"I am not banning fracking!" "Of course I am banning fracking!"

Hey Joe Biden, I can watch this all day 😂 😂 pic.twitter.com/xsj8oslwXZ

— Joel Fischer (@JFNYC1) September 1, 2020

Idiocy

In the Manhattan Institue, Mark Mills writes a persuasive essay here on how a fracking ban would cause a global recession. Yet, three of the Democratic candidates take a devastatingly stupid stand against fracking.

"I will ban fracking—everywhere."[1]
— Elizabeth Warren



"Any proposal to avert the climate crisis must include a full fracking ban on public and private lands."[2]
— Bernie Sanders



"I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking."[3]
— Pete Buttigieg

Fracking benefits

Daniel John Sobieski writes in the American Thinker,

Fracking does not cause earthquakes. Nor does it taint well water. The mixture used to fracture shale is in fact a benign blend of 90% water, 9.5% sand, and 0.5% chemicals such as the sodium chloride of table salt and the citric acid of the orange juice you had for breakfast.

Shale formations in which fracking is employed are thousands of feet deep. Drinking water aquifers are generally only 100 feet deep. There is a lot of solid rock between them.

It is fracking that has produced a boom in the production of natural gas, a fossil fuel that has produced a significant reduction in the U.S. of so-called "greenhouse gases."

...The Democrats have no case, moral or otherwise, for banning fracking, which would ironically hurt the environment they allegedly want to heal while creating an economic collapse. If they insist on advocating, they will be caught between shale rock and a hard place.

Read much more here.

Fracking ban proposed by 2020 Democrats

From Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:
GOOD: The US shale oil boom has made a Middle East war less likely.

Related: Fracking Ban Proposed By 2020 Dems Would Kill Millions of Jobs:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) are among eight remaining 2020 candidates who have called for an all-out ban on fracking, despite the fact that the drilling method has put the United States on a path to energy independence. The practice has also led to cleaner energy alternatives and lower carbon emissions, a key goal of climate change activists.

As Glenn noted last month, “Honestly the only reason I can see for opposing fracking is if you’re on Putin’s payroll…”

Russian money supporting environmental groups

Andrew Higgins reports in The New York Times that Russian money is suspected behind fracking protests.

Before stepping down in September as NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave voice to this alarm with remarks in London that pointed a finger at Russia and infuriated environmentalists.

“Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas,” Mr. Rasmussen said. He presented no proof and said the judgment was based on what NATO allies had reported.

Read more here.

OPEC is begging the US to hold back on oil production.

Ace comments,

This is very wonderful news. That these bastards, who have long enjoyed extracting money from us by artificially restricting supply, and have used the Oil Weapon against us again and again, and have used their oil wealth to prop up communist regimes (see Venezeula) or fund terrorist groups (see most of the Gulf states) or to both prop up a communist regime and fund terrorist groups (see Russia) are now begging us to help them do these things by making ourselves poorer is... well it's just about the most beautiful thing I've read in a year.

And who is again who is anti-fracking? And who is pro-fracking?

And which side does Russia propagandize for? Right, they pay money to anti-fracking propaganda groups in order to get us to stop making so much oil.

And the left supports that, and Trump opposes that (and supports fracking).

The largest oil deposit ever found in America!

The largest oil deposit ever found in America was just discovered in Texas! Akin Oyedele reports at Business Insider,

The US Geological Survey said Tuesday that it found what could be the largest deposit of untapped oil ever discovered in America.

An estimated average of 20 billion barrels of oil and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids are available for the taking in the Wolfcamp shale, which is in the Midland Basin portion of Texas' Permian Basin.

Based on a West Texas Intermediate crude oil price of $45 per barrel, those deposits are worth about $900 billion.

Read more here.

Thank you, Frackers!

The price of oil remains cheap on this Labor Day. Glenn Reynolds writes,

THANKS, FRACKERS! Labor Day Gas Prices Hit 12-Year Low.

Fracking empowers ordinary Americans and weakens American enemies. Naturally, all right-thinking people are against it.

Read more here.

