Obama delays drilling...up to 200k jobs!

[Coach is Back!]

While Benny is focusing on bullshit stories like Cain "melting down" he and others like him neglect the real stories.




President Obama's United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.

“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed," announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. "The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan." The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly "will focus solely on how it could affect forest land," despite the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, "and not how it could affect groundwater."

Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling "could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley,"  even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation.

The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.

"The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. "It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil."

Salazar denied that suggestion, noting the sales of mineral leases over the last two years, but he also affirmed environmentalist concerns. "The increasing use of hydraulic fracturing has raised a number of concerns about the potential impacts on water quality and availability, particularly with respect to the chemical composition of fracturing fluids and the methods used."

[makaveli25]

He's going to destroy this country.

[avxo]

While Benny is focusing on bullshit stories like Cain "melting down" he and others like him neglect the real stories.

Well, first of all you (or the original author of the article you quoted without attribution) forgot to mention that the "Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program" is funded by the oil industry. While there's nothing wrong with them being an industry funded and backed group, per se, it does change the calculus slightly by providing some important context.

Now I'm all for using our own national resources if we can do it safely, and hydraulic fracturing seems fairly safe and the critics seem to be overreacting.

But that some oil industry trade group says that it's safe or will produce a certain number of jobs doesn't necessairly make it so.

[Coach is Back!]

Well, first of all you (al author of the article you quoted without attribution) forgot to mention that the "Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program" is funded by the oil industry. While there's nothing wrong with them being an industry funded and backed group, per se, it does change the calculus slightly by providing some important context.

Now I'm all for using our own national resources if we can do it safely, and hydraulic fracturing seems fairly safe and the critics seem to be overreacting.

But that some oil industry trade group says that it's safe or will produce a certain number of jobs doesn't necessairly make it so.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-usda-delays-shale-drilling-200k-jobs

[avxo]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-usda-delays-shale-drilling-200k-jobs

Thanks for the link.

[tbombz]

Now I'm all for using our own national resources if we can do it safely

burning fossil fuels is not safe

[bradistani]

maybe you idiots should read up on the dangers of shale drilling 

[The Ugly]

Danger shmanger.

[avxo]

burning fossil fuels is not safe

That's an exceedingly broad and ridiculous statement. You are saying, among other things, that cooking a steak on a charcoal BBQ is not safe. That's patently ridiculous. Not safe how? And why? Are all fossil fuels not safe, or just some? Are they unsafe when burned in any amount or is there a minimum amount? What does safe even mean? Safe in what respect?

[tbombz]

That's an exceedingly broad and ridiculous statement. You are saying, among other things, that cooking a steak on a charcoal BBQ is not safe. That's patently ridiculous. Not safe how? And why? Are all fossil fuels not safe, or just some? Are they unsafe when burned in any amount or is there a minimum amount? What does safe even mean? Safe in what respect?

ok. i will quantify. burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale is unsafe for the environment, could possibly lead to the destrucion of earths ecosystem as we know it. 

[The Ugly]

Drill that shit.

[avxo]

ok. i will quantify. burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale is unsafe for the environment, could possibly lead to the destrucion of earths ecosystem as we know it. 

It's not entirely clear that burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale is any more unsafe for the environment than, say, methane released by cows. What is certain is that the technology to reduce particulate emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has dramatically improved and will continue to do so. As to the question of where it could possibly lead that is, at best, unclear. It's exceedingly unlikely that the continued burning of fossil fuels on the current industrial scale will lead to the destruction of the earth's ecosystem, given the above mentioned improvements in technology.

I'm curious, what is your opinion on nuclear reactors, especially generation 4 reactor designs, such as pebble-bed, molten salt and 'lifter', for power generation?

[The Ugly]

It's not entirely clear that burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale is any more unsafe for the environment than, say, methane released by cows. What is certain is that the technology to reduce particulate emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has dramatically improved and will continue to do so. As to the question of where it could possibly lead that is, at best, unclear. It's exceedingly unlikely that the continued burning of fossil fuels on the current industrial scale will lead to the destruction of the earth's ecosystem, given the above mentioned improvements in technology.

I'm curious, what is your opinion on nuclear reactors, especially generation 4 reactor designs, such as pebble-bed, molten salt and 'lifter', for power generation?

You sound really smart.

[Shockwave]

Drill that shit.

I'm with this guy. The economy is on the verge of collapse, huge unemployement, etc.and his answer, is to revoke countracts that would employ hundreds of thousands because a small group fears it might be harmful to the ecosystem. Ludicrous. Clearly we care more about the small number of bleeding hearts (all employed and not hurting for money I suspect) than we do the families those jobs could feed. Ludicrous.

[avxo]

You sound really smart.

I just copy stuff from Wikipedia... When the Interwebs are down I'm dumb as a brick.

[The Ugly]

Oh, stop.

[MikMaq]

I'm with this guy. The economy is on the verge of collapse, huge unemployement, etc.and his answer, is to revoke countracts that would employ hundreds of thousands because a small group fears it might be harmful to the ecosystem. Ludicrous. Clearly we care more about the small number of bleeding hearts (all employed and not hurting for money I suspect) than we do the families those jobs could feed. Ludicrous.

What if it destroys farm land, causes load of cancer etc. Oil is dirty, pretending it isnt is fucking stupid. It has real economic costs not just some liberal bs, what do you think the gulf spill did to the local tourism and fishing industries. This is the kinda crap that makes me hate cons. Oil is always dirty same with coal. Granted we need energy production, but anyone trying to be simplistic on this shit should be fucking shot. Its complicated and risky no matter what way you look at it.

[tbombz]

It's not entirely clear that burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale is any more unsafe for the environment than, say, methane released by cows. What is certain is that the technology to reduce particulate emissions from the burning of fossil fuels has dramatically improved and will continue to do so. As to the question of where it could possibly lead that is, at best, unclear. It's exceedingly unlikely that the continued burning of fossil fuels on the current industrial scale will lead to the destruction of the earth's ecosystem, given the above mentioned improvements in technology.

I'm curious, what is your opinion on nuclear reactors, especially generation 4 reactor designs, such as pebble-bed, molten salt and 'lifter', for power generation?

while the release of green house gases from the burning of fossil fuels is only one part of the equation and other fossil fuels do certainly contribute, particularly mehtane, carbon dioxide is the strongest of all of them by far, with the exception fo water.

while technologies are improving, they will not eliminate further pollution, nor will they do anything to halt the effects of pollution nalready done.  when you make a splas in one side of a pool, the wave does not reach the other side instantaenously. 200 hundred years of extrremely heavy co2 release. even if we stop all emissions today, we would still suffer the consequences of past pollution for years to come. in fact its entirely possible that weve already gone past a "tipping point" and the destruction of the earths atmosphere is inevtibale unless we develop some kind of weather control technology. but that is just a slight possibility. what is real is the need to eliminate emmissions asap. the science is extremely strong in this regard.

whats my feelings on nuclear energy? im all for it. except i think solar, wind, and ocean currents are also possibilities.

[The Ugly]

Carbon Dioxide is harmful to the environment?

Can we blame the trees?

[tbombz]

Carbon Dioxide is harmful to the environment?

Can we blame the trees?

lmao

you mean the animals


plants convert co2 into oxygen

animals convert oxygen into co2

 

[The Ugly]

And it's harmful?

[tbombz]

And it's harmful?

yes, when levels get out of balance, it definitely is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Marty Champions]

Obama is right with this one but he lacks the alternative. thus hes only half efficient

in otherwords hes right in saying that we shouldnt do "such and such" but he lacks saying we SHOULD do such and such

the average nerds should ride horses (no insurance, only cost is to feed the horse), cut automobile usage in half

[The Ugly]

No he's not, dumbass.

[kcballer]

Shale "drilling" is one of the most environmentally dangerous methods of extracting oil.  What good is a job when your environment is nothing but sh*t?