What do they have to hide?

Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking

Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement

Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Ltd, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.

The Hallowich family had earlier accused oil and gas companies of destroying their 10-acre farm in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania and putting their children's health in danger. Their property was adjacent to major industrial operations: four gas wells, gas compressor stations, and a waste water pound, which the Hallowich family said contaminated their water supply and caused burning eyes, sore throats and headaches...


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/05/children-ban-talking-about-fr...

This is just a silly scare story.

More money is put into safety R&D on fracking processing than any other area of exploration right now.

I don't think a gag order is unconstitutional. They agreed to take a settlement for their silence. That's really nothing new. I think the bigger question is regarding this;

Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

??? Until they are adults surely? How can a kid be given a life time gag order when they are not old enough to agree to the settlement themselves? Their parents can make that choice for them now, but once they are old enough to make their own decisions surely that order cannot stand?

Quantum wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:


I would suggest that as adults that gag order would fail.  It is improbable that one person cant settle  gag order for another -especially a minor

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 4:32pm:


I wasn't supporting fracking although I do have access to two of australias EXPERTS on such issues and they have contrary opinions!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 4:41pm:


the problem with fracking is not what happens when it is done right but when it is done WRONG.  most of the fracking is done below the artesian basin or other aquifers but if something is screwed up by bad investigation or faulty fracking, some contaminants can enter the groundwater.  and groundwater is difficult to clean.  However at the same time a lot of the groundwater is already uselss as it is hypersaline or contaminated in some other way so fracking makes no real difference.

The guy I hire as a presenter is one of the country's experts on coal mines and by extension CSG and he is not overly concerned by fracking as long as it is well monitored - and there is the real risk. Proper monitoring is the real keep to safe CSG and it is the area that the govt has been woeful in.  IN NSW we trained a group that contained two young girls in their 20s and each had responsibility for monitoring 400 bores in CSG.  apart from the obvious overload, the most disturbing thing was that this was a introductory level course.  Someone monitoring these kinds of bores should be highly experienced and a lot older so as to not be intimidate by problems.

as always, the real problem is one of OVERSIGHT.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:


its largely a govt problem and not a partisan one.  Both sides don't seem to see the immense need for significant regulatory and monitorinig protection of water etc.  whenever there is a budget cut, these are some of the first to go meaning that it is as much a public service problem as a govt one.

Verge wrote on Aug 9^th, 2013 at 11:36am:


it's called party discipline which is different.  It is not unfair to ask someone to publically support something they privately oppose as price for being part of the team.  there are limits to it of course, but their are also consequences.

Ita basic team behaviour.