Frackin’ Democrats

Mary Landrieu is almost always a worthless piece of corrupt shit (I throw in that caveat on the off chance that she doesn’t sexually molest children, but confines herself to poisoning their water supply). http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/wyoming-fracking-report-6652109#ixzz1lhkMLMWF“>Charlie Pierce:

Landrieu and a Republican senator from Ohio named Rob Portman have joined their oily hands to jack around with an upcoming EPA report on fracking-related groundwater contamination in Wyoming. The EPA already has made it known that the report will be both specific and damning as regards the reckless way the fracking procedures have been used in Wyoming and the terrible consequences that may result:

The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. Health officials last year advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found low levels hydrocarbons in their wells.

Now why should a senator from Ohio and another one from Louisiana want to slow-walk an EPA report about groundwater contamination in Wyoming? Because they’re both a couple of ‘ho’s, that’s why. Landrieu’s been in the pocket of the extraction industries for so long that she probably has dryer lint in her ears, and Portman wants to be re-elected and so needs some of that sweet-sweet crude cash to do so. So the two of them draft a letter to Cass (Middle Ground) Sunstein complaining that the EPA might go too harshly on the frackers in Wyoming:

A false-positive link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination could form the basis for costly new regulation…. Unwarranted regulation of hydraulic fracturing could have substantial economic impact on the natural gas industry, the consumers and businesses that rely on it, and the millions of jobs that it directly or indirectly supports.  There is little doubt that the regulatory response that this report could generate may exceed the $500 million threshold.

This is a threat, pure and simple. Get the EPA to soft-pedal its report or there will be hell to pay over this during an election year. And to hell with what might be going on right now with the water people are drinking in Wyoming. That a Democratic senator has signed onto this dangerous nonsense should give us all pause, but no real surprise. I’m sure there’s some common ground to be found between the needs of energy companies to make every buck they can and the needs of the people whose tapwater explodes.

One thought on “Frackin’ Democrats

  1. So, what on earth is Sweet Mary’s problem? Looks like from this December 2011 EPA press release about the sampling and preliminary findings, EPA is already following the peer review procedures Sweet Mary wants them to.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/20ed1dfa1751192c8525735900400c30/ef35bd26a80d6ce3852579600065c94e!OpenDocument

    excerpts –

    “…To ensure a transparent and rigorous analysis, EPA is releasing these findings for public comment and will submit them to an independent scientific review panel. The draft findings announced today are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells – production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country…”

    “…EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels…”

    “…Before issuing the draft report, EPA shared preliminary data with, and obtained feedback from, Wyoming state officials, Encana, Tribes and Pavillion residents. The draft report is available for a 45 day public comment period and a 30 day peer-review process led by a panel of independent scientists…”

    And there you are. They’ve had a 45 day public comment period, and now they’re probably into the 30-day peer-review process. Which makes Sweet Mary’s request for a peer review process awfully redundant and after the fact, doesn’t it?

    I really despise these damn Blue Dog democrats.

Comments are closed.