Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on March 31, 2010 at 10:21

/edited

and by the way dorcheat, i couldn't agree more with your posts.

environmentalists will have to be soothed the same way the hard line single payer people were, with all of the "starter home" rhetoric. they will be told through back channels the impact of this announcement will be minimal, and in the distant future, if ever.

i am sorry to say that there are those of us who do not see mr. obama as a transparent and pragmatic leader at this point. as far as i'm concerned this is just another broken campaign promise, and lip service for maneuvering purposes.

i reserve judgment on the fracturing issue as i cannot see how shale gas will be completely ignored, perhaps my own interests color my outlook. it just seems like a no-brainer, but as of yet this administration has talked more about shale gas in china than the united states.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2010 at 12:33

Thanks for the comments guys. I didn't plan to be away from the discussion this long but I consider the responses civil and with substance. Thank you. My interest is in the power of numbers, as in 13,000+ Go Haynesville Shalers. In the past Keith and I have discussed possibilities for mobilizing the membership for some political lobbying. It's hard to accomplish that in an atmosphere of partisan talking points and personal attacks, from either side of the aisle. Personally I looked at the Pickens Plan and didn' t like it for the simple reason that it gave wind equal weight with nat gas. I won't go into the several problems with that approach but believe that effort has finally rectified it's message. Still I'd rather have a GHS Nat Gas lobby group. That depends on interest and our ability to agree on a small set of issues. I'm a registered "other" (that's what LA. calls an independent on voter registration cards, LOL) and think that all politicians serve their own interests unless their constituents demand otherwise. I was just wondering if we could manage a wider conversation focused on energy which might lead to actually taking some action.

Permalink Reply by David on March 31, 2010 at 13:01

Skip-

I think GHS lobbying could be successful, the key will be to have only a few points that are tightly integrated. Whatever the message, it must be simple and understandable by almost anyone. Complex arguments have their place, but not in a soundbite world.

I would see placing an emphasis on jobs which would be created, taxes and revenues from those jobs created, and royalties which would be generated to the government. The real challenge is going to come in knowing how to frame and present the issue to the public and the politicians.

How would you frame the issue, Skip?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2010 at 13:29

David~

I'd like to see some additional expressions of interest. If the idea has legs, there are two questions to be answered, what are the core issues that would convince members to participate and what would be the action plans that they will be willing to embrace? I hope that Keith would have some ideas in regard to the second question as this would be an Internet-based effort and he/GHS should receive a good bit of the credit. I would like to solicit expressions of interest and ideas as to the message. I'll toss out a couple of examples: Regulation of fracing by the states, not the feds and tax incentives to utility companies for the retirement of old tech coal plants and new plant construction capable of being fueled by nat gas. The first would please the E&P industry and the second the environmental lobby. The coal lobby is huge. The only way you beat them is to build a bigger coalition.

Permalink Reply by ADM1 on March 31, 2010 at 13:26

Found this on another forum regarding Obama's "Big Concession".

"Obama is talking about lifting a nonexistent ban! Bush lifted the executive ban in July 2008, and Congress lifted the legislative ban in October 2008. There is no legal impediment to drilling now, except that the Obama administration refuses to offer leases. So the idea that this is a big concession in exchange for which Congress should jump-start climate legislation is ridiculous. I'll believe they are really allowing drilling when they actually offer leases. Also, the 50-mile restriction means he is actually ADDING a NEW moratorium on waters inside of 50 miles."

Permalink Reply by Shaleeee on March 31, 2010 at 15:00

Let me see . . . There is a need for something, just anything that will pay for the big HEALTH CARE bill that will cost the dems the 2012 election - there is a need for something, just anything to put people to work - now if HE can accomplish both with his new stance on energy (360 degrees) and get every aspect of the new drilling and the income from it taxed heavily = problem solved - grab your purse strings gertie and get ready to give until you feel the pain and HE feels the gain. But great news anyway!

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 31, 2010 at 16:44

I had a conversation with a co-worker this morning and stated there will never be a foot of hole drilled off the East Coast. I said the environmentalists will file about 20 lawsuits that will tie it up in the courts for years.

By shear coincidence I had an opportunity to hear John Boehner (House Republican Leader) speak today at lunch. When asked about the offshore drilling, he said the radical environmental groups will file lawsuits and it will take 20+ years to clear the courts.

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on March 31, 2010 at 16:49

Thanks Les, you always lay it on the line.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2010 at 16:53

Mark it. We will see if it's true. Boehner is playing politics for the mid-terms. It's his job.

Permalink Reply by essay on March 31, 2010 at 17:27

they all play politics with everything in washington, it's a disease, and part of what makes me so cranked about certain issues, this one included.

here we have north american companies putting holes into massive shale formations all over the place as we speak and can't even get a shout out? preposterous. today's announcement was underwhelming, to say the least.

as long as this is just the start it is a good start. if this is the highlight, it is very poor fare indeed.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2010 at 17:39

Then we agree that it is less about party and more about politics? I understand your characterization of the dysfunction as a "disease" but I would suggest that it is SOP. And has been for both parties for as long as I have been paying attention. And it will continue to be until we step up and assert that we are the ultimate special interest group. The only political currency that trumps money, ... is votes! I do not expect to agree across the board with the membership, I just wonder if there are some core issues we can agree on to the extent that we can take action.

Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on April 1, 2010 at 2:32

Skip,

Nobody in the White House plays politics, they just threaten your very existence. Les B, and Boehner are absolutely 100% correct, and the environmentalist have the track record to prove it. You're going to have to work some OT selling this administration's line on the GHS. Although I'll give you a A+ for effort.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page