ALEC's end goal of privatizing profit and socializing risk is as anti-capitalist and anti-free market as you can get and yet the MSM has been quite successful in perverting that truth into their own fun house mirror view of "capitalism".
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
17
#TarSands #GasFracking.
Started by Hayden, Oct 20 2011 01:59 PM
553 replies to this topic
#182
Posted 20 May 2012 - 02:18 PM
"On Wednesday, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a law to ban fracking for natural gas in the state,
making it the first in the nation to adopt such a measure.
The legislature's overwhelming decision in favor of the ban, made at a time when many other states are
working to regulate fracking, communicates a clear message of concern about the risks associated with the
process and the extent to which there remain many unknowns."
Source
Happy day!
#183
Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:59 AM
The Eco Watch website has several stories on fracking for those that are interested in clean water,
and how it may not be possible as more fracking becomes the norm-
including state legislators putting gag orders into law against doctors notifying their
patients about their contamination/health issues as a result of drinking fracked water.
and how it may not be possible as more fracking becomes the norm-
including state legislators putting gag orders into law against doctors notifying their
patients about their contamination/health issues as a result of drinking fracked water.
#184
Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:30 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 20 May 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:
"On Wednesday, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin signed a law to ban fracking for natural gas in the state,
making it the first in the nation to adopt such a measure.
The legislature's overwhelming decision in favor of the ban, made at a time when many other states are
working to regulate fracking, communicates a clear message of concern about the risks associated with the
process and the extent to which there remain many unknowns."
Source
Happy day!
Just blogged a response to this. Here’s the main problem: Vermont doesn’t have much shale rock to frack in the first place, so they’ve banned a practice that doesn’t really affect them. It’d be like a land-locked state passing a law that affects how people treat the ocean. Even if it’s right, it still winds up feeling more political than anything else.
As the face of fracking continues to change in 2012, there are actually applicable states that could be swayed by Vermont’s decision. Upstate New York has a lot of shale rock, and while there’s already a moratorium on fracking there, environmentalists are pushing for an outright ban, In the end, while Vermont may be the first state to ban fracking, we’re still waiting to see which state will be the first meaningful one to enforce the ban.
#185
Posted 25 May 2012 - 05:57 PM
I have a friend in Texas whose community depends on well water. Industry has done fracking in her area for years. There are battles over water contamination because they refuse to study whether fracking is having an impact on well water. The people know, but the state government refuses to acknowledge there could be a problem. It's a curious situation. While the people own their property and their land, they do not own the mineral rights. Anyone who wants to drill on or near their land gets their way. If the federal government is setting standards, maybe her area will get some assistance.
I live in California. They've been discussing bringing fracking to California or increasing the practice. I am not sure if there is already fracking in some areas of the state. This is earthquake country. Given the suspicions that fracking may increase the risk of earthquakes it seems a dangerous and shortsighted proposal.
I live in California. They've been discussing bringing fracking to California or increasing the practice. I am not sure if there is already fracking in some areas of the state. This is earthquake country. Given the suspicions that fracking may increase the risk of earthquakes it seems a dangerous and shortsighted proposal.
#186
Posted 26 May 2012 - 03:16 AM
SpiroFlo, on 24 May 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:
Just blogged a response to this. Here’s the main problem: Vermont doesn’t have much shale rock to frack in the first place, so they’ve banned a practice that doesn’t really affect them. It’d be like a land-locked state passing a law that affects how people treat the ocean. Even if it’s right, it still winds up feeling more political than anything else.
As the face of fracking continues to change in 2012, there are actually applicable states that could be swayed by Vermont’s decision. Upstate New York has a lot of shale rock, and while there’s already a moratorium on fracking there, environmentalists are pushing for an outright ban, In the end, while Vermont may be the first state to ban fracking, we’re still waiting to see which state will be the first meaningful one to enforce the ban.
As the face of fracking continues to change in 2012, there are actually applicable states that could be swayed by Vermont’s decision. Upstate New York has a lot of shale rock, and while there’s already a moratorium on fracking there, environmentalists are pushing for an outright ban, In the end, while Vermont may be the first state to ban fracking, we’re still waiting to see which state will be the first meaningful one to enforce the ban.
#187
Posted 26 May 2012 - 09:54 AM
At least Vermont may encourage other states to take the same stand on fracking. It is a start and hopefully other states will follow very soon. It is very concerning to hear about Texas and California from FamilyTreeClimber. It sounds like Texas has decided to bury their heads in the sand and California is flirting with disaster!
#188
Posted 26 May 2012 - 11:27 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 24 May 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:
state legislators putting gag orders into law against doctors notifying their
patients about their contamination/health issues as a result of drinking fracked water.
patients about their contamination/health issues as a result of drinking fracked water.
These gag orders are very simply anti-American, and any legislator even remotely associated with the bills should never be able to hold public office. Some of our congress critters have become worse than any al Qaeda operative and have done more damage to our country than they have.
#189
Posted 30 May 2012 - 11:25 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 25 May 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:
I have a friend in Texas whose community depends on well water. Industry has done fracking in her area for years. There are battles over water contamination because they refuse to study whether fracking is having an impact on well water. The people know, but the state government refuses to acknowledge there could be a problem. It's a curious situation. While the people own their property and their land, they do not own the mineral rights. Anyone who wants to drill on or near their land gets their way. If the federal government is setting standards, maybe her area will get some assistance.
I live in California. They've been discussing bringing fracking to California or increasing the practice. I am not sure if there is already fracking in some areas of the state. This is earthquake country. Given the suspicions that fracking may increase the risk of earthquakes it seems a dangerous and shortsighted proposal.
I live in California. They've been discussing bringing fracking to California or increasing the practice. I am not sure if there is already fracking in some areas of the state. This is earthquake country. Given the suspicions that fracking may increase the risk of earthquakes it seems a dangerous and shortsighted proposal.
Land rights are tricky in just about any industry, but when oil and gas and water are involved, this one's really tough.
#191
Posted 02 June 2012 - 05:17 AM
The people are being stonewalled. Not allowed access to information to everything from mining/drilling activities to corporate bailouts to election technology to corporate legal settlements that directly affect millions. Americans are turning into mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed poop.
#192
Posted 02 June 2012 - 03:22 PM
yoder, on 02 June 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:
The people are being stonewalled. Not allowed access to information to everything from mining/drilling activities to corporate bailouts to election technology to corporate legal settlements that directly affect millions. Americans are turning into mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed poop.
OWS started out with a good premise, but it quickly went into just groups of protesters being arrested, and that
was the focus. As much as many of us dislike the baggers, they got people into office to change laws.
They hurt us but they got it done. What has the OWS movement done? Zip.
The message was lost-the movement faded.
People feel overwhelmed, imo, when they know they're up against corporate billionaires.
"What can I do?" is the whine heard all over this country; so nothing gets changed.
#194
Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:15 AM
Tainted water supplies for sure, but earthquakes?
Not so much, according to this study.
http://www.reuters.c...E8HFFPE20120615
Also; what individual states are doing about disclosure of fracking fluids.
Wyoming in September of 2010 became the first state to require full disclosure.
This from July 2011-status may have changed.
http://www.ncsl.org/...-are-doing.aspx
*Edit-text/link added.
Not so much, according to this study.
http://www.reuters.c...E8HFFPE20120615
Also; what individual states are doing about disclosure of fracking fluids.
Wyoming in September of 2010 became the first state to require full disclosure.
This from July 2011-status may have changed.
http://www.ncsl.org/...-are-doing.aspx
*Edit-text/link added.
#195
Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:30 AM
Only one earthquake officially linked to fracking...That's what happens when you control the information that is allowed to be used in "scientific" studies. All those other "unofficially linked" earthquakes didn't really happen now did they.
#196
Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:39 AM
As reported in (Reuters) on March 9, 2012 - An Ohio state agency, the Department of Natural Resources, (which oversees the oil and gas industry) said there is evidence that the high-pressure injection of fluid underground related to fracking caused a series of Ohio earthquakes culminating in a New Year's Eve tremors in an area not known for seismic activity. Their response in a report issued found "geological evidence" suggesting that high pressure fluid from a well near an underground fault caused a series of earthquakes in the Youngstown, Ohio area over the last year.
Today in Reuters a report issued by The National Research Council study, which also examined the risk of earthquakes associated with tapping geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage, found that the total balance of fluid injected or removed underground was the biggest factor in causing earthquakes related to energy development.
"Although induced seismic events associated with these energy technologies have not resulted in loss of life or significant damage in the United States, some effects have been felt by local residents and have raised concern about additional seismic activity," the council said.
Several state and federal government agencies have stated that the risk of large earthquakes is minimal. That said personally I feel the industry is playing Russian Roulette with fracking technology. In Texas where oil and gas deposits are much deeper than water resources the risk of high pressure water injection causing damage is minimal, however in areas such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other states in the eastern parts of the United States, petrochemicals and water are much closer to one another and therefore increase the risk.
It really is a trade off, natural gas is cleaner than burning coal, but one factor that is overlooked is that we are taking our most threatened natural resource potable water, and are adding toxic chemicals, then injecting them to gain this production. Many people believe that it is impossible to change the hydrological cycle but here is an exception to that rule. Locking this water up in geological formations means it will never be able to be used again, and this is millions of gallons of water.
Meaning we are trading a precious resources for a quick fix to our energy needs. My point is that we should be accelerating alternative energy now and safeguarding our water resources. Alternative energy uses minimal amounts of water, fossil fuel production uses millions of gallons annually and makes that water unusable, toxic, and carcinogenic, so why not stop the practice. Finally and I am speaking from personal experience, studies have shown that CO2 injection for fracking is 83% as efficient as water injection so why not capture CO2 and use it, the reason given by big oil and gas is cost.
Well what is the cost of losing our water resources?
Today in Reuters a report issued by The National Research Council study, which also examined the risk of earthquakes associated with tapping geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage, found that the total balance of fluid injected or removed underground was the biggest factor in causing earthquakes related to energy development.
"Although induced seismic events associated with these energy technologies have not resulted in loss of life or significant damage in the United States, some effects have been felt by local residents and have raised concern about additional seismic activity," the council said.
Several state and federal government agencies have stated that the risk of large earthquakes is minimal. That said personally I feel the industry is playing Russian Roulette with fracking technology. In Texas where oil and gas deposits are much deeper than water resources the risk of high pressure water injection causing damage is minimal, however in areas such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other states in the eastern parts of the United States, petrochemicals and water are much closer to one another and therefore increase the risk.
It really is a trade off, natural gas is cleaner than burning coal, but one factor that is overlooked is that we are taking our most threatened natural resource potable water, and are adding toxic chemicals, then injecting them to gain this production. Many people believe that it is impossible to change the hydrological cycle but here is an exception to that rule. Locking this water up in geological formations means it will never be able to be used again, and this is millions of gallons of water.
Meaning we are trading a precious resources for a quick fix to our energy needs. My point is that we should be accelerating alternative energy now and safeguarding our water resources. Alternative energy uses minimal amounts of water, fossil fuel production uses millions of gallons annually and makes that water unusable, toxic, and carcinogenic, so why not stop the practice. Finally and I am speaking from personal experience, studies have shown that CO2 injection for fracking is 83% as efficient as water injection so why not capture CO2 and use it, the reason given by big oil and gas is cost.
Well what is the cost of losing our water resources?
#197
Posted 16 June 2012 - 07:30 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 02 June 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:
...OWS started out with a good premise, but it quickly went into just groups of protesters being arrested, and that
was the focus. As much as many of us dislike the baggers, they got people into office to change laws.
They hurt us but they got it done. What has the OWS movement done? Zip.
The message was lost-the movement faded...
was the focus. As much as many of us dislike the baggers, they got people into office to change laws.
They hurt us but they got it done. What has the OWS movement done? Zip.
The message was lost-the movement faded...
Thank you GTD. That's what I've been saying as well. OWS is a great idea and grew to become a big deal for a while, but as you said, it never became more than protesters getting arrested. The baggers used their face time with the corporate media to court corporate money and turn that into politicians at the state and federal level, who then turned back the clock on our hard won advances and freedoms. OWS was busy being mired in leaderless bureaucracy and in-fighting.
#198
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:03 AM
I had great hopes for the OWS, now it seems they have gotten side tracked. I will try to believe that somehow they will regroup and be motivated to make a difference with their efforts. As someone said, keep hope alive. Cheers.
#199
Posted 16 June 2012 - 06:23 PM
Shortpoet, I'm not sure OWS has done nothing. What they've done is change the conversation in this country. A year ago, all you heard was "cut the deficit, cut the deficit!!!!!!" Our whole economic policy centered around the idea of contraction. Now there is plenty of talk about how the repeal of Glass, Blilley, Leach laid the foundation for the collapse of 2007-2008 and how our ailing infrastructure could be a key in getting people back to work.
It's true that some protest have gotten out of hand, though in the Bay Area, I blame much of that on the Black Block Anarchists who are a big pain in the butt. There is no protest too small for them to come out and start a fight. I wish they'd do their own protests, but I suspect they are too cowardly to do so.
Without OWS shining the light on the financial ndustry last year you would not have seen the big investigations into foreclosure fraud including the fraudulent robo-signings and the way financial institutions were cheating veterans in mortgage deals. You wouldn't have seen Attorneys Generals like Kamala Harris fighting for a better deal in the settlement against the banks. The dump your bank movement would not have spread so quickly had OWS not gotten people focuses on the excesses of the financial industry.
It remains to be seen if Occupy can get people into office like the Tea Party did, though my feeling is that the anti-incumbent wave was coming regardless of the Tea Party. It was a natural reaction to the people suddenly catching on to the fact that they'd been hoodwinked for 8 years. It will remain to be seen if the Tea Party holds those offices in 2012. Some of those people swept into office in 2010 have become the same people lobbying against fixing the financial industry. This is a bad time in the country to be seen as a buddy of Jamie Dimon. SuperPac money brought many of those people into office. We will have to see if people truly are happy with their new members of Congress.
I know in California we may see some long term Democratic incumbents thrown out by upstart Democratic newcomers in November. Our ridiculous new open primary system has pushed out third parties but it has open the door for new Democrats and Republicans to mount good campaigns against people of their own party. (Open primaries cause over 20 races to end up as single party races.)
I guess I might be seen as a Pollyanna, but I've noticed that things in this country come in cycles. It takes a long time for Americans to get angry. When they do, then the pendulum has a chance to shift the other way.
It's true that some protest have gotten out of hand, though in the Bay Area, I blame much of that on the Black Block Anarchists who are a big pain in the butt. There is no protest too small for them to come out and start a fight. I wish they'd do their own protests, but I suspect they are too cowardly to do so.
Without OWS shining the light on the financial ndustry last year you would not have seen the big investigations into foreclosure fraud including the fraudulent robo-signings and the way financial institutions were cheating veterans in mortgage deals. You wouldn't have seen Attorneys Generals like Kamala Harris fighting for a better deal in the settlement against the banks. The dump your bank movement would not have spread so quickly had OWS not gotten people focuses on the excesses of the financial industry.
It remains to be seen if Occupy can get people into office like the Tea Party did, though my feeling is that the anti-incumbent wave was coming regardless of the Tea Party. It was a natural reaction to the people suddenly catching on to the fact that they'd been hoodwinked for 8 years. It will remain to be seen if the Tea Party holds those offices in 2012. Some of those people swept into office in 2010 have become the same people lobbying against fixing the financial industry. This is a bad time in the country to be seen as a buddy of Jamie Dimon. SuperPac money brought many of those people into office. We will have to see if people truly are happy with their new members of Congress.
I know in California we may see some long term Democratic incumbents thrown out by upstart Democratic newcomers in November. Our ridiculous new open primary system has pushed out third parties but it has open the door for new Democrats and Republicans to mount good campaigns against people of their own party. (Open primaries cause over 20 races to end up as single party races.)
I guess I might be seen as a Pollyanna, but I've noticed that things in this country come in cycles. It takes a long time for Americans to get angry. When they do, then the pendulum has a chance to shift the other way.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
