New York cities win right to ban fracking


New York’s cities and towns can block fracking within their borders, the state’s highest court rules, upholding the dismissal of lawsuits challenging bans in two small upstate towns.

The ruling could lead the oil and gas industry to abandon fracking in New York, or it could mean that a patchwork of rules eventually may govern whether exploration can take place across the state; the case also may invigorate local challenges to the practice in states across the U.S.

Parts of New York sit above the Marcellus Shale, some of whose top producers are: CHK, RRC, RDS.A, RDS.B, TLM, APC, ATLS, COG, CVX, CNX, EQT, EOG, XOM, WPX, XCO, CRZO, SWN.

From other sites
Comments (60)
  • DevilDog85
    , contributor
    Comments (266) | Send Message
     
    New Yorkers get the government they deserve which is anti-science and anti-progress. In otherwords, it's progressivism.
    30 Jun 2014, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • smurf
    , contributor
    Comments (5776) | Send Message
     
    Too polite a description.
    30 Jun 2014, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • Fossilfuel
    , contributor
    Comments (136) | Send Message
     
    Emotions win over facts. Nice that Governor Cuomo's "health impacts" study has lingered uncompleted since 2008, and yet so-called environmentalists push forward their agenda sans facts. IMO, each municipality that bans the process should be listed for an "import surcharge" on all petroleum-based products, including natural gas, that is assessed on all customers within the boundaries of that municipality. The rest of us are subsidizing their NIMBY mentality and they, too, should "pay their fair share". In that regard, voters in those municipalities can decide whether or not they wish to pay higher prices for their anti-oil position, vote 'em out or simply move out.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3473) | Send Message
     
    Leave it to NY. If it were't such a beautiful state I would leave in a heartbeat. This place is a political nightmare that has forced many of our more decent citizens to leave. We will just keep sending our money to PA and paying their taxes for them. Most upstate NY communities are suffering for lack of work and taxable commercial real estate and the secret to the answer to their problems is right under their feet and they are too damned dumb to take advantage of it. Instead they let nearby states take advantage of them. Why? Instead people think casinos are their salvation and because we have a government of appeasers instead of a government of sensible leadership. Casinos pump money out of the state, fracking pumps money into the state. Go figure! Duh! Don't bother yelling about our wells. That has long been proven to be a crock.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • backtothesaltmine
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Well put. I'm not from NY but I totally agree with you. We have a variety of substantial SOLUTIONS to our problems thru our very own natl. resources regarding our unemployment rate, infrastructure needs, schools, stabilizing our Soc. Sec. and Medicare, etc. and to pay off our shameful and depressing huge deficit. "All right under our feet," as you expressed. So much time has passed and how sad it is that we could have had so much accomplished already but were ignored. Our current leadership and those under their influence have missed a great opportunity to receive gigantic credit and go down in history for being responsible for the most successful turnaround ever of a country. If only they had used this opportunity instead to inspire, improve, and restore our pride, patriotism and especially the work ethics of Americans, their competitiveness and our culture. They had everything they needed to unite us and put us back on the map. Our priorities should have been creating jobs thru our natl. resources as fast as we could and making our country less dependent on foreign oil. We had within our power solutions for financial security, and a more solid and stronger America than ever before.
    30 Jun 2014, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • Buyandhold 2012
    , contributor
    Comments (4296) | Send Message
     
    I have been a shareholder of Exxon Mobil, Williams and WPX for many years. Fracking obviously has the potential to make money for me as an investor. However, I have not made up my mind on what I think about fracking. A friend of mine who lives in Oklahoma told me that his house has been shaking a lot since fracking began in his area. I don't know if the shaking house is the result of fracking or of earthquakes in the area.

     

    I told my friend that it might be a good idea to install grab bars in every room in his house so that he will have something to hang on to the next time his house starts to shake.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • FleetUSA3226
    , contributor
    Comments (870) | Send Message
     
    There are several fault lines in and around OK. When I lived there I added an earthquake rider to my insurance.
    30 Jun 2014, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • formyla
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    No fracking is ok. Sell them no more fuel to heat their houses and power their SUV's. Sounds fair to me.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (13280) | Send Message
     
    And we wonder why upstate NY has one of the highest unemployment rates in Nation.....no wonder NY is one of the top 3 in wealth inequality.....such an irony given it has been in progressive hands for generations.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • ThetaDecay
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    What you call "irony", I call "cause and effect".
    30 Jun 2014, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • 153972
    , contributor
    Comments (1134) | Send Message
     
    I doubt that because the NY Supreme Court ruled that fracking can be restricted that upper NY has high unemployment or the state is in the top 3 in wealth inequality.

     

    Per the below link upper NY has a lower unemployment than the rest of the state.

     

    http://on.ny.gov/1qL9LyJ

     

    As for wealth inequality could it be that NY city is the world's financial capital, where hedge funds, TBTF banks, and other institutions that earn money FROM money are concentrated and that the financial sector is still outsized compared to other sectors of the economy, hence the reason for NY state wealth inequality? The same could be argued for London per a recent article in the FT about housing affordability for the middle class in that city.
    30 Jun 2014, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • donnugent
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Not a bad idea to surcharge fossil fuels for cities and states that block fracking in their communities.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • donnugent
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Retired from a profession in geology. Investments in energy sectors of fossil fuel production.
    30 Jun 2014, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • dwg1060
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Having worked in the oil and gas industry for 35 years, fracking is older than I am with, at most minimal ill effects. As we said about the Northeast US in the 60's, let 'em freeze in the dark.
    30 Jun 2014, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • Hmmmmm121
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    AMEN
    1 Jul 2014, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Andre LaPlume
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    Progressive does not equal progress.

     

    Staying in New York (Long Island) - business and family reasons.
    30 Jun 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • WPSPIKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1149) | Send Message
     
    (CHK) gave up on their leases years ago & filed law suits against the fracking & drilling ban places. Too bad they can't get back the $ spent on the leases, lease expiration is on hold I think?

     

    I agree those places where bans are in place then they should be forced to pay excise taxes to GET energy from other sources if they have it available but vote to prevent it's use...

     

    Mark
    30 Jun 2014, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • Hank890
    , contributor
    Comments (2023) | Send Message
     
    The key here is the phrase "within their borders" within the new law. The fracking can continue outside the paranoid town or city's jurisdiction. No problem. The cynical legislators know this perfectly well. Who is fooled by this law,.... the delusional, half-educated media?
    30 Jun 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    hank890

     

    NY was the state I grew up in however I would like to see an energy tax
    based on the net amount of outside energy consumed in the state to be levied on a per person basis. If the politicians' say they want to
    say the state must be pristine then they have to pay for the energy that "spoiled" the other area. I can't wait to see the liberals when each person has to pay $500-2500 a year.
    30 Jun 2014, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • 153972
    , contributor
    Comments (1134) | Send Message
     
    Doesn't this argue for Congress to pass legislation that regulates fracking instead of the current melange of state regulations?

     

    Clearly, the people of NY state have the right to determine if they want fracking in their state based upon the principles of states rights and the void created by this Congress in regulating an energy source at the well head.
    30 Jun 2014, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Bosshogg55
    , contributor
    Comments (153) | Send Message
     
    When my dad retired from working, the ink wasn't even dry on his last paycheck before he had a signed contract to sell the old home and relocate to Florida. We lived on Long Island and left in 1978. What we saved in taxes (real estate and income taxes), we could have used to eat out in a fancy restaurant every single night of the year in Florida and still have left over the same as what we would have had after taxes in New York. We were delighted to be able to leave and we never looked back!! Sure, I was a bit homesick and missed my friends but I discovered I could go back and visit each year and still be better off financially. You can keep New York all to yourselves. It's better in Florida. Just my opinion!!
    30 Jun 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    BOSSHOGG 55

     

    AMEN
    30 Jun 2014, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (1172) | Send Message
     
    And people wonder why there is wealth inequality in the wall street capital of the world when there are anti-growth policies like this!

     

    I'm celebrating three years of leaving that epitomy of wealth inequality called New York. New York is so overrated - outragious housing costs, state tax, city tax, traffic conjestion, everything is expensive... I don't know what the New York premium is for.

     

    Glad I left that overhyped place for Houston, TX - a growing economy here, affordable housing, no state or city taxes... peace of mind. Well, sort of... more and more north easterners and folks from lousy high tax states are voting with their feet by moving to Texas. Just hope they don't start asking for those failed policies here!
    30 Jun 2014, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3473) | Send Message
     
    finance minister They will! Trust me!
    1 Jul 2014, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    FINANCEMINISTER

     

    I live near Austin now but nyc born and raised.
    the only negative I see is the crime rate in Houston is worse but based on the clown that became mayor that won't befor long.
    30 Jun 2014, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • xomstock
    , contributor
    Comments (420) | Send Message
     
    Say what you want about Houston but I have never been afraid in Houston.

     

    I also never go there without a gun. That is one thing about Houston that makes it much safer than NYC..

     

    Living near Houston and going there for all kinds of reasons for 50 years I have never had a problem. Now I dont go down off scott street and Mlk at 2 am with a confederate flag on my shirt. One must use some common sense.
    30 Jun 2014, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (1172) | Send Message
     
    You might be correct... I don't know the crime rates. I guess much of that depends on where you live. IMHO and experience, we've always feared New York crime more than anything in Houston city.... I'm thinking of Bronx, Brooklyn etc. Maybe New York suburbs like Long Island are a lot better but that's where most of the rich folks are so police vigilence is even more. I had relatives who lived in the Bronx move to Hicksville, Long Island because one of them got violently attacked. The Houston suburbs have that same tendancy where the better districts have more police vigilance. Anecdotely too, I know more people who were threatened or attacked in New York compared to Houston. So even on that respect, I feel more safer in Houston city or a Houston suburb compared to New York. I've heard of break-ins in lower ranked Houston suberbs and that's about it. Whereas in New York, I hear of violent crime and car break-ins. Ofcourse, Manhatten is always bustling with people.

     

    In the last three years, I know more people who relocated from NY and PA to Texas...

     

    When I left NY, I even got a job in Houston that paid me 15% more than my salary in NY. I was always told that NY pays more than southern states because cost of living was expensive and higher state taxes... when I moved to Houston, I got all the upside and no downside - lower cost of living, no state taxes and higher salary. It's only because Texas has a business friendly environment compared to comrad Deblasio's "tale of two cities" New York. Since I moved here, Exxon Mobile is also relocating their head quarters to Houston and that part of the town is rapidly growing (Woodlands).

     

    IMHO, Houston and Texas in general is underrated.... I hope it stays underrated and the hype stays in New York and San Francisco area.
    30 Jun 2014, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    FINANCE

     

    Back when Giuliani was mayor every city with a million or more residents had a greater crime rate. Since Nanny Bloomberg took over its going up
    With this new clown I expect to see NYC back in the top 10 Thanks to LA , Detroit and Chicago I hope the city will never be number 1
    My city near Austin has tripled in size in the last 15 years.
    I love it here but my need for speed sends me back for 2 weeks a year.
    30 Jun 2014, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    XOMSTOCK

     

    My first experience with Houston was about 35 years ago, came down to do an audit of the agency we had at that time. The office was on Post oak about a mile north of the galleria. My second day there it rained so hard that I could not see the building across the parking lot. I've never seen rain like that. I though I was looking at Niagara falls. I sure wish I could see rain like that over here for a while.
    30 Jun 2014, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • ECapo
    , contributor
    Comments (718) | Send Message
     
    New York is a country unto itself like San Francisco...they want to make you eat and drink what they think is good for you...they need a king instead of a governor. I see advertisements in the Midwest...come to New York for business and less taxes...give me a break..if they want to not allow fracking then let those that live there pay more taxes for things.
    30 Jun 2014, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Ecapo

     

    When I lived in NYC they provided many things that most places didn't have. Yes the taxes were high but so was your salary so for many it was a perfect trade off.
    Yes, over the years certain areas had become no mans land but that started to be corrected in the late 1990's. Now between Nanny Bloomberg and the present clown I'm sure we will see a big regressions.

