Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 23, 2014

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Wednesday cut its estimate of recoverable oil in California's Monterey shale by 96 percent, casting doubt on what was once thought to be America's next major energy play. The deposit composes 2/3rds of the total shale reserves in the US. Even though estimates in 2011 put the estimated recoverable oil at 13.6 billion barrels, while this update puts the estimate at 600 Million, the daily output is not expected to be impacted in the near future. "Not all resources are created equal," EIA head Adam Sieminski said.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

blah

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yea the The U.S. Energy Information Administration has such a good track record.

Why Energy Forecasting Goes Wildly Wrong

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) is no better or worse in its forecasts than other organizations, but it serves as a prime example of the dubiousness of energy forecasting. A focus on the EIA's 2005 long-term energy market for The EIA's forecasts for year 2013 in its Annual Energy Outlook of 2005 were off by staggering margins in many cases.
www.ensec.org

Even the left thinks they are a joke.

EIA Renewable Energy Forecast Isn't Just Wrong, It's Wildly, Laughably Too Low

But when it comes to long-term energy forecasting (whether we're talking prices, production, consumption, imports, whatever), I'm sorry to say, EIA has been not just wrong, time and time again, but laughably, outrageously wrong. And, sadly, their latest Annual Energy Outlook (the AEO - with "forecasts," using the word VERY loosely, out to 2040) continues that abysmal tradition.
www.dailykos.com

#1 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-22 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Monterey Shale deposit composes 2/3 of the total shale reserves in the US. Even though estimates in 2011 put the estimated recoverable oil at 13.6 Billion barrels,

When that estimate came out I said it was baloney and all the fracking apologists called me crazy.

"In 2013, the United States consumed a total of 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of 18.89 million barrels per day."

So basically we are allowing our ground and water to be poisoned for 32 days of oil.

Brilliant.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-22 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well, sure, THEY'RE wrong, but let's forget about that and focus on other wild exaggerations based on loose science. Hey didja hear that the Statue of Liberty is going to be underwater soon?

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-05-22 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speaking of wild exaggerations, lol....

#4 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-22 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Told you so.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-05-22 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 - that doesn't mean we should stop trying to plan for the future... you have to use the tools available.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-05-22 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

the implementation of new technology has thrown off all estimates of energy supply, exploration, etc.

When I was originally told of the amount of oil in the ground in North and South Dakota and Western Kansas, I didn't believe.

then we developed horizontal drilling and fracking.

despite what you might think of those techniques, admit that their implementation has changed what was "estimated" by huge factors.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-22 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 - that doesn't mean we should stop trying to plan for the future... you have to use the tools available.

#6 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2014-05-22 02:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Germany just produced 74% of it's electricity from renewables. How cool is that?

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-22 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

#1 - that doesn't mean we should stop trying to plan for the future... you have to use the tools available.
#6 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2014-05-22 02:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
Germany just produced 74% of it's electricity from renewables. How cool is that?
#8 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-22 03:29 PMFlag: | Newsworthy 2

And Germany's climate is similar to Washington/Oregon.

Those solar farms which are destroying entire ecosystems don't exist over there. I wonder why Germans are so much more capable at collecting energy while maintaining wildlife habitats than Americans? The lack of GM foods probably has a lot to do with their capacity to dominate the problem with such efficiency.

Oregon does not collect and distribute geothermal energy - which would be ever-lasting, free, plentiful and 100% safe. PGE needs to be entirely re-purposed, it's administration stripped of all personal assets. Parasite industry are deliberately ruining this planets chances of survival. Is that why fracking injection solution is kept secret? To exterminate the existing ecosystem before resources are re-distributed? It's undoubtedly not safe for any purpose, imo.

#9 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Is that why fracking injection solution is kept secret?

Certain memes have a life of their own, no matter how incorrect.

fracfocus.org

Texas RRC proceedings adopting fracking chemical disclosure rules. www.rrc.state.tx.us

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where do you clowns get your news? Mother Earth News?

