iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Federal Fracking Panel Heavy With Industry Influence, Critics Charge [UPDATE]

Fracking Study

First Posted: 06/09/11 04:18 PM ET Updated: 08/09/11 06:12 AM ET

An environmental group is seeking records from the Department of Energy as part of an effort to uncover the process behind last month's creation of a 7-member panel to review the environmental safety of hydraulic fracturing, a controversial natural gas development technique.

The Environmental Working Group filed a Freedom of Information Act request Wednesday seeking all correspondence and communications relating to the creation of the panel, which the group characterized as being stacked with industry representatives and devoid of representation of citizens in communities affected by gas drilling.

"We want to see how the panel was put together," Dusty Horwitt, senior counsel for EWG, told The Huffington Post. "Did the department consider people from other agencies? Did they consider people from communities? Did they get pressure from industry groups?"

The Department of Energy announced last month that it had established a panel of "environmental, industry and state regulatory experts" at the behest of President Obama to examine the safety of modern natural gas development practices.

"America's vast natural gas resources can generate many new jobs and provide significant environmental benefits, but we need to ensure we harness these resources safely," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement issued at the time. "I am looking forward to hearing from this diverse, respected group of experts on best practices for safe and responsible natural gas production."

Among other things, the panel was charged with providing an outline of "any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing" within 90 days of the panel's first meeting, according to the Energy Department's initial announcement.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals deep underground to break up and prop open layers of rock to ease the release of natural gas deposits. The industry claims that when done correctly, it is essentially safe.

But critics charge that too few regulations are in place to ensure that companies deploy the proper safeguards to prevent methane or chemicals from migrating out of the well-bore and into surrounding drinking water supplies.

A wide array of other critics worry that there are no safeguards that could provide reasonable enough protections.

Over the following six months, the DOE panel is expected to provide advice to federal agencies "on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment," according to DOE.

The members of the panel include John Deutch, a professor at M.I.T. who serves as chair; Stephen Holditch, head of the department of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University; Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund; Kathleen McGinty, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Susan Tierney, managing principal for financial consulting firm Analysis Group; Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and Mark Zoback, a professor of geophysics at Stanford University.

EWG immediately took issue with the makeup of the group, arguing shortly after its formation that at least 6 of the 7 members have heavy ties to the natural gas industry:

From profiles of the various panel members compiled by E.W.G. in a May 10 report:

  • Panel chair John Deutch, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, now on the board of Cheniere Energy, Inc., a Houston-based liquified natural gas company that, according to Forbes Magazine online, paid Deutch about $882,000 from 2006 through 2009. During a stint on the board of Schlumberger Ltd., one of the world’s three largest hydraulic fracturing companies, Deutch received about $563,000 in 2006 and 2007, according to Forbes.
  • Stephen Holditch, head of the petroleum engineering department at Texas A&M University and a leader in the field of hydraulic fracturing designs, first at Shell Oil, later as head of his own firm, acquired by Schlumberger in 1997. Today, he is engineering committee chairman at Matador Resources, a Dallas oil and gas exploration company.
  • Mark Zoback, a geophysics professor at Stanford and senior advisor to Baker Hughes, Inc., a Houston-based oilfield services company engaged in hydraulic fracturing. Zoback is chair of GeoMechanics International, a consulting firm that advises on various oil and gas drilling problems and that was acquired by Baker Hughes in 2008.
  • Kathleen McGinty, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the Clinton administration and a former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, now senior vice president of Weston Solutions, Inc., which consults for the oil and gas industry, including leading natural gas driller Chesapeake Energy, and a director of NRG Energy, a Princeton, N.J., wholesale power generation company whose assets include more than two dozen natural gas power companies.
  • Susan Tierney, assistant secretary of the Energy department under President Clinton, now managing principal of Analysis Group, which consults for utilities that use natural gas and for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the natural gas pipeline industry association.
  • Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer-Prize winning author of The Prize, a 1991 book about the oil industry, and co-founder, chairman and executive vice president of IHS CERA, originally called Cambridge Energy Research Associates, acquired in 2004 by IHS, an international consulting firm whose clients include the oil, natural gas, coal, power and clean energy communities.

Although the panel does include Fred Krupp, the president of the reputable, New York City-based Environmental Defense Fund, EWG questioned Krupp's objectivity as well, suggesting that his group's chief spokesman on issues relating to hydraulic fracturing, Scott Anderson, had conflicts of his own:

The panel’s environmental representative is Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund, a New York-based nonprofit that focuses on environmental issues. Scott Anderson, EDF’s senior policy advisor for energy and spokesman on hydraulic fracturing is a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, which opposes extending the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to hydraulic fracturing. The commission website asserts that fracking “needs no further study." Anderson is a former executive vice president and general counsel for the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association.

In response to an email query, Anderson said that "hydraulic fracturing absolutely does need more study -- and it needs tighter regulatory oversight as well," adding that the oil and gas commission to which EWG refers "doesn't speak for me or for EDF."

DOE spokeswoman Tiffany Edwards said the agency had considered a wide range of interested parties and independent experts in selecting members for the subcommittee.

"The subcommitee is balanced with respect to experience and expertise and each member is well qualified when it comes to technical and practical knowledge," Edwards said. "Some have said that the panel is too weighted toward industry while others say it is too weighted toward environmentalists. We think we got it just right, and having a diversity of perspectives will only strengthen the final product.”

Among the Environmental Working Group's concerns is that the DOE's panel seems to be working on a parallel track to efforts already underway at the Environmental Protection Agency, which is in the midst of a multiyear study of hydraulic fracturing.

Horwitt says his group suspects that one of the unspoken goals of the DOE panel might be to preempt EPA's more deliberative analysis with a 90-day gloss of the issues, providing the industry with a totem that it can then use to protect itself from future criticism.

"We were surprised that this panel was created at all, especially with the EPA study already going on," Horwitt said. "So we're concerned that this panel will come out with findings in 90 days -- that's essentially early August at this point -- that some people could hold up as the Obama administration's definitive view on the issue."

EWG is urging the Energy Department, among other things, to put a neutral expert without direct financial ties to the industry in charge of the panel and include "citizens who have been affected by hydraulic fracturing" among its membership.

This report has been updated to include comment from the Department of Energy.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

An environmental group is seeking records from the Department of Energy as part of an effort to uncover the process behind last month's creation of a 7-member panel to review the environmental safety ...
An environmental group is seeking records from the Department of Energy as part of an effort to uncover the process behind last month's creation of a 7-member panel to review the environmental safety ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 436
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
07:47 PM on 06/14/2011
Mr. Joe Dallas and the other 'water aquifers are separated by miles....' first of all, the Marcellus shale in NY is less than a mile deep down (average well depth here is 2000 feet). Regardless, of how far down, it all BURPS back up through the aquifer, does it not? Burping, burping, burping, like acid reflux for years. Wow, I didn't know that cement and steel can stop highly corrosive sodium bromide and radioactive material.
What do you make of the industries web site, this is their web site right? ADMITTING they contaminated the state of PA's water supply (thank God for Carnegie Melon). Why won't they tell us where that waste water is going now since they stopped taking it on May 19th?
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/04/pa-dep-marcellus-shale-coalition-admit-drilling-wastewater-likely-contaminating-drinking-water/
07:25 AM on 06/14/2011
Speaking of jobs from out-of-town, those of you who think fracking brings jobs to your local community, guess again. The people doing the fracking are contractors that come from other states. Which of course will temporarily lift restaurant and gas sales, providing great service jobs for you! Until they leave again.

What's really amazing to me is that the common person would *ever think* that there is anything in it for them when it comes to gas & oil companies. Time and time again they have shown themselves to have absolutely no mind to care for people and communities. Think Enron (investing 401k in their rotten stock; turning off California power). Think Haliburton (that list is too long). Think BP (Gulf of New Mexico). Think Exxon (Valdez).

They are not out for you folks. What you get paid for your mineral rights is *nothing* compared to what they are getting. They're out to rob you and then go back home, not even leaving you with a clean glass of water to drink.
09:42 AM on 06/15/2011
It's called a "boom-and-bust economy," and it happens everywhere O&G companies extract fossil fuels. The League of Women Voters in PA did a fine study on the economic impacts, here: http://www.newyorkgaslease.org/images/Marcellus_Shale_Economic_Impact_LWV.pdf
Think about it: is there a single place where the Coal or O&G industries have mined or drilled that did not become an uninhabitable industrial wasteland?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
10:21 AM on 06/15/2011
Show us one place that became an "uninhabitable industrial wasteland" ?? The lies, hyperbolic exaggerations and completely made-up poppycock are getting really old coming from you anti-scientific, anti-everything types.
07:25 AM on 06/14/2011
On another topic, I'm curious... how much are you industry-paid board drones making? You guys who are on here trying to sow doubts about the facts, is who I am talking about. Are you located in that other paragon of democracy, China? Your tactics remind me of PRC tactics in other boards that I've seen.

