Joe Biden’s ‘not banning fracking’ defense, explained - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-28T20:34:12Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/joe-biden-s-not-banning-fracking-defense-explained?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A3921549&xg_source=activity&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe O&G industry has shie…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-04:2117179:Comment:39223022020-09-04T22:31:59.500ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>The O&G industry has shied away from prioritizing leasing and development of BLM managed minerals for decades and for good and rational reasons. That's nothing new and has zero to do with Biden or Democrats. Much BLM managed lands are not considered perspective for any economic reserves, in fact about 90+%. As to deep south East Texas, the Haynesville/Bossier fairway is narrow and runs through and along a lot of national forest lands that have no existing infrastructure including…</p>
<p>The O&G industry has shied away from prioritizing leasing and development of BLM managed minerals for decades and for good and rational reasons. That's nothing new and has zero to do with Biden or Democrats. Much BLM managed lands are not considered perspective for any economic reserves, in fact about 90+%. As to deep south East Texas, the Haynesville/Bossier fairway is narrow and runs through and along a lot of national forest lands that have no existing infrastructure including roads and pipelines. It is easier, and more importantly less costly, for energy companies to lease and develop private minerals in areas that have existing infrastructure. In a depressed commodity price period, it is not rational to press forward with capital commitments to develop what is largely virgin territory. In that area of south East Texas, it is natural gas, not oil, that is the potential reserves. If the price of natural gas was sustainably above $4.00/mcf, a few companies <span style="text-decoration: underline;">might</span> give it a go.</p> So - only ban fracking on Fed…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-04:2117179:Comment:39222972020-09-04T22:02:24.672ZGoRickyhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/RichardMFoshee
<p>So - only ban fracking on Federal Onshore And Offshore Acreage? Oh well... Between the Kisatchi and East Texas National Forests, that only amounts to approx. 1,279,160 acres. Because local/state governments cannot tax the Federal Government, one of the concessions made is that local governments get to share in the bonus, rents and royalties generated on the Federal Lands to help pay for roads, schools, the court systems (court, jails, prisoners, officers, etc...) plus elderly programs,…</p>
<p>So - only ban fracking on Federal Onshore And Offshore Acreage? Oh well... Between the Kisatchi and East Texas National Forests, that only amounts to approx. 1,279,160 acres. Because local/state governments cannot tax the Federal Government, one of the concessions made is that local governments get to share in the bonus, rents and royalties generated on the Federal Lands to help pay for roads, schools, the court systems (court, jails, prisoners, officers, etc...) plus elderly programs, employees (including health care, retirements) libraries, etc. I don't know about the Kisatchi, but our hard-working friends at the United States Forest Services (USFS) decided there would be no more plans to allow O&G leasing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 & 2021 and beyond... until - ?????? The East Texas Forests comprise 675,000 acres. This is going to be 6 years of -0- revenue for new O&G leases, -0- rents & -0- on any new wells that could have been drilled on 2016 - now leases. Now - Biden promises s to ban fracking. Even if the leasing program were to suddenly start again with a 'no fracking allowed' condition, how much would anybody pay for the privilege of owning a shiny new lease? OK give us your money, but we are going to make your life miserable with regulations, regulations, demands / but at the end of the day, if you are foolish enough to press forward and drill a well, you can forget the Smackover, Haynesville & Bossier Shales, Cotton Valley Sands, Travis Peak (Hosston), Tight Pettit, James Lime, Tight Rodessa, Tight Woodbine / Tuscaloosa, Austin Chalk -in these modern days-. Weasels in the USFS sabotaged any quick fix to the situation, put out a bunch of lies for convenient consumption, then got themselves promoted and transferred DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD BETWEEN THE ELECTION AND TRUMP BEING SWORN IN. Just a nice present to their environmental buddies who ONLY THREATENED TO SUE unless the USFS stopped all leasing. </p>
<p>So, for a combined 1.279 million acres, RIGHT HERE, there is basically NO HOPE of new activity on new leases. No new sources of shared monies for local folks on the O&G side; not to mention all the local jobs, tax revenue, etc... the O&G industry could provide if only Joe would allow it. Not to mention the Federal Offshore. Gimme your money for a brand new lease... but you can never frack. The State level gets operating money from Federal Offshore Lease Sales - same as onshore - see </p>
<p><a href="https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Economic-Benefits.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Five-Year-Program/2019-2024/DPP/NP-Economic-Benefits.pdf</a></p>
<p>Maybe the new attitude of the USFS is familiar in history, but with a twist . . 'the people have no bread to eat' - answer from the USFS - 'let them eat pine cones!! no, wait - the environmentalists may not like that, either... just tell them to move out..'. </p> thanks, Keith. I get waaay m…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-04:2117179:Comment:39222782020-09-04T18:07:45.637ZSteve Phttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/StevePorter
<p>thanks, Keith. I get waaay more than my share of politics from my local daily paper, cable news, facebook, etc. </p>
<p>thanks, Keith. I get waaay more than my share of politics from my local daily paper, cable news, facebook, etc. </p> Shalers, thanks for keeping t…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39220782020-09-02T22:40:02.041ZKeith Mauck (Site Publisher)https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Haynesville_Shale
<p>Shalers, thanks for keeping this on topic. For off topic political posts - we still have this group - <a href="https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics" target="_blank">https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics</a></p>
<p>Shalers, thanks for keeping this on topic. For off topic political posts - we still have this group - <a href="https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics" target="_blank">https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/politics</a></p> And that is the main point!!!…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39219982020-09-02T19:24:44.511ZSpring Branch,mineral ownerhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/SpringBranch
<p>And that is the main point!!! Even if Biden is being truthful about not banning fracking, (which I doubt), the rest of the Liberal Progressives, including his Vice-President will be beating down the doors to ban it! They have made that abundantly clear.</p>
<p></p>
<p>And that is the main point!!! Even if Biden is being truthful about not banning fracking, (which I doubt), the rest of the Liberal Progressives, including his Vice-President will be beating down the doors to ban it! They have made that abundantly clear.</p>
<p></p> Olddog you are exactly right.…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39218442020-09-02T15:38:13.830Zphoenixhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/phoenix80
<p>Olddog you are exactly right. His handlers will not even allow him to answer a question. How in the world would he be able to govern without answering questions. If he got elected would he continue to reside in his basement?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Olddog you are exactly right. His handlers will not even allow him to answer a question. How in the world would he be able to govern without answering questions. If he got elected would he continue to reside in his basement?</p>
<p></p> Greenland ice sheet reached t…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39218282020-09-02T15:01:26.948ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p><strong>Greenland ice sheet reached tipping point 20 years ago, new study finds</strong></p>
<p>by Grace Palmer, <a href="https://www.earth.columbia.edu/">Earth Institute at Columbia University</a> phys.org/news/2020-09</p>
<p>At the turn of the 21st century, unbeknownst to the world, the Greenland ice sheet likely entered a state of sustained mass loss that will persist for the foreseeable future, according to a new study. Though the finding has raised concern over the future of the ice…</p>
<p><strong>Greenland ice sheet reached tipping point 20 years ago, new study finds</strong></p>
<p>by Grace Palmer, <a href="https://www.earth.columbia.edu/">Earth Institute at Columbia University</a> phys.org/news/2020-09</p>
<p>At the turn of the 21st century, unbeknownst to the world, the Greenland ice sheet likely entered a state of sustained mass loss that will persist for the foreseeable future, according to a new study. Though the finding has raised concern over the future of the ice sheet, scientists emphasize that reducing emissions remains critical.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2">study</a>, which looked at 40 years of satellite data, was released on August 13 in Communications Earth & Environment. Second in size only to the Antarctic ice sheets, the Greenland <a href="https://phys.org/tags/ice+sheet/">ice sheet</a> covers nearly 80 percent of the vast island. It contains the equivalent of about <a href="https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/842/Greenland-Ice-Sheet">24 feet</a> of global mean sea level rise and, due to its accelerated retreat, is considered the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2">largest single contributor</a> to rising sea levels worldwide.</p>
<p>While the ice sheet's decline has been well-documented over the past two decades, this latest study, led by Michalea King of the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center, found that <a href="https://sustainabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/the-role-of-greenland-glaciers">widespread glacier retreat</a> helped push the ice sheet from a balanced to an imbalanced state. This work suggests that even if the oceans and atmosphere were to stop warming today, the ice sheet will continue to lose more ice than it will gain.</p>
<p>In the decades leading up to the turn of the century, the ice sheet was in a state of relative equilibrium. The ice lost in a given year would be replenished by wintertime snowfall, and the sheet maintained a near-constant mass. But beginning around the year 2000, ice discharged through outlet glaciers—channels that flow outward to the sea—started to outpace annual snowfall that, in a balanced year, would replenish lost ice. The authors sifted through 40 years of satellite data, tracking outlet glacier velocity, thickness, and calving front position over time to determine the rate of ice loss. The shift they found represents a tipping point that is unlikely to be reversible in the near future. King told GlacierHub, "It's like a gear change… we've accelerated the drainage at the edge of the ice sheet, and now… we expect <a href="https://phys.org/tags/mass+loss/">mass loss</a> to be the new norm for the ice sheet in the near future."</p>
<p>Ian Howat, director of the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center and co-author of the paper, explained to GlacierHub that the dynamics of ice loss through outlet glaciers can be likened to the functioning of a dam. "Those glaciers act just like a spillway on a dam," he said. "The more you open the spillway… the faster the reservoir gets drawn down." The study suggests that longer-term thinning throughout the 20th century—likely due to warming oceans—led up to a mass retreat event in the early 2000s. The result was a "step-increase" in the rate of discharge through outlet glaciers; before 2000, 420 gigatons of ice were discharged annually. In the years following, the rate increased to 480 gigatons of ice discharged annually. A gigaton is equal to <a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Gigatonne">one billion metric tons</a>, roughly the mass of all land mammals (excluding humans) on Earth. "When all of these glaciers retreated at once, it was enough to significantly increase the rate at which ice flows into the ocean. It's like the spillway on the dam was opened up," Howat said.</p>
<p>According to King, the significance of this new rate of discharge is that "consistently, more ice is being lost through the flow of these glaciers than is being gained by snow accumulation." Returning to a balanced state would require an extra 60 gigatons per year of snowfall or reduced melting. Yet under <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/07_SROCC_Ch03_FINAL.pdf">essentially all climate change scenarios</a>, the opposite is expected.</p>
<p>The findings of this study—along with others that document the decline of the Greenland ice sheet—spell worrying news for sea level rise trajectories. Marco Tedesco, research professor of marine geology and geophysics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, explained to GlacierHub that the Greenland ice sheet has been, and will increasingly be, a major contributor to rising sea levels. The two <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html#:~:text=Sea%20level%20continues%20to%20rise,of%20an%20inch%20per%20year.&text=The%20two%20major%20causes%20of,as%20glaciers%20and%20ice%20sheets.">primary causes</a> of sea level rise are thermal expansion—ocean water expands as it warms—and the melting of land-based ice. With sea level rise projected to submerge land home to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z">150 million people</a> permanently below the high tide line (and that estimate assumes stability of the Antarctic ice sheet), Greenland finds itself in the spotlight. "In terms of direct contribution," Tedesco said, "Greenland is actually the largest contributor now, with about 20 to 25 percent of sea level rise due to Greenland." Moreover, the percentage of contribution could increase to 30 or 40 percent by the end of the century, according to Tedesco.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0010-1">Another study</a> on the Greenland ice sheet, <a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/08/20/greenland-ice-sheet-saw-record-loss-2019-raising-sea-levels/">coauthored by Tedesco</a>, made international headlines recently, concluding that 2019 was a year of record ice loss. According to scientists, the ice lost in 2019 was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/climate/greenland-ice-loss-climate-change.html">double the yearly average</a> since 2003. Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center, connected the dots between these two major studies. "Nobody really, 20 years ago, was expecting glaciers to speed up as rapidly as what we've seen," he told GlacierHub. In terms of annual loss of ice, "people think of it as melting, but it's basically the balance between how much snow falls each year, and how much icebergs calve off and how much melting actually occurs on the ice sheet itself." Ultimately, neither melting nor ice discharge alone can explain the changing ice sheet. They are, rather, two processes in a complex dynamic, which glaciologists are racing to understand using a combination of field work, remote sensing, and modeling.</p>
<p>Rapid international action is needed to limit global warming to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/">1.5˚C</a>, which would allow more time for adaptation to rising sea levels. Addressing recent headlines declaring that the ice sheet has reached the point of no return, a statement that has since been <a href="https://via.hypothes.is/https:/www.cnn.com/2020/08/14/weather/greenland-ice-sheet/index.html#annotations:group:__world__">discussed</a> within the scientific community, Howat said, "I think it's very important to emphasize that this loss of the ice sheet is not irreversible. We've witnessed a step-change that is unlikely to be reversible in the near future, but we still have a long way to go and we still have a lot of say in how quickly the ice sheet will continue to retreat."</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-09-greenland-ice-sheet-years.html">https://phys.org/news/2020-09-greenland-ice-sheet-years.html</a></p>
<p><strong>Phys.org</strong></p>
<p><strong><u>PRO-SCIENCE</u></strong></p>
<p>These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias, but adhere to scientific principles. <a href="http://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pro-science/">See all Pro-Science sources.</a></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Overall, we rate Phys.org a credible Pro-Science source based on the publication of scientific information from credible universities and peer-reviewed publications as well as properly sourced original content. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.</strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><u>Detailed Report</u></strong></p>
<p>Factual Reporting: <strong>HIGH<br/></strong> Country: <strong>United Kingdom<br/></strong> World Press Freedom Rank: <strong>UK 35/180</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>History</em></strong></p>
<p><em>Phys.org is a science, research, and technology news website specializing in the hard science subjects of physics, space, and earth science, biology, chemistry, electronics, nanotechnology, and technology in general. The site also publishes daily reports, blogs, and exclusive comprehensive articles on new peer-reviewed scientific papers. </em></p> With the addition of Californ…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39218042020-09-02T14:12:42.780ZOLDDOG2020https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/WadeBritt
<p><span>With the addition of California Senator Kamala Harris to the ticket with Joe Biden, the Democratic Party carved its anti-oil and gas credentials into stone for 2020 heading into its virtual national convention this week. Harris, a co-sponsor last year of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” has repeatedly bragged about her…</span></p>
<p><span>With the addition of California Senator Kamala Harris to the ticket with Joe Biden, the Democratic Party carved its anti-oil and gas credentials into stone for 2020 heading into its virtual national convention this week. Harris, a co-sponsor last year of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” has repeatedly bragged about her</span> <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harriss-stance-on-fracking-could-be-liability-in-pennsylvania-11597422575" target="_blank" class="color-link" title="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kamala-harriss-stance-on-fracking-could-be-liability-in-pennsylvania-11597422575" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">intention to ban</a> <span>hydraulic fracturing and enforce an array of draconian restrictions on the oil and gas industry should she and her running mate win the election in November.............</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/08/15/the-selection-of-kamala-harris-cements-joe-bidens-fracking-ban-credentials/#6335ce7c9426" target="_blank">https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/08/15/the-selection-of-kamala-harris-cements-joe-bidens-fracking-ban-credentials/#6335ce7c9426</a></p> Although I thought better of…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39216162020-09-02T01:08:41.381Zdbobhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/dbob
<p>Although I thought better of it, I thought I'd add my response. I don't particularly care for either of the Presidential candidates. I would appreciate it if either party in power can come up with a nationwide consistent energy policy. I need neither windmill cancer or a fracking ban. I will say that I have concerns over what either administration will do - Drilling in ANWR for instance, makes no sense when people are being laid off left and right in the lower 48. Likewise, retroactive…</p>
<p>Although I thought better of it, I thought I'd add my response. I don't particularly care for either of the Presidential candidates. I would appreciate it if either party in power can come up with a nationwide consistent energy policy. I need neither windmill cancer or a fracking ban. I will say that I have concerns over what either administration will do - Drilling in ANWR for instance, makes no sense when people are being laid off left and right in the lower 48. Likewise, retroactive modification of all the federal leases to prevent hydraulic fracturing doesn't make sense either. I highly doubt such a modification would be legal. I could see a Biden BLM refusing to issue new federal leases, and thereby attempt to honor the "no new fracking" pledge. I think on the oil and gas front, if Mrs. Harris took over, she would pretty quickly default to a protect jobs position, and therefore allow fracking. </p> Agree old dog. Who here belie…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2020-09-02:2117179:Comment:39215512020-09-02T00:43:10.322ZCenturyManhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/CenturyMan
<p>Agree old dog. Who here believes that Biden if elected, will be anything more than a token very temporary placeholder. It’s so obvious that he doesn’t have anywhere close, the capacity to lead this country. He will be controlled from day one. I give him max of 2 years as the title holder (in name only). Then he will step down citing medical problems and be praised as a hero for doing so for the best of the country. That will be his legacy and probably good enough for him. He finally made…</p>
<p>Agree old dog. Who here believes that Biden if elected, will be anything more than a token very temporary placeholder. It’s so obvious that he doesn’t have anywhere close, the capacity to lead this country. He will be controlled from day one. I give him max of 2 years as the title holder (in name only). Then he will step down citing medical problems and be praised as a hero for doing so for the best of the country. That will be his legacy and probably good enough for him. He finally made it all the way to the top. I wouldn’t be surprised if that hasn’t already been worked out. </p>
<p></p>
<p>So then what do we have —- K. H. Can you then say that our new president isn’t hard green? Do you consider her decent? Do you think she isn’t far left?</p>