Fracking Fluids Used on Roads

[Future Fanatic]

Dick,

Internet people tend to get mixed up in my mind and I don't track who believes in what but you bring up an interesting point. Let me ask KG Farms and FF directly.

Do each of you trust the various Gov't agencies to properly monitor gas drilling?

Do each of you trust the federal Gov't to fairly interpret the second amendment?

DO each of you think the federal Gov't can do a better job with health care than say Aetna?

If you think they can do one job and not another can you tell us why? I think that would be very informative.

Thanks
Tom

Tom, I'm sitting here trying to categorize the purpose of these questions.
I assume you think I will answer yes to one or more AND no to one or more and then somehow sieze on the hypocrisy.

So against my better judgement... I'll answer your questions trusting you'll answer some of mine...

Starting with number two, because I think it's not worded well. The Constitution is a "living" document. The Supreme Court makes decisions where the word "fairly" might not apply. For instance, the 3/5 Compromise in the Constitution---the Dred Scott case---13th---14th---15th Amendments--- Plessy v. Ferguson---Brown v Board of Education.

To ask if the Supreme Court is fair after a current decision and NOT fair after the PRIOR decision... I'm not sure that fits.

BUT, to answer as best I can, yes, the Supreme Court IS CAPABLE of interpreting the Second Amendment "fairly" whether or not I agree with their decision. Good or bad, even though the intent of the framers is KNOWN, that is not always the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court (for instance, the 3/5 Compromise).

Number Three:
I do not believe that the government can be an EFFECTIVE or EFFICIENT insurance provider. I believe that the government is not able to provide services (that are best suited in the domain of free enterprise) in a cost efficient or uncomplicated way.

I do think that they CAN do better in a regulatory role. I believe that the FDA(although they took some hits with spinach recently ) has served a positive role since it's formation(Upton Sinclair would probably approve(socialist he was, not withstanding)) and doesn't OSHA do a fairly decent job protecting workers?


Now, with number one: "TRUST".... hmmmm.... "PROPERLY"... hmmm...

I believe they CAN. BUT, as I've remarked before, it will take way more MONEY and MANPOWER.

 

[Future Fanatic]

You raise some interesting questions. First, you ask why don't people buy property for 360,000 dollars in order to conserve it? The answer to that is easy - it is too expensive.

Obviously. I've been pitchin' my neighbors farm for months. No takers from the greenies in NYC. BUT, what's hard to hear, is that they expect the people up here, scratchin' to make a living, to buy the land and pay taxes on the land but NOT to develop it so that their water tastes good and they can have their religious experiences in the Catskills(fishing or not).

To the extent that ANY drilling, on public or private lands, affects a public interest (water quality and the integrity of our ecosystems), we have a right to seek regulation of such activities.

I agree. IF it affects "water quality and the integrity of our ecosystems". Just base it on science and not how one "feels".

Moreover, while I may support some drilling, I also believe that the public interest in clean, renewable energy sources is profoundly greater than the quick fix that exploration for natural gas in the Catskills may offer.

Hey, why everywhere else and not the Catskills?

 

[Rusty Spinner]

GB - while I support your use of intellect for the sake of good dialogue on this topic (for a nice change), I must point out that smallmouth, just like their piscatorial brethren the brown and rainbow trout, is a non-native to the Delaware watershed. Just to keep the historic facts straight...

The D watershed consisted of few trout, and those that existed were native brookies, surviving in the headwaters and tribs of the big D. They traveled the big river when it was cool enough to intermingle with others of their species, thus strengthening the gene pools. Human settlers in the river valley denuded the forest along the river banks, forests of hemlock and old growth hardwoods which, along with other lowland species, acted like a giant sponge to soak up surface water and recharge ground water. Brook trout largely disappeared from all but the smallest headwater streams. But I digress...

FF and KF are unabashed promoters of drilling without oversight. They have a financial stake and this should not come as a surprise. And they will both refute this statement. I have nothing against either man, and I fall along the lines of our needs for (relatively) clean energy and protection of our drinking water supplies. I think with proper oversight we can have both. But leaving oversight to the companies responsible for drilling is foolhardy at best and negligent at worst. TU has documented numerous failures in environmental protections within the Marcellus Shale. I have chosen for numerous personal reasons not to post some of what I know as fact related to spills, negligent abuses of the environment and poor planning as to the locations of proposed drilling locations. I have my reasons. The bottom line is we need this energy. But not at the expense of clean drinking water. Most of the drilling industry understand this. But enough do not that it forces us to take a close look at current practices and ensure for the many that their drinking water, and the water that trout live and thrive in, will not be compromised because of the greed of the few...

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF and KF are unabashed promoters of drilling without oversight. They have a financial stake and this should not come as a surprise. And they will both refute this statement.

I, an "unabashed promoter of drilling without oversight"? Totally a lie.

Well, maybe I'm unabashed, but a promoter of drilling WITHOUT oversight? NEVER! How can you guys write this stuff? I mean, lies like that might get you a few "thanks" for the post, but at least keep your criticism of me or my views in the realm of truth.


I, a financial stake? Absolutely true, as I've stated again and again.

 

[golden beetle]

FF: Here is a brief rebuttal to your post.

First, you ask "why not in the Catskills?"

Well, let me try an analogy. We both agree that we need energy. We need to get it from somewhere.

Similarly, we need a shitter in our house. Are ya gonna put it in your living room?

The reason why ya don't put it in the living room is because that space shouldn't smell like shit. Ok?

Same reason why we shouldn't spoil the Catskills unnecessarily. Thus, I agree with rusty about the need for serious regulation and oversight.

Finally, you seemed to miss my point about why people don't just spend 360,000 dollars to conserve land. Of course, it is too expensive - you agree with that, but seem not to have a problem with excluding people who don't have the fiancial means to make such a purchase from the debate about how the public good and environment should be managed.

Dude, you're losing the argument. Badly.

 

[AKSkim]

FF: we need a shitter in our house. Are ya gonna put it in your living room?

This line was just to enflame this thread.
Soon SCAT BOY Hooli will be posting his photos and getting all excited.

The reason why ya don't put it in the living room is because that space shouldn't smell like shit.

I bet SCAT BOY has one there.

Well... it's the truth.

Here SCAT BOY... people talking about your fetish on here.

 

[HooliganTroutBum]

Well... it's the truth.

Here SCAT BOY... people talking about your fetish on here.

Awwwww. What's the matter gAyK?

No one wants to play with you, little boy?

You brought along your new shiny lil' red ball from New Orleans and no one cares. You suck and you add nothing. Nothing goes on when you're away and nothing goes on when you're here.

The sum of equal parts. Same as it ever was. Nothing new.

Yaaawwn.

Try again.

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: Here is a brief rebuttal to your post.

First, you ask "why not in the Catskills?"

Well, let me try an analogy. We both agree that we need energy. We need to get it from somewhere.

Similarly, we need a shitter in our house. Are ya gonna put it in your living room?

The reason why ya don't put it in the living room is because that space shouldn't smell like shit. Ok?

But there it is, in part; it's not your living room. If one owns a house in the Catskills, and he does not mind the odor, who should tell him he CAN't put a toilet in his living room? People who may come for a visit? If it is so offensive to them, stop visiting. (That'll show him).

Same reason why we shouldn't spoil the Catskills unnecessarily.

You want to make THAT argument about PUBLIC land, go ahead. It's owned by EVERYONE in the state.

Thus, I agree with rusty about the need for serious regulation and oversight.

Which NYS regulations are lacking in your view?

Finally, you seemed to miss my point about why people don't just spend 360,000 dollars to conserve land. Of course, it is too expensive - you agree with that, but seem not to have a problem with excluding people who don't have the fiancial means to make such a purchase from the debate about how the public good and environment should be managed.

First, I said "obviously" because no conservationist has offered to buy that farm. The land around here is owned by MANY people who "have less" than some of the "conservationists" I've known. I don't know that it is TOO expensive; I know that up until at least today, nobody is willing to do it.