I need one of those manure spreaders

Martin Robinson reports for Daily Mail,

An irate farmer sprayed raw sewage at Oscar winning star Emma Thompson and her sister Sophie after they flouted a court injunction protecting a fracking site.
The stars were filming a Great British Bake Off parody for Greenpeace when the owner of the field they trespassed on drove his muck spreader in circles around the demonstrators.
A group of protesters were hit by the manure but the actresses remained dry in their tent, complete with Bake Off-inspired bunting.
Police were also called and also spoke to the actresses, who climbed over a gate and set up camp on land earmarked for gas exploration in Fylde, Lancashire.

Read more here.

Saudi Arabia wins a temporary victory over American fracking com[panies

Zero Hedge brings us

news that North Dakota's largest producer, Whiting Petroleum, would suspend all fracking, and that Continental Resources has effectively done the same after reporting that it no longer has any fracking crews working in the Bakken shale.

...The Denver-based company said it would stop fracking and completing wells as of April 1. Most of its $500 million budget will be spent to mothball drilling and fracking operations in the first half of the year. After June, Whiting said it plans to spend only $160 million, mostly on maintenance.

Rival producers Hess Corp and Continental Resources Inc have also slashed their budgets for the year, though neither has cut as much as Whiting.

...One thing is certain: the cuts will drag down production and likely reverberate in the economy of North Dakota, the second-largest U.S. oil producing state after Texas, which currently pumps 1.1 million barrels per day. It means that after the 250,000 oil workers already laid off (according to Credit Suisse estimates), tens of thousands of new pink slips to highly paid workers are about to be handed out.

Read more here.

Building bridges

Greg Gutfield argues at National Review,

Saying “I don’t know” creates a wonderful bridge to other people. Admitting that you’re not entirely 100 percent positive that you’re right allows opponents to relax enough that you can pounce — and beat the crap out of them with facts, logic, common sense, and maybe some nunchuks.

But first you must let them trust you by admitting uncertainty. Remember, your job isn’t to confirm but to convert. And conversion requires some humble pie up front. (By the way, this works in marriage. It’s also why it took until I was 40 for someone to marry me.)

How Gutfield argues with his friend Joe on the issue of fracking:

“That’s the weird thing about fracking, Joe: What are we fracking? Natural gas. That’s why I am for it. I am pro-environment, and most environmentalists were for natural gas because it was natural. Natural gas was the alternative to all those dirty fuels.” Then I explain that environmentalists changed their tune as we found better ways to access it. So the only difference among environmentalists, before the boom and after — was the boom: We found more of this amazing clean fuel. In short, the greenie would be for fracking, if we did less of it.

It’s an interesting question, why so many greenies were for natural gas and now are against it. It makes me think they’re only for something that doesn’t work! (Must be why so many are Cubs fans.) My gut tells me once we figure out if solar power can deliver real energy, they’ll come out against that, too (the sun is bigoted against the Irish).

Example Two: Climate Change Of course, the climate is changing. It always has, and always will. There have been ice ages followed by warming periods, and vice versa-and this happened well before the arrival of the smokestack, the SUV, the Pajama Jean. Hell, my personal climate changes several times a day. If that sounds good to you, get in touch.

That doesn’t mean you should ignore data. You’re intrigued and fascinated by climate models — in fact, they worry the hell out of you. Yes, they worry you. Until you are always relieved when they turn out to be wrong! And you hope that they continue to be wrong. You’re watching it closely -­ because you care even more than they do! Even more than Al Gore and George Clooney! You weep nightly for nature, and soil yourself every morning in solidarity with the earth.

Then add that while you believe wholeheartedly in protecting the environment, it would be foolish to hand money over to people who think they have the Solution.

It’s not just anti-science, it’s anti–common sense. If you wouldn’t hand your money over to a huckster who promises you’ll stop aging if you just use his magical elixir, in a plain brown wrapper (I finally learned), why would you do the same with climate change? Explain that gullibility is amusing only when it’s other people’s money being squandered. (If you really want to lay it on, you can add that that money could be better spent building low-income housing.) Most important: You must tell them that you hope that there is some climate change, for subtle increases in temperature can actually benefit the planet by making it more hospitable for growth of plants and vegetables. The warmer the better. That’s science, as told by death. Just a one-degree uptick and we’ll all have beautiful tomatoes growing in our living rooms!

Finally, you can agree that while coal seems dirty, to try to ban it is selfish, evil, and reeks of white privilege. After all, it’s easy for you to ban it, when you’re not in some Third World country burning feces to stay alive. As we all know, there is no force stronger in the rhetorical universe than that of liberal race-guilt. Pin your argument to race and you can convince a liberal to paint his ass red and skateboard down Broadway. Which actually might finally account for some of the things I’ve seen in New York City.

