Where do you stand on these issues

[donttread]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

[kilgram]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources
1) Leave Afghanistan
2) Debt ceiling: Audit the debt. Study what debt is legimate and what not. Try to reduce the debt
3) Term limits: Yes. It is a positive thing of USA.
4) Congressional benefits: Adjusted to what the other public workers receive. They are not special
5) Fossil fuel: There is a limit in fossil fuel, and when the earliest we find a renewable substitute, the better. And only use Petroleum for the materials that there is no substitute, like plastic.

[countryboy]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now.
2) Debt ceiling: no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes
4) Congressional pay and benefits: tighten things up
5) Fossil fuels: drill here and use our own fossil fuel resources. Pass legislation to keep our fossil fuel resources in country, or at least a major percentage. Let "alternative energy" advance of it's own merits, no more government subsidies, none.

[Chris]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now--thought we already left.
2) Debt ceiling: Slash spending.
3) Term limits: Yes
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Cut, hell, most ought to be fired.
5) Fossil fuels: Let the market discover renewable resources

[Captain Obvious]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, should not have been there nearly this long to begin with.
2) Debt ceiling: Lower it, cut spending.
3) Term limits: Yes but with longer terms.
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Pay and benefits is meaningless, most of them are already wealthy. Cut the number of Congressional members in half now, make serving voluntary. A little undecided on the last one, in theory - regular Joes who might serve need a source of income but regular Joes never get elected, whole other set of governing problems there.
5) Fossil fuels: Moderate extraction, stronger focus on renewable energy, higher energy costs for everyone (tough shit).

[Ransom]

1)Afghanistan. Leave now, watch it decline much like Iraq, expect extremists to fill that void, we fall back to square one.
2)http://www.usdebtclock.org
3)We already have term limits they're called elections.
4)Congressional pay and benefits: Why would you focus on the 535 members of Congress when you have a bloated federal govt workforce of 4M+
5)Meaningful conversions to energy...via the private sector....much much less govt regulation.

[zelmo1234]

Afghanistan, Leave it like we did Cuba, with large military base and airport, but do not come to their rescue and let them do their own thing

Balanced budget amendment then a 1% sales tax for debt reduction only NO MORE DEBT

Term limit, we already have them they are called elections

Congress cut pay and staff by 2/3's and move to a part time congress

Energy all hands on deck NO subsidies for any energy source Green or fossil

[Polecat]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

1.) Fuck Afghanistan. That should have been a bomb run only.
2.) No more credit for the feds. When someone demonstrate they can't be responsible with money you cut them off.
3.) No terms period. We should be able to boot the idiots at any time for any reason. And why the fuck do we allow the idiots in Minnesota to send Al Franken to DC?
4.) They are put on hourly minimum wage and get no pensions or insurance.
5.) Fossil fuel is stored solar energy. Use it but find alternatives in the mean time.

[Peter1469]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
Leave with the promise of punishment later if they go astray (Smash and go is a bargain compared to occupation).
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
Don't raise it. Find which debt can be relatively safely repudiated. Do it. End the Fed.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
I use to be naive and believed this was elections. They system is rigged. So yes.
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
Like it is, with periodic cost of living studies. It isn't much money anyway (they get paid chump change). Also make all interactions with lobbyists to include contributions 100% transparent, with the penatly of impeachment if this is violated.
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources
Try to win for once in life. (http://energyvictory.net/) This will effectively destroy the ME and Russia.

[Mainecoons]

Afghanistan: Leave now
Debt Limit: No further increases, cut spending.
Term Limits: Yes, definitely. Good enough for the POTUS, good enough for the rest of them.
Limit length of time Congress can be in regular session to 60 days per year. Tell them to go the hell home otherwise and pay them accordingly.
Fossil fuels: Get the government out of the way.

[Cigar]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now
2) Debt ceiling: Raise if it help Americans and American Infrastructure ... you know, like what all the other Presidents did.
3) Term limits: Not sure, if your good at your job, like Governing, why would you have to leave?
4) Congressional pay and benefits: People who don't do "anything" should get paid anything. You know, like Welfare Queens.
5) Fossil fuels: Drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

Lastly; If you don't like Government or Governing, get the Fuck out of Government.
Tax Payers paying someone to occupy a Political Position is Fiscally Stupid!

[Peter1469]

Lastly; If you don't like Government or Governing, get the Fuck out of Government.
Tax Payers paying someone to occupy a Political Position is Fiscally Stupid![/COLOR]

Paying politicians to tell a feckless leader NO is well worth the money.

[Cigar]

Paying politicians to tell a feckless leader NO is well worth the money.


Paying politicians to say NO is Stupid!

6 years has passed, hundreds of thousands of unemployed skilled labor at historically low labor cost are sitting around getting an unemployment check from YOU when they could be Building Our Infrastructure.

The ONLY reason why our Infrastructure is not getting upgraded is because OLD WHITE RACIST think they are getting back at one (1) Black Man for Winning two Presidential Elections.

Don't these OLD WHITE RACIST know this one (1) Black Man will get wealthy regardless and move on without a single scratch to himself, while these OLD WHITE RACIST will still be left with an crubleing infrastructure, that will eventually cost their own children 10x's as much later.

Yea ... keep saying NO and you and your family will get Screwed while The Obama's are living off of your Stupidity and your Tax Dollars.

All because of one (1) Black Man Won an Election.

GTFOI ... and move on ... you lost, NOTHING will ever change that Fact!

[Peter1469]

Paying politicians to stop harmful legislation is worth its weight in gold.

When the opposition cries racism, you know you are winning. :smiley:

[lynn]

1.) Afghanistan: Leave now
2.) Debt ceiling: This should have never been raised the first time since they cannot manage to stay within their budget of taxes collected. On the other hand since they have raised it to the point that we can never pay our debt down, we have no choice but to keep on raising it until our dollar eventually collapses.
3.) Term Limits: Definitely
4.) Congressional pay and benefits: They should receive the same benefits as the average worker does. Pay should be based on performance.
5.) Fossil fuels: Drill here until there is no more as we only have about 50 years left of fossil fuels globally.

[Peter1469]

2. Or just default on the debt (much of it we owe to ourselves and the fed). That could prevent a collapse if we controlled spending after that.


1.) Afghanistan: Leave now
2.) Debt ceiling: This should have never been raised the first time since they cannot manage to stay within their budget of taxes collected. On the other hand since they have raised it to the point that we can never pay our debt down, we have no choice but to keep on raising it until our dollar eventually collapses.
3.) Term Limits: Definitely
4.) Congressional pay and benefits: They should receive the same benefits as the average worker does. Pay should be based on performance.
5.) Fossil fuels: Drill here until there is no more as we only have about 50 years left of fossil fuels globally.

[Chloe]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now
2) Debt ceiling: raise it with some restraint, but make more efforts to reduce debt
3) Term limits: Yes. Even though we have elections there should still be a limit in my opinion. I don't think politics should be a career.
4) Congressional pay and benefits: I'm ok with good benefits for them but their pay shouldn't be too too high. I just don't think it should be a money making career.
5) Fossil fuels: Dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage and put more money currently going to things like the military into renewable energy and adjusting infrastructure and transportation

[countryboy]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now
2) Debt ceiling: raise it with some restraint, but make more efforts to reduce debt
3) Term limits: Yes. Even though we have elections there should still be a limit in my opinion. I don't think politics should be a career.
4) Congressional pay and benefits: I'm ok with good benefits for them but their pay shouldn't be too too high. I just don't think it should be a money making career.
5) Fossil fuels: Dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage and put more money currently going to things like the military into renewable energy and adjusting infrastructure and transportation
When I saw you had posted, I said to myself, here we go. :D Then I read it and thought, huh, we mostly agree. :)

[donttread]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

Here are my answers
1) Afghanistan: Leave yesterday
2) Debt Ceiling: They have abused their credit card and we should take it away
3) Term limits Yes
4) Congressional pay and benefits : No retirement , freeze wages and tie any further increases to their job performance
5) Fossil Fuels: Localize food and energy economies , drill here with a plan to phase in alternate energy and kill the megacorps

The best point here is however that we pretty much have a consensus on issues 1-4 but they ain't happenin. Proof that our government has no intention of honoring the people's will.

[Green Arrow]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

1) Leave now.
2) Lower it. Cut wasteful spending and temporarily raise taxes.
3) One term of six years for President, three terms of four years for Senators, five terms of two years for Representatives, and one term of ten years for Supreme Court justices. Additionally, your term and ability to run for election ends on your 70th birthday.
4) Tighten up, and if you go into Congress with a net worth of over $500,000, you get nothing. *EDIT* And once you leave office, you will only receive the pay and benefits for a year. No more lifetime payments.
5) Drill here, start meaningful conversion to renewable resources.

[Chris]

Actually instead of term limits I could see session limits, iow, limit time Congress is in session to, oh, about one month per year.

[Peter1469]

2. What happens when increased taxes = lower tax revenue?

1) Leave now.
2) Lower it. Cut wasteful spending and temporarily raise taxes.
3) One term of six years for President, three terms of four years for Senators, five terms of two years for Representatives, and one term of ten years for Supreme Court justices. Additionally, your term and ability to run for election ends on your 70th birthday.
4) Tighten up, and if you go into Congress with a net worth of over $500,000, you get nothing. *EDIT* And once you leave office, you will only receive the pay and benefits for a year. No more lifetime payments.
5) Drill here, start meaningful conversion to renewable resources.

[Green Arrow]

Actually instead of term limits I could see session limits, iow, limit time Congress is in session to, oh, about one month per year.

That won't work until you drastically reduce the size of government. Plus, Congress really shouldn't be limited by sessions because they need to be able to respond to crises.

[Green Arrow]

2. What happens when increased taxes = lower tax revenue?

I don't understand the logic in such claims.

[Peter1469]

I don't understand the logic in such claims.

Tax increases affect the economy. Typical the economy contracts. Less people paying taxes tend to = less tax revenue. Cut taxes and get more tax revenue.

[donttread]

When I saw you had posted, I said to myself, here we go. :D Then I read it and thought, huh, we mostly agree. :)

Funny how that works, huh?

[The Sage of Main Street]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

1) Partition it among Iran, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban. That will keep the Muzzies warring among themselves.
2) 100% inheritance tax. That will get $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone.
3 & 4) Not the real problem, which is that inferior people get into superior positions in government, business, education, and the media through birth or brown-nosing.
5) Partition Muslim-owned oil, which costs less than $5 a barrel, among the US, Russia, China, and NATO. That will cause a worldwide economic boom among the civilized countries and bankrupt the feral terrorists.

[Green Arrow]

1) Partition it among Iran, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban. That will keep the Muzzies warring among themselves.
2) 100% inheritance tax. That will get $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone.
3 & 4) Not the real problem, which is that inferior people get into superior positions in government, business, education, and the media through birth or brown-nosing.
5) Partition Muslim-owned oil, which costs less than $5 a barrel, among the US, Russia, China, and NATO. That will cause a worldwide economic boom among the civilized countries and bankrupt the feral terrorists.

It's Turkmenistan, not Turkestan. There is no such country as Turkestan.

[Chris]

That won't work until you drastically reduce the size of government. Plus, Congress really shouldn't be limited by sessions because they need to be able to respond to crises.

Chicken and egg on first part. On second, OK, allow emergency sessions limited to emergency.

[Green Arrow]

Chicken and egg on first part. On second, OK, allow emergency sessions limited to emergency.

What is wrong with the current session structure?

[Peter1469]

2. The 1% will leave and you will get $0. Oops. :shocked:


1) Partition it among Iran, Turkestan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and the Taliban. That will keep the Muzzies warring among themselves.
2) 100% inheritance tax. That will get $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone.
3 & 4) Not the real problem, which is that inferior people get into superior positions in government, business, education, and the media through birth or brown-nosing.
5) Partition Muslim-owned oil, which costs less than $5 a barrel, among the US, Russia, China, and NATO. That will cause a worldwide economic boom among the civilized countries and bankrupt the feral terrorists.

[Chris]

What is wrong with the current session structure?

It's the length. COngress should have less time.

[Captain Obvious]

It's Turkmenistan, not Turkestan. There is no such country as Turkestan.

Not true, it's right next to Kerplakistan.

[Green Arrow]

It's the length. COngress should have less time.

Why is the length a problem?

[Peter1469]

Why is the length a problem?

Because it gives them more time to meddle in things that are none of their business.

[Green Arrow]

Because it gives them more time to meddle in things that are non of their business.

Shortening the term won't help. They'll just do even less actually beneficial legislation in favor of the meddling. If they want to meddle, we can't stop them. They'll always find a way.

[texan]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely? Anytime we spend money to clean out roaches we stay for a while, maybe forever in small force with the ability to expand as needed. Afgan is next to iran, a definate need.

2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt. Raise it as required but make meaningful cuts in places that are common sense. Add bonus structures to save money and stop the spending / waste of moneys "needed to be spent or lose it."

3) Term limits: Yes, or no.......Yes

4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement).....Leave it

5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources............drill here now, expand natural gas exp and usage

[Peter1469]

Shortening the term won't help. They'll just do even less actually beneficial legislation in favor of the meddling. If they want to meddle, we can't stop them. They'll always find a way.

They do lots of beneficial legislation now? :smiley:

[Green Arrow]

They do lots of beneficial legislation now? :smiley:

No, but every once in a while they do :tongue:

[Chris]

Shortening the term won't help. They'll just do even less actually beneficial legislation in favor of the meddling. If they want to meddle, we can't stop them. They'll always find a way.

Doing less would be a good thing. Historically sessions were shorter, and they got paid per diem, not a salary.

[Bob]

They do lots of beneficial legislation now? :smiley:

There should be a ten year moratorium on legislating in DC. Then it should be a reduction process.

[texan]

Keep writing laws that we already have to get their name in the history book.

[Adelaide]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

1. Leave when asked or the training of Afghan military and police is finished, and only so long as there is an amicable agreement with Afghanistan's leadership and benefits to the US in having a presence there.
2. Raise it with some restraint with the ultimate aim of lowering the debt.
3. Yes.
4. Tighten it up.
5. Drill or buy foreign as needed, however offer advantages to businesses and people who opt to use renewable resources.

[Peter1469]

1. We could never create a real army out of the Afghans. They need a major societal revolution to occur before that would be possible.


1. Leave when asked or the training of Afghan military and police is finished, and only so long as there is an amicable agreement with Afghanistan's leadership and benefits to the US in having a presence there.
2. Raise it with some restraint with the ultimate aim of lowering the debt.
3. Yes.
4. Tighten it up.
5. Drill or buy foreign as needed, however offer advantages to businesses and people who opt to use renewable resources.

[Peter1469]

A rag tag militia is the best we could hope for. There are plenty of videos online showing these guys at work in the field....

No wonder a small CIA special activities unit, 2 or so SF ODAs, with air support helped the Northern Alliance conquer the entire place in like 3 weeks.

[Dr. Who]

Doing less would be a good thing. Historically sessions were shorter, and they got paid per diem, not a salary.
Agree, they should get something like lawyer rates per hour or per diem and only when they can prove they are working.

[Redrose]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

1) leave Afghanistan
2) raise with restraint
3) term limitations
4) no special benefits for the Congress. They are subject to all laws they enforce on us.
5) I'm for drilling, exploring all our own natural resources. I'm on the fence with fracking. Keep conversation open.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's Turkmenistan, not Turkestan. There is no such country as Turkestan. Lazy Internet sloppiness is contagious. @s even quote something spelled correctly and then misspell it in their own Reply. I got sidetracked on the spelling of Tajikistan and whether Kyrgyzstan bordered Afghanistan.

[The Sage of Main Street]

2. The 1% will leave and you will get $0. Oops. :shocked: Good riddance. It will be worth it not having to be bullied by those thieves and traitors any more. Their heirs don't belong in America either. They should all go back to the crumbling castles of Europe and suck dust.

[Chris]

Sage, your following up the tail end of these threads reminds me of the janitor following up the parade of Peabody's Improbable History in Rocky and Bulwinkle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnmiwo79aTg

[The Sage of Main Street]

1. We could never create a real army out of the Afghans. They need a major societal revolution to occur before that would be possible. It is a cut-and-paste country.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sage, your following up the tail end of these threads reminds me of the janitor following up the parade of Peabody's Improbable History in Rocky and Bullwinkle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnmiwo79aTg Someone has to clean up after the Chriscrash.

[Peter1469]

Economics isn't your strong suit, right?


Good riddance. It will be worth it not having to be bullied by those thieves and traitors any more. Their heirs don't belong in America either. They should all go back to the crumbling castles of Europe and suck dust.

[Peter1469]

It is a cut-and-paste country.

Correct.

[Bob]

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?
2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.
3) Term limits: Yes, or no
4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)
5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

Good question. Since I believe that the typical poster lacks proper information to make sound judgments, and since this invites less than sound judgment, sure, I can opine.

1) Afghanistan: Leave now, leave later, stay indefinitely?

T here are so many opinions floating around on the issue 1), I honestly do not know.

If leaving means the country becomes once more what it was, add troops and finish the job faster.
If leaving means the country will not pose a threat to our security, take off.

