"GASLAND" a new documentary
- Thread starter Selfinflictedfunk
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,353
Interesting video. Here's my question to all the geologists or geophysicists on board:
When the process is in the stage represented in the pictures below, that is, from breaking into the ground until the drill-head reaches the point below "the lowest freshwater aquifer," they speak of pumping a "mud" into the shaft to cool the bit. What happens to this mud if the shaft passes through other freshwater aquifers? What about other horizontal fissures? Does this mud escape into the shallow crust's environs? Is this how wells are poisoned and other environmental escapes happen?
*Groundwater is water that is found underground in cracks and spaces in soil, sand, and rocks. The area where water fills these spaces is called the saturated zone. The top of this zone is called the water table … just remember the top of the water is the table. The water table may be only a foot below the ground's surface or it may be hundreds of feet down.
Groundwater is stored in -- and moves slowly through -- layers of soil, sand, and rocks called aquifers. The speed at which groundwater flows depends on the size of the spaces in the soil or rock, and how well the spaces are connected. Aquifers typically consist of gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock like limestone. These materials are permeable because they have large connected spaces that allow water to flow through.
When the process is in the stage represented in the pictures below, that is, from breaking into the ground until the drill-head reaches the point below "the lowest freshwater aquifer," they speak of pumping a "mud" into the shaft to cool the bit. What happens to this mud if the shaft passes through other freshwater aquifers? What about other horizontal fissures? Does this mud escape into the shallow crust's environs? Is this how wells are poisoned and other environmental escapes happen?
*Groundwater is water that is found underground in cracks and spaces in soil, sand, and rocks. The area where water fills these spaces is called the saturated zone. The top of this zone is called the water table … just remember the top of the water is the table. The water table may be only a foot below the ground's surface or it may be hundreds of feet down.
Groundwater is stored in -- and moves slowly through -- layers of soil, sand, and rocks called aquifers. The speed at which groundwater flows depends on the size of the spaces in the soil or rock, and how well the spaces are connected. Aquifers typically consist of gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock like limestone. These materials are permeable because they have large connected spaces that allow water to flow through.
Attachments
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
Jack,
Yes, its a relatively dangerous time. The drilling mud is not the same stuff as frac fluid. For the most part, the environmental protections during this stage arise from using less dangerous stuff. Biodegradable.
The Airfoam HD spill a while back is an additive at this stage. Drilling mud should not be allowed to enter surface water directly. But so long as precautions are taken to make sure it stays in the ground for a while before reaching the surface, it will degrade and cause no harm.
The frac fluid doesn't make an appearance until well after the well casing goes in.
To my knowledge, contamination from frac fluid is relatively rare and typically results from well casing failures (under pressure) or surface spills. That said, if the chances are 1 in a 1000, but there's 1000 wells in a watershed, well.....
Yes, its a relatively dangerous time. The drilling mud is not the same stuff as frac fluid. For the most part, the environmental protections during this stage arise from using less dangerous stuff. Biodegradable.
The Airfoam HD spill a while back is an additive at this stage. Drilling mud should not be allowed to enter surface water directly. But so long as precautions are taken to make sure it stays in the ground for a while before reaching the surface, it will degrade and cause no harm.
The frac fluid doesn't make an appearance until well after the well casing goes in.
To my knowledge, contamination from frac fluid is relatively rare and typically results from well casing failures (under pressure) or surface spills. That said, if the chances are 1 in a 1000, but there's 1000 wells in a watershed, well.....
I think a realistic, pragmatic view mandates that this huge drilling push is going to continue and be with us for the long haul. The realities of the economic situation in the targeted regions and the realities of our national energy situation pretty much guarantee it.
Ever since the life force (young people leaving, businesses folding, etc.) began to flee our small towns and rural areas in earnest in the 70's and 80's (it has been going on longer than this, but this is roughly when the real acceleration kicked in..), there has been a strong resentment in rural PA regarding a sense they have of urban/suburban folks demanding these areas be prioritized as "playgrounds" for their weekends and stifling homegrown economic development through the regulatory process (particularly environmental regs) to achieve these ends. The gas drilling issue comes down dead square in the center of this flashpoint of resentment and friction. It's a potential shot in the arm for small towns and rural counties that have been dying for decades and are desperate for anything that will help them keep going. The facts of our national energy quandary only serve to amplify the pressure to make it happen.
