OUR VIEW: If a Democrat Governor who also happens to be a geologist doesn't buy the scare tactics of anti-drilling enviro zealots, why should anyone else?
———
Alright, we do not have to tell anyone who reads this blog with any regularity that we are not the biggest fans of Governor John Hickenlooper. In fact, we might be the only ones alive willing to lay a glove on him.
Most days, Hickenlooper is kind of a wuss. But to every rule, there are exceptions.
For a Governor whose economic policy is called TBD, by his own choosing no less, big risks are not a common occurrence. But on one major economic issue, the issue of oil and gas development from hydraulic fracturing, he is putting his political derrière on the line.
Yes, Colorado Peak Politics readers, John Hickenlooper got out from under his proverbial desk, grew a political spine, and went all wild and crazy on his own liberal base when he lent his name, his voice, and his popularity to the cause of defending the practice of hydraulic fracturing.
From today's Denver Business Journal:
Thirteen Colorado environmental groups have sent a letter to Gov. John Hickenlooper claiming that a radio ad that he recorded about drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Colorado, and sponsored by the Colorado Oil & Gas Association (COGA), is misleading.
But COGA's president and CEO, Tisha Schuller, said in an interview that the industry trade group won't pull the ad off the air. It started running last week on radio stations along the Front Range and in some markets on the Western Slope, she said.
"We stand by the ads, and we call them public service announcements," Schuller said.
Now listen to the ad yourself via the Denver Business Journal here.
There is a lot of analysis that can be done here. But we will hold that for another day.
All we can say now is: “Good job, Guv!”
Remember how environmentalists always tell us that the debate over global warming is over? Yeah, well, that is not the case, but the debate over hydraulic fracturing's safety is. John Hickenlooper, at least as far as Colorado is concerned, just ended it.
From now on, when liberals sound the alarm on oil and gas drilling, conservatives can make a simple argument.
If a Democrat Governor who also happens to be a geologist doesn't buy the scare tactics of anti-drilling enviro zealots, why should anyone else?
I would point out that the matter is that the process of oil and gas development itself has caused may documented incidents of groundwater contamination, as clearly proven in the record of the COGCC itself. [For your two readers following along, that is the state agency tasked with regulating oil and gas as per the Mineral Leasing Act (as amended)]. Is it fracking itself or the general and overall negligence of the contractor, sub-contractors and sub-sub-contractors in general, forgetting to shut off this or that valve or dumping a load while driving over the speed limit on a muddy dirt road? Does that matter to the farmer sent to the hospital for drinking out of their (now contaminated from negligent oil and gas operations) water well (i.e see Ned Prather). Probably not. Does it matter to Colorado Peak Politics and their effort to support Salt-of-the-Earth 5th Generation Colorado legacy ranchers not getting screwed by Canadian drilling giants? Apparently not. Because once you become a corporate whore its hard to go back.
Even the New York Times is backing fracking now. If we want continued access to modern technology we need those resources.
And when when there is a problem, such as with Mr. Prather, it does seem that there are fines and civil remedies. I have no doubt that Mr. Prather will receive an extremely handsome compensation through the court system given the record fine already levied on the company involved. The same with spills and other accidents.
If you want to live without the resources found under the surface, with no access to things like electrical power, home insulation, transportation that can easily take you more than 20 miles in a single day, modern medical equipment, etc., then please feel free to “go off the grid” and live like Ted Kaczynski. But please don’t expect those of us who live in the 21st Century to follow you.
Just so you know. Only the unsigned pieces are theirs.
Geek boy can only argue against fiction, never fact. Facts get in the way of blind ideology. Fictitious enviro-zealots (aka Ted Kazinski) are much easier for our hero to slay.
Chubby you are totally delusional.
to Ted Kazinski is great demonstration of your ‘forensic’ skills. We could almost call it Geek’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law.
Whenever a lefty takes a leap from reality, he must immediately attack whoever he was arguing with the aforesaid leap occurs. I find this law is pretty much in constant operation.
You have no interest in a reasoned argument, you just want to troll, as evidenced by your first posting here. You really have nothing to offer in conversation, outside of petty sniping. Why don’t you creep back over to whatever name you use on Colorado Pols or Squarestate and bask in your imagined glory at having slain the conservative foe.
Definition of FICTITIOUS
1
: of, relating to, or characteristic of fiction : imaginary
2
a : conventionally or hypothetically assumed or accepted b of a name : false, assumed
3
: not genuinely felt
So now you can tell your mother you learned the meaning of a new word!
that op-ed pieces that are in complete disagreement with the editorial board over at the Grey Lady are there all the time.
sarcasm off
Or concede.
I’m not going to concede my point just to satisfy your petty nit-picking.
Which has been slipping lately.
You know how it works – I don’t accept your near-religious acceptance of right wing myths. I expect proof.
You are well aware of the fact that op-ed pages print both liberal and conservative opinions that are signed by the authors. Tell me how BOTH can really represent the newspaper editorial board when they’re typically contradictory?
Words mean something. It’s a lie to say some signed op-ed piece in the Times IS the Times’ opinion. I guess expecting honesty is nit-picky? Check your Bible to see what God thinks of that.
It is also my understanding that people don’t generally respond in comment sections to blogs with 2 readers. If Peak actually had a low readership level, you wouldn’t waste your time. But clearly Hick’s actions and Peak’s taunting of enviros reached your sorry ass on the internet.
As to your incessant liberal enviro whining, here’s a suggestion: have primaries for governor in the Democrat Party.
Did I say ‘BAN FRACKING’? No. I merely pointed out that there are, in fact, documented in the record, numerous incidents of groundwater contamination associated with oil and gas operations in Colorado.
But I understand to ideologues one must first create a idiotic binary rendering of the world so that your two-dimensional understanding seems more realistic.
And glad to see I got a reply from BOTH your readers!
but seeing as how you tied in traffic accidents involving the oil and gas industries with the actual act of drilling it is obvious that you are of the opinion that we could do without the industry altogether.
You’re pretty transparent that way. So I responded to your intent and words. Maybe you need to comprehend what you are writing?
There are numerous documented incidents of groundwater contamination from the associated activity that is directly related to this industry. Again, I know you love your strawmen geek, that being the only way you can ‘win’ an ‘argument.’
I responded directly to your comments troll. Each and every point you made both in general and particular. Fracking is the current casus belli for the enviro movement, but the end result you wish is obvious to all. Sadly for you, but not the nation as a whole, you won’t achieve it.
You say
If you “know” me like you say you do, what alias would I know you by? Why would you feel the need to not be known by your regular nome de keyboard? Whose sockpuppet are you?
You have in fact created a straw man, a binary false reality where anyone who is concerned about water quality and making sure this activity is done as safely as possible, that its impacts are properly mitigated, must therefore want to live in caves or some such manufactured BS. That is not the argument I am making. I have never made that argument. Although you must believe in a binary fantasy of absolute good and absolute wrong, since simple minds predictably behave such; where anyone who questions how, where and under what authorities such activity happens wants to shut down all activity and return to the 14th century… that fantasy is not reality. Ergo, a straw man and a pretty simply-constructed two-dimensional rather primary school quality one at that. Carry on.
is inherently dangerous isn’t setting up a straw man of your own? You set up the binary response with your position. Oil and gas are bad, therefore it logically follows that you don’t want that industry to exist.
If you don’t agree with the proposition that it shouldn’t exist, just say so. The same with fracking. If you are ok with fracking, just say so, if not say that also. If you are unable to be clear on the matter don’t blame me for working with the vagueness you leave behind.
Of course if your only reason for posting is to troll here (as is also fairly obvious from your postings) then keep on as you have been. I suppose you have to do something to prop up your obviously low self esteem.
That is a fact. Can mitigation’s be applied that reduce risks and lessen impacts. Absolutely. Do they need to be required? Yes.
If you are against force feeding little old ladies frack juice, just go ahead and state it already.
Otherwise your vagueness on the matter leaves me no doubt but to follow where logic goes and assume that you do, indeed, support force feeding frack juice to elder women.
And why do teabaggers always complain about it?