The amusing part of it all is these gas & oil companies would even off-shore the jobs to change American opinion to other countries. Real amusing.
08:50 PM on 06/13/2011
Although hydraulic fracturing has been used more than one million times in the U.S. over the past 60 years, environmental activists are hoping to ban the process or have it regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Opponents claim the process can harm groundwater even though drinking-water aquifers are separated by as much as two miles of impermeable rock from the shales that are being targeted by the fracturing process.

The average septic tank leaches more toxic chemicals into the ground water than a fracturing process of a gas well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
10:27 AM on 06/15/2011
You have to understand the motivations of these extremists. They don't really care about pollution of water or anything else. If they did, they would totally support the President's blue-ribbon panel, charged with the task of assuring the safety of the process. What they are after is the total destruction of the industry, and the end of all drilling for any reason, because they are afraid that their preferred energy sources cannot compete. I believe that renewable energy sources CAN compete, by the way. But these people don't.
They don't offer any plan, or anything that can take the place of these vast stores of clean energy. They simply believe that if they can successfully end all drilling, some magical force will bring other energy sources into being. They don't care about their fellow human beings or what they would have to pay and sacrifice for this to happen, in fact they're largely misanthropic and feel hatred toward their fellow man.
04:08 AM on 06/19/2011
Okay, If these companies are so very sure of their methods and tech, then I guess they wouldn't mind being held accountable under the clean drinking water act, clean air act, EPA reviews, and other laws and regualtions that they were effectively exempted under the 2005 Energy bill? If there is absolutely no danger, then lets cut out the legal loop holes that Cheney put in to place....
02:26 PM on 06/19/2011
Chaney was not a part of the legislative branch in 2005. The legislative branch is the branch of the government that writes the laws. Cheney had no ability, no authority and no method under the constitution to put any loopholes into place. Please go back and read a basic book on how a bill becomes a law under our constitutional form of government.
If you had a basic understanding of geology and the fracturing process, you would understand why fracturing was never covered under the clean water drinking act. Hydraulic fracturing began in the 1940's. If fracturing was a creating a problem, congress has had over 60 years to address the problem (if it ever existed).
09:04 PM on 06/21/2011
Better yet, have all execs in companies using fracking drink alll their water from local wells in areas their companies are drilling in.......after all, that groundwater should be perfectly fit for human consumption 'unaffected' by the ''harmless' compounds used in fracking and unaffected by natural gas and radioactive compounds entering that water supply (and somehow not subject to Clean Water Regulations.......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jkanon
A pragmatic progressive
04:48 PM on 06/12/2011
My concen is local: Is NYC's water in danger from fracking? Right now, NYC's water is ranked high in purity, taste, and other standards, but fracking in the watershed could lead to a huge enviromental disaster that would cost billions to clean up...if it could be cleaned up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boehnerstan
anti establishment is SO in
06:10 PM on 06/11/2011
Great. So the American taxpayer gets to fit the bill for the assembling of a group of industry hacks pulled together in a sham council with the pre-determined goal of lying right to our faces.
06:55 AM on 06/14/2011
If you go up route 17, which leads to the area, you'll noticed work has been underway for *years* to widen it. Foregone conclusion? You bet. Democracy is dead in this country, thanks to gas and oil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boehnerstan
anti establishment is SO in
07:16 AM on 06/14/2011
Eisenhower warned about the rise of the Military Industrial Complex and it's dangerous influence on decisions made by government. I wonder if he had any idea that similar unwanted and dangerous influences would arise from Big Oil, the banking and finance industry, and the Insurance industry. These are the real four horsemen of the Apocalypse for the United States of America.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
06:09 PM on 06/11/2011
"..to review the environmental safety of hydraulic fracturing, a controversial natural gas development technique"

Fracking was developed in the 1940s. And over 90% of gas wells use fracking.

Apparently HuffPost is real quick on this new fangled tehcnology stuff.

Next week they'll reveal the use a new device called a telliophone to communicate to your neighbors, people riding in something called a horseless carriage (no horses at all!), and actually being able to fly like a bird in something called aerioplane.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
DorianCorso
Mammal who wears pants.
07:11 PM on 06/11/2011
The methods currently employed were not approved until 2001 .

See : Cheney's secret energy task force.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
02:01 PM on 06/13/2011
I don't understand your statement. Current methods employed were not approved until 2001. Then you reference Cheney's secret energy task force? That task force could not approve anything except what they got for lunch during these meetings.

I'm confused about current methods are you talking about fracking developed by Halliburton in the 40's or horizontal drilling in the 70's? Or the combination of both used in the 80's?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
11:21 AM on 06/14/2011
That's a total and complete lie, and shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I realize that it's part of the extremist mentality to do unethical things for your glorious "cause" - but the lies are really getting old. Over and over and over again, no matter how many times you're disproven, you lie and continue lying the same lies you lied about before.

Please show us a single case of a hydraulic fracturing operation that was illegal before 2001 that is now legal? Just one case to prove you're correct - can you find one? Just one?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:02 PM on 06/11/2011
Yeah, professors from MIT and Stanford are known for having no academic and intellectual integrity. Everyone knows the way you become employed by those institutions is by parroting the empty words of your corporate master, and *not* by submitting intellectually rigorous papers to peer review.

So, if the President were to create a panel on Climate Change, I would expect him to omit Stanford and MIT professors as well.
photo
HazelPethigFan
I don't know until I know
06:44 PM on 06/11/2011
It's the same in all sciences.

The people with political agendas dislike the truly educated since the educated live in reality not ideological purity. Both the left and right rant about scientists and engineers all the time. Both political sides do it with equal stooopidity.

For example, the right wingers rant about climate science (climate scientists want to destroy capitalism ya know). The left wingers rant about agricultural science (all university researchers who work on crop genetics work for Monsanto ya know).

The future of science in america is doo med.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:05 PM on 06/11/2011
There are nuances on both sides.

There are plenty of Democrats that are excited by shale energy.

There are plenty of Republicans that awknowledge *some* human contribution to climate change.

Personally, I feel that industrialization saves far more lives than it harms, and thus ought to be encouraged. That said, a decent social safety net and water quality standards are fully reasonable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
02:05 PM on 06/13/2011
WOW this could set a fad; appointing people to government panels that know something!

Do you think it might catch on?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:50 PM on 06/13/2011
Say what you will about Obama - I can't really fault him for his handling of "shale energy". He seems pretty intelligent and reasonable on this issue.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
02:45 PM on 06/11/2011
“Marcellus Shale IS A NON PROFIT ! OR FRONT GROUP FOR THE GAS COMPANIES !
2008. Started with a $1.3 Million Dollar Donation.
Spent $ 468,000 to spread the word about how good the work they do is paying for reports they want and Scientist to write them.
Spent $247,000 on reports and evaluation­s.
Spent $546,000 on Advertizin­g.
2009. They got a $1.6 Million Dollar Donations from 38 Members of the Board, ALL of them Old and Gas Company Executives­..
Spent -- Well zero -- no IRS filings since 2008-- got an extention for 2009.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheAnarchist
Taxes Don't Pay For Anything
02:12 PM on 06/11/2011
Ever wonder why all these exemptions were so vigorously persued by the "frackers?"

To benefit the public of course. What it dosen't know won't hurt them.

Fox's film makes the point that Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, lobbied for and won exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, thanks to our corporate-owned Congress. Though it did not hesitate to pass on Wall Street’s gambling debts to the public (twice), Congress has not found the will to pass the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act.

Nor do drillers have to disclose the toxic chemicals used, contrary to the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. [22]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
02:17 PM on 06/13/2011
I think per the EPA you may be mistaken on several of your points.

Water left underground at depths would have been exempted anyway per past Supreme Court decisions. I think it just short circuit a bunch of law suits that would have failed anyway.

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm

Water that comes back to the surface is covered by the Clean Water Act more importantly it is covered by the SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act.

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

The Fracking act is very clear that the industry is not allowed to use diesel as one of the restricted chemicals and companies have been fined.

Finally all the drilling companies have passed on to the EPA the chemicals they use including Halliburton.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/usa-epa-halliburton-idUSN077965820101207

Useful information I thought you might appreciate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheAnarchist
Taxes Don't Pay For Anything
07:45 PM on 06/13/2011
Thanks,
It is unfortunate that all these laws are so poorly enforced and compainants marginalized by hordes of industry PR and legal types.

I appreciate the links but you must be aware of the slight of hand used by the industry when they report chemicals they don't report all of them. You must also know that 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.

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

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110302/NEWS/110309960

I'm no fan of raping mountain tops, gauging out the earth or shattering the earth's crust for a liter of oil or gas or a bushell of coal. I'd rather we used the nearly infinite energy of the ocean and the renewable, least cost cultivation of industrial, non-psychoactive hemp.
11:25 PM on 06/13/2011
The gas companies have maneuvered to avoid allowing any recourse to the people they harm. The amount of water they mix with poison is obscene, Accidents are unavoidable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greihing
08:45 AM on 06/11/2011
All I got to say is this...

If you can prove the film "Gasland" is a hoax, I'll agree to fracking.
09:50 AM on 06/11/2011
May I suggest you Google the film's title? You will get several references that question both the honesty of the film's producer and the veracity of the "facts" presented.

You may also wonder why, after many thousands of wells completed in this fashion, there are few outcries from the Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex as to declining water quality in that area.
11:29 PM on 06/13/2011
Too bad, little kids with Athsma probably don't have the breath to cry out. I hear the ozone levels in Fort Worth suddenly exceed LA.
04:48 AM on 06/19/2011
I am not saying I agree with the film, but on googling the film's title, I see a lot of "industry" sites, that take on the film, but I am not finding many independent and peer reviewed scientific articles...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:03 PM on 06/11/2011
You'd probably benefit from reviewing the Colorado Department of Natural Resources "Gasland correction document"

http://goo.gl/pdeLM
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wsmith3023
Dems and Reps are two sides of the same coin
06:51 AM on 06/11/2011
Gasland is inspiring. If it were me, I would install a liquid/gas separator in my yard. I would direct the water to my plumbing and the gas to a storage tank. If you are worried about the food fillers and food preservatives they use in fracking fluids, install an inline filter.
People in East Texas use to get gas from the gasfield they lived on. They had heaters, A/Cs, refrigerators, lights, stoves and ovens all running for free. Some even ran generators to supply electricity. What a life!
photo
robear6987
oops ! did i offend you , my bad .
04:25 PM on 06/10/2011
while in office dick cheeney by passing laws -exempted the companies who are drilling FROM the 1972 clean air and water act which allows them to pollute without remorse or concern.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
08:36 PM on 06/10/2011
I know that is true because you said so.

BUT

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/18/chesapeake-energy-handed-record-fine-for-fracking-in-pa/

What's this fine all about?
11:38 PM on 06/13/2011
The fines are merely the cost of doing business, a minor irritation considering the profit to be made. The damage however appears to be irreversible. What good will that fine money do our great grandkids when all the shale has been tapped and there is no safe water?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
feliznavidad
Fierce liberal
08:41 PM on 06/10/2011
That is correct -- unless they are caught violating state laws, and if states have the temerity to go after them.
03:14 PM on 06/10/2011
'The industry claims it is safe' Lol, when in Australia and already fracked places people are lighting their tap water, and it's undrinkable... don't make me laugh... Watch Gasland for some real facts
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PAGasDriller
04:14 PM on 06/10/2011
Gasland is the last place you want to look for some real facts. Fox was wrong on the flaming faucet (biogenic methane, naturally occurring) wrong on the Dunkard Creek fish kill (coal mines to blame), wrong on just about everything. Gasland is a joke. It's meant to scare, not inform. Fox is 100% against any use of fossil fuels.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
DorianCorso
Mammal who wears pants.
05:17 PM on 06/10/2011
There you are . Why do you always run away rather than answer my questions ?

1. Would you want fracking fluids in your drinking water?
2. Can you prove hydrofracking chemicals do NOT enter the water table ? If so how ?
3. And why, if those chemicals do not enter the water table during the process, was hydrofracking exempted from the Clean Water Act ?
12:09 AM on 06/14/2011
up to 3.4 million gallons of water per well per frack episode. several wells on a pad, all sucked out of streams lakes and rivers and trucked through your town and countyside 7 days a week. Where will the fire department fill their trucks in dry weather? Where will the fish go?
11:30 AM on 06/10/2011
we need the energy
03:16 PM on 06/10/2011
You can make natural gas from compost really simply... it fuels your car emission free, it fertilises your soil, it heats your hot water and can run an electricity generator. We don't need to pay for our utilities... Especially by destroying the earth, check out Jean Pain Composting method on YT and Bate's Car, Sweet as a Nut on google...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
DorianCorso
Mammal who wears pants.
05:18 PM on 06/10/2011
You can't eat coal . You can't drink oil. And despite what you might think you can't breathe natural gas very long without some devastating side effects.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:11 PM on 06/11/2011
And you can't live without access to abundant, inexpensive energy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lock Piatt
02:41 PM on 06/11/2011
You can freeze to death in the dark, starve in the urbane environment covered with ice and snow. Hum maybe you have a good idea after all?