Second, I'm not excluding anyone. I'm proposing that if one desires to protect the land he so loves in a VERY direct way, he can do that. What's a house worth in the downstate/Jersey area? For the person with the environment so in their heart, they could trade living in a place that has been spoiled by development and industry for GOD'S country. Thousands of people live up here, why not them? They can make a very personal stand against the gas companies (who they won't still be paying for gas as well as for all the associated raping of the environment by proxy.)

Dude, you're losing the argument. Badly.

Which argument would that be?

 

[Future Fanatic]

Can I get in on that?

Just hope it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

I know of a farm you can buy...

We don't have Ponzi schemes up here; we leave that to you city folk.

 

[MACFLY]

Futr Fan: I have posted very generally on these issues, and recognize a big difference between private owners, such as yourself, leasing your property for gas exploration. The real issue is the leasing of public lands by the State of New York, and the extent to which that may occur. Believe me, that before I make my arguments against that, I don't have ANY problem with your personal financial decision.

You raise some interesting questions. First, you ask why don't people buy property for 360,000 dollars in order to conserve it? The answer to that is easy - it is too expensive. To the extent that ANY drilling, on public or private lands, affects a public interest (water quality and the integrity of our ecosystems), we have a right to seek regulation of such activities.

The question you ask about domestic production of energy is one that, in fact, I also agree with you on. Suffice it to say, we agree that our nation ought to seek energy independence, and to do so in a responsible manner. Thus, I support natural gas exploration, but I am opposed to it in the Catskills. Thus, we agree that exploration should occur, but disagree about where in the US it should be done.

Moreover, while I may support some drilling, I also believe that the public interest in clean, renewable energy sources is profoundly greater than the quick fix that exploration for natural gas in the Catskills may offer.

Too expensive: 360K is less than the Mayor of NY spent on one day of his campaign. There are literally thousands of folks in NYC, NJ, and Penn. That could write a check tomorrow and buy that property. Im talking about folks that are pro environment, no drilling at any cost rich folks. Expensive. 360k is a pittance. Whats really surprising is the gas company hasnt bought it.

 

[MACFLY]

Tom, I'm sitting here trying to categorize the purpose of these questions.
I assume you think I will answer yes to one or more AND no to one or more and then somehow sieze on the hypocrisy.

So against my better judgement... I'll answer your questions trusting you'll answer some of mine...

Starting with number two, because I think it's not worded well. The Constitution is a "living" document. The Supreme Court makes decisions where the word "fairly" might not apply. For instance, the 3/5 Compromise in the Constitution---the Dred Scott case---13th---14th---15th Amendments--- Plessy v. Ferguson---Brown v Board of Education.

To ask if the Supreme Court is fair after a current decision and NOT fair after the PRIOR decision... I'm not sure that fits.

BUT, to answer as best I can, yes, the Supreme Court IS CAPABLE of interpreting the Second Amendment "fairly" whether or not I agree with their decision. Good or bad, even though the intent of the framers is KNOWN, that is not always the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court (for instance, the 3/5 Compromise).

Number Three:
I do not believe that the government can be an EFFECTIVE or EFFICIENT insurance provider. I believe that the government is not able to provide services (that are best suited in the domain of free enterprise) in a cost efficient or uncomplicated way.

I do think that they CAN do better in a regulatory role. I believe that the FDA(although they took some hits with spinach recently ) has served a positive role since it's formation(Upton Sinclair would probably approve(socialist he was, not withstanding)) and doesn't OSHA do a fairly decent job protecting workers?


Now, with number one: "TRUST".... hmmmm.... "PROPERLY"... hmmm...

I believe they CAN. BUT, as I've remarked before, it will take way more MONEY and MANPOWER.

Ah FF I don't want to take this thread down another path but exactly where did you hear that the Constitution is a living document...last I heard it was a legal document. Living document is the argument folks use when they wish to interpret things for their own purpose. Back to your regularly scheduled program

 

[Future Fanatic]

Ah FF I don't want to take this thread down another path but exactly where did you hear that the Constitution is a living document...last I heard it was a legal document. Living document is the argument folks use when they wish to interpret things for their own purpose. Back to your regularly scheduled program

Well, living in the sense that it changes. If someone changed a legal document that you were a party to without your consent, you'd be claiming "breach of contract" but with our Constitution, it does change while some living under its protections do not agree with those changes.

 

[MACFLY]

Well, living in the sense that it changes. If someone changed a legal document that you were a party to without your consent, you'd be claiming "breach of contract" but with our Constitution, it does change while some living under its protections do not agree with those changes.

Hmm the only way to change it legally is through an amendment. If its interpreted differently through different supreme courts its not reflective of a living document but more so of the collective conscious of the court or society. Document stays the same and as you said the framers intent is well known. Its the difference between strict constructionist and liberal activist and the approach to the court that is in question. Not the constitution but hey I really didnt want to move this conversation off on a tangent. I mean you know how I feel about your personal property and your rights to liberty

 

[Uncrowded]

Solid story on the gas drilling situation in Dimock on WABC News last night in New York. Click here to see the full story and video link:

What gas drilling in NY could mean for some drinking water - 11/23/09 - New York News and Tri-State News - 7online.com

 

[AKSkim]

you know how I feel about your personal property

I don't so tell me?

 

[Future Fanatic]

Solid story on the gas drilling situation in Dimock on WABC News last night in New York. Click here to see the full story and video link:

What gas drilling in NY could mean for some drinking water - 11/23/09 - New York News and Tri-State News - 7online.com

Has anyone ever posted a report of EXACTLY what is in the water?

 

[mbwmn]

Whats really surprising is the gas company hasnt bought it.

Finally! I've been waiting for someone else to ask that question.

it's $2500/acre. Why would the gas companies want to lease for 5-7years for $5k?

you would think this would be a no-brainer...

 

[MACFLY]

Finally! I've been waiting for someone else to ask that question.

it's $2500/acre. Why would the gas companies want to lease for 5-7years for $5k?

you would think this would be a no-brainer...

maybe its a zoning issue

 

[Kilgour Farms]

By leasing they have tax advantages that they don't have with ownership.

 

[Uncrowded]

By leasing they have tax advantages that they don't have with ownership.

If you remove certain words from the above quote, I come up with:

"By leasing they don't have ownership."

Interesting. Guess the gas companies don't want to own poisoned land? Who would? Folks in Dimock sure don't.

 

[MACFLY]

Has anyone ever posted a report of EXACTLY what is in the water?

FF...let me ask you a question. you saw the picture of the water. Lets just assume for one second its on the level. Do you want to drink that water? The answer is no and clearly the process needs a better solution and some serious oversight. I know you are for that so I dont understand when you see something like this you ask a question like..Does anyone know whats in the water. Who cares? The lady has to have a hose bought to her house every day. this is the kind of crap that makes people say "No flipping way". The Gas Companies do this to themselves. Hell if we can split atoms, build a space station, and figure out how to cure disease there sure as heck has to be a way to get this out of the ground without blowing up wells and polluting the water. Its about half past ridiculous to see something like that. Its even more important considering we need the energy and we are long long way from getting it from solar and wind.

 

[golden beetle]

FF: I read your earlier posts, and I am not sure it is worthwhile to respond to you. You seem to take a certain glee in this debate that I find difficult to address squarely. In other words, you seem to believe you can do no wrong, by allowing drilling on your lands, and make ludicrous claims, like "why don't you just spend 360,000" and buy land if you care so much about it.

I think rusty is right about ya: you have a financial stake in this, and your willingness to look into the issue stops at the tip of your nose.

Its all about you, isn't it?

Now, finally, you ask "why shouldn't drilling happen in the catskills, if we allow it in other places?"

This is such a silly argument that it hurts my skull to respond to it. However, can you not see that people view the catskills as special, and, therefore, would like to conserve it because of its natural beauty?

Try your best, and if your response is honest, I will respond back.

 

[Future Fanatic]

If you remove certain words from the above quote, I come up with:


Interesting. Guess the gas companies don't want to own poisoned land? Who would? Folks in Dimock sure don't.

If you take all of these letters and mix them around, I come up with:

I would rather make crap up then deal with any reality that does not make my view sound heroic or their view demonic. I'll use every propaganda trick in the book to scare the folks into doing what I think is best for them. Furthermore, Future Fanatic is full of truth, but THAT will be his undoing....

Well, you have to use some letters more than once.

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: I read your earlier posts, and I am not sure it is worthwhile to respond to you. You seem to take a certain glee in this debate that I find difficult to address squarely. In other words, you seem to believe you can do no wrong, by allowing drilling on your lands, and make ludicrous claims, like "why don't you just spend 360,000" and buy land if you care so much about it.

I think rusty is right about ya: you have a financial stake in this, and your willingness to look into the issue stops at the tip of your nose.

Its all about you, isn't it?

Now, finally, you ask "why shouldn't drilling happen in the catskills, if we allow it in other places?"

This is such a silly argument that it hurts my skull to respond to it. However, can you not see that people view the catskills as special, and, therefore, would like to conserve it because of its natural beauty?

Try your best, and if your response is honest, I will respond back.

You like asking questions, but NOT answering them, huh?

Hey, I looked it up... the average Joe in Jersey could sell their house down there and buy the farm up here with about $150,000 to spare. Would you like me to get in touch with a realtor I know for ya? Let's get the ball rollin'...

But seriously folks,

Ludicrous claims? Stop it...

One poster seems to think that I'll make $800,000 up front. I don't, but just for giggles... I'll assume that other people who live in the Catskills then should have similar expectations, yes? You say that because they happen to live in a place YOU and others like YOU think is special, that they should NOT be able to trade THEIR gas for THEIR $800,000. Don't you think that people who are unable to access THEIR gas should be COMPENSATED for keeping their land exactly the way YOU want them to? AND WHO will do this? I say all those people who think that the Catskills are "special" should BUY THEM or tax the citizens to provide a fund to COMPENSATE the landowners who would be stopped by the citizens of the state from accessing THEIR gas.

I mean, what you are saying to the poor slob who happened to buy land in the Catskills 20 years ago, that because some people who NEVER invested a dime in the Catskills think that it is special, that they are going to stop him from accessing his property.

AND who gets to determine which places on earth are special enough to "protect" from drilling? Protect from anything? Does the government then have the power to choose what it is you can and cannot do with your own private property?

People can desire whatever they want. Often times, they can make it happen. IF the people of NY felt that they wanted to protect the ENTIRE Catskill region they could. But it would cost them money. Just as NYC buys up land around their reservoirs, NYS could do the same in the Catskills. If it is worth protecting, people should be willing to compensate the owners of the properties who would lose their rights to access their gas.

As for you writing this:

I think rusty is right about ya: you have a financial stake in this, and your willingness to look into the issue stops at the tip of your nose.

I think it is the both of you who don't take the long view... If I really gave a shit about MAXIMIZING my profit, I'd be right along side of you and uncrowded calling for a ban on drilling in the Catskills and the watersheds. But I guess that escaped you.

If you think I take a certiain glee in this debate, you should see some of the posts by others comparing it to the great battles of WWII.

Now I know it hurts your noggin' but try answering a few of MY questions (truthfully of course). Start with an easy one; why can't conservationists from NYC sell it all and move to the Catskills?

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF...let me ask you a question. you saw the picture of the water. Lets just assume for one second its on the level. Do you want to drink that water? The answer is no and clearly the process needs a better solution and some serious oversight. I know you are for that so I dont understand when you see something like this you ask a question like..Does anyone know whats in the water. Who cares? .

I get your point, I do. Really.

But I want to KNOW what is in that water.

What IS the discoloration?

Are there Chemicals in the water?

Methane is invisible, right? SO it's not Methane pollution you're seeing in that jar...

SO what is it?

I find it odd that given the anger these people must feel, that they have not disclosed this. Do we have to wait for the court case to be heard to find out what it is?

 

[golden beetle]

FF: You are asking why New Yorkers don't sell everything and move to the Catskills, it is because, in America, traditionally people have been entitled to express their opinions on issues of public importance without having to purchase that right by, for example, buying land in the catskills.

Think straight my friend. Why should the gas companies and property owners make such decisions without others having their opinions heard? Money and property interests shouldn't decide the issue - that isn't democratic or cool.

 

[MACFLY]

FF: You are asking why New Yorkers don't sell everything and move to the Catskills, it is because, in America, traditionally people have been entitled to express their opinions on issues of public importance without having to purchase that right by, for example, buying land in the catskills.

Think straight my friend. Why should the gas companies and property owners make such decisions without others having their opinions heard? Money and property interests shouldn't decide the issue - that isn't democratic or cool.

I think the issue is.. If its that important some wealthy leftwing crackpot could in theory buy a piece of land and preserve it. For 360k it would be nothing financially for them to do that. This by the way happens all the time in PA and I suspect in other states as well. In PA they also pass bonds to pay for open space or to convince folks to deed their land for open space. Hell its worse than that. I have been to public meetings where the town supervisor all but tells an existing land owner if he wants to do anything on is property he should consider deeding it at some point down the road. So if the guy wants to build a shed he has to commit to destroying his investment down the road. Its a common practice for sure.

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: You are asking why New Yorkers don't sell everything and move to the Catskills, it is because, in America, traditionally people have been entitled to express their opinions on issues of public importance without having to purchase that right by, for example, buying land in the catskills.

Think straight my friend. Why should the gas companies and property owners make such decisions without others having their opinions heard? Money and property interests shouldn't decide the issue - that isn't democratic or cool.

GB, with these posts, you are just toying with us here. Your whole first paragraph about peoples' traditional right to express their opinion? Who said they couldn't? What you seem so illogically fixated upon is my pondering why people who care about the environment, THE CATSKILLS in particular, couldn't buy a piece of it. I mean I know they CAN I just wonder why they DON'T... I wonder why the people who think the Catskills are so special, don't lobby their state to BUY the mineral rights from Catskill residents so they DO NOT DRILL. People can voice their opinion all they want. I just don't want the state to chip away at the rights of people, who by owning land, have invested in it, would be told what they can and can not do with it by people who happen to think their property is "special". THAT's not what our country was based upon.

Think straight? stop it...

As far as property owners and gas companies being the ones to make the decisions... THAT is business my friend. No outsider opinion matters when someone buys or sells a house in the Catskills. No one is there from NYC to offer a suggestion when a guy in the Catskills buys or sells a truck. NYC residents, don't tell a logger which trees of a Catskill landowner's wood lot, he can cut. Why should anyone's opinion matter to a business deal between gas companies and residents?

Granted if science shows that one way of doing things is unsafe or another method is safer, that SHOULD impact the regulations imposed by the state. But if science determines a certain process to be safe(as the EPA NOW seems to be doing)why should anyone's opinion matter?


Anyway GB, back to my question; I'll tweak it a bit. I asked "why can't conservationists from NYC sell it all and move to the Catskills?"

I'll concede that they should not have to OWN catskills to have an opinion as to gas drilling there(but of course not owning it (and residing there) they can't vote locally, but let's keep it simple). What I'm asking, is just this, why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature. For most, they would have MONEY LEFT OVER after the trade of real estate. They don't lose a thing... So why would they NOT do this?

 

[golden beetle]

FF: Why should the State have to pay for mineral rights, if the public decides against drilling?

In that case, the public would be paying for something, rights to drill, that they don't intend to use or benefit from.

That's the whole problem here: you want money, and you are considering your interests only.

That's why the public needs to be involved.

At this point, I am still at work and don't want to respond anymore for the time being. I will try to respond later.

 

[Uncrowded]

If you take all of these letters and mix them around, I come up with:

I would rather make crap up then deal with any reality that does not make my view sound heroic or their view demonic. I'll use every propaganda trick in the book to scare the folks into doing what I think is best for them. Furthermore, Future Fanatic is full of truth, but THAT will be his undoing....

Well, you have to use some letters more than once.

FF: Once again, God love you...