Example Three: Gun Control When a massacre occurs, the media decides we must do something now. The mistake is to mimic the NRA and come out guns blazing in defense of, well, guns blazing. It’s better to admit that there is a problem (one that isn’t getting any worse, but no one wants to hear that). Concede. Compassionately. Sound like them. Agree that massacres in schools are horrible. . . . Who wouldn’t? And, of course, we need to figure out ways to stop them. But taking guns away from legal gun-owning, law-abiding sane people won’t stop it. The typical shooter is an unbalanced, fringe loner. I want to stop them, just like you. Is there a genuinely effective way to achieve that?

Bolster your position with facts: that most shooters target gun-free zones; that these school attacks aren’t becoming more frequent — although there seems to be a proliferation of alienated untreated individuals (a problem our society used to address); and that armed security seems to be the most sensible method of caring for students (it’s called protecting them). The idea of more effective permitting is sound — meaning no permits for the emotionally disturbed.

The examples above show you what arguments to make, but also how to make them. Be calm, compassionate, relaxed, informed. The “how-to” part in the delivery can be summed up thusly: don’t be a jerk. You care. You’re destroying numerous clichés at once. And if they don’t return that favor, shoot them in the face numerous times (with a cake-frosting gun).

Bombs away!

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

The problem with Obama in the Middle East is that he still does not know exactly whom he is hurting and whom he is helping with his bombing — and cannot know under a policy of blowing things up from the air and after a while leaving. He has no intention of cleaning up or sorting out the mess on the ground that such bombing aggravates, and he has no worry that either a popular or a media audit will ensue. Libya has already become ancient history. No one remembers our once strong support for the terrorist-minded Muslim Brotherhood or our schizophrenia about the present junta in Egypt. No one remembers that we once were on the verge of bombing Assad and now are de facto empowering him. No one recalls that Obama currently has some strategic latitude in his decisions because the fracking and horizontal drilling inside America — which he once strongly opposed, and currently mostly forbids in new leases for federal lands — have given the United States some immunity from the usual oil fallout from Middle East wartime chaos.

In sum, the only legitimate critique of George W. Bush’s Iraq War is that the lives and treasure lost in the chaotic occupation of 2003–06 were not worth the removal of the monstrous Saddam Hussein and the ensuing establishment of a stable, consensual state in Iraq. And the only legitimate defense of Obama’s subsequent policy in the region is that, while he is bombing all sorts of groups in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, has abdicated leadership in a way that has led to mass killing and destruction in the region, has no plans to help craft postwar consensual governments, and does not quite know who his enemies are or what they are planning, he so far has not lost American lives in the process — at least until the ascendant Islamic State flexes its global muscles.

Read more here.

"I will transmit your response to Vladimer"

Power Line blogger John Hinderaker calls our attention to some commercials currently airing in Colorado.

"Tea Party of the Left"

Well, what do you know? Earlier today in a blog post I asked if anyone has ever seen a story about "the left" in a major U.S. newspaper. Today there is one in the Denver Post by Lynn Bartels, the Post's best political reporter. She writes that the "Tea Party of the left" is waging a ferocious battle against fracking in Colorado. The left has several issues they are trying to place on the November ballot.

The ballot measures — dealing with setbacks, local control and other issues related to drilling and fracking — are bankrolled by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, a Boulder Democrat who used his vast wealth in 2004 to help turn Colorado blue. Now there are fears his money could turn the state red, with the ballot measures hampering Hickenlooper and Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Udall in their tough re-election bids.

Read more here.

I have another friend, otherwise intelligent, who is absolutely convinced by the arguments of the anti-fracking leftists.

Keep the hydrocarbon boom going

Mark P. Mills writes that

For all the coverage America's energy boom has gotten, there are still a lot of common assumptions about the oil and natural gas business that are flat out wrong.

We know the good news: Oil and gas production is rising so fast that U.S. dependence on imports will soon disappear. Growth in natural gas has made America the world's largest producer and could soon make us a huge exporter. In the past half-dozen years, America's hydrocarbon juggernaut has boosted our economy by hundreds of billions of dollars.

To keep the boom going, the federal government needs to keep out of the way, even as pressure grows to tighten energy-industry regulation. That's why is is important to unbundle three myths about the boom:

The profits are all going to Big Oil. Wrong. There are more than 20,000 small and midsize oil and gas firms in America, with a median size of 15 employees. They produce 75% of America's oil and gas and are responsible for nearly 100% of the boom.

Energy is an old, dirty business, not the future. Wrong, again. We're in a tech boom. What changed the game is the emergence of information-centric "smart" drilling, which relies on sensors, computers and control systems that, when combined with steerable horizontal drilling, fracking and a skilled work force, created the boom.

Oil jobs are in just a few boom towns. New jobs reach far beyond hard-hat work in a few obvious states such as Texas and North Dakota. For every job in the oil field, we find three or four created in everything from information services to education. In every one of the 10 states with increased hydrocarbon production, statewide employment growth has outperformed the nation for six years. Fact is, hydrocarbon-supported jobs are in many places you might not expect. California ranks second, behind Texas. Florida, New York, Illinois and Ohio are among the top oil and gas employers.

Investors and businesses around the world understand the opportunity. In 2012, the latest figures available, foreign firms invested $166 billion here.

The two fastest growing categories, petroleum refining and extraction, and hydrocarbon-based manufacturing, grew more than 40% annually between 2008 and 2012. The American Chemistry Council has mapped out over $100 billion in investments in manufacturing plants scheduled to come on line in a few years. These plants will generate more than 600,000 jobs immune to outsourcing.

If we want to keep our hydrocarbon boom going, there are two things the federal government could do. First, abandon the antiquated laws that restrict natural gas exports. More customers for U.S. gas mean more investment and more jobs. Second, resist the temptation to layer job-killing federal regulations on top of state efforts. States are doing the job just fine.

Read more here.

Not in his back yard

A white haired gentleman who owns a big horse ranch in Texas came to a local meeting in a rural town near Dallas to protest a water tower a utility company was building to support fracking. The white haired gentleman was Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, the largest producer of gas in the world. Mr. Tillerson did not want anything built above the tree line. Yes, they have trees there. Tillerson is suing.

Tired of the shrill nerdocracy

Victor Davis Hanson wonders if we have gone from the iconic Marlboro Man to Pajama boy without as much as a blink in between. He asks,

how many of us have joined Pajama Boy nation — 20%, 40%, 60%? — and how many want nothing to do with such metrosexual visions of a huge state run by a nerdocracy, incompetently doling out other people’s money. How many were on board for Obamacare, more entitlements, and lectures from the apartheid elite on inequality and fairness, versus how many turn the channel at sound of His voice.

Obama obsesses on inequality, but cannot even go through the populist motions of avoiding Martha’s Vineyard, or not dressing like a nerd for golf at the latest tony course.

He is an arugula-eating man of the people who tries to bowl only during election season. Michelle rags on the 1%, but still hits Costa del Sol and Aspen. Obamacare for us; for congressional staffers and insiders something quite different. A Nobel Prize and a half a billion dollars for guru Al Gore; and dumping Current TV on a fossil-fuelled, anti-Semitic authoritarian Middle Eastern regime to fund more good work of our green Elmer Gantry. Amnesty for illegal aliens, but private academies for liberal kids far from the ensuing chaos of the public schools. Pajama Boys are fiercely liberal so that they can fiercely avoid the people they so champion and are so afraid to live among.

Second, the architects of Pajama Boy nation always expect others to go on despite rather than because of them. The frackers must frack so that Obama can brag about their productivity, while he bites his lip and looks pained to billionaire coastal benefactors about pumping liquid into the bowels of their Mother Earth.

Savings accrued from the sequester that was forced upon Obama by those Tea Party nuts in the House. Gas prices are dropping despite the efforts of Obama to stop fracking and horizontal drilling on federal lands. Senator Obama himself voted to shut down the government under George W. Bush, rather than to raise the debt ceiling — having once passionately adopted the very stance that he now demonizes others for.

There is a growing tiredness with Pajama Boy nation. Millions are sick of being lectured, caricatured, and slandered for their supposed pathologies by the Sandra Flukes of the age and those in their pajamas who still grasp with two hands their hot chocolate. Add all their annoying Stalinist efforts up — to selectively going after Chick-fil-A or the Washington Redskins or Duck Dynasty — and the public is becoming tired of the shrill nerdocracy.