Knee-jerk reactions don’t help

Knee-jerk reactions don’t help

Rep. Bob Hagan’s demand for all injection well and oil and gas deep-well drilling to stop is clearly partisan. It would seem that anything the GOP is for, he is against.

Instead of having a typical knee-jerk reaction, perhaps Mr. Hagan should be clear about the facts before he makes an absolute statement affecting thousands of area workers. The injection well in question forces millions of gallons of sandy sludge back into the ground permanently, and should be scrutinized for safety reasons with regard to earthquakes.

However, deep-well fracking simply replaces oil and gas deep below the surface with sandy water, and there is absolutely no evidence that the procedure causes harm to the environment.

The people of this area have finally received a marvelous benefit in sitting on top of the largest reserve of deep shale oil and gas deposits. Mr. Hagan, please do not be the Grinch who steals this gift from those who may not be as well off as you and the representatives in Washington, D.C. These are our properties, and we are quite capable of deciding what we the people want to do with our land.

Larry Schuler, Canfield

Pascal’s Law doesn’t discriminate

It’s refreshing to read that both U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan and state Rep. Hagan are weighing in with opinions on fracking for gas prior to a ribbon cutting ceremony at a well head or an ad hoc press conference from the scene of an environmental accident. I want to share with both gentlemen and your readers the little bit I learned about hydraulics and underground strata during 30 years working for a manufacturer of hydraulic components as well as steel supports for tunnels and mines.

Pascal’s Law, the basis for all hydraulic systems, tells us that fluid under pressure in an enclosed space exerts equal pressure in all directions within that space. This holds true as the pressure increases up to a point where it bursts the enclosure, or finds an outlet from that enclosure. Fracking illustrations in circulation here show little jets (outlets) in a pressurized section of underground pipe (enclosure) through which fracking fluids, content of which is not public, slice evenly through surrounding strata to release the gas in the formation. This is a simplified illustration, as the pressurized fluid jets will immediately find the point of least resistance and all the pressurized fluid in the pipe will be directed to fracture strata there until a weaker point, with less resistance to the flow of the fluid, presents itself.

Predicting where that weakest point will be, or how far it extends in what direction, is the difficulty with shale which is, by definition, a deposit of various materials such as sand, clay, gravel that is compressed over time into a stratified mass. Any cubic foot, or thousands of cubic feet of shale, may be relatively solid or extremely porous and may fracture in unpredictable ways. Test drilling and what’s called wire line seismic exploration of the formation can reasonably predict, within a limited range of the test well, how solid or how porous the shale is at different levels. Energy companies use wire line information to improve their chances of and efficiency in striking oil or gas. I doubt that they find the location of your well, water table, or gas permeable surface land as interesting.

We must drill to get gas and some measure of energy independence. These are good objectives. Jobs can be created in the process and more of them by cautious progress with an emphasis on exploration before fracking. But I believe there will still be fewer than the wildly optimistic job predictions bandied about. Job creation is a great objective and it can be achieved without fouling our environment. The bottom line is that your readers and voters, land owners and lease signers must educate themselves on where and how to do it, beyond the one sided views of energy companies, radical environmentalists, or politicians digging for votes.

James Cartwright, Canfield

Negativity and misinformation

Much to my dismay, the writer of a letter published last Sunday felt the need to further the problem at St. Christine School by her negative attack. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of our society. Rather than promoting the good our school does, she would rather call attention to the negative.

The letter spoke about the lice situation at St. Christine School of which she had no first hand knowledge. The letter stated, “the terrible lice problem started in September.” This is wrong. The problem started in October. The students were not wearing “du-rags,” although some parents did send their children to school with hats. The letter said “the students are asked to put clothes in a bag upon entering the school.” The teachers were asking the students to put their coats and backpacks in a bag in order to prevent this nuisance from spreading.

The letter also stated that the school should supply the lice kit (costing $50 per kit). Should the school also provide kits for the parents and siblings? The school cannot possibly purchase the product and oversee the application to all students, not to mention the cleaning of their homes. All it can do is educate the families in the proper way to treat this nuisance.

The letter purported to speak on behalf of the principal, faculty, students and parents. It stated that the parents were upset and full of hatred.

That was a strong statement coming from someone who is not a parent of a student or involved in the daily happenings of the school. I am a parent of three children at St. Christine School and have been the Home and School Association president for the last two years. I assure you that I am very well informed and none of our parents have voiced any hatred to my knowledge. It seems in today’s society, some individuals thrive on drama.

Tracy Goss, Youngstown

Don’t discount value of ‘Beowulf’

According to Denise Dick’s Nov. 30 article, Stan Heffner, Ohio’s superintendent for public instruction, spoke to local educators last Tuesday, telling them that public education “doesn’t prepare children for the work force or for college.” Heffner is quoted as saying, “The last time I checked, ‘Beowulf’ was not a response on a job application.” Because I didn’t hear Mr. Heffner’s presentation, I don’t have the full context, so it might be a mistake for me to call his remarks reductionist. Yet that’s how they sound to me.

It just so happens that on the day of Mr. Heffner’s presentation, I was invited to speak to a number of students at Trumbull Career and Technical Center about a poem they were reading. Which poem? “Beowulf.” I was impressed by the responses I got. For example, one young man, pondering the differences between the English spoken a thousand years ago and today’s English, asked me how English might change in the future. Another wanted to know how Old English (the language of the poem) compared to a language like Russian, which is only one of the languages he studies.

To me, these questions are evidence of the kind of critical, creative thinking that 81 percent of employers told the Association of American Colleges and Universities that they valued in employees. In the same survey, 89 percent of employers looked for “the ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing” in those they hired (New York Times, Education Life, 1/3/10).

Teaching works like “Beowulf” can lead students to just such outcomes, if teachers are allowed the freedom to teach thoughtfully and with passion. I fear that attitudes like Mr. Heffner’s will keep them from doing so. Where would he draw the line? Would he exclude the discussion and analysis of literature from the classroom, replacing it instead with students filling out practice job applications? That might help them get a position, but it certainly wouldn’t help them keep it.

Rebecca Barnhouse, Youngstown