Elizabeth Warren et al on Fracking

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-fr...-sites-1466091 Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Please explain to me why this means federal politicians should ban fracking. This is a matter the states, the localities, and the landowners and mineral owners should decide, not Elizabeth Warren.

Under Colorado Senate Bill 181, localities can effectively ban fracking, or require more stringent regulations than the state regulator. Some places will ban it. Other places, like Weld County where people are overwhelmingly in favor of fracking, will not. Maybe Colorado and other places will ban drilling within 2000 feet of homes as a result of the study you cite. That would make sense if what's in your article is true and complete. As to frac chemicals, most producing states require them to be disclosed, although there are exemptions that vary from state to state for trade secrets. Again, this should be a matter for the people at the state and local level to decide.

And as to the final point of your article, of course the health and safety of oilfield workers is a big concern and should be regulated. And new studies about the effects of sand, etc. should be taken into account in how the workplace is regulated by the states and OSHA. This is already happening, there's not some huge government conspiracy to fuck over workers so oilfield service companies can make more money.

This thread isn't exactly about methane in drinking water. I know I brought it up. The gas can escape into unventilated spaces and affect human health.



https://extension.psu.edu/methane-ga...om-water-wells

By Jeffery Martin Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

So what adverse affects do these hydrocarbons have on human health and how does fracking manifest them into the environment?

Damn eccieuser, I just noticed the cat on fire video. Well, while we disagree on energy and the economy, you've got a damn fine sense of humor. Seriously. Redhot should take lessons in video selection from you.

So what adverse affects do these hydrocarbons have on human health and how does fracking manifest them into the environment? Originally Posted by Levianon17

And good point Levianon. AOC at one point was advocating banning cows because of their methane emissions. If we could take out humans and other animals that could only help with global warming.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

this video is an abomination to katmanity! PETA will be looking for you!


and Tom is after you too!







BAHHAAAAAAA

Please explain to me why this means federal politicians should ban fracking. This is a matter the states, the localities, and the landowners and mineral owners should decide, not Elizabeth Warren.
Originally Posted by Tiny

You never know if there is . . .

some huge corporate conspiracy to fuck over workers so oilfield service companies can make more money. Originally Posted by Tiny

Any lawsuit would be litigated and decided by the SCOTUS to see if an appeal is warranted anyways. Safety versus money. Labor versus business. Would it be okay for one state to allow an unethical and unsafe business practice when another outlaws it? I think not.

A basic national safety regulatory program is a good idea. I understand there will be cracks in the system. One regulation doesn't fly in this state, when it makes perfect sense in that state.

So what adverse affects do these hydrocarbons have on human health and how does fracking manifest them into the environment? Originally Posted by Levianon17

Green house gases causes floods.

Damn eccieuser, I just noticed the cat on fire video. Well, while we disagree on energy and the economy, you've got a damn fine sense of humor. Seriously. Redhot should take lessons in video selection from you. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph.../fracking-ban/

https://www.isidewith.com/candidates...ental/fracking

You never know if there is . . .




Any lawsuit would be litigated and decided by the SCOTUS to see if an appeal is warranted anyways. Safety versus money. Labor versus business. Would it be okay for one state to allow an unethical and unsafe business practice when another outlaws it? I think not.

A basic national safety regulatory program is a good idea. I understand there will be cracks in the system. One regulation doesn't fly in this state, when it makes perfect sense in that state.




Green house gases causes floods.



Thank you.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph.../fracking-ban/

https://www.isidewith.com/candidates...ental/fracking Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

let me pose a very simple question. despite the known geologic instability of fracking, does it make sense for the US to abandon fracking in the short term to remain energy independent while exploring other ways of generating energy?


yes or no?

let me pose a very simple question. despite the known geologic instability of fracking, does it make sense for the US to abandon fracking in the short term to remain energy independent while exploring other ways of generating energy?


yes or no? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Knowing the instability of fracking and still being able to remain energy independent while exploring other ways of energy, why wouldn't it make sense to temporarily suspend fracking.

What say you, sir?

Knowing the instability of fracking and still being able to remain energy independent while exploring other ways of energy, why wouldn't it make sense to temporarily suspend fracking.

What say you, sir? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

i say NO. fracking is for the short term a huge boon to US energy independence. fracking can be safely regulated now. but to end it would be wrong. Warren is an idiot. and a socialist. fuck her.

"There will never be a president Warren" - TWK


the US should go for nuclear power. and alternative energy .. but nuclear power is the fastest .. and safest clean source. what has stalled nuclear power in the US, unlike France and Germany and Japan? Government over-regulation of course. nuclear power can be done safely. your beloved Government has over-regulated it .. and the socialists you champion won't even discuss it ..

what say you, sir?

Very quickly, I am in total favor of nuclear energy. A meaningful discussion, at the highest levels, on this source of energy is needed. It's NUCLEAR POWER. Regulations are necessary. Leave it to the private sector? I don't think so.



The words nuclear power scare a lot of weirdos on this side of the spectrum.

She's BSC

You never know if there is . . .




Any lawsuit would be litigated and decided by the SCOTUS to see if an appeal is warranted anyways. Safety versus money. Labor versus business. Would it be okay for one state to allow an unethical and unsafe business practice when another outlaws it? I think not.

A basic national safety regulatory program is a good idea. I understand there will be cracks in the system. One regulation doesn't fly in this state, when it makes perfect sense in that state.




Green house gases causes floods.



Thank you.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph.../fracking-ban/

https://www.isidewith.com/candidates...ental/fracking Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're wrong on all fronts. The air we breath contains mostly Nitrogen over 75%, C02 levels are maintained at just over 1%. When you read articles that suggest large quantities of C02 or Methane that is only readings of a given volume in a given location that is not constant and wouldn't be an accurate indicator of Global Warming or Climate Change.

I haven't heard of anyone in Texas who refused to sign a gas lease due to fracking concerns.. nor have I heard of any who refused to cash their lease checks.

what I have heard is "damn, I missed out!", from homeowners who were not afforded an opportunity to sign a gas lease.

I haven't heard of anyone in Texas who refused to sign a gas lease due to fracking concerns.. nor have I heard of any who refused to cash their lease checks.

what I have heard is "damn, I missed out!", from homeowners who were not afforded an opportunity to sign a gas lease. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Very few of those with qualified land to be explored and or fracked were not afforded an opportunity to sign a gas lease.

And I've heard it's many of these who passed that are now involved in the production of said "fracking dangerous" videos.

Excellent. Love your analogy. It's all about the money.
The cigarette lobby is very powerful and the government did tangle with them before to get the warnings on the sides of cigarettes. However, that's it. Depending on how much money is involved will determine how far they will go.

Eccieuser9500 should have posted what you just wrote instead of posting a video. Whether fracking is detrimental to the environment or to our health money and profits are always going to be the determining factor. The Government talks about banning firearms, fracking a host of other things, but they never talk about banning fucking cigarettes do they? No of course not, the reason money. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Knowing the instability of fracking and still being able to remain energy independent while exploring other ways of energy, why wouldn't it make sense to temporarily suspend fracking.

What say you, sir? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

No. Here's why.

1. The idea that we'd remain energy independent is a pipe dream. We'd be importing lots of oil, and probably LNG (liquefied natural gas) too.

2. You're going to put many oilfield and office workers out of work, hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum. A source in my post above said up to 15 million although that's overblown. Also you're going to have farmers, ranchers and others who thought they had a property worth millions, and now they're back scrounging to pay on their bank loans. Their wives go back to shopping for clothes at Walmart instead of Dilliards and won't put out. These people are going to be mad as hell and they've got guns. Lots of guns. Hong Kong is going to look like a cakewalk compared to what's going to happen in places like Odessa, Casper and Oklahoma City.

3. You're way, way over concerned about the environmental effects of fracking. You've actually missed a couple, being stress on aquifers from the large amounts of water used in fracking and minor earthquakes from injecting produced water in areas with basement faults. Anyway these are all minor compared to the economic benefits in places like North Dakota and the Permian Basin. The number of people who die working in the oilfield or from environmental effects of fracking is not large, I'd guess under a couple of hundred per year, compared to 10,000+ from coal. Yes, there's some danger, just as there is from living in the Caribbean (hurricanes) or working as a cop or a fireman. The people who work in the industry and the people who live in places like West Texas and Wyoming are well aware of the risks and are overwhelmingly in favor of fracking. Again, this is none of Washington's business.

4. Energy costs will go up. $3.00 a gallon for gasoline and doubling of electricity costs in areas where there power generation is from natural gas are not bad estimates.

As to nuclear, I agree it should be an option. Right now, with dirt cheap natural gas from fracking, no one's going to build nuclear plants because the gas is cheaper. That's the way it should be, government shouldn't be hugely subsidizing nuclear to make it competitive.