     

    I will say to anyone who has never been to NYC, your trip maybe expensive but you will see it's a different then any where else in the country. Most have always said it changed their perception for the better. The one person who did not like NYC that I have met complained about the dirty streets. I asked about her trip to Central Park and Rockefeller Center but she said she didn't to see them.
    That's like going to SF and seeing the golden gate or going to Wash DC and not seeing the monuments.
    30 Jun 2014, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • options45
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    N.Y. sits on a gold mine and all they was the shaft.
    30 Jun 2014, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • options45
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    New York sits on a shale gold mine and all the citizens got was the shaft.
    30 Jun 2014, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (6478) | Send Message
     
    Well, if it is their land, they have the right to do whatever they want on their land.
    30 Jun 2014, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3473) | Send Message
     
    No they don't. Folks that own land would like to sell their mineral rights. They are being prevented from doing that by dumb ignorant folks of which we in NY have an inordinate supply, who have as much to gain as the land owners. Too jealous and dumb to realize that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. While believing themselves to be oh so sophisticated. These are mostly face book rumor spreading sophisticates.
    1 Jul 2014, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (6478) | Send Message
     
    It is called a democracy. Obviously, a majority of people didn't want the fracking. Same like I can't blow up stuff on my land even if I wanted.
    1 Jul 2014, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Michael Bryant

     

    you must have failed social studies.
    In order to be democracy you need to have a vote. Did the citizens get to vote on it or was it a politician who made the decision. When the leaseholder made the lease for the land was it illegal to frack (no) what compensation will the state (the taxpayers) have to pay eventually for changing the rules. Two years ago the Supreme court ordered the Army corps of engineers to pay land holders in Georgia for stopping the use of their land. The land value isn't much but the 35+plus years of interest will cost the tax payers billions.
    2 Jul 2014, 07:16 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (6478) | Send Message
     
    Was there a vote? I don't know, but I bet enough people complained about fracking. Personally, I think fracking is still young and we don't fully understand it. I think it is a bunch of baloney that the industry can't use less-harmful chemicals. After all, I did graduate in chemistry. Seems to me the industry is trying to use the most cost-efficient way. Well, most cost-efficient isn't necessarily best. Talk to China and their pollution problem. Sure, China's booming, but at what expense. The tiger may come back a bite you.
    2 Jul 2014, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2677) | Send Message
     
    Michael,

     

    From your perspective as a chemist, I'd be interested in your thoughts after reading the linked articles below in their entirety.

     

    TIA,

     

    http://bit.ly/1rYH2qi
    http://bit.ly/HcLRtX
    http://bit.ly/QrPfAn
    http://bit.ly/KJezNJ
    http://bit.ly/1rYGZL9

     

    http://bit.ly/1rYGZLd
    2 Jul 2014, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Michael Bryant

     

    the first commercial fracking happened in 1949, so I would hardly say it is young. I would not argue about chemicals, I will say we should be using the best available. That's another problem people look at now not what was state of the art 65 years ago.
    you said Seems to me the industry is trying to use the most cost-efficient way. Well, most cost-efficient isn't necessarily best. There is also the question of availability in quantity.
    I asked my kids when they were teenagers in the early 1990's if air pollution was worse when I was a teenager in the 50's all answered
    it was worse in 1990's. Now we all know that wasn't true but they thought
    no progress was made because the didn't have a reference point like Pittsburgh in the early 1900's where a white sheet turned gray after a few hour on the line.
    2 Jul 2014, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (6478) | Send Message
     
    Acid is used in the mining industry too to separate minerals from rock. According to my geology professor, in South Africa, they would spray HCl down the mine shaft to separate the gold from rock. Unfortunately, the miners who went down there to collect the gold did not do well.

     

    I believe my professor said that the mining industry have developed new but more expensive techniques that doesn't use acid (or as much acid). Can the fracking industry use this too instead of acid.

     

    Many of the chemicals are toxic if drank in water. The problem is if the chemicals get in drinking water. Michael Filloon said if I can find a chemical mixture that is both effective and safe for fracking, then I will become very wealthy. That tells me that the industry does not have an answer yet. More work is needed.
    2 Jul 2014, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    MICHAEL

     

    Acid is used to make every electrical part on the planet. And I'm sure most chemicals are toxic in water. Chemicals have been getting into water supplies for thousands of years mainly by runoff. The other side is people claim their water supply was poisoned by fracking, in over 100 cases in Pennsylvania the epa has not found one case caused by fracking. they in almost every case found it was from normal drilling from before world war 11. That does not mean it can't happen tomorrow because humans make errors. Just like it's dangerous to go ON a gluten free diet if your normal
    how many are hurting themselves to be in on the craze.

     

    There is a less acid way which must be used in the USA it from the 1990's
    however places like peru, south Africa, and Russia just to name a few to my knowledge have no government regulations to follow.
    2 Jul 2014, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Craig Cooper
    , contributor
    Comments (2677) | Send Message
     
    "I believe my professor said that the mining industry have developed new but more expensive techniques that doesn't use acid"

     

    Michael, surely you/he can't be advocating that the O&G industry replace HCL with a ~equivalent concentration of sodium cyanide?

     

    HCL reacts with host rock to generate calcium chloride, carbon dioxide and water. Sodium cynanide can become very toxic and interaction with naturally occurring hydrogen (e.g. hydrocarbons) causes generation of hydrogen cyanide gas which is also extremely toxic.

     

    http://bit.ly/1s04eV9
    2 Jul 2014, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (6478) | Send Message
     
    Many chemicals are not toxic in water. But at high concentrations, they can be. Rain is slightly acidic water due to combining with pollutants in the atmosphere. But acid rain happens when too much pollution (mainly sulfur particles) mix with rain water. That is toxic. Hard water has calcium ions and sodium ions mixed in it due mainly by groundwater running through limestone. Nitrogen in the water comes largely from fertilizer runoff. Too much fertilizer in water can cause algae blooms. But it is the HCl and ethyl glycol that is toxic. I guess an easy way to get rid of the HCl in water is to drop zinc in it. That forms zinc chloride (ZnCl) and hydrogen gas. Just don't light a match.
    2 Jul 2014, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    Mike

     

    It's the runoff through the earth that leaches out the toxins in some area.
    2 Jul 2014, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • seeking betta
    , contributor
    Comments (636) | Send Message
     
    So you all have an issue with municipalities banning gas production ? It's called democracy. So vote out the politicians in question. Personally, I would not want my land fracked - and would not want the drilling fluids from nearby fracks flowing under MY land. If fracking is so safe, why all the bluster about disclosing what's in the fluids? There will be a day of reckoning relative to fracking - just a matter of time.
    30 Jun 2014, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • smurf
    , contributor
    Comments (5776) | Send Message
     
    I hope we have some nice unseasonably cold winters and that all these environuts freeze in the dark. Incidentally, said environuts don't seem to mind polluting the air with their wood stoves.

     

    I hope their Birkenstock shoes get termites, too.
    30 Jun 2014, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • WPSPIKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1149) | Send Message
     
    Smurf:

     

    wood stoves are basically carbon and pollution neutral, the trees grow, take in CO2 and exhale O2 taking out the carbon from atmosphere. The minerals and such used to grow the tree is returned as ash & small amounts of smoke which quickly condense water around them & drop back to earth with very little remaining in the air. There are some people who don't properly dry their wood or store it which tends to make more smoke however those are individuals who are un educated on wood burning. Blanket statements are not helpful & BTW most "environuts" would shudder that someone was burning a tree..
    1 Jul 2014, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3473) | Send Message
     
    WPSPIKER Yeah and Al Gore is carbon neutral too. Do you actually believe what you wrote?
    1 Jul 2014, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • WPSPIKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1149) | Send Message
     
    Yep, study it for yourself, when the trees grow they take in CO2, remove the carbon off of it and let out O2 (oxygen that we breath.) The carbon is held in the tree, until it rots, burns or is buried in a land fill. SO let me guess you think burying it all in land fills is preferable or using stored carbon from deep under the earth (coal, oil, nat gas) to heat the homes which puts more CO2 into the air?

     

    M
    2 Jul 2014, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    wpspiker

     

    Lets try and put numbers to it
    1] how much co2 does a tree remove per year and over it's average life time
    2] if we burn it after it's useful life how much c02 do we put into the air
    3] Could we replace a tree with say a bush which also takes in co2 possibly at a greater rate
    4] If a tree gives off X amount of BTU and CO2 when burned What amount of oil would meet that amount and also how much gas would need to create the equivalent.
    2 Jul 2014, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • WPSPIKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1149) | Send Message
     
    I understand the basic chemistry of it but that is not my main background, will provide information to best of my ability.

     

    It depends on the tree, bigger and longer it lives the more Carbon it removes, (via the CO2 it takes thru it's leaves.) That carbon is locked in the trees cells until the tree is broken down thru heat (fire,) decomposition or other means. I would imagine there is a CF (cubic foot) measurement per species of tree that says "Red Oak" takes out this much carbon per CF & "Pine" does this much per wood volume. (Some searching on the net would reveal this most likely.)

     

    If it is buried underground it acts just like the trees that created our coal, living part rots slow creating nat/methane gas, the solid part turns to a coal. That carbon the tree took in is deposited below ground and is removed from the air.

     

    Bushes do grow faster but also release the Carbon faster as less mass to rot/burn/bury. When entire forests are buried trees to bushes that locks up more of the Carbon. Basically how we got huge amounts of coal as early earth there was a LOT more CO2 in the air. Trees/Bushes grew faster sucked in the carbon fell over in the swamps and got buried faster than they rotted. Eventually the biomass was buried hundreds of feet down and compressed into coal veins.

     

    There are MORE BTUs in Coal and Gas simply because more VOLUME of dead trees/organic matter was compressed into the same space. This is carbon that has been LOCKED UP underground out of the atmosphere. When it is burnt the carbon is released, why our CO2 levels are higher than it was 100 years ago. This is also basis for the green/Al Gore types saying the Climate is Changing. They state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas & will warm the planet...

     

    Part of many peoples problems is way back when CO2 levels WERE much higher, that is how we ended up with the coal/methane trapped underground as the biomass (trees/bushes) removed it from the air. That put O2 (Oxygen) levels MUCH higher right after the process got going. (Which gave us Giant Bugs BTW) so burning Fossil Fuel is just trying to keep those Giant Bugs away. ;)

     

    Mark
    2 Jul 2014, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Hmmmmm121
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    How about cow farts? When are we going to measure their releasing of methane??? And then tax the farmer for having cows that destroy the enviro, where does it end? It doesn't cause its a freaking scam. Meanwhile everyone that is complaining about the enviro are driving tahoe SUV's, and sucking down lattes, living off daddy's millions instead of working. I'm sick of this BS
    2 Jul 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • WPSPIKER
    , contributor
    Comments (1149) | Send Message
     
    Don't holler at ME I'm just "esplaining" what is going on, I'm NOT a supporter of GW/CC and while I own an SUV and a Truck I also own a few cars ranging from '62 on up that all get very few miles on them. my DD gets 26~30 & cost me less than what I have in (CHK) stock... (and I cut my pos in them a LOT recently lol...)

     

    The Fracking scare is BS, as is TAXING EVERYTHING it is a way for tyrannical government to extort $ from the little guy without having a public beheading on every corner...

     

    I am all for a NEW and more EXTREME Regan style Government (Ron Paul might be great to get in there) as "Government is not the solution it is the Problem!"

     

    BTW my daddy was not in the pic, I was raised wild & learned to do for myself without others helping. :D

     

    The dumb thing is they have been wanting to regulate cow/cattle/domestic animals gases/solid output for years... In many cases they already do, Farmers can't just DUMP a dung dump if it might get rained on/washed into a stream etc... I live in heart of Ohio, lots of farms & worked a few in past. Messy jobs & hard work for VERY LITTLE PAY when it comes down to it 99% of the FCF is used to continue operations. Big reason there are fewer and fewer small family farms, can't afford to farm for a living on small patch of ground. Doing it NOW but make no $ from it makes for a tax write off on occasion is all.

     

    BTW from my post above, if O2 gets too high giant bugs can come back, who wants that? :o :D
    2 Jul 2014, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • jpgallo05
    , contributor
    Comments (18) | Send Message
     
    The industry will have to court the cities to change their minds. The solution (if any) will be political and monetary. Ideologs on both sides will bend. The bottom line in this issue has always been jealousy. Jealousy of those poor good who have sat on marginal agriculural and timberlands for generations eking out a living and now sit on a windfall. WHY? The progressive socialist covet a piece of the action. Energy production is a national responsibility. Fracking is a sideshow to distract from the real agenda. Did not our visionary president say after he was elected the first time that the very energy that could break our shackles to the middle east and which even make America a net exporter to other countries also held hostage, didn't exist here? We're not dealing with a moral high ground here in New York. The topic is more political mixed with a little greed and jealousy, and perhaps some unneccessary fracking anxiety. The solution $$. How much and what entities needs to get it to let it all happen.
    1 Jul 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • DavenportLandowner
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    If you lived here in the sacrifice zone in western Delaware county, NY where we are forced to give up our way of life under the threat of eminent domain for SEVEN CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, you might have a different point of view.
    2 Jul 2014, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • outofhere
    , contributor
    Comments (3694) | Send Message
     
    DAVENPORTLANDOWNER

     

    My main problem goes back to being a kid in NYC and watch the growth of the tree hugger movement the clowns who put spikes in trees and such.
    We all want energy but the NIMBY movement comes into play.
    Could you explain how you would be forced to "give up our way of life"
    and could you explain how eminent domain which is required to pay 100 cents on the dollar get to 7 cents.
    I'm not trying to argue just trying to understand you point of view as I own land also. I used to drive up 17 going to the finger lakes
    2 Jul 2014, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • compufixer
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    Nyctexasbanker
    The combustion of firewood or any other biomass is carbon-neutral. In general this is because the plant after its eventual death would be slowly recycled back into carbon dioxide by natural processes (oxidized by termites, fungi, & bacteria). So combustion of wood essentially does not affect the carbon cycle.
    3 Jul 2014, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • compufixer
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    In colonial times, most power was from burning biomass. At one time railroad locomotives burned wood. Then other power sources became available: coal, petroleum, nat gas. Now the power demands of our society are such that biomass will not suffice.
    3 Jul 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Energex
    , contributor
    Comments (906) | Send Message
     
    Marcellus has become a major contributor to the supply of natural gas in North America. It has also contributed to the fact that this energy source is plentiful and relatively inexpensive. So far not a major single incident reported in PA where hundreds of wells are drilled and fracked every year.
    New Yorkers should really appreciate to have such a reliable source in a very close proximity. The ban on fracking in NY will probably stay as long as there is plenty supply at affordable prices.
    3 Jul 2014, 08:21 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs