California Could Be Next Oil Boom State

[zanzabar]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
And both articles were well INFORMED regarding the fact that not all environmentalists are paragons of virtue.


Explain this logic for me:

Premise - Not all environmentalists are virtuous.
Conclusion - Regarding fracking, environmental regulations are bad.

Fracking is the topic of this thread, so I'm not sure why we need to talk about DDT.

 

[zanzabar]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Fracking is an intrastate activity, so the EPA should have nothing to do with the operations. State regulators should have the purview here.


The regulation Molakule linked to is for BLM land, which is under public/federal jurisdiction.

RE: application of EPA regulations to states -
"Once a law is official, here's how it is put into practice: Laws often do not include all the details needed to explain how an individual, business, state or local government, or others might follow the law. The United States Code would not tell you, for example, what the speed limit is in front of your house. In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations.

Regulations set specific requirements about what is legal and what isn't. For example, a regulation issued by EPA to implement the Clean Air Act might explain what levels of a pollutant - such as sulfur dioxide - adequately protect human health and the environment. It would tell industries how much sulfur dioxide they can legally emit into the air, and what the penalty will be if they emit too much. Once the regulation is in effect, EPA then works to help Americans comply with the law and to enforce it."
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/basics.html

State regulators do not have the resources to adequately address all the risks with somethign as complicated as fracking. Should every state really have to simultaneously conduct all that research independently? This is a perfect application for the EPA to study carefully and devise the optimal strategies and regulations for the industry and then allow the states to enforce the regulations.

 

[Tempest]

I am very familiar with how Independent Regulatory Agencies work. They are unelected and untouchable people that generate arbitrary rules that have the force of law.

Quote:
This is a perfect application for the EPA to study carefully and devise the optimal strategies and regulations for the industry and then allow the states to enforce the regulations.


Again, why are the specific people, that happen to be in power at any given time, competent and unbiased to do these things?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
I am very familiar with how Independent Regulatory Agencies work. They are unelected and untouchable people that generate arbitrary rules that have the force of law.


Absolutely. And our government is ON RECORD as opposing fossil fuels!

Hand me some more kool aid please!

Imagining that the EPA is somehow a virtuous organization that puts you and I first in everything is incredibly naive. The current director is a crook using unlawful email accounts to conduct business outside the agency!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Again, why are the specific people, that happen to be in power at any given time, competent and unbiased to do these things?


Again, how are the people (miners for profit) going to ensure that you and your groundwater aren't hopelessly contaminated...before they go and do it ?

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: zanzabar
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
And both articles were well INFORMED regarding the fact that not all environmentalists are paragons of virtue.


Explain this logic for me:

Premise - Not all environmentalists are virtuous.
Conclusion - Regarding fracking, environmental regulations are bad.

Fracking is the topic of this thread, so I'm not sure why we need to talk about DDT.

Premise - Some environmentalists are virtuous.
Conclusion - Regarding fracking, sensible environmental regulations are good.

We don't need to talk about DDT, but we do need to question the agenda of those responsible for banning DDT. We should also question the agenda of those who want a complete ban on fracking, like the Sierra Club.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Again, why are the specific people, that happen to be in power at any given time, competent and unbiased to do these things?


Again, how are the people (miners for profit) going to ensure that you and your groundwater aren't hopelessly contaminated...before they go and do it ?


The EPA and the states "allowed", as part of a "clean burning gas initiative" (mandate), MTBE additive for gas. It is now a major problem in ground water in some areas.

If there was no mandate by the "environmentalists that know more than the normal person", then this wouldn't be a problem. The people at the EPA are no more competent or unbiased than anyone else in the field. The fact that they can make edicts without consequence to themselves is a bad combination.

And what exactly is "contamination"? I don't think that I have ever seen a hard specification.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
And what exactly is "contamination"? I don't think that I have ever seen a hard specification.


For crying out loud tempest...

do you think that in the absence of any mandated specification, industry is free to release "stuff", any "stuff" into your, or anyone else' groundwater, drinking water, air etc. ?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
And what exactly is "contamination"? I don't think that I have ever seen a hard specification.


For crying out loud tempest...

do you think that in the absence of any mandated specification, industry is free to release "stuff", any "stuff" into your, or anyone else' groundwater, drinking water, air etc. ?


It all comes down to, with regulations, arbitrary definitions. How much of what is "bad"? Where do these numbers come from?

There are thousands of fracking wells being drilled and operated and yet there are no wide spread contamination issues. The EPA has had to back off on several claims that it has made due to poor "science":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670.html

Evironut groups have been looking for a long while and still nothing.

 

[zanzabar]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
I am very familiar with how Independent Regulatory Agencies work. They are unelected and untouchable people that generate arbitrary rules that have the force of law.



