 |
| Sign At Encana Site in Pavillion |
Just in from Wyoming...Encana who the US EPA suspects contaminated the underground aquifer of the citizens of Pavillion, Encana who used their financial might and public relations people to TRASH the EPA report that is now out for peer review (which includes all stakeholders) has officially requested that the US EPA close/suspend the comments on the report.
So, Encana rushed to the press, trashed the report, its finding, as well as the US EPA staff and are now wanting the US EPA to deny the citizens, other concerned groups the right to summit comments, thoughts and scientific information supporting our position. Officials from Encana contend the EPA hasn't been clear
about which specific questions, topics and comments from the
public, the company and government agencies are supposed to
cover. So, Encana has been submitting stuff for weeks, been on the airwaves for weeks, and now they want to deny other stakeholders their/our say?
It is suggested to the US EPA that they should give Encana the official, politically correct middle finger, deny their request, and let the process work its way through its course, rather than suspending the comments period until Encana and other members of the Natural Gas Industry can shape and LIMIT what we the public stakeholders can comment on. It is also suggested here, that Governor Cuomo and the NYDEC start paying some VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION to all the dangers of fracking that are starting to appear every where that Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing is going on.
One other suggestion to the US EPA as relates to Encana request. They have filed a FOIA request seeking additional data. Rather than suspend the comments period, it is suggested here, that said comments period be EXTENDED for a period of 45 from the point that the US EPA has fulfilled Encana's FOIA request, and or denied it, and Encana has exercised it's legal remedies. In this fashion, all parties will have adequate time to submit comments on any additional information/documents that end up being supplied to Encana. Extending the comments period makes more sense, and is fairer to ALL STAKEHOLDERS than suspending the comments period, or limiting the scope of stakeholder comments.