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

However serious problems are caused when government starts using taxpayer resources to subsidize or incentivize these expansions. Things get even worse when centralized planners start manipulating market choices or trying to manage the marketplace itself by controlling the generation of power.

This is precisely what is happening in Germany – where command economists have failed spectacularly in their bid to force a national transition to renewable energy.

In 2000 Germany passed a major green initiative which forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for a period of twenty years. Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government – this initiative has since been embraced by Germany's Conservative-Liberal majority, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades – bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online.

In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.

www.forbes.com

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-22 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Germany just produced 74% of it's electricity from renewables. How cool is that?
#8 | POSTED BY 726

Hardly, try hunting some real news some day

APRIL 8, 2014
Already, 25 percent of German energy comes from renewable resources, but that advance has come at a cost to consumers, who have borne the brunt of the surcharges that funded the expansion.
www.nytimes.com

#12 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-22 07:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is that why fracking injection solution is kept secret?"
Certain memes have a life of their own, no matter how incorrect.
fracfocus.org
Texas RRC proceedings adopting fracking chemical disclosure rules. www.rrc.state.tx.us
#10 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 06:34 PM

Oh, slick one - did you read the 42 pages on disclosure rules? Cursorily and immediately I believe there are two important assignments - one is defining "additive" (hydraulic fracturing injections are composed of many) and the other is procedural pertaining to submitting a request "challenging a claim of entitlement to trade secret protection for any chemical ingredients and/or CAS numbers used in the hydraulic fracturing treatment(s) of a well".

(4) A requestor must file a request no later than 24 months from the date the operator filed the well completion report for the well on which the hydraulic fracturing treatment(s) were performed. A landowner who owned the property on which the wellhead is located, or owned adjacent property, on or after the date the operator filed with the Commission the completion report for the subject well may challenge a claim of entitlement to trade secret protection within that 24-month period only. The commission will determine whether or not the request has been received within the 24- month period.

So, if after two years you are witnessing contamination the culpability lies with whom?

But just before that, starting on page 36 there is an interesting note:

(4) Disclosure to health professionals and emergency responders. A supplier, service company or operator may not withhold information related to chemical ingredients used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment, including information identified as a trade secret, from any health professional or emergency responder who needs the information for diagnostic, treatment or other emergency response purposes subject to procedures set forth in 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200(i).

That sounds essential.. but there is a qualifier:

(d)Disclosures not required. A supplier, service company, or operator is not required to:
..
(4)identify specific chemical ingredients and/or their CAS numbers that are claimed as entitled to trade secret protection based on the additive in which they are found or provide the concentration of such ingredients, unless the Office of the Attorney General, or a court of proper jurisdiction on appeal of a determination by the Office of the Attorney General, determines that the information would not be entitled to trade secret protection under Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, if the information had been provided to the Commission.

#13 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So, there are trade secret additives that not even a healthcare professional can identify?! What is an additive? Hmmm:

(2)Additive - Any chemical substance or combination of substances, including a proppant, contained in a hydraulic fracturing fluid that is intentionally added to a base fluid for a specific purpose whether or not the purpose of any such substance or combination of substances is to created fractures in a formation.

That means there are two sets of injection chemicals - some are trade secret?!

The words "leak" and "spill" do not appear in this paper whatsoever, so from what I can determine this is strictly dealing with below-ground chemical use. Did I miss the section on how less than 20% of that chemical goo is recovered and stored above ground in plastic-lined ditches? Or, what are the procedures for addressing above-ground storage post-fracking?

Also, I believe that due to trade secret laws the actual established molecular combinations are not disclosed - only the crude constituents.

This paper refers to fracfocus.org which isn't exactly impartial..

Well, from examining the numerous animations of horizontal fracking we can presume that the limestone layer is necessary to separate the aquifers from the injection chemicals and removing or weakening that barrier is disaster waiting to occur, not just shoddy above-ground storage leaking. And with earthquakes on the rise, Texans could be in danger of running short of potable water. I can imagine years from now people will presume Texas never had agriculture and wildlife.

#14 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. Redlight really ate your lunch.

#15 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-22 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

An Aerial View of Hydraulic Fracking Along The Marcellus Shale
"Peter Saltonstall, a landowner in the Finger Lakes region, takes us on a flyover of natural gas drilling sites in Pennsylvania. We show the scope and scale of hydrofracking in Pennsylvania. Gas pads, pipelines, and road construction are common sites in the rural landscape. Saltonstall considers the potential for job creation, energy independence, and tax gains, while showing the environmental impact of hydrofracking. This video will spark curiosity and inform viewers on both sides of the debate."

It appears that 100% of these fracking wells are right next to fresh water. You can see long corridors of dirt removed - those will be lined with plastic and filled with "recovered" fracking fluids.. and they are all lined up next to the Susquehanna River. What could go wrong?!

#16 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-22 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by redlightrobot

Changed your tune didn't you. You went from no disclosure to nitpicking about the required disclosure. Some are never satisfied.

Then you demonstrate your nitpicking is uniformed. The disclosure rule incorporates OSHA chemical disclosure rules. That's the reference to 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.1200(i). Notice the trade secret provisions beginning at page 12. Pay particular attention to to required disclosure in cases of emergency, regardless of trade secret claim, and the procedure to obtain disclosure in non-emergency matters.

You seem to complain about the 24 month period to challenge to trade secret claims before the agency. First, that is a statute of limitation for the agency claim. Second, that does not preclude challenging the claim in a "court of competent jurisdiction." For example, plaintiff sues claiming fracking chemicals injured him. The statute of limitations for that claim does not start until the plaintiff "discovers" his injury. Let's say that's ten years later. From that point the plaintiff has two years to bring whatever claims he wishes including challenging trade secret claims. For that purpose there is an entire body of law dealing with how and when trade secrets are or are not protected from disclosure.

That brings up another point of your apparent ignorance. Trade secrets are ubiquitous in our society. If you, or anyone else, ever signed an employment contract the probability is it contained a clause prohibiting disclosure of "proprietary" or "confidential" information" which includes trade secrets. Even with a contract, you have a common duty to not disclose that information. Trade secrets are broadly defined. It includes any "formula" that provides a business advantage. Yet, you seem to pretend the concept magically appeared in order to protect evil oil companies from the public. Again, wrong.

My sole initial point was to show disclosure exists contrary to the meme. Thanks for the opportunity to further disabuse you of ignorance.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 10:51 PM

My "nitpicking tune" - the only reason they maintain 24 months is because the formula can be dangerous and there are consequences to experimental chemical exposure that the industry are attempting to avoid by belaying disclosure and limiting access to that "trade secret" list.

I am terribly ignorant of legal organization, but the point of disclosure is to inform? Imo, by disallowing disclosure even to qualified medical or disaster relief professionals is a definite probability the way that disclosure provision qualifiers are written to include the additional necessity of testing by a lab qualified by a private water agency. Not possessing that "secret" list of non-disclosed formula probably prevents many suits. I would also guess that they have fingers in the Texas Water Code standards.

Obviously I have not made my criticism clear enough - lists of chemicals allowed and their concentrations are extremely important to know prior to disaster, so promising that the Attorney General will be capable of requesting the "trade secret formula" does not equate to having being accomplished, or performed timely.

Did you watch that aerial tour? I don't question the "legality" of the process has been coded into law, but it's interesting to imagine how all of that fracking fluid stored just hundreds of feet from river banks will remain in place during a disaster. I wonder how flammable that stuff is? Maybe in a time of disaster could it be used as fuel?:]

#18 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-23 01:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

My "nitpicking tune" - the only reason...

Yes, nitpicking because you, again, are confused. The 24 months is a limitation. You can do it on day one. That administrative privilege ends 24 months later.

I am terribly ignorant...

I'm aware.

Obviously I have not made my criticism clear enough...

True.

Did you watch...

No.

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 03:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

My sole initial point was to show disclosure exists contrary to the meme.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-22 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

And despite your condescending attitude, you've failed. Why is there a proposed bill in NC that would make it illegal to diclose what chems are being used in fracking? Certainly if the non-disclosure were just some made up "meme" this wouldn't be happening.

#20 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So basically we are allowing our ground and water to be poisoned for 32 days of oil.

#2 | Posted by 726

There is NO documented case of that happening in the US.

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-23 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. Redlight really ate your lunch.

#15 | Posted by Sully

Yaaa.......... he killed the lawyer. We will never hear from him again.

Tell me exactly what point red made that was the death blow.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-23 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

"My "nitpicking tune" - the only reason..."
Yes, nitpicking because you, again, are confused. The 24 months is a limitation. You can do it on day one. That administrative privilege ends 24 months later.

After 24 months does the particular wells trade secret fracking formula become public knowledge? How long does it take to break down into non-lethal constituents? Actually, isn't the purpose of that limitation to disallow disclosure and culpability after 24 months? That makes sense because the only people able to file must include medical professionals - implying there is already medical condition present. Is the 24 month period how long it takes before medical conditions exist that are recognized? I know you can't really answer that, but you are correct - it's "legal" to withhold data filed with the Attorney General for a 24 month period. I find that egregious and likely.

"I am terribly ignorant..."
I'm aware.

Great, and you have clarified so much of nothing for me. Excellent condescension, counselor.:]

"Obviously I have not made my criticism clear enough..."
True.
"Did you watch..."
No.
#19 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 03:27 AM

You probably should. There are hundreds of new wellheads - educate yourself on the factual process to comprehend the legal circumventions being invented. But, you already know that, thus the apathy.

#23 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-23 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. Redlight really ate your lunch.
#15 | Posted by Sully
Yaaa.......... he killed the lawyer. We will never hear from him again.
Tell me exactly what point red made that was the death blow.
#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-23 11:45 AM

That fracking fluid is filed with the Attorney General and must have an approved medical professional requesting that information among other requirements. However, medical conditions might not become obvious until after the 24 month period at which point culpability lies with whom?

#24 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-23 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:


So basically we are allowing our ground and water to be poisoned for 32 days of oil.

Brilliant.

#2 | Posted by 726

The Lefties in Washington love that there are useful idiots out there. They can put any lie out there that they want and there are many who will believe it!

Unfortunately for all of us who would prefer our Federal Government to have some level of integrity.

#25 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me exactly what point red made that was the death blow.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-23 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Read it for yourself. I'm not your mommy.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tell me exactly what point red made that was the death blow.
#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-05-23 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Read it for yourself. I'm not your mommy.
#26 | Posted by Sully

Yeah, I don't see it either Sully.

Redlight is regurgitating inconclusive BS from anti-Oil groups that is the same kind of BS that led to the "We need to pass it to find out what's in it" style irresponsible behavior from the Left that gave us the failed ACA!!!

Sorry, but Redlight is not "eating anyone's lunch". You guys probably think that the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is a true story.

#27 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, I don't see it either Sully.
Redlight is regurgitating inconclusive BS from anti-Oil groups that is the same kind of BS that led to the "We need to pass it to find out what's in it" style irresponsible behavior from the Left that gave us the failed ACA!!!
Sorry, but Redlight is not "eating anyone's lunch". You guys probably think that the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" is a true story.
#27 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 01:27 PM

All that I did was quickly examine the 42 page document and quote from that source. I'm asking the lawyer for clarification on why limitations exist when trade secret fracking fluid is so absolutely dangerous to the environment and yet it's stored right next to watersheds, rivers and lakes. He won't even watch the video to fully examine this wellhead installation and fracking fluid storage process in action.

Am I misunderstanding the process of applying for disclosure of fracking fluid content? I'm only attempting to comprehend why the factual list of fracking fluid has to be held separately from what is publicly disclosed. That trade secret formula erodes the protective limestone barrier to contaminates aquifers and thus all of the agriculture, livestock and wildlife. Two years seems extremely short-sighted.

Am I also wrong as to the consequences of even medical professionals seeking that information post-24 month statute of limitations? They will have zero information available to request?

If those trade secret fracking substances are going to be maintained on site for longer than 2 years perhaps we should have a complete list prior to it's use? Particularly as we are understanding that 80% of that fluid goes "missing" after use..

#28 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-05-23 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#27 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-05-23 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I find your disagreement comforting. The idea that requiring disclosures as to what is being dumped into the environment is "irresponsible" is pure lunacy.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

...you've failed...

I did? The meme is no (as in none) disclosure. The Texas disclosure rules, linked above, disprove the meme. You can also add the 13 other states (of the 29 known to conduct fracking) that require some form of disclosure.

Why is there a proposed bill in NC...

I don't know, I'm not a North Carolinian. That's why I stick with what I know rather than generalizing where specifics are required, maybe you should try it. That said, the article posted about NC a few days ago dealt with trade secrets which, as I also showed, is a time honored and well established exception to the public's perceived right to know everything about anything at any time.

#30 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't know, I'm not a North Carolinian. That's why I stick with what I know rather than generalizing where specifics are required, maybe you should try it. That said, the article posted about NC a few days ago dealt with trade secrets which, as I also showed, is a time honored and well established exception to the public's perceived right to know everything about anything at any time."

On the one hand, you're claiming that you're only talking about Texas. On the other, you're claiming to have proved the "meme" to be incorrect when the "meme" is not specific to Texas. You've acknowledge that there are states where frackers are not required to disclose what they're using - proving the "meme" correct.

Then you got to defend the "trade secrets" loophole which only supports the "meme" further. Either the materials are disclosed or they aren't. You can make excuses for non-disclosure but what you can't do is claim non-disclosure is disclosure.

Also, on a common sense level - I don't think anyone should have a right to claim "trade secret" when it pertains to materials they are releasing into the environment for the public to come into contact with. If you want to have a trade secret, keep the materials in your facility. If you want to release materials out into the environment, then we have a right to know what you're using so that we can make sure you're handling correctly instead of poisoning us.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

There is NO documented case of that happening in the US.

ummm yes there is.

#32 | Posted by cjk85 at 2014-05-23 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm asking the lawyer for clarification on why limitations exist...

The idea of limitations exist to provide stability, consistency and certainty. Limitations are ubiquitous across all areas of law.

...when trade secret fracking fluid is so absolutely dangerous to the environment

This where your hysteria leads you astray. It is only certain components (such as the quantity or methodology of use) of the fluid that is a trade secret. By far, the rules require disclosure of the vast majority of the components of fracking fluid. Yes, certain chemicals are dangerous. Those chemicals are used in all manner of processes not just fracking. Yet, many single out one industry as if it alone invented and uses those chemical to destroy the environment for profit. That said, here is the general makeup of frack fluid, 95 plus percent water. Here is a list of the various chemicals used as additives and there purpose. I'll leave you to your own research for how dangerous each one is.

He won't even watch the video...

I don't need to watch a video to know that surface storage of chemicals near a water source poses a risk.

Am I misunderstanding the process...

Yes, for example, the rules require disclosure in reports to the agency. Except for trade secrets (a tiny portion) the information is public and required to be posted on the internet.

Am I also wrong as to the consequences of even medical professionals...

Yes, this was demonstrated above but for some reason instead of taking plain language at face value you read a bunch of scary scenarios between the lines that don't exist. I can't help you with that mistake.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

So basically we are allowing our ground and water to be poisoned for 32 days of oil.
#2 | Posted by 726

There is NO documented case of that happening in the US.
#21 | Posted by Sniper

"Certain memes have a life of their own, no matter how incorrect."

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those chemicals are used in all manner of processes not just fracking

Are they used without disclosure in all manner of processes not just fracking?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here is a list of the various chemicals used as additives and there purpose.

That link says "Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals which could be used as additives, there are a limited number which are routinely used in hydraulic fracturing. The following is a list of the chemicals used most often."

In other words, it's not a complete list. Seems worth mentioning.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is only certain components (such as the quantity or methodology of use) of the fluid that is a trade secret.

One could interpret that to mean every chemical used must be disclosed, just not the quantity or "methodology" -- whatever that means. But then you say

By far, the rules require disclosure of the vast majority of the components of fracking fluid.

In other words, not every component has to be disclosed.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

On the one hand...

The meme, no disclosure (as in none) is demonstrably incorrect. The conversation then moves to the quality and extent of disclosure but you appear to be hung up on that which is incorrect.

You've acknowledge that there are states where frackers are not required...

Yes, lacking a national policy it's left to the states. Notably, CA and NY, two "more is better" regulatory poster children, have no (as in none) disclosure requirements.

Then you got to defend the "trade secrets" loophole...

Your label is meaningless. To know that requires a depth of knowledge you apparently eschew. Start with the trade secret materials linked above.

Also, on a common sense level...

When there is a time honored and well established body of law on a particular subject, common sense generalizations are irrelevant. Again, trade secret law permits disclosure when the need to know outweighs the benefit of non-disclosure (business advantage). Of course, that requires examination and evidence on a case by case basis which, of course, doesn't lend itself to self assured generalizations which is your forte.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

This whole "vast majority" argument is not persuasive. As you've said, the "vast majority" of fracking fluid is water. Why not just end disclosure there?

Currently our planet is seeing some harmful effects from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about one hundred parts per million. That zero point zero one percent increase is having a huge impact. If one hundred parts per million can have that big an effect, I'm not at all reassured knowing that the "vast majority" of fracking agents are being disclosed. Maybe there's some "trade secret" tiny fraction which is remarkably effective in fracking fluid and which also bears a hugely disproportional burden of the risk. Were I in the business of fracking, I naturally wouldn't want to have to disclose a chemical which helps me do my job better but which might be perceived as a threat by the public.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet, many single out one industry as if it alone invented and uses those chemical to destroy the environment for profit.

Surely you could disabuse people of this notion by naming another industry which is causing greater harm to the environment with those chemicals.

I mean, for the chemicals subject to disclosure. We can probably agree there's no surefire way of knowing which secret chemicals might be harming the environment -- or which company's "secrets" are responsible for the harm.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 03:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let's see, the current administration hates shale, and now suddenly we have none. Hummmmmm.

The current administration hated Conservative Groups and the IRS went after them.

See a pattern?

#41 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-05-23 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yet, many single out one industry as if it alone invented and uses those chemical to destroy the environment for profit.

Surely you could disabuse people of this notion by naming another industry which is causing greater harm to the environment with those chemicals.

I mean, for the chemicals subject to disclosure. We can probably agree there's no surefire way of knowing which secret chemicals might be harming the environment -- or which company's "secrets" are responsible for the harm.

#40 | Posted by snoofy

now now Snoofy...are you implying that Big Oil would do something in secret that would harm us just to boost their profit margins?

Why I am shocked.

That is just plain UnAmurican of you. What about our Freedumbz?

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-05-23 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"The meme, no disclosure (as in none) is demonstrably incorrect."

No it isn't. You're lying.

"Your label is meaningless. To know that requires a depth of knowledge you apparently eschew. Start with the trade secret materials linked above."

The above is meaningless. The realty is that they aren't disclosing what they are using and aren't required to do so.

"When there is a time honored and well established body of law on a particular subject, common sense generalizations are irrelevant. "

More nonsense. If the law fails to address obvious (aka common sense) problems then the law is incomplete.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"no disclosure (as in none)"

Notice what Et Al is trying to do here, BTW. He's trying to pretend a partial disclosure is a relevant disclosure. So if they say they are using water and sand and don't tell us what the dangerous ingredients are, that a "disclosure".

