<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People! &#187; natural gas drilling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.toonaripost.com/tag/natural-gas-drilling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.toonaripost.com</link>
	<description>Grassroots Journalists, Bloggers and Experts capture and report news from around the world. Become a citizen journalist with Toonari Post today!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:00:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The EPA&#8217;s First Fracking Rules 2014 Limited and Delayed</title>
		<link>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/04/green-world/the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed</link>
		<comments>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/04/green-world/the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:00:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ProPublica</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollution regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erik Schlenker-Goodrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first fracking rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking toxic waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe water drinking act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us fracking problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us groundwater contamination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.toonaripost.com/?p=33108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p>The Environmental Protection Agency issued the first-ever national air pollution regulations for fracking on Wednesday. First proposed in July 2011, the final rules have been welcomed by environmental groups as a much-needed initial move in reducing pollution and protecting public health from the toxic chemicals involved in the oil and natural gas drilling process. But [...]</p></p><p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/04/green-world/the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed/">The EPA&#8217;s First Fracking Rules 2014 Limited and Delayed</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p>The Environmental Protection Agency issued the first-ever national air pollution regulations for fracking on Wednesday. First <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-proposes-new-rules-on-emissions-released-by-fracking/single">proposed in July 2011</a>, the <a href="http://epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html">final rules</a> have been <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2012/04/18/strong-clean-air-standards-for-natural-gas-leaks-a-trifecta-for-america/">welcomed</a> by environmental groups as a much-needed initial move in reducing pollution and protecting public health from the toxic chemicals involved in the oil and natural gas drilling process. But many cautioned it was just a first step.</p>
<p>&#8220;It sets a floor for what the industry needs to do,&#8221; said attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center. &#8220;The reality is we can do far better.&#8221;</p>
<p>Over the past few years, more information has come out about <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time">fracking&#8217;s potential harms</a> to the environment and human health, particularly relating to the risk of <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-link-water-contamination-to-fracking-for-first-time" target="_blank">groundwater contamination</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to the many <a href="http://www.propublica.org/special/what-the-frack-is-in-that-water">potentially toxic components</a> of the highly pressurized fluid <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/fracking-chemicals-cited-in-congressional-report-stay-underground">injected into the ground</a> during the natural gas drilling process, fracking can also release cancer-causing chemicals like benzene and greenhouse gases like methane into the air. The federal government has <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-plans-to-issue-rules-covering-fracking-wastewater" target="_blank">made moves</a> to tighten regulations, and we&#8217;ve chronicled the <a href="http://www.propublica.org/special/from-gung-ho-to-uh-oh-charting-the-governments-moves-on-fracking">history of those regulations.</a></p>
<p>The EPA&#8217;s new rules don&#8217;t cover most of those issues. Instead, they address a single problem with natural gas: air pollution.</p>
<p>&#8220;These rules do not resolve chronic water, public health and other problems associated with fracking and natural gas,&#8221; Schlenker-Goodrich said.</p>
<p>The agency is actually barred from regulating the impact of fracking on groundwater because, in 2005, Congress <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-politics-526">exempted fracking</a> from the Safe Water Drinking Act. Congressional proposals to give the EPA more oversight have so far <a href="http://www.propublica.org/special/from-gung-ho-to-uh-oh-charting-the-governments-moves-on-fracking">failed</a>.</p>
<p>With the new rules on air pollution, the EPA rejected an industry request to exempt some wells with low emissions of toxic compounds but did give drilling companies more time to comply. Notably, the final version provides a two-and-a-half-year transition period (rather than the 60 days in the original proposal) that gives drilling companies until 2015 to comply with the strictest regulations.</p>
<p>The industry lobbied hard for the delay, and its reaction to the rules have been mixed.</p>
<p>A spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group, said it is still reviewing the new rules but said it&#8217;s happy with changes from the original proposal that will allow companies to &#8220;continue reducing emissions while producing the oil and natural gas our country needs.&#8221; Another industry group told The New York Times that the rules are too strict and could &#8220;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/science/earth/epa-caps-emissions-at-gas-and-oil-wells.html?_r=1&amp;hpw">make exploring in new areas cost-prohibitive</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>A key rule targets one large source of air pollution 2014 the burst of gas released during the first few days after a well is first tapped but before production begins. The EPA requires that companies start using &#8220;green completions,&#8221; a technology that captures the released gas and fumes in tanks and transports them via pipelines to be sold as fuel. (The Natural Resources Defense Council has a <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddoniger/leading_companies_already_meet.html">good breakdown of the process</a>).</p>
<p>Many drilling companies <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-17/drillers-say-costs-manageable-from-pending-gas-emissions-rule.html">already use green-completion systems</a>. One natural-gas company <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-17/drillers-say-costs-manageable-from-pending-gas-emissions-rule.html">recently told Bloomberg</a> that the system doesn&#8217;t cost the company &#8220;any more than just venting the gas into the atmosphere.&#8221; The EPA says that once companies buy the necessary equipment to separate and collect the released gas, they could actually make up to $19 million a year selling the captured gas.</p>
<p>&#8220;By ensuring the capture of gases that were previously released to pollute our air and threaten our climate, these updated standards will not only protect our health, but also lead to more product for fuel suppliers to bring to market,&#8221; EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/c742df7944b37c50852579e400594f8f!OpenDocument">in a statement</a>.</p>
<p>For the next two and a half years, in addition to trapping the gas, companies are allowed to burn off, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/as-fracking-booms-the-epa-treads-cautiously/2012/04/18/gIQAxCvLRT_blog.html">or &#8220;flare,&#8221; the excess gas</a>, which reduces air toxins but is wasteful because the gas can&#8217;t be resold. Peter Zalzal of the Environmental Defense Fund said the EPA rules give companies an incentive to adopt the green-completion technology instead of flaring.</p>
<p>by <a href="http://www.propublica.org/site/author/lena_groeger" target="_blank">Lena Groeger</a> <a href="http://www.propublica.org/" target="_blank">ProPublica</a>, April 19, 2012, 11:09 a.m.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Image Courtesy of   <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/akinloch/" target="_blank">Adrian Kinloch</a></p>
<p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/04/green-world/the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed/">The EPA&#8217;s First Fracking Rules 2014 Limited and Delayed</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/04/green-world/the-epas-first-fracking-rules-2014-limited-and-delayed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>So, Is Dimock&#8217;s Water Really Safe to Drink?</title>
		<link>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/03/green-world/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink</link>
		<comments>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/03/green-world/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:00:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ProPublica</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Betsaida Alcantara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drinking water standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental protection agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental violations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking penn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propublica reporting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe drinking water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.toonaripost.com/?p=30491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p>March 21: This post has been corrected. When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that tests showed the water is safe to drink in Dimock, Penn., a national hot spot for concerns about fracking, it seemed to vindicate the energy industry&#8217;s insistence that drilling had not caused pollution in the area. But what the [...]</p></p><p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/03/green-world/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink/">So, Is Dimock&#8217;s Water Really Safe to Drink?</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p><strong>March 21:</strong> This post has been <a href="#bromide_riha">corrected</a>.</p>
<p>When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that tests showed the water is safe to drink in Dimock, Penn., a national hot spot for concerns about fracking, it seemed to vindicate the energy industry&#8217;s insistence that drilling had not caused pollution in the area.</p>
<p>But what the agency didn&#8217;t say 2013 at least, not publicly 2013 is that the water samples contained dangerous quantities of methane gas, a finding that confirmed some of the agency&#8217;s initial concerns and the complaints raised by Dimock residents since 2009.</p>
<p>The test results also showed the group of wells contained dozens of other contaminants, including low levels of chemicals known to cause cancer and heavy metals that exceed the agency&#8217;s &#8220;trigger level&#8221; and could lead to illness if consumed over an extended period of time. The EPA&#8217;s assurances suggest that the substances detected do not violate specific drinking water standards, but no such standards exist for some of the contaminants and some experts said the agency should have acknowledged that they were detected at all.</p>
<p>&#8220;Any suggestion that water from these wells is safe for domestic use would be preliminary or inappropriate,&#8221; said Ron Bishop, a chemist at the State University of New York&#8217;s College at Oneonta, who has spoken out about environmental concerns from drilling.</p>
<p>Dimock residents are struggling to reconcile the EPA&#8217;s public account with the results they have been given in private.</p>
