Improbable energy future

I turned 18 the same year of the Arab oil embargo. Oil prices went way up and we thought the age of inexpensive energy was gone forever. What an unexpected change! The technology of fracking today has essentially created new energy that will last my lifetime and that of my children. And the natural gas is much cleaner than the coal or oil it replaces, a gift from God, with an assist from a stubborn American.

George Mitchell graduated from the Texas A&M as a petroleum engineer. His father was an illiterate Greek goat herder who had the good sense to move to America. George was so poor that he was almost kicked out of school for non-payment of tuition. One of his professors told him that if he wanted to drive a Chevy, he should work for Humble Oil (later Exxon) but if he wanted to drive a Cadillac, he should go into business for himself. George saw himself as more a Cadillac type of guy.

In 1982, Mitchell Energy was in danger of not having enough gas to supply its clients. In those days, experts thought gas would soon run out. Mitchell looked for new sources. He knew there was a lot of gas trapped in the Barrett shale in Texas, but nobody could get it out at a price anybody could pay. He invested $6million and had to put up with twenty years of ridicule from his friends for throwing money away on something that would not work.

It wasn't until 1998 that Mitchell came up with a permutation of hydraulic fracturing that worked. (Fracking was not a new technology; it just had not been applied in this particular way before.) The way was open to the bright, happy future we now see before us.
Mitchell lived to see his dream work. He is still alive, now 93 years old.

You never know what's going to work. Mitchell could have ended up wrong and ridiculed, as many dreamers do. Most big ideas fail. That is why we need lots of options and try lots of things.

Of course, this is not the work of only one man. Lots of researchers, investors and workers were involved. (BTW - Mitchell "gave back" contributing $44.5 million to A&M and $159 million to universities and research organizations.) Government provided incentives to unconventional energy. But I wonder if it would have happened w/o Mitchell. There is no such thing as destiny. Things do not have to happen the way they do. Fracking could have remained a "stupid and impractical" idea. That is what most experts thought at the time.

After the fact lots of things look obvious, but they could have gone other ways. There are myriad examples of people sitting on great opportunities w/o using them, ever. We Americans are exceptional. Back in Greece, a guy like George would still be herding goats or maybe protesting in the streets to get his "fair share" of government handouts, instead of hungering after ways to make it himself. We do more than most other people. But we don't do everything. So thank you George. Well done.

Posted by Christine & John at November 25, 2012 8:48 PM
Comments
Comment #357736

Fracking is a useful tool for the natural gas industry. And it can bring us cheap gas. Reckon that’s the real reason the left is against it?
I wonder if it could be used by the oil industry. Do any of y’all know it’s been or is being tried?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 26, 2012 10:41 AM
Comment #357738

Fracking was first used to increase oil production…just in the past few years, with Mitchell Energy’s new techniques has it been used to extract more natural gas.

Here’s a good overview of natural gas fracking and the fear that O’s environmentalists are going to clamp down on its use. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=122315

Posted by: John Johnson at November 26, 2012 2:30 PM
Comment #357739

Thanks for the link John.
I don’t think Obama is going to care what the report says, specially if it’s favorable to fracking. The extreme environmental whacko’s don’t want it and he owes them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 26, 2012 3:58 PM
Comment #357740
Fracking is a useful tool for the natural gas industry. And it can bring us cheap gas. Reckon that’s the real reason the left is against it?

I would say Ron most of us on the left side of the aisle would like cheap gas. SO the answer to your question is no that isn’t why the left is against it. The process uses considerable amounts of water and leaves behind toxic chemicals in the groundwater. Do you think the right is for fracking because it poisons the water we drink but they are to old to care about it and their offspring as long as they can get cheaper gas?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 26, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #357741

j2t2

Fracking uses lots of water, but done properly leaves no toxic substances in ground water. Among the many ways we use to extract energy and way we use it, natural gas from fracking is probably the cleanest environmentally.

Posted by: C&J at November 26, 2012 4:53 PM
Comment #357744

C&J, where do you think all those chemicals used in fracking go? We need to do this extraction wisely and include the costs to make the water drinkable after the gas/oil is extracted C&J not hide out heads and pretend it doesn’t exist.

If George the goat herder’s son can create the methods to extract the resources he should also be able to create a way to keep the water drinkable. That is a job well done.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 26, 2012 6:03 PM
Comment #357747

j2t2

Most of the chemicals are simple solvents. The fracked rock is well below the water table. Where this not that case, water wells would come up with natural gas already.

The water is drinkable. I believe we should carefully regulate all forms of energy exportation, but we should not fall victim to hysterical or exaggerated fears.

We also need to consider alternatives. The gas boom has allowed us to reduce our CO2 output more than any other country in the world. It has lowered the amount of particle pollution and pumped money into rural economies.

If people like you were in charge 100 years ago, you would have banned all electricity. I hear that EVERY year some people are killed by that and most people are unsure how it works.

Posted by: C&J at November 26, 2012 7:29 PM
Comment #357749

While the polluted production water, recovered along with the gas and oil that comes to the surface, is injected way below the water table and does not contaminate ground water, it is just stupid to waste this precious commodity.

The major race right now is to come up with a water treatment system which is efficient and relatively inexpensive when compared to current conventional methods of treating. The successful company in designing and patenting such a system will be raking in millions, if not billions. Major players are involved. Stand by. Stay tuned.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 26, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #357750
Most of the chemicals are simple solvents.

“While some of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are common and generally harmless, some are known carcinogens or toxic.[46] The most common chemical used for hydraulic fracturing in the United States in 2005–2009 was methanol, while some other most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol.[46] The 2011 US House of Representatives investigative report on the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing states that out of 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products, “more than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants”.[46]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/cabot-s-methodology-links-tainted-water-wells-to-gas-fracking.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 26, 2012 8:27 PM
Comment #357751
The water is drinkable. I believe we should carefully regulate all forms of energy exportation, but we should not fall victim to hysterical or exaggerated fears.

Good let conservatives lead the way on using this water. No one is hysterical C&J they are worried when flames come from the water faucet and rightfully so IMHO. I am suggesting that instead of covering this up George the goat herders son deal with it. Come up with a solution so they don’t need to be excluded from the safe drinking water act.

We also need to consider alternatives. The gas boom has allowed us to reduce our CO2 output more than any other country in the world. It has lowered the amount of particle pollution and pumped money into rural economies.

Trading one problem for another doesn’t really solve the problem C&J. Covering up the problem doesn’t solve it. Why don’t we just solve it before we run out of drinking water and water for crops?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 26, 2012 8:36 PM
Comment #357752

George didn’t get a chance to herd goats. He arrived here, Galveston, in his moma’s womb. We will never know if he would have been a great herder, alas.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 26, 2012 10:22 PM
Comment #357755

j2t2
If your so worried about water contamination from fracking why don’t you come up with a solution? Why wait for someone else to do it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2012 12:02 AM
Comment #357759

j2t2

Do you consider global warming perhaps the most urgent problem we face? You prefer to do nothing about it? Oh yeah, you guys like to talk about things that never where and ask why not? Nice rhetoric, but not useful.

We have a technology that is rapidly reducing our carbon emissions, a technology that by all indications is significantly cleaner than the ones it replaces, a technology that when applied properly has caused nobody an verifiable problems and you want to chase ghosts of problems that could be.

This is why I sometimes think you guys are not serious people. You refuse to choose among real alternatives or take effective steps to develop others. Instead we get this rhetoric about how we can develop some sort of magic if we just throw more money into programs that so far have produced billions of dollars worth of nothing.

The natural gas boom is as nearly perfect as anything I have ever seen in my life. If I had described this to you in 1998, you would have told me it was impossible, but advocated spending billions in government programs to develop such a wonder. In fact, many liberal groups supported this idea UNTIL it seemed to be working.

We were told back in 2005 that we needed to act within the next couple of years to reduce CO2 emission and there was nothing more urgent. We have done that and are continuing to do it. Now those same people who made the dire predictions don’t want to accept the solution.

What liberals really hate about the gas boom is that it is profitable. Ronald Reagan had it right when he described the liberal method: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it. You just LIKE to spend government money and resent it when things work without direct government action.


Posted by: C&J at November 27, 2012 3:01 AM
Comment #357765

Well that is a nice little rant C&J but it still doesn’t address the problem. You conservatives are so emotional when it comes to things like this. You have actually called upon global warming which has brought a smile to my face. Now I know that you personally aren’t part of the GW is a hoax, the world is 6k years old, The messiah is coming crowd but you do run with them. When conservatives have to call up what they mostly think is a liberal conspiracy to justify their addictions you just gotta laugh. Can’t wait for Ron, Royal and the other conservatives who do buy into the GW isn’t real theory to choke on the hypocrisy of this rationalization.

What about the contaminated groundwater and the massive amount of water required to extract the gas? Do you find it an acceptable trade off or do we need to improve upon the process?

What liberals really hate about the gas boom is that it is profitable.

Once again, but I will type slower so you can understand, it is the problem with contaminated drinking water that many people including liberals don’t like. I am not advocating that we give up on fracking I am advocating for the improvement of the process to include stopping the contamination of the water at the fracking sites.

When you get to the point you feel the need to quote Reagan you know you have a weak argument C&J. But seeings as you do here is another quote from Ronnie

“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
-Ronald Reagan, 1981

How silly is that? Yet many have idolized the man. I think yet another guy had it right and Saint Reagan was just trying to convince the gullible using the greater lie method.


“By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people
believe that heaven is hell- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily
it will be believed.”
 -Adolf Hitler


Since you like to use quotes, here is one that IMHO exemplifies conservative logic on the issue-

“Sure, it’s going to kill a lot of people, but they may be dying of something else anyway.”
 -Othal Brand, member of a Texas pesticide review board (in the 50s?)


Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 9:26 AM
Comment #357766

j2t2 …sharp of you to “quote these quotes”, but I would just point out to you that Reagan was referring to worldwide burning wood, not standing trees…and what about Gore using the Hitler method of impacting public opinion? It works both ways, for both sides.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 27, 2012 10:17 AM
Comment #357767

John the Reagan quote about trees is said to have originated in a 1981 speech. You claim it was about worldwide use of trees as a fuel source, others claim different things. Either way the intent was to deceive those listening to him. The claim is false as trees produce oxygen in addition to any pollutants he may have been speaking of. Were he actually talking about people burning trees and was trying to be factual and informative would he not have said “people burning trees as a fuel source” cause more pollution than cars (if in fact that is true)? Repeating the deception as he did is what reminded me of the Hitler quote.

Make your case about Gore. You may be right but you haven’t proved it by telling me it’s both sides without any back up.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 11:27 AM
Comment #357768

Nor did you, j2t2. You just threw the Reagan quote out there with no context.

I don’t want to carry this puny argument any further, do you? There are so many other juicy topics to cover.

Here’s one for you…Did O not promise in his initial campaign to open up all congressional negotiations to we commonbreds? Total transparency, I believe he called it.

What do you see happening now? Dick Durbin was on Morning Joe today. He was spouting the same old “we good; you bad” that we hear from both parties…pounding on taxing the wealthy while not wanting to address a cut in entitlements.
When asked about this stance and how, if his party was going to hold this line, anything would get resolved and move forward, he just kept talking without answering the quesiton.

If meetings truly were opened up, we would not be getting this daily dose of horseshit about how the other party is the problem. We would see who is working with who; who is telling the truth; who is serious about compromise.

Just one of the many O promises that remain unfulfilled.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 27, 2012 12:04 PM
Comment #357769
You just threw the Reagan quote out there with no context.

What context would make this quote sound as if it were an intelligent comment John? I threw this quote out to show how Reagan was almost as bad as GWB with Reaganisms that lack veracity. The quote used by C&J is riddled with misinformation half truths and outright lies from a discredited source IMHO.


Did O not promise in his initial campaign to open up all congressional negotiations to we commonbreds?

John did he? Provide a source and the quote.

This is what he told the staff upon taking office John,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment


Here is an update to this administrations progress-

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/08/03/obama-administration-struggles-live-its-transparency-promise-analysis-shows/DXmU49ABG6vYGG5eFrJWjP/story.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 12:40 PM
Comment #357770

Are you trying to make my point for me? If so, nice job.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 27, 2012 1:15 PM
Comment #357771

I missed the part about opening up all congressional negotiations to the public John. Was that a specific promise or was it assumed when he said he would make government more transparent?

The globe article says things started out promising but during 2010 transparency stalled. It doesn’t mention congressional negotiations at all so I was wondering where you heard these negotiations were part of the transparency promise Obama made.

Part of the problem according to the globe is a lack of staff to fill the request, funny how that works isn’t it, what with the budget cuts and wanting a small government. Seems we can’t have cheap, fast and high quality all at once.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 2:06 PM
Comment #357772

LOL!
Obama didn’t mean that part of government would be transparent, and it’s not Obama’s fault that it’s not transparent.
LOL!

Damn you GW!

Posted by: kctim at November 27, 2012 2:41 PM
Comment #357773

kctim are you suggesting Obama should decree rule changes for Congress? How about SCOTUS? The last I knew he was in the Administrative branch of government, what am I missing here? When did he say he would make Congress more transparent?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 3:29 PM
Comment #357774

J2, I’m not suggesting anything at all. I am simply pointing out that, once again, the left has to spin what Obama’s words “really meant” and why he is not to blame for something.

Obama pledged to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government” and to “establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.”

What you are missing is that Congress is part of the Government Obama mentioned, and a good, effective leader could have gotten them to work towards “an unprecedented level of openness.”

Silly nitpicking of what Obama “really meant” and trying to pass blame elsewhere, are nothing but weak attempts to ignore his lack of effectiveness as a leader.

Posted by: kctim at November 27, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #357775

I am so tired of hearing about how O couldn’t get anything done because of those nasty old people serving in congressional offices. He gave everything a half-assed try at best. No cajoling, arm twisting, drinks with the boys; no using the bully pulpit to ralley the public to call their reps. He did nothing…just sat there and pointed his finger at the guys and gals he couldn’t work with. It is pathetic.

He said when he was campaigning that the lobbyists would be gone and behind door deal making brought to light. Neither came to pass….like so many other promises. O is a fraud…a well spoken charlatan. Nothing more.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 27, 2012 4:34 PM
Comment #357777
J2, I’m not suggesting anything at all. I am simply pointing out that, once again, the left has to spin what Obama’s words “really meant” and why he is not to blame for something.

kctim, I’m not spinning,I have asked both you two to show me where Obama said anything about making congress more transparent, that’s all.

I am so tired of hearing about how O couldn’t get anything done because of those nasty old people serving in congressional offices.

Well John you didn’t hear it form me this time yet here you are whining about it. The fact is you have been hearing this for years from repubs/conservatives, Reagan, and GWB come to mind yet GWB held secret meetings with oil companies in the WH and you were fine with that, right? Don’t get me started on Reagan and his lack of transparency. Obama is the only one I am aware of the made some progress on making the government more transparent.

I have simply asked for some back up on where you Obama made these promises about Congress and didn’t follow through.

Obama transparency promises. 8 times.

Eyes wide open, Breitbart! No wonder you didn’t know that these promises were kept.

“Beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed became the foundation of the Senate’s health care reform bill.[150] The meetings were held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and can be seen on the C-SPAN web site[151] or at the Committee’s own web site.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Just out of curiosity did any one watch any of these meetings on CSPAN? Yet we complain about Obama as if he is the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2012 5:49 PM
Comment #357778

j2t2…did you read the link eyeswideopen sent? It is not Breitbart. It is a New York Post piece.

As far as your citing dates that negotiations were broadcast on CSPAN…these were early on negotiations in 2009 and led to healthcare reform almost being dead.

What I am referring to is the stinky stuff that went on in 2010 when everything was down and dirty behind closed doors, and the final bill crammed down the Repub’s and the publics’ throats. Read the link above, it will provide you with the facts.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 27, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #357780

I believe j2t2 would find no fault in obama having people burned at the stake if it weren’t for the carbon released.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 27, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #357800
j2t2…did you read the link eyeswideopen sent? It is not Breitbart. It is a New York Post piece.

Look closer John, the video was from Breitbart. So the New York Post, Murdochs sensationalist rag and the least credible newspaper in NYC used “info” nay, propaganda from Breitbart, I rest my case.

“According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it “not credible” than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[31]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post

As far as your citing dates that negotiations were broadcast on CSPAN…these were early on negotiations in 2009 and led to healthcare reform almost being dead.

So what John when you hold the conservatives in Congress, the conservative media and such to the same standards as you hold Obama to come back and talk to me. Name another bill that had 60 hours of CSPAN coverage during the process, hell John the Patriot Act was passed, start to finish in about 60 hours where was the transparency then? The repub energy plan was conducted behind closed doors at the white house during GWBs first term John. You whiny ass conservatives didn’t have a problem with that as you re-elected GWB for a second term. Your partisanship is pathetic.

Seriously John you are all over the place here. The issue here is what did Obama promise. He promised the negotiations would be on C SPAN, which they were. Now you are off on a tangent, it wasn’t the stinky 60 hours! Really! Come on, how much of the first 60 hours did you watch?

What I am referring to is the stinky stuff that went on in 2010 when everything was down and dirty behind closed doors, and the final bill crammed down the Repub’s and the publics’ throats. Read the link above, it will provide you with the facts.

BS John. You guys didn’t watch one bit of the 60 hours of CSPAN coverage yet the problem is the part that CSPAN didn’t cover! What a joke you conservatives are. The point was transparency and transparency was improved as Obama promised. The rest is conservative whining.

I believe j2t2 would find no fault in Obama having people burned at the stake if it weren’t for the carbon released.

Royal, as a conservative you believe anything movement leaders tell you to believe so the only real question here is did movement leaders tell you to believe this nonsense you are spouting?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 28, 2012 12:32 AM
Comment #357806

Let’s get to the bottom line, j2t2, and stop all the bullshit.

Forget about who wrote and posted the article. The points I am stressing are true no matter who quoted it. O made statements promising public tv coverage of crucial bill negotiations. Initially, in 2009, they were. In 2010, they weren’t. It was back to business as usual…and has remained so.

An analogy of your position might read something like this:
A man proposed to his girlfriend, promising to give up all his other relationships and be monogomas for the rest of their lives. He was the first year.

You can continue to point at Bush, as your lazy leader is often found doing, but GWB didn’t ever make transparency a prime campaign issue; he never made promises on eight occasions that this was at the top of his priority list. O did.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 7:45 AM
Comment #357807

John, yes, please stop the BS. Exactly how much of the first 60 hours of C SPAN coverage did you watch? Because it is all BS after that.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 28, 2012 8:23 AM
Comment #357809

Come on, j2t2…this is best you’ve got???

I don’t remember watching any of it. I had a business to run. What is your point? Does it have bearing on the bottom line of this discussion?

Did O promise to make congressional negotaitions totally transparent? Yes or no?

Are current budget negotiations totally open to the public? Did you see them on CSPAN yesterday? Yes or no?

After your acknowledgement, we can move on to the other unfulfilled promises. They are numerous.

Before we do, however, may I get a promise from you that you won’t constantly be pointing back at GWB and trying to compare the two? I will readily admit that Bush had major flaws and made major mistakes, so let’s concentrate on O.

I never did like my kids telling me “We’ll everyone else is doing it” or “Ashlee did it, too”. Know what I mean? These are valid excuses.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 8:56 AM
Comment #357810

Correction…”These are not valid excuses.”

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 8:58 AM
Comment #357811

J2, I’m not complaining about Obama on this issue. IMO, he did what all politicians do: he told his blind followers what they wanted to hear and then did a little here and there to make you all gasp with awe.

“I’m not spinning,I have asked both you two to show me where Obama said anything about making congress more transparent, that’s all”

And I told you: Congress is a part of that government he pledged to make more transparent. It doesn’t take a special “decree,” it only takes leadership ability and that is something this President does not have.

Sorry J2, but you are spouting “movement” spin that many in your own Party even disagree with.
Obama pledged more transparency in government. He did not deliver as was promoted or expected.

Now, back to fracking: you mention toxic chemicals ending up in the water supply, so what’s your opinion on flouride being pumped into our water supply? Just curious.

Posted by: kctim at November 28, 2012 9:51 AM
Comment #357812
I don’t remember watching any of it. I had a business to run. What is your point? Does it have bearing on the bottom line of this discussion?

Typical,John. I expected no less of an excuse from you.

The point is this- when was the last time congressional negotiations were televised prior to the health care negotiations? The bottom line is the conservatives inability to give credit for the work Obama has done to improve transparency in the federal government. When you gloss over the 60 hours of televised transparency you make yourself look foolish IMHO. Especially considering the conservative record on transparency the previous decade.

Did O promise to make congressional negotaitions totally transparent? Yes or no?

No John. You just couldn’t help yourself could you? You had to exaggerate what he said in order to convince yourself you have a leg to stand on.

Are current budget negotiations totally open to the public? Did you see them on C SPAN yesterday? Yes or no?

No but show me where Obama is to blame for that or where he violated a campaign promise John. You guys are something raising the bar for those you disagree with and lowering the bar for those you agree with. The ability for C SPAN to cover these meetings are there John. Yet you blame Obama for not mandating the coverage, is that what you are saying? Really!

After your acknowledgement, we can move on to the other unfulfilled promises. They are numerous.

Really John is this the best you have got! Unfilled campaign promises from 2008! Why not focus on the issues of the day elections are over. Pointing off into space and blaming Obama for unfilled campaign promises hasn’t served any purpose yet John.

Before we do, however, may I get a promise from you that you won’t constantly be pointing back at GWB and trying to compare the two? I will readily admit that Bush had major flaws and made major mistakes, so let’s concentrate on O.

It isn’t GWB that is the point John. It is you and other conservatives who were in lock step with GWB when the aforementioned bills were passed, when closed door WH meetings were accepted and encouraged by you guys. Your Obama bashing falls flat when it is so partisan and so exaggerated. You have no credibility, that is the point.

I never did like my kids telling me “We’ll everyone else is doing it” or “Ashlee did it, too”. Know what I mean? These are valid excuses.

Perhaps leading by example is what you should have done then John. The double standards of conservatives in general and you in particular reek.

So in summary John you were unable to prove your original statement valid and then in the PPACA transparency issue you were proven wrong. Yet you continue to blame Obama for all the problems created by others for many years! Transparency is better under Obama but still needs work, did you really think it would all turn around in less than 4 years? Apply the same standards to Obama as you do to any conservatives who promises you small government.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 28, 2012 10:01 AM
Comment #357813

Typical wordy response which is used to camouflage your ignoring the bottomline facts, j2t2. You can “yeah, but” all you want to, but the fact is he promised, but he didn’t deliver. Bottomline. Lowest denominator. Over and out.

Post Script - I wrote a 2500+ word piece that was printed in both the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Houston Chronicle back in 2007 in which I renounced George Bush and the Republican Party, so please quit lumping me in there with those on the far right that are just as entrenched as you are as an apologist on the extreme left. I have both of my eyes open. I see the stink everywhere.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 11:10 AM
Comment #357814
Typical wordy response which is used to camouflage your ignoring the bottomline facts, j2t2. You can “yeah, but” all you want to, but the fact is he promised, but he didn’t deliver. Bottomline. Lowest denominator. Over and out.

John, John, John The bottom line facts were missing in your argument it was blathering without facts. By any previous administrations standard back to the Reagan administration the Obama administration has made transparency in government an issue to be dealt with. They have lived up to the campaign promise of transparency in PPACA negotiations. Perfect? No. Better than what we are use to? Yes. He delivered by any reasonable standard.

…so please quit lumping me in there with those on the far right that are just as entrenched as you are as an apologist on the extreme left. I have both of my eyes open. I see the stink everywhere.

John Defending the presidents record from misinformation half truths and outright lies doesn’t make me an apologist on the extreme left. Sorry but you chose this issue, didn’t back up your claims and were extreme in you misguided views on the campaign promise. That doesn’t mean I am on the extreme left, it means you were wrong and your source of misinformation didn’t cover the issue accurately. Instead of using your eyes for smell open them and take a serious look at your sources of information.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 28, 2012 11:35 AM
Comment #357815

Now I think you’re blind.

By “any reasonable standard” O has delivered on his promise??? Bullshit.

He didn’t equivocate; his promise was a pointed one. I listened to it live on more than one occasion. “I will open up..”. “I will put it on tv….”. “Total transparency.” There was no “I’ll try…”; no “I’ll give up if I get some Congressional blow-back”. He was emphatic. He failed to deliver.

One more time….did he make the promise? Has he delivered on the promise? Are current hearings on tv? Do we have total transparency?

Just try using “yes’s” and “no’s”, j2t2.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 12:51 PM
Comment #357816

Politifact gives Obama a failing grade on promise of public session negotiating on healthcare reform. Hillary tried to water down what he was promising, knowing that he would have to make congressional leaders go along with it. He didn’t take the hint and kept making the emphatic promise. No meaningful negotiations were ever held in front of a tv camera. Sorry, j2t2, nice try. Maybe you are the one disregarding facts. Tie into link, below, for a clearer picture.

