The Science-Free Fracking Views Of Hillary And Bernie
By Keith Mauck
If you want America to become energy independent, I suggest avoiding a Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders presidency. In their most recent debate, Sanders said he was against hydraulic fracturing, and Hillary said fracking would not occur on her watch because drillers would be suffocated with her conditions and regulations.
In Sanders’ case, it’s obvious that he has not looked at the science of fracking and its clean environmental record. With Clinton that is not the case.
While serving as Secretary of State, Clinton was quite active in promoting fracking to the nations of Bulgaria and Romania. These efforts eventually led to the Global Shale Gas Initiative, which aimed to help other nations develop their shale potential — but that was so 2010. Things have changed — there is now a primary to win. Today, both candidates are listening to the naysayers — President Obama’s political base — whose opinions are filled with unsubstantiated fears, not facts. Let’s consider the facts regarding the practice of fracking — no doubt the same facts that Hillary used to sell the drilling technique to the world.
Fact #1: After researching fracking for five years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2015 gave fracking a clean bill of health. It found no evidence of what it called “widespread, systemic” drinking water contamination caused by fracking. The EPA’s findings have been peer reviewed and upheld by the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB).
Other studies conducted directly in shale drilling areas by the German Federal Institute of Geosciences and Natural Resources, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the California Council on Science and Technology and the Lawrence Berke..., and many others have failed to find a link between fracking and poor water quality. Several studies, including a “landmark” study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, also have found no connection between fracking and gas migration into water wells.
Fact #2: Fracking and directional drilling are the key to unlocking energy from shale formations. Since the beginning of the so-called “shale gale,” the United States has become the largest oil and natural gas producer on the planet. Imports of foreign oil have been cut substantially, and prices for both oil and natural gas have declined. Last week natural gas prices hit historic lows, but production remained strong.
Fact #3: Low-cost natural gas is helping the environment by supplanting coal for electricity generation. Natural gas burns more cleanly than coal—emitting up to 60 percent fewer emissions—making it the fuel-of-choice for utilities that are complying with new federal carbon dioxide rules.
Prior to the collapse of oil and gas prices, the shale gale also was creating jobs. As drilling activities increased, American workers were finding good-paying jobs both in the drilling industry and in companies that support energy production. These industries will rebound when oil and gas supply and demand regain balance.
Fact #4: Demand for oil and natural gas will continue for many years to come. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), oil and natural gas will comprise 62 percent of U.S. energy demand in 2040. Renewables, which are an important part of the overall energy mix, will account for about 10 percent of demand. This means the United States must continue to produce oil and natural gas and rely on fracking to extract energy from America’s abundant shale formations.
Fact #5: Some of fracking’s loudest critics are failing to make their case in court. In a suit filed in 2009, residents of Dimock, Penn.—home of the discredited Gasland documentaries— claimed fracking contaminated their well water and harmed their property values. As fracking’s self-appointed poster children, some members of the Dimock community have traveled around the country with the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to spread fear.
However, on March 7, the judge dismissed part of their suit due to lack of evidence. And their own attorney admitted in her opening statement that fracking fluids were not responsible for the water pollution; rather the contamination came from methane gas which migrated into their water wells.
But all of these facts apparently have had little or no impact on Hillary Clinton’s or Bernie Sanders’ positions on fracking. They apparently have chosen to pander to voters who are afraid of fracking. They should be ashamed.
Keith Mauck, J.D., is Publisher of GoHaynesvilleShale.com, GoMarcellusShale.com and Co-Founder of ShaleCast.com
Views: 975
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
You should expand on Fact #3. Even though the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocols to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels, we are the only country to even get close. And in five more years we exceed those requirements.
Further, by replacing coal, nat gas has greatly reduced emissions of mercury, cadmium, benzene, particulate matter and more. And we will continue to replace coal, making our air even cleaner. If we could get the trucking industry to replace diesel with nat gas, our air will be cleaner than it has been in over a century.
Fact #6. Thanks to fracking, we are weaning our selves from ME oil and reducing the money in the hands of terrorists, dictators, and even Russian pockets. Not to mention all the tax revenue collected from both workers and companies in the oil and gas biz.
Great post, especially all the links to studies showing the safety of drilling. Good resource to use.
Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Barry D on
-
Keith,
I know your post is going to cause our resident fraktivist (PH aka Chicken Little) to spit his beverage through his nose .
So I am posting this article as a sort of prevent defense to the nonsense he will post.
BTW good job as usual.
Study undermines EPA, blames rising methane levels on farming, not fracking
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/14/farming-not-fracking-...
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2010/09/03/global-shale-gas-initiat...
https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2010/09/03/global-shale-gas-initiat...
Sorry to say that the link to the Global Shale Gas Initiative in your post is no longer valid. Seems that the State Dept scrubbed it off of their site since being in favor of fracking is no longer acceptable The fact that State is manipulating their site to aid Hillary should be a news story all of itself.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Nothing mentioned here by our esteemed site publisher matters to the Hildabeast, to Bernie, or to any other of today's liberal Democrats. They are about something much larger and more important than mere American energy independence. They are focused on saving the EARTH ITSELF from (what they view as) certain destruction!!!
These Democrat fools are a metastasizing cancer growing within our country. They must be stopped at all costs!
-
Permalink Reply by alexandra on
-
Meanwhile nobody is recognizing all the good paying jobs that went overseas, and now they are shutting down fracking in order to send energy jobs overseas. America can now be a third world economy. Thank you Hillary!!! And thank you all democrats!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Barry D on
-
Frank,
All the talk from the President, HilLIARy et al about needed regulations to stop global warming is only a ruse.
The real aim is to add another layer of regulations that give them more control over our lives.
They all know that man made global warming is a fiction. They also know that there is very little we can do to affect climate change.
It's all one big lie they keep telling to gain more control over us.
Because they believe they are smarter than we, they treat us like children.
No matter what room the President or HilLIARy walk into, they are always the dumbest person in the room.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
I did find this article in Mother Jones magazine. Seems they aren't happy that Hillary, Kerry, and Obama are pushing fracking world wide.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-frac...
Interesting read about how it is playing out in Europe.
-
Permalink Reply by alexandra on
-
If Hillary gets elected, she will want 2 terms, so say goodbye to fracking in the good olde US of A!!
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
I am aware of what happened with President Woodrow Wilson.
That said, I seriously question that either President or Mrs. Clinton will live long enough to see Mrs. Clinton complete a second term. Neither appears today to be in especially good health. Among my friends and family in their age group, I am losing people at an alarming and (for me) shocking rate. President Clinton has lost all that weight for reason of trying to overcome a past health scare. Hillary is obviously not in shape. She is overweight at the least, and she has already had to face a variety of health concerns.
Obama really hurt Hillary back in 2008 by taking the nomination away from her at that time. She was perfectly capable from a health standpoint, back then, of assuming the burden of the Presidency for eight years. Obama, being younger, would have been a better Democrat candidate now. But Obama wanted it in 2008, not now, and he snatched the prize away from Hillary.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
