Oh, Frack!

18 Replies to “Oh, Frack!”

1. With the price of gasoline projected to go back to US$4/gallon in the summer, I’m expecting our moral and intellectual superiors to soon find a solid reason to have a change of heart on this issue.

2. This shows once again that the United States of America is the most corrupt country in the world – morally, intellectually, spiritually.
   Poor Haiti doesn’t have a chance in this competition.

3. The opposition to fracking is part of the anti progress ideology of taking us back to living in caves, eating grass and getting rid of six billion people, one way o anther.

4. As noted in an earlier post, the anti-science left has done a 180 degree turn on GMOs. So it is not out of the realm of possibility that they can be convinced that fracking 1)is not harmful to the environment 2)is an excellent employer for blue collar workers 3)reduces energy costs which helps the poor the most 4)produces less CO2 than coal 5)does not need subsidies so it will not compete for funds with their other social justice endeavors.
   Progressives move as a herd so if their leaders move in the pro-fracking direction then they all will. In fact, they’ll probably claim they were never against it at all. Which is partially correct since progressives were not against natgas until its low cost began out-competing wind and solar.

5. Ken(Kulak)…..”The opposition to fracking is part of the anti progress ideology of taking us back to living in caves, eating grass and getting rid of six billion people, one way o anther.”
   One word….BINGO.

6. The mask is more or less off, at this point, but then, it always was for anyone who looked closely at the American Left and took them seriously. All negotiations with them are in bad faith, the mechanism of government used by them, when available, to ruthlessly enforce rule by one culture over another. 90% of the permanent government bureaucracy, at all levels, make up an eternal undying apparat belonging solely to the Democratic party, so it’s pretty much always available to them these days. This is bad because so much lawmaking authority, in the form of writing and enforcing regulations, is ceded to agencies of the government by legislatures. The Affair Of The Purloined Report illustrates this quite handily, I think.

7. In my entire career I have never treated nor heard of anyone being treated for any illness or injury beyond those typically associated with the operation of any drilling rig arising from fracking even though it has been going on in Alberta for decades. Do I just lead a charmed existence?

8. With the price of gasoline projected to go back to US$4/gallon in the summer, I’m expecting our moral and intellectual superiors to soon find a solid reason to have a change of heart on this issue.
   You are far more optimistic than I am. Obama himself said that low gas prices (you know, like the $2/under we saw when he took office) are the sign of a *bad* economy. Besides, high gas prices = people driving less. Which is good for Gaia.
   Never mind high gas prices also mean increased food, heating/cooling, and other costs.
   The entire goal of the Obama administration is to break as much of the middle class as possible. To push all those people who are living just on the edge of poverty into poverty (and, therefore, government dependence) and to lower the standard of living for the rest of the middle class.
   Obama, despite all the protestations of the left, is a socialist. Show me a socialist country with as big and thriving a middle class as America had. Most times, it’s two classes: people scraping by and politicos and other “elite” who still have the wealth.
   If gas prices go back up over $4 (I shouldn’t say “if” but “when”), the blame will be on “big oil” and “greedy corporations” and there will be a push to nationalize the oil/gas industry in much the same way they “bailed out” (nationalized) GM.
   Then don’t even get me started on the eco-nuts. They will oppose any form of energy that makes life better for humans. Gas, coal, oil, wind, solar, water…all if it has gotten poo-pooed by environmentalists because it harms animals or blocks the Kennedys’ view of the ocean, or something. They loathe human innovation and human beings (except themselves, naturally) and would block any attempt at fracking in courts for DECADES.
   Fracking — a source of affordable, clean energy — that could create thousands of jobs, lots of $ in exports, and help a limping economy will NEVER happen while Obama is in the White House.
   He did, after all, say energy prices would “skyrocket” if he got his way.
   It would not surprise me one bit if we saw $9-$10 (or higher)/gallon gas before he leaves office in 2017.

9. But wouldn’t a government report telling us fracking isn’t evil ruin Hollywood box office revenues for the latest leftoid eco-cine-flick, not to mention that itsy bitsy election thing?

10. >@ Kate…because that harms their political agenda.
    That says all you need to know (if you are not a leftard).

11. I wonder how well the New York report translates into french. France needs shale gas too. Mon Dieu!

12. As long as Steven Chu is Obama’s energy minister, natural resources will be deemed as evil. Chu belongs to the Al Gore glee club and is a firm believer in Global warming which once again proves that Nobel prize winners can be dumb as a stick. He spoke of his admiration of Europe in keeping the price of gasoline at $8. a gallon to deter evil motorists ( he pedals to work) and is a cheerleader for Windmills (think McGuinty) with the same dismal record Ontario enjoys. It’s not his money and he is in charge, so billions more will be wasted before he shrugs and tells us how he did his best. Big fan of cap and trade. Never met a tree that wasn’t worth hugging and he will not be satisfied until the entire resource driven economy is destroyed.
    Just like McGuinty: http://www.bluelikeyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mcguinty_work_done.jpg
    I guess you could say Chu is as competent as the rest of Obama’s circle of losers but at least he’s admired in California which has the same mindset. What Chu has done for california he wants to do for the whole country. Gawd but that’s depressing.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0315-goldberg-20120315,0,1555556.column

13. peterj, just as Ken (kulak) pointed out the current US administration has an agenda which is totally anti-development and determined to return the US to some idyllic pastoral existence than never existed.
    The last person one wants as energy secretary is a Nobel prize winner, even in the physical sciences. To me, a Nobel prize in a particular sub sub sub specialty means that the person who won the Nobel may well be highly competent in that one little area but likely knows SFA about anything else. The person one needs in the position of energy secretary is someone who’s had experience in the real world, not just in the virtual reality of academia.
    Academics are under the delusion that because they’re experts in one tiny area they are automatically experts in everything else. Yes, they can have high IQ’s, but their IQ doesn’t even come close to matching the combined intelligence of the population that works in the energy industry. The person one needs is someone whose had to test their theories against reality. Reality is a very unforgiving opponent and the person one needs for energy secretary is an engineer who’s actually had some interactions with the real world.
    I hate to admit that at one time my goal was to become an academic (albeit a pharmacology researcher), but over the last couple of decades I’ve come to the conclusion that if the class of “intellectuals” disappeared from the world we’d be much better off immediately. Never thought I’d agree with any of the Khmer Rouge policies, but it seems they did have some valid points of view.

14. Of course as soon as I hit “submit” a counterexample occurred to me. The one Nobel prize winner that seemed to be in touch with the real world was Richard Feynman and I suspect he would have done well wherever he ended up. His type is very rare.

15. The issue here is WGY is there an anti-fracking agenda in officialdom? I can only concieve of two reasons based on my long term observation of “officialdom”.
    A)They are in the pockets of large interests who could be damaged by the new abundant (cheap) nat gas energy fracking makes available
    OR
    B) They are members of an anti western/anti-US cabal orchestrating the devastation of the US economy and energy self sufficiency in order to make it reliant/subservient to foreign economic powers.
    In either eventuality (and we discount the useful idiot rent-an-activist here) those in OFFICIAL (administrative) capacity who would restrain any revitalization of the US energy sector/economy are engaged in traitorous actions. But that seems nothing new in the Whitehouse/congress of late. They gutted the constitution with executive orders and unconstitutional legislating for the past 25 years.

16. 4)produces less CO2 than coal
    Agreed with your post except for the fourth point. Lesser CO2 emission is not a benefit. Carbon dioxide is a natural fertilizer with no known side effects. Increased CO2 emissions are a positive externality.

17. I agree and that’s the kind of man we are missing today. Although he died more than 20 years ago I just want to thank you for bringing back some memories long buried. I believe he would throw his Nobel prize in the garbage if he could see how low the standard for receiving said award has sunk.

18. Great article.