Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 7, 2016
Fear the Bern: Sanders’ Anti-Fracking Agenda
Presidential candidates make a lot of promises, but one candidate’s energy policy is based around fear and falsehoods regarding natural gas development.
Presidential candidates are often over-promising ideas and setting out lofty goals to better identify with their potential voters. It really reminds me of the campaign promises of a student class president claiming the power to have pizza for lunch everyday or extended recess. It is no different from student council candidates to presidential candidates. They all say what they think their voters want to hear.
The sad truth is people believe them because they want to believe them. They buy into some of the so-called “promises” so much, that they tend to fall for the candidate’s agenda even when they don’t fully understand it. Natural gas discussions are not immune to the idiocracy of this election and the false promises.
I generally want to avoid partisan debates, but I will teeter into it a bit. It is no secret to those who know me, that I do not “Feel the Bern” and loathe the idea of someone like Sanders or Clinton in the Whitehouse. With Clinton, you know the establishment she represents and you can choose her if you wish (note the lack of digressing into a political rant), but with Sanders, our very own socialist candidate, you are dancing into unchartered territory. People are so caught up in the radicalism and the disruption of the establishment (which isn’t bad), that they are swallowing his snake oil by the mouthful.
I want you; to be scared of what you do not know.
Tom wrote a fantastic piece about two months ago that laid into Sanders’ “energy plan” and you can tell right away his ideas are super-expensive but cheap to sell. Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s, the environmentalist, Vermont-based ice cream mogul, has endorsed Sanders and created a ice cream flavor for him. What do the two have in common other than Vermont? Well fractivism, of course; why else would we be talking about them?
Huffington Post, which loves to tout their dismay for fracking by publishing Mark Ruffalo, has posted a story titled, “Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking. Hillary Clinton ‘Sold Fracking to the World’.” The post is more of an advertisement for Sanders than anything else, but it drives my point. Throughout the post, they give examples of flaming water faucets, tainted water, earthquakes, etc.; spooky stuff to those who get their education and news from sources like Huffington Post.
What is interesting from a marketing standpoint (and I would have done the same thing if I were sad enough to support Sanders), is that they layer all of these scary ideas into the story right after advancing the “Bernie is a hero for wanting to ban fracking and Hillary is taking their money” complaint. It is a shoddy attempt to make Bernie out as this anti-establishment hero of the people or not as career politician, even though he’s been “sucking off the public teat” longer than I have been alive.
The entire piece is phony as could be and wouldn’t make the cut on any true news outlet. It is an artificial op-ed and puff piece that should have cost Sanders advertising money. Consider just this one section of the story (emphasis added):
“…Hillary Clinton upholding the status quo, or Bernie Sanders making climate change a central focus of his economic and energy policy. There’s only one choice. If voters are serious about fixing the structural dilemmas pertaining to why corporate interests are so influential in promoting devastating hazards like fracking, they’ll choose Sanders. While Clinton and Trump refuse to ban fracking outright, only Bernie Sanders is willing to ban fracking completely as president.”
It took real effort on my part not to bold the entire paragraph. This line of thinking, in fact, is starting to make me angry and I’m one of those Millennials who’s supposed to be in favor of Sanders. The attitude of these “Sand Bags” is distinctly “holier than thou” and smugness and condescension are just too much. If these folks were sincerely concerned with the environment, they would choose fracking because it reduces carbon emissions quickly and effectively. Even this former Greenpeace Executives notes, “[C]limate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas.” He understands real progress is only possible with natural gas development.
You would think Sanders and other like-minded pols would do some basic research before advancing their scare tactics, but that isn’t the way politics work. Hence, the reason this blog is focused to such a great extent on exposing fractivism. If only we could devote ourselves to just selling the benefits of natural gas, which are considerable. Unfortunately, correcting the record has to come first, especially when there is so much “Feel the Bern” fire and no light.
Yes, it’s depressing but, to lighten your mood again, here is a great video of typical Bernie Sanders’ supporters singing about fracking. It’s a good reminder we shouldn’t take these people that seriously
16 Comments on "Fear the Bern: Sanders’ Anti-Fracking Agenda"
adamc18 on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 9:37 am
The venting of methane from drilling the wells makes fracking just as damaging to the atmosphere as burning coal. The good news is that they are both going bankrupt at a rapid pace.
Kenz300 on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 10:42 am
The sooner we move away from fossil fuels the better.
70 More Earthquakes Hit Oklahoma, Averaging Nearly Three a Day in 2015
http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/11/fracking-earthquakes-oklahoma/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1fd6621515-Top_News_1_11_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1fd6621515-86023917
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 10:48 am
What is wrong with Huffington Post? The author bashes them early on. I find H P is highly articulate, scientific, and insightful. Bashing H P is like bashing dentistry. ”duhhhh who der them dentists think they iz, thinkin we should all be brushin our teeth an flossin, don’t them dumb dentists understand out here in these parts, we don’t need no teeth no how anyway and everybody eat candy bars’. Just ignorant hate speech.
shortonoil on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 11:17 am
“If these folks were sincerely concerned with the environment, they would choose fracking because it reduces carbon emissions quickly and effectively.”
By the way, the world has over 1 million depleted oil wells. The caps on those wells deteriorate, and must be replace about every 20 years. The ones that are not replaced leak; that’s most of that 1 million. They are leaking methane, and a little radon to go with it. So why not drill a few hundred thousand more wells that will be dead, and capped in less than 10 years. If you are one of those Millennials, and your kid is born with six fingers, and three eyes don’t be too surprised. Of course, that old, uncapped well next to your house that you didn’t know was there had nothing to do with it!
ghung on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 11:59 am
Switch to Natural Gas Won’t Reduce Carbon Emissions Much, Study Finds
“Increased use of natural gas has been widely credited with having reduced U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in recent years. But the new study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, finds that between 2013 and 2055 the use of natural gas could reduce cumulative emissions from the electricity sector by no more than 9 percent, a reduction the authors say will have an insignificant impact on climate. The power sector accounts for around a third of U.S. emissions.
The researchers—from the University of California, Irvine; Stanford University; and the nonprofit organization Near Zero—examined varying combinations of natural gas supply and climate policies. In some scenarios, they found that use of natural gas would actually boost emissions from the power sector by up to 5 percent…..”
Boat on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 12:12 pm
Ghung,
I wonder what the numbers would look like if flaring regulation was in place. Allowing flaring was about as stupid as allowing coal companies to build coal ash ponds next to rivers.
Boat on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 12:45 pm
What would those numbers look like if there was no flaring. And why was flaring allowed in the first place?
Boat on Sun, 7th Feb 2016 12:51 pm
“They all say what they think their voters want to hear”.
“The sad truth is people believe them because they want to believe them”
The sad truth is writers are always making these kind of statements. Like they are any smarter. The internet has made information easily accessible. But alas, common sense doesn’t change spin.
Kenz300 on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 7:51 am
Wind and solar NOW………..
Safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy for the future…..
The Inevitability of Solar
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/09/the-inevitability-of-solar
Kenz300 on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 7:53 am
Climate Change is real…… utilities need to deal with the cause (fossil fuels)
100% electric transportation and 100% solar by 2030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k
Alpha9 on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 10:40 am
Shock. Some Truth about the Cancer and Pollution industry. AKA the Fracking industry.
Baptised on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 10:56 am
Short I like your statement at 11:17. Question are bore holes completely filled with concrete at the end of their life or just plugged? If they are just plugged, look out in about 100-150 years and somehow I don’t think the original driller’s will take responsibility.
Baptised on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 11:03 am
Short my statement is assuming that questionable dead wells are only capped. Surely we are not that short sighted, no pun, to only cap a well that is never to be looked at again.
buddavis on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 11:20 am
Baptised
They are plugged according to the rules and regs of the governing agency that oversees the Oil and Gas operations of that particular state. The Texas RR commission, Office of Conservation in LA, etc.
They often plug above and below the perfs, above and below any freshwater sands, and then again right below the surface. Each operator must submit a P&A plan that the state signs off on before and then again after P&A operations.
The plan is based on the well history and is custom made, so to speak, but regardless, it is with the states blessing.
Short, I would like to see some evidence that the plugs only last 20 years. My experience says otherwise.
GregT on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 1:23 pm
Boat,
“The sad truth is writers are always making these kind of statements.”
The sad truth of the matter is, those aren’t just statements, they are truths. You would be a prime example of a person who believes what he wants to believe, is ignorant of reality, and lacks common sense.
Apneaman on Mon, 8th Feb 2016 1:41 pm
Privatize the profits – socialize the risks.
Shale Gas: How Often Do Fracked Wells Leak?
When industry says hardly ever, that’s a myth. It’s a documented, chronic problem. Third in a series.
Alberta sees huge spike in abandoned oil and gas wells
Number of orphaned wells has quadrupled over the past year
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-sees-huge-spike-in-abandoned-oil-and-gas-wells-1.3032434
Shale Gas: How Often Do Fracked Wells Leak?
When industry says hardly ever, that’s a myth. It’s a documented, chronic problem. Third in a series.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/