California Could Be Next Oil Boom State
- Thread starter strongt
- Start date
- Status
The environmentalists won't allow it. Same as they won't allow gas drilling in NYS.
The first issue I saw was when the article talked about how many jobs it could create, you see, California doesn't like people having jobs - they love people on welfare and other state subsidies (Cali has more on welfare than the other top 3 states combined) and the only way this would go anywhere is if they could reap hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes from it in order to keep paying the welfare rolls.
So if they have to pull it out carefully that means more jobs than if they just poke holes in the ground and mop up what spills everywhere.
I'm okay with holding onto it underground within our defensible borders until things get really expensive... lets trade some green paper with the saudis until then.
I'm okay with holding onto it underground within our defensible borders until things get really expensive... lets trade some green paper with the saudis until then.
Quote:
as well as individual permits issued for each well drilled.
Yeah, there isn't going to be an oil boom in Cali...
as well as individual permits issued for each well drilled.
Yeah, there isn't going to be an oil boom in Cali...
Originally Posted By: tig1
The political climate in this country at this time won't allow it. Many today would like to see gas go to $5-$7 a gal to diminish the amount of fuel being used. You see, then we won't need to drill more.
Wasn't our presiden'ts energy secretary quoted as saying $9?
The political climate in this country at this time won't allow it. Many today would like to see gas go to $5-$7 a gal to diminish the amount of fuel being used. You see, then we won't need to drill more.
Wasn't our presiden'ts energy secretary quoted as saying $9?
Yeah, the oil's here, the oil's been here for a long time. Many Californians are bursting with pride because we do everything we can to prevent anyone drilling for it. California is a very weird place. If you want to be elected to public office here, just build your campaign on holding back progress and bankrupting the state, and you're sure to make it. We're working on making central California into the next dust bowl right now, and doing a [censored] good job of it.
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
Sure, California could be the next oil boom state. So could Alaska. So could North Dakota. So could Texas. Oh, wait, Texas already is...
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
Sure, California could be the next oil boom state. So could Alaska. So could North Dakota. So could Texas. Oh, wait, Texas already is...
Originally Posted By: eljefino
So if they have to pull it out carefully that means more jobs than if they just poke holes in the ground and mop up what spills everywhere.
I'm okay with holding onto it underground within our defensible borders until things get really expensive... lets trade some green paper with the saudis until then.
Yeah, then let's see if the Saudis will accept Monopoly money.
So if they have to pull it out carefully that means more jobs than if they just poke holes in the ground and mop up what spills everywhere.
I'm okay with holding onto it underground within our defensible borders until things get really expensive... lets trade some green paper with the saudis until then.
Yeah, then let's see if the Saudis will accept Monopoly money.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The environmentalists won't allow it. Same as they won't allow gas drilling in NYS.
Please try to understand that "the environmentalists" are just people trying to protect your health, your family's health, your friends' health, and the ecosystem from being damaged. They have studied this stuff, sometimes for their entire lifetime, and are in a position to make much more informed decisions than most of us are.
The environmentalists won't allow it. Same as they won't allow gas drilling in NYS.
Please try to understand that "the environmentalists" are just people trying to protect your health, your family's health, your friends' health, and the ecosystem from being damaged. They have studied this stuff, sometimes for their entire lifetime, and are in a position to make much more informed decisions than most of us are.
Originally Posted By: zanzabar
Please try to understand that "the environmentalists" are just people trying to protect your health, your family's health, your friends' health...
...or not...
Environmentalism's Dark Side
Quote:
...environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
The Green Death
Quote:
Another charming quote comes from Dr. Charles Wurster, a leading opponent of DDT, who said of malaria deaths: “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”
Please try to understand that "the environmentalists" are just people trying to protect your health, your family's health, your friends' health...
...or not...
Environmentalism's Dark Side
Quote:
...environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
The Green Death
Quote:
Another charming quote comes from Dr. Charles Wurster, a leading opponent of DDT, who said of malaria deaths: “People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
LOL yeah, good ole Prop 30. Under the guise of funding education, they did this before, prop 98, then the lottery, so where is all THAT education money at? all the people did was give the green light to the new "hostage initiative", threaten to cut X if you don't get Y so vote and pass Z... nice, idiots.
On a serious note, if you took all this oil from the ground would it "dry out" the ground and affect earthquakes? maybe a dumb questions but I was just thinking lol.
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
LOL yeah, good ole Prop 30. Under the guise of funding education, they did this before, prop 98, then the lottery, so where is all THAT education money at? all the people did was give the green light to the new "hostage initiative", threaten to cut X if you don't get Y so vote and pass Z... nice, idiots.
On a serious note, if you took all this oil from the ground would it "dry out" the ground and affect earthquakes? maybe a dumb questions but I was just thinking lol.
Originally Posted By: Youthanasia
The first issue I saw was when the article talked about how many jobs it could create, you see, California doesn't like people having jobs - they love people on welfare and other state subsidies (Cali has more on welfare than the other top 3 states combined) and the only way this would go anywhere is if they could reap hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes from it in order to keep paying the welfare rolls.
That's not true, and you cannot group together everyone in California just like you cannot group everyone together in the US.
Welfare numbers can be artificially inflated when other states send their recipients to CA and CA's sympathy for these people. The average income and expense are also higher in CA so if you have to adjust the number. Also military base in the middle of nowhere and farm subsidizes in other states can be considered "welfare" to us Californian as well.
Oil boom in CA would probably be limited by the environmental impact of the drill site as well as water usage / pollution / cost.
The first issue I saw was when the article talked about how many jobs it could create, you see, California doesn't like people having jobs - they love people on welfare and other state subsidies (Cali has more on welfare than the other top 3 states combined) and the only way this would go anywhere is if they could reap hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes from it in order to keep paying the welfare rolls.
That's not true, and you cannot group together everyone in California just like you cannot group everyone together in the US.
Welfare numbers can be artificially inflated when other states send their recipients to CA and CA's sympathy for these people. The average income and expense are also higher in CA so if you have to adjust the number. Also military base in the middle of nowhere and farm subsidizes in other states can be considered "welfare" to us Californian as well.
Oil boom in CA would probably be limited by the environmental impact of the drill site as well as water usage / pollution / cost.
Originally Posted By: Youthanasia
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
LOL yeah, good ole Prop 30. Under the guise of funding education, they did this before, prop 98, then the lottery, so where is all THAT education money at? all the people did was give the green light to the new "hostage initiative", threaten to cut X if you don't get Y so vote and pass Z... nice, idiots.
On a serious note, if you took all this oil from the ground would it "dry out" the ground and affect earthquakes? maybe a dumb questions but I was just thinking lol.
Or prop 13 could be repealed so property tax is increased. Seriously, the logic is obvious of cutting service if the funding isn't there. Isn't that what "live within your mean" suppose to be? Tax payer can't expect nothing to be cut when tax rev is reduced.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Californians voted this past year to raise their own taxes. I guess because our state government is already doing such a great job with the tax money they get, that it can only get better, right?
LOL yeah, good ole Prop 30. Under the guise of funding education, they did this before, prop 98, then the lottery, so where is all THAT education money at? all the people did was give the green light to the new "hostage initiative", threaten to cut X if you don't get Y so vote and pass Z... nice, idiots.
On a serious note, if you took all this oil from the ground would it "dry out" the ground and affect earthquakes? maybe a dumb questions but I was just thinking lol.
Or prop 13 could be repealed so property tax is increased. Seriously, the logic is obvious of cutting service if the funding isn't there. Isn't that what "live within your mean" suppose to be? Tax payer can't expect nothing to be cut when tax rev is reduced.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Environmentalism's Dark Side
Quote:
...environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
LOL...have to bring a GW link in...
Environmentalism's Dark Side
Quote:
...environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
LOL...have to bring a GW link in...
@ LTVibe
Thanks for that, those were two seriously cringe-worthy articles!
For every biased, uninformed source you can find I will find a biased, INFORMED source like this one:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4704
It's not like they're trying to stop fracking completely...here are some of their recommendations:
Propose legislative action to repeal exemptions to major provisions of federal environmental laws created just for the oil and gas industry.
Request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) add the hydraulic fracturing industry to the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The environmental and health impacts of each chemical used in hydrofracking should be assessed by the EPA, and chemicals should be regulated or prohibited accordingly.
The oil and gas industry should be required to disclose the amount and name of each chemical used at each well site.
Disclosure of chemicals should be publicly accessible. A complete inventory of chemicals by site should be available on an agency-maintained website.
The EPA should be required to develop strong rules around the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing.
Groundwater and surface water quality surveys should be conducted prior to any drilling operations to properly assess the effects of the drilling on the water supply. Baseline water testing should be done by independent certified laboratories.
How is ANY of this controversial?
Thanks for that, those were two seriously cringe-worthy articles!
For every biased, uninformed source you can find I will find a biased, INFORMED source like this one:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4704
It's not like they're trying to stop fracking completely...here are some of their recommendations:
Propose legislative action to repeal exemptions to major provisions of federal environmental laws created just for the oil and gas industry.
Request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) add the hydraulic fracturing industry to the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
The environmental and health impacts of each chemical used in hydrofracking should be assessed by the EPA, and chemicals should be regulated or prohibited accordingly.
The oil and gas industry should be required to disclose the amount and name of each chemical used at each well site.
Disclosure of chemicals should be publicly accessible. A complete inventory of chemicals by site should be available on an agency-maintained website.
The EPA should be required to develop strong rules around the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing.
Groundwater and surface water quality surveys should be conducted prior to any drilling operations to properly assess the effects of the drilling on the water supply. Baseline water testing should be done by independent certified laboratories.
How is ANY of this controversial?
Fracking is an intrastate activity, so the EPA should have nothing to do with the operations. State regulators should have the purview here.
Originally Posted By: zanzabar
@ LTVibe
Thanks for that, those were two seriously cringe-worthy articles!
For every biased, uninformed source you can find I will find a biased, INFORMED source like this one:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4704
It's not like they're trying to stop fracking completely...
Neither of the articles I posted mention anything about fracking. And both articles were well INFORMED regarding the fact that not all environmentalists are paragons of virtue.
@ LTVibe
Thanks for that, those were two seriously cringe-worthy articles!
For every biased, uninformed source you can find I will find a biased, INFORMED source like this one:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4704
It's not like they're trying to stop fracking completely...
Neither of the articles I posted mention anything about fracking. And both articles were well INFORMED regarding the fact that not all environmentalists are paragons of virtue.
- Status
Similar threads
