U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-08-2014, 09:22 AM
 
1,568 posts, read 1,121,291 times
Reputation: 1890

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
Idunn wrote: But the money made by oil field hands, waitresses and prostitutes is chump change in comparison to the vast financial riches which inevitably flow but to a relative corporate few. As well greasing the palms of more than a few politicians.

The way of the world....a few billionaires rake it in and and everyone else gets screwed, as the environment gets raped in the process.
You do realize someone with a GED and welding cert can make 100k on pipeline work? The US oil boom has allowed many people to earn more money than they ever could imagine. I have a friend that is just a pipeline support crewman and he makes 85k/yr. Sure Buffet continues to rake it in, but a lot of other people are doing well in the industry as well.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2014, 10:01 AM
 
508 posts, read 588,459 times
Reputation: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
I don't understand what your point is? There are trucks on the road. Big deal. There are trucks on the road for everything else we do as a society. The medieval lefties always talk about "impact". The earth always changes and always will, whether we are here or not. Anything any creature does on the planet is an "impact".

Fracking technology has developed over time. They can drill out many times the distance they once did, requiring less wells and in addition often connect these up to pipeline before hand.
"Medieval lefties" - are you serious? What does that even MEAN?

Regardless - fracking destroys more than it creates. For everyone anywhere in the general vicinity, quality of life drops like a stone. Because we're not talking about one or two trucks a day - we're talking about a steady stream of them, in rural areas where there was previously almost no traffic. On roads that were not built for those kinds of loads, and so they tear up the roads as well. Trucks are LOUD, especially across flat expanses of land with few tree buffers.

Plus the noise pollution from the fracking itself, which is significant, as well as the degradation of air quality and the pollution of the ground water and everybody's wells for miles around. When you live in a rural area, city water is not an option.

Since you seem so enamored of fracking, how 'bout you buy the property belonging to a friend of mine in Texas? 25 years ago she bought a rural property, built a nice house on it, and retired to have fun with her rescue dogs and donkeys.

A few years ago, they started a fracking operation in the area - just after she put her place on the market, because she had reached the age where she needed to consider a retirement community.

Now she can't sell the place because of the constant noise, the traffic, and the poor air quality. She is pushing 70 and she is trapped out there. NOBODY wants to live near a fracking operation.

You like it so much - you move next door to one.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 10:05 AM
 
1,568 posts, read 1,121,291 times
Reputation: 1890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj View Post
"Medieval lefties" - are you serious? What does that even MEAN?

Regardless - fracking destroys more than it creates. For everyone anywhere in the general vicinity, quality of life drops like a stone. Because we're not talking about one or two trucks a day - we're talking about a steady stream of them, in rural areas where there was previously almost no traffic. On roads that were not built for those kinds of loads, and so they tear up the roads as well. Trucks are LOUD, especially across flat expanses of land with few tree buffers.

Plus the noise pollution from the fracking itself, which is significant, as well as the degradation of air quality and the pollution of the ground water and everybody's wells for miles around. When you live in a rural area, city water is not an option.

Since you seem so enamored of fracking, how 'bout you buy the property belonging to a friend of mine in Texas? 25 years ago she bought a rural property, built a nice house on it, and retired to have fun with her rescue dogs and donkeys.

A few years ago, they started a fracking operation in the area - just after she put her place on the market, because she had reached the age where she needed to consider a retirement community.

Now she can't sell the place because of the constant noise, the traffic, and the poor air quality. She is pushing 70 and she is trapped out there. NOBODY wants to live near a fracking operation.

You like it so much - you move next door to one.
That sucks for your friend but you can apply that situation to almost any type of development. It's not isolated to fracking.

PPL in NY are suing the state to allow fracking. They see the millionaires being made overnight in PA, they want a piece of the action.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 10:19 AM
 
508 posts, read 588,459 times
Reputation: 1400
I see. So its ok as long as YOU don't have to suffer.

While we're at it, there is very little "development" in rural areas that leads to this kind of suffering and misery for the majority of nearby residents. This isn't "development" - it is destruction.

The vast majority of people affected by fracking are NOT going to become millionaires. They are going to LOSE, quality of life, property value, and be exposed to health risks. Just because some NYers are behaving foolishly doesn't make it a "good thing".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:22 AM
 
9,840 posts, read 20,492,992 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj View Post
"Medieval lefties" - are you serious? What does that even MEAN?

Regardless - fracking destroys more than it creates. For everyone anywhere in the general vicinity, quality of life drops like a stone. Because we're not talking about one or two trucks a day - we're talking about a steady stream of them, in rural areas where there was previously almost no traffic. On roads that were not built for those kinds of loads, and so they tear up the roads as well. Trucks are LOUD, especially across flat expanses of land with few tree buffers.

Plus the noise pollution from the fracking itself, which is significant, as well as the degradation of air quality and the pollution of the ground water and everybody's wells for miles around. When you live in a rural area, city water is not an option.

Since you seem so enamored of fracking, how 'bout you buy the property belonging to a friend of mine in Texas? 25 years ago she bought a rural property, built a nice house on it, and retired to have fun with her rescue dogs and donkeys.

A few years ago, they started a fracking operation in the area - just after she put her place on the market, because she had reached the age where she needed to consider a retirement community.

Now she can't sell the place because of the constant noise, the traffic, and the poor air quality. She is pushing 70 and she is trapped out there. NOBODY wants to live near a fracking operation.

You like it so much - you move next door to one.
Uhhh........ I live in natural gas production central in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. I have hundreds of wells all around me and right down the street too. So I know plenty and probably much more than people that have no personal experience with it, but rather sit behind the computer and read scary stories from their environMENTAL blogs. I have lived on leased property, been to public meetings, participated locally with other locals in discussions about the issues, talked to the companies and done my own research.

It is true that like with any construction when a new well is built and fracked there is traffic and trucks. Around here the gas companies rebuild all of the roads and repair any damage. Once a well is finished though, the activity drops off like a stone.

Medieval lefties are those opposed to any sort of modernity due to "impact" and enviroMENTAL hysteria. They oppose energy production, food production, mining, industrial production and anything involved in being able to live a modern existence. If they can't ban it, they heavily regulate and tax it.

For me I am very much for keeping our living space as clean as possible, but within reason too.

Fracking technology is moving on very quickly and they make advances every month that both reduce what is needed to frack a well and with how many wells are needed.

The left said for many years I recall back in the previous century that we needed to be "energy independent". Now that we are working in that direction they are howling about it. So you can't win with them and there is no point in trying.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:42 AM
 
9,840 posts, read 20,492,992 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojj View Post
I see. So its ok as long as YOU don't have to suffer.

While we're at it, there is very little "development" in rural areas that leads to this kind of suffering and misery for the majority of nearby residents. This isn't "development" - it is destruction.

The vast majority of people affected by fracking are NOT going to become millionaires. They are going to LOSE, quality of life, property value, and be exposed to health risks. Just because some NYers are behaving foolishly doesn't make it a "good thing".
Total baloney and made up hysteria that has nothing to do with reality.

Natural gas development in an area spurs economic growth. It brings income into an area that often needs it. Restaurants, shops, car dealers, trades, real estate and just about anyone involved in the local economy gets some kind of benefit, either directly or indirectly.

Property owners themselves benefit from mineral rights leases and often they don't even need a well to do so as they receive a signing bonus. For many small generational farms it allowed many to rebuild the barn, invest in new equipment, repair old equipment and renovate the old farm house. It actually revived agriculture in the area and the growth in organic local produce and meat to the point we have several new successful farmers markets in the area.

Health risks? There are some independent groups here that monitor the water and test it on their own dime. They have found no indication of pollution from wells or "fracking", mostly because that is a physical impossibility. The water in Pine Creek is actually cleaner now than 6 years ago because tax revenue from natural gas allowed a sewage treatment plant upstream to clean up and modernize their system. Aint that funny?

Of the few incidents that happened with spills, people were punished, land owners reimbursed and the problem cleaned up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 02:44 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 6,358,342 times
Reputation: 2633
Wink Colorado and geopolitical affairs

I think I can say, and say with pride that we have some legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world.
— Mark Twain, Speech 7/4/1873




A few notes on geopolitical affairs, and then to Colorado.

Iraq was invaded by the United States for oil. Particularly by now that is demonstrably evident to anyone having paid attention, as many of the facts have since emerged. Proclamations of the Bush administration that Iraq was acquiring yellow cake in Niger and had weapons of mass destruction were suspected specious at the time by many, and proven so after the fact. It was readily apparent then that this administration was hell bent on war, rather than seeking alternatives. Among those that have since commented on this, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, having served in the Bush administration for two years, told CBS News that this administration began planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of assuming power in the White House. My understanding that Cheney et al held formal meetings in this regard less than 30 days after transfer of the presidency from Bill Clinton.

Many politicians voted for the Iraq war that have since had cause to regret it and said as much. They were swept up, as many of their constituents, in the manufactured fervor which is common to such incidents—all the while ignoring many voices of reason at the time arguing against such an ill-conceived enterprise. Political considerations were rampant in this.

As with Afghanistan, or South Korea for that matter, the US has no need or desire to maintain a large US military presence in a nation once it has been largely subdued. Local Vidkun Quisling's can be found as 'elected' leaders who will more or less reliably follow US mandates. Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is another such, if he at times has proven far more obdurate and willful, more of an Afghan, and Karzai, patriot first. The US is keen on influencing the forthcoming Afghan presidential elections in April to insure a suitable leader emerges.

Afghanistan is also a good case in point, as the US has no intention of leaving that nation anytime soon, despite publicly avowing a complete military withdrawal by close of 2014. They have been angling for a forces agreement which would allow well over 10,000 US military personnel to remain as 'trainers.' One reason President Karzai has balked—despite blackmail threats of peremptorily cutting off funding in the billions—is that the US still insists on the right of these personnel to conduct military operations, such as invading Afghan homes in the dark of night (having resulted in a great number of Afghan civilian deaths, and much angst).

Presumably the last US troops departed Iraq on December 18, 2011. However US personnel and their effective control remained in place. These are often imperfect arrangements, as witnessed by Mr. Karzai, yet US intent is always to retain enough control to influence events in alignment with US interests. The new US embassy in Baghdad opened in January of 2009. With 29 buildings within 104 acres, it is the largest US embassy in the world. There has since been some drawdown of staff, if initially peopled with 16,000, including some 2,000 'diplomats.' As well some 5,000 contractors of various persuasions. Remember Black Water?

It does not matter who technically controls Iraqi oil. Under Saddam Hussein the state did. Cheney wanted a great deal more Iraqi oil on the global market in order to lower oil prices, and towards that end to have multinational oil corporations involved, who where forbidden access under Hussein. That is exactly the case now. All posturing aside, the oil majors now effectively run Iraq's oil show. The average Iraqi sees no benefit from this. It should be remembered that in invasion planning and subsequent events on the ground that the US was assiduous in safely securing Iraqi oil infrastructure, meanwhile allowing the rampant looting of Iraqi antiquities and much else. That level of concern for Iraqi citizens continues.

As for Colorado, Baku, Azerbaijan could prove a good case in point. Baku's oil boom began in 1873 (first wells dug in 1846). By 1900 it was the world's number one producing oil field. Various politics intervened over time to disrupt this. For one, in 1883 the Rothschild family became involved, shortly followed by the Standard Oil Company of Rockefeller, and between them more or less divied up the spoils, and together in collusion to restrict oil output. These oil fields were large and important enough to be one of the prime targets of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler in WWII.

Baku is a large regional center with oil historically vital to it. As with former Colorado mining camps, such as Leadville, it has seen past days of glory fading into an uncertain future. The Russian revolution disrupted things, but oil is still being extracted there. In 2003, about 60 million barrels were produced. That peaked in 2010, with just over 450 million barrels of oil produced. They are now on an inexorable decline in output, at about 370 million barrels in 2013, projected to have dwindled to but about 40 million barrels by 2029.

While these oil reserves might be viewed as a beneficial one-time gain for Baku and Azerbaijan, and in some respects exactly so, the legacy as well in enduring environmental costs. The Absheron peninsula has 70 percent of the nation's industry, 40 percent of its population. Yet this vital region has serious ongoing environmental problems stemming from long standing oil extraction with little concern for consequences. The land is heavily contaminated with the residue left from oil extraction and refining. As in Colorado with various old mining operations, and Superfund sites as with Summitville in the San Juan, the legacy of private profit gained is ongoing public responsibility for the environmental and monetary consequences.

It is not just Baku or Colorado that is so affected. Oil operations have despoiled vast areas around the globe, and in such areas as Siberia, the Amazon and, yes, in the United States. Often the result of disregard by oil majors, who contest even a fraction of the true cleanup costs decades on, and lack of proper oversight by politicians. If a relatively old technology, fracking of any size has been of recent advent. Its repercussions will be global as being explored and increasingly practiced anywhere underlying geology is favorable—and that is a LOT of places. Consider that Colorado is just one small part of fracking operations across the United States. Or look, for instance, at the experience of the UK and how that government intends to run roughshod across the welfare of most citizens of Great Britian.

I have never advocated the cessation of all fracking in Colorado. Only given its serious negative downsides to affected residents in the near term—and especially possible very serious long term consequences—that all oil extraction, and particularly fracking, be approached in a wise and ordered manner. That the science of possible environmental harm be well understood with best practices followed where oil and gas extraction (without undue environmental destruction) is feasible and allowed. That is not the case at present. More like the Colorado gold rush of 1859, with the Devil take the hindmost. Or, within this state, the citizens of Colorado left in the end to face and deal with a possibly very detrimental legacy for a long, long time.

Or, if this oil boom is, as advertised, for the betterment of Coloradoans, then let all oil and gas extracted here be sold and used solely within this state; the proceeds largely used for the betterment of the public welfare of all Coloradoans, and enhancement of their vital environment.

That will not happen.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 05:45 PM
 
22,973 posts, read 42,055,677 times
Reputation: 23401
Planning for the invasion of Iraq began as soon as Bush and Cheney took office, and has been reported many times over the years.

I sat at my desk in the Pentagon and watched the buildup, there was no pretext of a diplomatic solution; we sent over the gear and went in. I'm very proud of our military. One Army division went up the west side of the Euphrates River, one USMC division went up the other side of the river. Those guys didn't rest for 7 days, some fell asleep standing up in their tanks. In seven days those two divisions went through the Iraqi military and gave Baghdad Bob something to talk about as they reached the city of Baghdad.

IMO this was planned in 2001 when Cheney held his closed door sessions with the oil industry, the results of which have never been disclosed.

Iraqi oil was not necessarily slated for U.S. consumption, but to assure its supply on the world market so it couldn't be used as in the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Withholding that oil and the oil of other Arab nations would've played havoc with world oil prices and especially the economies of the western nations - a stock market meltdown / recession / panic.

All that being said, back to fracking.

IIRC, one outcome of Cheney's closed door sessions was that the chemicals used in fracking were not required to be listed or disclosed to the public, most likely because as they were/are nasty pollutants of whatever severity. The secrecy is not a good sign. I do hope the industry perfects fracking so it's harmless as I've been rooting for energy independence for over 40 years now.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
33,269 posts, read 13,976,646 times
Reputation: 24332
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
Uhhh........ I live in natural gas production central in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. I have hundreds of wells all around me and right down the street too. So I know plenty and probably much more than people that have no personal experience with it, but rather sit behind the computer and read scary stories from their environMENTAL blogs. I have lived on leased property, been to public meetings, participated locally with other locals in discussions about the issues, talked to the companies and done my own research.

It is true that like with any construction when a new well is built and fracked there is traffic and trucks. Around here the gas companies rebuild all of the roads and repair any damage. Once a well is finished though, the activity drops off like a stone.

Medieval lefties are those opposed to any sort of modernity due to "impact" and enviroMENTAL hysteria. They oppose energy production, food production, mining, industrial production and anything involved in being able to live a modern existence. If they can't ban it, they heavily regulate and tax it.

For me I am very much for keeping our living space as clean as possible, but within reason too.

Fracking technology is moving on very quickly and they make advances every month that both reduce what is needed to frack a well and with how many wells are needed.

The left said for many years I recall back in the previous century that we needed to be "energy independent". Now that we are working in that direction they are howling about it. So you can't win with them and there is no point in trying.
As a person with a degree in geology, and having traveled extensively over my younger years in my next-door state, I see Pennsylvania (at least in the past) as one of the WORST examples in American history of mineral extraction -- particularly coal -- boom and bust psychology, which led wide parts of your state (e.g., Wilkes Barre, Scranton) into economic stagnation. You have the proud distinction of being that rare state where mountains catch afire...not the forests, but the mountains themselves. Parts of cities and towns that cave in from the collapse of mine shafts.

So please, no advice from Pennsylvania about how safe mineral extraction is.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,794 posts, read 17,551,828 times
Reputation: 9424
I grew up in Pennsylvania. When I was a kid, we used to joke about Pennsylvania being the national dump, for the storage/dumping of items that no other state would accept. Unfortunately it is no joke......Pennsylvania IS the national dumping ground! I left PA on my 18th birthday, and I've had no desire to go back. I force myself to spend 10 days there every 2 years to visit family. If not for family, I'd never go to Pennsylvania. I'm always glad to get on the train and head back west. Let us hope that Colorado does not follow in the footsteps of Pennsylvania.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top