This discussion talks about how anti fossil fuel extremists and outside entities are attacking PA natural gas industry and working to methodically shut down PA Natural Gas production.  Anti-fracking groups, climate change advocates and others  want to control your royalty or potential for royalty.

If this doesn't make you angry then check your pulse. The video was made before PA Governor Wolf got involved. You will not find any references to meetings he holds with Bloomberg listed on his website. That's because his staff covers it up so the public doesn't know.

On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress and the left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. I

Views: 1630

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's as simple as this. look back in history,thousands of years,when half of the Untited States was under a frozen glacier. obviously global warming started many moons ago, LOOOOONG before fossil fuels were being burnt. It's obviously a natural phenomenon. Not manmade.

TODAY IN ENERGY: Thursday, December 6, 2018

EPA finalizes Renewable Fuel Standard for 2019, reflecting cellulosic biofuel shortfalls

On November 30, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule for the 2019 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, with the total U.S. renewable fuel volume requirement set 3% higher than the 2018 mandate, but nearly 30% lower than the statutory volume standards set forth by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). Similar to previous years, EPA exercised its cellulosic waiver authority to decrease volume standards for cellulosic biofuels because growth has been slower than Congress had envisioned in EISA, passed more than a decade ago.

See graph and

Today in Energy, published every weekday, brings you short, timely articles with graphics on energy facts, issues, and trends. Questions, comments, story suggestions? Email us at

Now you can publish or promote Today in Energy content on your website. Go to our outreach page for banners and badges, and to find widgets with the code that pull each day's Today in Energy content right into your web page every weekday.

Not sure I posted this before so here it is again

In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car:
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it. This is the first article I’ve ever seen and tells the story pretty much as I expected it to
Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet they’re being shoved down our throats.  Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.
At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executive.  I asked him how that renewable thing was doing.  He laughed, then got serious.  If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities.  For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service.  The average house is equipped with 100 amp service.  On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla, each.  For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles.  Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!  This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following.  Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway.  It’s enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.”  Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery.  So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph.  Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours.  In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity.  It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.  The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.  I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.  $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.  Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg.  $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.

Raining on Gov. Wolf’s Parade – No Scientific Basis for Cap & Trade

Last week MDN told you that Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, liberal Democrat, is seriously considering a bizarre cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission reduction program to eliminate carbon emissions from major sources by 2052 (see PA Gov. Wolf Seriously Considers Marcellus-Killing Cap & Trade). The program is meant to eliminate fossil fuel production and use, including Marcellus Shale production. A couple of authors, one a 35+ year geologist, the other a senior fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation, took note and co-authored a devastating article appearing on The Daily Caller that punctures cap-and-trade in general, and Wolf’s dalliance with it in particular. Wolf invoked the argument that this year has been far rainier than normal in PA, which must, of course, be due to man-made global warming. The co-authors use actual, real data on rain conditions and amounts to completely obliterate Wolf’s arguments–making him look like the fool he is.

By Gregory Wrightstone and Gordon Tomb:

When Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf uses the past year’s wet weather and local flooding to support his assertion that “we have a problem with climate change,” we can’t help but rain on his parade.

The governor’s comments came in reference to a petition to limit greenhouse gases that had been submitted to the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board by 61 parties, including environmental advocacy groups and solar energy firms.

Modeled after a California program, the proposal would require emitters of carbon dioxide to purchase permits for every ton of carbon released to make Pennsylvania carbon neutral by 2052.

As to whether he supports the proposal, the governor said:

I haven’t come to a conclusion on that. But we have a problem with climate change. That is a fact. We’ve all seen that this past year. York County has had more rain. I’ve gone around the state: Bradford County, York County, Schuylkill County, Allegheny County, Philadelphia County — all over the state — localized flooding. I’ve never seen this in my lifetime. We are having real problems.

Here the governor makes the common mistake of viewing weather outside its historical context and thinking there may be policy implications to consider.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Pennsylvania’s annual precipitation for the first three years of his administration (no data available yet for 2018) was 42.9 inches, only 0.3 of an inch higher than the average long-term data dating to 1895 — an increase hardly worthy of a policy discussion.

If yearly precipitation has not increased significantly, perhaps there were bigger storms with greater duration that led the Governor to believe that drastic action is needed?

Again, NOAA data dispel that notion. Agency records show that the most consecutive days with an inch of rain or more peaked in the 1940s and 1950s for the more than 700 weather stations in the state. Of the past 120-plus years, the last 30 years had some of the fewest such records.

Perhaps Wolf was recalling that he personally viewed flooding of the Susquehanna River in Harrisburg last July when the it crested at 17.3 feet. Much was made of the flooding at the time, but it ranks just 31st on the list of greatest floods at Harrisburg — and only a bit more than half the record set by Tropical Storm Agnes in 1972.

Even if wet weather signified an important change in the climate, the response of mandating a carbon neutral Pennsylvania would present staggering costs. Current mandates requiring that a measly 18 percent of the state’s electricity come from alternative sources — such as solar and wind — by 2021 are estimated to increase electricity prices by $700 million and eliminate 11,400 jobs by 2025.

Utterly irrational is policy that would transition from low-cost, reliable energy provided by the huge oil and gas resources of the state’s Marcellus and Utica shale deposits as well as its coal reserves to embrace expensive, intermittent “green” energy. But such is par for much of the thinking in the Wolf administration.

A “Climate Change Action Plan Update” published a couple years ago by Wolf’s Department of Environmental Protection averred that its recommendations would reduce “energy use enough to actually lower total gross domestic product” while producing a net gain in employment. This betrays an ignorance of basic economics and a delusion about a bureaucracy’s ability to manage energy markets that are best left to producers and consumers to shape.

In Pennsylvania, along with the remainder of the world, the poor contribute a higher percentage of their income to energy costs than others, making expensive, green-energy policies a regressive form of taxation. Hence, at least in part, the recent riots in Paris where gasoline costs twice as much as it does in the United States.

The hubris of politicians notwithstanding, the direction of the climate should be left to the solar cycles that have been driving it for eons. In the meantime, humans will be better positioned to adapt to either a colder or warmer climate if the ingenuity of free markets is allowed to continue to produce the “5,000-year leap” kind of prosperity experienced since the Industrial Revolution.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist who has been investigating the Earth’s processes for more than 35 years including paleoclimate controls on deposition. He is author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know.” sits on the Advisory Board of the Heartland Institute and is a Contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Gordon Tomb is a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania-based, free-market think tank.*

Shell Announces Major Pivot To Green Energy

1:29 AM 12/26/2018 | Energy

Jason Hopkins | Energy Investigator

Royal Dutch Shell revealed an ambitious plan to double its investments in green energy in what appears to be the next phase in the oil giant’s efforts to decarbonize.

Shell will boost its expenditures on low-carbon energy to $4 billion a year — a staggering increase from its commitment to spend $1-$2 billion annually on green energy within the next two years. The Netherlands-based company has a total budget of $25 billion, the rest of which will still be spent on hydrocarbons.

“I would like my current business to be financially credible enough for not only the company, but shareholders, to want to double it and look at more,” Maarten Wetselaar, the integrated gas and new energies director for Shell, stated to the Guardian in a Tuesday report. Wetselaar indicated that if Shell sees enough return on its investments, the company will likely spend more on green energy development from 2020 and beyond.

Shell, under pressure from climate change activists, has made a number of environmentally-friendly commitments in recent years.

The oil and gas giant announced plans earlier in December to establish strict carbon emissions targets, and will incentivize senior executives to follow through on these targets by linking it to their pay.

A Shell logo is seen at a gas station in Buenos Aires

A Shell logo is seen at a gas station in Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 12, 2018. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci

“We will be systematically driving down our carbon footprint over time,” Shell’s chief executive Ben van Beurden stated to the media. “We all know the benefits of energy but there are associated effects that we have to manage.” (RELATED: Oil Companies Opposing Washington State’s Tax, But Promot...

Shell is a pledged supporter of the Climate Leadership Council, a group that supports the implementation of a carbon tax to fight global warming and establish a new welfare system to offset higher energy costs. The Dutch oil company has increasingly involved itself in carbon pricing battles in the U.S., where the company has praised carbon tax bills introduced in Congress and has quietly held talks with environmental groups regarding a carbon tax.

Going on Offense: Exposing PA Anti Group & Their Funders

Our friend Tom Shepstone (Natural Gas Now) is a dangerous man…dangerous to anti-fossil fuelers. He’s dangerous because he’s smart, and because he has the unique ability to expose “the man behind the curtain” pulling the levers and pushing the buttons with respect to fracktivism and those who fund it. Tom has done it again, this time exposing the fraudsters behind a Pennsylvania group called Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.

The following is a cross-posting from Natural Gas Now of Tom’s excellent expose on Damascus Citizens for Sustainability. Tom does *real* investigative reporting, the kind of reporting the lazy turds in mainstream media (e.g., Scranton Times-Tribune) either refuse to do or are intellectually incapable of doing.

We need more “take the fight to them” from our side. Tom is one of the few willing to do it. God bless him.

Damascus Citizens for Sustainability is a group of mostly New Yorkers pretending to be members of a Pennsylvania community. Heinz has given them $352,000.

Damascus, Pennsylvania is where I grew up and where my family and I still own property. My ancestors in the area go back more than 200 years. They include some of the original loggers who represented the first major natural resource industry in the region. That industry survives to this day. Sadly, it and the economic livelihood of the area is threatened today, though, by groups such as the Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.

Damascus Citizens or “DCS,” as it likes to refer to itself, is a group of mostly New York City folks who prefer to think of Damascus as their home and nobody else’s. Call them the Undocumented Damascus Citizens. They oppose natural gas development needed by real Damascus citizens to pay the bills. And, the Heinz family is financing their opposition.

A reader sent me a link to this DCS page. It thanks supporters for helping to make their match. Knowing the Heinz Endowments has been a funder of the group, I decided to see if they were the match offeror. I can’t definitively say it is but I did discover just how much Heinz has given Damascus Citizens.

Heinz has financed their “Damascus” shills to the tune of $352,000 over the last six years. The average grant has been over $70,000 and the 2018 haul was $90,000. The latest 990 return for DCS in 2016 shows a budget of less than $150,000 so it appears Heinz could be paying as much as 60% of their bills today.

click for larger version

This is important because DCS claims to be a publicly supported organization. Public support, as defined by the IRS, doesn’t include any entity contributing more than 2% of an organizations total support unless that entity is also public supported. The Heinz Endowments is not. Rather, it is a private foundation with a very private agenda. This doesn’t mean the group is in a violation of the rules, technically speaking. It does mean, though, that up to 60% of the DCS revenue is anything but public support.

Interestingly, the organization, also says it does no lobbying of any kind but there is a clear violation of that rule as these screen shots from it’s website prove:

This is grass-roots lobbying by the IRS definition  and while DCS is allowed to some of it, it cannot do it and say it doesn’t at the same time. But, then this is DCS and this is what Heinz pays them to do. It’s the Heinz way of getting around another IRS rule that says it can do absolutely no lobbying.

And, what else is DCS  doing? Well, it’s match page offers this (emphasis added):

In 2019, DCS will be working with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to achieve passage of their proposed ban on fracking. We will also be working to ban the import of frack waste into the Basin and to ban the export of our clean water to support fracking elsewhere.

This would seem to be grass-roots lobbying regarding what is, in effect, DRBC legislation. Whether it is or isn’t, though, is beside the point. The real question is what does DCS mean by “working with” anyway? Is DCS really working with the DRBC, or is this merely the boastful claim of a bunch of Manhattanites who suppose they’re at the heart of the action when then they’re really no more sycophants shouting out silly huzzahs from the sidelines. A quick perusal of their extremely shallow amicus brief in the WLMG lawsuit suggests the latter.

Still, one wonders. The DRBC has a history of working hand-in-hand with the Delaware Povertykeeper a/k/a Riverkeeper, which is hardly a surprise considering they’re both funded by the William Penn Foundation. Heinz has funded the Povertykeeper and it dominates the DRBC committee structure. It also enjoyed a cozy relationship with the agency under the previous Executive Director. And, who forget these love letters:

Finally, there’s this, from a crazy letter DCS sent welcoming the current Executive Director:

Over the years, your predecessor, Ms. Carol Collier, found our knowledge of the Basin and our local, legal and scientific water-use expertise beneficial to the Commission and welcomed our participation in the Commission’s deliberations, even when we were raising hard questions about some of her decisions. We hope to find you will be equally open and equally professional regarding the kind of community-based dialogue that is essential to successful management of the Basin’s resources….

At the same time, we must share with you our dismay at the churlish comments of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), Tom Shepstone and other pro-oil and gas spokespeople who celebrated Carol Collier’s resignation and the end of her “ignominious era.”

So, maybe DCS really is “working with” the DRBC. If so, it’s not only the William Penn Foundation that’s setting the agenda but also Heinz and, of course, the two trust-funder groups have been collaborating on other related matters for some time, being the money behind StateImpactPA, PennFuture and so many other of the usual suspects and usual gentry class attacks on the interests of the common man.*

*Natural Gas Now/Tom Shepstone (Jan 14, 2019) – Heinz Invests $352,000 in Fake Damascus Citizens Group


Local Groups

Latest Activity

Blog Posts

Forgotten Men and Women of Canadian Energy Industry Protest

Posted by Thomas J Shepstone on January 4, 2019 at 10:37am 0 Comments

The forgotten men and women of the Canadian energy industry are mad as hell and not taking it anymore. They’re protesting in their trucks and it’s spreading.

Whenever I go to New York City, which is as seldom as…



© 2019   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service