Originally posted by sonhouseI think your points would be more interesting and more persuasive if you used actual facts and not ridiculous exaggeration. I do not think the "entire US government from the Presidency to Congress to the Supreme court has been 100% bought off by the gas industry" (although it is an excellent conspiracy theory). Nor do I think "towns are being turned into Chernobles"
How can we accept the fact that the entire US government from the Presidency to congress to the Supreme court has been 100% bought off by the gas industry who now dictates what environmental laws say?
And now we see it is not just in the US where towns are being turned into Chernobles, abandoned homes, whole towns decimated.
Now it is being repeated a ...[text shortened]... we need to grow crops, entire towns depopulated.
Is this the best way to grow all our crops?
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackLook at this: Dimock Pa, the EPA determined their water was ruined by fracking wells and there is a sub scandal involved with that also. The fracking companies were forced to truck in clean water for the residents till the lawyers stepped in and they stopped that.
I think your points would be more interesting and more persuasive if you used actual facts and not ridiculous exaggeration. I do not think the "entire US government from the Presidency to Congress to the Supreme court has been 100% bought off by the gas industry" (although it is an excellent conspiracy theory). Nor do I think "towns are being turned into Chernobles"
Not only that but shortly after that debacle, the head of the EPA was forced to resign for daring to publish data against fracking.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/dimock-pa-
water_n_1702992.html
This is just one link I spotted. Don't know the politics of Huffington.
Note the sentence that says 'explosive levels of methane'.
These frackers are using the same tactics that the tobacco industry used when they tried to bamboozle congress about how safe cigs were.
They also are using the same people.
So if the US government is not bought off, why did the EPA administrator have to resign soon after the debacle in Dimock?
Here is a link to some lawsuits and the results: Mainly non-disclosure agreements, so it amounts to legal secrecy to bottle up the problems, hide them away:
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-damage-cases-and-industry-secrecy
Originally posted by sonhouseMaybe so. Lets do the math. You however seem to be dismissing it out of hand without doing the math. What is so important about these towns anyway?
So its ok that the world has all the energy it needs as long as we put up with mini chernobles all over the world where whole towns are now uninhabitable?
Why not pursue other energy sources like wind power, which is forever and there are plenty of places where wind can generate all the energy the entire world needs.
I would like to see statistics on that. Others have claimed that wind energy will never be able to supply all our needs. I am however very pro wind/solar/tidal etc and hydroelectric.
Wouldn't that be superior to ruining our habitat in our mad rush for energy?
Maybe, but you'll have to change your political system if you want long term thinking. A 5 year cycle means 5 year thinking. There is simply no way the US will ever plan effectively for the long term with the current political system.
Did you get the stat that says half of ALL frack wells will be leaking within 30 years? That was from the gas companies own analysis, not lefty tree huggers.
So push the long term costs onto the frackers - through tax if necessary. But do the math, don't just rule out fracking because you like hugging trees.
The area they want to frack here in SA, does not have trees. Maybe the gas can pay to plant some trees?
Originally posted by sonhouseYour assumption that the all three branches of the US government are in on a conspiracy is completely without evidence. Now, you seem to think that lawyers are in on the conspiracy also. I might be naive but I find it inconceivable that every politician and every lawyer in the US is part of conspiracy to allow mini-Chernobyls.
Look at this: Dimock Pa, the EPA determined their water was ruined by fracking wells and there is a sub scandal involved with that also. The fracking companies were forced to truck in clean water for the residents till the lawyers stepped in and they stopped that.
Not only that but shortly after that debacle, the head of the EPA was forced to resign for ...[text shortened]... way:
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-damage-cases-and-industry-secrecy
There are an infinite number of reason why someone may be forced to resign. Perhaps he exaggerated the dangers of fracking, perhaps it was completely unrelated. Maybe if you presented real facts I'd know.
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackDid you look at my second link? There it shows 27 lawsuits in half a dozen states showing polluted water to the point of killing animals and having methane in your own house at close to explosive levels, all the while the gas companies poo pooing that saying that is nothing but natural gas coming out of the ground.
Your assumption that the all three branches of the US government are in on a conspiracy is completely without evidence. Now, you seem to think that lawyers are in on the conspiracy also. I might be naive but I find it inconceivable that every politician and every lawyer in the US is part of conspiracy to allow mini-Chernobyls.
