Path:
eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september
.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-septemb
er.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "NotMe" 
Newsgroups:
az.politics,dfw.politics,ca.politics,austin.politics,misc.survivalism,guns.talk
.politics
Subject: Re: Coal miners ask Obama to stop 'absolute lies'
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:59:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: 
References:  
 
 
 

Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:59:51 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="f064422f7f1bd94486bc25d13e0efbd8";
 logging-data="15523";
mail-complaints-to="abuse{at}eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ufpD+SepFrDq1TT9WeC8C3laKhFzgWJ4="
Keywords: X-No-Archive: Yes © 2012 all rights reserved; no portion of this post
 may be used anywhere else or archived without written permission
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hEknaOG4Pws8B98YEPPUzDUs5N4=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: news.eternal-september.org az.politics:2671 dfw.politics:330
ca.politics:6328 austin.politics:76 misc.survivalism:23442


"Mark Hill"  wrote in message
news:k66bgt$hll$1{at}dont-email.me...
> On 10/23/2012 12:15 AM, NotMe wrote:
>> "Galluping to a new leader"  wrote in message
>> news:k62c3f$3eh$1{at}dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/21/2012 7:05 PM, NotMe wrote:
>>>> In the end the industy had to concede that the problem was
not the EPA
>>>> but
>>>> that NG was so much cheaper that coal could not compete.
>>>
>>> The problem _was_ EPA, which is why the regs were thrown out.
>>>
>>> The solution is natural gas, but Obama doesn't like fracking.
>>
>> And now long ago the solution was coal and the big hammer was EPA (ne
>> obama) rules?
>
> What is (ne obama)?
>
>>> He's going to ruin this nation's energy cost profile:
>>>
>>>
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/05/04/obamas-newly-proposed-fracki
ng-rules/
>>>
>>> Obama's Newly Proposed Fracking Rules Opposed by Both Sides
>>>
>>>
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/234577-white-house-gas-fracking-rule-o
n-track-
>>>
>>> Top Obama energy aide: 'Fracking' rules coming by year's end
>>
>> The only fracking rules I've seen that had any teeth were those rolled
>> out  in Texas and the hard reality there was they were false teeth.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/04/news/economy/fracking_rules/index.htm
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Obama administration tightened rules on
> hydraulic fracturing Friday, requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in
> the process when done on federal and American Indian lands.
>
> The new rules will also require additional testing of oil and gas well
> construction and require the industry to have a management plan for the
> water used in the process.
>
> "This proposed rule will strengthen the requirements for hydraulic
> fracturing performed on federal and Indian lands in order to build public
> confidence and protect the health of American communities, while ensuring
> continued access to the important resources that make up our energy
> economy," the Interior Department said in a statement.
>
>> I paid for my engineering schooling working in the oil patch and made a
>> good living subsequently both inside and out of the industry.
>>
>> I don't trust the oil or gas industy as far as I  can hand toss a section
>> of 24 inch pipe.
>
> Feel free to trust OPEC, they always have had our best interests at heart,
> and they create so many high paying American jobs at home...

And we have any reason to trust the oil industy be they on or off shore? 
Back in the 70 (recall the long lines?) within 24 hours of the  price 
controls there were no more lines.  What most folk did not know was that the 
industy was running out of places to store the excess.

>
> We should of course import MORE middle east oil and let many more soldiers
> die to keep that region stable.

There were alternatives going back decades but due to oil interest those
were 'put aside'

>> Fracking can work safely but not under the rules we have now nor under
>> the rules we will have in the future (the industy controls the 
>> legislative
>> process both in the various states and in Washington.)
>
> Thank you for enunciating the Democrat  position of killing off American
> energy independence.

You know not of what you speak.  Claims of safety of fracking go  back to 
the 50's where the industy claimed fracking with atomic devices was 
perfectly safe.  You're aware there is an ocean of water under NV that is 
too contaminated to drink or use in any practical way?

Energy independence will come only when the American people have verifiable 
practical alternatives to chose from.


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1