HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Fracking excutive admits ...

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:27 AM

Fracking excutive admits it - Frack in poorer areas, not the richer ones



On Monday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported accounts of unusually candid comments by an oil and natural gas industry executive, Terry Bossert, at a Pennsylvania Bar Institute gathering in Harrisburg this April.

“We heard Range Resources say it sites its shale gas wells away from large homes where wealthy people live and who might have the money to fight such drilling and fracking operations,” stated an attendee. "


Kind of honesty we need - of course, we always knew that be it oil storage tanks, factories, mills, etc., etc. - it was always done in the areas of poverty.

Further in the report:

"... oil and gas operations in California are disproportionately located in poor and minority communities. An analysis by the nonprofit FracTracker Alliance conducted for the article determined that the 5 million Californians living within a mile of an oil or gas well had a poverty rate 32.5 percent higher than that of the general population. A related analysis for the Natural Resources Defense Council found that the majority of people living near wells in California are people of color. :


http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/19069/exec-admits-fracking-targets-the-poor

23 replies, 2665 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 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fracking excutive admits it - Frack in poorer areas, not the richer ones (Original post)
packman Apr 2016 OP
Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #1
HumanityExperiment Apr 2016 #2
truedelphi Apr 2016 #10
Baobab Apr 2016 #21
truedelphi Apr 2016 #23
Adrahil Apr 2016 #13
HumanityExperiment Apr 2016 #14
Adrahil Apr 2016 #15
HumanityExperiment Apr 2016 #16
bread_and_roses Apr 2016 #17
PatrynXX Apr 2016 #18
Baobab Apr 2016 #22
karadax Apr 2016 #4
Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #5
Hortensis Apr 2016 #3
KamaAina Apr 2016 #6
Dont call me Shirley Apr 2016 #7
Unicorn Apr 2016 #9
allan01 Apr 2016 #8
truedelphi Apr 2016 #11
fasttense Apr 2016 #20
King_Klonopin Apr 2016 #12
rockfordfile Apr 2016 #19

Response to packman (Original post)

Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:32 AM

1. Frackiing is not cost effective at this time, oil needs to be $60 or better to cover the cost of

fracking. Interesting it seems to be okay to deliver nuclear waste from Vermont to poor areas of Texas and in fact Jane is on the board of TLLRWDCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:29 AM

2. HRC supports and promoted fracking both domestic and abroad as SoS...

 

Interesting that you didn't include HRC stance on fracking...

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/16/leaked-epa-powerpoint-presentation-dimock-fracking-water-contamination

One of HRC's biggest supporters Ed Rendell is way deep into pocket ... of fracking special interests

http://littlesis.org/news/2016/01/28/ed-rendell-again-fails-to-disclose-oil-and-gas-ties-in-boosting-philly-energy-hub/

So.. what will HRC do as more and more data comes out against fracking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:38 AM

10. But she uh, didn't mean to, uh, do that.

And now that she realizes voters want her to state that she will change on this policy matter, she will indeed state that.

And we can offer her our votes,knowing she is so-o-o- trustworthy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:52 PM

21. TTIP makes whatever she or any legislator says or does after it is signed irrelevant forever

as it eliminates laws against fracking at the supranational level, preempting all national/state/local environmental etc, laws- Plus it turns on the spigot to drill and export it till its gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:30 PM

23. thanks for pointing that out.

That is why I crack up laughing til I cry, each and every time some official, from Obama on down, says "I am doing such and such to protect America's ecology."

Any politician who is supporting any of these trade agreements is selling all of us down the river, no matter how many "ecology-minded" decisions they announce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 07:11 AM

13. Not that nuance carries any weight here....

But fracking is not a black and white issue. It is too poorly regulated at the koment, IMO, but it has also increased natural gas use, which has helped to severely curtail the coal industry.

It's what we call a wicked problem. There are feedbacks. Pros and cons.

But too often, the left in this country adopts orthodox positions in the same manner as the right and fuck nuance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 09:58 AM

14. it's not 'nuance'...

 

it IS a black and white issue, 'poorly regulated'? Are you referring to the Haliburton Loophole?

The was a HUGE push by special interests to shift from coal to NG

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-17/how-to-convert-the-country-to-natural-gas-by-t-dot-boone-pickens

http://www.pickensplan.com/legislation-filed-in-texas-to-move-government-vehicles-to-natural-gas/

a 'wicked problem'? it's completely manufactured by special interests for select few to profit off of... so why is HRC so intertwined with this issue?

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-11-05/abandoned-by-epa-landowers-from-dimock-pavillion-parker-county-demand-inclusion-in-epa-national-fracking-study

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/29/obama-epa-censored-fracking-water-contamination-study-dimock-pennsylvania

it's not 'orthodox', it's about JUSTICE and HRC is on the wrong side of the scale on the justice issue on this very important issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 11:12 AM

15. As I said. No nuance allowed.

Natural gas is much cleaner than coal. That's a pro. Fracking as currently executed damaged the environment locally. That's a con.

If you don;t know what a "wicked problem" is, google it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 11:44 AM

16. Why is fracking even being pushed as a solution...

 

the 'Haliburton loophole' is a joke, fracking isn't just a 'con' it's an environmental disaster and it's not just 'locally' are you kidding me?

It's not a 'wicked problem' it's not 'resistance to resolution' it should never have been entered into the equation in the first place

again it's SPECIAL INTERESTS that pushed this and HRC is right there are the forefront expediting this 'solution' at the behest of those monied special interest groups to champion it...

take your 'cleaner than coal' and go try to sell that excrement to someone that doesn't know the details, facts and history on this, maybe they will buy into your attempt to gloss this HRC position as a 'wicked problem' that deserves support...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:10 PM

17. You are - forgetting - the methane

If you are actually unaware of the massive methane release from fracking just google it. The info is out there and well known. There is no "pro" to fracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:26 AM

18. explain that to OK

another major earthquake well on Tuesday smh not sure whats more harmful. I'd say Fracking by and large. getting Natural gas by Unatural means isn't well Natural. and I can't believe we are having a conversation on how Fracking is actually a good thing. Face palm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:54 PM

22. Then why do they want to export it til its gone?

Even if they make five times as much in Asia its not worth displacing millions of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:39 AM

4. Some shale wells can be profitable again at the $40 per barrel level.

Half of all US oil output comes from fracking. That's significant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karadax (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:58 AM

5. Are you talking about developed fields?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:31 AM

3. Maps show it clearly, but a report of a statement's useful also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 01:05 PM

6. In Louisiana we used to call that "eco-racism"

 

All the noxious petrochemical plants are located right next to African American neighborhoods and far from white ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 05:17 PM

7. Ban ALL fracking immediately!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:23 PM

9. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:18 PM

8. always the case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:45 AM

11. And how do we stop this? Voters in both Pennsylvania and California are plagued

By Big Industry going ahead and fracking.

Former Governor Ed Rendell, a "D" supposedly to his core, agreed to sell out his constituents as the negatives around the fracking industry are as yet not totally proven.

And he now heads up an important division of a Texas Energy firm. So what if Pennsylvanians no longer can trust what is in their water supply? Rendell got his Quid Pro Quo.

Same in California. Oh, Governor Brown did issue a statement against fracking, but it was one of the more impotent statements to ever come out of his lips. His words went to the effect of "Well, just what could I do about it?"

Meanwhile the agencies in California that are connected with water supply have rammed rate increases up the rear ends of the citizens. Use a little too much water in summer months, and you could face exorbitant fines. Even if it turns out to be a rather innocent use of the water, such as a leak in your pipes that you didn't know about.

But somehow no one in Sacramento knows how to fine these Big Polluters and Big Water Wasters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:48 PM

20. Well, voting in a fracking promoter is not a smart move

 

But hey, eco-racism is better than regular racism...I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Tue Apr 26, 2016, 06:46 AM

12. I see nothing evil in that...

or with having lead in the drinking water, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to packman (Original post)

Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:05 AM

19. Ban fracking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread