Skip to comments.Harry Reid pulls a fast one to sabotage shale gas development
Posted on 08/03/2010 9:14:32 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Shale Gas has the potential to bring manifold benefits to Americans: cheap and plentiful, relatively green and clean burning, located in vast swaths underneath our feet (and not offshore or in foreign lands filled with people happy to take our money but who also hate us and who can who can turn the spigot off at will).
All good reasons in Majority Leader Harry Reid's mind to sabotage our tapping of this vast reserve of energy:
The fight over the Senate offshore drilling "spill bill" shifted Wednesday from the Gulf of Mexico to the mountains of western Pennsylvania, as Republicans slammed the last-minute inclusion of language to regulate a controversial technique to extract onshore natural gas.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added the language last night requiring natural gas drillers to disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground as part of the hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking, process.
Republicans are wary of the addition, which comes on page 404 of the 409-page spill response bill Reid wants the Senate to take up before the recess. GOP objections to any portion of the larger bill could stall its progress, since it appears likely that Reid will not allow any amendments to be offered.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the new requirements could effectively end onshore natural gas production. He noted that some states already have hydro-fracking safety and disclosure regulations, but that taking the requirements national would freeze the industry.
Why does Reid have to pull these un-democratic stunts? Because he can? Because powerful Democratic donors (including the Democratic party Sugar Daddy George Soros) wants to kill off carbon and spend tens of billions of dollars on green schemes that reward their "clean" energy ventures . These ventures only "work" (i.e., become profitable for their investors) when carbon energy becomes very expensive (hence cap and tax); or when billions in taxpayer dollar subsidies are funneled to them; or when government-ordered mandates require utilities, companies and consumers to buy "renewable" energy. And when powerful Democrats pull fast ones behind closed doors to sabotage the tapping of a treasure our nation has been blessed to have in abundance.
A primer on the benefits of shale gas appeared in the Washington Post ("Shale Gas: Hope for our energy future").
A quote from the column:
Until recently, scarce U.S. natural gas reserves suggested increasing dependence on expensive foreign supplies of liquefied natural gas. No more. Also, natural gas emits about 50 percent less carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- than coal. Substituting gas for coal in electricity plants could temper emissions. Finally, shale gas in Europe and Asia has huge geopolitical implications. It could reduce dependence on Russian natural gas and frustrate any gas cartel mimicking OPEC.
How much shale gas exists is unknown, but estimates are huge. The Potential Gas Committee is a group of geologists who regularly estimate future U.S. gas supplies. In 2000, the group's estimate equaled about 54 years of present annual consumption; by 2008, it was almost 90 years. "This isn't the end," says Colorado School of Mines geologist John Curtis. Globally, one study estimated the recoverable supply at 16,200 trillion cubic feet, more than 150 times today's annual world gas use).
I have written about the Democratic blueprint to derail the tapping of these reserves and here .
The amount of shale gas we have is nothing compared to shale oil and coal (which could be converted to oil).
We have enough resources in the country to be self sufficient for an extremely long time.
Yet another reason to dump Dingy Harry. Support Sharron Angle today please! Just $5 or $10 bucks will help.
This guy is dangerous. There’s no doubt about that.
How appropriate that on page 404 is the nascent industry potentially killed. Page lost - industry lost.
This guy is an enemy of the country and must be defeated.
Down with Harry!!!
Hope Sharron Angle pounces on this.
I don't see the problem here. Considering this stuff is poisoning water supplies and contaminating live stock, why shouldn't we know what they are doing?
Another Freeper apparently has swallowed the left-wing Kool-Aid on fracking.
Well, I don't understand either. Is it because the chemicals are trade secrets or something?
After decades of this processes being used, it has never been proved to contaminate water supplies in the actual operation.
Yes, there has been surface spills, just like we get spills of gasoline, pesticides, fertilizers and even milk. Do we stop using all those as well?
This guy is an enemy of the country and must be defeated.
Hear! Hear! He is truly an enemy.
I’m all for drilling, but can anyone tell my why it’s so bad to know what chemicals are used in the Fracking process? I’m a Pennsylvanian who lives with the potential of contaminated ground water and reservoirs. I want to know what chemicals are use, and have the potential to harm my quality of life. Is that asking too much? After all big business has such a sparkling record of telling the truth when it comes to profit vs. the public good.(sarc off) It’s easy to disparage Mr. Reid for his actions, and believe me I don’t really care for him, but in this instance, with so much on the line for hundreds of thousands that could be affected, what’s the problem? If you don’t live in these areas and won’t be affected, I guess it’s not a problem for you.
The onshore oil and gas business has been slapped around a little by the Feds so far, by pulling leases and closing aread under development to drilling, but the vast majority of those regions are held privately, and the Feds can only shut down areas of relative prosperity by imposing blanket regulations on an industry which deals with huge variations in local geology. That can only hurt oil and gas development, development generally done safely, with a minimum of environmental disturbance.
That will leave one 'growth' sector in the US--government.
So I guess you are saying you want the fedgov to tell you this. If you really wanted to know you could. You just don't want to know enough to find out for yourself it appears.
This is not being done in the name of protecting resources. This is being done to hamstring the most promising energy development in this country in decades.
Fracking has been done for decades with no reports of groundwater contamination. The chemicals are already known and publishhes, as Thackney has pointed out. The only real concern with fracking is that the leftover fluids get disposed of properly, but Reid's amendment does NOTHING to address that (and it should be a state issue anyway, like much of regulating oil and gas exploration and development).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.