Yes, the one or two people that head groups like EPA are unelected appointees. Most of the many thousands that work for them are lifetime trained scientists dedicated to their work. These are the people that do the regulating, and in some cases have to work very hard to override the errors and biases of their leaders. If we're still talking about regulations pertaining to things like mining and energy production, then 'the regulators' are experts in their field (and incidentally include some of our neighbors, friends, and family) trying to do right by the American people. These aren't some wacko lobbyists trying to push their agenda based on whatever whim serves them best at the moment. The stuff they come up with is by definition not "arbitrary".

You need to at least try to inform yourself about things like this. Please stop repeating whatever nonsense you are hearing from Glenn Beck and Fox "News".

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
And what exactly is "contamination"? I don't think that I have ever seen a hard specification.


For crying out loud tempest...

do you think that in the absence of any mandated specification, industry is free to release "stuff", any "stuff" into your, or anyone else' groundwater, drinking water, air etc. ?


It all comes down to, with regulations, arbitrary definitions. How much of what is "bad"? Where do these numbers come from?

There are thousands of fracking wells being drilled and operated and yet there are no wide spread contamination issues. The EPA has had to back off on several claims that it has made due to poor "science":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670.html

Evironut groups have been looking for a long while and still nothing.


That's not the point, and you know it...

Do YOU trust industry, unregulated to protect your interests, when it comes to adding "stuff" that wasn't there initially to your groundwater, drinking water, and air ?

You oppose regulation as wrong, but do you genuinely trust industry to do the right thing by you personally, and your community ?

Really trust them ?

...or say that you have the right to sue them should you be able to prove damage to yourself by what they are doing ? (assuming that you are well enough, or rich enough to sue them.

MTBE strawmen aside...do YOU trust industry implicitly to do the right thing ?

 

[PandaBear]

Unelected officials and profit seeking businesses / employees can both be clueless and / or deceptive. The only way to go is to put all the information out there in the media for the reader / viewer to decide.

For things that is hard to clean up (i.e. ground water), I'd trust an unelected officials for uncertain, no going back results over those who want to make an extra buck by cutting corners, until everyone gets enough experience over the issues (or no issues).

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Unelected officials and profit seeking businesses / employees can both be clueless and / or deceptive. The only way to go is to put all the information out there in the media for the reader / viewer to decide.

For things that is hard to clean up (i.e. ground water), I'd trust an unelected officials for uncertain, no going back results over those who want to make an extra buck by cutting corners, until everyone gets enough experience over the issues (or no issues).



That first paragraph is GOLDEN! The only problem is the media IS the problem. Selectively ignoring certain topics and then trumpeting their chosen ones from the rooftops loudly and often. And it's gullibles like Zanzabar implying that GB/Fox are the problem when what they do is balance the extreme bias. Actually the extreme bias is the reason for their existence!

I mean come on, Al Gore sells his network to Al Jazeera and it gets virtually no exposure on major media at all? That in itself shows real corruption (Gore has no morals) in the entire Global Warming movement to be a reality. Yet the major media outlets virtually ignore the story. Any comments there, Z?

I include the movie industry as media because they release many movies that are nothing more than thinly disguised propaganda that goes both ways. This is not a left or right issue it is a very real manipulation of the general population.

 

[zanzabar]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And it's gullibles like Zanzabar implying that GB/Fox are the problem when what they do is balance the extreme bias. Actually the extreme bias is the reason for their existence!


No comment necessary here...if you want my reaction, go to google and type the word "facepalm" into the search bar.

You can have your Al Gore argument, he's a bogus sellout. All I hope is that he takes that $100M and does something good for the world with it. And please try to understand that the arm of the Al Jazeera tv network that bought that channel is way more 'fair and balanced' than Fox News, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Anyway, quit changing the topic. You're about to set a record for thread hijacks! This is about fracking, and the regulation thereof.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
That first paragraph is GOLDEN! The only problem is the media IS the problem. Selectively ignoring certain topics and then trumpeting their chosen ones from the rooftops loudly and often. And it's gullibles like Zanzabar implying that GB/Fox are the problem when what they do is balance the extreme bias. Actually the extreme bias is the reason for their existence!

I mean come on, Al Gore sells his network to Al Jazeera and it gets virtually no exposure on major media at all? That in itself shows real corruption (Gore has no morals) in the entire Global Warming movement to be a reality. Yet the major media outlets virtually ignore the story. Any comments there, Z?

I include the movie industry as media because they release many movies that are nothing more than thinly disguised propaganda that goes both ways. This is not a left or right issue it is a very real manipulation of the general population.


There is internet these days and people like you will dig up the "bias" and make loud noise about it on the net, the blogs, the forums, so we "biased" individuals who believe in the power of free media will know the "truth". Thank you (seriously).

Want to know what a real "biased" media looks like? Check out China. The entire country is in a firewall and all media got crack down if not following the government. You have to literally decipher the bad news between the lines.

And no, Al Gore's sales is in the media and I heard it many times on the radio, the TV, the news sites, etc. I don't know where you get your "unbiased news" that it is not in the news because of the news bias.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
You oppose regulation as wrong, but do you genuinely trust industry to do the right thing by you personally, and your community ?

The question is, as always, how much? What is the test? How do you determine what pollution is and what is allowable?

Do I trust industry? No. But they have a vested interest in their process being allowed to continue and not pick up a bad name. And however evil people think industry, at least they create wealth and provide goods and services that people really need, or they would go out of business.

Government regulators sit on high and have little if any direct consequences to themselves for the rules they apply to others. Because of this, there is no reason to put any trust in them, either. There is absolutely no direct cause/effect that ensures regulators are working in the interest of the people. They have their biases and have limited knowledge just as any human does.

Yes, there is a need for regulation, but permitting for each well to be drilled? Either the operation is technically competent to drill in a given area or they are not. All of this red tape adds time and cost to delivering energy to the people that need it.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
These aren't some wacko lobbyists trying to push their agenda based on whatever whim serves them best at the moment.

Are the lobbyists that work for environmental groups wacko, too? Or is it just private industry?

Quote:
and in some cases have to work very hard to override the errors and biases of their leaders.

And you say that regulations aren't arbitrary? You just described why they are.

Quote:
'the regulators' are experts in their field trying to do right by the American people

What are their qualifications? What are their biases and prejudices? What is their knowledge of how individuals in the market will respond to their decisions? How can they be absolutely sure their world view is the correct one?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: zanzabar
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And it's gullibles like Zanzabar implying that GB/Fox are the problem when what they do is balance the extreme bias. Actually the extreme bias is the reason for their existence!


No comment necessary here...if you want my reaction, go to google and type the word "facepalm" into the search bar.

You can have your Al Gore argument, he's a bogus sellout. All I hope is that he takes that $100M and does something good for the world with it. And please try to understand that the arm of the Al Jazeera tv network that bought that channel is way more 'fair and balanced' than Fox News, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

Anyway, quit changing the topic. You're about to set a record for thread hijacks! This is about fracking, and the regulation thereof.



Bite me. It's a discussion forum, and you attacked folks who watch Fox and/or GB. So you started it. No one here has to roll over and do what you say or restrict their comments to your choice of topics. You drink way too much big government kool aid and are doing nothing here but espousing the standard talking points from left wing liberals. Yep, Qatar is a fair and balanced place all right. Totally sharia law, where women have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. That's brilliant of you to somehow conclude they are better than Fox News, can you possibly be that misinformed?

Balance, my man, balance. You do NOT know better than me, you just believe you do.

No one who genuinely understands fracking would try and tell you it is a risk free endeavor, but it is very much something that is opposed within our own government. This opposition will be presented as "for the people" but is actually a completely different agenda.

I don't expect much, but you would do well to research a bit more. As I said earlier, that "water on fire" was burning WAY before any fracking took place!


Answer Tempest's questions. Political appointees rarely represent the cream of the crop of intellectuals. Normally they are folks who are getting a favorable post for their support.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Thank you (seriously).
And no, Al Gore's sales is in the media and I heard it many times on the radio, the TV, the news sites, etc. I don't know where you get your "unbiased news" that it is not in the news because of the news bias.


And a Thanks right back to you.

If you examine the time allotted to the Gore story it is grossly under-reported IMO. Very short mentions and no one questioned it. One major outlet never mentioned Al Jazeera at all! You would love to hear what Gore's staff is saying, but it won't be on MSNBC. They were sold out and they know it.

Sharia law and open support of anti American terrorist orgs defines the country of Qatar.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Thank you (seriously).
And no, Al Gore's sales is in the media and I heard it many times on the radio, the TV, the news sites, etc. I don't know where you get your "unbiased news" that it is not in the news because of the news bias.


And a Thanks right back to you.

If you examine the time allotted to the Gore story it is grossly under-reported IMO. Very short mentions and no one questioned it. One major outlet never mentioned Al Jazeera at all! You would love to hear what Gore's staff is saying, but it won't be on MSNBC. They were sold out and they know it.

Sharia law and open support of anti American terrorist orgs defines the country of Qatar.


My understanding of Al Jazerra (not only from US media but I also read things from International sources), is that they are one of the more trust worthy media in the ME, sort of like BBC in the UK or NHK in Japan.

Are they perfect? no, but then again according to you neither are any of the US media (and no, I do not believe Fox is unbiased, but I wouldn't think the rest of them are unbiased either). Al Gore's network isn't that big anyways so most people don't even know he has a network, so what is the big impact of selling an unheard of network to a ME network? I don't even think it would cause any more impact than Fox interviewing Koch brothers during the election season.