Soren wrote:So if there exists the possibility of dumping tons (literally, tons as in the unit of measurement) of carcinogens into tributaries of the Delaware river you have no issue with that because there exists the opportunity to make money in the mean time?

I would not be keen on dumping tons of cacinogens into the Delaware. How do you perceive that?

And fracking's promise to you and me is not to make money -- it is to provide clean and abundant energy.

Btw, from one of your own links:

Penn State University geologist Terry Engelder [disclosed] details of his review of the paper for the National Academy of Sciences, normally a private process.

In a letter written to the researchers and provided to ProPublica, Engelder said the study had the appearance of "science-based advocacy" and said it was "unwittingly written to enflame the anti-drilling crowd."

http://www.propublica.org/article/new-s ... king-water

Mike Blooomberg says we can frack sensibly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play.

jamiethekiller wrote:the natural gas companies won't even tell you whats in the fracking chemicals. but you don't really need to know that because anything that can melt stone/earth isn't good for the environment.

They won't tell you because the chemical blend is proprietary, which is a very convenient way of keeping people into the dark as to what exactly is poisoning them.

TomatoPie wrote:Mike Blooomberg says we can frack sensibly: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

I'm sure we could, but I doubt we are currently and I strongly doubt we will if it isn't strongly regulated.

mozartpc27 wrote:Kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play.

Me too, if only because it's a hilarious story. Cop sounded like a dick, but so did Mitt.

Soren wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:the natural gas companies won't even tell you whats in the fracking chemicals. but you don't really need to know that because anything that can melt stone/earth isn't good for the environment.

They won't tell you because the chemical blend is proprietary, which is a very convenient way of keeping people into the dark as to what exactly is poisoning them.

Federal laws don't require disclosure, but many state laws do. Including PA.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play.

Me too, if only because it's a hilarious story. Cop sounded like a dick, but so did Mitt.

Yeah, I mean, I actually sorta think this makes Mitt more likeable, which makes it risky for Dems I guess, but does mean he has to admit to getting arrested, which makes it risky for Republicans. I suppose it's a wash, which explains why it's gone undiscussed for the most part.

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:

jamiethekiller wrote:the natural gas companies won't even tell you whats in the fracking chemicals. but you don't really need to know that because anything that can melt stone/earth isn't good for the environment.

They won't tell you because the chemical blend is proprietary, which is a very convenient way of keeping people into the dark as to what exactly is poisoning them.

Federal laws don't require disclosure, but many state laws do. Including PA.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania ... ntroversy/

In Penn­syl­va­nia, hydraulic frac­tur­ing crit­ics call it the doc­tor “gag rule.” But three other states have passed nearly iden­ti­cal pro­vi­sions in recent months. And in two of them, the lan­guage passed with­out a blip of controversy.

Pennsylvania’s new state law, Act 13, requires drilling com­pa­nies to tell any doc­tor who asks what chem­i­cals they are pump­ing under­ground — but also binds physi­cians to keep that infor­ma­tion confidential.

Act 13 was over turned, mostly because of the unbelievable authority it gave developers to over rule local zoning laws but I'd wager good money on the non-disclosure portion working it's way into a new bill.

edit: only the zoning laws portion of Act 13 was overturned.

mozartpc27 wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play.

Me too, if only because it's a hilarious story. Cop sounded like a dick, but so did Mitt.

Yeah, I mean, I actually sorta think this makes Mitt more likeable, which makes it risky for Dems I guess, but does mean he has to admit to getting arrested, which makes it risky for Republicans. I suppose it's a wash, which explains why it's gone undiscussed for the most part.

But it was being arrested for nothing. I really can't see anyone bothering to "use" this. I meant that I was surprised it hadn't made the internet rounds previously.

I want to throw a few facts into the discussion. First, global climate change is a fact. Second, it's also a fact that no one is sure what the exact mix of factors is which is causing the change. BUT, it's also a fact that human beings are contributing to the change to some extent through greenhouse gas emissions. And it's likely that our contribution, whatever it is, is the only factor we can control.

And one final fact: There's never going to come a day when a huge LED HD sign appears in the sky proclaiming that global climate change has finally turned our atmosphere inhospitable for human life. So, it behooves us to take whatever action we can to make sure such a sign would never be accurate.

And a postscript: Government commitment, intervention and support can make a very positive difference in helping free enterprise in its ventures while simultaneously helping to reach societal goals. Without even getting into the whole issue of the importance of infrastructure provided through government, we need only look to the financial incentives given to free enterprise which helped build the transcontinental railroad. And as for moving towards alternative energy sources which reduce the need to import oil from unreliable and undesirable foreign sources, we need only look to Brazil's commitment to sugar cane beginning in the 70's.

Monkeyboy wrote:Excuse my economics naivety, but why would canada's oil prices be high if they produce all their own oil? I guess companies could argue that they could sell it for more on the world market, but that seems really dumb (from the perspective of everyone in the country sans the oil companies). Crap like this is going to turn me into a socialist (a real one, not the type Obama is to the GOP supporters).

Canada participates in the global oil market, where the price of crude is set by the world price.

mozartpc27 wrote:Kinda surprised this hasn't gotten more play.

Back in 1981, Bad boy Mittens stood up to Johnny Law by refusing to hear a Wayland, Massachusetts police officer’s plea to keep the Romney family boat out of the water.

Mitt Romney, yachting scofflaw.

...the cop handcuffed Romney — who was clad in a dripping wet bathing suit —

Stopped reading here, afraid of where it was going.

TomatoPie wrote:

Bucky wrote:The price is controlled...by OPEC controlling production. And they don't just do it to maximize profit, either- they keep it at an optimal point where they get the most profits while still making the development costs of Green Energy unfavorable, to make sure that not a lot of capital is dumped into green development since the positive ROI isn't there.

All quite accurate. That entity is acting in its own interest. It's not exactly a "free market" but it's the market we play in. And buying OPEC oil remains a great deal for us.

And green is nice and all, but the next fuel won't be found for its green-ness; it will be the cheapest fuel available. Politicians will wax poetic over green and activists will swoon, but Barry and Mitt alike understand that our standard of living depends on cheap energy. $4 a gallon may not seem cheap when it was $1.25 a gallon 15 years ago, but it remains a bargain we can't (and shouldn't) refuse. We will continue to waste money seeding "green" energy companies that will fail, but that's all for show.

please explain to us what makes a particular fuel "cheap" or "dear". that is, expand on what aspects of the commodity make it something a person or people might be willing to expend resources to obtain.

isn't the big reason that gas is so cheap in the US gov't subsidies to big oil?

td11 wrote:isn't the big reason that gas is so cheap in the US gov't subsidies to big oil?

No?

td11 wrote::-(

Our handshake-agreement to from 1945 to provide defense for the Saudis in exchange for cheap oil has something to do with it.

td11 wrote::-(

jh is applying a narrow-ish definition of 'subsidize'

president obama is on the daily show tonight.