There are an infinite ...[text shortened]... of fracking, perhaps it was completely unrelated. Maybe if you presented real facts I'd know.
Here is the story of the EPA administrator:
Lisa Jackson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_P._Jackson
She now has a job at Apple computer.
The reason listed for her resignation was her objection to the Pa oil pipeline.
But the EPA was relentlessly attacked for her trying to do the job of the EPA.
Gee, I wonder where the impetus for that attack came from....
The takeover by the gas industry of the US government was started by the Supreme court decision that it was ok for large companies to supply infinite amount of dollars for political campaigns. So they did. So we are living with that as we speak. 100% corrupt congress. The few who fought it are retired, quit.
It wasn't just the fuel industry takeover, pharmaceuticals, insurance, NRA.
The common folk are now not part of the equation.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou seem to pick and choose what you believe is true and your belief are absolute. You assume that the fracking lawsuits are valid (but really this is an open issue and we need facts). Then when/ if fracking occurs you are convinced that it is due to dishonest lawyers, fixed governments and corporate lies (perhaps our governmental decision makers look at the facts including truthful one presented by corporations and simply come a different conclusion that you do).
Did you look at my second link? There it shows 27 lawsuits in half a dozen states showing polluted water to the point of killing animals and having methane in your own house at close to explosive levels, all the while the gas companies poo pooing that saying that is nothing but natural gas coming out of the ground.
Here is the story of the EPA administr ...[text shortened]... takeover, pharmaceuticals, insurance, NRA.
The common folk are now not part of the equation.
The whole truth is not always uncovered by reading wikipedia and believing plaintiff allegations in mass tort causes of action.
Originally posted by quackquackI gather you live outside any of the shales. I live right in the middle of them and we can see for ourselves what happened to Dimock. They had to move out, could not sell their homes, could not even get a loan on a house that had a lawsuit against the gas companies.
You seem to pick and choose what you believe is true and your belief are absolute. You assume that the fracking lawsuits are valid (but really this is an open issue and we need facts). Then when/ if fracking occurs you are convinced that it is due to dishonest lawyers, fixed governments and corporate lies (perhaps our governmental decision makers look ...[text shortened]... ncovered by reading wikipedia and believing plaintiff allegations in mass tort causes of action.
Did you know one of the byproducts of fracking is RADIUM? The stuff that killed Marie Curie radium?
What is it about the fact that between 1% and 5% of ALL fracking well concrete liners crack on day one that doesn't bother you?
The only thing that will make fracking safe is to come up with a MUCH better liner than concrete. That hasn't happened in 20 years and probably will never happen.
So the entire industry has a soft dark underbelly of pollution they want to hide under miles of litigation and industrial secrecy.
Why do you think this is ok?
Originally posted by sonhouseI never expressed an opinion on fracking.
I gather you live outside any of the shales. I live right in the middle of them and we can see for ourselves what happened to Dimock. They had to move out, could not sell their homes, could not even get a loan on a house that had a lawsuit against the gas companies.
Did you know one of the byproducts of fracking is RADIUM? The stuff that killed Marie Cu ...[text shortened]... ant to hide under miles of litigation and industrial secrecy.
Why do you think this is ok?
I only expressed the opinion that your exaggeration of the negative effects of fracking and your belief that lawyers and all three branches of government are conspiring to form Chernobyls all over the US is a gross exaggeration which undermines any legitimate facts on the dangers of fracking.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainCoal is long forgotten in most areas for home heating fuel. Natural gas already has that market cornered, except for fuel oil in the North East, and some rural areas that use propane.
There have not been any fracking in my area yet but that will probably change in the future. Exploration was done on my land last fall and my family (siblings including myself) own the mineral rights collectively. For this reason I am very interested in this subject. I have the potential to profit from it if natural gas prices reach a certain level to cr www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/michigan-has-vast-shale-gas-reserves.html
What do you think?
Those using electrical heat, are using whatever the electric companies produce electricity with. It isn't an alternative.
Attacking coal is silly and counterproductive. It can and probably will be used in other ways, for example it can be converted to clean burning motor fuel, at about the equivalent of $35 per barrel of crude oil, that is once the cost of the plants is amortized.
Much of the green energy movement is simply wishful thinking. Eventually, things like solar and wind energy may become efficient and mature enough to depend on. That isn't now. One emphasis I'd like to see changed is from large scale production, to that of some individual autarky or small community action building power capacity. People living in rural areas should be able to become self sufficient power sources, instead of dependents as components for gathering solar or wind become more efficient and cheaper.
There is a lot of fracking going on, with considerable oversight, but it wouldn't be the first time that government oversight was insufficient or bought off. But it also wouldn't be the first time chicken littles cried out about the sky falling. You are on the front lines, with your siblings, and will have to attempt at least to sort out the risks and rewards, and the necessity or not of reaching those resources.
One problem is that due to horizontal drilling, if you chose to prohibit drilling, that might not stop the drillers, who could go to your neighbor. One thing for certain is that hysterical hyperbole doesn't help, even if there is a problem. It is going to have to be addressed by serious, thoughtful people.
Originally posted by normbenignI didn't attack coal. I posted an excerpt from the link because I thought it was interesting that the Sierra Club was being funded by the gas industry. Many people would be horrified by that.
Coal is long forgotten in most areas for home heating fuel. Natural gas already has that market cornered, except for fuel oil in the North East, and some rural areas that use propane.
Those using electrical heat, are using whatever the electric companies produce electricity with. It isn't an alternative.
Attacking coal is silly and counterproduc ...[text shortened]... if there is a problem. It is going to have to be addressed by serious, thoughtful people.
Perhaps you mistook the excerpt for my own statement because I neglected to put it in quotations. It was not my opinion at all. I am not against coal per se. It is an abundant fossil fuel in this country and I think we should use it if we can keep the air and rainwater from being polluted too much.
Why isn't anybody attacking the Sierra Club for taking money from the natural gas industry? Are they pro-fracking?
Originally posted by normbenign"One problem is that due to horizontal drilling, if you chose to prohibit drilling, that might not stop the drillers, who could go to your neighbor."
Coal is long forgotten in most areas for home heating fuel. Natural gas already has that market cornered, except for fuel oil in the North East, and some rural areas that use propane.
Those using electrical heat, are using whatever the electric companies produce electricity with. It isn't an alternative.
Attacking coal is silly and counterproduc ...[text shortened]... if there is a problem. It is going to have to be addressed by serious, thoughtful people.
Shell Oil slant drilled under the property of my neighbors when I was a child. They sued Shell Oil and were compensated for several million dollars in the settlement. Shell Oil was trying to steal oil from them without them knowing, but it backfired on them. They are crooked.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI thought home owners didn't get mineral rights to the ground under their property. I don't think I have any mineral rights. I think if I dug up a gold nugget or something, some government agency would figure out I never owned it since they own the underground.
"One problem is that due to horizontal drilling, if you chose to prohibit drilling, that might not stop the drillers, who could go to your neighbor."
Shell Oil slant drilled under the property of my neighbors when I was a child. They sued Shell Oil and were compensated for several million dollars in the settlement. Shell Oil was trying to steal oil from them without them knowing, but it backfired on them. They are crooked.
Originally posted by sonhouseMineral rights do not have to be sold with the property but they can be. You are probably just the surface owner. Somebody else owns the mineral rights to your property. If the person that owns the mineral rights chooses to lease it to an oil company for extraction you cannot stop them from drilling on or under your property, but you can get compensation for any damage/inconvenience to the surface if that happens.
I thought home owners didn't get mineral rights to the ground under their property. I don't think I have any mineral rights. I think if I dug up a gold nugget or something, some government agency would figure out I never owned it since they own the underground.
Some people have partial ownership of the mineral rights. It is all in the contract.
Originally posted by Metal BrainBy 'contract' you mean the bank loan papers?
Mineral rights do not have to be sold with the property but they can be. You are probably just the surface owner. Somebody else owns the mineral rights to your property. If the person that owns the mineral rights chooses to lease it to an oil company for extraction you cannot stop them from drilling on or under your property, but you can get compensation ...[text shortened]... happens.
Some people have partial ownership of the mineral rights. It is all in the contract.
