Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,734

    Governor opens State Parks to frackers

    Corbett issues executive order allowing natural gas extraction beneath state forests and parks

    For the time being they're just going to allow drilling under the parks from adjacent privately owned land.

    The gas companies have their foot in the door. Are well sites on park lands next?
    Last edited by jeffw-13; 05-26-2014 at 09:59 AM.
    No moss...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Clicker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    171
    We should tax them and use the money to build and improve trails.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    155
    Not to get political, but this is just one of the many reasons Corbett has got to go. While I'm registered as a republican, this guy has none of my support and I want to see him out. If it bothers you, please get out and vote in November.
    14 Banshee Spitfire 27.5

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    210
    is there a petition to stop this? the state parks are payed for by us.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    44
    The state plans to seek $3,000 per acre in future rents as well as an 18 percent royalty on the sale of the gas

    And how much of that goes to the park sitting above the extraction point? I'll wager zero thousand dollars per park acre.

    I guess the Simpsons were right.

    Name:  FWNmg.jpg
Views: 398
Size:  47.1 KB

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jimpt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    82
    I was just logging on to MTBR to post this info but I am glad someone else did already. State Parks are not to be used for resource extraction and anyone who thinks otherwise has no idea why the parks were even established. Here is the link on the PA DCNR website that lauds this decision as Corbett "protecting the parks" in the headline. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/group...R_20029345.pdf

    Real protection would mean no drilling allowed onsite, under, nearby, etc, etc.
    The wheel of Ka turns and the World moves on.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtrider76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    578
    What a POS!
    13 Banshee Rune, Pushed Fox 36Float RC2, I9 Blunt35's

    T1 barcode, pitchfork's, Hazard light's and profile's

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Man from Utopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    94
    And what is your plan for an energy solution? I hate this but have no better ideas doesn't move the ball forward. At least Clicker1 put forth an idea. Unfortunately to that I say the ones with the most lobbyist wins. Mt bikers don't even register on the scale. Left or right it doesn't matter. Tax 'em all you want it's just gonna come back on you. I do agree with Clicker1, the tax we do get from our homegrown energy should go back to the land by way of research and development to make this the safest, most efficient, state of the art energy source available, plus some to develop something better, plus some to cover insurance so when accidents do happen they pay and pay big to make it better. Instead it will go to lobbyist, and lawyers and of course teachers, cuz don't ya know they're heroes and Johnny still can't read.
    Help, I'm a rock!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    392
    The general public has no idea of the amount of crude oil the US has stored and is drilling for. A close relative of mine just retired from working for the government in a high up position. The oil strikes out in the northwest US the public has not heard of are numerous. Many of these have been hit by small companies who in turn have been bought out to hide the strike. Does the public really believe we are headed to an electricity generated life? The oil companies will never allow that to happen. I do agree that what money is generated should stay where it was made but that too is just a dream. It will go where the politicians want it to go and into their pockets as well. We are just the losers. We do what we must for recreation and get it all taken away. Just get use to it. Sorry for the rant but nothing is going to change. One politician is no better than the next.
    LOVE THE RIDE!

  10. #10
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Man from Utopia View Post
    And what is your plan for an energy solution?
    Since I was a kid in the 70's scientists and climatologists have been advocating that we move away from fossil fuel energy and step up efforts to develop alternate energy sources - solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. 40 years later very little has been done to move in that direction and we're facing global climate change as a result.

    Now we're not only destroying the space above us but also stepping up efforts to destroy the space below us. Im sorry but pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to extract a product that is going to further the destruction of the atmosphere we all depend on for life so some greedy corporations and politicians can get wealthy is not something Im willing to put up with.

    Name:  aliens.jpg
Views: 299
Size:  10.2 KB
    No moss...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,952
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffw-13 View Post
    Since I was a kid in the 70's scientists and climatologists have been advocating that we move away from fossil fuel energy and step up efforts to develop alternate energy sources - solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. 40 years later very little has been done to move in that direction and we're facing global climate change as a result.

    Now we're not only destroying the space above us but also stepping up efforts to destroy the space below us. Im sorry but pumping poisonous chemicals into the ground to extract a product that is going to further the destruction of the atmosphere we all depend on for life so some greedy corporations and politicians can get wealthy is not something Im willing to put up with.
    I'm very much concerned for the environment, and think more effort needs to be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    But, I don't think fracking thousands of feet below the park and the water table is going to hurt anything.
    The poisonous chemicals they use is actually 99.5% water and sand, with some small amounts of surfactants to help with the flow.
    They aren't Fracking so corporations and politicians can get wealthy. They are fracking so you can drive your car and heat your house. I assume you want that, right? It would be nice if we had hydrogen powered vehicles or some other alternative, but until we do, I'm happy that I have a car and an affordable way to fuel it.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I don't think fracking thousands of feet below the park and the water table is going to hurt anything.
    You can't be serious. There are countless cases where water turned impotable once fracking begins. The people fracking refuse to drink the water they say is fine, which sometimes can be lit on fire.

    I would love to get off all forms of fossil fuels, even if it means paying more for energy

  13. #13
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,734
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    It would be nice if we had hydrogen powered vehicles or some other alternative, but until we do, I'm happy that I have a car and an affordable way to fuel it.
    So when do we start? When fossil fuel runs out? When New York is under water? We should've been moving towards alternative fuel sources 40 years ago, not looking for new ways to get the old stuff out, or tightening emissions regs on cars & powerplants, etc. Problem is the people who make the decisions (politicians) are subsidized by the people the decisions benefit most (corporations).
    No moss...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,952
    Quote Originally Posted by tim_from_PA View Post
    You can't be serious. There are countless cases where water turned impotable once fracking begins. The people fracking refuse to drink the water they say is fine, which sometimes can be lit on fire.

    I would love to get off all forms of fossil fuels, even if it means paying more for energy
    Actually, no there aren't. In fact the EPA still claims they have no proof of any ground water being contaminated by fracking, ever.
    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
    And although that is debatable, there have been over a million wells fracked in this country, so the overall safety of it is fairly certain.
    And since fracking began over 60 years ago, regulation and oversight has increased a hundredfold. Companies are reducing chemical use, reporting what's in the fracking fluid, under strict spill control and reporting laws for surface contamination, greatly improved well drilling and completing technology etc.
    The water on fire in that sham movie Gasland has been proven to be naturally occurring, unrelated to fracking. Methane in water is common in many areas of the country including at the locations where those scenes were filmed.
    Gasland Producer Misled Viewers on Lighted Tap Water | Heartlander Magazine

    I'll admit right now that I work in oil and gas. But I will also admit I am a democrat and almost hate to spew some of this info that is usually reserved for right wing "head in the sand" types. But I have learned about fracking and continue to learn, and I'm just trying to have an accurate perspective on it, which is usually impossible if you just listen to political debate rather than looking into the science.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,952
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffw-13 View Post
    So when do we start? When fossil fuel runs out? When New York is under water? We should've been moving towards alternative fuel sources 40 years ago, not looking for new ways to get the old stuff out, or tightening emissions regs on cars & powerplants, etc. Problem is the people who make the decisions (politicians) are subsidized by the people the decisions benefit most (corporations).
    I agree with you. But we haven't done what we need to do and until we do, we need oil and gas.
    Wyoming recently voted down new school science standards because the scientific fact of global warming isn't good for Wyoming and could influence those young impressionable minds.
    We have Politicians who are ignorant, and embrace ignorance, and an ignorant public following them. And yeah, mostly, they are Republicans.

    I am in favor of developing all types of alternative energy. You'd have to be crazy not to. Yet, we have the crazy party fighting things like clean air and water, and embracing pollution and garbage. It a mixed up world we live in.
    But I think natural gas is a great resource for this country. We need it and we need to frack, until we get to the point where we have something better.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Man from Utopia View Post
    And what is your plan for an energy solution? I hate this but have no better ideas doesn't move the ball forward. At least Clicker1 put forth an idea. Unfortunately to that I say the ones with the most lobbyist wins. Mt bikers don't even register on the scale. Left or right it doesn't matter. Tax 'em all you want it's just gonna come back on you. I do agree with Clicker1, the tax we do get from our homegrown energy should go back to the land by way of research and development to make this the safest, most efficient, state of the art energy source available, plus some to develop something better, plus some to cover insurance so when accidents do happen they pay and pay big to make it better. Instead it will go to lobbyist, and lawyers and of course teachers, cuz don't ya know they're heroes and Johnny still can't read.
    Here in PA we don't currently tax the gas removed from the ground.........................and that's a big part of the problem. Corbett has cut education funding while the gas industry pays no tax on the product removed the ground, where other states tax at 6+ percent. That could restore the education funding all by itself, but it won't happen with the current Governor. I feel the parks should be left as they are and were meant to be, untouched, no exceptions, no excuses. I'm not against fracking, as we need to what has to be done, but here in PA we HAVE to start taxing it.

