Arkansas Earthquakes Could Be Man-Made 264
oxide7 writes "The small earthquakes that struck north central Arkansas could be from a combination of natural and man-made activity. Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events."
Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, it's a very boring day debugging someone else's application.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
The theory that fracturing the local geology by pumping in a lubricant under extremely high pressure might cause some sub-surface movement certainly sounds preposterous to me...
But... but... but... the Earth is so BIIIIG and we are so SMAAAALL. How can we possibly have an effect on it!
It's a liberal conspiracy! They're just trying to get research grants! Alex Jones told me so!
Re: (Score:2)
So Alex Jones is now a conservative and on the side of corporations who want to drill using fracking?
Ohhhkay..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical low information content article.
TFS quotes "Some experts think that pumping water into the ground as part of the extraction process of natural gas could cause local seismic events." but leaves out the next sentence from TFA "But the area hasn't been studied enough, they say, to know for sure."
Then, TFA gets it wrong by claiming "The scale is logarithmic, meaning a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times as powerful as a magnitude 4" when in reality the amplitude [wikipedia.org] of a magnitude 5 earthquake is 10 times la
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
In Colorado in the 1960s, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal used a ~12,000 ft. deep dry well to inject toxic waste related to chemical weapons the army was manufacturing. There was a bizarre spike in activity and magnitude starting not long after the well was put in service, which continued for about a decade after they stopped injecting the waste, and actually started pumping some back out. There were a few magnitude 5+ quakes, which caused structural damage in the Denver-Boulder metro area.
It could be mere coincidence that seismic activity spiked right about the time the well was put in service, but how likely is that, really? I know, correlation and causation and all, but it was serious enough that folks who lived around here back then still talk about the tremors, and there haven't been any events like that in recent decades. Some of those who remember tend to freak-out at any mention of starting injection recovery in the gas fields north of Denver.
Maybe any gas companies who want to do the hydraulic extraction should pay for any and all damage that appears to correlate to their activity? Arkansas would be a good choice for a study, they'd just have to hire a fleet of trucks to tow the mobile homes back to their pads when they done get shook off and roll down into the holler.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least the sign at the Missouri-Arkansas border that said 'If this state's a rockin' don't come a knockin' " makes more sense now.
Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake (Score:5, Informative)
Dams do this do, e.g. the Hoover Dam and the recent quake in China. Read more at "Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake": http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/ [wired.com]
Re:Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake (Score:5, Interesting)
For an even more impressive example, read about the Vajont Dam in Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam [wikipedia.org]
An engineering marvel for its time, the dam was built based on shoddy geology - there was a faultline running up one side of the adjacent mountain. In a nutshell, filling up the dam forced water into the fault, which eventually caused half the mountain to fall into the dam. The dam was well built enough to not break - but the water spilled out over the top and killed about 2000 people.
However, the hand-wringing of the article is a bit unwarranted. It's well known that pumping stuff in and out of rock is bound to cause seismic instabilities. Magnitude 4-5 stuff (assuming they mean moment magnitude? They don't say) is generally considered small fry.
Re: (Score:3)
I live 4 miles from the general epicenter... (Score:4, Interesting)
The 4.7 and 4.3 were kind of freaky (4.7 especially, as evidenced by some ridiculous 911 calls [arkansasmatters.com] from the neighboring city of Conway, ~13 miles south). Everything under 4 or so is just noise.
I just hope science proves it's these injection wells, so I have someone to sue when my house comes crashing down and I'm out the 10% deductible in my earthquake rider.
All that said, local opinion seems to be that tornadoes are scarier than earthquakes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and where my wife comes from anything under 8 is just noise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake [wikipedia.org]
They tried this before ... (Score:5, Funny)
Have Christopher Walken or Grace Jones been seen in the area? They are trying to create a monopoly on ... on ... ? What does Arkansas produce again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They tried this before ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
family trees with loops instead of forks
I'm trying to work this out with the Clinton's as a test case, but the math is really beyond me.
} Got a car analogy?
Re: (Score:3)
G. M.
Re: (Score:3)
What does Arkansas produce again?
Tyson
Walmart
JB Hunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Zorin Farms genetically engineered chicken?
Re: (Score:2)
Tyson: legitimate answer. Arkansas produces chickens.
Walmart: Not a legitimate answer. Walmart does not produce anything of merit in Arkansas. Walmart is a company that makes profit based on global labor and material arbitrage.
JB Hunt: Since when is transport a product?
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, all I could remember was what was in NWA, might as well throw in Dillards as well then.
Re:They tried Diamondsthis before ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, and a couple other states have geology and sites under consideration for commercial diamond mining.
The last commercial diamond mine in the US closed in 2002, I think it was in Colorado.
Of course the quakes are man-made. (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone knows that the government has developed several variations on Tesla's earthquake machines [excludedmiddle.com] (HAARP, etc) and has been using them all over the world (Haiti, anyone?) to cause "natural" disasters. Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm going to poop on HAARP I need numbers. In a documentary (in quotes?) on the subject it is asserted that palpable physical vibrations are produced by typical remote sensing techniques at relatively low power levels, much lower than HAARP's actual avowed output. Part of the concept of HAARP is the ability to get more energy out of the ionosphere than is put in (by HAARP). Is there any particular physics-based reason HAARP can not produce seismic activity?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its happened in OK... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no sh*t (Score:2)
In other news, china detonated a nuclear bomb to test its arsenal in secret, but the surprise of their lives when a big tsunami went and crashed into sri lanka, killing hundreds of thousands....details at 11....
From the area (Score:2)
As someone from the area, I think there's more going on than that. I was visiting my grandmother (who lives in West Memphis, AR) a couple of weeks ago, and I heard several loud explosions. They actually created shock waves that we could feel. When asked about it, she told me that the local authorities have said that there is some kind of classified stuff going on for the department of homeland security. They supposedly have a whole area that looks like an Iraqi town for training purposes.
As to the explo
PBS had that covered (Score:2)
PBS did a piece in February (Frontline, Need To Know?) about this very issue, frakking, and the potential for earthquakes was mentioned although their focus was on the illegal use of diesel and other compounds in the frakking fluids.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar claims have been made about drilling for geothermal.
Re:A plot (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Calpine is actually paying people who live near The Geysers because it was decided in court that they are responsible for increased seismic activity in the area; it increased markedly and proportionally when they started pumping semi-treated sewage into the ground. They left off a special drilling project here after they caused a massive earthquake doing the same thing elsewhere.
Re:That's OK. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?
Dependency on countries and regimes openly declaring the US as an enemy..everytime you fuel your car ..you are funding terrorism. Thats the BIG PRICE
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According the the Department of State, the Following are the list of State Sponsored Terrorism Countries: (CUBA, IRAN, SUDAN, SYRIA). According to the US Energy Information Administration, the Following are the list of Top Countries the United States Imports Oil From In Order from Top Provider and the Rough % of US Import they account for: (CANADA ~22%, MEXICO ~12%, SAUDI ARABIA ~10%, NIGERIA ~10%, VENEZUELA ~8%, IRAQ ~3%, ANGOLA ~3%, BRAZIL ~3%, ALGERIA ~3%, COLOMBIA ~2%, ECUADOR ~2%, RUSSIA ~1.5%, KUWAIT
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And there's that country that supplies them with military equipment and assistance.
Someone doesn't want people reading that comment (Score:2)
Troll mod? Seriously, going that far defeats the purpose. If you want to bury something, mark it overrated. Personally, I find the comment informative, as it rebuts Hangmn's obvious political spin.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If earthquakes and environmental damage are a small price, then what would be a big price?
What ever it is...it's not for you.
Fracking will be rubber-stamped by the bought dog EPA just as GMO sugar beets was rubber-stamped by the FDA. Where's the upside of that? Definitley not for the consumers. Monsanto now has XE (Blackwater) in their back pocket as public relations, just like Halliburton had them in Iraq.
Re:That's OK. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a more serious governance/philosophical issue at work, though. These sorts of energy extraction operations, whether they be hydrofracking gas, doing the assorted horrid things required to get tar sands and oil shales flowing, or mountaintop removal, all involve the extraction company imposing (often quite significant, sometimes fatal) externalities on the people in a broad swath around them. Generally, these externalities are not compensated. That's how pollution goes.
When a price needs to be paid, two things matter: "How big is it?" and "How will it be allocated?". At present, while the jury may still be out on the size of the bill, the method of allocation appears, at first approximation, to be "Suck it, peasants, costs will be imposed as is most profitable for your betters!".
Such a cost allocation scheme really ought to have no friends anywhere on the political spectrum. The reasons for liberal opposition should be so obvious as to no need mention. For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.
We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...
Re:That's OK. (Score:4, Interesting)
For conservatives or libertarians, such rampant imposition of externalities on other people's persons and properties should be recognized as making a mockery of man's right to person and property, and the state's legitimate role in preserving the same.
There are two problems. One is that people in the aggregate is easily led, this hardly bears further discussion in the context of this conversation. The other is that the real voters, the people with money, are the ones who are imposing the externalities. It's all gravy to them. So long as the ability to make decisions is concentrated in these individuals the decisions can only be selfish.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm mostly just reacting to my frustration that "unlimited freedom to impose externalities on others" has been adopted as a so called "libertarian" position(conveniently, mostly by people who make money doing high-pollution things), when it is, in fact, about as "libertarian" as eliminating the regulations against burglary or assault.
Re: (Score:2)
What notable libertarians have espoused the philosophy you describe? That statement seems more aligned with an Adam Smith/neo-Keynesian approach of "liberalism" rather than the Laissez-faire/neo-Classical arguments that Libertarianism and modern "conservatism" makes.
Re:That's OK. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, that "philosophy" is not something anyone espouses. It is something people DO, while saying something different. Libertarians reject government regulations, such as environmental regulations. Yet they claim to want government to protect their person and property, as that is the only fitting role for government, providing police and an army. Well, how do you protect people's health and property from negative externalities like pollution without environmental regulations? Do you see, libertarians CLAIM they want government to protect people from assault, but they don't. Pollution is assault. It harms health and property, yet libertarians do not want government to protect you from THAT kind of assault. They want to be free to assault you in any possible way, without interference. When libertarians claim government has a monopoly on violence, what they really means is, "I wish I could use violence to get my way."
Re: (Score:2)
The Libertarian philosophy summarized is that the worst aggression and rights abuses stem from gov't actions and that as little power as possible should be given to the gov't to avoid worst case scenarios. The idea that markets can externalize costs that need to be regulated is not a new one, but it is absent from the rheto
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what you mean by "libertarian." You see, libertarians are just anarchists. In America, they are what is known as "individualist anarchists," as opposed to "social anarchists." In the rest of the world, "libertarian" is just a synonym for "anarchist," and so you can find European libertarians espousing everything from unbridled lassez faire capitalism to pure communism. In America, "libertarianism" is merely a front group for a collection of powerful, wealthy interests who do not want anythin
Re: (Score:3)
We're not polluting the water; the water comes out of the ground as brine and is already "polluted". We're pumping it back in.
Re: (Score:2)
We must be careful that, in attempting to break our dependence on kleptocratic energy-despotic hellholes, we do not allow ourselves to become one...
Think that over: it was the United States and her European tagalongs who created and supported many of those oil despots to begin with.
It's unreasonable to expect the current government to do anything very different than what it has been doing for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the distribution of wealth and income inequality in the US I'd say we're already well on our way to being one. Wealth and power in the US is becoming increasingly concentrated at the top and the results are beginning to show.
Thus a populous backlash.
These are the same people that caused the present economic debacle. My question is why these people aren't getting their asses pounded in some maximum security prison?
No compensation? (Score:2)
I'm no expert on Arkansas gas extraction, but there are oil wells all over western Kentucky and southern Illinois. In those states, the landowner has mineral rights over the ground beneath their land, and the oil companies pay them a percentage of the profits gained from that particular well. In exchange, the landowner lets the oil company place their semi-noisy oil well on their property (much less noisy than living in a city, mind you). A single well doesn't pay a whole lot, maybe only a few hundred dolla
Re: (Score:2)
You lose. (Score:2)
By making claims, and then not presenting any sort of evidence, you lose. When people argue against your points, and all you can do is take your ball and go home, you lose. By insulting others instead of debating, you lose. You have a long climb UPWARDS to reach the level of fuzzyfuzzyfungus.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, you did not only lower yourself to their level but dropped even lower by being condescending without contributing anything useful to the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.
That could be, and frequently is, inaccurate. For one thing, the people who own the mineral rights to a piece of property (and derive the benefits of extraction) can be entirely different people from the people who own the surface land. it could well be the case that owners of the surface are going to be reimbursed for actual damages caused by mineral development, but otherwise not be compensated for the development. Somewhat unintuitively, the owners of the mineral rights have the superior right under law.
Re: (Score:2)
People who live around natural gas wells are well compensated through royalties and lease agreements. Unlike some foreign nations where the natural resources belong to the government, ours still belong to the people (for now, at least). Nobody is forced to sign a gas/mineral lease.
Go back to your "Two and a half men", leave the towing the party line to the corporate sycophants, it's truly unbecoming of you.
Re: (Score:3)
. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.
Then why are conservatives so against renewable sources and anything that helps to promote them (including cap and trade)? You don't get Mr. Fusion without trying and FUNDING something *new*.
Most of the argument against conservatives is that they see oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear as the *only* options available. You won't ever get the new technology if you don't spend money *now* to invest. Couple that with the fact that, at least for oil, we simply don't have anywhere near enough to even make a dent
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, pixelpusher220, but I don't know how to say this other than: You, and others like you, are ignorant. With you, things are always the fault of somebody else... the evil conservatives... or whomever happens to disagree with your politics. There are basic laws of economics involved with energy production. Laws. Like gravity... Congress could pass legislation all day long changing the law of gravitation, but you will note that it is a particularly stubborn physical law.
The reason oil, natural
Re: (Score:2)
There is a big difference between the laws of economics and the physical laws like gravity. Congress cannot affect physical laws. As you said, no matter what laws Congress passes, the law of gravity will never, ever change. However, Congress certainly can pass laws that impose additional costs on the free market, and that will most certainly affect economic decisions, albeit not always in the way they intended (for example, Prohibition).
Yes, economics is a major player in keeping pe
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize fossil fuels in the US are heavily subsidized? That is part of the difficulty in other sources being competitive. Of course we also heavily subsidize other braindead ideas like corn ethanol.
The point that is being made that you are ignoring is fossil fuels are inexpensive because of faulty accounting. If fossil fuel companies had to bear the full burden of the externalities they impose on the rest of us fossil fuels would not be cheap. Add to that the existing subsidies and it's no wonder not
Re: (Score:2)
Established industries are always 'cheap' compared to emerging technologies because of scale. No one is disputing that. The problem is when that established industry is doing things that either cause harm right now, or will likely cause harm in the future. How you do account for that cost?
The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means.
One reason they are cheap is because of politics. (see Cheney's exempting of natural gas drilling from *any* environmental oversight) That makes it significantly che
Re: (Score:2)
We can't put every business on the chopping block at the first cry of foul play. We should also be careful to differentiate between hype, hysteria, and the facts. And there is a difference between negligence and honest mistakes - these businesses stand to suffer a great deal for any of their mistakes. It just so happens that a lot rides on these types of businesses, unlike one that simply makes toys. Of course they will be ridiculed if something goes wrong, and we would be remissed if we didn't demand they do better. But, they do constantly improve. The gas companies know very well what the media and gov't will do to them if someone or something gets hurt, and I think you know that factors into their operations decisions.
For the most part, I agree with you. The bottom line is that, unless western society as a whole is willing to take a huge step back into the Dark Ages or we suddenly discover some miraculous new energy source, we will need oil for the foreseeable future. I also agree that a lot of media hype/hysteria about the big, bad oil companies is exactly that: sensationalist hype feeding hysteria to sell news stories. However, experience has shown that companies in general -- and oil companies are no exception -- a
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, you think wrong.
People who own rights to deposits of expensive, non-environmentally-friendly sources of high-density portable energy do not wish to find cheap, environmentally-friendly alternatives... until they've extracted their profit. Many of those people (and organizations) are conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . At some point, we need to stop sending these third world shitholes both our cash and food aid. Pay for the oil with food, save the cash for ourselves.
I'm not certain the Saudis, for example, would find that such an attractive proposition. Or the Canadians, or British, or Kuwaitis.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he meant the middle east. You know, the world's largest fossil fuel producers. It's a logical assumption.
No (Score:2)
but I think this guy did, which is why I responded to his post. I don't suffer from paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the best you've got, "Did you forget to take your meds today?" Seriously, you are slipping. Try something like, "Operaghost, have you stopped raping dogs yet?" it's super effective.
Seriously, though, how do you think that comes across to other people? Obviously, I know how you want it to come across, other people read it and think to themselves, "hah, hah Kupfernigk is crazy, he has to take psychological medications, and today he forgot, and now he is saying CRAZY things in public!" But do you reall
Re: (Score:2)
Did you forget to take your meds today?
No he's taking the same stuff as Charlie Sheen, or was that Charlie Harper, or is there a difference anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
I think "invest in renewable energy source" is the other idea. I don't think anyone, especially those reading Slashdot, want to live in the dark, or are in any way anti-progress. You see, poisoning others so that we may have light and heat is not "progress," it is just trading one misery for another. The net motion certainly isn't forward.
Re: (Score:2)
It's natural gas. There aren't any "drops" of it, at least not straight out of the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Those costs will dwarf any minor increase in energy prices today.
You can continue to pay subsidized (cheap) energy prices today and then in the future pay high prices because the fuel is running out (oil) AND pay through the nose for mass conversion of the energy economy in a short period.
OR
yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another story to gin up a way to stop energy production. I really hate this "do as I say - not as I do" attitude of the people who want to stop *United States* energy production.
Yes, you mean, big energy. The incumbent powers fear new energy producers and they get the citizenry whipped into a froth whenever they are threatened. However, the idea that the pumping should continue (or even begin) before studies can be commenced is ridiculous. Also, the end result of any kind of ground pumping seems to be increased seismic activity, and it would be strange if that were not the case. Hey, and how about that underground CO2 storage, eh? That's working out GREAT, too.
Re: (Score:2)
In Cuba/China/Venezuala, I'd assume. They're not doing any hydraulic fracturing, though, as far as I know.
Re: (Score:2)
here's proof [stanford.edu]
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the threats aren't real.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
there's a few documentaries out there to raise awareness already, but they seem to gather very little attention.
Gasland is already under [commonweal...dation.org] question [energyindepth.org] for many of its "facts". Instead of documentaries we could look at studies by the EPA [epa.gov] that say there is no impact. Of course, that study was questioned by a whistleblower [trb.com], so maybe it isn't reliable either.
In short, I've read at least 50 comments in this thread stating with great certainty that ground water pollution is occurring from fracking, TFA says earthquakes are likely caused by fracking, yet there aren't any studies to support any claims for or against those sta
Re: (Score:3)
Is Gasland accurate, or is it sensationalist hype to sell one side of the argument? Is the EPA really unbiased, or has lobbying put pressure on Congress to approve the fracking, and has Congress in turn put pressure on the EPA to minimize the potential danger? Who is funding the studies, and what pressure were the researchers under
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to people taht think HAARP is an earthquake weapon. Search Google for earthquake weapon Haiti and you'll see the true tragedy. People need a bogeyman I guess.
Not questioning fracking's relationship to earthquakes, I have no clue honestly. It seem logical that it would disturb the ground, but I'm not a geologist.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take that wager. What would you define as significant, 5%? 10%? 30%? Is nuclear power a joke or pipe dream? What size of industry will no longer be classified as a joke or a pipe dream 10 billion/yr? 100 billion/yr? If 40% of new US generation is wind, how long until it is no longer a fucking joke or pipe dream?
Let's do this. I
Re: (Score:3)
The part that will blow your mind is that solar energy *created* all that coal and oil. The problem is not the use of fossil fuels but in the volume we use in a short duration. Dumping millions of years of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple hundred years is going to have effects and likely not good ones.
Conversely to your statement, if we want to sustain our current energy needs,
Re: (Score:2)
Lol I posted that anonymous, nevertheless my moderations got undone ... what a shame ;D
And no, I did not moderate you as a troll, as it was not deserved I perhaps had set an underrated on you.
angel'o'sphere
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm....okay....
Of course, it's common knowledge about the fault line running through Arkansas. I mean, hasn't EVERYONE heard the joke about the state falling off the continent?
There...feel better now?
Re: (Score:2)
just because you are ignorant of the subject doesn't mean it isn't true... look up the New Madrid Seismic zone and try to learn something...
Re:Oh Gasland (Score:5, Informative)
...and as the rebuttal, you post a link from a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and dozens of additional industry organizations specifically set up for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by a representative from Colorado to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids [sourcewatch.org]? A group funded by the El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association? A website registered by the PR firm Dittus Communications (now known as FD Americas Public Affairs) which boasts on its website that "energy clients have formed the backbone of FD Americas Public Affairs’ clientele for more than a decade."? With clients such as Alabama Power, American Energy Alliance, Center for Clean Air Policy, Consumer Energy Alliance, FutureGen, Georgia Power, Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Institute for Energy Research?
And the phone number they have, (202) 346-8825, is the same phone number as the number for the previously mentioned Institute for Energy Research [sourcewatch.org], an organization whose President (Robert L. Bradley) was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron and a former speechwriter for their old CEO Kenneth Lay... you mean THAT website?
I wonder why you posted anonymously...
Re:Oh Gasland (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's easier to attack the messenger and not the message.
Now don't bother us with details, he's guilty, just look at the way he's dressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Broken window fallacy. You haz it.