Another study comes out showing more evidence Cuomo was wrong to ban fracking

[Dave]

4 hours ago, Rattler said:

From the study in the OP 

"The study concluded the oil and gas industry, including fracking, adds $473 billion to the Texas economy and created as many as 3.8 million jobs."

PA is experiencing similar economic prosperity.  People benefit from jobs, lots of jobs.  That includes all the jobs that serve the people who do the gas jobs too, like restaurants, diners, local businesses, car dealers, etc.  I don't have time to go into great detail here, but the  economies where gas fracking is going on are booming.

Anyone with any amount of land stands to gain, on average, $3000 per acre.  Lots of small land owners in PA got thousands for the right to get to the gas far beneath their lawns.  They spend that money locally on many things like new vehicles, home improvements and necessities.  Many even donate a lot of money to local non-profits and charities.

The actual fracking process way down in the shale bed, has never been proven to contaminate wells.  Drilling holes in the ground to get down to the shale has released methane gas into wells, and that has been addressed by regulatory updates.  BTW, natural seismic activity has contaminated more wells in America than any holes drilled for fracking have.  You cannot regulate natural seismic activity problems away either.

Lastly, the gas is trucked away from the well heads, not moved through pipelines that cross people's property.

So again, fracking improves people's lives. Preconceived objections based on misunderstanding, are what's causing friction on this issue.  Cuomo and the enviro-facists have sold many NY residents a ban on fracking based on fear and a left wing political desire to end the use of all fossil fuels.  That's the real agenda.

Remember when the enviro's wanted more natural gas use in America because it was better for the environment than oil or coal?  They don't sing that tune anymore.  Why do you think that is?  Are those windmills proving to be a better option, costing much more in all areas, including the price people pay for the energy they produce?  Does solar have the potential to supply all the energy gas can at similar costs?

Fracking, in areas where it is going on, is most definitely enhancing the lives of the people in those areas, as well as people who use natural gas anywhere else.

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-northdakota-bust/

Tell that story to the people in North Dakota

[Rattler]

43 minutes ago, Dave said:

Then tell me how the gas gets from the well head on private property to the gas company transmission lines for delivery? which in many cases is miles away !!

I think that's what I just did in that post.

[Rattler]

20 minutes ago, Dave said:

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-northdakota-bust/

Tell that story to the people in North Dakota

That's how a boom works.  They don't last forever.  They offer big improvements that help out by bringing in money that would've never come in if not for the boom.  Smart people don't expect it to last.  But smart people also see opportunity that should not be ignored.  This type of thing has been going on since the gold mine days of the 1800's.  Not everyone knows how to manage these markets, but that doesn't mean they aren't good markets.

It may be a one time shot of economic stimulus, but it's better than having no shot.  Many people have done very well in fracking markets, and continue to do so.  But they don't set up businesses that are completely dependent on them for the future.

[Dave]

28 minutes ago, Rattler said:

I think that's what I just did in that post.

Well actually you didn't. As a matter of fact there are no gathering lines or transmission lines in these rural areas. My question is how does the gas get to market?  Answer: It has to be piped to the gas companies already existing lines. Which can be miles away from the well head on private property. So a new pipeline must be installed across private property. And how do they get permission to cross everyone property eminent domain.

[philoshop]

18 hours ago, Dave said:

Who's quality of life is being improved by Fracking? Not the people living in the areas that are being fracked. Only the large land holdings in the area, which are not owner by the average person. Hunting clubs and individuals who own large amount of land and who generally don't live in the area.  And if you don't think that fracking hasn't contaminated wells you must be living under a rock. The well is only the first step, now how do you get the gas from the well to the transportation lines? Through a pipeline system . So now they dig up every ones land from the well head to the trunk lines.  So tell me again how this improves the lives of the people in the fracking areas.

I could have had a contract to build housing facilities for the workers. My friend with a convenience store might have built a whole grocery store. My other friend with a small day-care center may have expanded her facilities. The hardware store may have grown it's business due to demand for shovels and gloves. Would you like me to go on?

It didn't affect YOU directly. And that's all you care about. And the environmental issues are nothing but cover for the fact that it didn't directly affect YOU. It did affect you, because none of us were able to capitalize on our resources and contribute to the unsustainable tax base that is NYS. You own it. Be happy.

[Dave]

2 hours ago, philoshop said:

I could have had a contract to build housing facilities for the workers. My friend with a convenience store might have built a whole grocery store. My other friend with a small day-care center may have expanded her facilities. The hardware store may have grown it's business due to demand for shovels and gloves. Would you like me to go on?

It didn't affect YOU directly. And that's all you care about. And the environmental issues are nothing but cover for the fact that it didn't directly affect YOU. It did affect you, because none of us were able to capitalize on our resources and contribute to the unsustainable tax base that is NYS. You own it. Be happy.

Gee, that's a nice fairy tale, wooda, cooda,shooda. I look at it this way,  I could have had a nice beautiful house and now my water is contaminated. Had homeowners insurance on my nice house, but too close to a fracking well and insurance company cancelled my home owners policy. Could have sold my house but the property value is down no one wants to buy my house. The roads to my house are torn up from the constant trucks coming and going to the well site, the noise is driving everyone crazy. The burning of the gas sounds like a jet engine, the birds are gone the deer don't come around. Yes it does directly affect everyone. But your home builder, convenience store and grocery store will be far from all the disruption so they will not care what environmental disasters happen to the environment as long as they can make a buck!!!

Oh, it directly would affect me I own property in area that would have been fracked. This whole issue in NYS is like the Trump vs Clinton election. The Democrats and the liberals lose and cant get over the fact that they lost, just like the people in favor of fracking, you lose, get over it, move on. By the way enjoy the fresh clean air and water that NYS has to offer contamination free.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Dave

[growalot]

Big boom..your right they dont last and that is why this country is littered with empty delapitated shopping malls..who made their big money and leftthe area..developers. who rode hi ans over extended to get the rug yanked and end up in worse shape then before...the workers,construction,service,sales...

EVERY single issue has a light at the end of it's tunnel...not every light is a bright one.

[philoshop]

3 hours ago, Dave said:

Gee, that's a nice fairy tale, wooda, cooda,shooda. I look at it this way,  I could have had a nice beautiful house and now my water is contaminated. Had homeowners insurance on my nice house, but too close to a fracking well and insurance company cancelled my home owners policy. Could have sold my house but the property value is down no one wants to buy my house. The roads to my house are torn up from the constant trucks coming and going to the well site, the noise is driving everyone crazy. The burning of the gas sounds like a jet engine, the birds are gone the deer don't come around. Yes it does directly affect everyone. But your home builder, convenience store and grocery store will be far from all the disruption so they will not care what environmental disasters happen to the environment as long as they can make a buck!!!

Oh, it directly would affect me I own property in area that would have been fracked. This whole issue in NYS is like the Trump vs Clinton election. The Democrats and the liberals lose and cant get over the fact that they lost, just like the people in favor of fracking, you lose, get over it, move on. By the way enjoy the fresh clean air and water that NYS has to offer contamination free.

High quality rant for sure! It's BS, but it's high quality.

It's a State's rights issue. NYS has chosen not to be part of an energy independent nation. That's not surprising at all. Our elected officials are handsomely paid to keep us confused about these issues.

[Doc]

20 hours ago, nyantler said:

I have many PA friends and this is not how it works... at least not in PA... there are no victims of eminent domain, all landowners in the area being fracked are compensated. They get one check for the right to frack the gas beneath their property, then monthly checks based on the amount of gas taken from the particular well pad they are associated with. Contracts are made for a specific time period... then gas companies must re-contract with landowners... paying them again for the right to take gas from under their property and re-negotiating monthly percentage payments. All well pads are kept low profile and when the pad becomes non-productive and removed, the land that the pad is on must be returned to its original state which includes re-planting of any trees or grass. No landowners in the area are left out unless they choose to be left out. None of the people I know have had any instances of contamination to their wells or any other problems. This does not prove the good or bad of fracking .. it just corrects your account of what might go on in a State that allows fracking.

My comment about eminent domain was in response to the previous reply about the gas transport pipelines that cross both participating and non-participating properties.

[Rattler]

On 6/28/2017 at 1:02 PM, Dave said:

Well actually you didn't. As a matter of fact there are no gathering lines or transmission lines in these rural areas. My question is how does the gas get to market?  Answer: It has to be piped to the gas companies already existing lines. Which can be miles away from the well head on private property. So a new pipeline must be installed across private property. And how do they get permission to cross everyone property eminent domain.

Your questions are fair, but your answers are incorrect.  New gathering pipelines (which are only 18" pipes at most, usually far smaller) can be built under existing right of ways, public roadways, interstate highways, railroad tracks and all manner of public property, much faster and with much less hassle, then using private property.  And that's what they do.  

Edited June 29, 2017 by Rattler

[Dave]

1 hour ago, Rattler said:

Your questions are fair, but your answers are incorrect.  New gathering pipelines (which are only 18" pipes at most, usually far smaller) can be built under existing right of ways, public roadways, interstate highways, railroad tracks and all manner of public property, much faster and with much less hassle, then using private property.  And that's what they do.  

I always love when someone spouts opinions as fact. For your information the transmission lines are much larger than 18" try 24" and 30" and some areas 36". Your taking about an area with existing infrastructure , but the areas in upstate NY have none. Its mostly dirt roads, just enough room two vehicles to move. Would be unable to close down these roads when they are the only way in and out of the area. There is also a big difference between Transmission lines and gathering lines. And that's not what they do in most cases, only some cases.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

56 minutes ago, Dave said:

Would be unable to close down these roads when they are the only way in and out of the area. 

why would they need to close down the roads?

[Rattler]

On 6/29/2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave said:

I always love when someone spouts opinions as fact.

Yes, you seem to.

For your information the transmission lines are much larger than 18" try 24" and 30" and some areas 36".

I was talking about gathering lines

Your taking about an area with existing infrastructure , but the areas in upstate NY have none.

There are no roads in Upstate NY?  People travel on horseback?

Its mostly dirt roads, just enough room two vehicles to move.

What do you call all those paved roads and highways there?

Would be unable to close down these roads when they are the only way in and out of the area.

I would expect they would run gathering lines along the right of way edges on either side of the road like they do in PA.  But NY may be crazy.

There is also a big difference between Transmission lines and gathering lines. And that's not what they do in most cases, only some cases.

That's what I was saying.  Thanks for agreeing with that point.

Look, it's quite obvious to me now, you are an anti-frack person who is not going to be open minded about the issue.  There are many like you in NY who could simply take a trip to the areas in PA where fracking is happening and see with your own eyes what's going on and talk to the people who live there.  But, most of you prefer to listen to anti-frack propaganda and think what you're told to think.  There's no point in trying to have a factual debate with you.  Embrace your opinion if it makes you feel safe.  I prefer to look at this from a real world point of view, having been to these places and personally investigated the situation.  I believe what I've seen and been told by those who live it, while rejecting those who simply fear it.  I'll reopen this a decade from now and we can discuss if you still feel the same way then.

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Rattler

[Dave]

On 6/30/2017 at 5:23 PM, Rattler said:

 

So you are saying my opinion is wrong and yours is correct.  Lets agree to disagree, OK

[philoshop]

8 hours ago, Dave said:

So you are saying my opinion is wrong and yours is correct.  Lets agree to disagree, OK

I was mostly against fracking as little as three years ago. I made a post to that effect on this site when Astorino challenged Cuomo, and cited it as the one big issue where I was equivocal on Astorino. In short, I believed what I was being told.

After spending the time (lots) to properly research the issue I came to a different conclusion. (I'd rather be right than be consistent). There is no science behind the anti-fracking argument. In the end it's little more than fear-mongering and conjecture similar to the man-made climate change argument. Neither can stand in the face of hard scrutiny.

And now we're finding out that the Russians have been funding much of this environmentalist activity and propaganda for years in order to keep the U.S. from exploiting it's own natural resources. Would you like to talk about collusion?

[Rattler]

More on the Russian connection to the anti-fracking crusade:

"With the mainstream media's continuous churning of the Donald Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy, one can easily become callous toward any news related to allegations of actual Russian collusion. But to do so would be to ignore the reality that Vladimir Putin does indeed pose a credible threat to Western nations. And it's not beyond reason to recognize that Putin is still invested in pushing the message of Russian election interference if only to further sow the seeds of division and distrust among Americans regarding the integrity of our electoral system. Leftmedia propaganda outlets are his willing accomplices.

Another of Putin's most effective propaganda tools turns out to be environmentalist groups.

For several years now the Russians have invested heavily in the anti-fracking crusade, but not out of any high-minded concerns over the environmental impact. Lacking their own resources or technological development, many Eastern European countries have been forced to look to Russia for their fuel needs. But with the development of fracking technology, several European nations have explored using the technology to reach previously untapped energy reserves on their own soil. This poses a threat to Moscow's near monopoly over the regional energy market.

For example, in 2012, Bulgaria issued a permit to allow Chevron to engage in fracking. Environmental activists protested, presenting dubious claims of contaminated drinking water and other pollution. Eventually, the Bulgarian government caved to the ecofascists and voted to ban fracking. Guess who swooped in to offer a 20% discount for a 10-year natural gas contract — Gazprom, the Russian state-owned energy company.

Putin played a similar game in Romania in the funding of environmentalist groups that were successful in stopping any fracking there. In 2014, several European nations banned fracking after protests prompted then-NATO Secretary General Fogh Anders Rasmussen to warn, "Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas."

Even Hillary Clinton noted that while she was at the State Department, "We were up against phony environmental groups. And I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand up against any effort. 'Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,' and a lot of that money supporting that effort was coming from Russia."

Russia hasn't stopped its anti-fracking campaign. In 2015, Russia's state-run media outlet produced no fewer than 60 anti-fracking stories purporting to show studies that determined fracking was "dangerous." Recently, two Republican representatives wrote a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin demanding that he investigate a shell company accused of funneling millions from the Russian government to a private environmentalist group — the Sea Change Foundation. The tip of the proverbial iceberg.

This is the real Russian meddling story that Congress should be investigating."

Gary Alexander