    And on your last line. If you haven't been in a teachers shoes you better back the hell off. My wife teaches in a fairly upper end school district, and the amount of BS they get put through is unreal. Johnny can't read because he doesn't give a **** and his parents will just fight and sue til they get what they want, right or wrong, because their little Johnny is never the problem. Parents are the problem, for a flat out lack of being parents, and letting their kids run rampant, then blaming someone else for their own failures.

    It's been a while, but I believe the setting fire to water town was Dimock, and that was documented way before fracking came to town. That's a loser of an argument.

    Everything takes something to make it work. An electric car still needs a coal fired (or nuclear) powerplant to produce the electricity to charge it. And it drags around a giant, heavy battery that still needs to be disposed of properly when used up. Same thing for a hybrid, the batteries are so damn heavy they hurt economy. The "green" options aren't that green. The consider the government's take on diesel............They add all the filters to catch and burn off particulate matter.....................At the cost of fuel economy. So what really helps the environment.....................burn more fuel with less tailpipe emissions or have slightly more tailpipe emissions, but burn less fuel. It's a double edged sword. My buddy has an 09 TDI jetta with all the emissions junk removed that gets 50+ mpg on backroads...................That's better than most, if not all hybrids, with no giant battery to deal with when it comes time for the crusher.
    14 Banshee Spitfire 27.5

  17. #17
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,734
    Maybe we should ride bicycles.
    No moss...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirt_merchant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    135
    There is actually some very good information on this thread.

    I think the bottom line is that everyone has a viewpoint, and everyone has their own agenda. Not saying agenda as a bad thing, but let's be honest, we all need to put food on the table and take care of our family, and we have to use what is available to us now or else we starve. But we can also make smart choices and respect the environment and limit our waste footprint. If each individual really tries to do this, we will be MUCH BETTER off in the long run.

    We all love mountain biking, but I really don't think MTB is that environmentally friendly. Yes, we are using human power to ride a bike, but it's a recreational activity and all the waste generated by the companies that manufacture our goods cannot be ignored.

    Anyways, we need to be cautious of what our government allows to happen on our land, especially our public land like our parks. If Joe Schmo wants to allow big gas to drill on his property and get a huge payout, you can't blame him. But we have to draw a line because the free market will not, as has been proven since the beginning of this country. And we have to get money from the companies that are profiting from this extraction, in taxes. That is fair and should be implemented ASAP.
    bike = good

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Actually, no there aren't. In fact the EPA still claims they have no proof of any ground water being contaminated by fracking, ever.
    .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
    And although that is debatable, there have been over a million wells fracked in this country, so the overall safety of it is fairly certain.
    And since fracking began over 60 years ago, regulation and oversight has increased a hundredfold. Companies are reducing chemical use, reporting what's in the fracking fluid, under strict spill control and reporting laws for surface contamination, greatly improved well drilling and completing technology etc.
    The water on fire in that sham movie Gasland has been proven to be naturally occurring, unrelated to fracking. Methane in water is common in many areas of the country including at the locations where those scenes were filmed.
    Gasland Producer Misled Viewers on Lighted Tap Water | Heartlander Magazine

    I'll admit right now that I work in oil and gas. But I will also admit I am a democrat and almost hate to spew some of this info that is usually reserved for right wing "head in the sand" types. But I have learned about fracking and continue to learn, and I'm just trying to have an accurate perspective on it, which is usually impossible if you just listen to political debate rather than looking into the science.
    Thanks for this info, and sorry for attempting to call you out on it.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    162

    Governor opens State Parks to frackers

    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    I'm very much concerned for the environment, and think more effort needs to be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    But, I don't think fracking thousands of feet below the park and the water table is going to hurt anything.
    The poisonous chemicals they use is actually 99.5% water and sand, with some small amounts of surfactants to help with the flow.
    They aren't Fracking so corporations and politicians can get wealthy. They are fracking so you can drive your car and heat your house. I assume you want that, right? It would be nice if we had hydrogen powered vehicles or some other alternative, but until we do, I'm happy that I have a car and an affordable way to fuel it.
    So what is the other .5%. It sure isn't healthy. Why do the gas companies fight tooth and nail to not disclose what they use? Could it be so they have plausible deniability if/when wide-spread health issues arise? Don't follow yourself thinking it's inert chemicals they're pumping into our ecosystems and water tables. What about the cattle and other farm animals that are dying in northern PA?
    They ARE fracking so corporations and politicians can get wealthy. How do you think Corbett got elected and bought a second home at the beach? You know, the one he "forgot" to disclose on his filing last year?
    How does fracking heat your house and allow you to drive your car? The EXPORT the gas overseas; it doesn't stay here.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Man from Utopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    94
    Everything has a downside. Unless you have better solutions, you're talking out your arse. And please show references to back up your claims. I could assume that your statements are wild exaggerations at best, because there is nothing there to substantiate or convince me otherwise. And I could also assume that your stance is to keep things as they are because you don't offer up any ideas. Sure all those possibilities suck. All the people that get electrocuted suck (well most of them), all the natural gas explosions suck, all the fish that die because of hydrodams suck, all the birds that die in wind turbines suck, all the money that goes to OPEC sucks. Living in a tent and eating tree bark also sucks. And I do know that politicians suck. If you think your guy has a kinder, gentler machine gun hand, who's fooling who? Why would somebody spend $10m of their own money to get a $150k job? The only difference between big gov and big biz is only the government can force you to do something at the point of a gun.
    Be reasonable.
    If we judged mt biking solely by hospital visits there certainly would be no mt biking.
    Help, I'm a rock!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    162

    Governor opens State Parks to frackers

    http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...acation-homes/

    For starters. ^^

    So because it costs millions of dollars to get elected, that makes it ok to be beholden to corporate interests over the voters interests?

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,952
    Quote Originally Posted by rallyrcr View Post
    So what is the other .5%. It sure isn't healthy. Why do the gas companies fight tooth and nail to not disclose what they use? Could it be so they have plausible deniability if/when wide-spread health issues arise? Don't follow yourself thinking it's inert chemicals they're pumping into our ecosystems and water tables. What about the cattle and other farm animals that are dying in northern PA?
    They ARE fracking so corporations and politicians can get wealthy. How do you think Corbett got elected and bought a second home at the beach? You know, the one he "forgot" to disclose on his filing last year?
    How does fracking heat your house and allow you to drive your car? The EXPORT the gas overseas; it doesn't stay here.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Check out fracfocus.org. Most oil and gas companies are voluntarily disclosing frack fluid composition. Baker Hughes is one of the largest fracking service companies and they have 100% disclosure.
    The small amount of non-water ingredients in frack fluid are shown on that site. The important thing to remember is that that fluid goes thousands of feet below the water table, not into the water table. It goes where there is naturally occurring oil and gas, which is a nasty concoction of **** created by mother nature.
    It sounds like you live a nice hydrocarbon free life, but I know that's not true. Fracking is benefiting you.
    And saying that the energy does not stay here is ridiculous. We are still a net importer of energy, but we have cheap gas and oil and we are breaking our dependence on foreign sources thanks to domestic production.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Man from Utopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by rallyrcr View Post
    Corbett, Krancer Fail To Disclose Vacation Homes | StateImpact Pennsylvania

    For starters. ^^

    So because it costs millions of dollars to get elected, that makes it ok to be beholden to corporate interests over the voters interests?
    Thanks for reinforcing my points.

    By the way, natural gas is the product produced by fracking. A whole lot of buildings are heated with natural gas, and 12-15% of public transportation is powered by natural gas. Nobody is getting paid big bucks to pump poison into our ecosystems and water tables. They're getting paid to produce a source of energy. And from what I have learned so far, they're doing it in a manner that has less impact then any other way of producing a cleaner energy. And paid pretty well from what I understand, from the truck driver up to the CEO. If they could produce merely by wiggling their noses, I'm sure they would.
    I hate fracking as much as the next guy. I hate dams on our rivers. I hate logging our forests. I hate wind turbines on our mountain tops. I hate all the roads (except the ones I use of course) and all the cars (except mine and the people I know). I hate all the light pollution or all pollution for that matter. But I do like a hot shower after biking by simply turning on a faucet. Heat in the winter and air conditioning when its unbearably hot. A little bit of light when I need to see in the dark by flipping a switch.
    I could go on and on. My point is I don't focus solely on the downside of everything. I try to learn as much as I can about anything I wish to put forth an opinion, weighing the positives and negatives. And understand that every piece of information I find is biased even the things I see first hand.
    Be reasonable.
    Help, I'm a rock!

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    162

    Governor opens State Parks to frackers

    One man's reasonable is another man's outrage.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. PA State Parks
    By jbev88 in forum Pennsylvania
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 08:32 AM
  2. ot: State Parks
    By pauly mac in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 11:51 AM
  3. $11M In Cuts to State Parks
    By Dave_schuldt in forum Washington
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 08:42 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2011, 06:14 PM
  5. CA State Parks App
    By GuruAtma in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 12:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •