Here we go again: Russian military hacked Burisma searching for Biden dirt.
- Thread starter DrHoops
- Start date
Since CO lives in Denver, I'll use this story here pointing to attempts to frack inside Denver city limits. There is fracking inside Denton, TX and Fort Worth. There is fracking in Inglewood, CA. I can't imagine people are too far removed from Inglewood.
We aren't very good at explaining technology to people, we give them a "you can trust us" explanation. That isn't working these days. In addition, if you Google it, fracking is far more often to occur near poverty areas than Rex Tillerson's home. My wild theory, and tell me if you think this is wrong, fracking would be far more likely to be allowed adjacent to Gary than Carmel.
There are places in America that there are almost nobody. But if there are small towns, they may have issues. A furniture store in Martinsville closed down because SR37 was going to be closed for a year and their suppliers refuse to allow their trucks on the type of roads they would have to be on to get to that store. If you live in one of these rural areas with fracking, you have to put up with that increased traffic even if you are miles from the site. A lot of the roads may not be designed for the traffic.
And it will be a growing problem. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Columbus all sit above the Utica shale. Companies will want more and more access. I am not opposing fracking as a whole, but we need a consensus on standards. For example, Pennsylvania outlaws fracking within 1000 feet of an inhabited dwelling. That is actually more than most states and still others have no requirements. What is wrong with making sure no one can sink a well too close to a home (at least not without compensation)?
1. Wasn’t a slight hurt at all. The proposal would have thrown many people out of work, would have blasted tax revenue in many places, and would have driven the “billion dollar industry” elsewhere.
2. Are you suggesting the top Dems are lying? Or Stupid?
3. In other words a ban through regulation.
Are you kidding? Horizontal drilling can go for miles from a well site and is thousands of feet deep. Who cares? And if they do, why should they?
Wrong. Look at the WaPo chart. Biden would ban and Pete would ban “ new” fracking which means all fracking. It also shows that Pete isn’t very smart and knowledgeable about this.
So why did Rex Tillerson care? he was profiting from it and filed suit to stop it near his home.
How is all fracking new fracking? You mean every secod of every day we are starting new wells as the old ones exhaust immediately?
1)Ummm… no. Having to move your drill site 2000 feet is not going to drive out business. The fracking process involves drilling downward and then drilling horizontally....as you noted, possibly in distances measured in miles. So you can still get access to a majority of the area even if you have to move the collection tower. It would be one thing if we are talking about trying to locate a well head anywhere in the LA area, but this is Colorado with a significantly lower population density.
2) I'll be more polite and just say "ineptly uninformed." Though it wouldn't surprise me if they are informed and lying. Many many politicians have spouted greater BS before and will again (case in point, we are still waiting on the check from Mexico for our current wall construction). I will give the benefit of the doubt and go with the "uninformed" descriptor.
3) Yes. Again, I am sure it is their final goal. It is just not one that can be done immediately with executive power. That was my original assertation. They can not ban it on the first day, or at least not without some serious economic consequences that would all but guarantee a single term to their post.
I wouldn't want one of those giant windmills in my backyard either, though I have no major aversion to them in general (not-with-standing the thousands of birds they kill every year).
That is a good point. Sometime after the car was mainstream, we got the idea that industry and business should be far away from residential. Most places developed zoning to make sure that happens. It made us far more dependent on the car as everyone suddenly had a commute. For most people, living across the street from a warehouse, a factory, a McDonald's, or just about anything, is something to be avoided. If nothing else, they create traffic, I never see homes listed with "on very busy road" as a selling point.
Wind turbines kill less birds than cell phone towers and cats.
Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/15683843
Also, energy companies aren’t just “putting them up”. They pay farmers $3,000-$8,000 per megawatt. Most modern turbines generate 2-3 megawatts. It’s good rainy day money in case of a bad crop.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...-helps-take-the-sting-out-of-a-bad-year/#gref
Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/15683843
Also, energy companies aren’t just “putting them up”. They pay farmers $3,000-$8,000 per megawatt. Most modern turbines generate 2-3 megawatts. It’s good rainy day money in case of a bad crop.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.co...-helps-take-the-sting-out-of-a-bad-year/#gref
Last edited:
I don't want a wind turbine in my backyard because they are huge over 500 feet tall and who will maintain them if the windfarm goes bankrupt as they are usually very minimally funded but the bird thing is way overblow. It's ludicrous that Trump cites bird deaths in his speeches as you know he could care less about them.
Don’t understand your question. Fracking a well does not continue once a well is completed and production begins.
Congrats to COH on another threadjack. Gold star work here.
Fracking is part of the process. When fracking is done, the average oil well produces 11-12 years. No one that I know of is speaking of stopping existing wells. If Pete served 4 years, I seriously doubt we would see a problem.
Second, define "new fracking". Neither of us know where the process is considered starting. As of mid-July, California approved 2365 new wells. New may well be new from the permitting process. Since we know there is little chance CA drilled close to 2365 wells in 6 months, there could well be a backlog of new wells.
Further, do you think there is any chance the McConnell judiciary upholds a ban?
Part of what process? A well is only drilled once. Fracking is part of the drilling process.
One has to find a location, one has to get permits, one has to move the equipment to the location. One has to assemble the equipment, inject the liquid, recover the liquid, move the fracking equipment, pump the oil. Where in all that is Pete promising to throw a full stop?
He said he wants to ban all “new” fracking. As you note, fracking involves a lot of preparation before a well is actually fracked. Technically, fracking is the step of hydraulically pressurizing a well with fluid and fine sand. So that step is banned. But he might object to the preparation. I don’t think he knows what fracking means because he talks about new fracking as if that is something different from old fracking. When you hit a ball it’s always a new hit. So when you ban new ball strikes, you ban all hits. Fracking is the same.
So we know for a fact he will not allow permitted but not done fracking?
Legally, do you think it would be allowed?
I agree, but the only place I’ve seen these wind farms are in the middle of cornfields. I wouldn’t want one looming over my house either..
He would have authority to ban it on all federal ground with an EO. He might be able to ban all fracking with rule making. As you probably know, NY bans it. So I think there is a legal path to do that, but I haven’t done detailed research.
Edit: As you may know, many government land patents reserve the minerals to the government. So even though the surface might be in private ownership, the minerals would be in federal hands. Banning by EO is more significant than appears.
Last edited:
I would personally favor limiting fracking. We disagree on AGW. But the "frack everywhere" philosophy creates issues on carbon. We know the cheaper oil is, the less fuel mileage matters. Vehicles get bigger, mileage goes down, carbon goes up.
All based on a giant lie which he was called on, but is now pretending wasn't a lie.
Why do you people still engage him?
Fracking is decreasing carbon emissions.
Fuel milage is now mostly driven by the market and the market is demanding more efficiency.
The Middle East hostilities are at a fever pitch. Iran bombed the crap out of a Saudi refinery and according to the Dems, Trump took us to the brink of WWIII with killing the world's leading terrorist. Yet the price of oil barely moved and Wall Street yawned. Why? American fracking. Fracking is keeping Russia a second rate economic power and is materially helping our economy and balance of payments. Most importantly, we have cut our tether to Saudi Oil. There is no need to limit fracking for limit's sake.
Fracking is decreasing carbon emissions.
Fuel milage is now mostly driven by the market and the market is demanding more efficiency.
The Middle East hostilities are at a fever pitch. Iran bombed the crap out of a Saudi refinery and according to the Dems, Trump took us to the brink of WWIII with killing the world's leading terrorist. Yet the price of oil barely moved and Wall Street yawned. Why? American fracking. Fracking is keeping Russia a second rate economic power and is materially helping our economy and balance of payments. Most importantly, we have cut our tether to Saudi Oil. There is no need to limit fracking for limit's sake.
Fracking did that? How?
LOL. The thread started about Russia and our elections. I posted about that. A few of us engaged in a descent discussion about fracking. I don't know what the "giant lie" is. One person thought he had discovered one and it wasn't. Sanders, Warren, and Buttigeige support a ban. Biden said yes . . . .and no . . . . . to a ban. He probably doesn't remember what the hell he said.
Neither Biden nor Buttigieg support a complete ban "on Day 1," as you accused them of. You should have known this. Either you were being extremely lazy, or you were lying.
Or perhaps you are like some of the other Trumpublicans around here, and you've lost the ability to differentiate reality from fantasy.
Biden said that at the second debate, then weaseled. Butt. . .:
“I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking so that we can build a 100 percent clean energy society as soon as possible,” Buttigieg told The Post.
This sounds like a ban to me.
If that sounds like a ban to you, then you have indeed lost the ability to differentiate between reality and fantasy.
Tease. Don't make promises you can't keep.
Meanwhile, I guess you're running from this claim like most of the others. No wonder you're such a Trump fan.
I’d rather be a long extinct bird than a crank. I can’t imagine a better description of you than this:
You’re a crank.
Crank: A pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.
You’re a crank.