2) Debt ceiling: Raise it at will, raise it with some restraint, no more debt.

There is no Debt ceiling. This myth just gets our hopes up. It is misnamed is all. Were this say 1920, it would then have a meaning. So, what will happen, USA Debt will continue as it has for decades. It will be talked about, but increased. It should not increase, but this is my belief on what will really happen.

3) Term limits: Yes, or no

This implies Congress occupants are at their prime when they show up, decline and must be discarded. Those of us who have experience with large committees, I feel have more informed beliefs. We won't get it correct on each congress seat. In general, if the person is good on the job, I say keep them. If bad, vote them out. Problem is there are more opinions than facts. Perhaps if each party had a kind of jury. Those who did very well are able to hang around. If congress votes them out, I say kick them down the street kicking beer cans and talking to themselves.

In short, those in congress know far better than we who the duds are. This could mean very short terms for some in congress.

4) Congressional pay and benefits: Leave it like it is or tighten things up ( more work days or less dollars, 20 year minimum for retirement)

It is hard to pin down actual days of work. I would worry more about our jack off president and his days of endless wandering all over America in the quest of hard cold cash than your representative or Senator. A simple law could perhaps be passed. Vacation for all congressmen is limited to 3 weeks and they must be in DC or their offices or on official duties of some sort or be fined for missing days. (Some claim Bush had more days off. However he spent in the same time as Obama has served a bit over 200 days hunting cash where Obama is at about 400 days roaming around hunting cash. )

5) Fossil fuels: Leave it as it is, drill here and use oil like crazy, drill here but start meaningful conversion to renewable resources

Business, believe it or not, will come up with the correct answer. The Government should not interfere. The Feds spend on interstate highways such as I95 on the east coast and it seems some of that cash could be spent to stoke the burners to get the fuel cell technology hydrogen supply going.

On a different issue, but who recalls the wild ass claims by Democrats over stem cell research?

Supposedly Bush stopped it.

Truth is, it never stopped. Bush blew a lot of cash on it.

Notice we don't hear from Democrats all the wonderful advances due to stem cells.

It has been an information black out for a long time.

[Bob]

5) I'm for drilling, exploring all our own natural resources. I'm on the fence with fracking. Keep conversation open.

They only frack at unbelievably deep spots. And each well by law must be sealed to keep it from contaminating anything. All Fracking means is high pressure steam is inserted that contains some sand. The sand acts like a roof support does to allow the well to produce hard to get petroleum.

[donttread]

1. Leave when asked or the training of Afghan military and police is finished, and only so long as there is an amicable agreement with Afghanistan's leadership and benefits to the US in having a presence there.
2. Raise it with some restraint with the ultimate aim of lowering the debt.
3. Yes.
4. Tighten it up.
5. Drill or buy foreign as needed, however offer advantages to businesses and people who opt to use renewable resources.

Just curious? Why stay in Afghanistan? The only thing of value they have is poppies and I'm beginning to think that is the real reason we are there

[Dr. Who]

They only frack at unbelievably deep spots. And each well by law must be sealed to keep it from contaminating anything. All Fracking means is high pressure steam is inserted that contains some sand. The sand acts like a roof support does to allow the well to produce hard to get petroleum.
There have been over 1000 fracking leaks to date.

[Peter1469]

There have been over 1000 fracking leaks to date.

We need to enforce the safety regulations. It can be done safely if corners are not cut.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=701967#post701967)
They only frack at unbelievably deep spots. And each well by law must be sealed to keep it from contaminating anything. All Fracking means is high pressure steam is inserted that contains some sand. The sand acts like a roof support does to allow the well to produce hard to get petroleum.


There have been over 1000 fracking leaks to date.

That tells me nothing. I believe there have been far more natural gas leaks at homes yet we don't try to prevent homes from using that gas.

[Bob]

Fracking

http://energyindepth.org/michigan/univ-of-michigan-study-confirms-safety-of-hydraulic-fracturing/

The University of Michigan has released the preliminary findings of its long-awaited hydraulic fracturing study (http://www.graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing/technical-reports), and the conclusions are likely to upset some of the most fervent anti-frackingactivists (http://banmichiganfracking.org/) in our state. Much of what is presented merely reaffirms what anyone who has been paying attention has already known: that the hydraulic fracturing process is safe, can co-exist with a healthy environment, is beneficial to our economy and – this point is worth stressing – does not contaminate groundwater.
Below is a summary of key findings from each section of the U-M report.

[Dr. Who]

Fracking

http://energyindepth.org/michigan/univ-of-michigan-study-confirms-safety-of-hydraulic-fracturing/

The University of Michigan has released the preliminary findings of its long-awaited hydraulic fracturing study (http://www.graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing/technical-reports), and the conclusions are likely to upset some of the most fervent anti-frackingactivists (http://banmichiganfracking.org/) in our state. Much of what is presented merely reaffirms what anyone who has been paying attention has already known: that the hydraulic fracturing process is safe, can co-exist with a healthy environment, is beneficial to our economy and – this point is worth stressing – does not contaminate groundwater.
Below is a summary of key findings from each section of the U-M report.
Tell these people: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html

[Bob]

Tell these people: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html

You should alert University of Michigan.

I have no proof YET, but it is my belief that those wells that put flaming water into some homes have gas found naturally and not as a result of deep drilling oil wells.

[Dr. Who]

You should alert University of Michigan.

I have no proof YET, but it is my belief that those wells that put flaming water into some homes have gas found naturally and not as a result of deep drilling oil wells.
I'm not a great believer in coincidence. Water great for years - suddenly they start fracking close by and the water goes funky. The problem is that the regulators don't regulate these operations as they should, so they get away with poor procedure. It might well be safe if you could rely on these outfits to follow the guidelines, but they take shortcuts and then people suffer.

[donttread]

Fracking

http://energyindepth.org/michigan/univ-of-michigan-study-confirms-safety-of-hydraulic-fracturing/

The University of Michigan has released the preliminary findings of its long-awaited hydraulic fracturing study (http://www.graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing/technical-reports), and the conclusions are likely to upset some of the most fervent anti-frackingactivists (http://banmichiganfracking.org/) in our state. Much of what is presented merely reaffirms what anyone who has been paying attention has already known: that the hydraulic fracturing process is safe, can co-exist with a healthy environment, is beneficial to our economy and – this point is worth stressing – does not contaminate groundwater.
Below is a summary of key findings from each section of the U-M report.

Who funded U of M for the study? Because studies show that studies show pretty much what the people funding the study want them to

[The Sage of Main Street]

Economics isn't your strong suit, right? It's just filler for empty suits in the front office. Economics is a captive science, talking points for the plutocratic parasites to preach about their own divine supremacy and our absolute dependence on making the rich richer.

The present oinkonomics is as primitive and ignorant as alchemy was. Wealth is created by natural talent developing natural resources. Economics takes that out of the equation and substitutes inert capital, giving it magic powers to move the economy by throwing money at it.

[Peter1469]

It's just filler for empty suits in the front office. Economics is a captive science, talking points for the plutocratic parasites to preach about their own divine supremacy and our absolute dependence on making the rich richer.

The present oinkonomics is as primitive and ignorant as alchemy was. Wealth is created by natural talent developing natural resources. Economics takes that out of the equation and substitutes inert capital, giving it magic powers to move the economy by throwing money at it.


I have to laugh. Ok. Now...

Oh!

[The Sage of Main Street]

Who funded U of M for the study? Because studies show that studies show pretty much what the people funding the study want them to But the fake idealists on the Zero Growth side are in it for power, control, and the thrill of feeling morally superior. Most of the leaders, like Bobby Kennedy, Jr., don't need any money. That is the only reason they brag about not being in it for the money. That class has no right to exist, so we shouldn't have any respect for their fad movements.

RFK II's cheating with Camelot groupies drove his wife to suicide. So he has a desperate need to feel morally superior and we have to pay for his personal problems. Same goes for most others in the Greenhead clique.

[Bob]

I'm not a great believer in coincidence. Water great for years - suddenly they start fracking close by and the water goes funky. The problem is that the regulators don't regulate these operations as they should, so they get away with poor procedure. It might well be safe if you could rely on these outfits to follow the guidelines, but they take shortcuts and then people suffer.

You would think the University of Michigan study would side with you but not me.

Well, it does not.

I think some of those reports are folk lore or if not, they simply do not know why the water flames.

Bear in mind, coincidence does not stand for causality.

I saw it on PBS but did not learn where said wells were or if actual tests were performed proving the water flames were due to Fracking. UM sure does not agree.

Matter of fact, few agree with the ecowhack jobs.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdf#page=38

[Bob]

Who funded U of M for the study? Because studies show that studies show pretty much what the people funding the study want them to

A bit of everybody funded it.

http://graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing

As domestic natural gas production has accelerated in recent years, however, the hydraulic fracturing process has come under increased public scrutiny. Concerns include perceived lack of transparency, chemical contamination, new techniques, water availability, waste water disposal, and impacts on ecosystems, human health, and surrounding communities. Consequently, numerous hydraulic fracturing studies are being undertaken by government agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, and academia, yet none have a particular focus on Michigan.
In response to that gap, a unique partnership involving several University of Michigan units, industry representatives, environmental organizations, and state regulators has formed to examine the multiple aspects of this gas extraction technique, with an emphasis on impacts and issues related to the State of Michigan. Using an engaged problem-solving approach called integrated assessment, the project will first compile technical reports on key topics then focus on an analysis of policy options for Michigan.

[Dr. Who]

You would think the University of Michigan study would side with you but not me.

Well, it does not.

I think some of those reports are folk lore or if not, they simply do not know why the water flames.

Bear in mind, coincidence does not stand for causality.

I saw it on PBS but did not learn where said wells were or if actual tests were performed proving the water flames were due to Fracking. UM sure does not agree.

Matter of fact, few agree with the ecowhack jobs.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf-report20121214.pdf#page=38
Unfortunately the EPA never completed the study. It was cancelled in 2013. However perhaps this will help:

On June 24, the National Academy of Sciences published a report by Duke University researchers that underscored a link between the methane contamination in water in Dimock and across the Marcellus shale, and the gas wells being drilled deep below.

see excerpt below:

Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627; and Geological Sciences Department, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 917684

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are transforming energy production, but their potential environmental effects remain controversial. We analyzed 141 drinking water wells across the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province of northeastern Pennsylvania, examining natural gas concentrations and isotopic signatures with proximity to shale gas wells. Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples, with average concentrations six times higher for homes <1 km from natural gas wells (P = 0.0006). Ethane was 23 times higher in homes <1 km from gas wells (P =0.0013); propane was detected in 10 water wells, all within approximately1 km distance (P = 0.01). Of three factors previously proposed to influence gas concentrations in shallow groundwater(distances to gas wells, valley bottoms, and the Appalachian Structural Front, a proxy for tectonic deformation), distance to gas wells was highly significant for methane concentrations (P = 0.007; multiple regression), whereas distances to valley bottoms and the Appalachian Structural Front were not significant (P = 0.27 and P = 0.11, respectively). Distance to gas wells was also the most significant factor for Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses(P < 0.01). For ethane concentrations, distance to gas wells was the only statistically significant factor (P < 0.005). Isotopic signatures(δ13C-CH4, δ13C-C2H6, and δ2H-CH4), hydrocarbon ratios (methane to ethane and propane), and the ratio of the noble gas 4He to CH4in groundwater were characteristic of a thermally post mature Marcellus-like source in some cases. Overall, our data suggest that some homeowners living <1 km from gas wells have drinking water contaminated with stray gases.

Results and Discussion
Dissolved methane was detected in the drinking water of 82% of the houses sampled (115 of 141). Methane concentrations in drinking water wells of homes <1 km from natural gas wells (59of 141) were six times higher on average than concentrations for homes farther away (P =0.0006, Kruskal–Wallis test) (Fig. 1 and Fig. S3). Of 12 houses where CH4 concentrations were greater than 28 mg/L (the threshold for immediate remediation set by the US Department of the Interior), 11 houses were within 1-km distance of an active shale gas well (Fig. 1). The only exception was a home with a value of 32 mg CH4/L at 1.4-km distance.

Similar to the results for methane, concentrations of ethane(C2H6) and propane (C3H8) were also higher in drinking water of homes near natural gas wells (Fig. 1). Ethane was detected in40 of 133 homes (30%; 8 fewer homes were sampled for ethane and propane than for methane). Propane was detected in water wells in 10 of 133 homes, all approximately <1 km from a shale gas well (P = 0.01) (Fig. 1, Lower Inset). Ethane concentrations were 23 times higher on average for homes<1 km from a gas well:0.18 compared with 0.008 mg C2H6/L (P=0.001, Kruskal–Wallis).Seven of eight C2H6 concentrations>0.5 mg/L were found<1 km from a gas well (Fig. 1), with the eighth point only 1.1 km away (Fig. 1). Moreover, the higher ethane concentrations all occurred in groundwater with methane concentrations>15 mg/L (P=0.003 for the regression of C2 and C1) (Fig. S4), although not all higher methane concentration waters had elevated ethane.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html

[Bob]

Unfortunately the EPA never completed the study. It was cancelled in 2013. However perhaps this will help:

On June 24, the National Academy of Sciences published a report by Duke University researchers that underscored a link between the methane contamination in water in Dimock and across the Marcellus shale, and the gas wells being drilled deep below.

see excerpt below:

Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627; and Geological Sciences Department, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 917684

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are transforming energy production, but their potential environmental effects remain controversial. We analyzed 141 drinking water wells across the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province of northeastern Pennsylvania, examining natural gas concentrations and isotopic signatures with proximity to shale gas wells. Methane was detected in 82% of drinking water samples, with average concentrations six times higher for homes <1 km from natural gas wells (P = 0.0006). Ethane was 23 times higher in homes <1 km from gas wells (P =0.0013); propane was detected in 10 water wells, all within approximately1 km distance (P = 0.01). Of three factors previously proposed to influence gas concentrations in shallow groundwater(distances to gas wells, valley bottoms, and the Appalachian Structural Front, a proxy for tectonic deformation), distance to gas wells was highly significant for methane concentrations (P = 0.007; multiple regression), whereas distances to valley bottoms and the Appalachian Structural Front were not significant (P = 0.27 and P = 0.11, respectively). Distance to gas wells was also the most significant factor for Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses(P < 0.01). For ethane concentrations, distance to gas wells was the only statistically significant factor (P < 0.005). Isotopic signatures(δ13C-CH4, δ13C-C2H6, and δ2H-CH4), hydrocarbon ratios (methane to ethane and propane), and the ratio of the noble gas 4He to CH4in groundwater were characteristic of a thermally post mature Marcellus-like source in some cases. Overall, our data suggest that some homeowners living <1 km from gas wells have drinking water contaminated with stray gases.

Results and Discussion
Dissolved methane was detected in the drinking water of 82% of the houses sampled (115 of 141). Methane concentrations in drinking water wells of homes <1 km from natural gas wells (59of 141) were six times higher on average than concentrations for homes farther away (P =0.0006, Kruskal–Wallis test) (Fig. 1 and Fig. S3). Of 12 houses where CH4 concentrations were greater than 28 mg/L (the threshold for immediate remediation set by the US Department of the Interior), 11 houses were within 1-km distance of an active shale gas well (Fig. 1). The only exception was a home with a value of 32 mg CH4/L at 1.4-km distance.

Similar to the results for methane, concentrations of ethane(C2H6) and propane (C3H8) were also higher in drinking water of homes near natural gas wells (Fig. 1). Ethane was detected in40 of 133 homes (30%; 8 fewer homes were sampled for ethane and propane than for methane). Propane was detected in water wells in 10 of 133 homes, all approximately <1 km from a shale gas well (P = 0.01) (Fig. 1, Lower Inset). Ethane concentrations were 23 times higher on average for homes<1 km from a gas well:0.18 compared with 0.008 mg C2H6/L (P=0.001, Kruskal–Wallis).Seven of eight C2H6 concentrations>0.5 mg/L were found<1 km from a gas well (Fig. 1), with the eighth point only 1.1 km away (Fig. 1). Moreover, the higher ethane concentrations all occurred in groundwater with methane concentrations>15 mg/L (P=0.003 for the regression of C2 and C1) (Fig. S4), although not all higher methane concentration waters had elevated ethane.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full.pdf+html

I have a suggestion based on my experience with the oil well drilling industry. I was not drilling those wells but used their technology in San Francisco to create a hole 92 feet deep .... 24 x 48 feet in size

1. Have the fracked well owners pay for and install on those homes, a device to purify the water.
2. Work the drilled holes again with the aim to put gas proof cement where the well can contact any water.

I expect the scientists have suggested this be done.

[Dr. Who]

I have a suggestion based on my experience with the oil well drilling industry. I was not drilling those wells but used their technology in San Francisco to create a hole 92 feet deep .... 24 x 48 feet in size

1. Have the fracked well owners pay for and install on those homes, a device to purify the water.
2. Work the drilled holes again with the aim to put gas proof cement where the well can contact any water.

I expect the scientists have suggested this be done.
That would be nice, but there have also been spills, for lack of a better term that have also contaminated farms and killed livestock. I don't think that the fracking ops admitted culpability, nor did they compensate the owners. It would be great if they did and it would decrease public angst about fracking. Of course the operations that short cut the regulations are likely also the ones that don't admit to any wrongdoing.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=703168#post703168)
I have a suggestion based on my experience with the oil well drilling industry. I was not drilling those wells but used their technology in San Francisco to create a hole 92 feet deep .... 24 x 48 feet in size

1. Have the fracked well owners pay for and install on those homes, a device to purify the water.
2. Work the drilled holes again with the aim to put gas proof cement where the well can contact any water.

I expect the scientists have suggested this be done.


That would be nice, but there have also been spills, for lack of a better term that have also contaminated farms and killed livestock. I don't think that the fracking ops admitted culpability, nor did they compensate the owners. It would be great if they did and it would decrease public angst about fracking. Of course the operations that short cut the regulations are likely also the ones that don't admit to any wrongdoing.

WOW, I don't have a dog in this fight, but have ran jobs that the EPA held a knife to our heart over.

I am not pro bad wells. I am sorry people find gas in their water.

I don't claim to be an expert on water wells. I know enough to know if they are properly inspected by professionals. Part of my job when I sell such land is to ensure the well has safe water.

Naturally were this to be one of my clients, it might be easy to fire off on the company that fracked.

I know enough due to my background to smell problems.

Here is my problem. If there is a problem, solve the problem and repair the problem.

I used many many thousands of gallons of drilling mud as a job supervisor in SF. I, who worked for the VP of the company, had a pair of rail tank cars on the job with the tops cut off using torches. We mixed drilling mud in both tanks. When we removed the contaminated slurry, it was pumped into a huge tank such as fuel tanks found at airports. The tank held tens of thousands of gallons.

Slurry will prevent gas from being in the water. Now, a more permanent fix has to be done. But slurry has stopped dams from leaking.

For my money, there must be a lawsuit and settlement that is sought. I may be wrong, but it smells like that.

I proposed just two simple fixes. And I have been out of this business for many years. I just don't forget.

If you want the EPA in your business, just go to those piers by oil companies where ships dock. Remove those piling where you half tear them up with the very powerful crane/pile driver, and hope the EPA is not watching. We would have wood contaminated by Creosote fall into the SF Bay and we rushed to pull that wood right back out. We did not have inspectors watching but we knew the law and the fines and legal penalties.

I am sort of surprised some of you don't call on my past experience at managing heavy construction jobs.

[Bob]

That would be nice, but there have also been spills, for lack of a better term that have also contaminated farms and killed livestock. I don't think that the fracking ops admitted culpability, nor did they compensate the owners. It would be great if they did and it would decrease public angst about fracking. Of course the operations that short cut the regulations are likely also the ones that don't admit to any wrongdoing.

I have one more thing to ask you.

Have you ever been in charge of a job where you were subject to the EPA?

Do you actually know the laws?

[Captain Obvious]

I have one more thing to ask you.



http://dicknballs.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/yeah-right.jpg?w=490

[Dr. Who]

WOW, I don't have a dog in this fight, but have ran jobs that the EPA held a knife to our heart over.

I am not pro bad wells. I am sorry people find gas in their water.

I don't claim to be an expert on water wells. I know enough to know if they are properly inspected by professionals. Part of my job when I sell such land is to ensure the well has safe water.

Naturally were this to be one of my clients, it might be easy to fire off on the company that fracked.

I know enough due to my background to smell problems.

Here is my problem. If there is a problem, solve the problem and repair the problem.

I used many many thousands of gallons of drilling mud as a job supervisor in SF. I, who worked for the VP of the company, had a pair of rail tank cars on the job with the tops cut off using torches. We mixed drilling mud in both tanks. When we removed the contaminated slurry, it was pumped into a huge tank such as fuel tanks found at airports. The tank held tens of thousands of gallons.

Slurry will prevent gas from being in the water. Now, a more permanent fix has to be done. But slurry has stopped dams from leaking.

For my money, there must be a lawsuit and settlement that is sought. I may be wrong, but it smells like that.

I proposed just two simple fixes. And I have been out of this business for many years. I just don't forget.

If you want the EPA in your business, just go to those piers by oil companies where ships dock. Remove those piling where you half tear them up with the very powerful crane/pile driver, and hope the EPA is not watching. We would have wood contaminated by Creosote fall into the SF Bay and we rushed to pull that wood right back out. We did not have inspectors watching but we knew the law and the fines and legal penalties.

I am sort of surprised some of you don't call on my past experience at managing heavy construction jobs.
The issues with hydraulic fracturing stem mainly from lack of enforcement. Perhaps this paper will help. http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FINAL-US-enforcement-sm.pdf

[Dr. Who]

I have one more thing to ask you.

Have you ever been in charge of a job where you were subject to the EPA?

Do you actually know the laws?
No, I can't say that I am familiar with all of the laws, since State laws generally govern these operations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) excluded hydraulic fracturing, except when diesel fuels are used, for oil, gas or geothermal production from regulation under the UIC program. This means that the EPA generally lacks authority in regulating these operations.

[Bob]

The issues with hydraulic fracturing stem mainly from lack of enforcement. Perhaps this paper will help. http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/FINAL-US-enforcement-sm.pdf

I notice CA is not in that study. Maybe i ought to examine who funded the study above.

I prefer to show how CA does it. Even so, CA is being attacked by the left. By those who are furious over more oil or gas.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/HydraulicFracturing.aspx

Hydraulic fracturing (also known as hydrofracturing, “fracking”, or “fracing”) is the high-pressure injection of a mix of fluids and substances called “proppants” into an oil or gas reservoir. The mix, injected under pressure, fractures the reservoir rock. When the fluids are removed, the proppants keep open the cracks left by the fracturing, allowing oil or natural gas to flow back to the well. Fracturing the rock is necessary to extract oil or natural gas from formations in which the pore space in the rock making up the oil or natural gas reservoir is too tight to allow the flow of fluids or gasses to the well. Without a man-made fracture, the oil or gas cannot be recovered.

Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947 in a well in Kansas. Since then, hydraulic fracturing has become a regular practice to tap into previously unrecoverable reserves, or to stimulate increased production from existing oil or gas wells in the United States. In California, hydraulic fracturing has been used as a production stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment.
With the increase in the development of horizontal shale gas wells in various regions of the United States, hydraulic fracturing has become the focus of significant attention. Some have questions about the safety of continued use of this technology. Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are examining whether the practice is likely to contribute to the contamination of surface or groundwater, and whether it poses risks to public health or safety.
Just as oil and gas production operations differ from region to region nationwide, so too do regional methods of hydraulic fracturing. To date, the Division is aware of very little, if any, fracturing of horizontal shale gas wells in California of the type performed in other parts of the United States. Most of California’s oil and gas production to date has been from vertical wells into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs.

[Dr. Who]

I notice CA is not in that study. Maybe i ought to examine who funded the study above.

I prefer to show how CA does it. Even so, CA is being attacked by the left. By those who are furious over more oil or gas.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/HydraulicFracturing.aspx

Hydraulic fracturing (also known as hydrofracturing, “fracking”, or “fracing”) is the high-pressure injection of a mix of fluids and substances called “proppants” into an oil or gas reservoir. The mix, injected under pressure, fractures the reservoir rock. When the fluids are removed, the proppants keep open the cracks left by the fracturing, allowing oil or natural gas to flow back to the well. Fracturing the rock is necessary to extract oil or natural gas from formations in which the pore space in the rock making up the oil or natural gas reservoir is too tight to allow the flow of fluids or gasses to the well. Without a man-made fracture, the oil or gas cannot be recovered.

Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947 in a well in Kansas. Since then, hydraulic fracturing has become a regular practice to tap into previously unrecoverable reserves, or to stimulate increased production from existing oil or gas wells in the United States. In California, hydraulic fracturing has been used as a production stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment.
With the increase in the development of horizontal shale gas wells in various regions of the United States, hydraulic fracturing has become the focus of significant attention. Some have questions about the safety of continued use of this technology. Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are examining whether the practice is likely to contribute to the contamination of surface or groundwater, and whether it poses risks to public health or safety.
Just as oil and gas production operations differ from region to region nationwide, so too do regional methods of hydraulic fracturing. To date, the Division is aware of very little, if any, fracturing of horizontal shale gas wells in California of the type performed in other parts of the United States. Most of California’s oil and gas production to date has been from vertical wells into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs.
Being California, I would imagine that State enforcement of regulations is fairly strict. I don't believe that enforcement in other States is likely as rigid, hence why the majority of incidents have occurred elsewhere.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=703198#post703198)
I have one more thing to ask you.

Have you ever been in charge of a job where you were subject to the EPA?

Do you actually know the laws?


No, I can't say that I am familiar with all of the laws, since State laws generally govern these operations. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) excluded hydraulic fracturing, except when diesel fuels are used, for oil, gas or geothermal production from regulation under the UIC program. This means that the EPA generally lacks authority in regulating these operations.

Thanks for your honesty. Some would proceed to just bull crap me.

As I pointed out moments ago, CA has NEVER had problems with Fracking despite it being used for a long time. We have probably tens of thousands of wells for petroleum and also others for gas. I never heard of a person in CA getting gas in their water.

I am very weak when it comes to drilling oil wells. I studied this field but it was around 1966 and that due to my need to understand it on the major job I ran in San Francisco, CA. The VP called on me to be the company expert (his words). The company paid for the books I needed. Back then, Gulf Oil had an outstanding book on oil well drilling and like a good soldier, I consumed it. All sorts of scientific study was in that book.

I am suspicious of the whack jobs. When a citizen finds gas in his drinking water. I believe if it can be pinned on some well for petroleum or gas, the fix is to correct bad water. Water can be filtered. Gas can be removed. All sorts of fixes can be done to keep the water well owner happy and healthy.

What I read most often is not fixes like that, but they want such crude wells shut down or gas wells stopped up.

That is radical. Science has many cures. I advocate for those cures.

[Bob]

Being California, I would imagine that State enforcement of regulations is fairly strict. I don't believe that enforcement in other States is likely as rigid, hence why the majority of incidents have occurred elsewhere.

I honestly can't explain CA enforcement on such wells. I know they are sons of a gun on a lot of things.

We were flat scared of CA when taking out piles under docks. Piles in water are impregnated with creosote. For some reason, when in the water holding up the dock, they did not come to get us. But if chips of wood fell into the water, all hell broke out.

[Bob]

http://dicknballs.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/yeah-right.jpg?w=490

If you wish to debate, do it as Dr. Who does and not as some immature person.

Thank you.

[The Sage of Main Street]

What is best for the American people as a whole has eminent domain. Private property is really territory leased from the American people, who are called on to defend it and sacrificed as a whole to gain it in the first place. We deserve self-government, not government for selfish individuals who think they have priority over what is good for the country. No one dares suggest that the real reason for the environmentalists' obstruction is that this increase in the use of the nation's resources drives down the profit margins of the energy companies.

[Chris]

What is best for the American people as a whole has eminent domain. Private property is really territory leased from the American people, who are called on to defend it and sacrificed as a whole to gain it in the first place. We deserve self-government, not government for selfish individuals who think they have priority over what is good for the country. No one dares suggest that the real reason for the environmentalists' obstruction is that this increase in the use of the nation's resources drives down the profit margins of the energy companies.

Private property starts with self-ownership, the heart of liberty from being ruled.