Unless I’m mistaken, it’s well within the 600-foot line from several homes (and, obviously, a church), so yeah - it’s definitely pretty much in the backyard of the neighborhood.

I am rather disappointed that the commuter rail station was blocked from here, but a gas well has a fighting chance of being built. Saddens me that our priorities are that out of whack.

for those of us, like me, that are slow on the uptake, where is this?

Ben, here it is from a different angle:

And another:

View Larger Map

Now do you see the homes, or are you being deliberately ignorant?

That gas well will be a blight on the neighborhood.

Besides the proximity to homes, businesses, church, etc. and 8th Avenue itself, that rail line is part of the upcoming Southwest-to-Northeast rail line. It’ll be carrying thousands of commuters a day. That’s such an awful place for a gas well.

HA! You, sir, obviously do not know me. I’m about as far from a NIMBY as you can get. I make no apologies for wanting something that would be a positive for the area, rather than long-term blight.

I’ve gotta agree that the RPIA in general are NIMBYs, at least when it comes to things that won’t generate any sort of income for them. That’s likely true for most Homeowners Associations, especially voluntary ones.

I don’t know for sure if you’re new here or not, Ben, but if you read through the site, you’ll see that we’re not anti-natural gas exploration. Not at all.

What we oppose is gas drilling in the urban core of the city. That’s it. We don’t hate gas drillers and we don’t oppose them making a profit on their endeavors, but we don’t want them profiting at the expense of our quality of life.

Not
In
My
Back
Yard

The last we heard, Chesapeake was able to get exactly ONE property owner in that radius to sign a waiver, despite offering additional money on top of the bonuses already received from Four Sevens.

Presumably, the next step is for Chesapeake to take their case to the City Council to get a waiver. (This may have already been done, I can’t remember right now, and I don’t have time to search.)

A combination of generation systems is what’s needed. Wind, solar, nuclear, all have MUCH less impact on the environment in nearly every way than burning fossil fuels.

Natural Gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, but it’s still a fossil fuel, which requires extraction and processing and all the attendant infrastructure required for those things.

Ben, you’re exactly right about the reasons Ryan Place (more specifically Elizabeth Ave.) residents opposed the rail station. They gave the same reasons that the Concerned Taxpayers of Arlington give for opposing public transit there, which is basically that it will stir up the poor people and bring them into their neighborhoods.

I think (and I said at the time) that it was a mistake to oppose the Elizabeth Ave. rail station. I wonder if the residents who opposed it are having second thoughts now.

I’ll remind you that I’m not a long-haired hippy. I understand that sometimes you have to compromise and make tradeoffs. If my choices are improved technology nuclear reactors providing a baseline amount of power coupled with renewable sources like wind, solar, tidal, river turbine, etc. OR 85% of our nation’s energy needs being met by fossil fuels and all of the accompanying damage done by their extraction and burning, I know which one I’ll choose.

The difference between you and me, Ben, is that I believe that our businesspeople and scientists can do better. We can find ways to deal with nuclear by-products, we can improve the efficiency of batteries and solar panels. We can find new ways to squeeze every last bit of potential energy out of our current sources while we transition to clean sources.

The energy oil/gas/coal industry doesn’t seem to think that we’re willing or smart enough to do any of those things or anything else to move our country forward.

The hydrocarbon pimps say that we need to continue to destroy our environment in order to gain “energy independence.” I say bullshit. If they gave a damn about energy independence, they’d be dumping money like there’s no tomorrow into renewables, not continuing to suck every last bit of hydrocarbons out of the earth.

No, the sad truth is that they’re happily sacrificing everyone’s quality of life on the altar of the almighty dollar. They’re making the right noises about energy independence while they fund politicians who have no qualms about going to war for oil. They use Orwellian double-speak like “clean coal,” to keep the unwashed masses baffled with bullshit while they continue to dump heavy metals into streams and riverbeds, kill miners by ignoring safety regulations, and literally dismantle mountains in order to get every precious chunk of anthracite.

Continuing the cycle of hydrocarbon abuse by drilling our country into swiss cheese isn’t gaining us energy independence. It’s making us more dependent than ever before by diverting much needed funds from new technologies.

@Jonathan - More like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll