You should be–Una Persson is the sole source supplier for Santa Claus’s lumps of coal.
If you wake up Xmas morning breathing coal dust…well, you can’t say we didn’t warn you. 
Nope, no dust. All the lumps of coal I give out as gifts to people, online and IRL, I coat with clear lacquer. It eliminates some of the very fine details you can sometimes see in the coal (such as sulfate inclusions), but at least it keeps it all together.
I thought I would update the Range Resources case that I brought up and was spoken about quite a bit in this thread.
EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination
[QUOTE=WSJ]
The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its claim that an energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas, the third time in recent months that the agency has backtracked on high-profile local allegations linking natural-gas drilling and water pollution.
On Friday, the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed in U.S. court in Dallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative order.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s what the State of Texas regulatory agency (Railroad Commission of Texas) had to say.
[QUOTE=RRC]
Commissioner David Porter said, “Today the EPA finally made a decision based on science and fact versus playing politics with the Texas economy. The EPA’s withdrawal of the emergency order against Range Resources upholds the Railroad Commission Final Order that I signed concluding that Range is not responsible for any water contamination in Parker County. Al Armanderiz and the EPA’s Region Six office are guilty of fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling of this case. I hope to see drastic changes made in the way the regional office conducts business in the future – starting with the termination of Al Armanderiz.”
[/QUOTE]
We know you don’t use words the way the rest of us do. Does an “Environmental Protection Agency” in a non-English speaking country count, if that EPA calls itself “Environmental Protection Agency” on its English website?
I suppose you won’t count the Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (it’s an Administration, not an Agency), but what about the Danish Environmental Protection Agency ?
(These two examples are not intended as exhaustive, just the ones that pop up with a minute of Googling.)
The “whole point” of “only the U.S. has an EPA” was “the U.S.'s is not the only EPA” ?
OK. Got it … I guess.
And do these left-wing regulations cost more than a trillion dollars? If not, it’s just “chump change” or a “rounding error.”
Whatever.
Uh-huh… and what did the EPA itself have to say?
Besides, fracking is a relatively new process and there will be problems with establishing its effects and how to mitigate those effects. As part of a larger argument that the EPA should be abolished or diminished, it’s big ol’ heaping bucket of fail.
Uh, they dropped the case, so I think their actions tell us more than anything they could possibly say.
Fracking is not a new process. Anyone who thinks so is probably not very well informed on the topic.