Did Range Resources pressure EPA or not? Who do you believe?

by TXsharon on January 17, 2013

in ISEO, Parker County, Range Resources

It’s always fun when the frackers can’t get their story straight.

Matt Pitzarella, Range Resources communications director, changed his fracking PSYOPS story three times. When Chesapeake had a blowout, Jim Gipson, Director – Media Relations for Chesapeake, told the media one story but told a concerned Denton citizen a completely different story. We did some informed speculation and later learned we were right about Chesapeake’s blowout in Oklahoma.

This morning was not my birthday nor was it Christmas, but I received a present anyway. Fracking’s Joe Camel didn’t get the memo with the preferred excuse about the EPA backing away from the Range Resources water contamination case in Parker County so he just made up some stuff. Or did he?

Who do you believe? 

 

Deposit your dollar in the sinkhole.

 

CHOOSE ONE:

 () - David Poole

Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency continued to pursue a “scientifically baseless” action against the company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David Poole. Source: AP, EPA changed course after gas company protested

() - Fracking Joe Camel

Range Resources is not part of the EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. That begs a pretty important question: How could Range “pressure” the EPA to drop its endangerment order in exchange for participating in the study if Range is not, in fact, participating in the study? (I never link to IED) 

() - None of the above

This story is only beginning.

 

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

Peggy January 17, 2013 at 10:58 pm

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked something as a journalist and been told one thing, knowing or learning later that a community member has been told something else.

If you think you are being trusted with extra information that wasn’t for public consumption, and that gives you some kind of advantage, or you know more of the truth, think again.

Step back and think about that for a minute. I’ve always told my kids a message my parents imbued in us, “you are who you are when no one is looking.”

What I’ve found is that when a public official or spokesperson has two different messages, one public and one private, neither of those messages has much truth in it.

Reply

TXsharon January 17, 2013 at 11:21 pm

As Ramit PlushnickMasti wrote in the story, after the EPA backed off, Range agreed to let them on a site in PA but the EPA hasn’t taken them up on that yet.

Something else is going on and it will bubble up with time.

Reply

kim Feil January 18, 2013 at 10:13 am

http://ecowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fracking2.jpg Here is a pic of Lipsky’s water on fire that I’ve never seen before.

Reply

Anonymous January 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Noticeably absent in the AP article:

Oil and Gas Docket No. 7B-0268629

“Domestic water wells in the area of the Lipsky water well have contained methane gas for many years. The nearby Hurst water well produced sufficient gas to flare when it was initially completed in 2005. The Oujesky well also produced gas for a couple of months just after completion in 2007. One water well in Lake County Acres water supply produced 122 MCF of gas per day upon completion, so much gas that it had to be abandoned as a water supply well. All of these wells were drilled prior to the drilling of both the Butler and Teal wells by Range in 2009″

Reply

TXsharon January 18, 2013 at 3:41 pm

YAWN. Do you think any of that is news to me? Keep reading. It’s gets interesting if you are open minded about it.

Stop using my tax dollars to waste time making dumb comments on this blog.

Reply

David January 19, 2013 at 1:16 pm

When I hear the comment
” People have been lighting their water on fire long before fracking” as if to justify why methane is ok in your water AFTER fracking so dont blame fracking.
It makes me think of how stupid this sounds with the same logic applied to cancer.
“People have been getting cancer for years that dont smoke so dont blame your cancer on your smoking of cigretts”

Reply

Anonymous January 20, 2013 at 11:30 pm

On the topic of Lawyers & honesty, here’s a cute story from Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4416864056072&set=a.1334065068024.2043747.1122982201&type=1&ref=nf

If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman.

He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial. The lawyer was trying to undermine the police officer’s credibility …

Q: ‘Officer — did you see my client fleeing the scene?’

A: ‘No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.’

Q: ‘Officer, who provided this description?’

A: ‘The officer who responded to the scene.’

Q: ‘A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?’

A: ‘Yes, sir. With my life.’

Q: ‘With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?’

A: ‘Yes sir, we do!’

Q: ‘And do you have a locker in the room?’

A: ‘Yes, sir, I do.’

Q: ‘And do you have a lock on your locker?’

A: ‘Yes, sir.’

Q: ‘Now, why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?’

A: ‘You see, sir, we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.’

The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called.

Reply

TXsharon January 20, 2013 at 11:42 pm

Like all people, some lawyers are despicable and morally bankrupt. Others are fine people. It’s pretty easy to tell the difference by who pays their fees.

Reply

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge

Previous post:

Next post: