# I almost signed this petition



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

The only thing I can find is 

U.S. Navy Sound System Kills Whales and Dolphins. Act Now to Stop the Killing! | Passport Magazine News

But that's not a credible source..... will keep digging.

EDIT: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO12...1800-whales-and-dolphins-and-deafen-15900.htm

But not credible still..

EDIT:
http://www.globalanimal.org/2012/07/06/save-marine-animals-from-sonar-harm-petition/77777/

VERY biased source.. but a little more credible.

~~~~~~~

The only thing I'm turning up is very biased and NO credible websites (in my search anyway) and google scholar has nothing about it either.

I'd be leery as they ask for personal information.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Skyseternalangel said:


> The only thing I can find is
> 
> U.S. Navy Sound System Kills Whales and Dolphins. Act Now to Stop the Killing! | Passport Magazine News
> 
> ...


Yeah, that is all I could find, too...articles referencing the petition's claims. It just isn't something one should "fib" about....its beyond "crossing the line".


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Yeah nothing from the government, it says the author of the petition but nothing about the sources or the research or the EIS as you already said...

Huh :/ I wouldn't trust it.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Well, the enhanced sonar has been shown to cause problems with cetaceans. While I wouldn't expect you to put much credibility in a "green" organization, maybe National Geographic may give you pause....

U.S. Navy Sonar May Harm Killer Whales, Expert Says

As a scuba diver and a person greatly concerned with marine environments, I am very concerned with this issue.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Allison Finch said:


> Well, the enhanced sonar has been shown to cause problems with cetaceans. While I wouldn't expect you to put much credibility in a "green" organization, maybe National Geographic may give you pause....
> 
> U.S. Navy Sonar May Harm Killer Whales, Expert Says
> 
> As a scuba diver and a person greatly concerned with marine environments, I am very concerned with this issue.


Thanks Allison! That's a very credible source


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Well, the enhanced sonar has been shown to cause problems with cetaceans. While I wouldn't expect you to put much credibility in a "green" organization, maybe National Geographic may give you pause....
> 
> U.S. Navy Sonar May Harm Killer Whales, Expert Says
> 
> As a scuba diver and a person greatly concerned with marine environments, I am very concerned with this issue.


While I respect National Geographic for many things they do and have done, National Geographic has been involved in some quite shady politics - particularly in the area of anti-Semitism, and certainly have a liberal bias. While they may have a more savory reputation than your typical .org groups, they are hardly unbiased, and have liberal leanings when it comes to wildlife. I am not condemning that - just saying they are no more credible than the other sources listed due to their bias...

..............................................
As to the subject matter, thanks for bringing it up - this is the first I have heard of this issue - I don't follow treehugger news very much, but need to look into this, as I certainly would oppose the operations if the environmental impact were as negative as presented. I'm not a "save the whales" wacko, but am a concerned rational environmentalist...


----------



## Breella (May 26, 2012)

It's a SCAM. My MIL sent me a link about it from one of the petition sites and I've had about three more emails autogenerated about my "immediate need to sign this petition now!"

It's a pishing scam.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> While I respect National Geographic for many things they do and have done, National Geographic has been involved in some quite shady politics - particularly in the area of anti-Semitism, and certainly have a liberal bias. While they may have a more savory reputation than your typical .org groups, they are hardly unbiased, and have liberal leanings when it comes to wildlife. I am not condemning that - just saying they are no more credible than the other sources listed due to their bias...
> 
> ..............................................
> As to the subject matter, thanks for bringing it up - this is the first I have heard of this issue - I don't follow treehugger news very much, but need to look into this, as I certainly would oppose the operations if the environmental impact were as negative as presented. I'm not a "save the whales" wacko, but am a concerned rational environmentalist...


This seems a rather condescending response, especially the second part. 
(Not saying you purposely meant it that way, but that is how it reads.)

The need to comment on your opinion of the credibility of NG is at least vaguely related, but the wacko part and being a “rational environmentalist” (direct quote) just seems so out of left field.

Would your response have been the same if a new member, or say someone known to be a strong conservative chose to respond about being a scuba diver and had concerns about whales? :?
Just saying….


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Lockwood said:


> This seems a rather condescending response, especially the second part.
> (Not saying you purposely meant it that way, but that is how it reads.)
> 
> The need to comment on your opinion of the credibility of NG is at least vaguely related, but the wacko part and being a “rational environmentalist” (direct quote) just seems so out of left field.
> ...


Not condescending at all - I would make the same post regardless of who I was replying to. The post I quoted intimated that National Geographic was a credible, non-biased organization. That is not true...they are credible, but they are also biased. Whether the statement was made by a conservative or liberal is irrelevant. If you don't believe me, ask the OP, who is a conservative with whom I agree most of the time, but with whom I have also disagreed with on occasion.

As to the second part, I am not sure what you are pointing out. I have been an environmentalist all my life, but make a distinction between being a rational environmentalist and being a wacko irrational one. There is a major difference between the two...one is science based and the other is irrational emotion based, and I would not want to be grouped with the latter. If you have a problem with that, so be it...there is nothing wrong or codescending about saying thanks for posting the alert, I am interested in such things, and will check it out...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> Not condescending at all - I would make the same post regardless of who I was replying to. The post I quoted intimated that National Geographic was a credible, non-biased organization.
> *We obviously read things differently. Allison's post didn't intimate that to me at all. Just that maybe their article might give pause.*
> 
> That is not true...they are credible, but they are also biased. Whether the statement was made by a conservative or liberal is irrelevant. If you don't believe me, ask the OP, who is a conservative with whom I agree most of the time, but with whom I have also disagreed with on occasion.
> ...


My comment is in bold above.

Your opinion of NG is fine with me. Everyone has a right to their own opinions.

You wrote: “I don't follow treehugger news very much, but need to look into this, as I certainly would oppose the operations if the environmental impact were as negative as presented. I'm not a "save the whales" wacko, but am a concerned rational environmentalist…”

This is the what I was referring to in my comment about the second part.
My bad I guess. 
Overall, the need to label people, things, or organizations overtly draws attention to that fact, and reads condescending sometimes to those of us who don‘t feel the need to use labels. 
Most of us are aware of what the labels mean and you can rest assured, you would never be mistaken for an emotional irrational environmentalist. :wink:

I wasn’t commenting about your saying thanks for the info, nor did I mean to imply that it was wrong or condescending to say thanks for the info. I’m a tad bit smarter than that.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


> Well, the enhanced sonar has been shown to cause problems with cetaceans. *While I wouldn't expect you to put much credibility in a "green" organization,* maybe National Geographic may give you pause....
> 
> U.S. Navy Sonar May Harm Killer Whales, Expert Says
> 
> As a scuba diver and a person greatly concerned with marine environments, I am very concerned with this issue.


I find this comment _extremely offensive_ and an unwarrented, uncalled for _personal_ attack - which is clearly something a moderator can do w impunity if their integrity allows. I do a _lot_ of work on environmental issues b/c it is extremely important to me. I don't just mindlessly wave a sign to ease my conscience. I don't take a single article's word for anything - useful idiots are _toxic_ to the environment. Finding, reading, and researching available scientific studies and data and applicable regulation for any given activity that might adversely affect the environment takes a bit more effort and brain power than I expect you would be willing or able to do...free of charge.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

I'm of the opinion we're all concerned about the environment. My problem is the same as faceman's. There just so much spin put on it.

I to find NG as having a left leaning tilt.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

gunslinger said:


> I'm of the opinion we're all concerned about the environment. My problem is the same as faceman's. There just so much spin put on it.
> 
> I to find NG as having a left leaning tilt.


This, unfortunately for the environement, seems to be true of a lot of organizations. I was a member of the WWF for years and years, always donated, etc.,. It was once an _outstanding_ organization, imo. I was proud to be a member. Then, I don't know what happened, but it left its "neutral territory" and took on a "political slant". Their entire existance was originally heavily based on being completely neutral on political matters. I suspect, in part, it was their success that "got to them". 

As far as NG goes, imo, they pander to the same sort of people that take articles in Reader's Digest as the gospel. Most people do not look up and investigate the statements they represent as fact - much less question them.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

Allison Finch said:


> Well, the enhanced sonar has been shown to cause problems with cetaceans. While I wouldn't expect you to put much credibility in a "green" organization, maybe National Geographic may give you pause....
> 
> U.S. Navy Sonar May Harm Killer Whales, Expert Says
> 
> As a scuba diver and a person greatly concerned with marine environments, I am very concerned with this issue.


That article is dated March 31, 2004…

Here's another article and info on the "protest"...

Navy Admits Whales and Dolphins in Harm's Way : Discovery News

"NRDC is not arguing that the Navy should not be able to deploy active sonar; it is, however, urging the identification of areas of high cetacean density where its use should be prohibited or severely curtailed. Some, however, are going further; MoveOn member Lyndia Storey has started an online petition to end the testing, which at the time of this writing had secured over 230,000 signatures and climbing.*"


and here is Lyndia's blog spot

MoveOn.Org Info

Personally, I don't trust anything written by anyone from MoveOn because of extreme bias. But that's just me...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Lockwood said:


> My comment is in bold above.
> 
> Your opinion of NG is fine with me. Everyone has a right to their own opinions.
> 
> ...


Not your bad at all. I don't pretend to be able to word things perfectly so that everyone understands my message. The main thing I was trying to get across was NG is no more unbiased than anyone else, and they can fully be expected to fall to the left of center on environmental issues - and every other issue for that matter...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Horse Poor said:


> Personally, I don't trust anything written by anyone from MoveOn because of extreme bias. But that's just me...


No, it's not just you. They are what they are - a radical left wing group...


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Good catch, Horse Poor.. I completely didn't think about checking the date :/



Breella said:


> It's a SCAM. My MIL sent me a link about it from one of the petition sites and I've had about three more emails autogenerated about my "immediate need to sign this petition now!"
> 
> It's a pishing scam.


That's the vibe I was getting.

I find it so troublesome to evaluate what can be taken seriously and what is just another way to gather information


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, I am waiting for clarification on forum rules concerning uncivil personal attacks with emphasis on “unprovoked”, Alison. Is it just you, or are all moderators “allowed” this “privilege”? On what basis, exactly, can you, or all moderators, discriminate? Is it gender, color, race, perceived political affiliation or religion? What?


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Breella said:


> It's a SCAM. My MIL sent me a link about it from one of the petition sites and I've had about three more emails autogenerated about my "immediate need to sign this petition now!"
> 
> It's a pishing scam.


IF this is a scam for real then we need to put in bold Black letter saying this is a scam above the OP link. So we protect some of the mirrors here.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Mirrors?


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Missy May said:


> Mirrors?


I had a few to drink + tired day which doesn't mixs. I ment Minors


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman it is logical that enviromental groups are more liberal and support liberal parties.
With some far right groups that denounce and disregard sceintific evidence about the enviroment this is natural.
Also a lot of business contribute to conservative causes to advance their agenda. Exxon Mobil is a good example.
Enviromental issues should be non partisian but they are not.
They affect us all. Shalom


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

Call me heartless, but I couldn't careless about the hearing of some danged ole whales....then again, I'm a future sailor! I'm all gungho Navy!


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

northwesten said:


> I had a few to drink + tired day which doesn't mixs. I ment Minors


Actually, I thought mirrors was more appropriate - meaning those that just mirror what they see or hear, and I thought that's what you meant...:wink:


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman it is logical that enviromental groups are more liberal and support liberal parties.
> With some far right groups that denounce and disregard sceintific evidence about the enviroment this is natural.
> Also a lot of business contribute to conservative causes to advance their agenda. Exxon Mobil is a good example.
> Enviromental issues should be non partisian but they are not.
> They affect us all. Shalom


Far right, yes. Right, no. Mainline conservatives are just as concerned abut the environment as liberals. Don't forget Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative Republican.

I disagree that environmental issues are not bipartisan. Just because all the environmental wackos are liberals doesn't mean conservatives/Republicans are not environmentalists. We just are realistic and rational about it, and don't do stupid stuff and make ourselves look like idiots by living in an owl tree for a month or chaining ourselves to a tree or lamenting about how cruel it is to catch a fish or eat a chicken...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

For your information Faceman, I do NOT go camping and would never live in a tree for a month.
My people spent 40 years in the wilderness and I for one am not going back. LOL
I do know that most conservatives are logical about the enviroment.
However the Republican Party especially here in Texas has sold its soul to Oil companies and Big Business that finance a lot of candidates.
These companies pay big bucks to operate with little oversight or impunity. Shalom


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Missy May said:


> I find this comment _extremely offensive_ and an unwarrented, uncalled for _personal_ attack - which is clearly something a moderator can do w impunity if their integrity allows. I do a _lot_ of work on environmental issues b/c it is extremely important to me. I don't just mindlessly wave a sign to ease my conscience. I don't take a single article's word for anything - useful idiots are _toxic_ to the environment. Finding, reading, and researching available scientific studies and data and applicable regulation for any given activity that might adversely affect the environment takes a bit more effort and brain power than I expect you would be willing or able to do...free of charge.


 
Calm down, Missy. I only meant that many people, myself included, tend to distrust the PETA type organizations. If I were to read a response that only quoted Faceman's "wacko" organizations, I would also groan. Don't be so quick to feel that I am on the attack, for Pete's sake.

I have been a diver since 1970 and have, personally, watched a huge change in different marine environments and all for the worse. I don't just whine about it, I photograph it and give my photos to the Marine Photo Bank for anyone to use for free. I have had several used in different conservation publications. I am passionate about this. 

Face, would you only read, without question, an article about this written by an overtly conservative source? Or would you feel the need to give a warning there too?

Even the US, Navy won't deny it. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/20/us-usa-navy-whales-idUSN2037427220070320


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> For your information Faceman, I do NOT go camping and would never live in a tree for a month.
> My people spent 40 years in the wilderness and I for one am not going back. LOL
> I do know that most conservatives are logical about the enviroment.
> However the Republican Party especially here in Texas has sold its soul to Oil companies and Big Business that finance a lot of candidates.
> These companies pay big bucks to operate with little oversight or impunity. Shalom


Have you worked for an oil company? I have...oil and gas exploration was my first career. As with most of the general population, you are clueless to the hoops oil companies have to jump through. I don't mean that to be critical - just fact...no different than me being clueless to the psychiatry profession. While working for Exxon Production Research Company, which is based out of Midland, I had to rebuild sand dunes on the King Ranch near Kingsville to repair slight dune damage due to running big vibrators across them, had to build tanks (Texans know what tanks are), and roads on West Texas ranches we explored on, constantly washed underneath our trucks to prevent the spread off toxic weeds,k reseeded pipelines and areas that might have been damaged - it goes on and on and on, and we did those things as a part of the cost of doing business - not because the government forced us to.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying oil companies don't screw up environmentally - a drive through the Permian Basin in Midland/Odessa will show that in spades. But that was many years ago. What I am saying is the oil companies do more for the environment than most people know - just because you only hear the rantings of the radical left wing bunny lickers, and politicians with agendas that cater to the bunny lickers doesn't mean there is not more to the story.

I'm pretty objective toward the oil companies and am at the front of the line criticizing them when it is deserved. If you go back 4 or 5 years and research the other horse forum you are on you will find me very outspoken against the oil companies when they were blatantly price gouging. But the flipside is they also take a bum wrap from those that are clueless as to the billions of dollars they have spent on the environment. To say they operate with little oversight and impunity is really ignorant, and you know I mean that in a friendly way, but it is ignorant nonetheless. They are extremely highly regulated, and hardly operate with impunity...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Face, would you only read, without question, an article about this written by an overtly conservative source? Or would you feel the need to give a warning there too?
> 
> Even the US, Navy won't deny it.
> 
> US Navy asserts state secrets in sonar case | Reuters


I read the article, but it offers no information other than the Bush Administration had refused to release logistical information on the basis of national security implications. In all fairness I am not in a position to know if their claim was valid or not, so am clueless as to whether the refusal to release information was a ploy/coverup/whatever, or was valid. While I am, and have been for many years, plugged into both the House and Senate on some issues, I am not privvy to matters of national defense. But I am savvy enough to know there are some things that should not be released. So I just don't know. As I said earlier, I will have to find some time to investigate this issue - I am pretty ignorant about the whole issue to be frank. Let me ask this, though - what has the Obama Administration done to resolve any of this? The article was back in 2007, and Obama has been in power and in control of the military for over 3 years now. I'm not being snide - just asking...


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

True, this is all very old news. I have been aware of it for a very long time. To be truthful, I am not sure what CAN be done other than to demand that the tests be in areas of low cetacean population. I would be the last to say this technology, which serves to protect this country, should be scrapped. I would like for the tests to be as minimal as possible in specific areas, such as the known "dead zones".

As for Obama. Well, he inherited a global catastophe, of sorts. I would suspect that there were far more important matters to attend to. As said, this situation has filtered to lower strata in the popular press. This doesn't really need to digress into an anti-anybody thread, does it?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, I and my family own land that generates income fro m Oil and gas leases. 
I get a lot of information about lobbying efforts to ease federal and state regualtions.
Yes oil companies do some great enviromental work.
However they are trying to influence a lot of research about global warming and their own impact on the enviroment.
I do not doubt that you know far more than I on this subject.
I also know that the King Ranch can influence a lot of things in the state of Texas.
You are right about the Permian Basin .
My concern lately has been for the earthquakes we are experiencing here west and north of Ft Worh.
It is supected that they occur due to Fracking.
The energy industry denies any responsibility though. Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> Just because all the environmental wackos are liberals doesn't mean conservatives/Republicans are not environmentalists. We just are realistic and rational about it, and don't do stupid stuff and make ourselves look like idiots by living in an owl tree for a month or chaining ourselves to a tree or lamenting about how cruel it is to catch a fish or eat a chicken...


*Head/desk*
Are there no shades of grey in between your black and white labels?


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> You are right about the Permian Basin .
> My concern lately has been for the earthquakes we are experiencing here west and north of Ft Worh.
> It is supected that they occur due to Fracking.
> The energy industry denies any responsibility though. Shalom


(This is not directed at you DB, just grabbing a point of yours)

Similar thing is happening here. While I don’t have the info right in front of me at the moment for exact details, the jist is…
There have been a series of earthquakes, a dozen I think, not 20 miles from where I live (I’ve felt them) that have been happening since some wells were put it.
Scientist theorized the earthquakes were from fracking activity/fracking disposal and that particular well operation was halted pending further investigation.
Oh boy did the gas companies have a hissy fit about that. They denied it up and down and every way to Sunday. Said no way it could ever happen, fracking is completely safe, blah blah blah, and the scientists were a bunch of “Save the Earth wackos.”
Tests and studies proved the scientists were right. 
Uh huh, not a peep out of that gas company now. It is so typical (at least in my area) that all people or companies see is the money with no regards to the impact on the environment what so ever.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Lockwood you are so correct.
People will overlook things until they can no longer ignore the evidence if they are making money while looking the other way.
Our friend Faceman is not some rigidly rabid conservative.
He may come across as such sometimes but he is logical and IMO listens to the opinions of others.
He may think most of mine are stupid and totally in left field but in my communications with him he has proven he does read and understand the views of others.
I am not defending him. He doesn't need it.
What I am saying is he is familiar with the gray areas.
He may have some colorful descriptions of liberals but he has been as harsh about conservatives. Not as often of course. He may have to switch sides if he was. 
I also suspect that the wacko and commie are also said with a sense of humour and endearment. LOL Shalom


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

We have just lost the fracking fight in NC. They discovered HUGE reserves of shale gas in my area about five years ago. IMMEDIATELY the gas companies flooded the airwaves with ads talking about how clean natural gas is and how wonderful it will be for NC. The thing is, it was illegal to horizontally drill here (required in fracking process).

The newly conservative government in NC worked hard to overthrow the anti-fracking legislation without including any of the safeguards recommended by areas who have had bad results from fracking. The laws will eviscerate any municipality's efforts to protect their areas, also.

It was a result paid for by the millions spent lobbying here.

I am realistic enough to know that recovering this natural gas is needed. BUT, as always, it needs to be done carefully with every possible protection enacted. 

Face, I do not trust the gas companies. For every public relations driven effort to do environmental recovery, You can find horror stories. Yes, I am in favor of the costly regulations. Heck, I pay for them in the long run, I am happy to do it. But, the lobbyists are working so hard to override these protections...PROTECTIONS.

All you have to do is go to places like the Amazon Basin to see how these same companies behave when there are no regulations in place.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

The military, in general and overall, has been forced to spend millions upon millions on useless efforts to prevent/mitigate "theoretical" and "maybe possible" environemental impacts...money that could be/have been used _far_ more effectively on activities where serious attention to the environment is/was needed...if the environment were really what both the"squeeky wheels" and powers to be were concerned with.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman it is logical that enviromental groups are more liberal and support liberal parties.
> With some far right groups that denounce and disregard sceintific evidence about the enviroment this is natural.
> Also a lot of business contribute to conservative causes to advance their agenda. Exxon Mobil is a good example.
> Enviromental issues should be non partisian but they are not.
> They affect us all. Shalom


I am butting in here, db. Please forgive, but _what_? "..."it is logical that enviromental groups are more liberal and support liberal parties?"
Why? 
I think you might be confusing organized dangerous dupes w groups that are concerned with the environment. 
I do not trust the oil companies for one reason - the lack of new nuclear power plants in this country. It is the most environmentally friendly and viable nrg source there is. But, somehow an entire population is convinced it is deadly, and needless black blankets of death (aka oil spills) are better for the environment? And, who benefits most from that, ya think? Oil. Japan's recent earthquakes is a good example. Since environmental dupe groups of the world ensured there are no repositories to store spent fuel, spent fuel was on that sight - as it is on pretty much all sites except France and a few other civilized countries that reprocess it. But, note...the Harry Reids of the world and the environement groups that ensured spent fuel _was_ on site weren't thanked - no, instead _they_ blamed nuclear power! These are not groups that look for "liberals", they are groups that "liberals" create. And, environmentally friendly - they ain't.
So called "liberals", as far as I can tell, can take credit for nothing w respect to true measurable protection of the environment. 
Another sickening example was the oil gush off the gulf a few years back. I can't imagine that anyone missed the fact that environmental dupe groups did not attack Obama's handling of that situation, which exposed them for what they are - 100% political, bought and paid for. I am sure all the dead animals would have suffered less had they of known a nice settlement would be had - after they died.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> As for Obama. Well, he inherited a global catastophe, of sorts. I would suspect that there were far more important matters to attend to. As said, this situation has filtered to lower strata in the popular press. This doesn't really need to digress into an anti-anybody thread, does it?


No one is digressing it into anything. It is a perfectly logical question. You posted a 5 year old article. Since that time we have had a conservative President and Congress and a liberal President and Congress, and apparently nothing has changed. Apparently the issue is either of no substance to either party, or national security issues override a change in policy...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May it is those OIl companies ad the influence they buy that my post is about.
Just as there are enviromental groups that align themselves with the more liberal side of the democratic party energy companies and their interest align themselves with the republican party.
Especially those probusiness republicans that place the interest of business ahead of the enviroment or the health of the public.
Instead of looking at science and the longterm health of our planet the almighty dollar is placed above everything else.
The radical left also refuses to be logical about the need to explore all our opprotunities to find ways to feed and house our growing population,
Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Fracking is a real big issue IMO, and for the record I strongly oppose it. There is more than coincidental evidence that fracking can and does compromise aquifers and may induce minor movements of strata causing minor earthquakes. There certainly is no reason to suspect fracking would or could contribute to a meaningful earthquake, though.

On the earthquake issue, usally the small earthquakes are more induced by injection wells than by fracking. Sometimes, in the area of a very active shale play, an injection well will be drilled and the hazardous waste water from drilling operations is injected deep into the earth. That injection can cause multiple issues, one of them being to increase pressure and induce movements along small faults - earthquakes.

The danger of actual fracking is contamination of aquifers from which we take our drinking water. That is something that concerns me. I have been reasonably active with several Senators and Representatives trying to bring some common sense to the table from a professional Geophysicist, but have had very little success. The "enemy" in this issue is not so much the oil companies as much as it is the states themselves, which desparately need the revenue being generated, and turning a blind eye to the potentially serious environmental issues. It is very frustrating. My ranch in Arkansas is dead in the middle of the Fayetteville shale play, with fracking going on constantly. And there is an injection well about 20 miles from my ranch as the crow flies, around which have been scores and scores of the little "earthquakes". But the state considers the revenues crucial and will do nothing about it other than make a little noise once in a while to try to quiet the public down. I suspect if we can get back to good times economically, and states can return to their normal revenue levels without the additional gas revenues, that fracking might end up being history, given what we now know about the environmental rammifications. Hard to say - greed is hard to overcome...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May it is those OIl companies ad the influence they buy that my post is about.
> Just as there are enviromental groups that align themselves with the more liberal side of the democratic party energy companies and their interest align themselves with the republican party.
> Especially those probusiness republicans that place the interest of business ahead of the enviroment or the health of the public.
> Instead of looking at science and the longterm health of our planet the almighty dollar is placed above everything else.
> ...


The problem is db, people believe that pro-business is anti-environment, and only republicans are greedy and worry about money, hence, a democrat is your man if you care about the environment and don't like greedy politicians. I have no party, but it is this type of highly effective dogma that provides unbridle power and ability to destroy the environment - which democrats waste no time using. As far as I can tell, it is the radical left that is driving the uneffective and costly "exploration" for new nrg sources - which the democrats seem to all be on board with, not a "few". I do not disagree w research, but a 3rd grader could figure out that a viable nrg source for current demand is necessary in the mean time (decades), and solyndra didn't go ch-11 b/c they didn't like money. The current viable source that is utilized is fossil fuels, not nuclear - and you can't thank a republican for that.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> Lockwood you are so correct.
> People will overlook things until they can no longer ignore the evidence if they are making money while looking the other way.
> Our friend Faceman is not some rigidly rabid conservative.
> He may come across as such sometimes but he is logical and IMO listens to the opinions of others.
> ...


DB-
You are right. Face is not a rabid conservative, nor am I angry with him in any way.
I did not intend to imply that he was (or that I was angry) and he doesn‘t need anyone to defend him… he is a big boy and can do just fine on his own, I suspect. :wink:

I’ve been reading the forum for about 9 months now. When I first started reading, Face’s posts were enlightening, educational, and entertaining. Maybe it was because I wasn’t following any off topics at that time, but I truly enjoyed reading them.
It may not seem as if I have respect for him, but I have from the beginning. 
However, on some of the off topics lately- the political and social issues threads, I have seen a change in the nature of his posts. They sometimes read snippy and condescending. Like some of us just don’t have the capacity to understand or think for ourselves. Perhaps passion is getting the better of him, I don’t know. 

I do not know him personally and it would be rather presumptuous of me to call him any of those things, and I am not. I’m just pointing out the nature of some of the replies.

As a whole I consider myself fairly neutral. (Neutral in that while I have strong opinions, I like to keep them to myself in this context so I may view and weight the opinions of others.) I like to see both sides of an issues and I don’t really “take sides.” 
But it has become increasingly difficult to find those points when I am constantly having to peel off the labels or agendas to unearth them.
There are times I agree with your points and there are times I agree with Face’s points. But there is definitely a difference in the delivery between the two of you. 
I have never seen even one disrespectful word from you. Passionate? Yes. Enthusiastic? Yes. But always, always respectful.

Face- I am not picking on you personally nor am I angry or upset. Really, I am not.
I believe you to be passionate about what you think and believe and have generally enjoyed your posts. But lately it seems as if you are discounting the gray areas and therefore discounting many of us who live our lives within those areas. Or as I prefer to think of them…the colorful and rich layers between both ends of the spectrum.

My apologies if I have offended anyone. 
Apparently my patience melts when it hits 107.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May we essentially agree.
but, the fracking problem IS a result of Energy companies chasing the almighty dollar.
If as Faceman has posted the grounwqater becomes icontaminated what are millions going to do for drinkable water?
the enviromentalist are at least raising awareness of the problem.
Hopefully the attention will avert a disaster.
Those millions of gallons of water that are used are not able to be retrieved.
In the long run that is a waste we may one day regret. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May we essentially agree.
> but, the fracking problem IS a result of Energy companies chasing the almighty dollar.
> If as Faceman has posted the grounwqater becomes icontaminated what are millions going to do for drinkable water?
> the enviromentalist are at least raising awareness of the problem.
> ...


Oh, well...glad you see it my way. :lol:

I am not well versed in the practice of fracking. However, I do know that there is an over-supply of natural gas on the market - and has been for some time. So, it doesn't really "smell right" that they are so interested in this method. Except for the fact that the Chinese love it...want it, and can afford to buy it.

Natural gas _is_ relatively clean, great nrg souce - and we are awash in it. Yet, I, personally, have never lived anywhere that natural gas was available to me. It makes no sense, mostly large companies put in (i.e., pay for) main pipelines to meet their needs, and regulation requires them to allow for entities to install "off shoots" for domestic/town use. Good rule. Okay...so, "off shoots" only serve a relatively (total) small area. why? Is it cost? Well, no want for money for solyndra, I noticed.

It can also power vehicles quite well...hello Utah. Yet, no massive tidal wave of money dumped on that energy "conversion", that is b/c cash for clunkers was so successful, I am guessing. We are awash in natural gas b/c access is limited - and it is _not_ limited by companies.

btw, db...using moses and crew as an excuse to not go camping is rather original! I sure am glad my parents couldn't pull that one!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missymay i always have in the back of my mind that if I go out in the wilderness I might be out there for 40 years.
Not being able to find my way back.
Fracking has also been used to retrieve oil that was unreachable in the past.
They can now recover billions of barrels here in Texas from fields that were thought to be dry.
Natural gas is clean and efficeint.
Looking for alternative energy though needs to be accelerated for the future generation. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Missy May said:


> I am not well versed in the practice of fracking. However, I do know that there is an over-supply of natural gas on the market - and has been for some time. So, it doesn't really "smell right" that they are so interested in this method. Except for the fact that the Chinese love it...want it, and can afford to buy it.


If you are an oil company, fracking makes perfect sense from an economic standpoint. Fracking ahs been around for many many years, but only in the last 10 or 15 years has been "perfected" if you will, although it is still not a perfect method of extraction. Hand in hand with the technological advances in fracking, has come technological advances in horizontal drilling. Unlike oil which is extracted normally, and which is generally found in anticline or fault traps that are (relatively) small, gas bearing shale can cover vast areas. Drilling in the Fayetteville shale play for example is taking place in an area that is maybe 100 miles X 80 miles. While some sites within that area are better to drill than others for a variety of reasons, the gas can pretty much be found throughout the whole region. So, for the oil companies it boils down to simple economies of scale - they can drill a lot of holes relatively close together, and with horizontal drilling they can sheer off several horizontal wells as well as the primary vertical well - all in one hole/drill site. For example, I have a horizontal well under my ranch, drilled from a well on my neighbor's ranch, so the gas under my ranch is being extracted without a wellhead on my property. Add to this the fact that most gas bearing shale deposits are realtively shallow, and you can begin to see the economics involved - fast, shallow drilling, well sites logistically close, which reduces pipeline construction, infrastructure needs, and lessening logistics issues with contractors that supply water, mud, haul contaminated water away, perform well logging and other wellhead dutites, and maintenance duties.

I didn't mean to write a book, but the bottom line is the whole fracking process in gas bearing shale is (relatively) cost efficient when compared to other methods of drilling and extraction. Shale can contain oil also, but the extraction of oil from shale is historically not cost efficient - we are just now starting to see it more.

Now being cost efficient is no excuse for contaminating the environment - I am just expaining that it indeed makes sense from an economic standpoint. Some of the gas is being extracted, and some of these wells are being capped and held in readiness for when it is needed. The sqame, of course, can be said about oil. Contrary to what some people may thin, not all oil wells are pumping at full capacity. Many are capped and many are pumping 12 hours a day or even less. The fact that we have plenty of gas reserves is not a reason to cease exploration and drilling for future needs. It is very costly and takes time to explore, drill, extract, refine, and transport oil and gas...it's not like you can wait till it is actually needed and then just drive down to the store and pick some up.

None of that changes my stance on fracking - I know too much to shrug it off as harmless. But it does explain why oil and gas companies like to use this method - it means more profit to them and a lower price to the consumer.

As to the availability of natural gas, it is availble in most cities, but usually not in the country. The cost of building pipelines to every house in the country and in small towns would be so astronomical that even Obama would consider it impractical...


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Well said, Face. 

Add to that is the fact that the fracking process requires MILLIONS of gallons of water per drilling facility. NC has been very drought prone in recent years. We have come very close, numerous times, of running OUT of our surface water reserves. We simply do not have the resources to support this process.

Also, this water is mixed with a slurry of dozens of chemicals, many of which are known to be extremely harmful. There are other chemicals that are unknown, because the industry managed to pass legislation that allowed them to hide the actual recipes of chemicals they were using. They don't WANT us to know what is mixed there.

Very few companies have any way to recycle these fluids and they are sometimes simply dumped into a treatment system that is unable to render them safe. It is not unknown for there to be "accidental" massive spills of the chemicals into the environment that has killed livestock and poisoned surface water sources.

Like I said, I am not against a safe way of extracting this gas. Some companies are doing a better job of it than others. I have natural gas in my home. I just want the REGULATIONS (you know, the ones the GOP is working so hard to overturn and undermine) That will protect this state.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Like I said, I am not against a safe way of extracting this gas. Some companies are doing a better job of it than others. I have natural gas in my home. I just want the REGULATIONS (you know, the ones the GOP is working so hard to overturn and undermine) That will protect this state.


Now there you go - doing the same thing you accuse me of...:lol:

Yes we need regulation, but the devil is in the details. 

If the radical liberals had their way we would of necessity be riding our bicycles or horses to work, although the horses of course would be unionized and we would have to rest them every 15 minutes and give them vacations - makes for a bad commute. Of course that would be if we had a job to go to in the first place. 

And if the radical conservatives had their way we would have a job to go to, and could drive our SUV, but we would have to wear gas masks any time we stepped outside. We would have lots of money because all the horses would have been eaten or died of COPD, so we wouldn't have to buy feed, dewormers and such.

The answer, of course, is somewhere in between - in a capitalist economy an industry that is innately polluting must be regulated to a degree, however if that industry is critical, as the oil and gas industry is, you cannot regulate it past the reasonable profit point or it will collapse. If you think things are bad now, try rationing gas to 10 gallons a week, stop the diesel semis from rolling, and commence rolling brownouts so you only have electric 4 hours a day. I am not intimating that big oil's profits are reasonable at this point, because they are not. But the fact remains if you overregulate the industry you will suppress exploration, drilling, and innovation, and the collapse of the industry will soon follow.

The answer is reasonable regulation that keeps environmental hazards to a minimum, yet maintains an environment in which there is still a profit incentive to continue expanding. Good luck on that, though. As long as we are as politically polarized as we currently are, both parties will sell out reason and logic for a handful of votes in a swing state...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Faceman said:


> As to the availability of natural gas, it is availble in most cities, but usually not in the country. The cost of building pipelines to every house in the country and in small towns would be so astronomical that even Obama would consider it impractical...


Thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. I have faith in applied technology. If they want to do it "clean" - it can be done. I think people should demand that it is done in a "clean" manner. But, often times no matter how clean something gets - it can't ever over come the bad "image" that anti's paint(ed). We shall see.

As to the availability, I slightly disagree with you. I once had to look at the location of some industrial gas pipelines. I was/am familiar with two towns that they run by - in two separate states. If you don't know they are there - they are "out of sight out of mind". I was surprised b/c I knew no one that had it available to them. Yes, most of them did live in the country - but not all. It turned out that it was available to a small area relative to the total overall densely populated areas of the towns. I do not know what determines the "borders" of where it goes in towns- but it isn't necessarily population density. I think before I wiped out untold acres for wind turbines and solar panels, I would have studied the "returns" of increasing domesic natural gas service, which currently pails in comparison to industry. Imo, Most people would gladly pay for the hook-up. 

I would have prefered to have been born when there was no electricity or engines. Poof! No fracking, drilling, refrigeration, highways, mass food production or blow dryers. But, I can't just go "feral", now.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Fabulous post, Face. I think you painted it about right!! LOL!


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Allison Finch said:


> Well said, Face.
> 
> Add to that is the fact that the fracking process requires MILLIONS of gallons of water per drilling facility. NC has been very drought prone in recent years. We have come very close, numerous times, of running OUT of our surface water reserves. We simply do not have the resources to support this process.
> 
> ...


I agree with Allison.
Fortunately, some landowners in my area were aware of the water issues surrounding fracking ahead of time. We had been hearing the horror stories of the chemical slurries, livestock deaths, wells being contaminated, people getting sick, and water sources ruined. 
Lots of discussions, town hall meetings, land owner groups, and other public meetings harped on this.

However, the earthquakes were a new one for us. The ones in my area started off small.... 2.9s if I remember correctly, but each one got stronger and stronger. As they did, it become an issue that gained attention. Because they were getting stronger they were being felt and more people realized what was happening and grew angry and scared. 

Things just kept going though, and they kept getting stronger. The last one was a 4.2, which seemed significant to those who felt it, and finally scared enough people to jolt some action.
Face, your explanations help to clarify things quite a bit, thank you.

The rest is really just rhetorical questions…
What irks me is why does it take getting a 4.2 earthquake for someone to finally scratch their head and say“Gee, maybe we should do something about this.”
I know it is much more complicated than this, but most of the town/non-landowner folks in my area don’t understand that, and are mighty upset.

If the knowledge and experience of earthquakes were already in place, and the data was showing the worsening trend, were the companies just pushing on hoping the earthquakes would just disappear? 

When does it go past the pollution component and become about not outright scaring the people? We don’t get earthquakes here. 4.2 may seem like child’s play to folks in CA, but not here, especially with all that came to light with the last one and the fear that worse ones may occur.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

CBS Evening News with ... : Penn. town blames contaminated water 






mmm interesting!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Oy Vey we are all somewhat in agreement on this thread.
Everyone note the time and the date, this might not happen again for a long while.
Lockwood didn't I tell you that Faceman was not some rigidly rabid radical rightwinger republican. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Lockwood said:


> I agree with Allison.
> Fortunately, some landowners in my area were aware of the water issues surrounding fracking ahead of time. We had been hearing the horror stories of the chemical slurries, livestock deaths, wells being contaminated, people getting sick, and water sources ruined.
> Lots of discussions, town hall meetings, land owner groups, and other public meetings harped on this.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for the oil companies, but in general, earthquakes of that magnitude are considered inconsequential - even though they are scary to those not used to them. As I mentioned, it would be highly unlikely that fracking could induce a quake of a meaningful magnitude - unless it was right on the San Andreas or New Madrid. They are just teeny tiny fault quakes. The reason they are felt as much as they are is because they are relatively shallow. Remember, most areas have from scores to thousands of tiny earthquakes every year. My guess is the oil companies just don't consider them serious enough to be of concern. And just as a disclaimer, when I was in the oil business, I was never involved with fracking. I retired from that industry in 1986, and hydrocarbon extraction from shale was not yet economically feasible and was still in the R&D stage. The only fracking going on then was accidental fracking, in which case the oil or gas was generally lost.

Many of us in Arkansas, when I was living in Arkansas, were relieved to see the fracking issues pop up in Pennsylvania when they started heavily working the shale play up there. Arkansas is off the radar screen with no current political clout, population, or meaningful press coverage, while an East Coast (to us) state is garnering more attention. Our complaints and concerns fell on deaf ears - I have heard far more press coverage eminating from Pennsylvania than I ever have from Arkansas, even though I lived there. Pennsylvania is of course used to having its environment raped from the coal industry strip mining days, but people are a lot more savvy now, and hopefully they won't put up with that type of bull poop these days.

If you want to know the truth, most of the problems with oil companies today, from fracking to exhorbitant profits, arises from a lack of competition. The federal government - and this includes both Republican and Democrat administrations, was much too lenient in permitting mergers and acquisitions in the 80's and 90's. The number of oil companies of any consequence went from 25 or 30 down to a handful. That handful has a virtual monopoly, and I can tell you that price fixing is rampant, and profits are exhorbitant. Now don't get me wrong - I am a capitalist and believe companies should be able to make the most profit possible. However, there are certain industries that have the power to bring the nation to its knees...the oil and gas industry is one of them. Whether a conservative or liberal, it is only common sense that an industry that is so widespread and critical that it can unilaterally send an economy into a tailspin, needs to have some sort of limited regulation both for national security and nationwide economic reasons. It rubs my conservative fur the wrong way to say that, but there are situations where it is not only prudent but necessary to draw a line in the sand...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

northwesten said:


> CBS Evening News with ... : Penn. town blames contaminated water
> 
> CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley - Penn. town blames contaminated water on fracking - YouTube
> 
> mmm interesting!


While they don't all make National news, stories like this are popping up all over PA. 
Now there are wells in my town too.


----------

