Colorado Anti-Fracking Measures To be Pulled Off the Ballot

Whether or not the legislature acts on the recommendations of the commission depends, in large part, on whether or not the commission issues recommendations that agree with what the individual legislators wish to see done, or at least whether or not the legislator can get elected again if they vote in accordance with those recommendations.

When you have politicians like our current governor, who won't take a position on the Keystone Pipeline because it might "piss off the powers that be in Washington", or worse yet the people who might be casting votes in November, or who enact legislation based on party politics without doing any research on the issue first, what you end up with are laws and regulations founded on feelings rather than reason. Feelings are a very poor foundation on which to erect laws. Like sand, they shift with time, threatening to collapse anything built on them.

The anti-fracking measures are rooted in how people feel and no one should be denied their property based solely on current feelings. As noted earlier, when someone else owns the mineral rights that lie below the property you are purchasing, that fact is made known to you prior to your purchasing of the property. If that is a problem for you, then find a piece of property to purchase where you own the mineral rights in addition to the property to purchase instead. That you later decide you don''t like that the owner of those rights chooses to access their property is not a sufficient reason to deny others property that belongs to them, not you.

The geek doesn't know the difference between drilling and fracking.

Brandon wrote: The geek doesn't know the difference between drilling and fracking.

Many of the opponents of fracking also oppose drilling. And my friends in the energy community say that the way Colorado is formed, most drilling requires fracking to get to the oil and gas deposits. A lot of small pockets encased in rock, fracking helps to make the small pockets one big one.

Brandon wrote: The geek doesn't know the difference between drilling and fracking.

Speaking of yourself in the 3rd person again Brandon? There's psychologists who can help you with that if you'll but take the first step towards getting better . . .

FredHayek wrote:

Brandon wrote: The geek doesn't know the difference between drilling and fracking.

Many of the opponents of fracking also oppose drilling. And my friends in the energy community say that the way Colorado is formed, most drilling requires fracking to get to the oil and gas deposits. A lot of small pockets encased in rock, fracking helps to make the small pockets one big one.

AND....the fracking (drilling)is NOT a small operation, but rather, 100-150 "fracks" at once....in the past
it was 10 or 15 at one drilling....THAT massive amount of "disturbance" has ramifications...do the
research.

Geek, no one's getting denied access to their minerals.

Then why are non and under producing wells fracked Brandon? Isn't the fracking done to increase or restore production of the well? The oil and gas released by the fracking belong to the same entity that owns the rights to the oil and gas released without the fracking. In other words, it is their property as well. Limiting, or denying, the owner of the property the access to their property based on how you feel about the process is no more or less damaging to the notion of property rights than preventing them from drilling a well in the first place would be.

Fracking of well has been done for over 60 years now. Heck, many times potable water wells are fracked to increase their production. You wouldn't have a problem with having your domestic well fracked so you didn't have to truck in water to bathe in, would you? Or to restore your well's recovery rate to what it was when you bought the property? But some folks seems to have an issue with allowing other people to frack the wells they dug to gain greater access to, or to restore lost productivity to, the property contained in the rocks that belongs to them.

NO PS, I have a PROBLEM with the new technology (that is based on MORE $$$$$ for the company) and CREATES
unforseen ramifications....do the RESEARCH....

homeagain wrote: NO PS, I have a PROBLEM with the new technology (that is based on MORE $$$$$ for the company) and CREATES
unforseen ramifications....do the RESEARCH....

Are you overlooking the foreseen ramifications? The footprint is much less. Therefore the despoiling of the earths surface is much less. Therefor Mother Gaia is happy happy. Millions of starving people around the world are happy happy. Cheaper energy means they have a better chance of not living lives of hunger, ignorance and despair. Do the research.

BlazerBob wrote:

homeagain wrote: NO PS, I have a PROBLEM with the new technology (that is based on MORE $$$$$ for the company) and CREATES
unforseen ramifications....do the RESEARCH....

Are you overlooking the foreseen ramifications? The footprint is much less. Therefore the despoiling of the earths surface is much less. Therefor Mother Gaia is happy happy. Millions of starving people around the world are happy happy. Cheaper energy means they have a better chance of not living lives of hunger, ignorance and despair. Do the research.

It's my understanding, techniques NOW utilized REQUIRE copious amounts of water to complete the
process....water is a FINITE resource,locally and GLOBALLY....there are ramifications to that process and
I believe Gaia is NOT able to sustain the assault. Climate change has "upped" the ante and "we"(read
the companies making more $$$$)are shooting craps that it can continue DEPENDING UPON WATER AVAILABILITY.