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

[PostmodernProphet]

If I'm not mistaken it was at this point I saw Boehner clapping and Biden not clapping.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The proposed pipeline HAS NOT been objectively vetted for safety and environmental impact

The State Department completed the environmental impact statement back in 2010, I believe.......are they not objective?.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ok, if it is so bad why is Obama supporting this? What is the difference betweent this and the pipeline?

You see... the left tends to only selectively read what they post...

Many water supplies in northern Pennsylvania have long contained detectable levels of methane, because of poorly constructed water wells and the unusual geologic features here.

Now it goes on to say that this particular case has assigned blame to drilling. Bottom line, no matter what method of energy production, you are going to have accidents. You are also going to have situations where shoddy work leads to problems. The left loves to highlight these cases and then use it as an excuse to drill in Saudi or Iran or Venezuela or anywhere but here. You see, we should just let those brown people have to deal with the problems of producing the energy we suck up on a daily basis. Fuck the brown people... WE ARE AMERICANS and we don't want it in our back yard. (but please brown people, keep producing it because we want to keep driving and we love our heat in the winter and that wonderful AC in the summer... you know, that stuff you can't afford because you have to deal with the problems of energy production and we don't.)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

By "fear mongering morons," do you mean people like Sherry Vargson:

. Drilling "can be done safely," she said. "I believe that the technology is there." But she added: "I believe that for the most part the industry takes a lot of shortcuts."

No. She obviously is not a fearmonger. But I guess you failed to read the above. Didn't you? But thank you for highlighting exactly what I am talking about. You used her case to try and promote the FEAR... its pathetic. But I suppose you just prefer those brown people keep producing our energy for us. Right? Just let them deal with it. I am sure their environmental standards far exceed ours.

 

[Bonestorm]

No. She obviously is not a fearmonger. But I guess you failed to read the above. Didn't you? But thank you for highlighting exactly what I am talking about. You used her case to try and promote the FEAR... its pathetic. But I suppose you just prefer those brown people keep producing our energy for us. Right? Just let them deal with it. I am sure their environmental standards far exceed ours.

Oh, so you meant the Wall Street Journal. OK.

As for the "brown people" thing, they can implement whatever environmental standards they wish. I don't believe our environmental standards should be relaxed to promote increased drilling. I'm fine with increased drilling provided that there is rigorous environmental and safety oversight by well-staffed and well-funded regulatory agencies and subject to the extraction companies paying into a fund (or posting a bond or procuring suitable insurance) before extraction begins to ensure that people adversely effected are properly compensated in a timely manner.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

It has been vetted. But please... do provide evidence that the fuel will not be used in America, but rather for foreign consumption.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh, so you meant the Wall Street Journal. OK.

What? If you actually READ the ENTIRE article, it is not one that is designed to promote fear. When YOU cherry pick portions of the article that highlight the bad, but ignore the rest, THAT is fear mongering.

As for the "brown people" thing, they can implement whatever environmental standards they wish. I don't believe our environmental standards should be relaxed to promote increased drilling. I'm fine with increased drilling provided that there is rigorous environmental and safety oversight by well-staffed and well-funded regulatory agencies and subject to the extraction companies paying into a fund (or posting a bond or procuring suitable insurance) before extraction begins to ensure that people adversely effected are properly compensated in a timely manner.

ROFLMAO... like I stated many times before, you are a complete hack. NO ONE is suggesting that we relax our environmental standards in order to use fracking technology. We should do everything we can to make sure it is implemented properly. You obviously are going to continue ignoring the facts and just stick with your fear mongering. That is your choice.

The rest of us can actually READ the article can see that most of the problems they are associating with the drilling is because of POORLY CONSTRUCTED wells.

As I stated, you don't care what the brown people have to suffer through as long as YOU get your energy needs met. Just keep shipping our money and our jobs overseas so that THEY can deal with the environmental dangers.

Tell us Dung... if everyone stopped producing fossil fuels due to the potential dangers... what exactly would we do for energy?

 

[Damocles]

What? If you actually READ the ENTIRE article, it is not one that is designed to promote fear. When YOU cherry pick portions of the article that highlight the bad, but ignore the rest, THAT is fear mongering.



ROFLMAO... like I stated many times before, you are a complete hack. NO ONE is suggesting that we relax our environmental standards in order to use fracking technology. We should do everything we can to make sure it is implemented properly. You obviously are going to continue ignoring the facts and just stick with your fear mongering. That is your choice.

The rest of us can actually READ the article can see that most of the problems they are associating with the drilling is because of POORLY CONSTRUCTED wells.

As I stated, you don't care what the brown people have to suffer through as long as YOU get your energy needs met. Just keep shipping our money and our jobs overseas so that THEY can deal with the environmental dangers.

Tell us Dung... if everyone stopped producing fossil fuels due to the potential dangers... what exactly would we do for energy?

Bicycle Generators, man... That's what kids are for.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm not all that familiar with fracking. Is this a good or bad thing and how does it differ from the pipeline in terms of the envirnoment?



President Barack Obama, in a State of the Union address delivered 11 months before election day, pushed drilling for natural gas in shale formations as a potential boost to the economy.

Hydraulic fracturing, which injects a mix of water, sand and chemicals underground to free gas trapped in rock, could create 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade, according to a White House document released before Obama's speech. The process, called fracking, is among a list of energy policies Obama said would fuel economic growth.

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy," Obama will say, according to a copy of the speech released by the White House.

Obama also reiterated support for conservation and cleaner sources of power, which have been themes of his administration. He announced incentives to make industries more energy efficient, and reiterated his call for Congress to a larger percentage of the nation's power comes from low-pollution sources by 2035.

"This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs," Obama planned to say.


'Safe Drilling'


Environmental groups that are a key Democratic constituency fear natural-gas fracking poses risks to water supplies, and Obama said the drive for new drilling would be accompanied by regulations to ensure "safe drilling practices." Those would include a requirement that companies operating on public lands disclose the chemicals used in the fracking fluid.

Obama's energy themes were part of a speech that emphasized the role of manufacturing in creating jobs and he pressed Congress to adopt what he said was a fairer tax code by ensuring millionaires and billionaires pay at least 30 percent in income taxes.

Before the address, Republicans sought to contrast Obama's pledge to use energy policy to create jobs with his denial of a permit to TransCanada Corp. for the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline to connect Canada's oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast.

House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, invited Jay Churchill, manager of ConocoPhillips' Wood River refinery in Roxana, Illinois, and Ray Brooks, refining division manager at Marathon Petroleum Corp. in Robinson, Illinois, as his guests to sit in the House visitors' gallery.


Canada Pipeline


He said in a statement that the companies would benefit from building the pipeline.

TransCanada has said its proposed pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and carry 700,000 barrels of crude per day.

The State Department in a report to Congress said the project would create from 5,000 to 6,000 jobs for the two years it would take to complete, citing TransCanada's own labor expenses submitted as part of its application.

Environmental groups oppose the project because producing crude from the oil sands releases more greenhouse gases. Transporting it over the more than 1,600 miles of steel pipe also raises risks of a spill, critics say.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, who was to deliver the Republican rebuttal to Obama, called Keystone a "perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands" and said in an advance copy of his address that Obama has sought to stifle energy production in the U.S., according to excerpts released by Republicans.


Decision Deadline


Obama said last week a 60-day decline imposed by Congress didn't give him sufficient time to weigh the risks of an alternative pipeline route that would go around the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region in Nebraska.

As he backed more domestic oil and gas production, Obama also pledged support for renewable sources of power.

Among First Lady Michelle Obama's guests was an employee of Energetx Composites in Holland, Michigan, a company that benefits from a wind production tax credit set to expire at the end of the year.

The expiration of the credit puts manufacturing jobs in "peril," Denise Bode, chief executive officer of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement before the speech.

The Washington-based trade group has more than 2,500 members, including General Electric Co. and Vestas Wind Systems A/S.


Efficiency Initiative


An energy efficiency initiative outlined by Obama could cut $100 billion from the nation's energy bills. Obama also pledged that the Defense Department would make the largest renewable energy purchases in history.

Obama's energy goals have met resistance in Congress. His proposal to cap carbon dioxide emissions to reduce the risks of climate change died in the Senate in 2010.

Congress has yet to act on a clean-energy standard, which Obama pitched a year ago as a replacement to his climate bill, to require more energy from low-pollution sources.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat and chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, plans to introduce legislation promoting a clean energy standard this year. It will likely face opposition in the Republican-led House, which generally opposes federal mandates on states.

Obama also repeated his call from last year to repeal tax credits for the oil and gas industry. That effort also failed to win broad support in Congress, after producers said the measures would push more production and jobs outside the U.S.


Working Americans


"We know our industry can put Americans to work," said Jack Gerard, president of the petroleum group, in a conference call with reporters prior to the speech. "We've been doing so, we're part of the solution that he's looking for."

While the administration has been criticized by the Washington-based petroleum group for not developing fossil fuel resources, oil and gas production have been on the rise since Obama took office.

U.S. natural gas production averaged 1.89 trillion cubic feet a month through October, 13 percent higher than the average during President George W. Bush's two terms, according to Energy Department data.

Crude oil production is 2 percent higher, the department said.

The president's promotion of natural gas follows an announcement by Chesapeake Energy Corp., the second-biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., that it would cut back on drilling to try to stop a price slide in prices.

Obama imposed a temporary moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after BP Plc's Macondo well exploded in April 2010, killing 11 workers and sending 4.9 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico.

Gerard said production has increased even under Obama's policies, which the group has said discourages energy development.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...25/bloomberg_articlesLYBSTC0D9L3501-LYC0R.DTL

I'll give you a brief run down of Hydraulic Fracturing, how it works and it's pros and cons sans political editorial.

Vast quantities of natural gas are trapped under ground in inaccesable pockets by layers of brittle and friable shale rock. What fracking technology does is to use a combination of corrosive chemicals, fluids (water) and abrasive media and inject them into wells drilled into these underground shale lavers. This process fractures the shale rock and freeing the pockets of natural gas to be collected from the well.

The pros for this technology is that it permits access to large resevoirs of natural gas (a projected 100 year supply) that were previously inaccesable. It represents billions of dollars in energy, chemicals, jobs and lowered dependence on foreign oil and less clean sources of fossil fuels like coal and oil.

The cons. A significant number of fracked wells have had improperly sealed well casings. That has led to large scale contamination of ground water, aquifers, nearby navigable waterways not to mention large levels of fugitive emmisions of VOC's. Though the occurances of this have been few when it has happened the consequences have been disastrous and wide spread.


Of larger concern is that fracking creates large volumes of waste materials. Much of that waste is of low risk of being a hazard to the environment and human health. Because of that and to help develop this technology the federal government gave the gas and oil industry an exemption for managing petroleum derived waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA is the main body of regulation for managing the transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. Much of Petroleum Derived Waste (PDW) would be classified as hazardous waste under RCRA but most of that is a low level risk that can be managed responsibly with out being required to meet costly treatment standards under RCRA. Again, I emphasize, "If managed responsibly", that has all to often not been the case.

It is the exemption from RCRA that has been the major source of problems with fracking technology. Fracking generates large volumes of process water contaminated with hydrocarbons and fracking chemicals. Missmanagement of this process water in open pit lagoons and ponds has often resulted in the contamination of ground water and nearby navigable water ways. It's also has caused problems for nearby residents with fugitive hydrocarbons accumulating in the low areas of homes and businesses (ie. basements, crawlspaces, etc). Then there are also a portion of the petroleum derived waste (PDW) that are a small percentage of the overall volume of PDW generated but still represent substantial volumes of waste that are highly hazardous. These are wastes contain very dangerous levels of hydrofluoric acid, arsenic, benzene and other highly hazardous chemicals and becuase they are classified as PDW they are exempt from the hazardous waste management laws under RCRA. This has led to much abuse and mismanagement of these highly hazardous waste which are not properly treated, stored or disposed of.

Then you have the issue of air quality. Because much of the PDW is saturated with hydrocarbons in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) these VOC's readily and rapidly evaporate into the atmosphere and react with other pollutants to cause high levels of ground level ozone plumes. Those can be pretty rough on the young, old and those with respiratory disorders.

Another concern with the PDW waste from fracking is that in 2005 under Bush/Cheney administration a bill was passed (refered to as the Haliburtion loophole) which exempts fracking process water from Safe Drinking Water Act standards. This has led to abuse and mismanagement of hazardous process water. Another problem with the Haliburton loophole is it exempts fracking from TRI and EPCRA reporting requirements meaning these companies do not have to disclose what chemicals are being used, some of which are highly hazardous and/or highly toxic which is a cause for concern should an incident should occurr as emergency and public health personell and the public at large would have no idea of what they are being exposed too. Though there is current legislation in place under the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemicals Act (FRAC Act) which would repeal the Haliburtion Loophoole.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This article on fracking is written by a guy who wrote The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality. He went into the article "assuming that it would be easy to show that hydraulic fracturing, or blasting open rock deep underground, directly threatens drinking water supplies." But "learned [though his] reporting ... that while this may not be impossible–and while more research needs to be performed to determine how likely it is–it doesn’t appear to be the largest concern." It is a short but interesting article.

I think that would be misrepresenting fracking technology. Most fracking occurs far below the levels of aquafers and far, far, far below ground water. The shale deposit are usually well below layers of impermeable layers of sedimantary rocks. Ground waster and aquifer contamination have more often then not resulted from faulty well casings or the mismanagement of petroleum derived waste and process waters. These are problems that can be managed. They just have to be recognized as problems and regulated accordingly.

 

[Bonestorm]

What? If you actually READ the ENTIRE article, it is not one that is designed to promote fear. When YOU cherry pick portions of the article that highlight the bad, but ignore the rest, THAT is fear mongering.

I provided a link to the article and posted the first two paragraphs. I suppose I could have posted the whole thing, but I reckoned that anyone who wanted to read it would click the link and didn't want to clog the thread with stuff that people may not want to read. Courtesy to the Board and to the reader is "FEAR MOMGERING?"

ROFLMAO... like I stated many times before, you are a complete hack. NO ONE is suggesting that we relax our environmental standards in order to use fracking technology. We should do everything we can to make sure it is implemented properly. You obviously are going to continue ignoring the facts and just stick with your fear mongering. That is your choice.

The rest of us can actually READ the article can see that most of the problems they are associating with the drilling is because of POORLY CONSTRUCTED wells.

As I stated, you don't care what the brown people have to suffer through as long as YOU get your energy needs met. Just keep shipping our money and our jobs overseas so that THEY can deal with the environmental dangers.

Tell us Dung... if everyone stopped producing fossil fuels due to the potential dangers... what exactly would we do for energy?

Apparently, SF you have no idea what is occurring (mostly at the state level) with respect to regulatory oversight of fracking operations, but it isn't pretty. It's isn't FEAR MONGERING to recognize the fact that there are environmental concerns with respect to fracking and that, even with the most robust regulatory environment (which is a far, far cry from what we have) accidents will happen. That being the case, I don't think it's too much to ask that we have a robust regulatory environment and provision for financial compensation to victims in the event of an accident before the accident happens.

And that's a nice little straw man you have about people stopping the extraction and use of fossil fuels, but I haven't advocated for that to stop. It would be nice, however, if we focused on dramatically increasing the funding for conservation efforts and development of alternative fuel sources (as opposed to subsidizing fossil fuels) so we can use as little fossil fuel as possible,

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's a good thing as long as you don't mind your drinking water spontaneously bursting into flames. So, conservatives should love it.

Not managed properly that is certainly a risk.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LMAO... obviously the fear mongering morons succeeded in brainwashing you.

Oh no, fracking is perfectly safe, there's never been a problem with fracking! [/sarcasm]. Don't you have some kool-aid you need to drink?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok, if it is so bad why is Obama supporting this? What is the difference betweent this and the pipeline?

Well I wouldnt' say it is "So bad". Hydraulic Fracturing is on it's way to becoming a mature technology but the fact is, is that it's still a developing technology that has come a long way but still has significant and substantial issues and problems that must be addressed but I don't see them as anything that cannot be solved. It's really a process of learing what the risck and problems are and then determing what administrative and engineering controls are needed.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Frakking is much more dangerous to the environment than pipelines depending on what they use.

I don't know about that. Both represent significant threats to human health and the environment if not managed properly and both are boons to humanity if they are managed correctly.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I provided a link to the article and posted the first two paragraphs. I suppose I could have posted the whole thing, but I reckoned that anyone who wanted to read it would click the link and didn't want to clog the thread with stuff that people may not want to read. Courtesy to the Board and to the reader is "FEAR MOMGERING?"

LMAO... when you cherry pick the 'scare' part of the article and don't highlight any of the rest... yeah... it is fear mongering.

Apparently, SF you have no idea what is occurring (mostly at the state level) with respect to regulatory oversight of fracking operations, but it isn't pretty. It's isn't FEAR MONGERING to recognize the fact that there are environmental concerns with respect to fracking and that, even with the most robust regulatory environment (which is a far, far cry from what we have) accidents will happen. That being the case, I don't think it's too much to ask that we have a robust regulatory environment and provision for financial compensation to victims in the event of an accident before the accident happens.

you really are quite good at creating straw men. I have no problem with regulations to protect against legitimate environmental concerns. AS I STATED... it is the POOR DESIGN of wells that has been the major issue. It is not the fracking that is the problem. It is in the design.

My point was the fear mongering bullshit of 'well as long as you don't mind your water spontaneously combusting' (I think in part she was kidding/exaggerating) that I don't like.

So you can build all the straw men you want and then you can tear them down all you want. But the process is a waste of time if you wish to actually debate. Because not once have I stated that their should be no regulations or that people affected by mismangement/poor design shouldn't be compensated.

You may also go back to telling us how the brown people should keep producing our energy for us.

I can't help but notice that you failed to address my ACTUAL question to you. See what happens when you focus your time on creating straw men? You end up missing the actual questions people pose to you.

And that's a nice little straw man you have about people stopping the extraction and use of fossil fuels, but I haven't advocated for that to stop. It would be nice, however, if we focused on dramatically increasing the funding for conservation efforts and development of alternative fuel sources (as opposed to subsidizing fossil fuels) so we can use as little fossil fuel as possible,

It wasn't a straw man moron. I was asking you a QUESTION. I was not suggesting that was your position. I was asking what would happen if EVERYONE took your position that we should not use fracking etc... because EVERY form of fossil fuel production/extraction has its risks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh no, fracking is perfectly safe, there's never been a problem with fracking! [/sarcasm]. Don't you have some kool-aid you need to drink?

Oh look, Mutt can make straw men too. Tell me moron, where did I say it was perfectly safe? Where did I say there had never been problems with it?

Hint: If you actually READ my positions, you will see that I stated just the opposite.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... when you cherry pick the 'scare' part of the article and don't highlight any of the rest... yeah... it is fear mongering.

I "picked" the opening paragraphs.

you really are quite good at creating straw men. I have no problem with regulations to protect against legitimate environmental concerns. AS I STATED... it is the POOR DESIGN of wells that has been the major issue. It is not the fracking that is the problem. It is in the design.

My point was the fear mongering bullshit of 'well as long as you don't mind your water spontaneously combusting' (I think in part she was kidding/exaggerating) that I don't like.

So you can build all the straw men you want and then you can tear them down all you want. But the process is a waste of time if you wish to actually debate. Because not once have I stated that their should be no regulations or that people affected by mismangement/poor design shouldn't be compensated.

You may also go back to telling us how the brown people should keep producing our energy for us.

I can't help but notice that you failed to address my ACTUAL question to you. See what happens when you focus your time on creating straw men? You end up missing the actual questions people pose to you.

And that's a nice little straw man you have about people stopping the extraction and use of fossil fuels, but I haven't advocated for that to stop. It would be nice, however, if we focused on dramatically increasing the funding for conservation efforts and development of alternative fuel sources (as opposed to subsidizing fossil fuels) so we can use as little fossil fuel as possible,

[/QUOTE]

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?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Bicycle Generators, man... That's what kids are for.

and consider how much healthier this would be for them than cleaning schools!........

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Oh, so you meant the Wall Street Journal. OK.

As for the "brown people" thing, they can implement whatever environmental standards they wish. I don't believe our environmental standards should be relaxed to promote increased drilling. I'm fine with increased drilling provided that there is rigorous environmental and safety oversight by well-staffed and well-funded regulatory agencies and subject to the extraction companies paying into a fund (or posting a bond or procuring suitable insurance) before extraction begins to ensure that people adversely effected are properly compensated in a timely manner.

I think you can make a good argument for relaxing environmental standards to help promote the development of the technology that could be of huge importance, economocilly, strategically and environmentally. It's a matter of doing it right and not relaxing the standards to much and throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Much of the PDW and Process water has low level of contamination and are a low risk to human health and the environment and can be managed very affectively under a program that is less stringent then meeting the full and costly requirements under RCRA and the SDWA.

The problem with the current exemption for PDW and fracking process water is that they are an across the board exemption exempting these waste from having to meet any management or treatment standards what so ever. That's a serious flaw. What is needed for PDW is a program like the wildely succesful used oil and universal waste programs under RCRA in which these large volumes of low risk wastes have a lower level of regulatory requirements for treatment and management standards but still must meet specific minimum treatment and management standards. So we can have our cake and eat it too in this case is that we can lower the degree of regulation and substantially lower the cost of managing these waste while still requiring specific management and treatment standards that would protect human health and the environment.

Again, I would look the the used oil rule and the universal waste rules under RCRA as an example on how to proceed.