Did he make promise? Did he deliver? Yes or no?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #357817
By “any reasonable standard” O has delivered on his promise??? Bullshit.


John, If 60 hours of C SPAN was not enough to meet the campaign promise of “I will put it on TV” and “I will open up” then what would? The “total transparency” quote of course wasn’t spoken by Obama, according to eyes wide open’s link, but are words put into his mouth to allow you to have a leg to stand on. But you don’t because he didn’t say that. That is where we have a difference you are holding him to the words of others, those whose goal is to see him fail at any cost.

One more time….did he make the promise?

Yes he did.

Has he delivered on the promise?

Yes he has.


Are current hearings on tv?

What current hearings? PPACA has been law for 2 years now. If you are suggesting Obama said each and every negotiation in Congress on each and every bill would be on CSPAN or TV link to it. The link from EWO was specific to the PPACA issue.

Do we have total transparency?

Who said “total transparency” was the goal John? Not Obama.

Just try using “yes’s” and “no’s”, j2t2.

Are we more transparent now then before he was elected? Yes

Is it perfect? NO

Did Obama claim perfection in transparency?

Should we bash Obama for not singlehandedly mandating every Congressional meeting be covered on live TV? No


Posted by: j2t2 at November 28, 2012 2:32 PM
Comment #357818

No meaningful negotiations were ever held on tv. Nada. Zilch. This is from Politifact. I put your excuses and twisted fact on one side and their analysis on the other, who do you think I am going to go with. You’re a hardcore lefty apologist who will twist and contort to prove a point.

I will leave it to anyone reading these posts and related links to determine who has it right. As I once told Stephen, “I am not trying to change your opinion…you are a lost cause. I just want to make sure other readers don’t get taken in by your placing barriers around the truth in the form of righteous indignation, semi-related links and a bunch of “yeah, but’s”.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 4:03 PM
Comment #357820

My read on it is that the Obama administration looked at the problem and concluded that very often the issue was poorly sealed wells.

Even so, we need to be careful. First things first: what keeps oil and gas in the ground, rather than bubbling up and out are the geological traps that prevent them from rising through the layers of permeable rock. Oil and Gas are bouyant on water, so if they do escape, they’ll find their way up through whatever faults and permeable rock layers there are.

Fracking works by cracking open rock layers with hydraulic force. The guess is, if you crack enough of the rock layer, you’ll find the oil and gas percolating up.

That’s what we have to be careful about. If you’re saying, it’s under a mile of rock, then I’d say how fast does something have to move to travel a mile in a month or a year’s time?

So far, they haven’t found damning evidence that this is happening, and so until it is found, it only remains a possibility. What’s not so problematic, evidence-wise, is the problem of poorly sealed wells. You drill a hole, and don’t case it right, and your fossil fuel is going to find its way out into the rock layers above it through your drill hole.

Okay, that aside? That aside, I’m going to say two things: Yes, it’s preferable to coal, but it’s still a fossil fuel, and if the wells leak, they’re venting methane to the atmosphere, which is a potent greenhouse gas. And no, as plentiful as it is, it’s still limited, and we still have to deal with our energy needs once that stuff is gone, or as it declines from its peak.

Technology’s helped keep certain fossil fuels in the game, but at the cost of greater and greater costs of extraction.

We need renewables, in no small part because its wiser to avoid an energy crisis than keep on stumbling into them. We have energy shining down on us and blowing past us every day, and it will do so for the forseeable future. It won’t hurt us to to take advantage of that, and use it to break free of less reliable energy sources.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2012 5:23 PM
Comment #357821

Stephen

“what keeps oil and gas in the ground, rather than bubbling up and out are the geological traps that prevent them from rising through the layers of permeable rock. Oil and Gas are bouyant on water, so if they do escape, they’ll find their way up through whatever faults and permeable rock layers there are.”

This would happen w/o fracking IF not held down my the impermeable rock. This is the whole principle involved. Where not trapped by a layer of impermeable rock, the gas and oil indeed DO come to the surface. Fracking does nothing to change this.

The fracking does not impact the impermeable rock. If it did, it would not be possible to collect the oil and gas using the wells.

We still do want renewables. But if you believe the claims of the global warming guys, the need is urgent now and five years ago. We could not develop and deploy renewable enough to replace coal in the next ten or twenty years. ONLY gas has a chance of reducing emissions in the short and medium term. As we have. The US is now the world leader in reducing emissions.

Aren’t you proud of us and disappointed in those perfidious Europeans? We are leading by example, as you always said we should, but those suckers are not following.

So if you really believe in those things re global warming, you MUST favor gas. If you are willing to wait 10-20 years on the chance of renewable, you obviously do not believe that warming is as urgent a problems as people told us five years ago.

Posted by: C&J at November 28, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #357823

That, Mr. Daugherty, was a sound, well written post….and I am not saying that just because I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 28, 2012 5:51 PM
Comment #357824

We need affordable and effective renewables.
Using what we have until that day arrives does not mean fossil fuels forever.

Posted by: kctim at November 28, 2012 5:53 PM
Comment #357825

The old TV show “Beverly Hillbillies” theme song included…”up from the ground came bubbling crude”.

We have some very intelligent folks in the oil and gas business who have continued to find ways to keep the fossil fuel flowing to the benefit of us all over many decades.

I don’t wish to pollute any more than liberals do. I believe there should be safeguards and regulations that prevent pollution without destroying the fossil fuel energy business and our economy.

As C/J points out repeatedly…we’re doing a better job of reducing CO2 emissions than our European and other friends around the globe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 28, 2012 7:51 PM
Comment #357835

Somewhat interesting that the administration has temporarily banned BP from federal contracts sighting a lack of integrity and an ongoing criminal investigation re the gulf oil spill. Generally, corps get a slap on the hand, a fine far short of damages caused. Of late, the SEC has been slapping more hands and now we have this temporary ban. The ban does look good on the admin’s resume but must not be too serious as BP isn’t fighting it.

Anyone taking generic Lipitor may be interested in a recall on some product: See Webmd.com

“‘Earlier this year, Ranbaxy, (an Indian company, Japanese owned) entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Justice Department preventing the company from selling various generic drugs on the U.S. market until it addresses manufacturing and quality-control flaws at several plants. Those plants did not make the generic Lipitor now being recalled”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 28, 2012 8:52 PM
Comment #357841

We appreciate for sharing the good products with us. Elevate your fall winter look with christian louboutin shop. Here we recommend the hot christian louboutin wedges for you. The christian louboutin sneakers are perfectly suitable for the gentle and mature christian louboutin slingbacks. They are passionately loved by the stars with the acute fashion sense have reasons. These christian louboutin sandals for men are the newest styles in this summer that even been out stock once they put on our online christian louboutin pumps. More styles like cheap christian louboutin peep toe pumps and christian louboutin high boots for your choices. Come on! You may like christian louboutin ankle boots, you may also interested christian louboutin asteroid 160mm glitter pumps black red sole shoes.


Posted by: http://www.christianlouboutinbootsshop.com/ at November 28, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #357851
Politifact gives Obama a failing grade on promise of public session negotiating on healthcare reform.

Yes they do John, So good job. Since you are using Politifact as the deciding factor on this issue I can only assume that you will agree with their judgement on future issues. That being the case I will concede to their and your point on this issue. Obama didn’t live up to the letter of this campaign promise. He did however go farther than any one else to date on transparency in the negotiation process on this issue as they say in the update link.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 29, 2012 3:15 AM
Comment #357857

The fact he has done more, j2t2, was never a part of the point I was initially making. This was a “yeah, but” that you threw into the discussion. It is a defensive tactic that most all use when trying to defend a weak position.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 29, 2012 9:39 AM
Comment #357862

But he did more than any previous president none the less John. Of course he didn’t live up to the exact verbiage of the campaign promise but he was more transparent than previous administrations and Congresses, which was your original point. You said-

“Did O not promise in his initial campaign to open up all congressional negotiations to we commonbreds? Total transparency, I believe he called it.”

As we have seen during the “yeah buts” in previous comments he didn’t mention “total transparency to all congressional negotiations” forever and ever, just the PPACA negotiations, Or at the least you have not shown us where he said it was to be all Congressional negotiations on all bills. So what you call a weak argument is simply a response to your misconception about what he said and what he did John. Your point was he was supposed to have done more which has been proven wrong.

Not only are you putting words into his mouth you are holding Obama to standards that you have not held anyone else to. That was another “yeah but”. An important one at that IMHO John. So when you say “weak argument” it has been a response to one of your half truths. Don’t negate the importance of speaking truth to the half truths that left unchallenged turns into conservative myths.

Weak position, not hardly John.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 29, 2012 1:19 PM
Comment #357863

I’ll let others decide who got it right. Those of you way over there where you are will not admit to O’s shortcomings. Your messiah is without sin.

I say he promised and did not deliver. You can go down the list on Politifact and find all sorts of categories where he did not fulfill his promises. Why don’t you contact them directly and offer up your “yeah, but’s”. I’m sure they will then do a retraction.

Posted by: John Johnson at November 29, 2012 1:27 PM
Comment #357864
I’ll let others decide who got it right. Those of you way over there where you are will not admit to O’s shortcomings. Your messiah is without sin.

John No one has said Obama is a Messiah. No one has said he is without sin. I conceded Obama did not meet the campaign promise as stated. Put off the responsibility of decision onto others as you will, but the fact remains Obama has made the government more transparent than it was before he was voted in. I provided links to the WH directive to do this and to a progress report by the Boston Globe early on to make the point he was in fact working on the problem.

I say he promised and did not deliver.

Unfortunately you exaggerated what he said considerably and then held him to what you said nit what he said. Eventually the discussion got around to campaign promises specific to the PPACA and a specific campaign promise regarding transparency. He didn’t meet the letter of the promise and this was acknowledged. The initial issue of transparency is the hitch in your giddy up. You were simply trying to do some Obama bashing by using half truths. Man up and admit it. He didn’t deserve the lynching for the exaggerated half truths you claimed.

You can go down the list on Politifact and find all sorts of categories where he did not fulfill his promises.

