"The private sector is doing fine."

[elbe]

Thanks, yes, it could be.

Granted I'm speaking generally and make no claims about the specific case.
Really we need an EPA that's not impotent and is willing to force a suspected environment damager down until proper tests are done. Now that doesn't mean we have to abandon a valid industrial process because the greens don't like it, but we can't just let the world we need to live in be ravaged either.

 

[Corsair 115]

... no federal permits have been issued for oil exploration ...

And yet U.S. crude oil production in first quarter of 2012 highest in fourteen years. Moreover, crude oil production within the United States has been increasing every year since 2008.

U.S. annual crude oil production (in thousands of barrels) peaked in 1970 at 3,517,450. It thereafter declined, bottoming out in 1976 before once again climbing. The second-highest peak was recorded in 1985, at 3,274,553. From there, except for a small one-year increase in 1991, production declined every single year through to 2008, when it reached a low of 1,811,817. The last time U.S. crude oil production was at that level was in 1949.

But since then, U.S. crude oil production has increased. It went up in 2009, 2010, 2011, and as the linked article shows, it appears 2012 will be another year in which it increases. (2011's production was 14% higher than that seen in 2008, and was the highest amount produced since 2003.)

(All data from the EIA. Here is annual U.S. crude oil production in graph form. An an interactive data table can be found here.)

 

[RandFan]

Granted I'm speaking generally and make no claims about the specific case.
Really we need an EPA that's not impotent and is willing to force a suspected environment damager down until proper tests are done. Now that doesn't mean we have to abandon a valid industrial process because the greens don't like it, but we can't just let the world we need to live in be ravaged either.

Thanks. Yes, I agree with your post. I'm not in principle against drilling. I think we need to be realistic. Just by existing 300 million Americans impact the environment in negative ways. So, let's accept reality and find the best way to meet our needs.

I take nothing off of the table. I'm no Julia Butterfly Hill by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[elbe]

Thanks. Yes, I agree with your post. I'm not in principle against drilling. I think we need to be realistic. Just by existing 300 million Americans impact the environment in negative ways. So, let's accept reality and find the best way to meet our needs.

I take nothing off of the table. I'm no Julia Butterfly Hill by any stretch of the imagination.

I've noticed to some on the right that it's an either-or situation: you're either in favour of unfettered access to natural resources or you want to force everyone to live in some hippie commune without the trappings of modern life.

I recently watched Planet Earth: The Future and it was rather informative about the conflicts between conservation and development.

 

[Ziggurat]

And yet U.S. crude oil production in first quarter of 2012 highest in fourteen years. Moreover, crude oil production within the United States has been increasing every year since 2008.

That's the result of Bush policies. Oil production can't turn on a dime. It takes a lot of time to get production up and running, which is why you're seeing the effects now. But Obama's policies will negatively impact domestic oil production. Not right away, but longer term, hell yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Source page 3

Which BTW, shouldn't even be necessary. If you want to drill for natural gas it's not up to those who you could potentially harm to prove it is harmful. It's your responsibility to prove that it is safe.

Fracking is as safe as any other form of drilling for gas. Which is to say, it's safe when done right, and contamination can occur (and for the same reasons as conventional gas drilling) if it's done wrong. There is nothing about fracking which is any different than any other form of drilling for natural gas in this regard.

 

[RandFan]

Fracking is as safe as any other form of drilling for gas. Which is to say, it's safe when done right, and contamination can occur (and for the same reasons as conventional gas drilling) if it's done wrong. There is nothing about fracking which is any different than any other form of drilling for natural gas in this regard.

Yes I'm sure that's what their website says. I can't think of any reason why such a claim would be self serving, you? BTW, any response to the report and studies that you didn't bother to address?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes I'm sure that's what their website says. I can't think of any reason why such a claim would be self serving, you?

That's not where I'm getting my information, and it's highly presumptuous of you to assume it is. Furthermore, if you really want to play that game, your own sources are vulnerable to this same criticism.

BTW, any response to the report and studies that you didn't bother to address?

So far I have seen nothing to indicate any threat unique to fracking. That doesn't mean no threat exists, and I never suggested otherwise. Quite the reverse, in fact. My post clearly indicates even conventional gas drilling poses a risk.

 

[RandFan]

That's not where I'm getting my information, and it's highly presumptuous of you to assume it is.

By all means, please let us in on your source?

So far I have seen nothing to indicate any threat unique to fracking.

When people's lives and well being are at risk this really doesn't cut it. The report doesn't conclude only that there are risks. It concludes that there are risks specific to fracking. Now, you don't have to accept the report, that's your prerogative. But please understand that between what you may or may not have "seen" and what the science stated purports, I'm not particularly swayed by an argument from your ignorance. What you think you know or think you don't know isn't really at issue here. I don't recognize you as an authority nor do I know whether or not you have even bothered to look at anything. So, could you do a bit more than simply argue by assertion?

 

[shuize]

Except it's not a reversal--not unless you think "private sector" is equivalent with "the economy".

Well, you'll have to forgive me. When I used to work in the public sector they told me that the private sector paid our salaries, so you can see how I might get confused about that.

I'm glad Obama is here to show me that I had it wrong: The private sector is not "the economy." The private sector's job is just to pay for everything.

I think I've got it now. Thanks again, President Obama.

 

[BenBurch]

In all things we have to compare to alternatives. Compare fracking with coal mining, and the choice is obvious.

 

[RandFan]

Well, you'll have to forgive me. When I used to work in the public sector they told me that the private sector paid our salaries, so you can see how I might get confused about that.

I'm glad Obama is here to show me that I had it wrong: The private sector is not "the economy." The private sector's job is just to pay for everything.

I think I've got it now. Thanks again, President Obama.

Given all of the that it doesn't follow that the private sector is the sum total of the economy. Assuming that the public sector does not generate dime one and that the private sector would go right on making just as much money if there was no public sector, it still wouldn't be the sum total of the economy.

 

[BenBurch]

It comes right down to them being too stupid to know the difference between the private and public sectors, or having so much contempt for us that they believe we don't know it.

 

[AlBell]

And yet U.S. crude oil production in first quarter of 2012 highest in fourteen years. Moreover, crude oil production within the United States has been increasing every year since 2008.

U.S. annual crude oil production (in thousands of barrels) peaked in 1970 at 3,517,450. It thereafter declined, bottoming out in 1976 before once again climbing. The second-highest peak was recorded in 1985, at 3,274,553. From there, except for a small one-year increase in 1991, production declined every single year through to 2008, when it reached a low of 1,811,817. The last time U.S. crude oil production was at that level was in 1949.

But since then, U.S. crude oil production has increased. It went up in 2009, 2010, 2011, and as the linked article shows, it appears 2012 will be another year in which it increases. (2011's production was 14% higher than that seen in 2008, and was the highest amount produced since 2003.)

(All data from the EIA. Here is annual U.S. crude oil production in graph form. An an interactive data table can be found here.)

Yes, there is oil on state leases too, and thank Bush for ensuring permits to explore, drill exploratory wells, and develop production were in place.

Most states like the jobs and payrolls those activities provide with the added benefit to local businesses, and the royalty checks and taxes collected.

 

[AlBell]

It comes right down to them being too stupid to know the difference between the private and public sectors, or having so much contempt for us that they believe we don't know it.

I think most conservatives know well that private sector generates wealth and public sector confiscates it. Libbies don't seem to.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, there is oil on state leases too, and thank Bush for ensuring permits to explore, drill exploratory wells, and develop production were in place.

• There was no urgent need to increase production.
• Any increase in production is but a rounding error of world production.
• The price of oil is determined by world prices.

It's a silly bit of Republican propaganda to manufacture some urgent and ersatz need for us to increase productions.

 

[RandFan]

I think most conservatives know well that private sector generates wealth and public sector confiscates it. Libbies don't seem to.

I think most reasonable people get that nations without public sectors are hell holes and that govt provides oversight and regulation to keep us safe and facilitate commerce. This good guy (business) vs bad guy (public sector) is just framing, spin and narrative. It doesn't advance the discussion or help in anyway. It's just rhetoric.

 

[AlBell]

Source page 3

Which BTW, shouldn't even be necessary. If you want to drill for natural gas it's not up to those who you could potentially harm to prove it is harmful. It's your responsibility to prove that it is safe.

Is that the farthest left-wing enviroloony cite you could find? Ralph Nader founded the parent group. Where oh where is Rachel Carlson?

I note they had suppositions aplenty but no actual, you know, facts.

And prove a negative? That's beneath you, RF. If any of the hoopla was true there should be successful preponderance-of-evidence civil lawsuits that gained the plaintiff production stream revenue and/or a major cash settlement. I've not found any of those. Does anyone know of even one?

 

[RandFan]

Is that the farthest left-wing enviroloony cite you could find? Ralph Nader founded the parent group. Where oh where is Rachel Carlson?

I note they had suppositions aplenty but no actual, you know, facts.

And prove a negative? That's beneath you, RF. If any of the hoopla was true there should be successful preponderance-of-evidence civil lawsuits that gained the plaintiff production stream revenue and/or a major cash settlement. I've not found any of those. Does anyone know of even one?

Ad hominem? That's all you got? The report cites studies. If there is a negative correlation you damn well better bet you need to show that your actions are not the cause. You don't really get to do whatever you damn well please thinking only law suits can stop you.

So, still waiting for you to address page 3. I won't hold my breath. And there's not much that is beneath you.

 

[Ziggurat]

By all means, please let us in on your source?

From the EPA, for example. There's only one case (Pavillion, Wyoming) where they've got good evidence that a fracking operation contaminated ground water. But they don't have evidence that this contamination is coming from where the fracking occurs, rather than from a leaking well casing. And the later can happen with conventional gas drilling too.

When people's lives and well being are at risk this really doesn't cut it.

For some people, nothing cuts it. But as Ben pointed out, it's a question of alternatives. And the alternative to fracking right now is coal. Do you think coal is better than fracking?

Now, you don't have to accept the report, that's your prerogative. But please understand that between what you may or may not have "seen" and what the science stated purports, I'm not particularly swayed by an argument from your ignorance.

My argument isn't an argument from ignorance, RF. You're wrong about this just like you were wrong about my source of information.

What you think you know or think you don't know isn't really at issue here. I don't recognize you as an authority nor do I know whether or not you have even bothered to look at anything. So, could you do a bit more than simply argue by assertion?

You mean like your assertion that I was getting my information from the frackers? That sort of argument by assertion?

The fact that you asked for sources doesn't bother me. The fact that you tried to tell me what my sources of information does. Cut the crap, RF.