Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 9, 2012 at 7:06

Lets hope that safety is their primary concern and are not just looking for an excuse to shut it down...huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 9, 2012 at 7:42

IMO the administration is looking for cover to minimize the fall out when they approve reasonable regulations based on industry best practices governing hydraulic fracturing and the liberal environmentalist portion of the Democratic base goes ape.  The party must attempt to generate plausible deniability for the next election cycle while a lame duck president has much less to lose.  Best to do those unpleasant political procedures early in the new term so that those who don't like it have as long as possible to get over being angry.  I think the chances of the President approving the Keystone XL early in the new term are better than 50/50.  And I hope that the energy industry continues to develop environmentally safe frac ingredients and best practice procedures that can give the public a measure of confidence.  The industry has lousy PR instincts and strategic leadership.  That's a significant contributing element in why the debate has gone so far off track.  Until the industry sheds its condescending.. "we're the smartest guys in the room" persona those in the public who lean toward supporting sound energy policy have a hard time throwing their support into the debate.  IMO liberal environmentalist are a relatively small portion of the Democratic Party base and an even smaller segment of independents.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 9, 2012 at 8:27

That was my initial thought as well, I mean, is the EPA really going to take these submissions seriously after they have been at this for months. IMO, I bet their conclusions are largely developed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 9, 2012 at 8:36

Sure they're going to take them.  Then they can say they have done a thorough review, relied upon the best data and crafted regulations that fit the facts.  Forget the "for months" part as it was election season.  You don't alienate your base until you've won reelection regardless of which party we are discussing.  And I think that the upper level bureaucrats in EPA have reason to do as they are told regardless of their personal opinions. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 9, 2012 at 15:28

So now we get to find out what Obama really thinks...lets hope he has the best interest of the country in mind...he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone now...

Our economic viability is as important as our environment..having one at the expense of the other will not work either way you look at it..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on November 9, 2012 at 16:15

Its going to be interesting - FracFocus.org has got a lot more public data available, Subpart OOOO air rules are requiring registration of fracturing activity, some of the Marcellus propaganda has been debunked, and settlements are in sight on a few screw-ups (Cabot in Dimock).  The LSU study of groundwater in the Haynesville should have more thoroughly vetted.

I agree that industry is losing the public opinion war, but it has generated a phenomenal amount of data over the past 3 to 4 years.  If the data gets an honest hearing, it should be reasonably favorable.  Just got to figure out how to convince people not to be penny wise and pound foolish.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by inthestix on November 14, 2012 at 13:44

P.G , I wouldn't bet any money on it!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 15, 2012 at 2:52

I wonder how safe it is for someone who has a few cows to put the manure on their garden...I mean I'll bet there all sorts of unknown pathogens in it and it had not been certified by any Federal Government Agency nor had any air quality testing done..right?

Shouldn't we be concerned about  the children who may be consuming the vegetables...?

• ▶ Reply