• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont first state to ban fracking

You already told us that production in Michigan is minimal. But now the whole economy seems to hinge upon it.

Please make up your mind.

Umm... reading comprehension problem? Or did you just not bother?

You have power plants that are powered by the minimal gas production you have there PLUS the gas sent to you by other states. If you want to ban it, that's fine. You will have to spend more to get gas from other states sending your gas prices higher and further depressing your sorry economy. And in addition, because of your support for an end to fracking, we should charge you a NIMBY tax of 1000%.
 
This is what YOU said

Production in Michigan is so minimal that it's not really relevant.

But now its somehow a big deal that the state economy hinges on it.

Amazing!!!

Talk about trying to have it both ways!!!! :lamo:mrgreen:
 
This is what YOU said



But now its somehow a big deal that the state economy hinges on it.

Amazing!!!

Talk about trying to have it both ways!!!! :lamo:mrgreen:

Yeah, lying again...

Let's try this one more time.

1. Michigan gas production is so minimal to the national economy that it is irrelevant.
2. Michigan gas production is relevant to the local Michigan economy for a couple of reasons.
2-A. The gas production in your state provides jobs, you know, those things you generally see leaving the state.
2-B. Gas production in your state helps keep transportation costs down for consumers of natural gas in your state.
2-C. Natural Gas is the primary method of electricity production in your state.
2-D. Eliminating gas production in your state by any margin will increase the cost of electricity in your state because you will have to pay for out of state gas to be transported to Michigan.
2-E. The increase in costs will either force more people to go on public assistance or leave the state.
2-F. You won't have the tax base to support public assistance so you'll be forced to get more money from the federal (ie. other states).
2-G. Because you will be a drain on the other states, you will be hurting their economies.
3. But out of principle, you should not be allowed to purchase natural gas if you're not going to drill for natural gas. Go to coal.
 
Its funny watching you trying to have it both ways.

Now you are treading water as fast as you can after first telling us that

Production in Michigan is so minimal that it's not really relevant.

Now , all of the sudden, its important as all get out. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo

You really cannot have it both ways. But a tip of the hat for trying.
 
Its funny watching you trying to have it both ways.

Now you are treading water as fast as you can after first telling us that



Now , all of the sudden, its important as all get out. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo

You really cannot have it both ways. But a tip of the hat for trying.

Funny how you didn't bother to address one of my points.

Do you always dodge and evade when proven wrong?
 
Funny how you didn't bother to address one of my points.

Do you always dodge and evade when proven wrong?

In this case I merely use your own words and pompous pronouncements right back at you

Production in Michigan is so minimal that it's not really relevant.

That is the opposite of dodging or evading. It is reminding you of your own words and your own position.

Of course, when you realized you had backed yourself into a corner, then the elaborate rationalizations come out. It is pretty funny.
 
In this case I merely use your own words and pompous pronouncements right back at you



That is the opposite of dodging or evading. It is reminding you of your own words and your own position.

Of course, when you realized you had backed yourself into a corner, then the elaborate rationalizations come out. It is pretty funny.

There is no corner. You didn't address the points. Production in Michigan isn't relevant to anyone but Michigan.

The grand scale? It's not relevant. And frankly Michigan hasn't been relevant since well... It's been that long.

When you find it within yourself to be intellectually honest (and I'm not holding my breath on this one), you'll address the points. The reason you aren't addressing them, is because you can't. You're just trying to win some high school debate game that has nothing to do with discourse and everything to do with avoidance and lazy thought.
 
There is no corner. You didn't address the points. Production in Michigan isn't relevant to anyone but Michigan.

I see.

When I feel it is important for the State and people of Michigan to know exactly what is being pumped into the earth below their feet, you tell me

Production in Michigan is so minimal that it's not really relevant.


But when you want to try to explain away why you were wrong, it is suddenly very relevant.

Got it. :roll:;)
 
Sadly, my state of Michigan is not on that disclosure list - as most other states are not either.

Until they reveal just what they are putting into the ground in Michigan and in what quantities and what the long term effects are, we are simply putting public safety into the wrong hands. The same applies to every other state on that map without a red dot on it where fracking is being carried out.


From the web page:

We tailor our fracturing fluids to different geologies, so the composition will vary by location. Over time, we'll be populating these pages with information from every state and selected countries in which our services are in use. For now, we present information on several different fluid systems from a number of states and Australia. Check back often: Much more information to come.
 
From the web page:

So why were the lobbyists for these fracking companies so secretive when they visited our offices to push for support on this issue?
 
So why were the lobbyists for these fracking companies so secretive when they visited our offices to push for support on this issue?

I dont know who companies those were and was not there so I cannot tell you.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, my state of Michigan is not on that disclosure list - as most other states are not either.

Until they reveal just what they are putting into the ground in Michigan and in what quantities and what the long term effects are, we are simply putting public safety into the wrong hands. The same applies to every other state on that map without a red dot on it where fracking is being carried out.

Here are the MSDS sheets for michigan.

DEQ - Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan
 
All you have to do is present your data right here. But you are impotent to do that.

Fracking companies hold their formulas close as proprietary secrets. We have no idea what it is they are putting in the ground in what quantities and what the long term effect is.

But by all means do prove me wrong and show us all right here.

All you have is personal attacks. Nothing new to see here.
 
That's OK. Vermont can do as they please. Besides, Kansas just banned off shore windmills. So it evens out.


The docking or storage fees for boats are very high in Kansas too so that makes sense to me.:lol:
 
Yeah, lying again...

Let's try this one more time.

1. Michigan gas production is so minimal to the national economy that it is irrelevant.

I think the point is that the identity of the chemicals potentially being pumped into Michigan's water supply is perfectly relevant to people in Michigan.
 
I think the point is that the identity of the chemicals potentially being pumped into Michigan's water supply is perfectly relevant to people in Michigan.

Well obviously Halliburton isn't the operating company there. So they need to find out who the operating company is and do the research instead of crying that Halliburton doesn't operate there.
 
I think the point is that the identity of the chemicals potentially being pumped into Michigan's water supply is perfectly relevant to people in Michigan.

Just wondering why you and others are treating this as some type of new process. It is my understanding that drillers have been using drilling for decades. I understand that the practice seems to have expanded and greatly increased our proven reserves especially of natural gas. That being said why the new hysteria?
 
Just wondering why you and others are treating this as some type of new process. It is my understanding that drillers have been using drilling for decades. I understand that the practice seems to have expanded and greatly increased our proven reserves especially of natural gas. That being said why the new hysteria?

Because people need a scapegoat, and who better than the petroleum industry. Generally speaking the petroleum industry is in the tank when everyone else is doing good and, and does well when the rest of the economy is in the tank. Jealousy is huge as is an avid disregard for the vital contributions of the petroleum industry.
 
Last edited:
Because people need a scapegoat, and who better than the petroleum industry. Generally speaking the petroleum industry is in the tank when everyone else is doing and, and does well when the rest of the economy is in the tank. Jealousy is huge as is an avid disregard for the vital contributions of the petroleum industry.

It just seems so strange. We could move a lot of electricity production from foreign oil or dirty coal, you would think that the greenies would be all over this. I guess their hatred for profits at American companies not to mention the royalties to farmers, the government or others lucky enough to be sitting on this natural gas.

Wonder if Adam will have an answer to this puzzle or is this just another inane partisan political attack. Seems if Obama attacks an industry his minions need to find a way to back him up. sad really.

In a way I hope I am wrong and Adam has a solid response.
 
Just wondering why you and others are treating this as some type of new process. It is my understanding that drillers have been using drilling for decades. I understand that the practice seems to have expanded and greatly increased our proven reserves especially of natural gas. That being said why the new hysteria?

You pretty much said it: the use of the process has expanded very very rapidly which obviously makes it more of a concern than it was. So ... given that there is clearly the potential for contamination in multiple phases of the process, what exactly is the objection to studying the environmental impact? Isn't it just plain common sense?
 
It just seems so strange. We could move a lot of electricity production from foreign oil or dirty coal, you would think that the greenies would be all over this. I guess their hatred for profits at American companies not to mention the royalties to farmers, the government or others lucky enough to be sitting on this natural gas.

Wonder if Adam will have an answer to this puzzle or is this just another inane partisan political attack. Seems if Obama attacks an industry his minions need to find a way to back him up. sad really.

In a way I hope I am wrong and Adam has a solid response.

Not sure why, but you always seem to read nefarious motives and nonexistent arguments into whatever I say. AFAIK, environmentalists are primarily interested in protecting the environment. In this case that means studying the effects of fracking to make sure that it isn't causing groundwater pollution and geological instability, among other things. If the energy companies want to alleviate these fears, which they say are unjustified, they should be as open and transparent as possible. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. Apparently Vermont was sufficiently concerned that they decided to ban the practice unless or until they received adequate assurances that it was safe.
 
You pretty much said it: the use of the process has expanded very very rapidly which obviously makes it more of a concern than it was. So ... given that there is clearly the potential for contamination in multiple phases of the process, what exactly is the objection to studying the environmental impact? Isn't it just plain common sense?

Studying the environmental impact and creating some common sense regulations makes sense. In fact, if you study the subject you will see that most common sense regulations already exist.

Migration of fracture fluids: Prevented by casing and cementing of the well. Required by law.
Water Use: Follows the same procedure as any other process that needs large amounts of water, heavily regulated.
Produced water (flow back): Regulated by the SDWA.
Spills: Regulated the same as any other chemical/industrial process.
Identification of chemical additives: Follows same procedure as any other industrial process (MSDS, federal law).
 
Studying the environmental impact and creating some common sense regulations makes sense. In fact, if you study the subject you will see that most common sense regulations already exist.

Migration of fracture fluids: Prevented by casing and cementing of the well. Required by law.
Water Use: Follows the same procedure as any other process that needs large amounts of water, heavily regulated.
Produced water (flow back): Regulated by the SDWA.
Spills: Regulated the same as any other chemical/industrial process.
Identification of chemical additives: Follows same procedure as any other industrial process (MSDS, federal law).

I know for a fact that the ID of chemical additives is not mandated by current federal law, so I question whether your other claims are true.

Obviously there is a lot that isn't known, and that is still being studied. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Not sure why, but you always seem to read nefarious motives and nonexistent arguments into whatever I say. AFAIK, environmentalists are primarily interested in protecting the environment. In this case that means studying the effects of fracking to make sure that it isn't causing groundwater pollution and geological instability, among other things. If the energy companies want to alleviate these fears, which they say are unjustified, they should be as open and transparent as possible. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening. Apparently Vermont was sufficiently concerned that they decided to ban the practice unless or until they received adequate assurances that it was safe.


isn't their some empirical evidence of the thousands of wells that have already been drilled. Also it is my understanding that these wells are drilled thousands of feet below the water tables that people are concerned about.

Again, I have no problem with the EPA and other regulatory agencies making sure we are safe, that is their job. However you may agree that there are reasonable levels of assurance and then there are extreme levels of caution. Things happen all the time, should we try and regulate everything that may cause someone distress? Guess what I am saying that we need to have a common sense approach to everything we do. It seems to me that one could find a reason to shut down any activity and come up with a plausible explanation of why it was done in the name of safety.

Another point may be a common sense balance of risk taking. If a reward is small you would want to take an appropriate level of risk. If the President and his minions place little value in being able to create more domestic energy that is not green, then it is easy to conclude any risk is a risk not worth taking.
 
isn't their some empirical evidence of the thousands of wells that have already been drilled. Also it is my understanding that these wells are drilled thousands of feet below the water tables that people are concerned about.

Yes, there have been studies, including studies that show serious contamination issues. One such study was done by the University of Texas which can hardly be described as a hotbed of environmentalism or an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Some of the wells are deep, of course. But the thing about wells is ... the go all the way up to the surface.

I'll post the link again as it seems you did't check it out yet. Hydraulic fracturing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom