iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Fracking': EPA Takes New Look At Natural Gas Drilling And Possible Water Contamination

MARC LEVY and MARY ESCH   07/20/10 07:49 PM ET   AP

Natural Gas Drilling

HARRISBURG, Pa. — So vast is the wealth of natural gas locked into dense rock deep beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio that some geologists estimate it's enough to supply the entire East Coast for 50 years.

But freeing it requires a powerful drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," using millions of gallons of water brewed with toxic chemicals, that some fear could pollute water above and below ground and deplete aquifers.

As gas drillers swarm to this lucrative Marcellus Shale region and blast into other shale reserves around the country, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking a new look at the controversial fracking technique, currently exempt from federal regulation. The $1.9 million study comes as the nation reels from the Deepwater Horizon environmental and economic disaster playing out in the Gulf of Mexico.

The oil and gas industry steadfastly defends the process as having been proven safe over many years as well as necessary to keep the nation on a path to energy independence.

Studies have "consistently shown that the risks are managed, it's safe, it's a technology that's essential ... it's also a technology that's well-regulated," said Lee Fuller, director of the industry coalition Energy In Depth.

"A fair study," Fuller added, "will show that the procedures that are there now are highly effective and do not need to be altered – the federal government does not need to be there."

But because of the oil spill, conservation groups say the drilling industry has lost it credibility and the rapid expansion of shale drilling needs to be scrutinized.

"People no longer trust the oil and gas industry to say, 'Trust us, we're not cutting corners,' " said Cathy Carlson, a policy adviser for Earthworks, which supports federal regulation and a moratorium on fracking in the Marcellus Shale.

Just six years ago, an EPA study declared the fracking process posed "little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water" and with that blessing, Congress a year later exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation.

Now the agency, prodded by Congress even before the Gulf disaster and stung by criticism that its 2004 study was scientifically flawed and maybe politically tainted, will bring the issues to the heart of the land lease rush in the Marcellus Shale: Canonsburg, Pa., on Thursday and Binghamton, N.Y., on Aug. 12.

EPA hearings earlier this month in Fort Worth, Texas, and Denver focused on issues including drilling in the Barnett Shale of Texas, and in Colorado and Wyoming, which have experienced similar natural gas booms. Natural gas is also being recovered from the Haynesville Shale in north Louisiana, the Fayetteville Shale in northern Arkansas and Woodford Shale in southern Oklahoma.

In Texas, where drillers have sunk more than 13,000 wells into the Barnett Shale in the past decade, fear of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in the air above gas fields from processing plants and equipment has spurred tests by environmental regulators and criticism of the state's safeguards. In Colorado, numerous residents contend gas drilling has spoiled their water wells.

Advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology in the late 1990s significantly increased the yield and economic viability of tapping shale gas wells and led to the current natural gas boom, starting in Texas with the Barnett Shale. Fracking is now considered the key to unlocking huge, untapped natural gas reserves across the United States at a time when natural gas is emerging as a greener energy alternative to coal or oil.

The Marcellus Shale is 10 times the size of the Barnett, spanning 50,000 square miles compared with the 5,000-square-mile Barnett. It is also three times thicker than the Barnett at up to 900 feet and is estimated to have a potential yield of 10 times as much gas (500 trillion cubic feet versus 50 trillion cubic feet).

At stake in the debate over how best to manage and regulate this enormous new natural resource is not just the safety of water supplies but also thousands of jobs, profits for the gas drilling and delivery industry and a bonanza of royalties for landowners.

"We've got to get it right," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a sponsor of the so-called FRAC Act, which would repeal the 2005 exemption and require regulation of fracking by the EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

"We allowed coal over many, many decades to be an industry that was so unregulated that it was allowed to do virtually whatever it wanted, and now we have numerous environmentally adverse impacts," he said.

Though the drilling rush into Pennsylvania is barely two years old, more than 3,500 permits have been issued and about 1,500 wells drilled, with thousands more expected. Environmental problems are already bubbling up: methane leaks contaminating private water wells, major spillage of diesel and fracking chemicals above ground, and fish kill in a creek.

A well blowout in north-central Pennsylvania last month spewed natural gas and toxic fracking water out of control for 16 hours. State regulators found EOG Resources Inc. of Houston had failed to install a proper blowout prevention system – taking cost shortcuts. The state fined EOG Resources and a contractor more than $400,000.

A wary New York state has had a virtual moratorium on drilling permits for the Marcellus Shale region for two years while it completes an environmental review.

Fear of water pollution is so high that a sweet spot of the Marcellus Shale – the Delaware River watershed in southern New York and northeastern Pennsylvania that provides drinking water for 17 million people from Philadelphia to New York City – is virtually off-limits to drilling for now.

The industry says there is no evidence that fracking chemicals – some of them suspected human carcinogens – contaminate drinking water, wells or aquifers once blasted deep underground.

EPA summarized numerous reports of "water quality incidents" in residential wells, homes, or streams in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming but said there was inconclusive evidence linking the incidents to fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing, first used commercially in 1949 by petroleum services giant Halliburton Co. of Houston, was developed to eke gas and oil from impermeable rock. Water mixed with chemicals and sand is injected at high pressure to fracture shale, the sand holding fractures open so gas can flow up the well.

Each frack job uses an average of 4 million gallons of water, delivered to a well site by hundreds of tanker trucks. Some of the "produced" wastewater remains in the well – estimates range from 20 percent to 90 percent. What comes back up the well – briny, chemical-laden and possibly radioactive from exposure to naturally existing radon underground – is usually stored in open pits until it's trucked to treatment plants or underground injection wells.

In the northeastern Pennsylvania town of Dimock, state regulators have repeatedly penalized Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. for contaminating the drinking water wells of 14 homes with leaking methane and for numerous spills of diesel and chemical drilling additives, including one that contaminated a wetland and killed fish.

Even as Pennsylvania officials work to improve their regulation of drilling, the state's environmental protection secretary does not want to cede authority.

"I'm not ready to turn Pennsylvania's resources over to the federal government," said John Hanger. "Right now, Pennsylvania has just about the very best drilling oversight in the country and we continue to keep working at it every day."

Hanger is quick to criticize the regulatory debacle of the federal Minerals Management Service and its cozy relationship with oil and gas corporations before the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20.

"That agency was captured by the drilling industry," he said.

The industry says it believes state oversight is sufficient and worries the new EPA study will lead to new and costly safety and environmental rules that would rob them of decades of profits.

In West Virginia, however, state officials concede they're overwhelmed trying to regulate the Marcellus juggernaut that has added hundreds of Marcellus wells to tens of thousands of traditional, shallow gas wells.

If passed, the FRAC Act would remove what's widely known as the "Halliburton loophole" – which exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act when the 2005 energy bill was passed.

The EPA, in a statement to The Associated Press, did not criticize its previous study. But given the rapid expansion of the industry and "serious concerns" about the impact of hydraulic fracturing, the agency said it concluded it was necessary to conduct a peer-reviewed study that draws upon best available science, independent experts and the public.

___

Online:

EPA's hydraulic fracturing website: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

HARRISBURG, Pa. — So vast is the wealth of natural gas locked into dense rock deep beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio that some geologists estimate it's enough to supply the ...
HARRISBURG, Pa. — So vast is the wealth of natural gas locked into dense rock deep beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio that some geologists estimate it's enough to supply the ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph-Ohio
05:20 PM on 07/23/2010
There's a strata called the Rose Run.

I understand it holds a wealth of oil and natural gas.

I also understand that it is a deep sandstone strata and lies beneath impervious bedrock of some sort - perhaps limestone.

In that reservoir considering the impervious cap - a significant problem that I could see would be doing whatever it took to maintain the integrity of the casing - so as to prevent any contaminants escaping the casing above the impervious cap and into water resources for instance.

There's also of course the blowout risk and required safety systems that would have to certified as in tip-top working order and maintained.

Can't be cheap or careless about it - it's lethal service.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph-Ohio
04:51 PM on 07/23/2010
Hydraulic Fracturing.

Being admittedly stupid about it I still have a question or two.

Why does it have to be Hydraulic ?

Why can't the strata be pressurized with some inert gas that can be easily separated later after recovery ?

If it has to be 'Fracturing' of the 'Hydraulic' sort - can it be done safely, responsibly and without danger of castastrophe - in other words are we doing it right and paying the price for taking shortcuts ? And if it can be - why aren't we doing it that way in the 1st place ?
05:32 PM on 07/23/2010
Joseph,
every formation is different. Nitrogen and CO2 are used sometimes in the process. Geologists and petroleum engineers decide which method to use. I used to work for a well service company and I'm currently an EHS specialist. That said, integrity is very important to me and I have no reason to try and deceive you.

Most frac jobs occur in multiple stages. Before each stage, the well bore is perforated in a specific zone in the formation. A plug is set and frac fluid will flow through those perforations and those only. We can easily tell if there is a leak in the wellbore. The well is pressure tested with water before any hazardous chemicals are ever sent down the well. The well pressure will then be monitored. If the pressure drops below a certain amount, the frac job is stopped. If it holds, then the stage will be frac'd. As the pressurized water forms a fissure, proppant sand rushes in and hold the crack open. Since the sand is porous, natural gas can find it's way to the well bore. The water will flow back out of the well after each stage and the next zone will be perforated. Special well casing and cement is put in place in the water bearing areas of the formation.

It's not in a company's best interest to frac in zones anywhere close to aquifers. They don't want their investment to leak out. That's why they employ legions of engineers to make
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
06:24 PM on 09/06/2010
Here's the other side of the issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/fracking-epa-takes-new-lo_n_653903.html

Citizens in the Marcellus Shale Area should read this article and pass it around to their neighbors. Why do we have to wait for the bullet when we can see the loaded gun and take the gun away?

Why won't the gas companies tell us what's in their chemical stew? Is it possible that when they combine CO2 and H2O along with other chemicals that instead of extracting existing gas they are creating more methane gas with their chemical stew? That would certqainly account for the use of 4 million gallons of water for each of these frackin' wells.

Now we know wy D. Cheney didn't want transparency when he was dealing with the energy industry. they even have a law that exempts them from regulation under the Clean Water Act. Now, why would they want that exemption? What did they know about their 'frackin' process that might disqualify it as an extraction process

I'm jus' sayin' http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090929/fracking-accidents-prompt-calls-oversight#comment-7503
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger in firm support of President Obama!
01:08 PM on 07/23/2010
Read and see a good graphic of fracking and what it can do to the water table...

http://gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joseph-Ohio
05:10 PM on 07/23/2010
Can't believe everything you see on the tube.

Alot of Hollywood.

Have to believe the horror stories are the exception - but, I'm convinced the horror stories can be eliminated by safe, responsible procedures and no short-cuts.

The country needs it's energy resources.

Alot of Americans need the work.

Just my way of looking at things.

Good luck to all of us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger in firm support of President Obama!
07:23 PM on 07/23/2010
I agree, we need our energy resources but we also need our air, land, and ground water to remain uncontaminated. What is wrong with Solar, Wind, and Tide power? No fracking necessary, no drilling, no burning.. clean energy production. I realize it takes energy to make the panels, turbines, tide machines but after that you are producing energy from the Sun, Wind and Water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
06:44 PM on 09/06/2010
"The Great Book of Hemp" reports that hemp oil from the hemp seed can be processed for fuel, food, and thousands of other products.

Here's a green energy source that could generate national industries from farming to advertising, manufacturing and tooling to retail sales, trucking and refrigeration, etc. Millions of good jobs that cannot be exported.

Displaced workers from the fossil fuel industry would move right into the hemp processing industry. We used to have a flourishing hemp industry before 1932. It was revived during WWII, then shut down again because the fossil fuel, timber, gas, and pharmacuetical billionaires didn't want to compete with a natural source of energy.
Hemp is a perfect substitute for all fossil fuels and timber.

Only one DEA regulation constrains the national cultivation of industrial hemp. Industrial hemp is non-psychoactive, matures in 4-6 weeks, needs no pesticides, and only uses very little non-chemical fertilizer and water. Cotton uses half the pesticides produced in the U.S. and 90% more water than hemp.

What is it that Canada, and EU countries know about the benefits of industrial hemp that our government ought to embrace. In 2008 industrial hemp trade was a billion dollar international industry. It's resugence is due to its durability, versatility, and independence from fossil fuel processing and additives.

We just need someone at the top with a real concern for the future of Mother Earth.
Especially since todays children will either suffer from or exalt in our decisions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger in firm support of President Obama!
12:52 PM on 07/23/2010
EPA summarized numerous reports of "water quality incidents" in residential wells, homes, or streams in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming but said there was inconclusive evidence linking the incidents to fracking.

Yeah, if drilling has recently set up in my area and all of a sudden I can light my water on fire then I don't suspect I have to look too many places for the cause. But yes, this is how they win, first you have to prove the water is bad, then you have to prove what caused it. You have to have money to have your water tested, sometimes numerous times and then you have to hire a lawyer to go after the companies. Very difficult for the average person to do. Especially if you you accepted a dollar per acre land lease for drilling and then your water goes bad. I would suggest if you take money from a drilling company you should use that money to run away quickly. It is a buyout and not a lease! Make sure it is worth it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
06:00 PM on 07/28/2010
Fanned.

Frackin' is just another word (change two letters) for what they are doing to people who need money in these tough times.

If it is so benign why did Chenney have secret and closed door meetings with the industry? Why did they get an exemption from the Clean Water Act? Why do they have complete gov. approved secrecy on the composition of chemicals used in fracking?

This whole energy independence shittake mushroom ploy is bogus. What this nation needs is a President who will picke up the phone and tell DEA to cease and desist in its enforcement of a DEA regulation which prohibits the cultivation of non-psychoactive Cannabis Sativa L/industrial hemp. Industrial hemp can replace all fossil fuels, timber,ethanol, etc. We don't and have never needed fossil fuels for enenrgy independents.
11:10 AM on 07/23/2010
The question is:
What is the REAL cost of fossil fuels? There are a lot of subsidies going to these companies. If we had to pay the real cost for coal, gas and oil, that included the cleanup of their environmental damage, society would be very interested in wind and solar power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger in firm support of President Obama!
12:55 PM on 07/23/2010
Society would be interested if the oil and gas companies didn't have huge lobbies out there spreading lies about alternative power. But I also agree with your point about the true cost of fuel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:25 PM on 07/22/2010
We had a natural gas industry that had productive wells prior to fracking, didn't we?

Why aren't there safe alternatives to the nasty VOC's that are used?

What is it that is purported to being accomplished by the fracking chemicals that could not be done by other compounds that do not poison?

What is done to the strata by fracking that could not be accomplished by pressure fracturing alone?

How does the presence of fracking VOC's hold the gaps between microscopic crystalline formations open for the greater production?
07:19 AM on 07/23/2010
All the low hanging fruit is now gone. It is not viable to drill and not frac a well. It's like buying a car without any wheels. Each chemical has a specific job. Initial acid breakdown, breakers, cross-l
07:21 AM on 07/23/2010
Cross-linkers, gels, enzymes to break down the gels, friction reducer, anti-bacterial chemicals, they all play their part when fracing a well
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
05:00 PM on 07/22/2010
First, let me explain my position before you take my comment below out of context. I believe America needs a lot less oil and natural gas drilling. I believe frac’ing should be regulated and the ingredients of the frac’ing fluid disclosed. 99.5% of frac’ing solution is sand and water, but the other 0.5% is a concern. All states should enact a law like Wyoming recently did forcing disclosure of these chemicals. There’s really no good reason not to. I most definitely do not work for the oil or gas industry.

However, I live in gas country also and I can tell you the process of drilling a gas well groundwater resources are protected. I’m not saying there aren’t some horror stories out there. But the vast majority of frac’ed gas wells do not contaminate groundwater. Some of you make it sound like every time a gas well is drilled water is contaminated. That’s just not the case.

Check out this video, it’s a good illustration of how a gas well is drilled and frac’ed.

http://www.northernoil.com/drilling.php

Natural gas is a necessary part of our energy portfolio. We must force companies to spend the extra money to mitigate environmental effects. More regulation is needed. However, calls to shut down frac’ing altogether (and therefore most on-shore gas development) amount to hysteria. Okay, flame away, but you could at least take the time to learn about the process before weighing in.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
09:24 AM on 07/23/2010
17 million people depend on water from the Marcellus shale region. A few thousand jobs are not equal to the ability of this population and future generations to access clean drinking water.

Happy to learn about the process and to see it properly regulated: I suspect though if it were properly regulated, it wouldn't happen. The risk is too high. Contamination of drinking water cannot be undone.
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
09:48 AM on 07/23/2010
I whole-heartadly agree the process needs to be properly regulated and said as much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
06:17 PM on 07/28/2010
What is also at issue is the depletion of potable water. Using 4 million gallons of water per well, that cannot be retrieved for human use is a catastrophe. All of the fresh water we have on this earth right now is all the fresh water we will ever have. There is no majic way for creating more fresh water.


This is the the tragedy of gas and oil well pressurization. Folks in the East and West need to organize to stop the use of significant volumes of their fresh water for gas and oil well pressurization. In the West and East farmers complain about water shortages for food crops. Yet, the USDA plays them off with assurances that water sharing arrangements can be formalized to supply all users. This is pure shittake mushroom crappolla. The energy industry will always win since they have the bucks, political access and are major campaign contributors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger in firm support of President Obama!
01:07 PM on 07/23/2010
During the Bush administration VP Cheney signed exclusions for the fracking chemicals allowing them to bipass disclosure. They are declared proprietary by the companies that use them and it was said that for competitive reasons they could be undisclosed.

I don't believe that .5% is the other, I think it is more than that.
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
04:22 PM on 07/23/2010
I know about the "Halliburton exception.” It was ridiculous. I'll say it again: frac'ing needs to be regulated. Industry's excuse of "trade secrets" doesn't cut it. Sorry, all kinds of companies in other industries are forced to fork over their recipes, so these guys should too. Government agencies protect proprietary information all the time, so have them protect this too if that's really the issue.

Here's my citation the 99.5% number: http://www.energyindepth.org/frac-fluid.pdf
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
04:57 PM on 07/22/2010
Folks, you must realize Gasland was not made by an objective source. You must realize that Mr. Fox is staunch vocal opponent of gas development and will do anything to shut it down. Would you trust everything you saw in a documentary created by the gas industry? Of course not, and you shouldn’t. So why do you take Gasland as gospel? You have to watch Gasland with the understanding that this is one side of the story and that the movie makers aren’t even trying to hide their agenda.

Mustn’t we consider the source? It’s the #1 rule in media today. If you don’t consider the source you have no idea what you’re really getting. Take the Markham well in Fort Lupton for example, which was supposedly contaminated as a result of nearby development. But the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission found the methane in the water was natural and had nothing to do with oil or gas development (http://cogcc.state.co.us/cogis/ComplaintReport.asp?doc_num=200190138). By purposefully omitting facts like this, Fox doesn’t have a ton of credibility.

Consider these articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/arts/television/21gasland.html

http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/no-second-acts-for-gasland/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:22 AM on 07/22/2010
What is more important?
The health of tens of millions of Americans?
Or short term profits for Big Oil?
Since we already know the answer to that one, I am just glad I don't live in a part of the country where this will be happening.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenJK
All your consciousness are belong to us
01:56 AM on 07/22/2010
Thank you Josh Fox and all those people who testified in his documentary, GASLAND. If you haven't seen it, you will understand the EPA's "fresh" look at "fracking" after you've seen the docu.
09:53 AM on 07/22/2010
Great documentary that everyone should watch.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:25 AM on 07/22/2010
Can any resident geologist explain if this fracturing process is the same as the process suggested for greater depths during hot-dry-rock geothermal recovery?
07:55 AM on 07/22/2010
It can have benefit in improving heat transfer in a geothermal project, just as it benefits recovery of clean-burning natural gas in the many projects now compromised by current reviews.

The process does not link reservoirs with water sources, so it is unlikely to contaminate the water supply. And the industry re-uses much of the water it uses in fraccing, precisely as water is becoming an expensive commodity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:12 AM on 07/22/2010
I think it would be more accurate to say: "The process does not \\intentionally// link reservoirs with water sources, so \\if done properly// it is unlikely to contaminate the water supply."

However, not properly characterizing/understanding the geology or putting $$ before safety and being overly aggressive with the fracturing can and does lead to contamination of underground water sources.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tjconkster
Occupy the Voting Booth 2014
11:38 PM on 07/21/2010
http://gaslandthemovie.com/
09:59 AM on 07/22/2010
thanks for the link
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rougebaisers
06:39 PM on 07/21/2010
Don't let them poison your drinking water. Fight them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gbloodgood
06:18 PM on 07/21/2010
I have had some disappointments with Obama but this wouldn't be happening if there was a republican in the white house.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
09:29 AM on 07/23/2010
True enough. Though nothing has happened yet. A study has commenced.

Doesn't the president have the power to ask that our nation's laws be enforced with regard to oil and energy companies? (clean drinking water legislation etc.) Shouldn't we ask this of him?
03:24 PM on 07/21/2010
Dear angry daydreamers. There is zero chance that shale gas production in this country will be shut down. By all means clean up whatever mess a few sloppy surface operators have made so that the few hundred people who may have had their well water contaminated have the problem resolved, and then embard on a regulatory regime that ensures you don't have it happen again. But shale gas development, enabled by fracking is perhaps the greatest energy success story in the USA in the last 25 years. We import almost zero natural gas and the abundant new supplies being brought into the system (mostly from depressed, no job growth areas in Pennsylvania and NY, where it has been great for the local economies) will do more than anything to back coal out of our power system and replace it with much cleaner and much lower carbon footprint natural gas. Sorry to impact so harshly on your magical energy thinking with this bit of reality, but it is what it is and if it makes you suicidal to think about it, see a shrink.

Fracking occurs at a depth thousands of feet below the surface while well water mostly comes from wells a hundred feet or less deep. There is no communications between those two zones, which are separated by thousands of feet of impermiable rock. Geology 001.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
progressivegreg
Scotty, beam me up
03:38 PM on 07/21/2010
And I really like the way it catches fire at the tap, saves the expense of a new water heater!
11:38 AM on 07/22/2010
Dear Progressive - Please tell me how many homes in the USA this is occurring in. Can you get up a number of 5? Names and addresses of this awful thing? I assure you several people will be killed in traffic accidents in the USA today (and if you want I can give you the names tomorrow) but I wonder if you want to outlaw automobiles?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFraz
03:44 PM on 07/21/2010
Pickens, is that you?