Dataset

Hydrofracking industry from a unique perspective-Compelling succinct qualified questions

Added By LanguageFerret

==================

All,

Hydrofracking has the potential to be the number one aspect affecting society’s health and well being.
It is, or it is scheduled to be, that pervasive.

In your sentiments against Hydrofracking that we share; or perhaps not, I hope you will agree that more
information is necessary from the natural gas / Hydrofracking industry.

Also, whether you find my Hydrofracking datasets useful or not, I hope we can both agree that useful
categorized and easy accessible information available to the public can only enhance its safety and
welfare.

Joel S.

In the now famous or rather “infamous” in the eyes of the natural gas / Hydrofracking industry
documentary movie “Gasland”, there are several sequences where the its originator Josh Fox attempts
to solicit responses to his questions and inquiries from the natural gas industry. He was always rebuffed
and still might be today in many instances and contexts although he has attained clout through the
success of his film.

From the context of the movie it was apparent Mr. Fox held no illusions that he was actually going to
get to anyone in a substantial position to talk. However, that said whatever questions he was going to
ask were no doubt (going to be) compelling.

This is a similar effort of mine with of course a few differences. Obviously my questions are in the same
genre or ballpark, but they will be different in that my perspective and the experiences I have in forming
my opinions and sentiments is quite different from his or anybody else’s.

This is not to say my questions are “better” than Mr. Fox’s. Hardly! Just different, and different questions
from all perspectives, respects and quarters need constant asking, pursuance and hounding even if they
are verbatim from one mouth to another.

It is that important of an issue where it is not only a question of our heath, the heath of generations to
come and the environment but one of balance. Whatever poisons that can be remediated by water
treatment plants take energy and a lot of it!

If a good portion of the energy realized from Hydrofracking is expended to clean up its cumulative mother
of all messes; what can be cleaned up from the what is ramping up to be a full bore approach (no pun
intended) of fracking every inch of available space … Honestly, is worth it even for you who are
ardent Hydrofracking supporters?

Again, I can’t emphasize enough, depending on a process that needs constant vigilance and human
interaction on the because of the potential dire consequences if something should catastrophically fail
and when a failure occurs it requires human fixing is a dangerous game in itself but when human fixes
fail and nature is called in to repair what we can’t it is the ultimate danger. This is evident in the current
Japanese nuclear nightmare and just a couple days ago a blowout in Bradford County Pennsylvania:

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Well-Blow-Out-in-Bradford-County-120292434.html

dumping hundreds of thousands of untreated Hydrofracking water into the ground water table and the
the Towanda creek thus the Susquehanna river, it is all the more so.

Perhaps in this particular case the waters will effectively dilute the mess but it is one more instance pushing
Mother Nature’s envelope.

But with the current environment (again no pun intended) we’ll never know … we can’t know what the
effects are on the Susquehanna river by the Hydrofracking chemicals and conversely the effects of the
Susquehanna on the Hydrofracking chemicals due to the natural gas industry’s stifling, stonewalling
influence and power now being decried by some high ranking government officials at every level.

Just scroll down and look at my long litany of unanswered inquiries and questions. I really don’t care
if I’m answered directly; what I care about is the substantial answers to at least somebody about
HYdrofracking by the natural gas industry where the trend is toward specificity than the rote, regurgitated
generalized slop we’ve been fed so far.

Another difference is where Josh Fox in Gasland did not explicitly note exactly when he made his calls to
the industry, I do.

Thank you for taking the time to consider or even download and purchase of my Hydrofrackingdatasets
that give a broad, unique picture or perspective of the natural gas industry industry in general and
Hydrofracking in particular on the Internet.

I hope you will find the prices of the datasets reasonable and they are subject to change.

I hope the categorization of Hydrofracking information and data; the more precise the better and easily
extracted the better of what has been made available and what is being withheld by the unforthcoming
natural gas industry I hope will prove useful for those of you with your own personal struggles with this
literally life and death and for everybody I hope you find it interesting.

Explicit data is paramount to understanding Hydrofracking; something that may have the greatest adverse
effect on our lives from a general overall population standpoint than anything else in due course.

Where there are information/data voids or holes; some of which are so big a gigantic seismic “Thumper”
truck could figuratively drive through it or so small as to be lost in the “Internet noise”; the datasets can
find them like no other tool and put them into perspective.

==================

From Joel Shapiro Tue Apr 19 12:12:20 2011
X-YMail-OSG: uz12zg0VM1m4V14qAOXeHjtbmapdw37RrwUEGxy09kftvk5
hD8UoHowRaRkX3x5EWY7RgDclPUMapYd8ilVDMMPUfGxuWOrLyfx8axIxHiy
5ar3JNnSFO.1EptdR72CbjU7tyn.LlO5R9SGI22oWw.rI85GY939UXtAwyb
cduq7NNCoNQB0SfOuztK63p7_a3xo8AMRzjnGSfJF9z0R3Dk0UvxgKvwg8LO
0kmVmqzR5aA3W6fyEIdfwV_2ROPHxZTwvNtRdDCnPOFWP23BgV9LF1GtanT4
rPIlTzWTHH0MRKRG.Ql9dyLxiEXRxDB2D6bFwi5BU7yG332ih2rInXiSjn_z
14ZGrQvBZdjQSENQguK455jrfxHUM.1wnLsAvOKXOz
jZueuSEaiC36qENv2
e1gPlYpN8iQkH
Received: from [67.242.221.246] by web36702.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:12:20 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.109.295617
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Shapiro
Subject: Compelling succinct qualified questions re: the Natural Gas/Hydrofracking industry from a unique unprecedented perspective
To: info@iogany.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=“0-188924713-1303240340=:66445”
Content-Length: 649939

Compelling succinct qualified questions re: the Natural Gas/Hydrofracking industry from a unique unprecedented perspective

Ms. Mellody, please forward this E-mail to Mr. Gill if you would be so kind.

Attn: Mr. Brad Gill – Executive Director
The Independent Oil and Natural Gas Association of New York (IOGA)
38 Lake Street
Hamburg, New York 14075
Phone: (716) 202.4688
Fax: (716) 202.4689

Dear Mr. Gill; Executive Director of the New York Independent Oil and Gas Association,

My name is Joel Shapiro. I have independently developed an application (computer program)
that allows me to see the Internet presence or “footprint” of a given topic in its own right and/or
names of people, companies technical terms, regular words etc. associated with the topic.

All of these associated terms can be topics themselves for “runs” of my as app offshoots of the
of the original.

To put what I do/what my app does in a nutshell, envision the topic as search engine search terms
and from the resulting URLs; web pages and online .PDF documents I further search each
respectively for the presence of a list of up to 255 names, terms, words etc and record their
appearance in the web pages and .PDF docs.

When you do a “regular” search engine search you get back mere snippets of the contents of the
given web page usually containing your search terms. I take this aspect to a much higher\
degree of sophistication.

Now envision I create a “matrix” where all of your up to 255 names, terms etc. are column headers
and all the URLs (i.e. web page links) web pages and online .PDF docs where they appear are
respectively are posted in the appropriate column.

This is especially suited for an Excel spreadsheet thus the 255 term limitation; the Excel spreadsheet
column limitation number.

This is a very powerful tool for studying and scrutinizing any topic, name starting with the ability
to immediately at your fingertips ascertain where in the Internet universe your subject is located
and by “inference”; i.e. with respect to all the terms, in what context.

I publish these matrices; the output of my app as “datasets” on http://www.infochimps.com for free
and for purchase. Datasets can be any kind of output; text files, graphic .jpg files, Excel files as
just mentioned etc.

For example:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/natural-gas-hydrofracking-terms-inference-matrix-2-hydrofracking

Each of my datasets has an overview explaining its background in particular, more about inference
matrics etc.

By scrolling down a column header name such as yours Mr. Gill as I intend to craft a run of of my
app especially with respect to yourself and publish the matrix, you will be able see your “gross
Internet presence”. I mean this in a descriptive and not a derogatory sense.

By looking at the rows you can often deduce the context of the web page where your name appears
with respect to all the other terms in your list (which I call Auxiliary terms) and the verbiage of the
URL/web page link itself.

OK, now that I hope I’ve sufficiently or adequately got some basics out of the way; some background
why I’m coming from a most unique, qualified informed perspective I’m attaching this natural gas
industry matrix (dataset) which I will be posting later today where I intentionally crafted it that it would
contain negative or uncomplimentary Auxiliary terms.

Currently I’m offering this dataset for purchase but I’m submitting it to you gratis in the spirit of fair
play and openness which unfortunately I find your industry as a whole sorely lacks.

While yes, this an effort to put the natural gas/hydrofracking industry in an unseemly, corrupt and
tarnished light, I have a very interesting, important point to make here:

I explicitly tried to create datasets in a positive light but despite all my efforts the negative Hydrofracking
web pages and .PDF docs were always in the vast majority with no success. I even solicited suggestions
from several natural gas industry advocates to help me find terms where the majority of web pages would
be pro- Hydrofracking. I would be happy to forward to you my E-mails in this regard to to substantiate what
I just related.

Without going into a long story or “spiel”, I was at first a Hydrofracking supporter and advocate …
until I ultimately viewed the “notorious” (at least in the eyes of the natural gas industry) documentary
“Gasland”.

That dramatically changed my view and not emphatically just from the dramatic burning water faucet
sequences or the fish kill where I admit can be explained as not Hydrofracking related especially per
your /the natural gas industry’s response to Gasland titled “The Truth About Gasland”

http://anga.us/learn-the-facts/the-truth-about-gasland?gclid=CIrMqIHl-qcCFSU6gwodaxprqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1W8MnveFq8&feature=pyv&ad=9489784773&kw=gasland

No, it was the scope of the issues and aspects of Hydrofracking the response did not address!

Such as: the escaping natural gas that a qualified SMU professor (now regional director for the EPA) Al
Armendariz related in Gasland and quoted in this online article:

http://frontrow.dmagazine.com/2010/10/seeing-kitchen-faucets-on-fire-will-change-the-way-you-think-of-natural-gas/

Here is the snippet:

“[t]hat air pollution related to natural gas production in Fort Worth accounts for more pollution in the
atmosphere above Dallas-Fort Worth than automobiles. Than Armendariz has Fox use an infrared camera
to look at a seemingly benign tank, the kind of white cylinders we drive by all the time in North Texas,
revealing billowing toxins pouring out of the top of the container.”

Your “The Truth About Gasland” video was so ominously and conveniently silent about this aspect
and many others.

This segues right into my succinct questions I stated I wanted to submit to you:

1.) Staying on the escaped Hydrofracking natural gas topic, do you dispute Dr. Armendariz’s statistics?
Do you feel that escaped gas is not an issue? Can you provide me some Internet references in this
regard?

2.) What about remediation of used or spent Hydrofracking wells? Once a given well has expired being
productive in remediation is the asphalt and/or concrete well pad torn up, fresh topsoil if necessary
reintroduced, contaminated soil if present carted away, trees planted etc. … or is the well pad just
abandoned? I cannot seem to find any substantial about this on the Internet. Again, can you provide
me some Internet references in this regard?

3.) The natural gas/Hydrofracking industry now proudly boasts it has released the chemicals involved
in Hydrofracking processes and in the “Produced water” and/or flowback waste water or “brine” of
course not on its own volition but under pressure from lawmakers. However, no mention is made of the
exact consistency or concentration of the chemicals in the brine.

The natural gas/Hydrofracking industry conveniently hides behind a dubious claim that such information
is “proprietary”; the vile, hazardous concoction of chemicals each Hydrofracking company guards with
the secrecy of Colonel Sanders fried chicken or Coca Cola.

OK, on further unbiased deliberation I acquiesce; the claim may have some merit. So what would be your
response to a total or industry wide data on re: the amounts of each chemical released thus no one
company’s “secret sauce formula” would be compromised?

In the Tuesday April 12, 2011 senate hearing on natural gas drilling (Hydrofracking)

http://cspan.org/Events/Senate-Environment-Committee-Hearing-on-Natural-Gas-Drilling/10737420841/

throughout the hearing but especially starting at about the 1 hour 25 minute mark Dr. Daniel Volz, Director
of the Center of Healthy Environments and Communities testified of instances of blatant pollution by
natural gas companies and the need more stringent safeguards and reporting of Hydrofracking waste
water and starting at the 1 hour 30 minute 45 second mark Jack Ubinger, Senior Vice President of the
Pennsylvania Environmental Council calls for increased release of explicit data and information by the
natural gas industry.

Do you find the data Dr. Volz conveyed under oath incorrect or lies? Do you concur with the sentiments
of both Mesrrs. Ubinger and Volz’s sentiments that more stringent rules and explicit data release by the
natural gas industry is warranted, fair and equitable?

4.) Starting at the 1 hour 36 minute mark of the senate hearing Mr. Jeff Cloud, Vice Chairman of the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission testified that in Oklahoma the Hydrofracking Produced, flowback brine
water is recycled back again in the process. In Oklahoma Hydrofracking water and drinking water are
always kept separate by from some unfortunate accident or slow seepage or leaching.

According to Mr. Cloud there is no treatment of Oklahoma Hydrofracking water is to be reintroduced into
the regular groundwater supply. Why is this not currently the case in Pennsylvania or would not be the case
as well in New York should it ever permit Hydrofracking?

5.) Why if the gas deposits are so vast that the United States is referred to as the Saudi Arabia of natural
gas where hundreds of thousands of wells are already in existence and thousands more slated to be
constructed in Wyoming where there it is much more sparsely populated does New York and Pennsylvania
need to be Hydrofracted in the first place? Here is view of the the vast Hydrofacking well fields as far as the
eye can see even from the air:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw1d7zp2vB8&NR=11

6.) Is there any data or information you could relate of the “energy cost” of other “dirty” fossil fuels to
realize the touted “clean” energy of natural gas? For example, from the initial “thumper trucks” run on
regular gas that are required to map the natural gas deposits to the transportation and water treatment of
the waste water that perhaps derive their energy from coal burning electric plants all take away from the
natural gas payload.

I contend unless the natural gas payload is orders of magnitude more productive can natural gas
production by Hydrofracking even begin to be considered a viable alternative in light of the negatives.
It begs the question though if the natural gas payload is really so great why does the Hydrofracking
“footprint” have to be so large? Why isn’t Wyoming and Texas sufficient? (Preceding question 5.)

Mr. Gill I don’t know how seriously you take me or how much credence you give to my inference
matrices in general and Hydrofracking in particular but I’m going to post my E-mail here to you on
infochimps.com and inherently free for download because it simply will be the overview verbiage.

The attached inference matrix itself will be available at a very nominal cost and will be another dataset
itself.

If you indeed do intend to respond please note I intend to publish it as well and no response will speak
volumes in its own right. They aren’t going to be esoteric questions just by me though. I foresee you/
the natural gas industry having to answer similar ones or perhaps exactly the same ones to legislators,
governmental oversight officials, scientists and perhaps those who you consider with the least amount
of clout or standing; just the ordinary members of the general public like myself.

All the while I will be tracking, noting and categorizing.

In a perfect world I contend with the monumental issues involved with Hydrofracking which in all
fairness should be considered apart from previous natural gas drilling of many years as it is a new
technology, the natural gas would have absolutely no qualms about releasing as much specific
information as possible with respect to it that would not as I mentioned compromise the integrity
of any one company’s in particular proprietary information.

I would think the industry would even want to subsidize the gathering and dissemination of such
information. The natural gas has made my vision conveyed so well in John Lennon’s song "Imagine
even all the more remote.

Mr. Gill, thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome and look forward to your
correspondence.

Best regards,

Joel S.

Joel Shapiro
Rochester, New York 14618
Phone numbers in order of preference:
(585) 255-0997 (Cell – Call anytime – best to reach me)
(585) 250-8053 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)
(585) 473-7013 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)

jrs_14618@yahoo.com
or
cshapiro@rochester.rr.com

http://enartrans.com

===========

Those who know nothing of foreign languages know
nothing of their own.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

===========

If you want to correspond with me confidentially here
is my PGP public key block:


BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use

mQENA0Yo00sAAAEIANRilMvuKGEYt8XU1tip4NbL37f0cJwzQATLyp4wFc96ZjxQ
7obpmZj42xf0zw4wW24ofeInlRVpltZ0SRVb9+NtpsAbiSn3vnRKvRnc8kiiRLr0
08omtWiJDmnEiyV0AujvuDsMztscfuFLOwx7BHdUJzMcimXJPtMNxBM0EmARrl/l
a4R/0I+C5BlThXGhN0FC943bCKTsyZlq7RhfPZkenbKIqbPrC8pa2xavgoRFXnSy
rhnkpLKl9ZrIZbPmm7DpgqxnuEfnWFFQcMSESldecoyKdzPsJLBMiwVEIswfypoN
rUh7KSvAnc/A7ppMw+wBsZopUBNOfuTf84vkS/sABRG0GWpycyA8anJzXzE0NjE4
QHlhaG9vLmNvbT6JARUDBRBGKNNLfuTf84vkS/sBAUAZB/wIYrfRE5uB7s7oz96D
D/6BhPclV6LXRkQcHNZUoNbsL3a5aFkux/cPrFJ2vCgzxkwHsb/wA38YwjXsTxqA
LkmgyNRHIaqo1nYsBFNGQJMb4JKR0GHUIJoScRHmvSXCIXk/borj8m+rtmEAAhqu
R2iYuMTZ327TFOLuGs+PdPJvC/dNvNcRROaRppaUZzZ8koVCxbqNRb3W2FSo7dc/
ct2VgNI9xW1ZKTHB8jIYTwH1iJJi1ZApHE5rEykE+6765dTRLWTizoff3EU5/CD6
ojTCCqv0Xl6QaZ0tHpl97bE7eC2JsUHpI4yhG/w/jTqHT4lF59KG1ASXKeeiYVR6
f5zV
=ny5Q
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-

===========




Here is the link to infochimps.com dataset mentioned in the E-mail would be uploaded in the future:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/natural-gas-hydrofracking-terms-inference-matrix-11-scary-ominou

Also, Following is the reply I received that Mr. Gill was too busy to answer me in this lifetime so they
referred me to his press secretary Mr. Jim Smith.

I spoke with Mr. Smith today 04/20/11 he stated he would give me a reply in a couple days and
interestingly he mentioned that someone actually in the industry [sic] might be able to field my
questions. Thus, Also following is my inquiry to Mr. Jim Gipson Director-Media Relations at:
(405) 935-1310 or jim.gipson@chk.com at Chesapeake Energy.

The inquiry to Mr. Gipson is just the note to him and a forwarding of my post to Mr. Gill.

http://www.chk.com/Pages/Contact.aspx

Hmmm, so far the name “Jim” seems to the front-runner in natural gas / Hydrofracking media relations.




From IOGA of NY Wed Apr 20 15:11:18 2011
X-Apparently-To: jrs_14618@yahoo.com via 209.191.85.38; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:11:40 0700
Return-Path:
X-YahooFilteredBulk: 24.75.25.85
Received-SPF: none (mta1483.mail.mud.yahoo.com: domain of info@iogany.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-YMailISG: 4hdVrfgcZAqpTp6aUgOiFXndgm1rlOpJYPLsv3F1MVQV4Jht
qg03TZ2IqTkYHZoHpbdBWSKerixUbeJeDPSvRCuh82yYtVg_.N_HheBCOtna
ngqH_TkZlYdImX3epiFglLErJQOvTj9rqvM0GAcAvoy0o1P9feb4sjcExEb0
hsBGfstHovGmSP.S_ieJTzOV2S6b.qMfB3VkQTHflL82_0Eu6OTNxIMUoGUm
Pcz9Qykj_swMo_HxR1DaLK07kywMc9kBhbEFPgOSddk.eJDu_HNR27l8IiDl
kKMfppRMmVpnW6egWCe0lO2fKPol5U1n.sopkVfKbclK9q68f5p5xj6wcBoI
e7UTsXWREPsFkEemyoCMsfKq3Rkt6.aESLq.n021IpAmdR2ZKmGxKjblSE_B
T3m.UzqwP0ajN5ZfIutFuwNiT88RbuE.TSVyEBTxOiJmM7lHGW.IjmrFV9an
S2ebk.mCQCvuDW7MviPXAvtkXUjWCKTLDz.j1i5qlocs8aW8pRJLSYcsJ.W
TtxML82YBknqpFMsyVFRb6uG9f61jYnogFTM9_Zgk91CVyVe.HMRiti6ifJe
l7jaDmqQG831deX4uperzQIridtyW..0LhNP8ZUXVosUArSpGzjASbhRDzA2
qhcWMmcl0O8pO_CZoGDVNFDhMfxYhjtqrUZmDqDo13jpeld_VdFazs9.bQWp
WnaKqU47GoxuARwWW3uTOS9PO.BtcA0wENSenVrfmkK4XqvsHnDJ2KUVTjF9
6Q2p0wEDGONYF876Op_sL9RNcXnJQH_DJS_zkW0r.0QDTIqZaJftwMRS8OzT
kmkSX4rPPxFhxJvLAyUBPmx2qbR2zPs_R9t5MMmFpXGsJL9tLmkzwitlKOEl
oKscYIbEy_ueJXUrE6taCvsiPQYTVRU5BMS1qvFnfyAo4Oao6xjPsU3y.J3P
LoqiSyA6QPZuXZf.xXxrzNp7rmdng42cCG59LdnDrshpenYKbuItEoCuLKqT
9kpxdhY8e_6caPHb33EwIWJaLx7cBrxHb3K_uo4jI.MAX37HCf9XoER14R.0
gRUQXypX2ovsSs2QCwuV6erNhjXFdInR9KCHzzp.RogkR0Qrs5u5sqybbm0t
Cr95NBA7kkMqDS3Fa.o1Rb3P.kiG7cpmT8JOXn9Qdeq7iiap5QFFcB5q9uwb
BUJioylnoRyiuwVj.uGbZ4MAsdjpAiFXky5c8TtUZKzuooaS.LSm3.baXzCo
hi1t2EpWXy6V8Z4p9q4o7ocdUd8G89Gm7C1bbrHnzeVybvq62_B3G1XO3jZu
jIDrXFvDy2zkInTsVEQdLwvOYu.YHjSa_pDF0S0xCcUY_ywKPCTNLgQIupis
E5RuhRf8_FRhOWKnN96rTcs04SwpNKFTOSpBu2w.QVMrbFUr9iz6BZmCdBb1
yiMMtJJGRtbtWAbBf_vHs
A7GJTsIGJjEpTUZiJeLtMoR942SNtilZ7VtnGK
1vbTrdsWWNYBOhcyOnLtKTeT1.aN5ICwwBf80MFm.HygotolLLA

X-Originating-IP: [24.75.25.85]
Authentication-Results: mta1483.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=iogany.org; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=iogany.org; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO server1.wnynetworks.net) (24.75.25.85)
by mta1483.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:11:39 0700
Received: from rrcs-69-193-52-224.nys.biz.rr.com ([69.193.52.224] helo=IOGADesktop)
by server1.wnynetworks.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1QCZ46-0006rJ-2w; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:11:38 -0400
Reply-To:
From: “IOGA of NY”
To: “‘Joel Shapiro’”
Cc: “Jim Smith”
References: <424479.23800.qm@web36704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <424479.23800.qm@web36704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Mr. Gill: For completeness here are the two formal infochimps.com URLs …
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:11:18 -0400
Message-ID: <003d01cbff6d$3f740f80$be5c2e80$@iogany.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="
—-=_NextPart_000_003E_01CBFF4B.B8672A70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDeM6cTD9Y/TuDsQnPFWMSFFC4lBpZCcbKg
Content-Language: en-us
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname – server1.wnynetworks.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain – yahoo.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID – [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain – iogany.org
Content-Length: 13632

Joel:

Mr. Gill is unable at this time to review your email and documents. If you need a more timely response please contact Jim Smith with our Public Relations firm, Corning Place Consulting. He has been copied on your emails and can be reached at 518-432-9087.

Regards,

Vickie Mellody

IOGA of NY
38 Lake Street
Hamburg, NY 14075
716-202-4688
716-202-4689 fax

Bradley R. Gill, Executive Director
Vickie Mellody, Administrative Assistant

www.iogany.org




From Joel Shapiro Thu Apr 21 08:11:05 2011
X-YMail-OSG: n280G6sVM1nx11tXt4Ijl9WtstW8HMxT1tOMZLXvUd6.Ssd
b06SDEeh3Be0gH8W8H9rO_knf0f8MGhGhNtEoHJqcRCCoYcQ2mgwMfiI3uUF
mvcI7K1zD53wotuFvu_ma9QvqlFtNNgi5YTWcCY2sYCSBQ76SpzVAquEqBhL
QUdL0cMQMVTjzmiiOizkVjBDpvL1GBI4zf8n2aVD9PuI06av_IPYv8hOYqx2
FjBC70hF6yfrBqQTxdFzAXyPbmgDk58SV3cYRz8UHxBQx1qxlVcUGViQxA6c
FMHflAssRNuh313j1azoO9qM5pIk.gUYiC_0JUNooJJJ8fGbqt67wRqG2rq
C4PiDnNaKELM9hqGIuFMI0cYtPd_IylOMuEF3iSMQ1ztq
nYJJsl7b4I-
Received: from [66.66.204.91] by web36706.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:11:05 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Shapiro
Subject: Hello Mr. Gipson: Inquiring if you/Chesapeake Energy could provide answers I posed to …
To: jim.gipson@chk.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=“0-1051893190-1303398665=:47598”
Content-Length: 654569

Hello Mr. Gipson: Inquiring if you/Chesapeake Energy could provide answers I posed to …

to Mr. Gill of the The Independent Oil and Natural Gas Association of New York (IOGANY)

I spoke with his media director Mr. Jim Smith and he related to me someone actually from
the industry might be better suited to field my questions to my surprise and puzzlement.

Thus here is my forwarded E-mail to you. Please consider it directed at yourself/Chesapeake
Energy in all contexts including the “no reply” as well (no pun intended)

Thank you in advance for your your reply and I will be posting my inquiry here to you on
my dataset infochimps.com link in the same regard as Mr. Gill. Just scroll down.

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

Best regards,

Joel S.


Forwarded Message --

From: Joel Shapiro
To: info@iogany.org
Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 3:12:20 PM
Subject: Compelling succinct qualified questions re: the Natural Gas/Hydrofracking industry from a unique unprecedented perspective




Here is the note I posted on Energy in Depth

http://www.energyindepth.org/2011/04/five-things-to-know-about-the-cornell-shale-study/comment-page-1/#comment-8856

that is “Awaiting Moderation”. Yeah, let’s see if it get’s through the EID censors let alone a reply (Ha!)

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

All,

On taking in all this heated discussion in this forum of comparing Shale gas footprints
to coal over 20 year; or however many year horizons, “lost and unaccounted for gas”
(LUG), etc. in a step by step effort trying to debunk Cornell professors Howarth and
Ingraffea’s stance against Hydrofracking while an important discussion in their own
right is a classic case of “missing the forest for the trees”; to get so focused on the
details or intricacies of something that you miss the big picture or the main point in the
case here discussing the (de)merits of Hydrofracking.

The main issue that cries for; no make that SCREAMS for consideration and discussion
first, I don’t see even being tabled here in this naturally biased (no pun intended) natural
gas / hydrofracking Energy In Depth industry sponsored web page and it is so
fundamental, so elementary.

According to Dr. Ingraffea, in his easy-to-understand easy- to-follow presentation I’ll cite
in detail shortly, all the hydrofracking in the world of the Marcellus Shale is worth a few
years of current U.S. production where natural gas currently is only 20% of the total
energy source footprint i.e. oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, coal etc.?

Negligible – Let me spell it out: N-E-G-L-I-G-I-B-L-E.

So let start the citing and profound questioning that I promise you; it will be direct, succinct
and easy-to-follow as well (again no pun intended)

If you bring up:

http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/search/label/Binghamton%20Regional%20Sustainability%20Coalition
you will find the presentation by Dr. Ingraffea broken up in 3 parts each titled:
The Marcellus Gas Shale Play: Information for an Informed Citizenry (1) , (2) and (3)
respectively. Scroll up and down the web page you should see them on the main page.

If not, I’m sure there will be links these three segments somewhere.
At the 15:40 mark of (1) Dr. Ingraffea sets the tone that whatever gas will be
realized from the Marcellus Shale will be negligible on the total United States energy
picture.

At the 22:16 mark of (1) Dr. Ingraffea starts talking about how much natural gas
was thought to be in the Marcellus Shale and at the 24:00 mark the current going
estimate of 500 trillion cubic feet of gas (cfg). (Whoa! big number!)

Question #1 to Energy In Depth: Is this 500 trillion cfg still an accurate number?
Very important! Are there any new indications that it has gone up to say 1
quadrillion cfg?.

At the 24:30 mark Dr. Ingraffea quotes Dr. Terry Engelder that an average of only
10% of the 500 trillion or 50 trillion cfg. will be realized from Hydrofracking.

Question #2 to Energy In Depth: Is Dr. Engelder’s (gu)estimate in the right ballpark?
Very important that it is. If it is not what is the correct average percentage yield
from the Marcellus Shale?

Almost right at the start of (2) at the 00:30 mark Dr. Ingraffea discusses how many
trillion cfg per year the U.S. consumes per year: In 2005 it was: 23 trillion cfg!
and showing explicitly at the 1:42 mark is the 20% natural gas makes up of the total
U.S. energy supply picture. This is U.S. government data. (Agree moot to ask
Energy In Depth to dispute both numbers?)

At the 7:41 mark of (2) there is a matrix (and believe me I like matrices) that shows
the projected yield or production of the core Marcellus Hydrofracking counties in
the states of MD, NY, PA, OH and WV.

New York is the focal point of the Hydrofracking controversy because of the
moratorium on it shows a production of 28.989 cfg call it 30 cfg over 5 years.
Question #3 to Energy In Depth: Is Dr. Engelder’s production (gu)estimate in the
matrix essentially correct? Are his figures drastically incorrect?

OK, everybody I’m in the home stretch …

Though (3) Dr. Ingraffea discusses the well pads and then the concentration cfg
them footprint for New York to reach its 30 cfg potential. At the 12:15 mark of
(3) he rips off a stat of 14,000 square miles of gas producing New York counties
at 8 wells per square mile comes to … 112,000 wells!

Question #4 to Energy In Depth: Are Dr. Ingraffea’s figures in the right ballpark
or are they drastically incorrect? If yes, exactly where/how?

From all instances on the Internet, cable news and ads etc. I see the the natural
gas industry touting the Marcellus Shale as so substantial my mind goes to that
climatic scene towards the end of the movie A Few Good men (I’m sure you’ve all
seen it and know what I’m referring to here) where Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson)
is being cross-examined by Lieutenant Kaffee (Tom Cruise) if he ordered a “Code
Red” on marine William Santiago:

Col. Jessep: Absolutely. My answer is I don’t have the first damn clue. Maybe he
was an early riser and liked to pack in the morning. And maybe he didn’t have any
friends. I’m an educated man, but I’m afraid I can’t speak intelligently about the
travel habits of William Santiago. What I do know is that he was set to leave the
base at 0600. Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer?
Phone calls and foot lockers? Please tell me that you have something more,
Lieutenant. These two Marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their
lawyer hasn’t pinned their hopes to a phone bill.
[Kaffee hesitates, dumbfounded]

In the same relative sense of total incredulity; one final question …

Question #5: Please Energy In Depth representative, let me get this straight, let
me try to let this sink in for more than minute from the sheer surreal concept of
it all, let me try to put my mind around it …

You’re gonna rip up the New York State southern tier FUBAR with 112,000 gas
wells; with all your vile, stinking brine pits, trucks and their exhaust, expected
gas leaks, billions of gallons of water that has to be treated (dubious if it can
be), probable accidents like the well blowout that happened a few days ago in
Bradford, Pennsylvania spilling a zillion gallons of Hydrofracking fluid into a
creek that flows into the Susquehanna river for WHAT? … provide a year and
a half’s worth of gas in 2005 numbers for the country over five years at a mere
20% share of America’s energy supply picture? Where is the justification to
spend all the extraneous energy to realize energy which will have such a
negligible impact?
?? (!)

Oh, BTW EID speaking of trucks; at the 9:00 mark in (3) Chesapeake stats say
5 1/2 million gallons of water are needed per well brought in by 6 to 8 thousand
gallon trucks.

Most conservatively considering all trucks at 8K gallons that makes for … for …
Wow! 687.5 (make it 688 for all the 6K water tucks I’m not considering) round trips
of trucks per well from water source to well pad and back.

At 688 truck trips per well (if this number holds) at 112,000 wells makes for
77,056,000 truck round trips. Oh, yeah, these trucks burn diesel, fossil fuels – not
natural as and water is heavy meaning low fuel gas mileage.

So, 5,500,000 gallons of water per well at 112,000 wells (again if this number holds)
equals 616,000,000,000 gallons of water needing treatment or disposal … that takes
energy and a lot of it coming from somewhere. Let’s most conservatively say half
comes back as flowback and brine and need to be treated or buried somewhere
that’s 77,056,000 round trips / 2 = 38,528,000 where treatment centers and disposal
sites like this one slated to be across the road from a beautiful vineyard around
Keuka Lake (one of the Finger Lakes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOg45FEo9Zo

assuredly will be a lot farther away than water sources.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????

I’ve already posted some compelling, qualified questions to the natural gas
industry that to date has been met with the same dumbfounded silence
reminiscent of Lt. Kaffee in the movie:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

But these here … these are much more fundamental. This note here is going right
into the thread in the above link that I expect will remain unanswered – from
myself and other who ask similar pertinent questions.

In retrospect this question 5 is more rhetorical, emotional and compounded than
the others so while I while I still think an answer is appropriate, how about a “rational
one” here Energy In Depth … have you made any guess/estimates of the “energy
cost” total you’re putting into everything that makes and maintains a well’s operation
versus the natural gas energy you realize out of it? Or is that proprietary too?

Are you there Energy In Depth? C’mon, I’m not asking a zillion questions. Just five;
coincidentally matching the number of five things you want us to know about the
Cornell Shale Study and then just some easy stats you should be very familiar with as
you have to work with them every day to corroborate or dispute. That’s all.

Regards,

Joel S.




From Joel Shapiro Tue Apr 26 10:17:49 2011
X-YMail-OSG: VdDnaUkVM1lPyu9mK.iXNrMWsUUAXDJ0vsdLEIy7e21NyB9
9HUPxdtW8Fm00NpxtqDo5iPPfWhioyf0NDndmuRQXTJWA3QFiV4Q.vqWXux_
xFBvcxGxhqHItBTuqWlKIsRX2X0dqZQvw8b2Bp9ZDUbhBgHLnREGQ2PjiaSo
ton_z.JPGEyzjvaxh4KoI4F5m.v1VDQGIcqyoFxKlWizeMUJ8NeVIHjEbdZp
yH38fr0BrXfRVlb9XRcxnYigQhT9F8uwbkB7OrzQ4FxsRxOoML_xZ5gOGa_K
ndyHhn3q0faEbMYicHOhT1g4TBoMYxWzRnaszae9GdGpy2gZJ97DYmQaHFFU
flsLvtiixLUM1A91C_pd8hdRl0IvRU0DxSeKdWyaXxhF9B2WwRczTJr9coiL
rfqqp812O1Z4Xr30J
Received: from [66.66.204.91] by web36708.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:17:49 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559 YahooMailWebService/0.8.110.299900
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Shapiro
Subject: Ms. Ziemba: My pertinent questions to Mr. Neal / Consol Gas per our conversation …
To: lauralziemba@consolenergy.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=“0-1172257940-1303838269=:63317”
Content-Length: 39176

Ms. Ziemba: My pertinent questions to Mr. Neal / Consol Gas per our conversation …

http://www.consolenergy.com/AboutUs/ContactUs.aspx

Laural Ziemba
Manager – Public Relations
(General Media contact & Gas Operations)
CONSOL Energy Inc.
CNX Center
1000 Consol Energy Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317-6506
Phone: 724-485-4122
Cell: 412-638-6061
E-mail: lauralziemba@consolenergy.com

Dear Ms. Ziemba / Mr. Neal,

Following/attached is an E-mail I’ve been sending out to several small city and town
mayors and/or supervisors in New York southern tier region; as you know the current
so coveted and prized by the natural gas industry.

While I’m not from the media as I explain in my E-mail and in my conversation with you,
I have a very unique, esoteric and substantial view or perspective of the natural gas
Hydrofracking industry; hopefully not coming across too boastful or bragging even
moreso than most at Consol Energy. Of course that is anybody’s opinion.

My question to Melissa Smith of Consol Energy who processes and/or submits your
permits to the State of Pennsylvania e.g. the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
or any others that may be applicable, and now to you and by extension to Mr. Craig Neal,
V.P. of Central Pennsylvania operations if Consol Energy not only discloses what chemicals
are added to the water they use for Hydrofracking but what amounts and if that information
is considered inherently going to the public? i.e. do you specifically request the State of
Pennsylvania DEC or whoever not to divulge that specific information?

Not to overload you with questions I have a couple questions to you as a representative of
Hydrofracking industry who might or might not have designs on the State of New York if
you /Consol Energy could confirm that you realize 70% or more? of the potential gas that
can be recovered from the total number of your wells?

This flies in stark contrast to the thrown out by Dr. Ingraffea of Cornell in his three part
essentialdissent.blogspot.org presentation re: Hydrofracking:

http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/search/label/Binghamton%20Regional%20Sustainability%20Coalition

where he cites 10%.

In my free infochimps.org dataset:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

I get into more specific questions in this very important regard; just scroll down.

10% versus your off-the-cuff claim of around 70% or more and you said you would
send me a link in corroborating what you relayed to me.

Sight unseen if your numbers are indeed correct it begs the question.

1.) Why hasn’t there been an industry wide disclaimer or rebuke to Dr. Ingraffea’s and
statistics? Would that not be a major public relations boon to your industry. In
fact I did a Google search with these terms: “disputing Dr. Ingraffea statistics”
and found literally no reference to any web page or online .PDF document rebuking
his claims in this specific respect.

2.) If your numbers are indeed the case, why is there such a rush to develop orders
of magnitude more wells in New York, but in your case just Pennsylvania?

I will be posting this E-mail to you / Consol Energy as well as your reply you conveyed
to me that would be forthcoming to set the record straight.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. I welcome and look forward to your
correspondence.

Best regards,

Joel S.

================

Dear Hon. Supervisor and/or Councilperson ******* – Re: Hydrofracking: Unique substantial information/data which could be of use to you …

My name is Joel Shapiro. From my research from a most unique, esoteric and substantial
respect (please believe me) I understand or perceive you / your town is in the in the midst
of coming to a stance or conclusions with respect to Hydrofracking.

Without being over-dramatic; the decisions you as town/community leaders with respect to
Hydrofracking will be among the most important you will ever make for yourselves and the
of course the health and welfare of your constituents … now and for generations to come;
literally forever.

I trust you already realize this but I can’t emphasize this enough. To make these most
delicate and substantial decisions you must have the correct insight and perspective and
not only extensive information but information that is readily available and accessible at
your fingertips.

I can provide this in many contexts and situations like nobody else from the "Inference
matrices I generate from my app which I publish for a nominal fee of $7.50. This particular
Hydrofracking dataset (i.e. Inference Matrix) is intended or geared especially for you
but doesn’t preclude it from being useful and/or informative to others.

I hope you’ll find if you are so inclined to investigate what I offer here for a mere $7.50, is
indeed a good price and well worth it (no pun intended).

Every one of my (Hydrofracking) datasets have a description and this one, again, which I
generated especially for you contains the following snippet verbatim.

Thank you for your interest and consideration. I welcome and look forward to your
correspondence perhaps with other search terms that could mean even more compelling
runs of my app (inference matrices).

Best regards,

Joel S.

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/natural-gas-hydrofracking-terms-inference-matrix-16-towns-agains

Natural Gas Hydrofracking Terms Inference Matrix 16 – Towns Against Hydrofracking

This substantial Excel spreadsheet “Inference matrix” chronicles and categorizes
Internet references or web pages of town governments concerned with and by and
large opposed to Hydrofracking taking place inside their boundaries or jurisdictions.

It could be used by town governments to investigate what other town concerns over
Hydrofracking are they may have not considered themselves, become informed of
coalitions being formed so to aggregate resources to oppose the mighty deep-
pocketed and well organized (no pun intended) natural gas industry who has
according to well informed sources (again no pun intended but very accurate in
its own right here) an agenda to build 112,000 Hydrofracking wells in New York
State’s southern tier alone for an energy source that is negligible in effect!

This aspect alone may be one a town government (maybe yours) never considered
in their quest to formulate the best or most appropriate stance on Hydrofracking.

This is also a dataset for just anyone who’s interested in the Hydrofracking issue and
for $7.50 it’s even a better steal than what the natural gas industry will realize on
their leases.

This is all explained in this free dataset in easy to follow language with emphasis
on documentation to who and when inquiries were made etc. There is nothing to
download; the dataset is essentially the overview or description itself. Just keep
scrolling down:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

That the overall effect of the highly touted potential of the Marcellus Shale being the
foundation for the United States to become energy independent is so off base, and
qualified scientists and engineers; let alone myself have not been adequately answered
by the natural gas industry by some easy to follow numbers and statistics is an
essential consideration.

The “Inference matrix” is a powerful reformat of the “base data” I generate from

Joel Shapiro
Rochester, New York 14618
Phone numbers in order of preference:
(585) 255-0997 (Cell – Call anytime – best to reach me)
(585) 250-8053 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)
(585) 473-7013 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)

jrs_14618@yahoo.com

or

cshapiro@rochester.rr.com

http://enartrans.com

===========

Those who know nothing of foreign languages know
nothing of their own.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

===========

If you want to correspond with me confidentially here
is my PGP public key block:


BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use

mQENA0Yo00sAAAEIANRilMvuKGEYt8XU1tip4NbL37f0cJwzQATLyp4wFc96ZjxQ
7obpmZj42xf0zw4wW24ofeInlRVpltZ0SRVb9+NtpsAbiSn3vnRKvRnc8kiiRLr0
08omtWiJDmnEiyV0AujvuDsMztscfuFLOwx7BHdUJzMcimXJPtMNxBM0EmARrl/l
a4R/0I+C5BlThXGhN0FC943bCKTsyZlq7RhfPZkenbKIqbPrC8pa2xavgoRFXnSy
rhnkpLKl9ZrIZbPmm7DpgqxnuEfnWFFQcMSESldecoyKdzPsJLBMiwVEIswfypoN
rUh7KSvAnc/A7ppMw+wBsZopUBNOfuTf84vkS/sABRG0GWpycyA8anJzXzE0NjE4
QHlhaG9vLmNvbT6JARUDBRBGKNNLfuTf84vkS/sBAUAZB/wIYrfRE5uB7s7oz96D
D/6BhPclV6LXRkQcHNZUoNbsL3a5aFkux/cPrFJ2vCgzxkwHsb/wA38YwjXsTxqA
LkmgyNRHIaqo1nYsBFNGQJMb4JKR0GHUIJoScRHmvSXCIXk/borj8m+rtmEAAhqu
R2iYuMTZ327TFOLuGs+PdPJvC/dNvNcRROaRppaUZzZ8koVCxbqNRb3W2FSo7dc/
ct2VgNI9xW1ZKTHB8jIYTwH1iJJi1ZApHE5rEykE+6765dTRLWTizoff3EU5/CD6
ojTCCqv0Xl6QaZ0tHpl97bE7eC2JsUHpI4yhG/w/jTqHT4lF59KG1ASXKeeiYVR6
f5zV
=ny5Q
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-

===========




This post to the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association touches upon the fundamental question
whether for all the “extraneous energy” and other resources required to realize natural gas from Hydrofracking
if it is worth it in the first place.

Monday May 02, 2011 18:22 EDT

Dear PIOGA Representative,

As explained in my note below I’ve developed a specialized utility/application
to identify and categorize web pages and online .PDF documents that contain
user defined names and terms.

Through my utility and several “manual” online searches I’ve not found any
references to the cost and especially the “energy cost” of producing natural gas
through Hydrofracking from natural gas itself, other fossil fuels and other
energy sources.

I made inquiries to several natural gas academics in this regard and all
responses such from Mr. Milliken here were essentially the same: not a clue.
However, Mr. Milliken referred me to your organization; the PiOGA. Also please
note I’ve been meticulously documenting my inquiries to the natural gas
industry in a much more precise manner than Josh Fox in his documentary film
“Gasland” showed him calling your industry with no explicit date/time stamps etc.

I will be posting my note here to you (PiOGA) and a screen shot of it as you
only offer an online inquiry/comment form and not a formal E-mail address.

I hope you will agree whatever side of the “Hydrofracking fence” you’re on such
information or is basic and compelling to formulate a opinion or validate
pursuing natural gas extraction by Hydrofracking in the first place with solid facts
and figures; those only you (i.e. the natural gas industry) itself can supply.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my fundamental inquiry here to you.

I welcome and look forward to your correspondence.

Best Regards,

Joel Shapiro.

From Joel Shapiro Mon May 2 15:19:35 2011
Received: from [66.66.207.90] by web36707.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 02
May 2011 15:19:35 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/559
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 15:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Shapiro
Subject: RE: Dear Dr. Milliken – Inquiring if you have information, data or
insight on how much energy …
To: Joel Shapiro
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 15625

Joel,
I am not a Dr., so it is just Mr. Milliken. I do not have specific
references on energy use versus energy gained for natural gas, but the American
Gas Institute probably does and so may PIOGA, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil
and Gas Association. Once natural gas is producing from a well, its life-time
costs drop significantly, so I would guess its cost to benefit ratio may be
higher than liquid petroleum products (which is why it is selling at a
substantial discount to oil today and still in production).

Regards,

Larry Milliken
________________________________
From: Joel Shapiro [jrs_14618@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:15 AM
To: Milliken, Larry
Subject: Dear Dr. Milliken – Inquiring if you have information, data or insight
on how much energy …

Dear Dr. Milliken – Inquiring if you have information, data or insight on how
much energy …

is used to derive a given quantity of natural gas (cubic sq. ft, meters etc) in
exactly the same respect as oil described in this online article:

http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

in section titled: More on the energy use to make gasoline:

I vigorously contend this is a fundamental issue or topic that should be
addressed, studied and scrutinized in addition to the ubiquitous considerations ofthe
chemical dangers, pollution etc. with Hydrofracking; the topic of hundreds of thousands
of online news articles to date.

I have a strong hunch and I’m sure once I get some accurate numbers and figures,
i.e. if they’re even out there, that much more energy is used in the production of natural
gas than gasoline/oil.

Natural gas appears requiring additional protections and considerations for
storing it, transporting it, building Hydrofracking drill pads, drill pad remediation once
the Hydrofracking wells in the pad are not productive anymore, fresh water transport
to the wells (pads) and then to the treatment facility or burial site, then energy used for
treatment of the Hydrofracking flowback brine etc.

I got reference to you by this URL thread:

Just Googleing these terms: natural gas technology degree
http://www.lackawanna.edu
http://www.lackawanna.edu/directory/centers.html

I have developed a very unique, specialized utility/application to categorize
the presence of any topic on the Internet; to get its “footprint” and then allowing the the
user to ascertain which web pages and online .PDF documents may be of interest to
him/her.

It is all explained in my post to Dr. Anthony Ingraffea and especially the link
to my primary “dataset” with respect to hydrofracking.

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

I’ve sent similar inquiry correspondences/E-mails to this one to these
distinguished experts in the area of Natural Resources and the Environment and/or
Natural Gas Production such as yourself to date:

Dr. Jonathan Dorn at earth-policy.org
Dr. John DiCicco at the University of Michigan
The Energy Group at Princeton University (Drs. Chakravarty, Kreutz, Larson,
Socolow and Williams)
Dr. Stephen Humphrey at the University of Florida
Dr. Jon Cline at the University of Arizona
Drs. Burke, Smutko and Ogden at the University of Wyoming
Dr. John Chisholm at the Texas A&M University Kingsville

And I really mean distinguished … I always look at the Curriculum Vitae
where/when available of those I post. Most everybody I happen upon seem to have
most impressive resumes and credentials.

Thank you for your interest and consideration. I welcome and look forward to
your corresponence.

Best regards,

Joel S.


Forwarded Message --

From: Joel Shapiro
To: Anthony Ingraffea
Cc: Terry Engelder ; Gary Lash
Sent: Sat, April 30, 2011 9:42:05 AM
Subject: Hello Dr. Ingraffea – Link to my dataset just for you and intro and one

suggestion if I could …

Hello Dr. Ingraffea – Link to my dataset just for you and intro and one
suggestion if I could …

First the link and the intro to set up my suggestion:

Natural Gas Hydrofracking Terms Inference Matrix 17 – Anthony Ingraffea Cornell

I have been been meaning to post a demonstration dataset and with the
significance and importance of the issues and points Cornell Professor Anthony
Ingraffea raises from his unique experience and perspective of the natural gas
industry and Hydrofracking operations pointing out it’s tremendous risks,
dangers and overall negligible effect on the total United States energy source
picture is a perfect subject for it.

This substantial Excel spreadsheet “Inference matrix” chronicles and categorizes
Internet references or web pages and online .PDF documents with respect to Dr.
Ingraffea displaying his “Internet footprint” just from his name alone and from
especially selected associated search terms (“Auxiliary terms”) in an attempt to
specifically find references by the natural gas industry refuting, challenging,
debunking etc. Dr. Ingraffea.

These terms also include two other geologic experts: Dr. Terry Engelder also of
Cornell and Dr. Gary Lash. Dr. Ingraffea has several of his talks posted on YouTube
and all you need do is simply search “Ingraffea” and you should find the majority
of them. However, the best I presentation I found of his divided into three segments
on the essentialdissent blogspot:

http://essentialdissent.blogspot.com/search/label/Binghamton%20Regional%20Sustainability%20Coalition

To date the three segments are on the main page but if it is not I’m sure there will
be readily identifiable links to it.

In an effort to be fair and equitable and somewhat unbiased although the overall
tone, demeanor and purpose of these
Hydrofracking datasets is clearly opposed to it, Dr. Ingraffea states that only
10 percent yield of all the natural gas present in the Marcellus Shale: 500+
trillion cubic feet (cfg); thus a mere 50 trillion cfg can be realized is blatantly
incorrect. It is much larger on the order of 50% and perhaps 60%.

But even with this substantial error, the basic premise that however much
natural gas is in the Marcellus Shale and however much will be extracted from
it will certainly not supplant oil as the United States’ primary energy source or have
any near the significance that the natural gas industry and some legislators
tout that it will.

Also, in spite of this error, from this dataset and several other “manual”
Internet searches I’ve conducted, the natural gas industry appears not to have
taken notice of and/or seized on this opportunity to discredit Dr. Ingraffea and
his major overall concern: What to do with, and the safety of the billions and
billions of gallons of Hydrofracking waste/flowback water or “brine”.

I have my own questions that to date have gone completely unanswered. This is
all explained in this free dataset in easy to follow language with emphasis on
documentation to who and when inquiries were made etc. For this dataset, there
is nothing to download; the dataset is essentially the overview or description
itself. Just keep scrolling down:

http://www.infochimps.com/datasets/compelling-succinct-qualified-questions-re-hydrofracking-industr

That the overall effect of the highly touted potential of the Marcellus Shale
being the foundation for the United States to become energy independent is so off
base, and qualified scientists and engineers; let alone myself have not been
adequately answered by the natural gas industry by some easy to follow numbers
and statistics is an essential consideration.

==================

Here is my suggestion:

As a computer programmer I have to pay very strict attention to detail in that
all my braces and parentheses are matched and if they aren’t my Python compiler
bitterly complains or I have an array where a certain thing I’m trying to do can only be
done via a list.

But sometimes as hard as it is to remedy what I term these “first order”
programming problems and what I just mentioned specific to Python; these are not
the worst kind of problems.

The worst problems are when the program seems to run perfectly, the output looks
nice and nice and correct in some contexts it is … Whoa! but on closer examination
there seems to be some strange results.

So then what I have to do is backtrack and see at what juncture there’s an
incorrect index, multiplier whatever.

Sometimes as well I found instances where there was weird results but it really
didn’t have a great effect on the overall program.

Dr. Ingraffea I really believe this is a good analogy of your stated 10%
Hydrofracking yield that I brought up to you in 3 segment presentation because the
expected output of New York alone that one of your matrices (and I’m pretty good with matrices)
shows 29.9 trillion cfg best case from New York State alone over 5 years.

Well (no pun intended), at 10% of 500 Trillion: 50 Trillion the 5 year outlook that
doesn’t make much logical sense unless it was clearly designated theortetical.

In retrospect I see this.

What I’m trying to say is if your stance is (which I believe it is and mine too)
to really cool Hydrofracking in New York state and to explain to people why; all
the big numbers have to fall in place and follow through logically and consistantly
where even otherwise even though correct numbers reach the same conclusion
the argument is still a fallacy.

I hope if I was taking one of your courses there would be exams where I show my
work.

I think you understand what I’m trying to convey. I think one of the most substantial
arguments you can make against hydrofracking is not only the amount of toxic
waste it produces but how much energy is consumed in the whole shebang, treating
water, transport, building pads, remediation of the pads once
they are not productive etc.

If you have and information and/or data in this regard or refer me to who you
think may have such information I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes, it takes a lot of energy to build those big Gulf of Mexico oil rigs but its
on the other end of the spectrum with respect to Hydrofracking in that it’s like
putting a pin in a high pressure well and you’ve got oil shooting out on its own power
with no need whatsoever for slick water prodding for a loooooong time.

The “extraneous” energy issue is really negilible in this respect I think you’ll
agree. You just have to guard against leaks and companies like BP.

It’s all a dangerous water polluting proposition. You just have to well pick
your poison – no pun intended.

Regards,

Joel S.

Joel Shapiro
Rochester, New York 14618
Phone numbers in order of preference:
(585) 255-0997 (Cell – Call anytime – best to reach me)
(585) 250-8053 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)
(585) 473-7013 (Home – 9:30 to 22:00 EDT/EST)

jrs_14618@yahoo.com

or

cshapiro@rochester.rr.com

http://enartrans.com

===========

Those who know nothing of foreign languages know
nothing of their own.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

===========

If you want to correspond with me confidentially here
is my PGP public key block:


BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
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=ny5Q
-END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK——-

===========




[[[ At this point the space alloted for the description has been exceeded. Please download
InfochimpsHyrdrofrackingIndustryInquiries.txt in this dataset ]]]