Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Potoooooooo]

From a Native American Newspaper

 

[KeepTalking]

Doesn't matter, as these "someone else" are a majority in the eco movement. They are going to protest nuclear just as strongly, if not more, as they are protesting pipelines.

It doesn't matter to me any more than it matters to anyone else who supports nuclear power, such as yourself.

Granted. I am, however, advocating that we do our best to take less time to do it. Fracking serves to extend our fossil fuel use, and gives us the perception of having more time to make the conversion. It does this at the expense of destruction to our environment.

Fracking can be done environmentally soundly.

I don't believe that is true, but if it is, why isn't it being done that way now?

And it does give us the necessary time to make the transition. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

The more time we take, the more damage is done, much to all of our detriment. That is a bad thing, not a good one.

The longer you keep oil prices low, the less incentive many people have to stop using it. When feeding cash into the pump becomes more painful, more people will complain to their representatives, and perhaps they will do something about it.

If more people complain to their representatives the easiest and quickest thing for them to do is reverse restrictions/ban on fracking.

Easiest, quickest, and most damaging to people and the environment. The harder, but more reasonable, thing to do is to ban fracking.

My approach still keeps prices reasonably low, although higher than now by means of a carbon tax (introduced in stages to reduce sticker shock). It will also keep the oil revenues in country to a greater extent than we do now. Hell, with a carbon tax and less oil use we might become net exporters or at least not be net importers in 10 years. There will be more jobs, more government revenue (both from production and from carbon tax) and that windfall can be used for things like research or expanding public transit.

I am not opposed to a carbon tax, it is better than doing nothing. But you and I both know that is not going to happen either.

Instead with your approach we would have oil prices like mid-2000s, we would import most of our oil again and thus much money which would have stayed in the US under my plan would go to overseas.

We survived the oil prices of the mid-2000's, did we not?

 

[KeepTalking]

Foreign oil is you only other argument, and I still find that both that argument and paying less at the pump combined, do not balance out the damage done to our environment.

I disagree. It very much outweighs it. Especially that environmental risks are simply moved (and overall actually increased) rather than eliminated by moving to more foreign oil. Countries like Russia or KSA do not have as strict environmental laws as do US or Canada and then you have to move all this oil 1000s of miles by tanker ship, which takes energy and is not without risks either.

They can destroy their environment and harm their people all they like, there is little I can do about it. They are going to do it anyway, whether we ban fracking or not. It is no reason for us to cause the same harm to our country.

I see JonA has infected your way of discussing things to the point that you now demand unreasonable tasks from those who are not holding themselves out as experts on the topic, and don't care to become experts on the topic. I won't be providing a detailed roadmap for anything relating to this discussion, it isn't what I do, nor what I care to do. Not in real life, and not on an internet discussion board. Thanks for being polite about it, though.

I am not asking you to become an expert. But the devil lies in the detail, as they say. You are merely listing things. That will not do.
So, don't give me expert-level of detail, but do give me some level of detail as to how you imagine the transition.

What would be the point? I am not going to change your mind, and I am not going to cause our government to change policy by doing so. It would be a waste of time. I already conceded, pages ago, that the fracking will continue, and you will get what you want. I will, however, still speak my mind about it.

Fracking is unnecessary because we have many alternative methods of producing the energy we are getting from fracking.

Yes, things like deepwater and Arctic drilling or tar sands. All of which have their own risks and are opposed by the same environmentalists.

Yes, they do have their problems, particularly deepwater and tar sands. But none of them are as inherently destructive of our environment as fracking.

It being unnecessary is not the reason I am against it, however. It is a method of extracting fossil fuel from the earth that is very destructive of the environment, and harmful to people, that is why I oppose fracking.

The destructiveness of it has been greatly exaggerated.

That is your opinion. Mine is that you are greatly downplaying the harm that comes from fracking. We will see if you are right, or not, over the next few decades.

You have shown nothing of the sort. You argument has been that it will make oil more expensive, from which conventional oil producing nations will benefit, and that some of those beneficiaries are undesirable. You haven't really had to show anything in that regard, either, as that is not in dispute. I simply do not agree that these things are more important than the harm we are doing to our environment by fracking.

It will make oil much more expensive, but more than that it will move money to pay for that very expensive oil out of US. It is the combination of higher prices and lower production (US production would drop to one half of present) that would really harm our balance sheets. That some undesirable regimes (expansionist Russia and Wahabism-spreading Saudis and Shiite radicalism spreading Iranians) would get to benefit is all the more reason why it would be a very stupid move.

I applaud your consistency, but I find the stupidity of the position you advocate to be choosing economics over people and the environment.

You may have tried to do that, but you failed. I presented evidence of fracking related earthquakes in several states, you were only able to downplay them by pretending that they don't matter.

It is you who have failed. You have shown earthquakes happen in several states, but I have shown that in Pennsylvania they were only detectable by sensors and are not perceptible by human beings. Several other states had some perceptible, but minor, quakes. It is only Oklahoma that has had significant induced quakes. And of course, Bakken had no reported induced quakes. So how are earthquakes an argument against fracking? At most it is an argument against fracking in Oklahoma, but even there tehy may be able to change procedures to reduce or eliminate risk of induced quakes.

Far more fracking has occurred in Oklahoma, as opposed to Pennsylvania, and more importantly where earthquakes are concerned, there are far more wastewater injection wells in Oklahoma. Pennsylvania was also more restrictive of fracking until 2010, so Oklahoma had a 5 year head start on fracking the shit out of everything. You may also want to consider this:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2013/03/26/G34045.1.abstract

Significantly, this case indicates that decades-long lags between the commencement of fluid injection and the onset of induced earthquakes are possible, and modifies our common criteria for fluid-induced events.

We likely have not seen the worst of it yet, not even if we ban fracking today.

Fracking causes earthquakes that would not have occurred otherwise. This is made more problematic by the fact that we don't know exactly why fracking causes serious seismic activity in some places, and apparently none at all in other places, with most places being somewhere in between. We don't find out until well after the fracking starts, and once it gets started, we can't stop it. Even with the serious seismic issues in Oklahoma, they are still fracking there.

Again, that is hardly an argument against fracking in Bakken. At the most, you are argument for a moratorium in Oklahoma until and unless the earthquake issue can be resolved.

Our side discussion is about fracking in general, and is not specific to Bakken. I'm not sure why I have to keep reminding you of this. I know perfectly well what I am arguing for, and it is not restricted to Oklahoma. I want fracking banned in the US, period.

They aren't going to stop until the government steps in and tells them to stop. Meanwhile, they fight that government action with every political resource at their disposal. They know they are causing the problem there, but they just have to make their money. Where will the next fracking siesmic clusterfrack happen? Who knows? It's anybody's guess. Step up and spin the fracking wheel!

As opposed to giving up on all fracking and going to the great years of the mid- to late 2000s with oil above $100/bbl and hostile regimes reaping the rewards. Canada is friendly enough, but their oil is not acceptable to ecomentalists either.

Well, it's a good thing that I am not one of those, no matter how you would like to lump me in with everyone who has a concern about the environment anywhere. We survived the mid-2000's oil prices. The economic problems we suffered at that time had little to do with the price of oil.

Your response about the chemicals supported my argument, with the exception of the parenthetical comment, support of which I have withdrawn. Your response on earthquakes has been wholly inadequate. You first said they only occur in Oklahoma, and when I refuted that notion you just shrugged off the other earthquakes as no matter. Well, they do matter, Derec. They are earthquakes caused by fracking, and they apparently occur everywhere fracking is done, except in North Dakota. That's a big problem for fracking, whether you want to admit it or not.

They are only a significant issue in Oklahoma and not an issue at all in North Dakota, the subject of this thread.

My objection to the pipeline that is the subject of this thread has to do with fracking in general, not specifically to North Dakota. You knew this at the outset of our discussion, yet you chose to engage me on it anyway. We also do not know the price that North Dakota may pay for the fracking going on there in the decades to come.

Which would be great if they didn't have a such a tendency to leak:

Nothing is perfect. Pipelines are still much safer than the alternatives.

Not when the alternative is a ban on fracking in the US. No oil from fracking at all is much safer than anything you have proposed.

And note that even if you kill fracking, the expensive oil and product from overseas will still have to get moved all over the country.

That expense just might cause people and/or the government to invest more heavily in alternative energy sources.

I find your hand waving here to be less than comforting, especially to people living in Oklahoma.

If Oklahomans really have such a problem with occasional medium quakes they need to push their elected leaders to issue a moratorium until the issue is resolved. They would have to compare the earthquake risk with all the benefits fracking has brought to their state. And finally and for the 1000,000th time, that would only affect fracking in Oklahoma, not elsewhere.

Some localities in Oklahoma have tried, but the State legislature is controlled by Republicans who are bought and paid for by the oil industry, so naturally the only ban they have decided to legislate with regard to fracking is one that bans localities from doing anything about it.

We are talking about fracking in general, not just specifically to Bakken. Fracking occurs in California and Texas as well, both of which have had recent sever droughts. And yes, conventional oil uses a lot of water as well, but that just adds to the basic problem of using fossil fuels for energy. Also, fracking seems to be taking off in some drought stricken areas:

Again, regional problems have to be addressed regionally. Banning fracking everywhere because of problems somewhere is stupid.

Sticking your head in the tar sands, and declaring that fracking is only an issue in one place, when it is clearly an issue everywhere fracking is done, seems pretty damn stupid to me. Earthquakes are a problem in every place fracking occurs, except ND (for now). Droughts are a problem in several places where fracking is done. Contamination of water supplies is a problem everywhere fracking occurs. Methane release is a problem everywhere fracking for oil occurs and the methane is not recovered.

"While hydraulic fracturing consumes only a small fraction of the water used in other extraction methods,

I find this very interesting and telling. Fracking uses much less water than alternative extraction methods.

Fracking uses infinitely more water per well than not fracking at all.

our analysis highlights the fact that it can still pose serious risks to local water supplies, especially in drought-prone regions such as the Barnett formation in Texas, where exploration and development is rapidly intensifying," Kondash said. "Drilling a single well can require between 3 to 6 million gallons of water, and thousands of wells are fracked each year. Local water shortages could limit future production."

Oh, that's a shame, "shortages could limit future (fracking)". I guess the people who need the drinking water, and those who need water to raise crops can just frack off. Do you really think the oil companies are going to let something like a water shortage slow them down, when they aren't seen to be giving two shits about causing earthquakes?

Do you think they use potable water to frack? Or are they using water that can't be used for drinking anyway?

My statement was not confined to drinking water, please read it again.

This is methane that is not being captured because they are fracking for oil.

Many oil fields have associated gas.

Many don't, that is the problem. Even if we capture it everywhere we are fracking, however, the other problems with fracking still exist.

For example, Ghawar, the largest of Saudi oil fields has several GOSPs (gas and oil separation plants) that produce 57 million m³ per day. But producing gas requires gas infrastructure, such as GOSPs and yes, pipelines. If idiots are protesting this infrastructure, gas production is far less likely to be implemented.

I am not one of those people. I have no problem with natural gas pipelines.

How is a pipeline going to fix that?

It provides a way for gas to be moved away from the field and toward users. Duh!

Gas and oil are not sent along the same pipeline, so a pipeline for oil from fracking will not solve the problem of capturing methane from a fracked oil well. Duh!

I also have no problem with natural gas pipelines,

But ecomentalists are.

Perhaps you should stop lumping me in with ecomentalists, then.

they don't cause the same environmental damage as oil pipelines (and I am not necessarily against all oil pipelines, either).

You are against them only if they involve fracked oil?

For the most part. Routing of the pipeline is a concern for me as well, just not because of religious reasons.

And you are against fracked oil because there are some problems with earthquakes and drought in fracking plays different than Bakken which this pipeline serves?

No earthquakes in Bakken for now, but as pointed out previously that could take decades to play out. We simply don't know. With Bakken there is also methane release, and water contamination. All those issues are piled on top of the basic issues with using fossil fuel for energy in the first place.

I have shown that fracking recovers considerably less of that contaminated water than conventional oil production. That leaves more in the ground to seep into wells and aquifers.

You have not shown such seepage occurs on any significant scale. The reservoirs in question are separated by impermeable rock from the aquifers.

What you seem to think is significant rarely intersects with what I think is significant when it comes to fracking.

Industrial chemicals, Derec. Your own link showed that.

Yeah, industrial processes use industrial chemicals. Imagine that. Do you know what else uses industrial chemicals? All sorts of industrial processes, from food production to solar cell manufacture.

And the waste chemicals from those processes need to be handled properly, not just haphazardly dumped into streams, or pumped underground to satisfy the criteria of "out of sight, out of mind".

You have not shown mere existence of these chemicals poses an undue risk.

That is not what I am attempting to show. The issue is with how they are handled. When it comes to fracking, they are being handled incompetently.

Just how much unnecessary industrial chemical contamination is acceptable in your drinking water, Derec?

Depends on the chemical, but I would go by EPA limits here.
One of the major chemicals used to fracture rock is HCl, which is not only active ingredient in stomach acid, it is also used to process food and to lower pH in swimming pools.

You really shouldn't be drinking swimming pool water, either.

 

[ZiprHead]

Flir Camera image of emissions from fracking site in Texas.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/v0cBAmOVr5U[/YOUTUBE]

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) investigator became ill after shooting this video while investigating a resident complaint in the Barnett Shale fracking fields. FLIR video uses thermal imaging to show emissions otherwise invisible to the human eye.

 

[arkirk]

Derec still doesn't understand the Native Americans don't want the fucking oil in the river. That is really pretty simple. I wonder if it would be okay if somebody with bulldozer ripped up his parents' graves, installed a pipeline that leaked and when he complained...set dogs on him and his family.

 

[Will Wiley]

The problem Derec, is your use of the word "deferential". But ...wateva.

A better heading would be..."why is this man mentioning religious beliefs"?

 

[Will Wiley]

Great poster. thanks

 

[Derec]

Great poster. thanks

A much better one would be a giant black snake devouring the Indian, then spitting out the feather headdress.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem Derec, is your use of the word "deferential". But ...wateva.

Why? What's wrong with the word?

A better heading would be..."why is this man mentioning religious beliefs"?

He is not only mentioning them, he was treating it with a seriousness not warranted by the silliness of the belief.

 

[Derec]

Derec still doesn't understand the Native Americans don't want the fucking oil in the river.

"Fucking oil"? I guess you could use crude as a lubricant, but Astroglide is going to work better and is much cleaner.
But seriously, the pipeline is going under the river. It's not mixing oil and water. And if a leak should happen there are shut-off valves to minimize the amount of fluid that escapes.

That is really pretty simple.

In fact, too simple. Real world is much more complex than simplistic sloganeering and radical, one-dimensional, politics.

I wonder if it would be okay if somebody with bulldozer ripped up his parents' graves,

But these are not their "parents' graves" or graves of any other recent ancestors or relatives. These may or may not be burial sites of unspecified age which may or may not contain remains of ancestors of these tribes.
In reality, Energy Partners showed a great deal of cultural sensitivity here.
Obama administration under fire for intervening in North Dakota pipeline case

According to court records, the company has changed the route on its own dime -- 140 times alone in North Dakota -- to avoid building over burial sites. Ninety-nine percent of the pipeline route, roughly half of which has been completed, crosses private land.

The company changed the route 140 times to avoid "burial sites" and the Indians still claim that the route crosses "burial sites". Obviously this is just a cynical ploy to stop the construction of the pipeline. No matter the route, they will claim it crosses "burial sites" or "sacred land" or some other bullshit. The Indians always keep inventing new reasons to oppose the pipeline, just like Indians use cultural arguments and "sacredness" to oppose any projects anywhere close to their areas, be they pipelines, mines or even telescopes.

installed a pipeline that leaked

This pipeline is not even finished so how could it have leaked. And the reality is, we need to transport oil, gas and refined products. And pipelines are clearly the best way to do so long distances. And while I do not live close to an oil pipeline I do live within miles of a major terminal for the Colonial Pipeline, which is a product pipeline.

and when he complained...set dogs on him and his family.

Dogs were not used because the Indians "complained", but because they invaded the construction site armed with sticks. Just like with #BLM, the left is failing to grasp the difference between voicing one's opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment, and trespassing, attacking etc. which are crimes.
Luckily, the ND authorities are charging some of these idiots with felonies.
Felony charges being pursued related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests
I say, about time!
Also make a note of where all the people who have been arrested are from. Not a single one on this list is local and most had to drive and/or fly long distances (using oil!) to get there to protest oil.

Olowan Martinez, 42, SD - Criminal trespass + wanted in Nebraska for Terroristic threats, theft, criminal mischief x2
Nicholas Georgiades, 34, MN - Criminal Trespass
Charlie Thayer, 31, MN - Criminal trespass
Kristina Golden, 31, MN - Criminal trespass
Dale Americanhorse, Jr., 26, SD - Criminal trespass second offense
Kathryn Thunderhawk, 44, SD - Criminal trespass
Robert Swimmer, 25, SD - Criminal trespass
Philip Strickland, 28, VT - Criminal trespass
Christopher Schiano, 26, CO - Criminal trespass
Carlo Voli, 50, WA - Reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, obstruction of a government function
Kimberly Smith, 32, AZ - Criminal trespass
Lauren Roellig, 28, CA - Criminal trespass
Juaquin Moreno, 27, NM - Criminal trespass
Emily Weisbery, 26, WA - Criminal trespass
Brittany Johnson, 28, OR - Criminal trespass
Corey Maxa, 23, VA - Reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, obstruction of a government function
Orion Yazzie-nightwalker, 29, NM - Criminal trespass
Eli Damm, 33, WA - Criminal trespass
Eric Lewis, 25, NM - Criminal trespass
Karla Lorenzanaayala, 26, CA - Criminal trespass
Eric Moll, 27, TX - Criminal trespass
Anthony Fernandes, 37, WA - Criminal trespass
Arnold Schorder, 37, OR - Criminal trespass

 

[Derec]

Indian anti-pipeline activists support Palestinian terrorists.

#BLM, anti-progress Indians, Islamic Radicals, etc., all part of one big, toxic, anti-Western stew.

 

[untermensche]

Being opposed to decades of Israeli State oppression and theft is not support for the illegal actions of a tiny few Palestinians.

It takes somebody capable of rational thought to understand this.

 

[blastula]

Those anti-Israel protestors are always glomming onto and crashing protests for other causes.

 

[bleubird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...-pipeline-leak-drains-fuel-supplies.html?_r=0
Good thing pipe lines are safer!

 

[JonA]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...-pipeline-leak-drains-fuel-supplies.html?_r=0
Good thing pipe lines are safer!

"Safer" is a relative term and does not imply perfection.

 

[bleubird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/u...-pipeline-leak-drains-fuel-supplies.html?_r=0
Good thing pipe lines are safer!

"Safer" is a relative term and does not imply perfection.

Engineers never expect perfection.But,good ones know how to balance cost and risk.Do we need one more pipe to pump the stuff that is killing us?

And,you poor babies that have to pay $2.32 for a gallon on petrol. Whaaaa.

 

[JonA]

"Safer" is a relative term and does not imply perfection.

Engineers never expect perfection.But,good ones know how to balance cost and risk.Do we need one more pipe to pump the stuff that is killing us?

And,you poor babies that have to pay $2.32 for a gallon on petrol. Whaaaa.

You didn't address my point at all.

Perfection is impossible. Sensibility tells us to pick the safest practical option to achieve the goal at hand.

 

[Arctish]

Engineers never expect perfection.But,good ones know how to balance cost and risk.Do we need one more pipe to pump the stuff that is killing us?

And,you poor babies that have to pay $2.32 for a gallon on petrol. Whaaaa.

You didn't address my point at all.

Perfection is impossible. Sensibility tells us to pick the safest practical option to achieve the goal at hand.

The safest practical option is to conscientiously improve, repair, and maintain existing pipelines rather than add more of them to a system already prone to failure and neglect.

 

[JonA]

You didn't address my point at all.

Perfection is impossible. Sensibility tells us to pick the safest practical option to achieve the goal at hand.

The safest practical option is to conscientiously improve, repair, and maintain existing pipelines rather than add more of them to a system already prone to failure and neglect.

Again the point is missed.

 

[Arctish]

The safest practical option is to conscientiously improve, repair, and maintain existing pipelines rather than add more of them to a system already prone to failure and neglect.

Again the point is missed.

What point was missed?

You said "Perfection is impossible". Nothing in my post indicates I disagree with that, but in the interests of clarity I will state my agreement explicitly. I agree that perfection is impossible.

You said "Sensibility tells us to pick the safest practical option to achieve the goal at hand". I agree with that, too. The safest and most practical option is improving, repairing, and properly maintaining existing pipelines, not adding more to a system already prone to failure and neglect.

If you had some other point, perhaps you could restate it.

 

[iolo]

They have and still are being given all sorts of money and special rights.
I don't think government issued buggery was part of the deal though.

Since they don't come from the sub-continent, stop talking out of your arse.

That is the traditional, historical name for them.

Since you are a a racist with clear sympathies with the Nazis, expect it to be pointed out, altkampfer. Heil Trump!

Bullshit iolo. You are the same as the rest of the left-wing radicals on this board. As soon as they know they lost the arguments, out come insults and accusations of racism. Weak.

If you want to be fair, give them all you have stolen and fuck off home. 'Have they buggery!' is our traditional way of expressing total contempt for drivel. We also know your traditional historical names for 'black' people. Jews and almost everyone else, and on the whole regard anyone who uses them with similar contempt. If I ever lose any arguments with racists, I shall know, thank you.