Posted on 05/20/2012 4:58:36 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the past, we’ve talked about a lot of the hysteria and hype among environmentalists when it comes to regulation of natural gas drilling in general and fracking in particular. Many of the scientific studies we have cited in response to their claims were commissioned by people with an interest in the industry, such as The American Petroleum Institute or Chesapeake Energy. This resulted in much boo-hooing from the Green Caucus, questioning the motives rather than the science.
In case any of them are truly interested in finding out the facts, we now have a new study from the University of Buffalo which reveals something many of you should have known already. Letting the states regulate their own energy development programs without having Washington hanging over their shoulders has worked out pretty well.
A study released Tuesday by the University at Buffalo’s new shale gas institute concludes that state oversight of gas drilling has been effective at reducing environmental problems in Pennsylvania and will prevent major problems in New York if the state allows drilling to begin…
The authors found the overall number of violations tripled from 99 in 2008 to 331 in the first eight months of 2011 as the number of wells drilled in each period rose from 170 to more than 1,200. But the percentage of environmental violations compared to the number of wells fell from 58.2 percent in 2008 to 30.5 percent in 2010.
“The data in this study demonstrates that the odds of non-major environmental events, and the much smaller odds of major environmental events, are being reduced even further by enhanced regulation and improved industry practice,” lead author Timothy Considine said in a conference call with reporters.
The reason this study is important is because it highlights a critical choice we face as a nation, as well as the need to deal with the plans currently bubbling away in Washington. On the one hand, we can do as this university study seems to suggest and allow each state’s DEC and legislature to handle regulation of energy development in a way tailored to their individual resources and needs. Or we can try Barack Obama’s approach.
And what would that look like? We got a peek at that vision on April 13th when he signed an executive order creating a blue ribbon panel to provide “oversight” for natural gas exploration. The proposed commission drags people from not just the EPA and the Interior Department into the mix, but Commerce, Defense, HHS, Homeland Security, OMB, the National Economic Council and, “such other agencies or offices as the Chair may invite to participate.” (I’d have to double check, but I think the caterer from Barney Frank’s wedding is on there too.)
Read the full order here. That’s the choice we face when it comes to taking control of our own domestic energy future. This one should be an easy call, but I’ve been watching DC long enough to know that it won’t be.
It's not about "need." Hasn't been for a long time.
It's about control.
.
The Green Caucus is looking more like a scam.
It never was needed. Nixon needed something...
The real question should be: Did we EVER need the EPA?
The answer is.....of course not.
To be honest I’m not totally satisfied that global (and they are GLOBAL not USA) corporations are ethical enough or loyal enough to the USA to self regulate and prevent environmental damage. Otherwise they are the same as BP operating in Kazakhstan. They’ll do what they want to the country and take the profits and run.
Here’s my perspective:
1- For many years these companies have pushed the agenda and need to expand drilling supposedly to make America energy independent. That was their mantra.
2- OK so we’ve expanded drilling and have more USA access to cheap energy which will serve to bring back our economy and manufacturing to the USA. Now these global companies wish to sell their product to the highest global bidder to boost profits and prices.
3- However these corporations also want the right to forcibly take private land by eminent domain, not for the benefit of the public, but for their pipelines and to boost their profits so they can export it.
4- When eminent domain is permitted to be used by gas and oil drillers, it should require that they be required to dedicate all product for internal use in the USA, and not for export.
eminent domain? Oil and gas Drillers? Pipelines? Okay, I’m confused.
I can see a forced easement happening in some cases along the pipeline route and I can see forced “pooling” happening a lot on individual oil/gas leases, but neither of those involve a permanent forfeiture of property .... like, say, a highway. I’m not sure a whole lotta “eminent domainin’” is gonna be goin’ on.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Landowners-fight-eminent-apf-1521440703.html
Eminent domain for a highway or a local utility that is serving local customers is one thing. Eminent domain for a pipeline company that intends on exporting and profiting by trading product to other nations is another. Having pipelines through your property is more than an inconvenience. It destroys value and requires access. As a conservative
I was more than ticked off at our leaders by the Kelo vs City of New London decision to allow a shopping center to take private property. I remain ticked off if the drillers and pipelines take private property for international profit and the loss of private property by Americans, and I include the Keystone Pipeline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
I stand corrected. This is the first time I’ve heard of Federal “eminent domain” being used to force a pipeline easement. Around here, State Law calls the shots. I think it kinda works like a “forced pool”.
Forced Pooling is never a good situation, but it does allow people who legally own goods to get them to market. (Which they have every right to do.) .... and it insures compensation to the innocent folks caught in the middle or the occasional opportunistic-types who think they have a winning lottery ticket or the cats just holding out for more money or sumthin’.
What it doesn’t do is allow a minority interest to stop the majority from engaging in legal commerce or profitting from mining their own private property.
It ain’t like the “Old West” in the movies any more.
It does get ugly, sometimes.
Ping.
LOL ..... One thing that you can try when being pooled is:
Ask for a “Prospectus” and say that you may want to “Participate” . (It is your way of demanding a “piece of the action” that’s about the last thing that they’ll want to hear.)
I bet that about the same approach would work wrt the pipeline thing.
Thanks. Sorry didn’t mean to get off on eminent domain and exporting gas when the thread was about EPA.
While the extraction of gas provides income and jobs for some, the process and gas lines does disrupt rural property owners and not all appreciate it by having private corporations telling them they are condemning their property. If the gas is kept in house (USA) it should provide us with cheap abundant energy for the USA and give us economic advantage. I still have my doubts on the latter, based upon expressed plans of energy companies that want to drive up prices by exporting this stuff. There’s something that isn’t right about forcing Americans to give up their property rights so that gas or oil can be sent to China.
“There’s something that isn’t right about forcing Americans to give up their property rights so that gas or oil can be sent to China.”
What rights are they giving up? They retain the property, they can still farm or ranch on the property plus they get paid handsomely for a rather small portion of land.
In nearly all cases, pipeline companies are like trucking companies. The do not own the product they carry. They are moving someone else's product. TransCanada and the Keystone pipeline are this way. The do not own the oil they carry.
Since it is not their product, they cannot export it. It is not theirs. They just move it along the pipeline.
I sense we will need to agree to disagree.
I support eminent domain for roads or bridges that all Americans can use, but not for the benefit of a pipeline that a global corporation can shove down the throats of American farmers and others to their detriment, and to only the benefit of corporate profits.
If the energy resource was not put out on the global market, it would provide the USA with cheaper energy. If the pipeline wishes to negotiate and purchase property right-of-way from willing sellers at market rates I have no problem.
Those, like in the Northeast, who do not have access to Natural Gas and have to pay for much more expensive Fuel Oil, would disagree it. So do I. There is far more benefit to this country for an expanded domestic energy infrastructure, including pipelines and electric transmission lines.
If the energy resource was not put out on the global market, it would provide the USA with cheaper energy.
If the energy market is significantly constrained and held below the global market price, investment into building those systems supplying the oil/gas/etc will not get built by private enterprise. Those same global companies would just invest their money in Canada, Australia and the like.
Why do believe American energy companies should be paid less for their work, and American mineral owners paid less for the reserves, than others in the global market? Why do you believe you have rights to their private property at reduced rates?
“Why do you believe you have rights to their private property at reduced rates? “
This isn’t about their private property or selling oil on the global market. It is about giving corporations the right to condemm my (or others) private property so that they can profit more.
The function of “eminent domain for more profit” is inherently anti-freedom, anti-conservative and anti-liberty and this is not my opinion alone. The concept of private property is the fundamental difference between fascist dictatorships and communism and a free society. Many of us remember the opinion put forth by many other outraged conservatives following the 5-4 Kelo v New London SCOTUS decision that gave the city and cronies of developers the right to condemn private property for profit.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) condemned the ruling as a fundamental attack on property rights.
Unless this oil or gas is retained for the greater benefit of the USA public (not China)and not for greater profits, then those that wish to export it should be required to negotiate with land owners for any right of way, and not be permitted to steal property.
You continue to ignore that energy infrastructure is benefit to our whole nation.
By your export argument, nothing exported should be carried on our roads, bridges and rails.
U would rather use a portion of our infrastructure as a surplus to export. That keeps more jobs and more energy security for our nation.
To say no exports at any time in reality keeps us dependent on others as fluctuations in demand and supply will always occur.
U would
Should be
I would
It isn’t about exporting just any widget. In most cases exporting widgets is good for our economy and if they use our public roads and bridges that is a plus.
This is about exporting critical natural resources that we have fought wars over and that politicians regularly claim are needed to make us energy independent to win elections. Exportation will inevitably cause the price of critical energy to USA business and consumers to escalate and thus make the USA less competitive.
The desire for more profits by a few global energy corporations that wish to do this are not my concern, but when they start taking our private private property by force to do this, it becomes my concern. When they weaken our overall economy for their profits it should become all of our concerns.
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.