for the study itself, Jackson and his team say they found that naturally occurring brine migrates upward to shallower depths. They say the risk of the migration could be greater in areas that have undergone hydraulic fracturing. Yet, there’s this from the study’s introductory summary:

“The occurrences of saline water do not correlate with the location of shale-gas wells and are consistent with reported data before rapid shale-gas development in the region …”

Energy In Depth has solid analysis on the study, here. Highlights:

The study fails (as Jackson notes above) to establish whether the migration occurs over 10 years or 10 million years. Without that, it’s impossible to determine whether the phenomenon is cause for concern.If brine is traveling up from thousands of feet below the surface, why haven’t the pathways Duke’s researchers identify allowed natural gas in the Marcellus region to leak out and disappear over time?There’s no discussion of whether the Marcellus Shale – which is largely a dry region with “virtually no free water,” according to Penn State’s Terry Engelder – even contains enough brinewater to leak.

Engelder, a Marcellus expert who was asked by the researchers to review their work, notes a number of questions the study leaves unanswered, reducing its usefulness. He writes:

"My review is predicated on the objective of your paper which is stated as a search for '...specific areas of shale-gas development in northeastern Pennsylvania that are at increased risk for contamination of shallow drinking water resources with deeper formation brines...' (the last sentence of your abstract). The term, risk, suggests that your paper veers from a conventional geology paper and enters into the realm of science-based advocacy or if you like, science policy."

Engelder is on target there. Unfortunately, the academics, wittingly or unwittingly, produced a study that is easily morphed into a siren call by opponents of natural gas production. Pro Publica’s article is Exhibit A. Exhibit B is a Bloomberg News story under this headline: “Pennsylvania Fracking Can Put Water at Risk, Study Finds” – despite the fact the study found no evidence of such a risk.

Words like “can,” “may” and “might” camouflage the point that the study didn’t find a correlation between the location of shale-gas wells and occurrences of saline water. To suggest otherwise in a news article is disingenuous and counterproductive in the national discussion of energy from shale.

As Engelder notes, the study is a platform from which advocates can mislead. On this story, The Associated Press got it right, focusing its report on what the study showed: “Gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water, which is a byproduct of the drilling.”

View the original article here