"California Finally to Reap Fracking’s Riches" (Santa Barbara: how much, house)

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by gottaq

LOL just today California aquifers were contaminated with billions of gallons of fracking wastewater. http://rt.com/usa/194620-california-...contamination/

Lest anyone mistake my own position, I am absolutely AGAINST pollution, especially of our water supplies. I have no problem with assuring that our our water is pure, and that the frackers return to the ground pure water. That can be done relatively easily and relatively clean through reverse osmosis purification. I am no longer associated with that startup water purification company, but I did a lot of work 6-7 years ago on desal. Would have been a great contributor to water issues and purification issues. Dont know if Frank is still sluggging it out. Just know that there are solutions to all issues regarding fracking effluent not to mention desal. Too bad the liberals of this state have their heads firmly inserted into their nether regions. There are solutions to these problems. Only the ignorant obstructionists resist.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

We shouldn't allow fracking in California...

I disagree, but I know this is one fight that I will lose.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by gottaq

LOL just today California aquifers were contaminated with billions of gallons of fracking wastewater. http://rt.com/usa/194620-california-...contamination/

1. It is usually best to use non biased sources
2. Even if true, it states in the article that what was done to cause contamination is already illegal. The actual fracking didn't cause any contamination, just improper disposal of waste after the fracking occurred.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

1. It is usually best to use non biased sources
2. Even if true, it states in the article that what was done to cause contamination is already illegal. The actual fracking didn't cause any contamination, just improper disposal of waste after the fracking occurred.

If you were to keep clicking the links provided, you’d find that “biased source” is the State Water Resources Board, which also found:

The Central Valley Water Board also conducted sampling of eight water supply wells in
the vicinity of some of these Category 1 injection wells. Nitrate, arsenic, and thallium exceeded the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in four of the water samples. The Central Valley Water Board
provided the results of these samples to the owners of the supply wells and notified the Kern County
Environmental Health Department. TDS exceeded the secondary MCL (SMCL) in 3 samples collected,
with maximum concentrations detected at 1,800 ppm.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/c...UIC_Letter.pdf

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by chuckmann

Well, to resort to the Constitution itself, Artilce 1, Section 10 states specifically that:

Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

California has no constitutional right to do a lot of things regarding interstate commerce, and this oil train thing is one of them.

Heaven forbid we should be subject to the constitution. After all, it is an inconvenient truth.

Looking forward to how this plays in the courts.

Aside from many of your posts being interesting, and despite your political bias obsessions - uh, I don't get why this follows the above post of mine you quoted?

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Aside from many of your posts being interesting, and despite your political bias obsessions - uh, I don't get why this follows the above post of mine you quoted?

Well, it doesn't follow. He may have had some hazy notion of the Interstate Commerce clause, but he cited to the wrong section. Even, it wouldn't make sense. Don't bother.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

California Finally to Reap Fracking

Oh geez, unlike most other states, Cali oil companies already don't pay us for all the oil they suck out of the ground here…. and like we really need even more opportunities for earthquakes?!!

Unfair Share: How Oil and Gas Drillers Avoid Paying Royalties - ProPublica

States With Fracking See Surge In Earthquake Activity

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Oh geez, unlike most other states, Cali oil companies already don't pay us for all the oil they suck out of the ground here…. and like we really need even more opportunities for earthquakes?!!

Unfair Share: How Oil and Gas Drillers Avoid Paying Royalties - ProPublica

States With Fracking See Surge In Earthquake Activity

The earth quake thing is actually good.

Some facts, the tension in the ground is already present, meaning the fracking doesn't add the tensions between the techno if plates.
Releasing the built up tension slowly over time is better than all at once (a bunch of I all earth quakes instead of one large earth quake).

If fracking in one area causes small releases of tension (small earth quakes) then that prevents the larger earth quakes in that area that causes much greater damage since the tension has been released.

Enough taxes are collected on oil products, the government makes more money on oil taxes than oil companies make in profits, which is very low (around 5% of total revenue).

[mateo45]

^ ^ So it's not enough to try and re-write Medicine (via the tobacco lobby), or Evolution (via "Intelligent Design"), or Climatology (via the Global Warming 'deniers')…. now "free market" think tanks are also re-inventing Geology?!!

CA.GOV: Small earthquakes keep big ones from happening, and other earthquake mythology.

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Aside from many of your posts being interesting, and despite your political bias obsessions - uh, I don't get why this follows the above post of mine you quoted?

I apologize. The source I was using was exceedingly difficult to search, because of the fragmentation into different sections.

So here it is:

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Is THAT good enough for you?