So, I tend to agree that the best (and only realistic) solution is regs with teeth that are enforced. Unfortunately, regulatory enforcement on environmental matters has historically, with some exceptions for the more egregious violators, been done more with the rubber chicken than the ball bat. A lot of these actions linger and linger and linger, often years before resolution.
One of the main reasons for this is that a lot of them historically have been handled through the consent decree process where the court or agency allows the violator to continue to operate contingent upon their making corrections by a certain future date. Designed as a means to enforce the law without suddenly bankrupting businesses (with the subtext of the attendant lost jobs), these consent decrees have often been used by various and sundry industries as a means of delaying the cost of compliance, sometimes indefinitely as the time limits on consent decrees are often extended by the courts when petitioned by the violator.
When I was living in PA and working with one of the foundations established to use the Citizen Suit provision of CWA to nudge violators into compliance, I'd say at least half of the actions we reviewed had to do with interminable consent decree situations.
So, my view of one good place to start in ensuring that any drilling regs have sufficient teeth to allow both the economic benefits of the ops and the integrity of the resource to remain in place is to exclude Marcellus ops from consideration for handling by consent decree or at least mandate that there will be no extensions and that the original compliance dates mandated are real and final.
I don't know how this would play or could be done legally (denying the consent decree option to a specific industry and still leaving it available to others) , but I think it would be a significant aid to good enforcement.
Ever since the life force (young people leaving, businesses folding, etc.) began to flee our small towns and rural areas in earnest in the 70's and 80's (it has been going on longer than this, but this is roughly when the real acceleration kicked in..), there has been a strong resentment in rural PA regarding a sense they have of urban/suburban folks demanding these areas be prioritized as "playgrounds" for their weekends and stifling homegrown economic development through the regulatory process (particularly environmental regs) to achieve these ends. The gas drilling issue comes down dead square in the center of this flashpoint of resentment and friction. It's a potential shot in the arm for small towns and rural counties that have been dying for decades and are desperate for anything that will help them keep going. The facts of our national energy quandary only serve to amplify the pressure to make it happen.
So, I tend to agree that the best (and only realistic) solution is regs with teeth that are enforced. Unfortunately, regulatory enforcement on environmental matters has historically, with some exceptions for the more egregious violators, been done more with the rubber chicken than the ball bat. A lot of these actions linger and linger and linger, often years before resolution.
One of the main reasons for this is that a lot of them historically have been handled through the consent decree process where the court or agency allows the violator to continue to operate contingent upon their making corrections by a certain future date. Designed as a means to enforce the law without suddenly bankrupting businesses (with the subtext of the attendant lost jobs), these consent decrees have often been used by various and sundry industries as a means of delaying the cost of compliance, sometimes indefinitely as the time limits on consent decrees are often extended by the courts when petitioned by the violator.
When I was living in PA and working with one of the foundations established to use the Citizen Suit provision of CWA to nudge violators into compliance, I'd say at least half of the actions we reviewed had to do with interminable consent decree situations.
So, my view of one good place to start in ensuring that any drilling regs have sufficient teeth to allow both the economic benefits of the ops and the integrity of the resource to remain in place is to exclude Marcellus ops from consideration for handling by consent decree or at least mandate that there will be no extensions and that the original compliance dates mandated are real and final.
I don't know how this would play or could be done legally (denying the consent decree option to a specific industry and still leaving it available to others) , but I think it would be a significant aid to good enforcement.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,353
Do we know how thick the concrete chamber/bore hole casing is required to be? The metal casing is not used to the depth below the lowest aquifer.
Are they required to case with concrete at stages as they pass throough each layer of groundwater, or not until they drop below that
lowest point?"
Is the concrete casing required to be pressure tested for structural integrity constantly before introduction of frac fluid and then as the process continues? Is there assured monitoring of seepage of the liberated gas from the bore hole into surrounding fissures?
Are they required to case with concrete at stages as they pass throough each layer of groundwater, or not until they drop below that
lowest point?"
Is the concrete casing required to be pressure tested for structural integrity constantly before introduction of frac fluid and then as the process continues? Is there assured monitoring of seepage of the liberated gas from the bore hole into surrounding fissures?
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
I don't know the answers to those questions, but would be interested in knowing.
I do know that the drill mud is typically designed to be relatively impermeable, and it coats the outside of the bore hole. The reason isn't to prevent mud from entering the groundwater, though, the intent is to prevent groundwater from entering the borehole and screwing up the mud!
As for the liberated gas, while I can't say there's never been an exception, generally, you're not deep enough yet for methane. Once you get below groundwater and put in the casings, you're still well above methane deposits.
The fears I've seen of methane seepage on this board seem to suggest people thinking the methane will seep from the hydrofrac'd layer up through the ground to the surface water. I find that highly doubtful, there remains many in tact layers above the frac'd layer. Plus, Marcellus should be less susceptible to this than traditional shallow drilling.
But where there can be an issue is with the casing above the water table cracking and seeping, as you say, which could contaminate groundwater with methane and frac fluid chemicals. The answer would be better regulations on the casing, I would think.
There are also reports of pipes bursting on the surface. Whether its a material failure, installation errors, etc., I don't know. But I do know that with highly predictable conditions, this should almost never occur. Pick better materials, better control the design of the systems, closer scrutiny of installation, inspections, etc.
I do know that the drill mud is typically designed to be relatively impermeable, and it coats the outside of the bore hole. The reason isn't to prevent mud from entering the groundwater, though, the intent is to prevent groundwater from entering the borehole and screwing up the mud!
As for the liberated gas, while I can't say there's never been an exception, generally, you're not deep enough yet for methane. Once you get below groundwater and put in the casings, you're still well above methane deposits.
The fears I've seen of methane seepage on this board seem to suggest people thinking the methane will seep from the hydrofrac'd layer up through the ground to the surface water. I find that highly doubtful, there remains many in tact layers above the frac'd layer. Plus, Marcellus should be less susceptible to this than traditional shallow drilling.
But where there can be an issue is with the casing above the water table cracking and seeping, as you say, which could contaminate groundwater with methane and frac fluid chemicals. The answer would be better regulations on the casing, I would think.
There are also reports of pipes bursting on the surface. Whether its a material failure, installation errors, etc., I don't know. But I do know that with highly predictable conditions, this should almost never occur. Pick better materials, better control the design of the systems, closer scrutiny of installation, inspections, etc.
I agree with pcray that a singular focus on fracking/frac fluids alone as a source of contamination or pollution is probably not the best way to go. It appears the EPA and others involved in their study have caught on to that as well. Here is a link to an article about hearings that recently began on the overall pollution threat from gas drilling.
http://www.propublica.org/feature/broad-scope-of-epas-fracturing-study-raises-ire-of-gas-industry
http://www.propublica.org/feature/broad-scope-of-epas-fracturing-study-raises-ire-of-gas-industry
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
Very good article. Thats the most detailed article of the problems I've read to date. Thank you!
The study should be done with a wide scale. The results, if they show ways of improvement, should be used to enforce new environmental protections, rather than demonize the industry as a whole. Drilling is very important to this country's future. There is a way to drill and do it cleanly, but we're not quite there right now.
The study should be done with a wide scale. The results, if they show ways of improvement, should be used to enforce new environmental protections, rather than demonize the industry as a whole. Drilling is very important to this country's future. There is a way to drill and do it cleanly, but we're not quite there right now.
I do believe it is a good article, but I don't believe that onshore drilling in the US is important or even helpful to this country's future from either environmental or economic standpoints. From what I read, the US imports a great deal of natural gas and exports a great deal of the gas we drill onshore here. It seems to me that continued drilling is only important to the future of the bottom line of a fossil fuel industry that is being threatened by a growing desire in this country and others for clean energy sources. The sooner we turn our focus to the further development of solar, wind, and other non-fossil fuel energy sources, the better off this country will be.
As for the more narrow picture of marcellus shale drilling in PA, I totally agree that we need more stringent environmental regulation, but that was needed before the gas rush ever started. In my view, a statewide moratorium on drilling, and detailed study of what has already been done, is the only way to properly approach the situation. The gas has been there for millions of years and it won't go away if we pause and study whether it's safe, or even desirable to our way of life in this state, to extract it today.
As for the more narrow picture of marcellus shale drilling in PA, I totally agree that we need more stringent environmental regulation, but that was needed before the gas rush ever started. In my view, a statewide moratorium on drilling, and detailed study of what has already been done, is the only way to properly approach the situation. The gas has been there for millions of years and it won't go away if we pause and study whether it's safe, or even desirable to our way of life in this state, to extract it today.
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
1. It's true that we import and export. But imports send money overseas, and exports bring money here. Too much of an imbalance (in any product, not just fuel) is indeed very bad for our economy. It's real simple, the more you produce, the more money in your country.
2. The fossil fuel industry is not being threatened by anything. I wish it were, but its not. It is booming like never before. The demand for energy is going up very quickly, much faster than the supply of energy is growing. All energy, from renewables to fossil fuels, are booming.
We're already focusing on those things. Solar, wind, and other non-fossil fuels are growing at a ridiculous, and increasing rate. It's just not enough, and won't be enough anytime soon. The infrastructure isn't there. You need raw materials industry, fabrication plants, etc. The U.S. no longer has the industrial base to sustain a such a rapid expansion. Fossil fuel plants supply a lot more energy for a lot less initial materials.
If you had more time, say, if demand were static, it'd be fine. You could add wind and solar as fast as you could make them, and replace coal, gas, for each one you put up. But thats not the case. Demand is soaring, and supply from our old plants are falling. Renewables cannot make up the difference fast enough. We're in a bad pinch. It's not oil vs. gas. vs. coal vs. nuclear vs. solar vs. wind vs. geothermal vs. biofuel vs. hydro-electric. It's more of all of the above, as fast as we can, and we still have a problem.
Well, the demand side of the matter is actually a good deal more complex and mixed than you represented it to be.
In September of last year, we had the largest drop in overall demand for electricity in decades. Much of this is due to the general economic downturn and will reverse itself somewhat as 2010 progresses and the economy continues to slowly recover.
All the same, check out the longer term DOE Energy Forecasts. They're forecasting out to 2035 now. You'll see that mandated efficiency standards among other things are expected to keep demand growing at a pretty moderate pace throughout the forecast period, and certainly nowhere near as precipitously as you seem to have represented the matter.
Another additional thing of note is that much of the rise in natural gas demand is predicated on the assumption that gas will be the primary energy choice in the near term future, particularly for power generation. This is by no means an assumption that is cast in stone, given the range of other options we have to choose from running the gamut from nuclear to the entire range of non-fossil sources. There is no holy writ that says that gas will, without question carry the bulk of this demand. It remains to be seen and for us to decide.
In this sense, it can be said that no small portion of the "urgency" driving the gas drilling explosion is no more than selective advocacy of the favored option of a sector of the energy industry.
Nothing wrong with that, its the way we do business in this country. Everybody's got a product we just "have" to have. But it should be seen for what it is and with all masks off..
In September of last year, we had the largest drop in overall demand for electricity in decades. Much of this is due to the general economic downturn and will reverse itself somewhat as 2010 progresses and the economy continues to slowly recover.
All the same, check out the longer term DOE Energy Forecasts. They're forecasting out to 2035 now. You'll see that mandated efficiency standards among other things are expected to keep demand growing at a pretty moderate pace throughout the forecast period, and certainly nowhere near as precipitously as you seem to have represented the matter.
Another additional thing of note is that much of the rise in natural gas demand is predicated on the assumption that gas will be the primary energy choice in the near term future, particularly for power generation. This is by no means an assumption that is cast in stone, given the range of other options we have to choose from running the gamut from nuclear to the entire range of non-fossil sources. There is no holy writ that says that gas will, without question carry the bulk of this demand. It remains to be seen and for us to decide.
In this sense, it can be said that no small portion of the "urgency" driving the gas drilling explosion is no more than selective advocacy of the favored option of a sector of the energy industry.
Nothing wrong with that, its the way we do business in this country. Everybody's got a product we just "have" to have. But it should be seen for what it is and with all masks off..
