Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Harry Reid pulls a fast one to sabotage shale gas development
The American Thinker ^ | 8-3-10 | Ed Lasky

Posted on 08/03/2010 9:14:32 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

Shale Gas has the potential to bring manifold benefits to Americans: cheap and plentiful, relatively green and clean burning, located in vast swaths underneath our feet (and not offshore or in foreign lands filled with people happy to take our money but who also hate us and who can who can turn the spigot off at will).

All good reasons in Majority Leader Harry Reid's mind to sabotage our tapping of this vast reserve of energy:

The fight over the Senate offshore drilling "spill bill" shifted Wednesday from the Gulf of Mexico to the mountains of western Pennsylvania, as Republicans slammed the last-minute inclusion of language to regulate a controversial technique to extract onshore natural gas.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added the language last night requiring natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground as part of the hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking, process.

Republicans are wary of the addition, which comes on page 404 of the 409-page spill response bill Reid wants the Senate to take up before the recess. GOP objections to any portion of the larger bill could stall its progress, since it appears likely that Reid will not allow any amendments to be offered.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the new requirements could effectively end onshore natural gas production. He noted that some states already have hydro-fracking safety and disclosure regulations, but that taking the requirements national would freeze the industry.

Why does Reid have to pull these un-democratic stunts? Because he can? Because powerful Democratic donors (including the Democratic party Sugar Daddy George Soros) wants to kill off carbon and spend tens of billions of dollars on green schemes that reward their "clean" energy ventures . These ventures only "work" (i.e., become profitable for their investors) when carbon energy becomes very expensive (hence cap and tax); or when billions in taxpayer dollar subsidies are funneled to them; or when government-ordered mandates require utilities, companies and consumers to buy "renewable" energy. And when powerful Democrats pull fast ones behind closed doors to sabotage the tapping of a treasure our nation has been blessed to have in abundance.

A primer on the benefits of shale gas appeared in the Washington Post ("Shale Gas: Hope for our energy future").

A quote from the column:

Until recently, scarce U.S. natural gas reserves suggested increasing dependence on expensive foreign supplies of liquefied natural gas. No more. Also, natural gas emits about 50 percent less carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- than coal. Substituting gas for coal in electricity plants could temper emissions. Finally, shale gas in Europe and Asia has huge geopolitical implications. It could reduce dependence on Russian natural gas and frustrate any gas cartel mimicking OPEC.

How much shale gas exists is unknown, but estimates are huge. The Potential Gas Committee is a group of geologists who regularly estimate future U.S. gas supplies. In 2000, the group's estimate equaled about 54 years of present annual consumption; by 2008, it was almost 90 years. "This isn't the end," says Colorado School of Mines geologist John Curtis. Globally, one study estimated the recoverable supply at 16,200 trillion cubic feet, more than 150 times today's annual world gas use).

I have written about the Democratic blueprint to derail the tapping of these reserves and here .


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; capandtrade; democrats; development; economy; energy; harryreid; liberalfascism; naturalgas; obama; shale; shaleoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: jumperbones
I’m all for drilling, but can anyone tell my why it’s so bad to know what chemicals are used in the Fracking process?

For one thing, you can go to the drilling site and ask. Or see thackney at post #13.

41 posted on 08/03/2010 10:36:35 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jumperbones
It’ll be easy to take the profits and move away. What about the thousands left behind to clean up the potential mess? Take the money and run.

I live in Hood County, Texas -- home of the Barnett shale. I'm not making any profit on it -- except for participating in the general economic health created by the drilling activity.

Even if I did, though, I wouldn't want to "take the money and run". Why, you ask? Because there is no mess to clean up.

If you're worried about what the Marcellus Shale might bring to your home area, I suggest you schedule a tour of oil & gas producing areas of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Not necessarily "vacation country", but it would sure as hell allay your fears.

You're buying into enviro-propaganda.

42 posted on 08/03/2010 10:47:17 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Thanks for the reply.


43 posted on 08/03/2010 10:48:16 AM PDT by houeto (Get drinking water from your ditch - http://www.junglebucket.com/Jungle-Bucket-1.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

well I guess since Harry has already wrecked the economy of his own state he is now setting about the task of wrecking it in mine


44 posted on 08/03/2010 10:48:16 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I remember reading back when gas was around $5 a gallon, T Boone Pickens was going to push to have natural gas banned from being pulled offshore.

It sounded goofy, because he had all these commercials pushing for natural gas, but one of the commentators (it was either here on FR or another site I visit) made mention that T Boone does not own any offshore stuff, but he owns vast thousands and thousands of inland acreage that he wants government subsidy for, in which to draw from his natural gas wells.

I don’t know if these two are related, and I don’t even remember the details so much of the article, but the jist of it seems related.

I’m sure one of the sharper Freepers will know of the article and more detail of it.


45 posted on 08/03/2010 11:00:49 AM PDT by esoxmagnum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: appalachian_dweller

An amazing attack and leap from “I don’t see the problem” to “shut it all down.


46 posted on 08/03/2010 11:06:53 AM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Rahm and George at Doe's when the knife came down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Went thru this yesterday - there is no long term research or study on the effects of NG drilling on our communities and environment.

We have been drilling gas wells in Western PA for nearly 150 years.


47 posted on 08/03/2010 11:14:45 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Time to Clean House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I bet this will get Harry re-elected!/s

This will finish Harry off.


48 posted on 08/03/2010 11:52:45 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes......is fascist... ..He meets every diagnostic of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PLD

Nice photo of Black Jack Ketchum. Do you know when he was hanged the rope pulled his head off and it went rolling around on the ground? I used to have pictures of the aftermath of his hanging.

I lived there in Clayton,NM.


49 posted on 08/03/2010 12:28:44 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Viva los SB 1070)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

How is this hamstringing? I’m assuming every company has a list of the fracking chemicals they use. If not, they can spend 20 minutes typing one up. Send the list to the govt and be done with it.


50 posted on 08/03/2010 12:38:35 PM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Still shucking and jiving I see


51 posted on 08/03/2010 8:30:20 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Homer1; thackney; okie01
How is this hamstringing? I’m assuming every company has a list of the fracking chemicals they use. If not, they can spend 20 minutes typing one up. Send the list to the govt and be done with it.

You're kidding, right?

It will take the EPA at least two years to come up with a process for that to happen, and in the meantime the Obamabots will use the lack of a process as justification for an illegal moratorium like we've seen with offshore drilling.

52 posted on 08/04/2010 5:42:10 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

This is where they need to modify the legislation to allow disclosure, but to state that the clause is only valid when there is a defined process and a mandatory EPA response within 5 business days. No response from the EPA to be interpreted as an approval. This type of modification is called leadership. You don’t hand the other side the adavantage of allowing them to say that Rs want to cover-up the chemicals that are going into your drinking water.


53 posted on 08/04/2010 7:40:45 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure

The left HATES, DESPISES self reliance and self sufficiency.


54 posted on 08/04/2010 7:43:03 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Homer1
This is where they need to modify the legislation to allow disclosure, but to state that the clause is only valid when there is a defined process and a mandatory EPA response within 5 business days. No response from the EPA to be interpreted as an approval.

You are making the mistaken assumption that this is about actual protection of water resources, as opposed to being another Dem roadblock against domestic energy development.

This type of modification is called leadership.

From Harry Reid? Once again, are you kidding me?

You don’t hand the other side the adavantage of allowing them to say that Rs want to cover-up the chemicals that are going into your drinking water.

Guess what? Liberal agit-prop does that no matter what the Republicans do.

55 posted on 08/04/2010 7:46:00 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Here you go..

http://www.ghostcowboy.com/node/370


56 posted on 08/04/2010 7:53:40 AM PDT by PLD (When you receive a kindness,remember it;when you bestow one,forget it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Homer1; dirtboy
How is this hamstringing? I’m assuming every company has a list of the fracking chemicals they use. If not, they can spend 20 minutes typing one up. Send the list to the govt and be done with it.

Whoa! Stopr right there. And think.

If the list of fracking chemicals is already open and available for inspection...and, if it's so easy to find out what they are...why do you suppose the federal government is inserting themselves into the process?

To insure "openess"? Hardly. It's already there.

To begin the process of asserting increasing regulatory authority and control? Now, why would they want to do that?

It is an inarguable fact that this administration is at war with fossil fuels and the companies that produce them. The aim, obviously, is to eventually restrict the use of the fracking technique and, thus, terminally cripple the onshore oil & gas industry.

Harry and Nancy, et al, are about more than "hamstringing", they're after "kneecapping".

You really need to understand this.

57 posted on 08/04/2010 7:56:15 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"Still shucking and jiving I see"

??????????????

58 posted on 08/04/2010 8:56:41 AM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Time to Clean House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

At least you need to expose the D’s and word it in such a way that they can’t use disclosure as an excuse


59 posted on 08/05/2010 7:13:59 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: okie01

so why automatically concede the moral high ground to the Ds, unless maybe you secretly want the provision to pass as is?


60 posted on 08/05/2010 7:20:32 AM PDT by Homer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson