Thank goodness. My bad. And here I thought all your postings about us dying of cancer and the despoiled environment meant you thought we should do something other than "maintain the currently regulated status quo."

Odd that you honestly think so many of us are going to be killed by fracking yet don't want to do anything about it. One wonders why you bothered posting anything at all.

6/14/2012 1:29:34 PM

I think you kinda just proved his point. I'm not sure what you're talking about in that post.

Who talked about so many people dying? I think people are just talking about its potential dangers. And who doesn't want to do anything about it?

Your post confused me.

6/14/2012 1:37:47 PM

Passed 66-43. We are fucked.

6/14/2012 7:34:29 PM

glad it passed. all of that natural gas is just sitting there waiting for us to extract and use. NC needs an injection of revenue such as this.

all of you anti fracking people are just on the latest "we should all live in the stone age" environmental nutjob's buzz topic.

6/14/2012 11:00:41 PM

Keep gathering resources peasants. We in the first world need to exploit you to raise our standard of living.

6/15/2012 2:34:09 AM

Quote :

"all of you anti fracking people are just on the latest "we should all live in the stone age" environmental nutjob's buzz topic"

hahaha. anybody who wants to be careful about shooting millions of gallons of chemicals into the earth that has potential of it making into our drinking water is a nutjob who wants to live in the stoneage. oh wow. you seem like a reasonable, intelligent guy. i wish to engage in a debate with you.

6/15/2012 9:18:11 AM

Quote :

"Thank goodness. My bad. And here I thought all your postings about us dying of cancer and the despoiled environment meant you thought we should do something other than "maintain the currently regulated status quo." Odd that you honestly think so many of us are going to be killed by fracking yet don't want to do anything about it. One wonders why you bothered posting anything at all."

And how exactly did you conclude I didn't want to do anything about it?

Try once again Loneshark, sooner or later you're bound to respond to an argument that somebody actually made.

6/15/2012 1:44:15 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and for the record, there wont be dollas, as the companies will immediately start working with your State government to make sure they pay no taxes at all if not get subsidies."

yes, because the natural gas industry doesn't spend billions of dollars on workforce every year. wells and pipelines install themselves.

[Edited on June 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : if you think fracking is a risk to our waters, you should go take a look at a fly ash pit.]

6/15/2012 2:31:34 PM

Quote :

"if you think fracking is a risk to our waters, you should go take a look at a fly ash pit."

i've looked at one, and yes, the have the potential to be a huge risk to our waters. doesn't have anything to do with fracking though.

6/15/2012 4:59:11 PM

Quote :

"And how exactly did you conclude I didn't want to do anything about it?"

of course you'll do something about it!

somebody's gotta bitch and moan all over the internets

might as well be a fucktard like you

6/15/2012 5:34:41 PM

quit bitching about people bitching, bitch

6/15/2012 5:41:24 PM

^oh wow. you seem like a reasonable, intelligent guy. i wish to engage in a debate with you.

6/16/2012 12:29:35 AM

Quote :

"if you think fracking is a risk to our waters, you should go take a look at a fly ash pit"

Its an interesting example because both were exempted from the federal laws that once regulated them. I suspect it will be the same story all over again.

6/16/2012 9:29:21 AM

Quote :

"hahaha. anybody who wants to be careful about shooting millions of gallons of chemicals into the earth that has potential of it making into our drinking water is a nutjob who wants to live in the stoneage."

I mean, I'm hardly a bleeding heart liberal environmentalist, but even I have qualms with shooting high-pressured streams of noxious chemicals through ground-water sources.

6/16/2012 2:20:24 PM

If they can prove that it is safe, or at the minimum we start doing away with the extremely low liability limits on corporations I'd say go for it. Until then, NIMBY.

6/16/2012 2:38:40 PM

Quote :

""if you think fracking is a risk to our waters, you should go take a look at a fly ash pit""

Okay now take a fly ash pit and inject it underground into the water table.

6/18/2012 1:44:12 PM

So, Str8Foolish, what would you like to do about it?

6/18/2012 2:01:02 PM

6/18/2012 2:14:06 PM

DENR Head: Yes, we can frack safely in NC with the proper study, oversight and regulation,

but, oh wait, you just cut our budget by 40%


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7075928/06%2013%2012%20Berger%20%20Tillis%20hydraulic%20fracturing.pdf

6/19/2012 8:09:46 AM

I saw protests about this yesterday

6/19/2012 10:15:02 AM

(800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391 or E-mail: governor.office@nc.gov
Tell her to veto the fracking bill (SB 820)

6/19/2012 11:00:53 AM

I would like for one of you hyper-capitalists to explain the necessity of conducting fracking in our state right now given how depressed the prices of natural gas are and given the potential threat to water resources (both through depletion and contamination) if it isn't for the soul purpose of getting ahead of any potential and likely regulations that curb the raping and pillaging of our environment.

[Edited on June 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2012 3:03:19 PM

Quote :

"So, Str8Foolish, what would you like to do about it?"

Since it's a relatively new technology, research it and regulate it. A good start would be full disclosure of the chemicals they use, imposing well standards to rule out some of the faults we've seen so far, and establish some steep minimum fines for groundwater contamination.

edit:

Quote :

"or at the minimum we start doing away with the extremely low liability limits on corporations I'd say go for it."

That too

[Edited on June 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2012 3:09:23 PM

Quote :

"Okay now take a fly ash pit and inject it underground into the water table. "

but, unlike drilling mud that is mostly water and inert bentonite clay, these are concentrated slurries of heavy metals and radioactive contaminants. And instead of being injected deep into the ground well below our drinking water table, they bust and dump straight into our water supply, since steam plants always have to be located next to a significant water source. they also knock over houses and anything else in their way.

6/19/2012 10:09:55 PM

I fail to see how the positives outweigh the negatives when what we are considering is a short-term injection of revenue into the state economy by exploiting our natural gas reserves versus devastating long term ecological consequences.

The best case scenario is that the fracking is a resounding success and there is no environmental damage. The best we can do is get a short term increase in our energy supply. It's nothing that is going to make any sort of long term impact and we are inevitably going to end up in the same position we are at now as far as our energy reserves are concerned.

Any other fracking scenario implies environmental damage along with the inevitable return to our current state once the reserves we acquire are used up. With this scenario not only are we back where we started but our state is worse for the wear because of it.

Given these two scenarios, can you really say fracking is sensible?

We've got one of the biggest and most important hubs for technological advancement in NC by way of RTP. I think instead of pursuing a short-term solution in fracking to temporarily solve our energy needs, we should invest in long-term research to solve our energy issues. We have so much technical muscle here in NC and I don't think for a second that it is beyond the grasp of the resources we have. Should we succeed in this endeavor, the state achieves its goal as being an important player in the energy game along with any financial implications that result. The worst case scenario here is that we advance the knowledge pertinent to this field and gain increased understanding, however small it may be, of the energy predicament as a whole.

6/20/2012 2:40:52 AM

a logical post...in my soapbox?

6/20/2012 9:42:25 AM

^^good post. mostly how I feel, though as admitted ITT, I haven't really kept up with this issue, just skimmed the surface.

6/20/2012 10:19:44 AM

Quote :

"Since it's a relatively new technology, research it and regulate it. A good start would be full disclosure of the chemicals they use, imposing well standards to rule out some of the faults we've seen so far, and establish some steep minimum fines for groundwater contamination."

And which of these are not already on the books with the full force of the law?

^^^ A feel good post of utopian wishful thinking. We have an existing technological solution that the evidence suggests is environmentally benign with proper regulation and enforcement, but we should scrap it on the off chance that wind and solar become cheaper and less environmentally destructive? I suspect the chemicals associated with the manufacture of solar panels have caused far more water pollution than Fracking has.

And if utopia doesn't occur, the rest of society is to be expected to shiver in the cold while their heating and power bills bankrupt them by order of the government?

It is not the case that Fracking is the only threat to our environment. Higher natural gas prices means more people heating their homes with fuel oil and the air/water pollution that entails. It means more electricity produced by burning coal. Hell, I know some people heating their home with coal, being burned without filters of any kind. Burning these fuel sources definitely does pollute the water-table, we just ignore it because it is old technology and we are used to it. Compare that to Fracking, which the best evidence seems to suggest it can be environmentally benign.

So you want us to give up on something that may be completely clean in exchange for what we already have which is most definitely dirty in the off chance something else comes along which can only hope to be as clean as fracking seems to be.

6/20/2012 11:56:52 AM

Quote :

"And which of these are not already on the books with the full force of the law?"

all the laws in the world won't help if they're not enforced, which is the case in many other fracking areas

Quote :

"Higher natural gas prices means more people heating their homes with fuel oil and the air/water pollution that entails. It means more electricity produced by burning coal"

this is part of the point natural gas prices are very low at the moment, as is coal usage....Not to mention that the gas available in NC is just drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. The argument that 'we must do this now' is misleading at best.

6/20/2012 12:04:57 PM

Quote :

"And which of these are not already on the books with the full force of the law? "

All three, actually.

Quote :

"the evidence suggests is environmentally benign with proper regulation and enforcement"

Cool, then you should be supporting proper regulation and enforcement, but you don't because gubmint can't do anything right you silly utopians blah blah blah blah ablhab lablasdkfjasdlfj

Quote :

"So you want us to give up on something that may be completely clean in exchange for what we already have which is most definitely dirty in the off chance something else comes along which can only hope to be as clean as fracking seems to be."

It's seriously pathetic Loneshark, you're unable to debate anything like this intelligently because all of your positions stem from an ideology about government. You would find some way to rationalize injecting cyanide directly into puppy brains if it werea private company trying to do it while the government protested.

Pretend for just one moment that all of the news and events of the world aren't about dirty Statists trying to obstruct free enterprise.

[Edited on June 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2012 12:19:58 PM

Quote :

"Cool, then you should be supporting proper regulation and enforcement, but you don't because gubmint can't do anything right"

Try again Str8Foolish, sooner or later you're bound to respond to an argument that somebody actually made.

Quote :

"All three, actually."

They are already required to disclose to government agencies. I guess you meant full disclosure to the public and their competitors, which most in the field have already done voluntarily. And well standards are already a legal requirement, and fines for groundwater contamination have been on the books since the 70s at the federal level and far earlier at the state level.

So it seems your position that more regulation is needed is based upon ignorance of what regulation already exists.

6/20/2012 12:53:24 PM

Why the need for the exemption to the Clean Water Act? Care to site any of your vague claims?

6/20/2012 3:03:23 PM

Quote :

"^^^ A feel good post of utopian wishful thinking. We have an existing technological solution that the evidence suggests is environmentally benign with proper regulation and enforcement, but we should scrap it on the off chance that wind and solar become cheaper and less environmentally destructive? I suspect the chemicals associated with the manufacture of solar panels have caused far more water pollution than Fracking has. And if utopia doesn't occur, the rest of society is to be expected to shiver in the cold while their heating and power bills bankrupt them by order of the government? It is not the case that Fracking is the only threat to our environment. Higher natural gas prices means more people heating their homes with fuel oil and the air/water pollution that entails. It means more electricity produced by burning coal. Hell, I know some people heating their home with coal, being burned without filters of any kind. Burning these fuel sources definitely does pollute the water-table, we just ignore it because it is old technology and we are used to it. Compare that to Fracking, which the best evidence seems to suggest it can be environmentally benign. So you want us to give up on something that may be completely clean in exchange for what we already have which is most definitely dirty in the off chance something else comes along which can only hope to be as clean as fracking seems to be."

I fail to see why you think my post is "utopian" or even "feel-good" for that matter. It is almost as if you are making the assumption that my proposition is unattainable or even fantastical. I don't see what is unreasonable about proposing research to solve a current problem. It's not the first time this sort of process has been undertaken.

I'm sure that, when done correctly and with proper regulation, fracking would indeed be a clean venture that would boost the state's energy reserves and economy. However, like I have said above, this is only the best case scenario. The evidence still remains of the oft-grotesque environmental damage done in states where fracking has been practiced. Who is to say that fracking won't affect the environment negatively, especially in light of this evidence of environmental damage? Is it worth the risk? We are talking about the potential contamination of a substance that is one of the most vital to life on this planet in order to exploit resources that won't even sustain us past the short term. I'm sure that there is a fair degree of pollution that goes into solar/wind research as happens with a lot of industry. However, the sun is not going to burn out in our lifetimes. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the wind isn't going to die out either. Investing research in these forms of energy might not pay off in the short term, but if successful will be highly sustainable in the long term due to their abundance. If NC is successfully able to innovate in these areas I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the progress achieved will help the state much more than fracking ever could.

I'm also not quite sure why you are bringing up coal burning. I'm not sure if you know this, but Wake County is powered by nuclear energy by way of the Shearon Harris plant. I know that nuclear energy is very rare as a form of energy as far as the entirety of the country is concerned but your claims are not applicable to Raleigh. Granted, the more rural areas of the state are indeed powered by coal. However, I think this is more of a problem of how people perceive nuclear power as opposed to a problem with our energy reserves or the cleanliness of the source.

6/21/2012 1:23:23 AM

Electricity is fungible. It goes from where it is produced to where it is needed. The entire area is not run off nuclear. North Carolina has many coal plants and natural gas plants operating to keep our lights on. If natural gas runs short with no ready replacement either the lights go out or more coal gets burned, dumping mercury and radioactive elements into the drinking water.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/11/15/action-alert-call-in-today-no-new-coal-for-north-carolina/

6/21/2012 9:30:41 AM

that's your response to that entire rebuttal? you're losing shark.

6/21/2012 10:38:47 AM

He's always losing. He's a hack and a shill.

6/21/2012 12:21:27 PM

totally an aside, but new regulations for Mercury and other airborne toxics go into effect in 2015 (I think)

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM. Reason : its not like Nat. Gas is being singled out]

Somewhat related:

http://www.propublica.org/article/injection-wells-the-poison-beneath-us

Quote :

"A ProPublica review of well records, case histories and government summaries of more than 220,000 well inspections found that structural failures inside injection wells are routine. From late 2007 to late 2010, one well integrity violation was issued for every six deep injection wells examined — more than 17,000 violations nationally. More than 7,000 wells showed signs that their walls were leaking. Records also show wells are frequently operated in violation of safety regulations and under conditions that greatly increase the risk of fluid leakage and the threat of water contamination. "

These are waste injection wells and not necessarily fracking specific, but the construction is similar


[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2012 12:50:06 PM

Quote :

"He's always losing. He's a hack and a shill."

The rest has been addressed in the rest of the thread. Or do you need me to yet again say what he saw in some hack documentary was not actually true?

Quote :

"that's your response to that entire rebuttal? you're losing shark."

Well, according to Str8Foolish the other side of this argument only wants to impose sensible regulation which I fully support and could have sworn was already law, I'm not that bothered.

[Edited on June 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/22/2012 1:29:26 PM

Quote :

"We've got one of the biggest and most important hubs for technological advancement in NC by way of RTP. I think instead of pursuing a short-term solution in fracking to temporarily solve our energy needs, we should invest in long-term research to solve our energy issues. We have so much technical muscle here in NC and I don't think for a second that it is beyond the grasp of the resources we have."

You are way overstating NC's importance on a global innovation scale. There are individual funds that lend out more venture capital than all of NC receives and even they have been weary of green energy investment.

6/22/2012 3:09:54 PM

Bev with the veto

I'm pretty suprised

7/2/2012 7:39:21 AM

Me too. I figured she'd throw the state's water resources under the bus in order to eek out table scraps for education with the budget.

7/2/2012 11:06:36 AM

pretty much exactly what I was thinking

7/2/2012 12:00:11 PM

They just overrode the veto

7/2/2012 11:10:05 PM

Fuck the NC General Assembly. I hope the hayseed bumpkins who voted in these assclowns enjoy depleted water and the water they have remaining being flammable to go with their increased cancer rates. Fuck them too.

7/2/2012 11:30:12 PM

from twitter...

Quote :

"Carney meant to vote no... but voted yes. She cannot change vote because it will change outcome of veto override."

Quote :

"Carney said after vote she voted wrong. Stam just moved clincher before she could ask for vote change."

edit:

Quote :

"Rep. Becky Carney, a Charlotte Democrat, apparently hit the wrong button and voted in favor of the override, giving the GOP the one-vote margin it needed to void the veto just before 11:30 a.m. Read more here: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/republicans_override_fracking_veto_possibly_thanks_to_an_accidental_vote#storylink=cpy"

[Edited on July 2, 2012 at 11:50 PM. Reason : add]

7/2/2012 11:48:00 PM

^ seems like BS to me...

7/2/2012 11:55:06 PM

Welp, I give up. On NC, or humanity, or whatever, I dunno.

7/3/2012 12:00:36 AM

I love this one:

Quote :

"Rep. Hamilton, who voted for fracking veto override, was "2012 Rising Star" of League of Conservation Voters:"

I'd love to see them tarred and feathered for this...

7/3/2012 12:15:43 AM

not exactly related but:

Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest Fracking companies, has paid an effective 1% tax rate over its 23 year history.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-02/cheaspeake-s-1-tax-rate-shows-cost-of-drilling-subsidy.html

7/3/2012 7:33:47 AM

^5 that's nothing new as it's been happening for years now.

7/3/2012 7:57:26 AM