Also, as far as natural gas goes, there is a large surplus of it in this country, the price for it is way down, and there is no real urgency to be drilling for it, especially in the most pristine part of our state and last stronghold of native brook trout. Certainly no urgency that warrants the risk to these areas. My belief is that the drilling industry wants to drill as much and as fast as it can before proper regulation is put into place, especially if it's on a federal level. Couple that with shortsidedness and greed on the other end of things and you have the perfect storm we are experiencing.
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
RLeep,
While you are right that demand fell off this year due to the recession, let me put into perspective some numbers. I love wind and solar, but the numbers are just sobering.
From 2007-2008, while energy demand declined, energy capacity increased about 1.5% to 1,010,171 MW. This 1.5% increase is less than the average yearly increase in demand, which means we have to increase it quicker than we are. But, for the sake of argument, lets say yearly 1.5% increases in total capacity will do the job. This means in 10 years, the demand will be 1,172,345, or an average increase of 16000 MW per year.
However, the part you didn't mention was that coal capacity is falling. While we are building new coal plants, the aging ones are decreasing in productivity at a faster rate, which is expected to accelerate. Coal capacity fell 1.5% last year. Thats over 7000 MW lost right there. If this keeps up (and it will), the needed yearly increase in non-coal capacity isn't an average of 16000 MW, its 23,000 MW.
Solar is but a footnote, it pales in comparison to wind. Geo too, though there is actually potential there IMO. Hydro has been pretty steady for years and its not about to change much. So, just to keep coal decreasing at 7000 MW per year, and hold gas and nuclear steady, wind has to account for 23,000 new MW per year.
Last year, wind capacity accounted for a total of about 13,000 MW, and has been increasing at about 2000-5000 MW per year. This is unprecedented growth for any industry in terms of material and manpower used (fossils need much less per MW). It's 60% growth last year alone. It's as fast as the infrastructure can handle. I do think infrastructure will grow steadily, but thats a slower process. So if we can handle 5000 new MW this year, maybe next year we can add 6000 MW, and maybe in 10 years we can be adding 15,000 MW per year. When you figure that it may take a new manufacturing plant 5 years to build and get online, well, to say you could increase faster than that is pretty unrealistic.
In any case, gas use isn't going anywhere for a while. Wind and gas will both continue to soar, though the percentage increases of wind will be more impressive because the starting value is lower, but in MW the increase in gas will be at least as much. And on top of this, current gas wells naturally give off less gas as they age, so even if you could curtail the increase in natural gas use, you still have to be drilling wells at a pretty good clip. You're ONLY chance to reduce gas use in the next decade or two is nuclear, which I'm totally on board for, but you really gotta go all out on it if you want to keep new gas wells from being drilled. Kudos to Obama for allowing 2 new nuclear plants, which is better than Bush could push through. 2 will temporarily improve matters if they don't get axed before going online, but long term its still of little help.
The DOE's energy policy is pretty sound, and based on real possibilities, IMO. They call for mandated consumption policies to hold demand in check as much as possible, coupled with radical increases in both gas and wind. Having worked for them and still doing business with DOE folk, they'd love to cut out the gas. They're doing everything they can do to promote wind manufacturing capability, and they'd like to radicly increase nuclear but the pols won't let them. They do project wind to top out around 10% of total (its at 1.3% now). Not that it'll stop growing then, they just think it'll slow down due to land availability. 10% is nothing to scoff at, its well above where hydro is now, and our landscape would be dotted with wind turbines.
grhe, I agree, drillers are rushing to buy up land and rushing to get started to avoid regulations. I agree to slowing them down until regulators get a handle on things. But due to the aforementioned issues, regulators should be quick about getting a handle on things.
While you are right that demand fell off this year due to the recession, let me put into perspective some numbers. I love wind and solar, but the numbers are just sobering.
From 2007-2008, while energy demand declined, energy capacity increased about 1.5% to 1,010,171 MW. This 1.5% increase is less than the average yearly increase in demand, which means we have to increase it quicker than we are. But, for the sake of argument, lets say yearly 1.5% increases in total capacity will do the job. This means in 10 years, the demand will be 1,172,345, or an average increase of 16000 MW per year.
However, the part you didn't mention was that coal capacity is falling. While we are building new coal plants, the aging ones are decreasing in productivity at a faster rate, which is expected to accelerate. Coal capacity fell 1.5% last year. Thats over 7000 MW lost right there. If this keeps up (and it will), the needed yearly increase in non-coal capacity isn't an average of 16000 MW, its 23,000 MW.
Solar is but a footnote, it pales in comparison to wind. Geo too, though there is actually potential there IMO. Hydro has been pretty steady for years and its not about to change much. So, just to keep coal decreasing at 7000 MW per year, and hold gas and nuclear steady, wind has to account for 23,000 new MW per year.
Last year, wind capacity accounted for a total of about 13,000 MW, and has been increasing at about 2000-5000 MW per year. This is unprecedented growth for any industry in terms of material and manpower used (fossils need much less per MW). It's 60% growth last year alone. It's as fast as the infrastructure can handle. I do think infrastructure will grow steadily, but thats a slower process. So if we can handle 5000 new MW this year, maybe next year we can add 6000 MW, and maybe in 10 years we can be adding 15,000 MW per year. When you figure that it may take a new manufacturing plant 5 years to build and get online, well, to say you could increase faster than that is pretty unrealistic.
In any case, gas use isn't going anywhere for a while. Wind and gas will both continue to soar, though the percentage increases of wind will be more impressive because the starting value is lower, but in MW the increase in gas will be at least as much. And on top of this, current gas wells naturally give off less gas as they age, so even if you could curtail the increase in natural gas use, you still have to be drilling wells at a pretty good clip. You're ONLY chance to reduce gas use in the next decade or two is nuclear, which I'm totally on board for, but you really gotta go all out on it if you want to keep new gas wells from being drilled. Kudos to Obama for allowing 2 new nuclear plants, which is better than Bush could push through. 2 will temporarily improve matters if they don't get axed before going online, but long term its still of little help.
The DOE's energy policy is pretty sound, and based on real possibilities, IMO. They call for mandated consumption policies to hold demand in check as much as possible, coupled with radical increases in both gas and wind. Having worked for them and still doing business with DOE folk, they'd love to cut out the gas. They're doing everything they can do to promote wind manufacturing capability, and they'd like to radicly increase nuclear but the pols won't let them. They do project wind to top out around 10% of total (its at 1.3% now). Not that it'll stop growing then, they just think it'll slow down due to land availability. 10% is nothing to scoff at, its well above where hydro is now, and our landscape would be dotted with wind turbines.
grhe, I agree, drillers are rushing to buy up land and rushing to get started to avoid regulations. I agree to slowing them down until regulators get a handle on things. But due to the aforementioned issues, regulators should be quick about getting a handle on things.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,353
"Regulators" cost money. PA just reduced its Department of Environmental Protection staff in the last budget mess. Now they're working on the next one due in June. Please tell your legislators that you want it done on time -- WHATEVER IT TAKES!
osprey
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
Near Centralia there is a small town called Frackville , it's about 150 years old , did it get it's name from that? I know Centralia has an underground fire that has been burning for a long time , a coal mine caught on fire. The coal companies destroyed us once , after much thought on the subject of the Marcellus Shale issue i think we better pay very close attention , starting at a ground roots level , keep each other informed on local operations and observe and report to a central entity , i would not know the first thing on how to set this up but i'd be willing to observe and report to a data base.
tomgamber
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 10,635
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Greensburg, PA
For many years the legend of how Frackville was named has been written and handed down from generation to generation. Quote: "When the time came for the incorporation of the Borough, there was much discussion as to its name. Mr. Frack desired it to be called Frackville, and Mr. Haupt wished it to be called Planeville. The discussion continued until the time when the town wished to have a post office. The government refused to provide a post office until a name had been given to the town. Consequently, a decision had to be made. Mr. Frack and Mr. Haupt were in a tavern one evening, and they decided to toss a coin to settle the question. Mr. Frack won, and so the borough bears the name Frackville." That is a legend.
osprey
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
Thanks folks for the info , alot of very informative stuff in all your writngs and links , the more i read and educate myself on this subject the more i think we , as fly fishers and lovers of water had better do whatever we have to in order to get through this. Festus posted some links to report to and i also think somehow we should use this place as a way to keep each other informed and also to show that we're watching. If they look here and see we are activly discussing them it could have an impct.
