HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Freaking Out Over Frackin...

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 02:26 PM

Freaking Out Over Fracking

...The conflicts aren't just in Colorado, as fracking creates boom towns in North Dakota, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere. It has pitted the the possibility of new wealth for states and their residents against fears about air and water pollution, increased traffic congestion and property rights. Among the anti-frackers, there is a division among those who believe fracking should be stopped until there is enough reliable data on the relatively new technology to show it's environmentally safe, those who say none of the oil and gas can come out of the ground for fear of exacerbating climate change and those who just don't want wells in their backyards.

In New York, communities in the state's Southern Tier, atop the Marcellus shale and next to fracking-rich Pennsylvania, are considering the extreme step of seceding from the state following Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration's move to ban fracking. In Maryland, state lawmakers passed legislation to block fracking for 2.5 years. Last year, California counties San Benito, Santa Cruz and Mendocino voted to keep the drilling method away. In November, residents of Denton, Texas, the state at the heart of America's oil and gas boom, passed a ballot measure banning it. Campaigners in Oklahoma are looking to handcuff would-be frackers after scientists there linked it to hundreds of small earthquakes.

All those fights have their roots in Colorado, where activists have scored a string of successes by getting towns to ban or limit fracking within their boundaries. The state's Supreme Court is weighing whether local governments have that power.
read more


This was hard to read because it's about my home. I know these people. I am among them. The place where I was born is being destroyed for greed. Our county commissioners and city councils dismiss our concerns as they point to the money that has purchased their awareness away from the increasingly unhealthy realities; they seem to think that poisoning the present won't make a toxic future. It is to weep, and we do.

3 replies, 799 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Freaking Out Over Fracking (Original post)
madamesilverspurs Apr 2015 OP
hootinholler Apr 2015 #1
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #2
Octafish Apr 2015 #3

Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:17 PM

1. Needs a kick or twenty n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:35 PM

2. K&R


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to madamesilverspurs (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:53 PM

3. Fracking is Buy Partisan.

Red Team:

"Scientific advisory panels at the Department of Energy and the EPA have enumerated ways the industry could improve and have called for modest steps, such as establishing maximum contaminant levels allowed in water for all the chemicals used in fracking. Unfortunately, these recommendations do not address the biggest loophole of all. In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Congress needs to close this so-called Halliburton loophole, as a bill co-sponsored by New York State Representative Maurice Hinchey would do. The FRAC Act would also mandate public disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking across the nation."

-- Scientific American, Nov. 2011, "Safety First, Fracking Second"

Blue Team:

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

—By Mariah Blake
Mother Jones | September/October 2014 Issue

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.


Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

According to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, one of Goldwyn's first acts at the State Department was gathering oil and gas industry executives "to discuss the potential international impact of shale gas." Clinton then sent a cable to US diplomats, asking them to collect information on the potential for fracking in their host countries. These efforts eventually gave rise to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential. Clinton promised it would do so "in a way that is as environmentally respectful as possible."



And that's why the hate for WikiLeaks is bi-partisan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread