LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    South Shore, MA
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by hinmo24t View Post
    hahaha you fruit. we need to invest, cut red tape, and deregulate work associated with oil and fracking. the jobs/economics, alleviation of fuel prices and foreign deleveraging is critical to the future of this country. frack and drill. decrease unemployment. eventually pay lower fuel prices, stop relying on idiots that hate us and enjoy living like barbarians, decrease oil imports, increase oil exports. please stop drinking the kool aid. please.
    Dude, wake up. Fracking is absolutely horrible for the environment. Drinking water contamination, air pollution, random gas leaks that blow up homes, etc. That's all no bueno. It might be cleaner burning than coal but that doesn't make it good for the environment. Here's a good article from a reputable source to back my claim.

    http://environment.yale.edu/envy/sto...-on-its-impact

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by aka pumpmaster View Post
    Well, it's about fracking time someone gets it.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkstink View Post
    Dude, wake up. Fracking is absolutely horrible for the environment. Drinking water contamination, air pollution, random gas leaks that blow up homes, etc. That's all no bueno. It might be cleaner burning than coal but that doesn't make it good for the environment. Here's a good article from a reputable source to back my claim.

    http://environment.yale.edu/envy/sto...-on-its-impact
    But that has nothing to do with this petition. Stopping a single port will not change supply and demand. Again, not sure why fracking was even mentioned.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long branch
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Peajay4060 View Post
    im not hackin on you. im against the thing. its a danger for sure. but gives people reasons on why they should sign it rather than scolding them for not wanting to.

    here one reason to sign based on what i know of the one proposed in the sound. if the port were to have a an accident it could release a cloud of incinary cases that would blow with the prevailing wind, in the summer thats on shore, and then ignite when it reaches a combustion source. apparently that was a very real problem that hurt the chances of it being in the sound.

    another reason it got defeated had something to do with that you can't claim a space on a body of water.
    a section of the open water body would have been given over to a private corporation. Gunned security vessels would patrol the no access zone 24/7. No fishing, boating, would be allowed and additional moving “no public access zone” around the incoming LNG tankers that would be 2 miles in front, 1 mile in back and 750 yards on each side. Armed escort boats would surround the tankers as they traveled to the facility, marking the moving zone and requiring all vessels to get out of the way. who is paying for that added security? im going to assume taxpayer dollars.


    and for the record
    these ports usally do not export the gas. the are importing from foriegn countries
    I realize you were not hacking on me. and im sorry if you got the wrong impression. also I have not scolded anyone for not signing.

    I made this thread to raise awareness of this issue as it came to my attention through an email I received.

    I don't have all the facts, and I welcome and appreciate all knowledge on this issue.

  5. #45
    Pj - a private corporation wouldnt be funded by taxpayer dollars, which is the reason I would want the industry made up of as many private corporations as possible. Gov will have its hands all over it though. I actually didn't read into the ocean fracking ill admit but I am all for it on land for reasons I mentioned before. If your a healthy adult with so.e physical ability you can go to the dakotas right now and make in excess of 60k a year (i wouldn't live away from the ocean for that). Too bad the epa shut down the keystone pipeline because that would have had a beneficial impact on the country too. Just like china got the keystone pipeline after obama dropped the ball on it, if we don't use these resources to our advantage somebody else will, having the same or worse effect on environment. There is no efficient demand for clean alternates right now and with the correlation of fuel prices to quality of human life and economic conditions we need to be smart. If we can improve underlying economy the resources to invest in clean alternates willthen become efficient...

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long branch
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by hinmo24t View Post
    Pj - a private corporation wouldnt be funded by taxpayer dollars, which is the reason I would want the industry made up of as many private corporations as possible. Gov will have its hands all over it though. I actually didn't read into the ocean fracking ill admit but I am all for it on land for reasons I mentioned before. If your a healthy adult with so.e physical ability you can go to the dakotas right now and make in excess of 60k a year (i wouldn't live away from the ocean for that). Too bad the epa shut down the keystone pipeline because that would have had a beneficial impact on the country too. Just like china got the keystone pipeline after obama dropped the ball on it, if we don't use these resources to our advantage somebody else will, having the same or worse effect on environment. There is no efficient demand for clean alternates right now and with the correlation of fuel prices to quality of human life and economic conditions we need to be smart. If we can improve underlying economy the resources to invest in clean alternates willthen become efficient...
    private as in like BP. yeah they had real positive impact.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Out on the island
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by hinmo24t View Post
    Pj - a private corporation wouldnt be funded by taxpayer dollars, which is the reason I would want the industry made up of as many private corporations as possible. Gov will have its hands all over it though. I actually didn't read into the ocean fracking ill admit but I am all for it on land for reasons I mentioned before. If your a healthy adult with so.e physical ability you can go to the dakotas right now and make in excess of 60k a year (i wouldn't live away from the ocean for that). Too bad the epa shut down the keystone pipeline because that would have had a beneficial impact on the country too. Just like china got the keystone pipeline after obama dropped the ball on it, if we don't use these resources to our advantage somebody else will, having the same or worse effect on environment. There is no efficient demand for clean alternates right now and with the correlation of fuel prices to quality of human life and economic conditions we need to be smart. If we can improve underlying economy the resources to invest in clean alternates willthen become efficient...
    The security would be done by the coast guard. At least with the broad water project in the sound it was. They are funded by our taxes.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long branch
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by Peajay4060 View Post
    The security would be done by the coast guard. At least with the broad water project in the sound it was. They are funded by our taxes.
    I don't mean to get off topic but that sounds like Fascism to me.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Berlin MD
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by brewengineer View Post
    But that has nothing to do with this petition. Stopping a single port will not change supply and demand. Again, not sure why fracking was even mentioned.
    Read the second petition linked in the original post. It uses the usual tortured logic to make the connection between this proposed port facility and fracking, to get you to sign. In the simplified world of petition writers, ports are how you move the product, fracking is a way to extract the product, therefore the port near new jersey will lead to fracking in new jersey.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Science mother****er
    Posts
    2,684
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty View Post
    Read the second petition linked in the original post. It uses the usual tortured logic to make the connection between this proposed port facility and fracking, to get you to sign. In the simplified world of petition writers, ports are how you move the product, fracking is a way to extract the product, therefore the port near new jersey will lead to fracking in new jersey.
    Yeah, just silly. Port or no port, demand (and extraction) will continue to increase. Cummins is starting to move engine development into the realms of natural gas for large railroad and marine. It is cheaper and cleaner, so there is a big market there. This petition won't do sh1t to stop anything. If people want to save the planet and lower our energy needs, they need to stop breeding. Increased population equals increased energy demands.