Posted 5 months, 12 days ago in 
Loading ...
Recently, I attended the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s field hearing at Two Rivers Convention Center and was greatly encouraged by the number of people in attendance. Both sides of the energy debate were represented and addressed the commission, although many times with misinformation and emotion rather than educated facts. Given the nature of the topic, emotions can run very deep, so it is imperative we all use good sense and judgment when dealing with energy-industry related issues.
Contrary to popular belief, every energy-industry worker is not an overpaid, under-skilled, redneck bent on destroying the environment, water supply and wildlife. Conversely, every environmentalist is not a rabid, fern-feeling, granola muncher, destined to send our society back to the dark ages.
Personally, as an energy-industry employee, I like little more than being far removed from civilization in Colorado’s mountains, surrounded by wildlife, with a great big bag of granola in my pack. I also work every day with dedicated men and women who are proud to bring to market the energy we all take for granted. Additionally, as an avid hunter and outdoorsman, I’d wager my feet have trod more miles of Colorado’s backcountry than most people who proudly refer to themselves as environmentalists.
My point is that working together is the key to the continuation of the industry, economic prosperity and environmental conservation we enjoy in Colorado. The voice of the environment and wildlife cannot be represented by a select few, nor can the voice of the energy industry.
Within our industry we must recognize our responsibility as neighbors and stewards. Outside the industry, you must recognize the positive impact and benefit from those of us working hard to improve everyone’s way of life and the overall economy, not to mention the tax base utilized to maintain the environmental heritage we all enjoy.
Together, we can reach common ground. Furthermore, we are far better served working together than having government approach us with outstretched arms proclaiming, “We’re here to help.”
BRAD STEIG
Fruita
82 Responses to “Both sides of energy issue must work together”
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In Brad’s excellent letter, he states: “Outside the industry, you must recognize the positive impact and benefit from those of us working hard to improve everyone’s way of life and the overall economy, not to mention the tax base utilized to maintain the environmental heritage we all enjoy.”————–Herein lies one of the main problems that often keep energy and environmental advocates at loggerheads. There are many on the enviromnetal side (not all by any means) who do not want to see hydrocarbons extracted from the ground. Period. No compromise. Whether it’s because of the fear of the carbon emissions that those hydrocarbons will produce, or because they do not want to see energy companies increase their profits, or for other reasons. And so these folks will hang on every excuse to oppose all extraction. They simply want us to move away hydrocarbon based energy sources and whatever economic pain that might entail, is secondary to them. After all, if you truly believe that the world will become extinct in short order unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions, there is no pain large enough to justify any other course of action.
Now, these folks won’t usually come out and express their “no extraction period” opinion. But they will put up every possible obstacle to prevent drilling. And that’s too bad.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Enviros recognize that high oil company profits benefit their side. What they don’t realize is, as the price of gasoline continues to rise, they are being marginalized, by necessity. They are in fact going to become a victim of their own success.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Great letter.
bullish: Maybe “these folks won’t usually come out and express their “no extraction period” opinion” because there are very VERY few environmentalists who feel that way. The vast majority just want reasonable environmental protections. And this I feel is being achieved (or close) right now in our state, with much hard work and cooperation by all parties.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, let me ask you this. Suppose we conducted a secret ballot survey in the Western SLope, with the following question: Would you be in favor of stopping all drilling in the Western Slope? In your estimation, what percentage do you believe would say “YES”? I believe the response would be in the order of 25% to 50%.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is there a caveat I can toss in here?
Like, “Would you be in favor of stopping nearly all drilling in Colorado until other energy bearing States and offshore areas are being drilled at the rate currently here on the Western Slope”?
I’m in favor of stopping the rape of this area while other areas (both coasts, the Gulf of mexico) is being preserved.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, I think it would be more like 5 percent.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger: “bullish, I think it would be more like 5 percent.”
Or less. I have a lot of friends who describe themselves as environmentalists, but I never have heard a single one of them say that he/she wishes to see zero carbon extracted. They are too bright to engage in extremism.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, Ash. Now, we are not being allowed to drill in either Anwar or off the continental outer shelf. Why would environmentalists agree to allow drilling in the Western Slope and not there?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, you wrote:”I have a lot of friends who describe themselves as environmentalists, but I never have heard a single one of them say that he/she wishes to see zero carbon extracted. They are too bright to engage in extremism.”————And I wrote: “Now, these folks won’t usually come out and express their “no extraction period” opinion. But they will put up every possible obstacle to prevent drilling.”
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish, you ask: Now, we are not being allowed to drill in either Anwar or off the continental outer shelf. Why would environmentalists agree to allow drilling in the Western Slope and not there?
If it were my decision to make (which obviously it is not) I would allow the offshore drilling in a second. Anwar I have mixed feelings about. It is a wildlife preserve. It’s not like we are letting them drill on top of the Colorado National Monument here. Some things need to be left untouched. I don’t think the I-70 corridor is one of them, but hands off our watershed. Wherever drilling is allowed it needs to be done in a sane way.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I’m afraid I can’t find much room for disagreement with you here.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 2:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well that’s OK bullish!
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with the woman yesterday who said that she wants to know exactly what chemicals are being used in drilling. Accidents do happen, we know that. What are they using?????? Why is it top secret????? Must be such nasty stuff that they don’t want us to know.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree RanchersWife. We need full disclosure about what they are using and our public officials ought to be demanding it.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you Ash. Industry prefers we do not know. That way, when they drill, spill, and contaminate, nobody really knows what’s in the chemical stew.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Another thing … I do believe the tax revenues from O&G would all go directly to the communities directly impacted (roads, infrastructure etc.) and to the environment (preserving open space, etc.) … period. I am sick of the Denver politicos trying to rob these funds to cover budget shortfalls in higher education or whatnot, shortfalls caused by their ineptitude in managing our tax dollars.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
correction, SHOULD go to …
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RanchersWife. Unfortunately, the comments about the secret chemicals being used is another bit of misinformation. At the very least, it’s not complete. Many of the formulations are proprietary, patented products. The lack of “full disclosure” is no more villainaous than Colonel Sanders not fully disclosing the recipe to KFC’s secret recipe. Certainly the materials used in energy production aren’t what you would normally find in Kentucky Fried Chicken, but I submit to you many are base components you will find under your sink or in your garage. Additionally, every product used has a complete Material Safety Data Sheet accompanying, identifying all the hazards as identified by the Federal Government, and are readily available to anyone requesting the information.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego, perhaps RanchersWife was remembering, as I was, reports in early spring of the frozen spills that were getting ready to melt into our waterways (now probably already have) and the news reports that the O/G companies that caused these spills “upheld their right” not to tell even the EPA what chemicals were contained within the ice.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 10:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I also attended the OGCC public hearing. I was saddened as I realized all the good, hard working people in the industry have been lied to by their employers. There is no 90 day closure required in the rules.
My work sometimes involves gas and oil contracts. My employer got that fear-mongering email and was furious. We had a meeting in which he made it clear that some industry players are trying to use fear. (He is not happy with many of the rules, but he hates the lies that are being told. He knows that if the industry keeps crying Wolf that their other comments about the rules might be ignored and the final rules will end up bad.)
We need honest, thoughtful contributions from everyone, the industry, landowners, environmentalists, etc. Fear mongering will not help to produce good regulations.
As for the chemicals used, disclosure is important so that water providers know what to monitor for. Not revealing them just stokes additional fears. Revealing them (at least to public health officials), especially if they are largely safe, would go a long ways towards easing the sleep of many people. (As for the safety of the components, stiego, there are lots of “safe” things under my sink or in my garage, including detergent, that you wouldn’t like me to put in your glass of water!)
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good morning all!
I enjoyed this thread and I am delighted to see thoughtful comments about a very devisive subject. I would venture that the percentage of people who would vote to send the industry packing is far less than 5%.
The economic benefit of their ( the industry ) presence is clear. There are many industry employees and companies that are committed to doing the right thing. I know many of them personally and have had hundreds of hours of meetings with industry companies, working to solve problems.
Sadly, the trouble often lies with the dynamics of the industry itself. Operations drives the oil and gas business, not the “Executive Vice-President in Charge of Corporate Responsibility”. It is massive, sprawling, and driven to get gas and oil out of the ground. The propensity for this juggernaut to do damage is exacerbated by the unwillingness of companies to cooperate with one another. It is a VERY competitive business.
The need for effective regulation is not a result of evil oil and gas guys doing terrible things. It is because of the frenetic pace and scope of the undertaking. Colorados’ problem is that the keys to the kingdom were tossed to the industry with a mandate to go full speed ahead and let the pieces fall where they may. We are playing catch up here, trying to rein in a rampaging beast that is simply doing what it does best; get oil and gas out of the ground.
If there is blame to be dished out, it should be handed to those zealots in the industry lobby ( I’m talking to you, COGA ) who use some very questionable tactics and depend on misinformation to achieve their goals.
But, I think we are making progress. Let’s just keep ratching down the hyperbole and keep communicating with the folks across the table.
One more thing. I have been saying for some time now that the solution to these toxic chemical questions lies in a “pathway to accountability”. Public disclosure, while ideal, gives the fracing and drilling guys the heebie jeebies. Let’s compromise by making sure that, if someone is hurt, we can track the problem to its’ source.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
correction: ratcheting
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
STIEGO: I appreciate your input, and I assure you that I am NOT misinformed. In my opinion, industry is simply hiding behind the term “proprietary.” It’s their convenient reason not to disclose. If the lack of disclosure is no more villanous than KFC not handing over their recipe, then why are industry reps still lying to the public innocently claiming that fracking only involves water and sand??? As recently as one month ago, I heard a Williams man make this claim. If I were to dump thousands of gallons of my everyday household chemicals in a hole in the yard, I would be jailed. I am willing to bet the you also know that MSDS sheets are an incomplete joke, and your claim that industry readily hands them out to anyone requesting is simply not true.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Your drinking water is being poisoned, wholesale. All the wildlife is disappearing and will soon be extinct. Your environment is endangered. You and your family will become sickened and probably die.
Yeah, there is some fear mongering going on all right, and you can tell exactly where it is coming from, by the statements.
The oil companies have said if you over regulate us, we will pull up our pants and go home. Whether that is a bluff or a statement of fact, we are about to find out. I did notice that they have wheels on their equipment.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot,
You are not being fair with RanchersWife. There are numerous people who have been sickened by exposure to chemicals used by the gas and oil industry. The number of water wells that have polluted with toxic chemicals is huge and growing. Environmentalists did not create these problems and while your exaggeration and overstatement is designed insult RanchersWife, her concerns are real and well documented. By the way; If you hear of ANY oil and gas boys pulling up stakes and hightailing it back to Texas, please let me know. I have some investor friends that would love to pick up those leases.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, let me get this straight….
When I suggested that those people against drilling should stop USING all them nasty hydrocarbons, thereby lessening the demand for them, you told me to drink only stuff from the reserve pits.
Are you saying that I should just get sick and die?
Interesting the way your mind thinks.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP — Yes there are statements on the fringe that I would call misinformed, but not the ones here. This has been a solid and thoughtful discussion.
I often disagree with the Daily Sentinel’s editorials but on this topic of balancing O&G development with protecting the environment I have found most if not all of what they say to be reasonable and non-extremist.
The main sticking points on the environmental side are protecting our watershed and disclosure of these chemicals — in the case of the frozen spills.
I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, or if the news articles I read about this were proven false. As I remember reading (in the Sentinel) it was AFTER there had been accidents, some unreported (illegal).
From what I understand the companies responsible didn’t want to make these disclosures and weren’t required to do so even to the EPA. That was a huge PR setback to an industry that had otherwise been making good strides addressing environmental issues and earning the public trust. And it was probably one or two companies making all the other ones look bad.
By pointing out an issue like this it is not to say, quoting american_patriot “Your drinking water is being poisoned, wholesale.” etc. It is simply to point out that here is a vulnerable area the involved parties need to correct.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The “industry” is not lying to it’s employees any more than opponents are lying to their supporters. I’ve read the proposed rule changes, and they are VERY vague. The 90 day shutdown everyone is afraid of relates specifically to protections being included for wildlife in critical wintering areas identified as west of I-25. That’s a pretty broad swath of land, with no specifics related to what is being intrepreted as critical wintering areas, and by whom. I know when I choose an area in which I want to hunt, the boundaries are very specific so I know precisely where I can travel. Those provisions must be included to make these rules viable.
The comments here regarding chemicals plainly aren’t as informed as everyone claims. I can’t speak for everyone service company in the area, but I have worked for two, one being a large company. We are all heavily regulated by Federal, State, local, industry, and internal agencies beyond what most people will believe. The idea that we are just “drilling and spilling” is pure fear mongering. I have personally dealt with the fracturing chemicals for 8 years. The majority of what is used is no worse than the soap you put in your hair, otherwise known as Surfactant. Would I drink it? Of course not. Would I drink Round-Up or DEET? Nope, but people readily pour them on the ground along our waterways, and spread them on their skin without knowing every single chemical, and without the accompanying public outcry. Regarding the MSDS sheets, most manufacturers post them on their websites, (which is where I often get mine), and as a person directly responsible for making them available, it simply IS true they will be distributed to anyone with the need to review them.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego, look at my post 27. Is that fear mongering or misinformed? Who in this discussion has conveyed ” The idea that we are just “drilling and spilling” ?
The public has valid concerns; some of them have been addressed and others I am confident can and will be, resulting in preservation of both the industry and the environment.
But to immediately shut out anyone who addresses an environmental issue as being a “fearmonger” is neither accurate or productive.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh nice posts especially #20 and #21 (Bruce86 and dc). That is an example of understanding the big picture and reaching across the table with a spirit of compromise and reason.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ash, I would say your response is anectdotal, however that is not to discount the truth that accidents have, do, and will happen. Yet, when an honest overview is given to the sheer volume of work being done, the incidents are very few and generally minimal in scope. Don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. There have been incidents, some serious. Those are where attention needs to be focused and corrective action taken to mitigate further problems. My comments regarding fearmongering are rather general in scope as well. It’s disingenuos to paint an entire industry with a broad paintbrush. For instance, the woman voicing concern about the potential for 2 gallons of diesel spilling into the Cedaredge water supply and making it’s way to their homes within 2 hours. Valid concern? Yes. Fearmongering as well. Stand on the Colorado National Monument, look across the numerous farms dotting the landscape and tell me you don’t believe much more than 2 gallons of diesel fuel has made it’s way from farmers equipment into the fields irrigated by river water, ultimately making it’s way back into the drinking water supply. Where’s the public outcry?
Look to comment 15 regarding “drilling and spilling”.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I thought this piece from today’s Wall Street Journal on drilling for oil might be of interest to some of you:
Charles de Gaulle once wrote off the nation of Brazil in six words: “Brazil is not a serious country.” How much time is left before someone says the same of the United States?
One thing Brazil and the U.S. have in common is the price of oil: It is priced in dollars, and everyone in the world now knows what the price is. Another commonality is that each country has vast oil reserves in waters off their coastlines.
Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger says America needs to get serious about its oil and gas resources. (June 11)
Here we may draw a line in the waves between the serious and the unserious.
Brazil discovered only yesterday (November) that billions of barrels of oil sit in difficult water beneath a swath of the Santos Basin, 180 miles offshore from Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. The U.S. has known for decades that at least 8.5 billion proven barrels of oil sit off its Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with the Interior Department estimating 86 billion barrels of undiscovered oil resources.
When Brazil made this find last November, did its legislature announce that, for fear of oil spills hitting Rio’s beaches or altering the climate, it would forgo exploiting these fields?
Of course it didn’t. Guilherme Estrella, director of exploration and production for the Brazilian oil company Petrobras, said, “It’s an extraordinary position for Brazil to be in.” Indeed it is.
At this point in time, is there another country on the face of the earth that would possess the oil and gas reserves held by the United States and refuse to exploit them? Only technical incompetence, as in Mexico, would hold anyone back.
But not us. We won’t drill.
California won’t drill for the estimated 1.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil off its coast because of bad memories of the Santa Barbara oil spill – in 1969.
We won’t drill for the estimated 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil in the moonscape known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) because of – the caribou.
In 1990, George H.W. Bush, calling himself “the environmental president,” signed an order putting virtually all the U.S. outer continental shelf’s oil and gas reserves in the deep freeze. Bill Clinton extended that lockup until 2013. A Clinton veto also threw away the key to ANWR’s oil 13 years ago.
Our waters may hold 60 trillion untapped cubic feet of natural gas. As in Brazil, these are surely conservative estimates.
AP
While Brazilians proudly embrace Petrobras, yelling “We’re Going to Be No. 1,” the U.S.’s Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama, promises to impose an “excess profits tax” on American oil producers.
We live in a world in which Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez use their vast oil and gas reserves as instruments of state power. Here, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid use their control of Congress to spend a week debating a “climate-change” bill. This they did fresh off their subsidized (and bipartisan) ethanol fiasco.
One may assume that Mr. Putin and the Chinese have noticed the policy obsessions of our political class. While other nations use their oil reserves to attain world status, we give ours up. Why shouldn’t they conclude that, long term, these people can be taken? Nikita Khrushchev said, “We will bury you.” Forget that. We’ll do it ourselves.
Putin intimidates Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states and Poland with oil and gas cutoffs, while Chávez uses petrodollars to bankroll Colombian terrorists. Cuba plans to exploit its Caribbean oil fields within a long tee shot of the Florida Keys with help from India, Spain, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Malaysia, even Vietnam. But America won’t drill. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida said just last month he’s afraid of an oil spill. Katrina wrecked the oil rigs in the Gulf with no significant damage from leaking oil.
Some portion of the current $4-per-gallon gasoline may be attributable to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary policy or even speculators. But we can wave goodbye to the $1.25/gallon gasoline that in 1990 allowed a President Bush to airily lock away the nation’s oil and gas jewels. This isn’t your father’s world of energy. New world powers are coming online fast, and they need energy. We need to get back in the game.
The goal shouldn’t be “energy independence,” a ridiculous notion in an economically integrated world. It’s about admitting the need to strike a balance between the energy and security realities of the here-and-now and the potentialities of the future. Some of our best and brightest want to pursue alternative energy technologies, and they should be encouraged to do so, inside market disciplines. But let’s at least stop pretending the rest of the world is going to play along with our environmentalist moralisms.
The Democrats’ climate-change bill collapsed last week under the weight of brutal cost realities. It was a wake-up call. This is the year Americans joined the real world of energy costs. Now someone needs to explain to them why we – and we alone – are sitting on an ocean of energy but won’t drill for it.
You’d think the “national security” nominee, John McCain, would get this. He’s clueless – a don’t-drill zombie. We may mark this down as the year the U.S. tired of being a serious country.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hello Stiego:
Your thoughtful responses have inspired me to do some research on fracturing chemicals. Apparently the danger is when diesel fuel is used for hydraulic fracturing and gets into the drinking water. Here is an excerpt from Chemical & Engineering news dated Feb 2008.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has been concerned about the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing operations because if this diesel-containing fluid finds its way into a drinking water aquifer, the water would be unfit to drink for decades.
In an attempt to protect against such aquifer contamination, EPA signed a voluntary memorandum of understanding in 2003 with three companies that handle about 95% of hydraulic fracturing—Halliburton, Schlumberger Technology, and BJ Services. In the agreement, the companies promised not to use diesel fuel—which contains benzene, toluene, and xylene—in fracturing.
But according to staff from the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, there is evidence that some companies continued to use diesel fuel, at least to a limited extent. In November, Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote to the firms that had signed the agreement and to two other big drilling companies to ask for information about their use of additives in hydraulic fracturing. In the letter, he requested data showing the chemical makeup of the fracturing fluids used and the total volumes of the companies’ production in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
As the committee waits to hear back from the companies, at least one of the firms is on record saying it does not use diesel fuel. At a Bureau of Land Management advisory council meeting held on Nov. 16, 2007, in Colorado, Halliburton Technical Manager Mike Eberhard said, “Halliburton does not use diesel anymore as a carrier for guar gum and prides itself in that.” But, he added “I cannot speak for other service companies.”
Halliburton is to be commended for this. Do you know if other drilling companies in this area are still using Diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego,
The DOW has a map that clearly identifies the areas of concern. I also happen to know that, as a result of consultation with the industry, the DOW has twice decreased the number and size of the areas mentioned.
And if you will note, I did not say the “industry was lying to its’ employees”. I said, COGA is doing the misinforming, and I stand by that accusation.
p.s. to Willis: Of course I don’t want any harm to come to you Willis. You are far too entertaining and, when you are not insulting people, some of your comments are worth reading. I was responding to comments that you made that anyone who complains about industry activities should not be allowed to use hydrocarbons. Well, that’s just silly. My comment was that, if you think Big O&G should be allowed to pollute air and water without consequences, then you shouldn’t be allowed to use them. Is that unfair?
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I know that you do not wish personal harm to come to me.
As far as my ‘insulting people’, I only insult those who posts insults against me, or other posters on this site.
It is definitely a case of “well, he started it”, but I actually enjoy beating people with their own whip.
As to the position that the oil and gas industry goes about their business with total and complete disregard for the environment is getting close to getting mr Goebbels quote attached to my responses to those messages.
If the massive environmental damage that we keep reading about on these pages were actually true, there would be no wildlife of any kind between here and the Wyoming State line.
Nor would there be and trees, bushes, weeds or anything else.
Everybody in Rangely, Meeker, Rifle and Craig would all be dead from the ‘poisoned’ watersheds.
In short, it ALL scare mongering and has no place in what would normally be reasonable discussions.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
I had no idea you had an interest in profiting from oil and gas development, or was it your friends? That would make you completely neutral, right? Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys are great. I knew you wouldn’t let me down.
I have work to do, gotta go now. G’day.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
The assertion was fear mongering. I tried to cover the fear mongering related to the statements from both sides. I like the word balance in your post. Since I drink water, and use gas, I’ve got a stake in both sides of this issue, but in my opinion, the fear mongering and disinformation campaign is designed and directed in an effort to obtain disclosure. If successful, the enviros will then start a new fear mongering campaign based on each individual chemical used. You see, they know that chemical names like Mono-sodium Glutamate just scare the hell out of the unwashed masses. And then, there would be the statements that we just don’t know what catastrophic chemical soup is formed when these chemicals are used in combination with each other. And the beat goes on. And the delay goes on. And gas prices continue to increase, and the power of the enviros increases and the beat goes on.
Oh what injuries have been done in the name of things that never happened. Let them eat cake, appears to be a “green” recipe.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The practice of using diesel fuel in fracturing processes ceased at least 7 or 8 years ago in this region, and most of the Rockies to my knowledge. The vast majority of fracturing done now only utilizes a few chemicals, in most cases only 2, one of which is surfactant. Energy service companies are constantly on the search for “green” products to replace current ones, and in processes where diesel was used, it has long since been replaced by products such as mineral oil.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ap states:”If successful, the enviros will then start a new fear mongering campaign based on each individual chemical used. You see, they know that chemical names like Mono-sodium Glutamate just scare the hell out of the unwashed masses. And then, there would be the statements that we just don’t know what catastrophic chemical soup is formed when these chemicals are used in combination with each other. And the beat goes on. And the delay goes on. And gas prices continue to increase, and the power of the enviros increases and the beat goes on.”
Which goes back to my original statement on post #1:
“Now, these folks won’t usually come out and express their “no extraction period” opinion. But they will put up every possible obstacle to prevent drilling. And that’s too bad.”
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
A breath of fresh air. That was a well described, balanced approach to the problem. Common sense and a desire to address the problem is not enough. You have probably noticed a tone in most of my posts concerning high gas prices and the consequences from high gas prices. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. We don’t have an infinite amount of time to solve this problem. If gas prices continue to rise, at anywhere near the present rate, in the next three months this thing is going to take on a life of it’s own. It is going to hit the proverbial fan. The environmental movement will suffer, as will the oil companies. The difference is the oil companies will just pass their pain to the public at the pump. Why people can’t grasp what is about to happen, I do not know. I am not an educated man, and it is difficult for me to describe to someone else what I know. It is also very frustrating when I act in good faith with my warning to be discounted and dismissed because of my inability to make people understand. May I ask you, as a favor, to try to put into words that they will understand, that we need to move quickly towards the middle on this thing, or the results will be a hell of a lot worse than two gallons of diesel spilled. Very soon now, human nature and the me first attitude will replace reason and judgment. Can we win that race?
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego
I am curious as to why you haven’t commented on the Williams man who is misinforming people that fracking used water and sand……..no comment? He said this to a group of young, fresh environmental consultants who were prospecting for a contract with Williams. By the way, is Williams your employer? I suspect so.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I haven’t commented on the Williams man, because a) it’s useless to comment on anectdotal evidence, b) fracturing is comprised heavily of water and sand, with proportianately minimal amounts of chemicals, and c) the vast majority of chemicals flow back out of the well at the end of the fracturing operations.
William is not my employer, which leads me to d) taking time to come up with valid responses to people who already have their minds made up based on suspicion and lack of information is usually pointless.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: ““Now, these folks won’t usually come out and express their “no extraction period” opinion. But they will put up every possible obstacle to prevent drilling. And that’s too bad.”
Bfrog you have made this statement several times, ascribing motives to people which exist only in your imagination as far as I can tell. Certainly you have offered nothing in support of this statement. It is just possible, is it not, that most environmentalists recognize that we must have some drilling but that it must be done in such a way that destruction of the environment is minimalized?
Our descendants will, in my opinion, curse us for two reasons if we permit unregulated drilling and consumption.
1: They will point to our greed and desire for current economic gain despite the long term effect on the environment much as we castigate those who went before us for their despoilations of our environment.
2. They will curse us for our mindless burning for energy all those carbon compounds which are wonderful synthetic building blocks for useful materials of every kind. Sort of like using gold for building pipes.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP. in summary, my position on drilling is as follows:
1. I am fully cognizant of the fact that oil demand has been rising globally at a pace that will soon (if it hasn’t already), outstrip supply.
2. Whether one is an environmentalist or not, we need to begin to substitute another energy source, for gasoline.
3. Since, realistically, we do not yet have that substitute, and we wont fully transition for many years, we can, as a first step, increase the efficiency of our vehicles and have more and more folks drive efficient, gasoline powered vehicles.
4. Most folks will not do so willingly, but WILL do so if pocketbook issues intervene. That is why I am NOT opposed to a rise in the price of gasoline. I am, however, not happy to see the price rise so quickly that it has a severe impact on the economy.
5. My preferred scenario is for gasoline prices to rise at a relatively steady, preannounced rate, over a number of years, until a price is reached that will drive people to switch to smaller, more efficient vehicles, as they have in Europe. Let me point out that I am not normally in favor of raising any taxes; but this is a special case.
6. As far as supply of petroleum is concerned, I believe we need to fully utilize what we have under the ground and under the sea in order to help us during the transition process to a non-petroleum transportation energy source. I believe we need to drill in Anwar, under the outer continental shelf, and just about anywhere else. And we should do so following all reasonable environmental regulations. We need to do so to help us come as close as possible to energy independence and to reduce our reliance on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela.
7. We must expose the hypocrites who speak of energy independence, who blame the oil companies for not using their profits to increase production, who threaten to sue OPEC for not increasing their production and, at the same time, don’t allow us to drill in our own country. Republicans must put pressure on John McCain to stop singing the Democrats’ tune and push for drilling in Anwar.
We need to agree that we will move as fast as realistically feasible to replace petroleum with an environmentally acceptable energy source. But we should, in the meantime, do what we can to become more energy independent by using more of our own resources instead of OPEC’s
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego: ” fracturing is comprised heavily of water and sand, with proportianately minimal amounts of chemicals, and c) the vast majority of chemicals flow back out of the well at the end of the fracturing operations.”
These “minimal” amounts of chemicals include diesel oils and known carcinogens. Many stay in the ground and have contaminated ground water in several documented instances. http://www.earthworksaction.org/hydfracking.cfm
Let’s tell it like it really is instead of making excuses.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: “Bfrog you have made this statement several times, ascribing motives to people which exist only in your imagination as far as I can tell.”———–My statement is based on many conversations I have had with folks over the years as well as what I’ve seen and read. You have said that all of your intelligent environmentalist friends would never go as far as saying that they are totally opposed to drilling. I would say that they are smart enough not to say what they truly believe for fear of sounding extremist.
Class: “Our descendants will, in my opinion, curse us for two reasons if we permit unregulated drilling and consumption.”—————-I am opposed to UNREGULATED drilling. I believe drilling can be done following sound environmental practices. I also believe we can regulate consumption, as a matter of national security, by raising gasoline taxes.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: I would say that they are smart enough not to say what they truly believe for fear of sounding extremist.
Truly believe??? Again I have to say that you have no idea what people truly believe except your own preconceived notions. (and I do not mean that in an unkind way, but come on!)
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego
A vast majority of the chemicals used do not flow back out of the well. EPA studies estimate that between 30 and 70% are recovered, hardly a majority, with 30-70% remaining underground in the formations. 30% of thousands of gallons per every well fractured…..and where does it go?
Oh and Stiego, please don’t feel threatened. That just leads to a nasty atitude and name calling. Guess what, I really do respect the energy workers, and I definitely know that the o&g industry is keeping W Colorado afloat. It’s COGA and the industry alarmists who use scare tactics on the guys who I have a problem with.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52, I can easily pull countering statements from fringe websites stating polar opposites. A brief look at your source doesn’t show very timely information. The only facts that will matter to a person with a closed mind are the facts resulting in the conclusion that has already been accepted by that person.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class: “Truly believe??? Again I have to say that you have no idea what people truly believe except your own preconceived notions. (and I do not mean that in an unkind way, but come on!)”———–Right back at you, good buddy, I couldn’t have said it better myself (about you, that is).
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52:
Thank you for the reference.
Stiego:
I personally know of a well in Garfield County that was fractured using 300 gallons of diesel fuel. A memorandum of agreement does not stop producers from using diesel, it simply PREVENTS (or slows down) any legislation that would prohibit it. It’s actually a pretty effective way to continue the use. Slick.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the self-marginalized one.
” Let’s tell it like it really is instead of making excuses.”
“Like it really is” gene?
When, in all your posts, have you relied on reality?
You mostly rely on hyperbole, anonymous letters and whacko websites for documentation.
As far as how much goes in and how much comes out.
The frac liquids are pumped from holding tanks into the well, and flowed back into those tanks after the process.
A substantial amount of those fluids are hauled to the next site and reused.
And, everything west of Colorado 13 is dead from polluted water supplies due to killer drillers.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog:Right back at you, good buddy, I couldn’t have said it better myself (about you, that is).
But I accept what my environmentalist friends tell me at face value. You are the one who says you know what they believe, not I.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t feel at all threatened. I use facts from both sides of aisle to formulate my position, not emotion. I deal with the chemicals in questionn every day. I know what goes downhole, in what volumes, where and when. I also know the environmental and health effects related to each.
By the way, I personally know almost every well was fractured with diesel fuel, but as I stated that practice ended many years ago. I suppose there may be someone out there still doing it, but I doubt it. It’s not an industry standard any more, nor will it return. For one thing, greener alternatives have been produced which are more cost effective and work just as well, if not better.
Folks, this has been fun and informative, but I have work to do. You know, environmental pillage never ends, so I’m off to continue the bidding of my evil master. Just keep in mind, EVERY SINGLE modern convenience you see around you is brought to you courtesy of the oil and gas industry.
You’re welcome.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
Suggested field trip. Drive through a mobile home park. Stop randomly at ten mobile homes. Knock on the door. Tell the resident that you are conducting a poll, and ask them; What’s holding up their decision to buy a new Hybrid car? The answer you will get won’t have a damn thing to do with whether they think it is the right thing to do. For them, it is not an option. And what little money they do have is spent at the pump, on beans and potatoes and the occasional luxury of an onion. They are probably late on their rent now. And theirs is a growing class of people, not withstanding LBJ’s war on poverty. I had a horse once. He was a really big eater. So I decided I would wean him. So every day I cut down on his ration of oats. By doing this, I was successful, however the horse died. There is a whole nether world out there folks, and you had better start thinking about how that world is going to react when they can’t afford to drive to work, when they lose their job, when their kids are hungry. You can continue to ignore them, but they are not going away, and they are on the razors edge right now. Take a hard look at Social Security income, and the average check. Then ask yourself, could I even support one person on that meager amount of money? Do you know how many people there are on fixed incomes in this country? I don’t have any complaint at all with any solution at all that anyone at all can come up with. I’m just asking you to realize you might end up with a dead horse. Why do I feel like I’m wasting my breath? How exactly was it that you intend to stop a bunch of hungry people from getting what they need to survive? The enviros and the oil companies will still be fiddling when Rome burns to the ground.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Darn, I forgot one thing for Classof52. Have you ever looked into the effects caused by Aspartame? Wow, that stuff is bad news. Nobody in their right mind would EVER drink that!
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RW: Class of 52:
Thank you for the reference.
You’re welcome. And notice that the response from WLJ was to call the reference a whacko site. Translation: he cannot refute with evidence the documented references to drilling harm on that site so he just tries to dismiss it. Transparent and pathetic from College Dropout Willie.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego: Darn, I forgot one thing for Classof52. Have you ever looked into the effects caused by Aspartame? Wow, that stuff is bad news. Nobody in their right mind would EVER drink that!
Actually I have since I was a medical scientist before I retired. Any evidence against aspartame is controversial and has been refuted in a number of studies. Not so with some of the organic compounds used in fracturing fluid. These are clearly labeled hazardous chemicals. Not a problem if they could be contained, but all the evidence is that they have in some well documented instances got into the ground water.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_patriot,
Finally, someone who realizes what is happening out here in the real world. I think you are understating the obvious. I already know people who have been laid off, as a result of the trickle down effect of high gas prices. The numbers of people who have had to turn to the food banks etc. is growing so fast they can’t keep up, and there are a lot of those who come in who hang their heads in shame because they have to ask for charity in order to feed their children. And these are 90% working families, working right here in the Grand Valley. I know of several older people, who don’t even own a car, who are down to one or two meals a day, because of the increases in food, utilities, prescriptions etc., all because of the “fuel prices”. Until I started volunteering at the food banks, I thought the majority of users were lazy. I also thought that the vast majority of people in “travel trailer parks” were on vacation. I fear for our future. I have had conversations with these people and they are not going to lay down and die like the horse.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: “I fear for our future. I have had conversations with these people and they are not going to lay down and die like the horse.”
This is so much baloney! I grew up in the great depression which makes the current situation look like a playground. My father was out of work much of the time since he was a union organizer, not healthy in the 30s. We were miserably poor and so were a lot of others. Guess what? there was no revolution. People learned to cope.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52
And apparently you didn’t learn anything from the great depression. If you had you would know that being hungry doesn’t change. You would also know that the same “coping mechanisms” that were available then are not today. Families don’t live in the same towns, they are spread all over the country. We are not an agrarian country. The population has increased substantially. It doesn’t matter how much food there is if you can’t afford it. It doesn’t matter how much gas there is if you can’t afford it, etc. In fact, when you are hungry, not much else matters and when your children are hungry…. Well what would you be willing to do to feed your children? Your assertion that they will cope adds nothing more than insult to injury and is reminiscent of the sour grapes of wrath. The fact that you have no compassion for your fellow man does not surprise me, but your lack of foresight does.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Calm down Grandma, no need to get nasty.
I’m outta here.
bye
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
deja Vu all over again…
” Classof52
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm PM This User Report this comment
RW: Class of 52:
Thank you for the reference.
You’re welcome. And notice that the response from WLJ was to call the reference a whacko site. Translation: he cannot refute with evidence the documented references to drilling harm on that site so he just tries to dismiss it. Transparent and pathetic from College Dropout Willie.”
And…
” This is so much baloney! I grew up in the great depression “.
I’m not so sure you ‘grew up’ as much as I am that you merely wasted the time aging.
Grownups either stop lying, or turn into liberals.
So, once again…
” “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ” J. Goebbels/J. Fox
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6Class of 52
And apparently you didn’t learn anything from the great depression. If you had you would know that being hungry doesn’t change. You would also know that the same “coping mechanisms” that were available then are not today. Families don’t live in the same towns, they are spread all over the country. We are not an agrarian country. The population has increased substantially. It doesn’t matter how much food there is if you can’t afford it. It doesn’t matter how much gas there is if you can’t afford it, etc. In fact, when you are hungry, not much else matters and when your children are hungry…. Well what would you be willing to do to feed your children? Your assertion that they will cope adds nothing more than insult to injury and is reminiscent of the sour grapes of wrath. The fact that you have no compassion for your fellow man does not surprise me, but your lack of foresight does.”
Totally off the point and once again hearing only what you want to hear. The issue: Will the current economic difficulties cause outbreaks of violence and revolution as both you and AP state? I point out that a far worse depression did not cause such outbreaks of violence. And what do I get in return? A diatribe about how I have no compassion! Sheesh!! Where in the world did you learn to read?
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
Rock a bye baby. If you are scared son, go home.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, according to you there was no violence during the depression.
Things have changed. Would your wife answer the back door and hand out food, or call the cops? Were there large population centers such as Detroit, Ny, LA? Where will they get their food? What will happen if they don’t. I really don’t think anyone, except you, is that blind to the real life world as it exists today, not the days of the 30’s
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “And what little money they do have is spent at the pump, on beans and potatoes and the occasional luxury of an onion.”——————–AP, I am not suggesting that they spend a lot more on gas. I am suggesting that the next time they need to buy a car, that they get one with 50-100% better mileage. It need not be a hybrid, but it will probably be smaller than what most people drive today. The price we pay for gasoline in this country is still one of the lowest in the developed world.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Responding with the amount of class he usually exhibit, AP responded to a post by Classof52 with the following: “Rock a bye baby. If you are scared son, go home.” Me thinks that AP would do well to examine his own self first, prior to accusing others of being “fraidy cats”. It would seem that is something he has not the courage to do.
Following this discussion, grandmasix also exhibits the a very shallow understanding of the great depression. While she bemoans and decries the suffering of the period, she has evidently made no effort to determine why it “did” happen.
Things do not happen by themselves and, those interested in avoiding another one would do well to study the causes of the first, instead of bemoaning the effects.
As a starting point, may I suggest the book “The Great Crash” by John Kenneth Galbraith, that is if it has not already been removed from the libraries as being not “politically correct.”
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego,
I can assure you, oil and gas are not presented to me as a courtesy. I am paying dearly for it. I am sure the industry would keep our tanks filled for free, as a courtesy, if I ask them, pretty please. Don’tcha think?
Oy!
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, you’re absolutely correct. Oil and gas are not provided to you as a courtesy, and you are paying for them dearly because you are a consumer, just like everyone else. The availability of energy is not a right, merely a privilege. The way to not pay dearly for them is to use less. Your desire to consume is what costs you, regardless of whom you choose to blame, excluding the government of course. If not for the confiscatory taxation we enjoy on behalf of our government, our economy would be in much better shape. Throwing that aside, it’s simple economics. Use less, pay less.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Stiego; “Classof52, I can easily pull countering statements from fringe websites stating polar opposites. A brief look at your source doesn’t show very timely information. The only facts that will matter to a person with a closed mind are the facts resulting in the conclusion that has already been accepted by that person.”
Well, Stiego if you are going to characterize any site which disagrees with your notions as a “fringe” website, then what does that say about your accepted conclusions? Why don’t you quote one of those websites which states polar opposites so that we readers can judge its bonafides?
The truth is that environmental concerns are always going to be the subject of websites which are interested in the environment. We are not going to see corporate or pro-corporate websites which caution us about the dangers of of fracturing fluid. So we have to examine the corresponding motives of the two camps. Clearly the motive with the oil and gas industry is economic, plain and simple.
On the other side there is not much money to be made in environmental advocacy. The balance sheet of the Sierra Club would be lost in the decimal places of the balance sheet of EXxon. So perhaps the motivation of the environmentalists is a pathological hatred of the oil industry. there may be a few like that (but I do not know any such people or groups personally). Maybe, just maybe, their motivation is to preserve the environment as best as possible for future generations of America.
History teaches us what happens when industry is allowed to proceed unregulated. I am old enough to remember when the Monangahela river outside Pittsburg regularly caught fire because of the waste petroleum products floating on its surface. So given the choice between the obvious motivations of the oil and gas industry and my perceived motivations of the bulk of the environmentalist groups, I go with the latter every time.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of Trout Unlimited but no other environmental groups. I was once employed by the Atlantic Richfield corporation.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
stiego,
My wife just started driving the new Prius yesterday. I have parked my 3/4 ton diesel pickup and will only use it when absolutely necessary. I am driving a small sedan now and we ride our bikes unless the trip is too far. We are replacing our light bulbs with flourescents and are committed to using LED technology whenever we can. We are limiting our driving and starting to work on local food initiatives ( including a big, five family garden) to reduce carbon consumption in our food supply. Our lights are always off in unused rooms. Our house is very weatherproof and our furnace and water heater are very high efficiency.
We are personally committed to continually look for ways to reduce our carbon footprint. How about you?
I would also add that the current cost of oil and gas is a result of all sorts of factors beyond simple economics. If there was ever a time when our markets were being manipulated, this is the time. No other factor besides market speculation can account for such radical price fluctuation. If you have factual data to explain to me how supply and demand can affect the price of a barrel of oil by as much as $6.00 to $10.00 a day, let’s see it.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the self-marginalized one…
Gene, the other day, the t-feller posted a copy and paste from a website that listed an anonymous letter and you called it relevant and reliable.
And now this?
” Well, Stiego if you are going to characterize any site which disagrees with your notions as a “fringe” website, then what does that say about your accepted conclusions? Why don’t you quote one of those websites which states polar opposites so that we readers can judge its bonafides? ”
And you wonder why you get no respect…
So much intelligence, and so little intelligence, all wrapped up in one classless, clueless Bombastic Buffoon.
Posted June 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, last post here, because I truly have grander thing to do.
Classof52 - You should know better than to portray the energy industry as unregulated. That’s a complete misrepresentation of the truth, or more specifically, it’s a lie. Another untruth is the statement that there is little money to be made in environmental activism. You have got to be joking. Just ask Al Gore. He is positioning himself to make an “obscene profit” on carbon credits, yet his followers turn a blind eye. Alo, you need to take a good look at the war chest held by the Sierra Club. It’s not peanuts. Comparing it to Exxon isn’t exactly comparing apples to apples either. Exxon actually produces a product (or products), the Sierra Club produces propaganda. Additionally, tell everyone why it’s acceptable for Exxon to do all the do for a marin of 8%, yet all levels of government usurp up to 65 cents on every gallon of fuel sold. What has the government done in that equation?
dc - You’re correct. Market speculation is certainly playing a role in the volatility of the oil price. That is part of the “economics” I referred to, although that’s not exactly a simple part, so I stand partially corrected on that account. However, speculation wouldn’t be so profitable if not for the ridiculous global demand, driven heavily by China, India and other developing countries.
I just bought a 1 ton diesel about 2 months ago, and haven’t driven it more than 1,500 miles in that time. It has a purpose, and fuel consumption isn’t it. I also installed a programmer and upgraded the intake to improve performance (i.e. fuel economy). My other car is reasonably fuel efficient, and it too is driven minimally. Also, I drove a Ford Festiva for 7 years, getting 42 mpg, long before it was trendy and good for the environment.
I built a new home 2 1/2 years ago (before energy prices started skyrocketing) and spent the extra money on spray foam insulation, top of the line windows, the best appliances and paid for a full brick exterior, all intended to use the least energy possible. I put fluorescent bulbs throughout the house, before it was cool, all of which are off when not in use. I have programmable thermostats in the house, set VERY high when nobody’s home, and ceiling fans in every room to reduce the need for A/C. I also have a high efficiency wood stove, which I regularly use in the winter.
I have a garden that feeds two families, and provides tons of vegetables we give to friends and neighbors as well. This year we will can everything.
Just because I work in the energy industry, don’t question my motives. I learned a long time ago, a penny saved is a penny earned. Perhaps you should read the letter I wrote, which started this entire discussion. My motives are driven by economics, not the catastrophic climate change drivel being pounded down our throats.
By the way, I don’t buy into the “carbon footprint” bunk, but I am doing my best to off-set my own reduction in energy use by increasing the output of methane caused by my cattle. It should be a good year, as I have several more calves due soon.
Thanks for the entertainment ladies and gentlemen. It’s been fun, and enlightening.
Posted June 13th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc: “I would also add that the current cost of oil and gas is a result of all sorts of factors beyond simple economics. If there was ever a time when our markets were being manipulated, this is the time. No other factor besides market speculation can account for such radical price fluctuation. If you have factual data to explain to me how supply and demand can affect the price of a barrel of oil by as much as $6.00 to $10.00 a day, let’s see it.”
I agree with you that strict supply/demand factors do not justify the volatility of the oil markets nor the sharp rise in the price this year. But, I would not use the word “manipulation”, which means some sort of illegal activity. I believe what we have is rampant “speculation”, as you also noted, not unlike what caused the stock market bubble of 90’s or the recently punctured housing bubble.
There is a lot of money being thrown at oil futures by investors who are trend followrs. The concept of having commodities as a portion of a large investor’s portfolio came into being in 1999 by Goldman Sachs. Speculation in the futures markets is reatively easy to do by just about anyone because it only requires 5% margin.
There is nothing illegal about specultation. But there are steps that can be taken to reduce it. One would be to significantly increase the margin and another would be to limit who can play in that market.
I beilve that the current price of oil represents a bubble and that at some point, we will see a collapse in the price, not unlike what we saw in stocks, housing, and, more recently, what we are seeing in gold.
Posted June 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Steigo: “Classof52 - You should know better than to portray the energy industry as unregulated. That’s a complete misrepresentation of the truth, or more specifically, it’s a lie.”
Woujld you care to quote the offending sentence where I characterized the current oil and gas industry as unregulated?
The misrepresentation is on your part. You have distorted badly what I wrote which referred only to the historical Pittsburg area contamination.
And to characterize the Sierra Club as only producing “propaganda” tells us all that you are simply a mouthpiece for the polluters. I really do not know how you folks can live with yourself. These grander things you have to do involve making more money by fracturing with pollutants to our water supplies?
Posted June 13th, 2008 at 10:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, since we’re already into hyperbole, and ‘more of the same liberal claptrap’.
” And to characterize the Sierra Club as only producing “propaganda” tells us all that you are simply a mouthpiece for the polluters. I really do not know how you folks can live with yourself. ”
No gene, that’s all the sierra club produces. Propaganda along the lines of J. Goebbels/J. Fox.
There really is no difference
It’s like you latest lie about me being a ‘college dropout’, you keep wording that like it is a derogatory thing.
Do you have a problem with a person being a ‘college dropout’?
Posted June 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The real dangerous misrepresentation/propoganda is coming from COGA and industry. ie denying use of dangerous chemicals, denying contaminating water wells, making people sick, lying to the employees that they will loose their jobs for 3 months out of the year, etc etc etc. (SHAME on COGA and their puppet, the cute little Josh Penry!!) I could go on for pages, but I have a fun weekend planned that I need to get started on.
I think a couple of you might get away from your computers, take a breather, enjoy June in W Colorado.
Posted June 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Brad, I sure can appreciate a lot of your comments, and most of all your attitude of reaching common ground.
You are right, it’s always better to come together and hammer out an accord. But please realize that in order to do so, you must have mutual need.
Industry has shown its disinterest by grabbing the gold over the last five years to the detriment of everyone but themselves. It has been an atrocity. They had opportunity after opportunity to be proactive, yet consistently passed.
Now, we get government intervention. It may not the best option - but at least there is some intervention, and those of us at ground zero have desperately needed it all from the first time our community sat at the table with industry and thereafter experienced their extremely effective conquer and divide - status quo style of “doing things right”.
Their credibility is shot and they’ve established both their interests and position. We have to put our faith elsewhere.
Posted June 26th, 2008 at 7:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
fun websites for women…
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…
Posted June 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
competitive bidding…
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools. As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.