Sign a petition. Stop fracking.

Jac sends this, a Credo petition to stop fracking through New England.

Think it can’t happen here? People in the Hartford area should get to know the company known as Spectra Energy, which is looking to expand across the state.


And then, as they say, there’s this. The National Transportation Safety Board released a report yesterday that calls for more oversight at natural gas pipelines.

Published by datingjesus

Just another one of God's children.

Join the Conversation


  1. The way I see it, there are three ways to directly support fracking:
    1. Support on the supply side – allow fracking to occur to obtain a supply of natural gas
    2. Support on the demand side – Support the sale of or be a consumer of fracked natural gas
    3. Support the transmission of fracked natural gas – allow for increased capacity flow of fracked natural gas

    Although CT has said no to number 1. CT has said yes to numbers 2 & 3. That says, CT supports fracking, don’t you think?

    This is helpful in understanding fracking, see this:

  2. In Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana, fracking consumes 7 billion gallons of water every year.

      1. On the Northern Plains, fracking is used primarily to extract crude oil. The Bakken Field exploitation, in just North Dakota, burns off enough natural gas every day to heat 100,000 homes. Billions of dollars wasted. Tons of CO2…the equivalent of 77 million automobiles…pumped into the atmosphere every year. This type of waste isn’t confined to North Dakota, as the SkyTruth visualization here illustrates. (Warning: to use the visualization tool your OS and browser must support WebGL. Most do.) Thirty percent of the natural gas produced as a result of fracking oil in North Dakota is burned off.

        Flares from the burn off can be seen from space…as bright as many large cities. NASA image here. And here. A typical flare pictured here.

    1. Nice music links! The oil & gas companies deny, deny, with the hope they can wear down one family at a time so they can remain unaccountable. I have seen this in action. I did read this, where at least a group of scientists found a way to prove Range Resources’ actions were to blame for water that caught fire out of the faucet:

      I thought it was interesting that before these researchers found the proof, the EPA backed down on their investigation once the “fracker” (Range Resources) began protesting. They determined in these particular cases, the methane was coming from seepage from their fracking wells. And that causes worry about other very toxic chemicals (like benzene) used in fracking also may be finding their way into drinking water. In this business, it seems the fox is guarding the hen house. They do what they want. When they are caught, they pay a family or two off and keep going.

  3. I don’t believe New England has any natural gas worth extracting. If it did, it would have happened long ago. Not that pipelines don’t have some risks, but explosions aren’t that common. My house in Danbury was heated with metered gas without incident. There was a gas leak two blocks up the street from me last week, but no explosion. So far. Yes, maybe allowing the pipelines to expand is a tacit approval of the methods by which the gas was extracted, but blocking the pipeline isn’t the way to go, in my opinion. The response has to be at the source(s).

    1. I was shocked when I looked into pipeline accidents. They occur more often than you’d think. Just yesterday, 15 people were injured in New Jersey and…well watch the video here:
      And this shows the incidents, deaths, property damage over time:

      And then, this listing of accidents includes details by incident, by year:

      And, these additional pipelines proposed to cross CT are intended to expand markets into NE, Canada, and Europe (via Canadian export terminals). This boils down to increasing corporate profits at the expense of the environment and public health.

      1. As it seems the juggernaut of resource exploitation seems unstoppable, one thing New Englanders may want to insist on is a severance tax imposed upon entities like Spectra to fund infrastructure maintenance and upkeep, mitigation of environmental impact, (including possible adverse effects on public health), as well as oversight, regulation and control. It’s important, though, to keep the severance tax earmarked for just those processes connected to resource extraction. Otherwise, if severance tax funds are earmarked for other projects…like maintaining budgets…education…overall infrastructure…the State becomes dependent on resource extraction, giving the corporate person more leverage to expand resource exploitation despite any detriment involved. Also, oversight, regulation and control must be independent. Self-regulation, as we’ve learned in The West, just doesn’t work.

        1. Leftover, that is exactly what I am trying to assess: is resource exploitation (in this case) unstoppable? I keep hearing there is no stopping them and that is hard to accept.

          1. Some States have had some success…some States failures. I think attempts to stop it, while no easy task, could be successful. It takes money and a good deal of grassroots organizing. (Indigenous peoples organizations have been out in front on that type of organizing.) Success usually hinges on how well connected energy companies are to local politicians and State courts.
            So…You’re going to need lawyers. Lawyers who know their way around State and federal laws pertaining to resource extraction and transport in your region. Did I say you’re going to need money? Because you’re going to need a lot of it. National groups could help.

            Pushing for a severance tax and independent oversight and control might possibly aid in discouraging expansion. A multi-state (regional) opposition, I think, has a better chance at success. However, energy companies like Spectra spend a long time plotting their expansion and how to achieve it. So States must be prepared to tax, oversee and regulate and control the process. Realistically, there’s a better chance of that happening than outright bans.

      2. “This boils down to increasing corporate profits at the expense of the environment and public health.”

        Oh but think of all the trickle-down (hmm, maybe not such a good phrase here) benefits to everybody! Surely the energy-company-owners will share the wealth and…….. sorry, I got to laughing too hard and forgot what I wasy saying.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: