State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

[Gudgeonville]

Not sure if you all saw this but this is how far the anti's will go. Apparent internet troll with fake posts, twitter accounts, websites all praising him and bashing pro drilling constituents! This is an elected representative in the heavily drilled parts of Washington,Allegheny,and Beaver Counties.

State Rep. White Accused Of Attacking Shale Supporters Online

 

[FarmerDave]

That's pretty crazy.

 

[JackM]

Who are "the anti's [sic.]" and do they all use subterfuge like this guy?

 

[pcray1231]

The anti's are any group that is totally against an industry or group nomatter what. Their stance is emotional, rather than logical. So nomatter what the details of the issue, or whether the issues can be addressed, their stance will always be on the same side. If their issue is addressed and solved, they will bring up a new issue.

In this case, anti-drilling. They will always oppose drilling, and brining up (real or imaginary) issues isn't about solving problems, it's about stopping the drilling at all costs.

There's also anti-nuclear, anti-mining, anti-gun, anti-war, etc.

Yes, many in these groups use subterfuge. Of course, the same is true of the other side too, call them the "pro 's" if you will, who are, emotionally or economically attached to the other side, and also take positions that aren't necessarily based in logic.

The fact that the wings are emotionally, rather than logically, based makes things difficult for those who are actually trying to identify and solve REAL issues. It's not even clear what the REAL issues are, and if they are identified, no solution will suffice. Nomatter how successful you are at mitigating concerns on either side, you will never sway the emotional wings one way or the other.

It's a mistake to put a wingnut (on either side) like this guy in public office.

 

[JackM]

Nice apology, but we both know when anyone uses the term antis (plural not possessive), they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

 

[pcray1231]

they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

I'm not sure it is, at least in terms of most extreme opposition, in which the term is generally reserved for. It works both ways, though. There are always emotional extremes on both sides of issues like this.

Those who are taking an honest approach, getting both sides of the story, looking at actual data, weighing the trade-offs, and primarily interested in minimizing the problems while maximizing benefits are not in the "anti" group, despite sometimes being critical or calling for restraint.

For example, take gun control. If you have supported every gun control proposal ever proposed, get all your stats and talking points from the Brady campaign, are scared of the sight of a gun, and when it comes down to it, would support pretty much making all guns illegal for the general population, then you are an "anti", as in anti-gun. If you have opposed every gun control proposal ever, get all of your data from the NRA, and when it comes down to it, believe that it's ok for 2 year olds to carry fully automatic rifles if the parents say it's ok, then you are a pro-gun wingnut. Neither side is open to changing their minds. Ever. Even attempting to address their concerns is a fool's errand, because their concerns aren't logical.

The rest of us, well, we want to see the real stats. We want to examine what a proposal will actually do, rather than take the word of the wingnuts. We want to weigh it's positives and negatives, compare that to the status quo, and make an honest decision. It is perfectly acceptable to us to, say, support one gun control measure while opposing another. That's not being two faced. It's being objective.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Nice apology, but we both know when anyone uses the term antis (plural not possessive), they are really trying to say that any and all opposition is "emotional" as you say, when that is very far from the truth.

Like you never overgeneralized before. :lol:

 

[JackM]

I have never called people who disagree with me "antis." It is a pejorative term with no substance. Talk about appeal to emotion, the term "anti" when used for someone who disagrees with you is classic appeal to emotion.

 

[Gudgeonville]

I have worked in this industry and I have regulated this industry. I have answered and investigated these peoples complaints. Sorry if you don't agree but these people, the anti-drilling zealots, want NO drilling, and they will make up or exaggerate any story to get their way. This representative was the worst type, claimed to be for "responsible drilling", and then attacking his own constituents online.

 

[JackM]

I have to be honest, you seem like a shill for the industry. A "pro" as pcray thinks you can be called.

 

[Gudgeonville]

Not a shill. That would imply that I'm trying to hide the fact that I am in the industry. I just told everyone that I work in the oil and gas industry. I also worked for DEP as an inspector for the Office of Oil and Gas Management. I also have a degree in geology. Not a shill sir, but an educated and experienced geologist that understands that we have been drilling wells for 150 yrs, fracing wells for almost 70 years and the issues being brought up by an ignorant news media and the anti-drilling activists and politicians are nothing more than a front to shut down all drilling for oil and gas. This industry is one of the most regulated and safest industries in the US and produces the only energy (besides nuclear, which the anti nuke crowd already shut down) capable of providing power to run this great country.
I really just want to educate and assure folks that drilling for oil and gas is being done correctly.

 

[JackM]

Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk, then you have no business grouping everyone who isn't "drill, baby, drill" about it as "antis" and then further claiming that this one state rep represents all "antis."

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk, then you have no business grouping everyone who isn't "drill, baby, drill" about it as "antis" and then further claiming that this one state rep represents all "antis."

You are cracking me up. You do realize you have opened this up to fair game, don't you?

Unless with a straight you can claim that there is no environmental rish when you drive your car, then you have no business driving.

Very few overgeneralize on this sight more than you. Mr Pigeonhole himself. Sure you may not use such terrible prefixes :roll: as anti, but you have always been quite generous with the use of labels using suffixes like ism or ist or bagger. This is getting quite entertaining.

What you did there was diversionary. you knew what he meant. Rather than talk about the points, you steered it onto a tangent.

I am not in the camp of either side (the antis or pros). However, I am a real[color=990000]ist[/color]. EVerythign we do is eiter a result of mining or farming or both. There is virtually no activity completely without risk and since not doing anything is almost never an option... my philosophy would be proceed with caution. If a company or even an individual screws up, they should pay the price, not everyone else.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
I have to be honest, you seem like a shill for the industry. A "pro" as pcray thinks you can be called.

Is that you State Senator White?

 

[barbless]

I don't see how anyone gets to make the logical leap from the actions of one Internet poster using unethical tactics to generalize about the opponents of gas fracking, as a group.

Although the nitwit who did this- I agree that it looks like State Sen. White is the culprit- ought to realize how weak he's made his position look.

fwiw: I'm anti hydro-fracking, pro-propane gel fracking. Although CO2 fracking would really be a breakthrough, if it could be shown to be effective and practical. Still at the early experimental stage, though.

I'm not a fan of the Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone crowd. I realize that those folks exist, and that their obstructionism often has too much influence within organized activist environmental groups. I think the net result of their input has often been to discredit grassroots environmental activism of any sort.

Consider how much ink the total obstructionists get, compared to entering into a discussion on propane gel-fracking technology.

Ultimately, that situation simply works to the benefit of the hydro-fracking status quo, which the most of the gas extraction industry would still prefer to use anywhere there's "enough water", because initial outlay costs are cheaper. Even though the notion that Pennsylvania has "enough water" has often amounted to draining small streams and creeks dry, or at least severely impacting them at critical seasons of the year, like summertime. There's also the remediation and disposal problem of tainted fracking water- all of which gel fracking would obviate.

 

[BeastBrown]

How far the antis will go? It is stupid of that guy to do that, but compare that to an industry that send countries to war for gas and oil and spend billions upon billions of tax payer dollars to guarantee a right to energy of their choosing, and this incident is just lame.

Hydro fracturing of this scale is just extremely poor land and water usage in the age of advanced nuclear power.

 

[pcray1231]

Unless with a straight face you can claim there is no environmental risk.

Jack, nobody would claim that, I don't think. But the part that you miss is that having some environmental risk doesn't equate to "stop until you work out every issue".

Here's the thing. We need energy. There is no form of energy that carries zero environmental risk. It's not even a theoretical possibility to get to that level. Solar, nuclear, biofuel, oil, gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, you name it. Every single one of them has SOME environmental impact, and "risk" of more should things go wrong. And no amount of "improvement" can change this fact.

So, you:

1. Pick the form that results in the least amount of impact per unit of energy produced. In reality, we need multiple forms, but you can favor some over others on a % basis.

2. Through research, regulation, etc., take reasonable efforts to minimize that impact, keeping in mind that requiring too much can stop things. That may not sound like such a bad thing, but it is if it grandfather's dirtier practices, or throws the power gen responsibility to a less desirable form, negating #1. For instance, perhaps you don't like nuclear, but do you like drilling better? Now that you've stopped nuclear, you try to stop the drilling. Do you like coal better? It's real easy for good intentions to hurt their own cause. We're going to generate enough power to meet the demand, there's nothing that can stop that. And there ain't no perfectly clean way to do it. So it's a very clear case of "pick your poison".

 

[barbless]

Moreover, we need A LOT of cleaner energy. Reliable sources. In a hurry. And you can't get there that fast with wind/solar/biofuels etc.

I've been advocating for fast-tracking nuclear power in different on-line forums for some years now. As an policy alternative, it's stuck in a backwater. As are the arguments of its opponents, in my view, which are typically 30 years out of date. A classic example, in my view, of how 1) image trumps content in the contemporary American public mind (taken in aggregate); and 2) no issue rises to the forefront of public notice without continual exposure on television.

Unfortunately, much of the "green" movement and its leadership isn't exempt from such superficiality (Stewart Brand being a notable exception). I think the most blatant example of this weakness is an unwillingness to look at the numbers. I hope it isn't due to an inability to do the math, which is middle-school level:

Fuel type Average power in TW[23]
1980 2004 2006
Oil 4.38 5.58 5.74
Gas 1.80 3.45 3.61
Coal 2.34 3.87 4.27
Hydroelectric 0.60 0.93 1.00
Nuclear power 0.25 0.91 0.93
Geothermal, wind,
solar energy, wood 0.02 0.13 0.16
Total 9.48 15.0 15.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Unfortunately, the Fukushima disaster was a huge blow to the prospects for nuclear power. Admittedly, the ultimate responsibility for that lies within the nuclear power industry.

Realistically, time is running out for the implementation of a large-scale nuclear power production effort. If one had begun 10-15 years ago, most of the plants would be up and running by now.

So I don't know what's going to happen. Optimistically, breakthrough in algae biofuels and carbon sequestration that make those technologies practical at a scale large enough to change the game. Pessimistically, more denial- with unforeseen but almost certainly disastrous consequences.

 

[JackM]

Grave dangers are always, well, graver, when they cannot be reliably prevented. The less grave the danger, the more willing we are to take the risk. What's a few more dead trout?

 

[pcray1231]

The less grave the danger, the more willing we are to take the risk. What's a few more dead trout?

That's just it. If this were true, it would make more sense. But it isn't the way things seem to work.

For instance, in nuclear. If you wanna get away from nuclear energy because of risks, that's one thing. I don't agree, but make your case, and I'm willing to listen with an open mind, and compare to other forms, etc.

But if you do want to get away from it, you can't just oppose it. It's 20% of our power gen!!! An anti-nuclear stance HAS to be coupled with a viable alternative. Encourage a massively increased amount of drilling for oil and gas. Encourage more coal mining, and either permit new coal plants to be built, or re-open old plants that shut down because their scrubbers were not up to modern environmental regulations.

But that's not what the anti-nuclear crowd does. They just oppose new plants. The result is keeping those older plants open, because there is no alternative. They won't even let us shut those down and let us build new nuclear plants, despite the fact that they would be safer, cleaner, and more efficient.

No is not a one of the choices. Replace it with "no, use ____ instead."