Yes you can but you can also find many that he did fulfill as is the case with all previous presidents. But this is just another tangent you are running to isn’t it John?

Tell you what if you want some agreement here I find the two biggest failed promises to be the promise to allow medicare to negotiate with drug companies on prices. The other being universal health care which I thought meant what you would call a socialist system of healthcare like the rest of the industrialized world. But neither of these were the issue here. Transparency is the issue remember.

Why don’t you contact them directly and offer up your “yeah, but’s”. I’m sure they will then do a retraction.

I have already agreed with you and Politifact on the campaign promise John. Are you done with your “yeah buts”?

Transparency in the workings of our government is an important issue here John. It is complex and IMHO we should not make it more complex with the type of partisan bashing, misinformation half truths and outright lies, that cause those of us with differing political opinions to bicker over the small stuff while the government becomes less transparent.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 29, 2012 2:27 PM
Comment #357866
This is why I sometimes think you guys are not serious people. You refuse to choose among real alternatives or take effective steps to develop others.

C&J, We are choosing among alternatives. Because I point out the problems associated with fracking doesn’t mean I am against fracking. As I have said in previous comments on this thread The problems need to be considered and we need to include the costs for repairing the damage in the cost of the extraction of the resources.

Hiding the problems only creates a call for prohibition of fracking. That is going on here in Colorado by local governments. We are in a drought so water is important. Diverting water from agriculture uses to fracking is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 29, 2012 2:45 PM
Comment #357870

C&J-
I’m not sure you understood. Put simply, the impermeable layer of rock is what keeps the oil and gas from floating any further up. Typically, the way it works is you get this Anticline, this upward curve of rock, and the oil gets trapped underneath the dome of that. Tar Pits like La Brea and Tar Sands like the Athabasca deposits are what you get when that stuff makes it to the surface- the volatile lighter fractions boil off into vapor, and you’re stuck with the thicker fractions like tar and asphalt.

With Shale drilling, the trick is that the rock you’re trying to get the fossil fuels out of isn’t nice, permeable sedimentary rock, which lends itself to just having the soda straw stuck in it to recover the gas and oil. You frack in order to crack that rock open so the oil and/or gas flows. Otherwise it’d be a low yield operation.

As for whether it would be possible to get the oil and gas if the impermeable layer were cracked? I think it would be. It’d be no different than having a badly sealed well, which is what seems to be the case in a number of places. You don’t have to get it all, and you really don’t have to have everything leak for something leaking to be a problem.

Finally, let me let you in on something: I haven’t come down against using more natural gas. What concerns me is that, for the sake of these temporary resources, we might be causing ourselves long term problems with aquifers and releasing unburnt methane that might pose a considerable global warming problem.

It might take a little more expense on the part of the natural gas extractors, but I think we should balance our priorities here, not simply blindly pursue natural gas without counting the external costs.

John Johnson-
Thank you.

Royal Flush-
There was actually a time when ranchers on the Texas Gulf Coast lamented the fact that their water wells were bring up this thick, goopy liquid instead of water. :-)

I think its worth pointing out that there is absolutely nothing free about this innovation that’s required to keep the wells pumping and the gas flowing. Nor is there anything free in the chemical sense about this ancient, plant-bound solar energy that we’ve been harvesting from sequestered carbon.

A long time ago, plants bound up that carbon using solar energy to power the chemical reactions. CO2 was bound up to do that. Now to get at that energy, we’re freeing that carbon, geological ages worth of it, that nature would have kept locked up, or absorbed over geological time spans. Put simply, we’re burning the carbon of millions of years of Earth history into our atmosphere, carbon that once let a dimmer sun make a warmer earth.

What exactly are we expecting to happen, long term?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 29, 2012 3:49 PM
Comment #357883

Stephen

You crack the shale, not the impermeable rock. If you cracked the impermeable rock you would lose the gas. It defeats the purpose.

I agree with you that we need to be careful and make sure that everyone who works on this is careful.

The anti-fracking people exagurate the dangers. There are pinheaded “documentaries” like Gasland that mislead people.

There are places where natural gas seeps to the surface and always has. This is not the result of fracking. What happens is a correlation. Energy companies seek gas in places where gas is located. These are places more likely to have natural seepages. When you get seepages, people may blame the fracking.

You should appreciate the concept of the base rate. It is a common misleading tactic for advocates to point to some factor w/o taking into account the base rate and blame whatever it is they don’t like.

I am a very strong environmentalist in the true sense of wanting a clean and prosperous environment. I have studied fracking and I believe that it is the most environmentally benign way to produce energy available to us in quantities that we need. Even if there was no cost advantages at all, I would still advocate more gas use.

The reason I speak about this with significant passion is that it fulfills my wildest hopes as a young environmentalist. We have achieved what people like me advocated in the 1970s but never thought possible. I will not now sacrifice this real good on the altar of an imaginary perfect. I care too much about our air and water. Increased natural gas use is the single best things that have happened to help the environment in the U.S. in my lifetime. AND it will allow the U.S. to meet and exceed its Kyoto targets. Even Al Gore should be happy.

Posted by: C&J at November 29, 2012 9:01 PM
Post a comment