URGENT from PA: Please Call for FEDERAL INQUIRY into Gas + Oil Pipelines (SAFETY / EXPORTS / BRIBERY)

For Distribution to all Fracking Lists

and all Pipeline Lists

Please read the following
URGENT CALL FOR HELP
from Susquehanna County, PA.
------ ALERT & CALL FOR HELP FROM NE PA -------

From: Vera Scroggins <veraduerga@yahoo.com>;

National Response Center just called by Craig Stevens

about last night's explosion and fire at Williams Central Station:

no one has contacted NRC besides Craig:

everyone call the NRC number and ask for a federal investigation
and Williams has had a third incident in 14 months:

Craig has called for a Federal investigation of Williams;

the number to call is 1-800-424-8802

and website is :  www.NRC.USCG.mil

case no. is 1047219

Last night Bob Stoud of Emergency Management, Lance Benedict, PEMA, Williams were there;

this is serious;

Williams needs federal oversight :

we are at serious risk from all this:

thanks,

Vera Scroggins

Citizens for Clean Water

Susquehanna County, Pa.

607 237 9685

------  END ALERT FROM PA -------

Too many compressor station explosions locally and nationwide.
Too many pipeline accidents nationwide.

How to stop the LNG exports?

How to stop Keystone XL?

FOUR Major Tar Sands Spills in 24 months.

Our National Forests are getting FRACKED!

We haven't even talked about DEEP OCEAN DRILLING,

Drilling in the ANWR, or Mountaintop Removal.

Local governments in Susquehanna County PA, Bradford County PA, and Washington County PA
=> CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY

Pennsylvania State Government,
the Governor and DEP = CAPTURED

NY State Government, the Governor and the DEC
 = CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY

How to prevent the next Sissonville WV?

the next San Bruno CA? the next Kalamazoo MI spill,
the next Mayflower AR, the next Yellowstone River Spill?

Water contamination from gas drilling in PA is RAMPANT and PERVASIVE.

http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/pa-dep-determination-letters/

Massive buildout all over, while rights of local citizens
to decide OUR OWN FATE are being DENIED.

We have had 3 major explosions / fires at natural gas facilities
within a 30 miles of Binghamton NY.
ALL operated by Williams Company.

Williams Company (and their subsidiaries) have an atrocious safety record:
http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=1305

Why do we allow this company to stay in business?

Please call NRC, FERC, or PHMSA (numbers below) and ask them to

• investigate Williams Company's safety record,
• investigate Williams Company for political activity/corruption,
• investigate Williams Company for unpermitted construction,
• investigate Williams Company for subverting local government control (bribery?) .

Also call your congressman and ask for CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
into oil and gas pipeline safety, infrastructure buildout, and natural gas exports.

Where is the Master Plan for US Energy Policy being decided?
and do WE THE PEOPLE have a seat at the table?

Our communities are under attack from many fronts relating to energy extraction.
We must provide a NATIONAL, MULTI-AGENCY response.

Additional numbers:

• FERC: 1-866-208-3372 customer@ferc.gov
  Say: "Investigate Williams Company! Stop the Permits! Assess Cumulative Impacts!"
  
• PHMSA: 202-366-4595
  Say: "Investigate Williams Safety Record! Make Enforcement Actions!"
  
• DOE: 202-586-5000 The.Secretary@hq.doe.gov
  Say: "Stop the exports of Gas, Coal, Oil!
  Investigate Williams Company for Safety Violations!"
  
• US Forest Service: 800-832-8355
  "NO FRACKING in US National Forests!
  Stop harassing artists!"
  
• Contact YOUR congressman:
  MOST IMPORTANT! If you do just one action, do this!
  Phone: (202) 224-3121
  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
  
  Say: "We want CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS on Energy Infrastructure, Pipeline safety, PR, Propaganda, and political corruption by the energy industry, and Oil+Gas Exports! Investigate the worst offenders: Exxon-Mobil, NiSource, Enbridge, and the Williams Company!"

Four Major US Tar Sands Spills in 2 years: 1: Yellowstone River July 2011, 67,000 gallons. 2: July 2012, Kalmazoo River, 1 M. gallons 3: March 2013, MN train derailment, 26,000 gal. 4: Mayflower AR, Mar 2013, 500,000 gal.

Sissonvile WV  12/2012

Mayflower Arkansas, Lake Conway 500,000 gal (12,000 bbls) DILBIT (Synthetic Crude) Exxon Mobil is NOT telling the truth about ANYTHING! inc. the size of the spill, the cause, prior safety inspections, or what was in the pipeline.

US Forest Service is "permitting" fracking in our National Forests, AND threatening artists who remix Smokey with an anti-fracking message with JAIL! Call them and say NO FRACKING! STOP CENSORSHIP FREE SPEECH! 800-832-1355

Water AT RISK for 900,000 people who live downstream from Mayflower Arkansas

Water AT RISK for 190,000 NYers DESPITE MORATORIUM

Cuomo's DEC caught AGAIN colluding w/Industry. Half-a-dozen prior incidents.

This is too horrible to mention. Is this patent proof that Halliburton is using DEPLETED URANIUM in fracking Perf Guns? What regulatory agency is watching over this?

Please get involved in this NATIONAL RESPONSE.

Make a call or two.
Or even just pass this note along.

Thanks.

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Latest Fracking Memes

Four Major US Tar Sands Spills in 2 years:
1: Yellowstone River July 2011, 67,000 gallons.
2: July 2012, Kalmazoo River, 1 M. gallons
3: March 2013, MN train derailment, 26,000 gal.
4: Mayflower AR, Mar 2013, 500,000 gal.

Sissonvile WV  12/2012

Mayflower Arkansas, Lake Conway
500,000 gal (12,000 bbls) DILBIT (Synthetic Crude)

US Forest Service is "permitting" fracking in our National Forests,
AND threatening artists who remix Smokey with an anti-fracking message with JAIL!
Call them and say NO FRACKING! and STOP CENSORSHIP of FREE SPEECH!
800-832-1355

Water AT RISK for 900,000 people
who live downstream from Mayflower Arkansas

Water AT RISK for 190,000 NYers DESPITE MORATORIUM

Haliburton Perf Gun Patent using DEPLETED URANIUM!

Cuomo's DEC caught AGAIN colluding w/Industry.
Half-a-dozen prior incidents.

This is too horrible to mention. Is this patent proof that Halliburton
is using DEPLETED URANIUM in fracking Perf Guns?
What regulatory agency is watching over this?

Response from Jon Campbell

Here is a response I got from Jon Campbell about my blog challenging his assertion that 400 wells per county is an "unlikely assumption" for the 28 NY counties sitting over the Marcellus.

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/fact-check-gannett-is-400-wellscounty.html

Hi Bill, Thanks for this, but you're completely misinterpreting/ misrepresenting my words. The 400 wells per county figure in the Empire Center report is over a four-year period, not the life cycle of the Marcellus. I added that sentence to show that the $8 billion added income figure was based on the unlikely assumption -- which it is -- that each of the 28 counties that have even a sliver of the Marcellus would see 400 wells by 2015, and therefore the income figure is likely inflated. Jon Campbell Correspondent Gannett Albany Bureau 150 State Street Albany, NY 12207

Whoops! He's right! My numbers are inflated by 7.5 times.
(Since the study's period, 4 years, goes into 30 years-- my life-cycle numbers-- 7.5x).

So I ran the numbers again. Turns out that 400 wells per county average
is a likely number of wells, running counter to Jon's (unsourced) assertion.

Here is my letter to Jon.

Hi Jon, Thanks Jon... Yes, it looks like I did miss the 4-year bit. So let's do some math. I am pretty sure about these numbers: NY can expect between 42,000 wells and 120,000 Marcellus wells over 30 years. Divided by 28 counties, this is between 1,500 to 4,400 wells per county AVERAGE over 30 years. 4 years goes into 30 years 7.5 times. Assuming linear build-out, then 42,000 wells and 120,000 Marcellus wells over 30 years / 7.5 = 5,600 to 16,000 in the first four years state-wide. divided by 28 counties yields 200- 570 wells per county. 400 is on the high side of the middle of that. This is still contrary to your (unsourced) assertion that 400 wells on average per county is "unlikely". Jon, 400 wells per county on average IS LIKELY. Please consider publishing a correction, or ask your editor to allow me a guest editorial. Thanks, BH

FACT-CHECK GANNETT: Is 400 wells/county an "unlikely assumption"? How many Marcellus wells projected for NY?

According to authoritative sources such as
NY Times, Associated Press, the NYS DEC and an industry study,
NY can expect between 42,000 wells and 120,000 Marcellus wells.

Note: this range is for nominal, mean (average) or conservative values, so the actual number could be much more.

Divided by 28 counties, this is between 1,500 to 4,400 wells per county.

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-many-marcellus-wells-projected-for.html

FACT CHECK:

So why would Jon Campbell / Gannett publish in an unsourced statement
that 400 wells / county would be an "unlikely assumption"?

http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/media-analysis-400-wells-per-ny-county.html


--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

MEDIA ANALYSIS: 400 Wells per NY County an "unlikely assumption"?

FACT CHECKING GANNETT

Summary:   

An unsourced, passing phrase in a recent Gannett article on fracking attempts to slide a false premise past the audience, by making it resemble an oppositional statement. 

To wit: If hydrofracking came to NY, that 400 wells per 28 counties would be "an unlikely assumption".
 

In actual fact,  according to a variety of sources from industry, state regulators, and the professional press, an average of between 1,500 wells to 4,400 wells per county is likely.

Misrepresenting the impacts of fracking as being 1/10th what they really might be promotes an industry agenda.

This supports my assertion that most "news" from the corporate media actually is Public Relations, or serves an agenda which benefits the objectives of the Business Councils and Chambers of Commerce.

BACKGROUND:

I found something strange in this recent "news" article by Jon Campbell:

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20130506/NEWS11/305060030/Report-Fracking-would-boost-income-levels-upstate
 

``Overall, the paper...found that the 28 New York counties that lie within the Marcellus Shale could generate as much as $8.29 billion in extra income by 2015 if large-scale fracking is allowed. But that figure is based on an unlikely assumption: That all of those counties would see 400 wells drilled. The "sweet spot" of the shale is believed to be along the Pennsylvania border, while counties like Albany, Erie, Genesee and others on the outer edge are not believed to be targeted for development.``

 Hold on there, skipper. Let's take a closer look at what this is saying...

It sounds like those 28 counties are each getting fewer than 400 wells.
Right?
 
Let's assume that all 28 counties get 400 wells. What's the total?
 
400 * 28 = 11,200 wells total for NY.
 

Does that number seem right to you?

It seems WAY LOW to me.

And it is.

It could be low by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. 

That's a term scientists use to say, "A LOT".

It's a big error.

How many Marcellus wells are projected for NY?
 

I have assembled sources such as the NY DEC, the NY Times, Associated Press, and an industry study which puts the LOW estimate at 42,000 wells, and the HIGH estimate at 120,000 wells.  An industry source says that 81,000 wells  for both Marcellus and Utica is "very conservative".
 

42,000 wells (low estimate) / 28 counties = 1,500 wells per county

120,000 wells (high estimate) / 28 counties = 4,400 wells per county.

So in actual fact: 

1,500 wells to 4,400 wells per county is likely.  
 

Because I used mean (average) or nominal data where I could, this range is  nominal or conservative. Meaning, it could be much more. 

See: http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/how-many-marcellus-wells-projected-for.html

Jon Campbell's (unsourced) statement is 1/4 the low estimate and 1/10th the high estimate. 
In other words, it is WAY LOW.

Why would that be?

MEDIA ANALYSIS -- the MYTH of being Fair and Balanced

Robert McChesney has documented the history of Professional Journalism
in his book, The Problem of the Media.

It is important to note that "Journalism" as a profession
did not exist before the early part of the 20th Century.

 
So, what is the raison d'etre for this new profession you might ask?

 "Capitalist consolidation of ownership of the media"
is McChesney's answer.
 

Today, we are lucky if a city has one large newspaper.
In the 1800's, in a city the size of NY or Chicago, there may
have been 30! Each one representing a minority (advocacy) viewpoint.
There was the Labor Beat, the Socialist Worker, a paper about

the Environment, etc. 
 

Despite what we are told that capitalism favors competition,
in actual fact, the imperatives of capitalist profits
inevitable move towards consolidation.
(fewer owners, bigger outlets, maximized profits)
 

So as more smaller newspapers got gobbled up by larger ones,

for the customers to accept this, the publishers got the idea of

inventing the Profession of Journalism, with certain values,

such as "covering both sides of the story",
i.e., being "fair and balanced."

 

The Actual Bias of Corporate Media

So while they are telling you they are "fair and balanced",
you should understand that due to how newspapers
are funded (by advertising), with this funding model,
newspapers will inevitably promote the objectives

of the local Chamber of Commerce, the investor class, etc.

i.e., the values of money, profits, and business.

Issues like Peace, Sustainable Living, and Workers Rights
get ignored or worse (mocked), while the shinking

"news hole" is replaced by more advertising.

So in actual fact, they are NOT "fair and balanced",

yet they want to appear this way.

Rhetorical Techniques for APPEARING to be "fair and balanced"

So let's say we are talking about fracking.

And let's say the "story" here is not actually news,
but a "spiked story", i.e., a "research paper" which was actually
funded by industry, to promote industry objectives.

The corporate-funded "Think Tank" which published the paper,
issues a press release to media outlets, which beat reporters
such as Jon Campbell are assigned to "report".

So instead of "investigative journalism", what we really get
are stenographers who promote the interests of industry.

In fact, much (or even most) of what gets printed in the
newspaper actually is not what we would expect to be
called "news", i.e., investigations by the Fourth Estate
which keep a check against people with power,

but are in fact PUBLIC RELATIONS (industrial propaganda)
DISGUISED AS NEWS.

(NOTE: I do not mean to pick on Jon Campbell here. He's a fine
person, and he's done some good reporting around Shale Gas.
But he is employed by Gannett, and when they give him a task,

he knows he's got to do it. So even good journalists which a

quest for truth, get roped into being PR spokesmodels once

in a while. For all I know, this phrase could have been inserted by his
editor. This is more a criticism of the corporate media than of
any particular reported).

Industry PR disguised as a Contrary Position

Anyone who reads "the news" today is used to a certain style.
In a piece about fracking, there is almost always a 1/2 sincere
attempt to "cover both sides". So there is a back-and-forth style.

So we see phrases beginning with "However," or "But," or "Yet,"
when a contrary position is presented.

So here's where it gets really devious...

What if we could disguise industry PR as a contrary position?

Let's look at that except again:

``Overall, the paper...found that the 28 New York counties that lie within the Marcellus Shale could generate as much as $8.29 billion in extra income by 2015 if large-scale fracking is allowed. But that figure is based on an unlikely assumption: That all of those counties would see 400 wells drilled. 

 
This is really devious! Since it begins with "But", we expect it to be a contrary position.

When in fact, it is a LOW-BALL ESTIMATE of the size of the industrialization of rural upstate NY.

Since we can expect the environmental impacts of drilling

to be proportional to the scale, industry has an interest in

deceiving us about the true scale of the roll-out.

"OK, 400 wells per county! That doesn't seem so bad!"

 
Yet let's look at one county likely to be heavily drilled,
Broome County, at 715 sq miles. Since we have 640 acre
spacing units in NY, and since 1 mi = 640 acres, the calculation is easy:

715 square miles (assuming ideal spacing units) would me 715 Well Pads.

According to the DEC's rdSGEIS, 

"current information suggests that 6 to 10 wells per pad is the likely distribution"

--- rdSGEIS 9/2011 p 3-3

715 x 6 =  4,290

715 x 10 = 7,150

So BROOME COUNTY ALONE might get 4,000-7,000 wells!

I hope this is helpful and cause you to scrutinize what you read in the press.

BH

How many Marcellus wells projected for NY? (News Analysis)

My question was: "How many Marcellus wells are projected for NY?"

Thanks to everyone who sent me data.

I have compiled the results here.

Estimates range from 42,000 to 123,000 Marcellus wells.

An industry source says that 81,000 wells
for both Marcellus and Utica is "very conservative".

ESTIMATE #1: 48,000 Marcellus wells:
Source: rdsgeis Sept 2011: Executive Summary, p4

The Department has determined, based on industry projections, that it may receive applications to drill  approximately 1,700 - 2,500 horizontal and vertical wells for development of the Marcellus Shale by high-volume hydraulic fracturing during a "peak development" year. An average year may see 1,600 or more applications. Development of the Marcellus Shale in New York may occur over a 30-year period.
DERIVED: 1,600 x 30 years = 48,000 wells. (MEAN ESTIMATE)

ESTIMATE #2: 42,126 Marcellus wells
Source: rdSGEIS direct quote page 6-209 Sept 2011

• Total Wells Constructed  (year 1-30)
  Low: 10,532 Average 42,126 MEAN EST. high= 73,720 (DERIVED)
  
• Max number of new wells developed per year (year 10-30)
  Low: 413   Average 1,652

ESTIMATE #3: 123,414 Marcellus wells:
Source: DERIVED from NYS DEC rdSGEIS + AP article by Mary Esch:

GIVEN: rdSGEIS 3-3 "current information suggests that 6 to 10 wells per pad is the likely distribution"

Assuming 6 wells/pad low estimate:
"20,569 square miles beneath 23 counties across the southern half of New York"
Mary Esch, AP:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/gas-drillers-new-york-marcellus_n_1511849.html
DERIVED: 1 pad per square mile (assuming 640 acre ideal spacing units)
x 20,569 * 6 wells/pad  = 123,414 (Using 6 wells/pad is a LOW ESTIMATE)

Estimate #4: 112,500 Marcellus Wells
Source: NYC DEP, rdSGEIS

New York's portion of the Marcellus Shale is approximately 18,750 square miles
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/news/natural_gas_drilling_overview.shtml
DERIVED 1 pad per square mile (assuming ideal spacing units) x 18,750 * 6 wells/pad  = 112,500 (LOW ESTIMATE)

Estimate #5: 90,000 wells in 30 years.
Source: NY Times

30,000 Marcellus wells in 10 years:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/08/08climatewire-big-money-drives-up-the-betting-on-the-marce-22075.html?pagewanted=all
DERIVED 90,000 wells in 30 years

Estimate #6: 81,000 Marcellus + Utica wells.
Source: Petro Enterprises, Inc, "Economic Uplift from Marcellus-Utica Development in New York State"

"In our most conservative estimates, total development of the Marcellus and Utica are projected to cover an area of about 13,500 square miles. Using a very conservative estimate in well spacing, we anticipate 81,000 wells will be drilled and completed in that area."

-- Petro Enterprises "Economic Uplift from Marcellus-Utica Development in New York State"
http://twintlc.com/Documents/nysupliftstudyR.pdf

(expired link...  check Archive.org, JLCNY , or my Scribd for this document)

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

Water AT RISK NOW for more than 190,000 New Yorkers Despite the de facto moratorium.

Water AT RISK NOW for more than 190,000 New Yorkers Despite the de facto moratorium.

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE-Response to Your Message

A friend wrote the the White House months ago with a concern about fracking.
They just received this in the mail today, from the White House.

I redacted the person's name, but I know this person and believe this is legit.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: The White House <no-reply@correspondence.whitehouse.gov>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Response to Your Message

Dear -----; Thank you for writing.  I appreciate hearing from you, and I share the vision of millions of Americans who want to take control of our Nation's energy future.  My Administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy is about developing every source of American energy—a strategy aimed at saving families and businesses money by reducing our reliance on oil imports, expanding domestic oil and gas production, and positioning the United States as the global leader in clean energy. Today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy, and we are finally poised to control our own energy future.  Under my Administration, American oil production is at its highest level in 15 years, and we are now less reliant on oil imports than in any of the past 20 years.  We have opened up millions of new acres for safe and responsible oil and gas exploration.  Thanks to our Nation's oil production, more efficient vehicles, and a world-class refining sector, we have cut net imports of oil by more than one-third since 2008.  We supported the first new nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s.  We are also investing in advanced biofuels projects across the country, and we are now sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly two decades. My Administration will continue to look for every way we can help energy consumers—from relieving distribution bottlenecks to increasing transparency and reducing volatility in the oil markets.  We established the toughest new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks in history so that by the middle of the next decade, our cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  Our Nation is already becoming a global leader in advanced vehicles, and auto dealers are selling more hybrid vehicles than ever before.  So by investing in our energy security, we can help our businesses succeed and create good middle-class jobs here in America. We are making good progress, but to free ourselves from the impact of spikes in gasoline prices, we must further reduce the oil used by our cars and trucks.  That is why I am calling on Congress to use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and development to make the energy technologies of the future cheaper, better, and less reliant on oil.  Through this fund, we can support scientists and engineers who are designing new materials and technologies for advanced vehicles that run on alternative fuels, developing cheaper batteries that go farther on a single charge, and devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy.  This proposal is not just about saving American families money at the pump and protecting our environment; it is also about strengthening our national security.  Partnered with our other energy policies, the Energy Security Trust would help solidify America's position as a world leader in advanced transportation technology. Our country produces more natural gas than ever before, and that has led to cleaner power, lower energy bills, and greater energy independence.  The United States leads the world in natural gas production, with reserves that can last nearly 100 years—a supply that can power our cars, trucks, trains, homes, and factories in a cleaner and cheaper way, and one that will support hundreds of thousands of jobs.  However, we must develop and utilize this resource while upholding the highest environmental and safety standards.  That is why my Administration will finalize commonsense new rules for companies drilling for natural gas on public lands. Thanks in part to my Administration's investments in clean energy—the largest in our Nation's history—the United States has doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources, and tens of thousands of Americans now have jobs as a result.  I have also set a goal to double renewable electricity production again by 2020 to build on our momentum and create even more jobs.  I have repeatedly called on Congress to stop giving away $4 billion a year in oil and gas subsidies to an industry that has never been more profitable, and instead to pass clean energy tax credits to cultivate a market for innovation in clean energy technology.  The United States military—the largest energy consumer in the world—is reducing its fuel use and improving its operational performance through one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history.  There is still more work to be done to develop our sustainable energy sources, and we must seize every opportunity to do so.  We must lead the world in developing the technology that will power tomorrow's industries and jobs. Securing our Nation's energy future is one of the major challenges of our time, and will require the efforts of our brightest innovators and most creative companies.  The nature of America's rise has been our drive, our restlessness, and our willingness to take risks—and we are poised to succeed as long as we do not lose that spirit of innovation.  I encourage you to learn more about my Administration's efforts at www.WhiteHouse.gov/energy. Thank you, again, for writing. Sincerely, Barack Obama This Week at the White House The Employment Situation in April President Obama's Trip to Mexico & Costa Rica Weekly Address:  Fixing our Immigration System and Expanding Trade in Latin America West Wing Week 05/03/13:  "Nobody Does It Better" Photo of the Day Stay Connected     Facebook Twitter YouTube Flickr iTunes

-- 

--
--
May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

DON'T LOOK! You may be party to the crime!

Link to this: TinyURL.com/SmokeyBearFaucetFireFracas

CUE TWILIGHT ZONE MUSIC:

A NYC artist called Lmnopi (Lopi LaRoe) has been ordered by the US Government to Cease and Desist causing harm to them(*) by infringing their intellectual property rights, to wit, using the SMOKEY THE BEAR icon in this anti-fracking parody.

"Only YOU can Prevent Faucet Fires".

This image has gone viral on the internet, and many people laugh,
see it as brilliant parody, and also see the important call-to-action.

Also, isn't it the mission of the U.S. Forest Service
to PROTECT our national forests from harm?
(like the harm caused by fracking?)

(* Wait... "Them?" Who are "they"?? apart from US? the Sovereign Citizens?

WHAT-THA? I've read the founding documents.
I thought WE THE PEOPLE were the government.

Who owns what? (or whom?)

Stay tuned for more on this emerging story....
but meanwhile --- DON'T LOOK AT THIS IMAGE!

You may be party to a CRIME AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT!

PA DEP Determination Letter, Manning Case, Franklin Forks PA

Don't believe the hype.

To understand what is going on here,
you have to begin by reading the source documents.

Here is the PA DEP Determination Letter
in the Manning Case, Franklin Forks, PA
along with the cover letter, by Colleen Connolly.

There's really not much analysis here yet.
But if you want to look this material over, feel free.
http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/05/pa-dep-determination-letter-manning.html

We sorta need people to read this stuff over and blog about it.
EID is having a happy-slap fest.

First the links, my short analysis follows:

• http://www.scribd.com/doc/139279086/042512-PA-DEP-STATEMENT-Manning-Case-Franklin-Forks-Investigation
  
  Date: 042512
  Title: PA DEP STATEMENT - Manning Case, Franklin Forks Investigation
  Source: PA DEP
  Metadata Author: Gary Miller
  Signed: Colleen Connolly
  
  
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/139278150/042413-Manning-Determination-Letter-PADEP-OCR
  
  Date: 042413
  Title: Manning Determination Letter
  Source: PADEP
  Type: OCR (errors may be induced in this process. Check scanned source for 100% authenticity)
   
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/139277771/042413-Manning-Determination-Letter-PADEP-Scanned
  
  Date: 042413
  Title: Manning Determination Letter (Franklin Forks PA)
  Source: PADEP
  Type: (Scanned)

The basic critique:

This is NOT a scientific document.
It's an administrative judgment-call
masquerading as scientific fact.

It actually suggests that there may be a problem at Salt Springs Park,
which is extremely tragic,
because it is a magical faerie garden.
One of the most beautiful, enchanted coves
I've experienced on Planet Earth.

Now guess whose farm is indicted as the most likely cause
of the contamination BOTH at the Manning's in Franklin Forks
and Salt Springs Park?

Shelly Depue!
You remember her: the star of the EID film "Truthland".

The best Hollywood playwright couldn't make up a funny story this good.

The PA DEP is a captured agency.

They are not enforcing the law.
They are failing to investigate hundreds of such cases
they most often Rubber-Stamp the closure -- NO FAULT
and walk away.