Obama Backs Fracking to Create 600,000 Jobs, Vows Safe Drilling

Dungheap said:
I "picked" the opening paragraphs.
Your questions is irrelevant as I haven't advocated that anyone stop extracting or using fossil fuels.

By the by, if you don't have a problem with robust regulations, well-staffed and well-funded regulators and compensation for people who are adversely impacted by drilling operations, what the fuck are you arguing with me about?
Click to expand...

Are you fucking retarded? you are the one that came on here stomping your feet.

I stated that Darla was spouting the fear mongering BS. you came on and tried to highlight the woman in PA and ask me if 'she was a fear monger'. YOU are the one looking for a fight on this. I am telling you that I don't like the fear mongering bullshit. Period. You continue creating one straw man after another.

Fracking has its risks like other forms of energy production. It is my position that WE are the best suited to produce our OWN energy sources and WE are also thus able to monitor the environmental aspects of that production. do you agree with that or not? IF we are going to USE energy... what possible reason could we have for not producing our own? Can you answer those Dung? Or are you going to create yet another straw man?
 
Superfreak said:
Are you fucking retarded? you are the one that came on here stomping your feet.

I stated that Darla was spouting the fear mongering BS. you came on and tried to highlight the woman in PA and ask me if 'she was a fear monger'. YOU are the one looking for a fight on this. I am telling you that I don't like the fear mongering bullshit. Period. You continue creating one straw man after another.

Fracking has its risks like other forms of energy production. It is my position that WE are the best suited to produce our OWN energy sources and WE are also thus able to monitor the environmental aspects of that production. do you agree with that or not? IF we are going to USE energy... what possible reason could we have for not producing our own? Can you answer those Dung? Or are you going to create yet another straw man?
Click to expand...
II think you're both closer to agreement on this topic then you'd care to admit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
II think you're both closer to agreement on this topic then you'd care to admit.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point. It is only his straw men that he disagrees with (for the most part). My only problem is the people who use the accidents/mishaps/bad design/short cuts or whatever it is that leads to the occasional problem as some sort of justification to cease the activity in its entirety (at least in the US)
 
Superfreak said:
That was kind of my point. It is only his straw men that he disagrees with (for the most part). My only problem is the people who use the accidents/mishaps/bad design/short cuts or whatever it is that leads to the occasional problem as some sort of justification to cease the activity in its entirety (at least in the US)
Click to expand...

Actually, and this is kind of ironic, my cousin is doing a big presentation on fracking tonight. I'm going. I have a bunch of information about fracking in NY that I could send to you.

You are definitely downplaying the danger.
 
Darla said:
Actually, and this is kind of ironic, my cousin is doing a big presentation on fracking tonight. I'm going. I have a bunch of information about fracking in NY that I could send to you.

You are definitely downplaying the danger.
Click to expand...

Really... do highlight where it is you think I am downplaying it. I recognize that like EVERY single source of energy production we use today, fracking has its potential problems. But the left (primarily the environmental nut jobs) is over exaggerating the problems because they are all about NIMBY.
 
Superfreak said:
Really... do highlight where it is you think I am downplaying it. I recognize that like EVERY single source of energy production we use today, fracking has its potential problems. But the left (primarily the environmental nut jobs) is over exaggerating the problems because they are all about NIMBY.
Click to expand...

And you're downplaying the dangers.
 
Superfreak said:
Really... do highlight where it is you think I am downplaying it. I recognize that like EVERY single source of energy production we use today, fracking has its potential problems. But the left (primarily the environmental nut jobs) is over exaggerating the problems because they are all about NIMBY.
Click to expand...
Trust me on this. Political ideology has nothing to do with being a NIMBY. It has everything to do with what activity is occuring near soeones property. Even the most die hard South Carolina conservative would oppose off-shore drilling if he thought it would destroy business for his resort Hotel.

Want to turn a die hard conservative into a NIMBY? Tell them a Part B Permitted Hazardous Waste Facility is being constructed near their home.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Trust me on this. Political ideology has nothing to do with being a NIMBY. It has everything to do with what activity is occuring near soeones property. Even the most die hard South Carolina conservative would oppose off-shore drilling if he thought it would destroy business for his resort Hotel.

Want to turn a die hard conservative into a NIMBY? Tell them a Part B Permitted Hazardous Waste Facility is being constructed near their home.
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't give a damn.
 
I don't know all the risks and I don't know whether it's FEAR MONGERING to point out the actual problems that fracking has caused to date and I don't know if SF is just downplaying all the dangers.

The dangers can be mitigated (but not eliminated) with appropriate regulation and oversight. We don't have that. So it's not an issue of whether there is risk involved, it's an issue of whether there is appropriate risk control measures in place. There aren't. And there aren't compensation schemes in place for when things go to shit. Until those things are in place, I don't think expanded drilling should happen.
 
Dungheap said:
I don't know all the risks and I don't know whether it's FEAR MONGERING to point out the actual problems that fracking has caused to date and I don't know if SF is just downplaying all the dangers.

The dangers can be mitigated (but not eliminated) with appropriate regulation and oversight. We don't have that. So it's not an issue of whether there is risk involved, it's an issue of whether there is appropriate risk control measures in place. There aren't. And there aren't compensation schemes in place for when things go to shit. Until those things are in place, I don't think expanded drilling should happen.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you. I manage a lot of PDW in the Texas and Louissiana region in the last 5 years and it has been a significant problem down there. I believe that the Haliburton loophole needs to eliminated and I think it's fair that the PDW exemption is to lax and that a better program for managing PDW should be implemented though I don't think full RCRA regulation would be a good idea.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The proposed pipeline HAS NOT been objectively vetted for safety and environmental impact
Click to expand...
The State Department completed the environmental impact statement back in 2010, I believe.......are they not objective?.....
Click to expand...

Your right regarding the misuse of the word "objective" on my part....I should have stated "finally" Here's an up-to-date on what the State Dept. has to say. Observe:

Rejecting Pipeline Proposal, Obama Blames Congress
By JOHN M. BRODER and DAN FROSCH
Published: January 18, 2012
The State Department, which has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the potential environmental harm to sensitive grasslands and aquifers along its path. The agency recommended that the permit be denied, and Mr. Obama concurred.

“As the State Department made clear last month,” the president said in a statement, “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/state-dept-to-put-oil-pipeline-on-hold.html
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your right regarding the misuse of the word "objective" on my part....I should have stated "finally" Here's an up-to-date on what the State Dept. has to say. Observe:

Rejecting Pipeline Proposal, Obama Blames Congress
By JOHN M. BRODER and DAN FROSCH
Published: January 18, 2012
The State Department, which has authority over the project because it crosses an international border, said there was not enough time to draw a new route for the pipeline and assess the potential environmental harm to sensitive grasslands and aquifers along its path. The agency recommended that the permit be denied, and Mr. Obama concurred.

“As the State Department made clear last month,” the president said in a statement, “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/state-dept-to-put-oil-pipeline-on-hold.html
Click to expand...

might be interesting if the State Department report had actually said that....given that it was completed BEFORE the Congressional Republicans insisted on Obama making a decision within 60 days, its highly unlikely.....
 
Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line: fracking poses a threat to ground water and can set off ground tremors. The proposed pipeline HAS NOT been objectively vetted for safety and environmental impact, and in the end WILL NOT supply fuel to America, but will process it for FOREIGN consumption.
Click to expand...
It has been vetted. But please... do provide evidence that the fuel will not be used in America, but rather for foreign consumption.
Click to expand...

As for exactly whom will the oil be refined for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

And I was mistaken...it has been "vetted" but not fully approved:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/state-dept-to-put-oil-pipeline-on-hold.html?_r=1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top