<p>
A classic false dichotomy. Absolutely classic. We must pollute or bomb. No other option.</p>
<p>Of course, ramping up energy production from non-polluting sources is just too expensive, right? I mean, it’s cheaper to poison our kids, or send them abroad with guns, than to replace any of our fossil-fuel energy production with wind or solar power, right? Or is it just that there’s not enough profit for the right corporations in that?</p>
<ul>
<li>What percentage of those leases are in states that dictate compensation for water contamination. Lease can’t override state law.</li>
</ul>
<p>-what percentage of those leases are for farmland. It would be pointless to add verbage for livestock and crops when drilling outside of a farm.</p>
<p>-name ANY lease for anything that includes the potential risk (environmental or otherwise) that fed laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.</p>
<ul>
<li>length of leases are a risk on BOTH sides. The drillers are tied to the same timetable. When the payouts are decreasing the drillers are out of luck. Also, leases don’t require a payback if drilling never occurs.</li>
</ul>
<p>Kluge, This is America. Go for it. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing wind, solar or anything you deem as “non-polluting”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A fire hydrant is a lot different from a gas well. And for one, a gas well is drilled for private profit that goes into private pockets, and has very few positive externalities. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You presume I have one. My EFC is 1500.</p>
<p>In any case, I am not against us having a large domestic gas supply. It sounds nice. But Jefferson would have stressed caution over rushing into potentially large liabilities.</p>
<p>Collegekidsmom, as long as enough people can be convinced that the “socialized” cost of drilling, mining, fracking and burning fossil fuels is “free” and corporations can collect the privatized profits from those energy sources, we’ll keep killing our children - one way or the other - instead of actually addressing the problem. Razorsharp was right about that part.</p>
<p>Of course, a critical element in that decision-making process is propaganda designed to sow FUD. That’s why it’s necessary for the corporations to employ folks like the odious Stephen Milloy to weave together factoids and half-truths to convince the gullible that anyone pointing out the Emperor’s lack of clothes is an “alarmist” or “enviro-nazi” or some other catchy slur. The tobacco industry was able to reap billions by that method, at a mere cost of millions of American deaths from lung cancer. (And yes, that’s where Mr. Milloy honed his propaganda craft.) I guess it’s natural gas’ turn to do the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nothing false about it Kluge. It’s called making choices. Liberals never fail to remind us that the wars in the middle east are all about oil. In part, that’s true. If we become energy independent, we could not have to worry about whether the middle eastern barbarians kill each other. Without our money for their oil, Iran would be unable to develop nuclear weapons because they would be too busy trying to feed their peasant population. </p>
<p>I don’t oppose regulation but there is no evidence additional regulation is needed. Fracking has been around for many decades and now that we are making great advances in horizontal drilling, we should not take any action to oppose fracking. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the liberal way to energy independence does not work and is too costly. Fracking works and will help America now.</p>
<p>Evita, I’m sitting in a comfortably warm home while the temp outside is around 40 degrees. Sorry, that is a hugh positive to those of us who experience long, cold winters.</p>
<p>Kluge, The “killing our children” is very dramatic! Until recently, the federal government was offering a subsidy to those willing to purchase solar. Did you? Do you have a windmill?</p>
<p>You, as others, continue to throw stones at Stephen Milloy. Why aren’t you commenting on his article? Please read my link at tell me where he is incorrect. I certainly haven’t used the terms “alarmist” or “enviro-nazi”. If you are calling me gullible then please tell me what are these factoids and half-truths in this critizque of Conrad Volz. I continue to wait…</p>
<p>CKM, if you send me a link to the Unibomber manifesto, Manson’s ramblings, Mein Kampf or the Communist manifesto and demand that I agree with you unless I read the document and point out specific factual falsehoods in it I’m not going to do that either. You can wait forever. Stephen Milloy’s job - the only job he’s ever had - is to lie to the general public on behalf of corporations which make a profit in businesses which harm and kill people. I assume he’s pretty good at it by now, which means that the half-truths will be half true, and the factoids will be difficult to suss out, etc. And it will all be presented with a very professional veneer. How despicable does a person have to be before you would feel obligated to ask for a second opinion?</p>
<p>If Milloy is right, there ought to be someone who isn’t the PR equivalent of a child molester who has made the same point. So who is that other source you want to refer to?</p>
<p>University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Canada Free Press</p>
<p>BTW, A+ for drama.</p>
<p>Hmmm… Canada Free Press…where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, here: [Canada</a> Free Press Editor Promoted By Limbaugh Also Suggested Mafia Is Behind 9-11 | Media Matters for America](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110060022]Canada”>http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110060022) You really know how to pick your information sources, don’t you? :)</p>
<p>As to University of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh Tribune Review - care to be just a little bit more specific about what “they” said?</p>
<p>P.S. Interesting article cited in a different thread: [What</a> makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite | SharpBrains](<a href=“http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2011/11/29/what-makes-your-brain-happy-and-why-you-should-do-the-opposite/]What”>http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2011/11/29/what-makes-your-brain-happy-and-why-you-should-do-the-opposite/)</p>
<p>You have the links. Oh, wait, there’s that unibomber and Manson problem with my links. </p>
<p>So, Steve Milloy is so very good at lying that you can’t find even ONE factoid or half-truth. You want to discredit him because he supports industry. </p>
<p>Canada Free Press reprints FACTS but they have a crazy editor so scratch that reference. </p>
<p>I’ll help speed things up. The Pittsburgh Tribune Review takes advertising money from the industry - does that rule them out? I’m sure you have something more dramatic in mind. The University of Pittsburgh employees drink water from the Mon. They must all be crazy except for Volz who drinks water shipped from NY.</p>
<p>
What links?? The only links you’ve posted are to Milloy’s self-promoting website.</p>
<p>First, there are links within the links.</p>
<p>Second, I thought that you couldn’t/wouldn’t read the Steve Milloy article. So, while you are there - WHAT IS UNTRUE OR MISLEADING(I’ll accept factiods or half-truths) in his article. Again, I’m waiting…</p>
<p>
Of course I didn’t read Milloy’s propaganda. If he’s your only source (and that appears to have been established now) you’re wasting my time. Sorry - I’m not going to wade through your propaganda.</p>
<p>Kluge, Interesting article cited in a different thread: What makes your brain happy and why you should do the opposite | SharpBrains</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m from New England, specifically 150 miles north of Boston.</p>
<p>EPA<em>ReportOnPavillion</em>Dec-8-2011.pdf</p>
<p>[EPA</a> Report Links Fracking To Water Pollution : The Two-Way : NPR](<a href=“EPA Report Links Fracking To Water Pollution : The Two-Way : NPR”>EPA Report Links Fracking To Water Pollution : The Two-Way : NPR)</p>
<p>"In a draft report (pdf) released today, the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed what many residents of Pavilion, Wyoming have been complaining about for some time now: Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is responsible for polluting the area’s drinking water.</p>
<p>Fracking is a controversial method used to make it easier to extract natural gas, petroleum and other substances. As the AP explains, this is the first time the EPA has linked the practice to the contamination of drinking water. </p>
<p>The gas industry has denied any responsibility."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477271a.html#/point-yes-it-x27-s-too-high-risk[/url]”>Should fracking stop? | Nature;
<p>also collegekidsmom, your quoting of well numbers is deceptive; yes, there are many more conventional gas wells than fracking wells, but fracking wells horizontally drill for much larger areas.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks”>http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade]Cracks</a> in the Fa</p>