Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston was quoted as saying to day in the mark-up meeting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The debate was sparked as a result of Rep Diana DeGette's, D-Co trying to add her amendment to H.R. 5320. Her amendment would require Hydraulic Fracturing Service Providers disclose to the state, or the Administrator the chemical constituents (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used in each fracturing process.
Chairman Henry Waxman D-Ca was quoted as saying “I would ask that you withdraw the amendment at this time….Now is not the right time for this change.” Not only did DeGette probably not have the votes, but it would have wrecked a compromise between Chairman Waxman, and committee Republicans on the legislation (H.R. 5320) commonly referred to as the AQUA Act of 2010.
In the DMN reporter Dave Michaels’ article from today said that even when Mr. Waxman ask her to withdraw the amendment, it started a heated debate . The Texas delegation, in particular was candid about their dislike of her proposed amendment.
The Texas Republicans saying that it (her amendment) would open the door to unnecessary federal control of natural gas development. This comes at a time when oil and gas exploration and production are providing high paying jobs and generating tax revenues that the state of Texas is absolutely dependant on right now.
Rep Joe Barton, R- Arlington went on to say “My concern is if it were to be passed, it would give the EPA for the first time a regulatory foothold. And I do not think that is good public policy for the United States.”
Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston said “We have now 100 years of natural gas available in our country – clean burning natural gas that will help us with carbon control. If we eliminate hydraulic fracing, we will lose those 100 years (of gas). We have a national security issue here.”
In my opinion, Flower Mound with it’s newly elected cast of characters, seems hell bent on going against the majority of the state of elected officials in Texas, members of congress, both republican and democrats. And above all, they seem perfectly fine sending young men and women in uniform to fight and die for the right to import foreign oil products. We are blessed here in North Texas with the Barnett Shale, it’s not out in the country, it is where it is, and a good reserve of it happens to lie under Flower Mound.
We should all do our part like Arlington, Burleson, Fort Worth, and so on and allow the mineral owners to recover their interest with as little burden as possible. That’s one mans opinion.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
It's not just that we need to get off foreign oil. We need to get off oil period. By oil I don't just mean oil; I mean all fossil fuels. We've been addicted to burning things since the dawn of time. Neanderthals burned things.
If we want to actually help the situation, rather than just put a band-aid on it, we need to *require* every house to have wind power and/or sun power. Like I said, I would be in full support of building a wind farm on the Hilliard property. The sight pollution crowd would clutch their pearls, but I don't care. I think they look cool. I think they look like a sign of an advanced society. They're certainly more practical than all this other crap.
The government, nor the citizens have the resources to pay for wind/sun power for each home. A home in F/M with approx 2400sf would require something in the range of 180,000 to 225,000 to go all green and off grid and keep things like A/C. Electric cars are a joke, very limited range. N/G is a bridge fuel until we get to the mother load of super fuel which is "Nuclear Fusion" on earth. That my friend will solve all the energy problems of the world and cheep. When I can go out and buy a Nuclear powered car and drive it for 50 years with out refueling it, now you have something. And with Fusion, there are very few hazardous by products.
So, Shiloh Chris, your objection to forcing the gas companies to reveal the contents of their fracking fluids is what exactly? That it will lead to unwelcome federal intrusion? Really?
Or, is it more along the lines of what Rep Green is saying if you read between the lines: "If the feds and/or public were told what was in those fracking fluids, they would force us to "eliminate hydraulic fracing."?
It's funny how Green (and you) make the obvious leap (which I happen to agree with) that if we knew the chemicals in the fluids, the whole damn process would be outlawed.
Why do you insist on supporting the gas co's right to cover up their toxic mess? Is that what you think it means to be an American?
Give me a break. I think we're all adults here. We can handle the truth, though by revealing the truth, we may all decide that urban gas drilling is a VERY VERY BAD IDEA.
Show me the law that states that domestically produced oil and gas must stay within the borders then I'll agree it's a national security issue. There currently is nothing stopping producers from selling the product overseas..including to those countries who wish us harm.
So, let's cut the bullshit.
You might want to do some reading on that. Since 1973 congress has had from an all out ban on crude exports to limits of percentage of production etc....The very, very little exporting of crude that is done now is only to our closes trading partners, Canada, and Mexico. And I am not sure if you are aware of a little system part of which is on the Texas coast. The program is called the SPR, or Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that would not have anything to do with nation security?
Why don't they come up with a better way to get the natural gas? And the shale for that matter.
I am not trying to be rude, but what is wrong with the way they produce the natural gas now? And second, the shale is not what they are trying to get. The shale is the rock formation that contains the natural gas/hydrocarbons. Its location is matter of geology, locations of the ocean millions of years ago and so on.
There have been numerous complaints about the process and its potential danger to the surroundings. Seems like they could come up with something better to appease those concerns.
Can't the shale itself be turned into oil?
I agree that there have been numerous complaints regarding urban drilling. The majority of which come from residents who do not own their mineral rights. The people who do own their mineral rights, and who have leased them to producers generally have zero complaints and they are the ones who's land is being drilled upon and who live closest to the drilling activity.
The facts are that there are no real public health dangers or risk associated with these activities.
The current process for producing shale gas is to bore a 10" dia hole in the ground to a depth of approx 8,000 ft. Then drilling horizontally approx 5,000 ft. Then frac the bore hole with sand and water (under pressure). That process allows the trapped natural gas to escape from the shale and flow up the bore hole.
I can't think of another way at this time to do it any other way.
Maybe sometime in the future they will develop something different. But the truth is, since the first oil wells were drilled over a 100 years ago, the same principles apply today.
And Shale itself is "rock". At this point in time you cannot turn shale into oil. Gas and Oil are trapped in the shale rock. Much well water is trapped in "sandstone".
No real public health dangers or risk? That's a bold claim.
The *fact* is that the drilling companies and entities who might be sympathetic to their cause have been able to spin and tap-dance around the safety concerns thus far.
This will play out the same way it has numerous times when industry meets society.
1. Industry will assure society that industry is safe.
2. Society will suffer one or more afflicions -- some unforeseen and others foreseen but ignored.
3. Industry will dodge, spin, and partly reimburse.
4. Industry will count on society tiring of the fight.
5. Society will tire of the fight.
6. Industry will end up better off.
7. Society will end up worse off.
You would think society would eventually learn, but we don't.
1) TX already produces the most wind power over any other US state. If someone wanted to put windmills on Mr Hillards land, there would be tons of people against it, petitions started, scares made about how the electricity produced is causing tumors, and I bet it would all be because either A) someone wants to be elected and/or B) citizens feel that all those wind mills would be an eyesore, and unlike with drilling, it would be a PERMANANT eye sore, that all of FM including surrounding cities would see since everyone uses 2499.
2) There are electric vehicles that can travel great distances and are faster than most gas powered vehicles or hybrids. On top of that, they're domestic vehicles! Problem? A) they're rediculously expensive, fuel costs would never pay it off. And B) most people have never heard of such manufacturers like the Tesla, that those in Flower Mound who would buy one, would rather buy a Ferrari or lambo simply because that's the trend, and if you're buying a car to show off your success your going to but a car people know
3) On a different forum, one anti driller actually had the nerve to claim that his friends are dying overseas in the name of oil. We've got residents here that actually believe that A) the war in Iraq is a war for oil B) those serving overseas didn't sign up under their own choice, didn't know the risks, and aren't being paid, unlike police officers. C) somehow our need for local oil, will effect us just as it effected other countries and D) also believe that producing our own fuels, we will STILL be dependant on foreign oil and still "fight for it" Sometimes you just can't reason with people.
4) I agree, if we're all going to get cancer and due, how come mineral owners being offered money aren't against it?
5) we've been lied to so many times by the antidrilling crowd that if they could prove that the threat existed I wouldn't believe them.
6) Today I drove by the Hillard Airfield and admired all the flags. I also saw a sign asking me to fight for our American rights. Then I saw a CBS van. Guess Im going to be watching the news tonight
1) I wouldn't be against it. In fact, I would be as fervently in favor of it as I am opposed to the gas drilling there.
2) I would drive one. I'm not all that into the sort of image a fancy car brings a person.
3) The pro-drillers were wrapping themselves in the flag and the Constitution all night long. One even threw out a foreign-oil, mosque-building scare-a-thon.
4) I've been offered money. I turned it down.
5) The pro-drillers aren't exactly the standard bearers of trustworthiness either.
6) What American rights is Ron talking about? The right to be a jerk of a neighbor?
1) the turbines create a lot of noise. There will be people against it.
2) Driving one and owning one are different stories. I'd drive one too oy the tesla roadster cost $109k and the tesla S, the nicest 4 door sedan that Ive ever seen is $57. There's a tax incentive, but demands high so Im sure they go for more than MSRP. Plus as soon as people in town see someone driving it, they'll all want one because then it will be trendy. Someone just has to make the first move.
3) that statment sound very familiar, post elsewhere? Off topic but I heard they were going to build a mosque in FM but the town wouldn't allow it because they were afraid some nut would burn it down and they didn't want the press. Just a rumor though.
4) Youre the first I know. Of all the mineral right owners I know that said no, they did so because they knew they would be offered mire money.
6) His right to do exactly what the town said he could do with it. Legally he was allowed to drill on his land acording to all laws and ordinances, and all of a sudden told no. That's like if your HOA said that you couldn't park in your driveway even though you legally always could in the past. What are you going to do? You were going to have a garage sale, all prepared to do so, and someone from the town came by and told you that last night we placed a moratorium on garage sales because your neighbor complained about the additional traffic. Ever had your mom tell you that you could do something only to turn around and forbid it? It's not right
1) Maybe, but here's one vote for it. I'd be happy to let Ron make money that way.
2) I barely drive at all and I bought a ULEV years ago, so maybe I'm a bad test case.
3) They already have a makeshift one next to FMHS.
4) They could double or triple the amount, and it would make no difference. It's peanuts compared to the hit on my property value. Besides, there are people around here genuinely worried about the health and safety aspects of the project. I wouldn't screw over my neighbors like that just for a little change in my pocket.
6) It's a travesty when the letter of the law trumps common sense. Common sense says don't build a drilling rig on a plot surrounded by houses. Setbacks don't alleviate the concern there.
So, it is official. Ron's rights were not trampled on. He has the right to drill on his land according the laws and ordinances. But, he requested variances to the ordinances and so his permit was rejected. Therefore, the system worked.
Anon 8:03 - I agree with your assertion that the system worked, but not because the variance requests were denied. That implies that all variance requests are per se "wrong" and should be denied. Suppose that the only variance that was requested was to build the pad within 500 feet of the shed - if so, should that have been denied? Why? It is, after all, just a shed, not a dwelling, and it is Hilliard's shed on Hilliard's property.
The reason that the O&G Board has the authority to grant variances is that there are situations where the intent of the regulations can be met even if the exact letter of the regulations is not. I submit that the request to build the pad site within 500 feet of the shed is an excellent example of this. We may see this scenario play out at the next O&G Board meeting.
The variances were rejected because the people do not want drilling that close to school or neighborhoods. There will always be something that triggers an ordinance. It's like the town's failsafe against an unreasonable site in general. There is no way something like that should happen on that property. The setbacks are meant for rural sites. They should be scaled for population density, but instead we have this bizarre system of nitpicky gotchas that we use to do the same job.
Anon 12:35 AM - So, if I understand what you are saying, in your opinion there should be no drilling at all on the Hilliard site and the O&G Board should as a matter of course reject any variance request that is submitted? And this is because the site is, again in your opinion, too close to neighborhoods and schools, even though the distances from the site to these neighborhoods and schools are in compliance with our ordinances?
That is correct. The pro-drilling side bemoans hard and fast rules too. The hard and fast rules are the result of simplistic reactions to complex problems. It is not logical to have the setback from one house be the same as the setback from a hundred houses. You have to balance the impact of any potential economic impact or disaster scenario against the benefit to the landowner and the community.
IMO Flower Mound, being at the forefront of the drilling controversy, should take the initiative and create an ordinance that scales by population density. It would still be a "best guess" rule, but it would be a better "best guess".
So even though the O&G Board is charged with reviewing variance requests based on the merits of the specific requests (and not on some theoretical setback requirements that you think are more logical), you would have them discharge that fundamental responsibility and per se reject all variances. Such is the stuff of very costly lawsuits, my friend.
No, I would have the town create reasonable policies rather than relying on the O&G Board to rule based on how many people show up to the meeting.
Lawsuits can come from either side. There's nothing you can do to prevent them. The government's job is to make decisions that balance the various freedoms of the people they govern.
A government can certainly minimize the risk associated with lawsuits by properly discharging their responsibilities. The responsibility of the O&G Board is to make decisions based on the merits of the variance requests, not on some idealized view of what the ordinances should be or on the number of residents that show up at a meeting to voice their opinions (on either side of the issue). The question of whether or not a school is too close to the proposed Hilliard pad site is, simply, not something that should enter into their decision-making since the variance requests had nothing to do with the schools. If the Board members based their decisions on factors that were not causing the variances, they went well beyond their authority and seriously exposed the Town to legal action.
My neighbor installed a windmill on his property for about $12K, doing the concrete base work himself. Provides enough juice to power his two level home, pool, jacuzzi, barn, etc. On low usage days, the meter runs backwards, returning juice to the grid. The windmill takes up 100 sq feet, produces NO emissions of any kind, didn't require millions of gallons of water, no truck traffic, no ruined roads or property values AND will have paid for itself in less than 5 years. I'd get one myself, but my property ain't worth shit anymore, so I'll be damned if I sink any more money into it.
Anon 12:35 - Really? too close? The ordinance says it cant be closer than 1000 feet from that school, and if he were able to drill in the dead center of his property, he'd be 2000 feet away. The children wouldnt ever see it, smell it, and most likely not even hear its initial construction while outside on school property. Unless you believe that those children in wellington (who all grew up in similar untested Aston Woods homes) all got leukemia from the drill site by Circle R Ranch, several MILES away from where they live and go to school (if theyre even old enough to go to one) And since we get our water from the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Dallas Water Utilities, how are these children drinking well water near local drill sites?!?
Tim - Thats great, and if I had a bunch of land and a ton of money, Id do it too, but thing is, unless you live on rural land you really cant do it. In neighborhoods 1) it would look gawdy and out of place (especially if the home is a one story) and 2) it would be so close to your neighbors that theyd complain about the noise. Believe me, temporary noises like construction people tend to live with because they know it will someday go away, but a windmill, thats permanent.
Drove by Lantana the other day and some guy installed solar panels all over the south side of his roof. Its a good idea, and a better alternative to wind, but man its ugly as hell and Im surprised the HOA allowed him to do it. Id love to do it to my home. I dont have an HOA, but would only want to do it on the north side of my home where people cant see it.
Thats one alternative Mr Hillard could do, but only AFTER the drillings complete. You really dont notice it. I used to drive by the drill site near Scenic & 1171 and the one near 407 & 1830 in Argyle. I always had the top down and I never noticed loud noises, or bad smells. Could smell horses and cattle, but not anything related to drilling.
Post a Comment