<p>&#8220;I&#8217;m sitting here looking at the values I have on my sheet 2013 I&#8217;m over the thresholds 2013 and yet they are telling me my water is drinkable,&#8221; said Scott Ely, a Dimock resident whose water contains methane at three times the state limit, as well as lithium, a substance that can cause kidney and thyroid disorders. &#8220;I&#8217;m confused about the whole thing2026 I&#8217;m flabbergasted.&#8221;</p>
<p>The water in Dimock first became the focus of international attention after residents there alleged in 2009 that natural gas drilling, and fracking, had led to widespread contamination. That April, <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426">ProPublica reported</a> that a woman&#8217;s drinking water well blew up. Pennsylvania officials eventually <a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/final_cabot_co-a.pdf">determined</a> that underground methane gas leaks had been caused by Cabot Oil and Gas, which was drilling wells nearby. Pennsylvania sanctioned Cabot, and for a short time the company provided drinking water to households in the Dimock area.</p>
<p>This January, the <a href="http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/Dimock%20Action%20Memo%2001-19-12.PDF">EPA announced</a> it would take over the state&#8217;s investigation, testing the water in more than 60 homes and agreeing to provide drinking water to several of families 2013 including the Elys 2013 in the meantime.</p>
<p>Then, last Thursday, the EPA released a brief statement saying that the first 11 samples to come back from the lab &#8220;did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern.&#8221; The agency noted that some metals, methane, salt and bacteria had been detected, but at low levels that did not exceed federal thresholds. It said that arsenic exceeding federal water standards was detected in two samples.</p>
<p>But Dimock residents say the agency&#8217;s description didn&#8217;t jibe with the material in test packets distributed to them, and they voiced concerns about why the EPA had passed judgment before seeing results from nearly 50 homes. Several shared raw data and materials they were given by the EPA with Josh Fox, the director of the Academy Award-nominated documentary &#8220;GasLand,&#8221; who shared them with ProPublica.</p>
<p>EPA press secretary Betsaida Alcantara said the agency was trying to be forthcoming by giving the tests results to Dimock residents and is now considering whether to release more information to the public about the water samples. &#8220;We made a commitment to the residents that we would give them the information as soon as we had it,&#8221; she said. &#8220;For the sake of transparency we felt it was the right thing to do.&#8221;</p>
<p>However preliminary, the data is significant because it is the first EPA research into drilling-related concerned on the east coast, and the agency&#8217;s first new information since it concluded <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326876-hw12-epa-report-water-test-results-binder-dimock.html">that there was likely a link</a> between fracking and water contamination in central Wyoming last December. The EPA is currently in the midst of a national investigation into the effects of fracking on groundwater, but that research is separate.</p>
<p>As the agency has elsewhere, the EPA began the testing in Dimock in search of methane and found it.</p>
<p>Methane is not considered poisonous to drink, and therefore is not a health threat in the same way as other pollutants. But the gas can collect in confined spaces and cause deadly explosions, or smother people if they breathe too much of it. Four of the five residential water results obtained by ProPublica show methane levels exceeding Pennsylvania standards; one as high as seven times the threshold and nearly twice the EPA&#8217;s less stringent standard.</p>
<p>The methane detections were accompanied by ethane, another type of natural gas that experts say often signifies the methane came from deeply buried gas deposits similar to those being drilled for energy and not from natural sources near the surface.</p>
<p>Among the other substances detected at low levels in Dimock&#8217;s water are a suite of chemicals known to come from some sort of hydrocarbon substance, such as diesel fuel or roofing tar. They include anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene2013 all substances described by a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as cancer-causing even in very small amounts. Chromium, aluminum, lead and other metals were also detected, as were chlorides, salts, bromide and strontium, minerals that can occur naturally but are often associated with natural gas drilling.</p>
<p>It is unclear whether these contaminants have any connection to drilling activities near Dimock. The agency says it plans further testing and research.</p>
<p>Many of the compounds detected have not been evaluated for exposure risk by federal scientists or do not have an exposure limit assigned to them, making it difficult to know whether they present a risk to human health.</p>
<p>Inconsistencies in the EPA&#8217;s sampling results also are raising concerns. EPA documents, for example, list two different thresholds for the detection of bromide, a naturally occurring substance sometimes used in drilling fluids, opening up the possibility that bromide may have been detected, but not reported, in some tests.</p>
<p>&#8220;The threshold that it is safe, that shouldn&#8217;t be changing,&#8221; said Susan Riha, director of the New York State Water Resources Institute and a professor of earth sciences at Cornell University. &#8220;For some reason 2026 one was twice as sensitive as the other one.&#8221;</p>
<p>The EPA did not respond to questions about the detection limits, or any other technical inquiries about the <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326876-hw12-epa-report-water-test-results-binder-dimock.html">test data</a>.</p>
<p>A spokesman for Cabot declined to comment on the water test results or their significance, saying that he had not yet seen the data.</p>
<p><strong>Correction:</strong> This post said EPA tests had detected bromium in some Dimock water wells. It should have said bromide. Also, the post identified Susan Riha as the director of the New York State Water Resources Group. She is the director of the Water Resources Institute at Cornell University.</p>
<p>by <a href="http://www.propublica.org/site/author/Abrahm_Lustgarten" target="_blank">Abrahm Lustgarten</a> <a href="http://www.propublica.org/" target="_blank">ProPublica</a>, March 20, 2012, 2:42 p.m.</p>
<p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/03/green-world/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink/">So, Is Dimock&#8217;s Water Really Safe to Drink?</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/03/green-world/so-is-dimocks-water-really-safe-to-drink/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gasland Director Josh Fox Arrested</title>
		<link>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/green-world/gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested</link>
		<comments>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/green-world/gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Erin English</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arrested]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean water act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compressed natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contaminated water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ed Schultz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasland II]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Haliburton Loophole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hydraulic Fracturing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Josh Fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[msnbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Capitol Hill]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.toonaripost.com/?p=31046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p>Gasland documentary director, Josh Fox, was arrested on Wednesday, February 1, for what he claims is practicing his First Amendment right. According to usnews.com, the Wayne County filmmaker was arrested in the U.S. Capitol Building after attempting to film a congressional hearing linked with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Fox says that after he filed [...]</p></p><p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/green-world/gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested/">Gasland Director Josh Fox Arrested</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a></p><p>Gasland documentary director, Josh Fox, was arrested on Wednesday, February 1, for what he claims is practicing his First Amendment right. According to usnews.com, the Wayne County filmmaker was arrested in the U.S. Capitol Building after attempting to film a congressional hearing linked with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.</p>
<p>Fox says that after he filed for permission to film the hearing, he never received a response, which prompted him to attempt to film anyway. Capitol Police reported his arrest under unlawful entry, while Fox stated that he was only practicing journalism, according to media reports.</p>
<p>“I was not expecting to be arrested for practicing journalism. Today’s hearing in the House Energy and Environment subcommittee was called to examine EPA&#8217;s findings that hydraulic fracturing fluids had contaminated groundwater in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming.</p>
<p>I have a long history with the town of Pavillion and its residents who have maintained since 2008 that fracking has contaminated their water supply.&#8221; Said Fox regarding the arrest and congressional hearing, “I was arrested today for exercising my First Amendment rights to freedom of the press on Capitol Hill.&#8221;</p>
<p>During an interview, MSNBC host, Ed Schultz, discovered that the filming was being done in order to be featured in a follow-up documentary called Gasland II, also directed by Fox, which is said to be close to completion.  Also during the interview, Fox said that the hearing was going to be led by a Republican subcommittee and that he believed they were going to be attacking the EPA.</p>
<p>Fox was originally inspired to create Gasland after receiving a request to lease his land out for drilling. His website, www.gaslandthemovie.com, claims that after receiving the request, he then traveled up the coast, visiting various different fracking sites and the communities within the surrounding areas. He documented the fracking process and the possible effects the process takes on communities&#8217; drinking water.</p>
<p>Fracking, as the website defines, is the act of drilling for natural gas extraction, utilizing  millions of gallons of water, sand, and proprietary chemicals blasted into deep wells. This process causes the rock and shale to fracture, thus emitting the gases within. For every frack that is completed, anywhere from 80-300 chemicals can be used.</p>
<p>However, due to the Haliburton Loophole, the companies involved in the drilling do not have to disclose the chemicals that are used. The website also claims that there have been over 1,000 reports by courts and governments of contaminated well water within communities surrounding fracking sites.</p>
<p>Fox has become a conflict ridden character within Wayne County, his home. Where some people see him as an activist, others claim he is merely using Gasland as his ride to fame and fortune. The trailer for the film here  may help you base your own opinions.</p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dZe1AeH0Qz8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>The article <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/green-world/gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested/">Gasland Director Josh Fox Arrested</a> appeared first on <a href="http://www.toonaripost.com">The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.toonaripost.com/2012/02/green-world/gasland-director-josh-fox-arrested/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
