Fracking. Are you for it or against it?

[jillan]

This too is part of the Democratic Platform.

Since this is a Democratic site, I'm curious to see where the voters on this site stand on fracking.

70 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Against it
	65 (93%)
	For it
	1 (1%)
	Other - this is a yes or no question, but willing to hear from the maybes.
	4 (6%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Alex4Martinez]

1. Against. Also against coal mining (but not expecting it to end immediately)

I'm sure I'll disagree with the language of the platform, but I'm also aware that a sudden total end to fracking isn't practical to anyone who understands what it is and how it works.

What is feasible, but would face opposition, maybe years in court, would be orders requiring disclosure of chemicals used. We could ban fracking on public lands in short order, maybe tie it to disclosure, but ending it outright overnight can't be done.

[TheBlackAdder]

15. Most is for Export--Scheduled to be shipped off-shore via 10 LNG terminals on both coasts.

.


A bunch of people here probably think that this is for domestic consumption, when in reality the plan is to finish construction on 7 more LNG terminals to ship it to Eurasia and Pacific Rim countries. We are mainly effing up our environment for business and to aid in other countries to develop their infrastructures to compete against the US.


Just like how a good share of coal is now for export to emerging countries. We eff up our land for other lands.


.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. Source ? This is fascinating if true.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. Links... One of the reasons why the Panama Canal was widened, not just for superships, for US Export

.


Oops, it's now up to 14:
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/lng-approved.pdf


This is the link that makes one go, "Hmm":

The first export shipment of liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced in the Lower 48 states on February 24 is a milestone reflecting a decade of natural gas production growth that has put the United States in a new position in worldwide energy trade.

With the rapid growth of supply from shale gas resources over the past decade, U.S. natural gas production has grown each year since 2006. The resulting decline in domestic natural gas prices has led to rising natural gas exports, both via pipeline to Mexico and, since last week, to overseas markets via LNG tankers.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25232


"Cheniere’s competitive advantage is offering attractive options for global LNG buyers"
http://www.cheniere.com/terminals/lng/


Here are the US firms applying for LNG EXPORT production:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/Summary%20of%20LNG%20Export%20Applications.pdf



Panama Canal, widening not only allows superships, but is to accomodate LNG tankers:

"By 2014, the United States was on track to become a net exporter of natural gas."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-The-Panama-Canal-Fulfill-Its-Global-LNG-Promise.html


There's a whole shitload of stuff on this topic.

Now, we used to be a net receiver of LNG, with the existing port system we have in place. So, with U.S. becoming a 2014 NET EXPORTER, based on OilPrice's link, why is there a push to install so many LNG terminals? Has the U.S. domestic consumption multiplied exponentially in just a few years, or is it because we're really positioning to provide mass exports to other countries?

.

[TheBlackAdder]

31. Dang! Another Panama Canal article. This one ties US exports to the increased production from shale.

.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/newly-expanded-panama-canal-set-to-open-after-seven-year-process/

– US gas shipments –

Panama is also avidly eyeing the lucrative market of transporting liquefied natural gas between the United States and Asia, principally to Japan.

The ships carrying the gas were too big to use the old canal. With the expansion, they now can.

“When we started this expansion, we did not have on our radar that the United States was going to be a net exporter of gas and oil,” ACP deputy administrator Manuel Benitez Hawkins told journalists Saturday.

Now, with the US producing gas and oil from shale, American interest in using the canal has grown.

“That will add to the revenue and help us recoup” the massive investment, Benitez said.

Currently, some five percent of global maritime commercial traffic uses the canal, which provides a valuable shortcut between North America and Asia.

.

[JaneyVee]

2. Other.

At this point in time, its either coal or fracking. As soon as we have a reliable alternative energy in place I will be fully against them and for a swift transition.

[cloudythescribbler]

3. with the kind of govt direction of a WWII type energy transformation advocated by Bernie ...

...a rapid transition to renewables IS possible AND reliable. Yes, just as the economic transformation that was dictated from the top in the face of the WWII emergency was not something you could expect from "market forces" alone, but was eminently doable (and was done, successfully), so too could US industry and technology meet the urgent need if they absolutely had to. But the issue isn't treated with the requisite urgency, only the urgency to protect & promote RW political agendae.

We have, for example, solar energy that heats up salts to be able to give energy reliably 24 hours a day (like Tenopah), and the ability to use solar and wind energy to break down seawater, creating hydrogen as fuel (and perhaps a nice supply of fresh water where needed, with more alternative energy use). There is also substantial potential from geothermal that is not utilized
I agree that a carbon tax, even if steep, wouldn't produce this kind of sudden transformation, but that's because, without ALSO pursuing the kind of command transformation that Bernie has finally come around to advocating, "market forces" alone wouldn't do the trick

Furthermore, there is much in the way of conservation, soil management, and reforestation that could supplement the above transformation. Finally, there needs to be MASSIVE research into air filters (of which there would have to be a slew) that pull carbon, methane and selected other greenhourse gases OUT of the atmosphere that are already there. Jim Hansen, the world's leading climatologist of global warming, says that the world (now at over 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere) is well past the tipping point of 350 ppm (or lower, as he notes is possible), hence the organization 350.org. This means that methods of getting GHGs out of the atmosphere that are already there will be necessary, even if efficient technology (unlike wind solar & geothermal) has not yet been adequately developed to be cost effective. But these are the necessities, and either we do it or not

[Adrahil]

7. What do you think "rapid" means?

We're 20 years at least from a transition to renewables, even if we go all in in it.

[cloudythescribbler]

10. that 20 years has been too slow -- we need a RAPID WWII type transformation

clearly if we wait for 'markets' (heavily tilted towards subsidized fossil fuels) it would take decades further. The climate crisis requires that the WHOLE PLANET get to NET NEGATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS and fast. How fast? As fast as is technically feasible, given a command change from the top -- even if it is costly. Remember that the COSTLY WWII actually spurred the economy forward, in contrast w/an host of RW & neoliberal doomsayers on a renewable transformation.

We do not have decades before climate change goes from being merely past the tipping point (350 ppm CO2 GHG equivalent) and get to a point of no return. The latter would be costly and disastrous not stimulative. The US should do most of the transformation in a few years, prod the EU & Japan to follow suit, all while financing a similarly rapid transition in the 3d World. Once these policies are well underway, these regions could unite to put huge trade pressure on China, so that they will be economically required to follow suit as rapidly as they humanly can

[Adrahil]

12. "A few years". That's not technically possible.

I agree that we need a major government effort. We cannot wait for markets. But I don't think most people understand the scope of the transition.

[cloudythescribbler]

21. how much can be accomplished in 'a few years' is indeed a technical question ...

I know that the mainstream of 'smart money' opinion says exactly what you say -- but then again they were wrong about nuclear energy, wrong about fracking, wrong about the Persian Gulf War syndrome and so much else. I think that, as in the case in WWII, what was possible to accomplish given not merely a "major government effort" but an all-out commitment is something that will emerge, as then, when the commitment is pursued wholly, recognizing the emergency as we did in the case in WWII

Obviously, after Pearl Harbor (before then the country was deeply divided), the country was united at all levels behind an all-out effort, but that is a POLITICAL parameter, not a technology one. How fast can a truly smart-grid be built, along with adequate wind and solar, if the elite acted as if THEIR lives, and not others they might not consider so important, depended on it? That is not an easy question to answer ahead of time

[stevenleser]

33. Yep, pretty much where I am.

I'm just hoping whatever we need to do to get us by between now and when renewables and new energy sources like fusion comes fully online doesn't damage the environment too much.

[PufPuf23]

4. Against - Exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law

Fracking would be non-existent or extremely rare if the fracking industry did not have specific exemptions from environmental laws.

------------------------------------------------------

There are many exemptions for hydraulic fracturing under United States federal law: the oil and gas industries are exempt or excluded from certain sections of a number of the major federal environmental laws. These laws range from protecting clean water and air, to preventing the release of toxic substances and chemicals into the environment: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.

Contents
1 Hydraulic fracturing: background
2 Clean Water Act
3 Safe Drinking Water Act
4 National Environmental Policy Act
5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
6 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
7 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund)
8 Debates Surrounding Regulatory Exemptions

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a process used to extract oil and natural gas. The process to extract oil and natural gas begins with thousands of gallons of water, mixed with a slurry of chemicals, some of which are undisclosed. This liquid mixture is then forced into well casings under high pressure, and then is horizontally injected into bedrock to create cracks or fissures. The forced change in geologic structure allows gas molecules to escape, therefore allowing the natural gas to be harvested.

Hydraulic fracturing has changed the energy scene as a result of many technological advances. Fracking uses both historically-known vertical and horizontal drilling techniques which are used in tandem to extract oil and gas. This process can occur at depths over 10,000 feet deep.

The primary product of hydraulic fracturing is natural gas which consists mostly of methane.


see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemptions_for_hydraulic_fracturing_under_United_States_federal_law

[cloudythescribbler]

11. these exemptions (like those of Price/Anderson for nuclear) are obscene

[rhett o rick]

5. Those that support it are afraid to admit it. nm

[jillan]

8. 189 views and 28 votes. Yep, I believe you are correct.

[MohRokTah]

6. I voted "For it"

I believe it should be heavily regulated and the materials used in the fracking formulas should be open to the public.

Since you offered a simplistic poll, I had no other choice but to vote "for it".

[jillan]

9. Simplistic poll for a simple answer. Just getting a feel.

[PufPuf23]

13. The problem is that fracking cannot be regulated to the degree that

cumulative impacts in general and immediate impacts to air and water standards in particular cannot be met using the fracking technology and proprietary fracking fluids.

Why don't you try to discourse to show some level of understanding to support your "for it" opinion?

[rhett o rick]

19. But of course.

[pottedplant]

27. Earthquakes

Can't be regulated.

[randome]

14. What should a President do if the GOP agreed to fund alternative energy if fracking could continue?

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. ummmm....how would we procreate?

[KittyWampus]

17. Ideally I am against it. Realistically, I recognize it's unavoidable.

and therefore should be more highly regulated and it's effects mitigated to a much greater extent.

DU'ers who flatly reject fracking need to log off of their computers and work on using much less energy.

[Hoyt]

32. +1. Unfortunately, such reasoned answers aren't acceptable nowadays. Question to me --Is natural gas

better than coal, oil, nuclear until renewable energy can take over the slack (recognizing we could move faster toward that goal)? I think it is. Clearly, fracking needs to be much better regulated and the transition helped along.

[Red Mountain]

18. It's insane

Distributed production.....lax rules.....little accountability. Shell companies.

It's the classic 'Privatize profits' and "Socialize costs'.

Fuck that noise.

[TheFarseer]

20. Kind of indifferent

I can see it is bad for the environment, but drilling for oil in general is and we need oil. No one is more for alternative energy than me btw.

[BlueCheese]

22. This isn't a yes or no question.

It's a complicated issue. Do you mean fracking as a bridge from coal to renewables, while allowing local jurisdictions to opt out, and under strong environmental regulation? Sure-- it beats a lot of alternatives.

I may as well ask if you're for or against gasoline, or electricity.

[joshcryer]

23. Against. But understand why it's being used.

All new natural gas production and much new oil production comes from fracking. Natural gas is used as peaking power for intermittent wind. It's sadly in a sick marriage with renwable energy. That will change as electric cars start getting built.

[Sunlei]

24. I am other, against it until Congress gets off their ass and passes the REGULATIONS for fracking.

IMO, fracking has compressed the shale and soils, ruined the permeability of land to replenish the water table.

The compressed fracked-out lands have increased flood runoff. The compressed lands trees die off from lack of water, and we have increased wildfires. Fracking ruins the land, the land dies from the compression, and the industry may as well pave the entire acres they compressed with concrete.

[John Poet]

25. Fracking sounds like a good way to contaminate ground water with---

we're not even told what:

"The process to extract oil and natural gas begins with thousands of gallons of water, mixed with a slurry of chemicals, some of which are undisclosed."


Can't say I'm comfortable with that...

[doc03]

26. It is the only thing keeping this area out of a full blown depression since we

lost all our steel jobs and most coal jobs. The gas companies ran a major pipeline near me last summer, today a stranger wouldn't even
know it was there. They built a compressor station about a mile from here last summer, today the land has been restored better than it was and they even put new trees in. The plant looks like a park.

[Sancho]

28. It's a bad question - and not realistic...

You should say that the US can go back to horse-and-buggy days or...

1.) transition to new energy sources with fracking (NG)
2.) transition to new energy sources with coal
3.) transition to new energy sources with oil
4.) transition to new energy sources with nuclear

Which of these are you for or against compared to the options?

???

Which of the above is possible starting today? Which of the above do the least "damage" to the world? Which of the above can be improved so they aren't so bad? Which of the above balance energy change with less loss of jobs? Which of the above gain international cooperation?

Assuming that there is some legal way to force the energy industry to do government's bidding...at this point I think that energy and economic plans to make the move to different energy sources are already underway. How can we encourage the process without turning out the lights?