Its a completely dishonest way to approach the subject. The only relevant disclosures are the ones that pertain to the toxic chemicals being used in the process.

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-23 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

The realty is that they aren't disclosing what they are using and aren't required to do so.

Lack of in depth knowledge predicted and noted. Reality is a small portion of additives are not disclosed for legitimate reasons with mechanisms for disclosure when need out weighs the benefit of non-disclosure.

If the law fails to address obvious (aka common sense) problems then the law is incomplete.

More nonsense predicted and noted. The law addresses the obvious. You just want it your way, now. Reminds me of petulant teenagers.

The only relevant disclosures are the ones that pertain to the toxic chemicals being used in the process.

Your pretense is also noted. The public wants to know everything, relevant (as you define it) or not. Additives are disclosed except one possible niche, trade secrets which may or may not include a chemical which may or may not be toxic, for which mechanisms exist for disclosure.

But I repeat myself, appropriate with petulant teenagers. Especially those that pretend they know more than anyone else. It takes constant and consistent repetition for it to sink in with them.

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Additives are disclosed except one possible niche, trade secrets which may or may not include a chemical which may or may not be toxic, for which mechanisms exist for disclosure.

Indeed, you seem to have a firm handle on the problem.
You don't think it's a problem, which is another problem... but at least you perceive that toxic chemicals are not being disclosed.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-23 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Indeed, you seem to have a firm handle on the problem.

Indeed, I have a handle on what the Texas disclosure rules require and what they mean. Try it some time. You can start with what was linked above. When you figure it out see if you can help Sully. He too seems to have myopia.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

.......

In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-22

On the issue of coal-fired plants in Germany, for each new more efficient clean coal plant currently being opened, two older coal plants are being closed. Output from coal in Germany is not increasing.

#48 | Posted by Sord at 2014-05-23 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Indeed, I have a handle on what the Texas disclosure rules require and what they mean.

Great, now can you do California since that's where the Monterey shale is?

While you're at it a quick run-down of the exemptions fracking gets from the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act would be informative.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-24 12:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

On the issue of coal-fired plants in Germany, for each new more efficient clean coal plant currently being opened, two older coal plants are being closed. Output from coal in Germany is not increasing.
#48 | Posted by Sord

Don't try to confuse Paneocon with facts. He sees right through that ruse every time.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-24 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

Great, now can you do California...

Try reading the thread.

...the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act...

Will you perform your usual act? Or do you you have something new and entertaining?

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-24 12:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Will you perform your usual act? Or do you you have something new and entertaining?
#51 | Posted by et_al

Only one way to find out, bucko.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-24 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those solar farms which are destroying entire ecosystems don't exist over there.

Dude, solar farms are built on cleared agricultural land, already a dead ecosystem, or in the desert areas. And if you Google German solar farms, you'll see some that are clearly built on recently cleared forest land.
###

" and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power."

Because pollution created illnesses and large scale devastation from strip mining, fracking and oil spills are all cost-free for everyone.

#53 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-24 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But I repeat myself, appropriate with petulant teenagers. Especially those that pretend they know more than anyone else. It takes constant and consistent repetition for it to sink in with them.

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-23 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face. You can stamp your feat and claim you know more than everyone else and it won't change anything. By pretending that partial disclosures are relevant, you've demonstrated that you have zero understanding of the issue in the first place. If I'm a petulant child, you're a screaming baby.

Unless we know exactly what is being put into the ground, we can never know if it is safe or not. We can never know if it is being handled and disposed of correctly when it comes back to the surface. These are facts. Nobody with half a brain would claim that a partial disclosure is helpful in this regard.

Now what you will do is refer to superior knowledge you can never demonstrate and make irrelevant references to state laws. What you can't do is claim that anyone can verify that these chemicals are being used, handled and disposed of safely without knowing exactly what they are.

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-25 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

WOW, etal still butthurt but then simultaneously beckoning for all of the Castro District to form a train. Priceless.

#55 | Posted by e1g1 at 2014-05-25 06:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort