• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can fracking reindustrialize America?

There is zero evidence of water supplies being polluted by fracking.
You mean, evidence you accept. The current results are mixed; some areas seem to be OK, others have polluted wells and now, high amounts of radium. (Fracking linked to radioactive river water in Pa.)

There's also more to "pollution" than groundwater. Again, we don't know what these companies are putting into the ground, where it will travel, or what other effects it might have on the environment. That's requires residents to put an awful lot of trust in companies that have yet to earn it.


In addition, the point of the OP was not that NG recovery by itself would lead the economy, but rather that falling energy prices (which you acknowledge) will spur the growth of other industries.
The author of the article was much more specific; she's claiming that counties which allow drilling show more growth than those which do not.

And which other industries will grow, as a result of energy prices dropping by a few percent?
 
One does not have to be persuasive with the truth.
If a person is not purseuded by truth, there is not much hope for them.

Selling crap, on the other hand, is a well known discipline requiring great argumentation and persuasion.
You mean like trying to convince that resource extraction by private petrol corps...is the key to revitalizing the US economy?

If so...I agree. It is pure crap.

What is worse is thinking it belongs in a govt spending forum.

That is compounded by seeking "exposure" or attention.
 
And which other industries will grow, as a result of energy prices dropping by a few percent?

From the OP:

"Cheap energy is attracting more manufacturing back to America. Shell is considering building a multibillion dollar petrochemical plant in Pennsylvania.

Since 2009, the German chemical company BASF has invested more than $5.7 billion into North America, including a formic acid plant under construction in Louisiana. BASF officials say that energy prices in America are lower than in Europe, where fracking is discouraged.

Other European countries planning to invest in America due to low energy prices include Austrian steelmaker Voestalpine (an iron-ore processing plant in Texas), South Africa-bases Sasol (a natural gas to diesel conversion plant in Louisiana) and France’s Vallourec (steel production in Ohio).":mrgreen:
 
If a person is not purseuded by truth, there is not much hope for them.

You mean like trying to convince that resource extraction by private petrol corps...is the key to revitalizing the US economy?

If so...I agree. It is pure crap.

What is worse is thinking it belongs in a govt spending forum.

That is compounded by seeking "exposure" or attention.
The whining is wearing thin.
 
Cheap energy is attracting more manufacturing back to America....
Uh huh

Perhaps there are additional reasons to make parts in the US -- like sophisticated automation, flexible employees, proximity to customers, engineering expertise, higher transportation costs from Asia, a will to satisfy government procurement programs, and political stability? Foreign manufacturers bringing jobs to U.S.

And who pays the price for cheap energy? Could it be the local communities that have to risk being affected by chemicals pumped into the ground? Or have we found the mythical Free Lunch?
 
Industry sources?? Really?


  • Ernest Moniz, Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Energy: “To my knowledge, I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater.” (Aug. 2013)

  • U.S. Geological Survey: “This new study is important in terms of finding no significant effects on groundwater quality from shale gas development within the area of sampling.” (January 2013)

  • U.S. Govt. Accountability Office (GAO): “[R]egulatory officials we met with from eight states – Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas – told us that, based on state investigations, the hydraulic fracturing process has not been identified as a cause of groundwater contamination within their states.” (September 2012)
Lisa Jackson, former EPA Administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012

:mrgreen:

Indeed, it is very much in this admin's, and thus the government's interest that fracking go forward full speed ahead. And wasn't it Lisa Jackson's EPA that classed CO2 as a pollutant?
 
You mean like trying to convince that resource extraction by private petrol corps...is the key to revitalizing the US economy?

Why wouldn't it help?
 
Why wouldn't it help?
This is straw. I never said, in absolute terms that it would not "help".

But since gas mining makes up at best @ 1.5% of employment, it alone is not going to significantly "reindustrialize" the US. Raw extraction employment, especially NG, has very low employment impact.

But i suppose it could be a boon for environmental clean-up jobs, funded by taxpayers....not to mention the increase in water bottling/purification jobs.......or the boost to moving companies needed for those who have to leave their homes.....the spin-offs could potentially be enormous!
Just imagine the litigation employment...for either the contract work.....or the civil suits for ruining your water supply.
 
This is straw. I never said, in absolute terms that it would not "help".

Perhaps not, but for some reason, you thought that it being "private" was somehow significant enough to mention, and that's what my question was about.

But since gas mining makes up at best @ 1.5% of employment, it alone is not going to significantly "reindustrialize" the US. Raw extraction employment, especially NG, has very low employment impact.

Says here the oil & gas industry accounts for about 16% of recovered jobs in this "post-recession" period:

Oil and gas industry employment growing much faster than total private sector employment - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

From the start of 2007 through the end of 2012, total U.S. private sector employment increased by more than one million jobs, about 1%. Over the same period, the oil and natural gas industry increased by more than 162,000 jobs, a 40% increase.

That's not chickenfeed by any means.
 
Indeed, it is very much in this admin's, and thus the government's interest that fracking go forward full speed ahead. And wasn't it Lisa Jackson's EPA that classed CO2 as a pollutant?

So . . . you concede these are not industry sources?
 
Uh huh

Perhaps there are additional reasons to make parts in the US -- like sophisticated automation, flexible employees, proximity to customers, engineering expertise, higher transportation costs from Asia, a will to satisfy government procurement programs, and political stability? Foreign manufacturers bringing jobs to U.S.

And who pays the price for cheap energy? Could it be the local communities that have to risk being affected by chemicals pumped into the ground? Or have we found the mythical Free Lunch?

A competitive business environment is not a free lunch.
 
Maybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.


How fracking is reshaping the U.S. economy

The booming oil and gas industry shows the power of the private sector, one writer argues. Outperforming other nations » :peace

This absolutely needs to be a front-and-center issue for any GOP presidential candidate in 2016. Pair the fact that oil-industry jobs pay well above-median wages to blue collar workers with a greater measure of energy independence, less need to interfere in the Middle East as a result, reduced unemployment and (finally) rising wages here at home, and you've got a package that will be hard to beat by people complaining that birds might fly into a mud-pit.
 
I have to say it's rather funny to see clownboy have to deal with the mindless memes of the tea party knownothings he usually supports. I guess there's some poetic justice to this.
 
Perhaps not, but for some reason, you thought that it being "private" was somehow significant enough to mention, and that's what my question was about.
It would not make much sense to mention "public NG extraction employment". My mentioning that they are private corporations.....got your attention?

Whatever, your query was still straw.



Says here the oil & gas industry accounts for about 16% of recovered jobs in this "post-recession" period:
You can juggle the stats to your hearts' content....it is an insignificant level of employment in the US.




That's not chickenfeed by any means.
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) have published figures indicating that oil and gas industry employment is growing much more rapidly than private sector employment.

Between the beginning of 2007 and end of 2012, total US private sector employment increased by more than one million jobs, approximately 1%. Over the same period, oil and natural gas industry jobs increased by more than 162 000 jobs, equivalent to a 40% rise.

The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) accounts for oil and natural gas industry employment in three categories: drilling, extraction, and support.

Drilling involves any employment relating to the spudding and drilling of wells, as well as reworking of wells, and accounted for more than 90 000 jobs by the end of 2012, an increase of 6600 jobs since 2007.
Extraction includes establishments primarily engaged in operating, developing, and producing oil and natural gas fields, including exploration and production work up to the point of shipment from the producing property. Employment in the extraction category numbered more than 193 000 jobs by the end of 2012, 53 000 more jobs than in 2007.
Support involves performing supporting activities for oil and natural gas operations, including exploration, excavation, well surveying, casing work, and well construction. Support is the largest oil and gas category, and employed more than 286 000 people by the end of 2012, up more than 102 000 jobs from 2007.
About half of workers employed in crude oil and natural gas production are in the support category of oil and natural gas industry employment, and employment in this category accounted for the majority of increases seen in oil and gas industry employment.

The three industry categories combined equal just 0.5% of total US private sector employment.

Huh...I was optimistic when I said 1.5% of US jobs....it is only 1/3 of that.

Yes, chicken feed......not a "reindustrialization"


PS, counselor....you skipped the best part:

But i suppose it could be a boon for environmental clean-up jobs, funded by taxpayers....not to mention the increase in water bottling/purification jobs.......or the boost to moving companies needed for those who have to leave their homes.....the spin-offs could potentially be enormous!
Just imagine the litigation employment...for either the contract work.....or the civil suits for ruining your water supply.
 
This absolutely needs to be a front-and-center issue for any GOP presidential candidate in 2016. Pair the fact that oil-industry jobs pay well above-median wages to blue collar workers with a greater measure of energy independence, less need to interfere in the Middle East as a result, reduced unemployment and (finally) rising wages here at home, and you've got a package that will be hard to beat by people complaining that birds might fly into a mud-pit.
You are right, every GOP candidate should jump on this idea.....and offer tax breaks, Halliburton exclusions, subsidies......for an industry that provides one half of one percent of US private employment.

Reindustrialization....indeed.
 
1/2 of one percent is a lot of employment. Ask Obama if he'd like the unemployment number to drop 1/2 of one percent.
 
1/2 of one percent is a lot of employment. Ask Obama if he'd like the unemployment number to drop 1/2 of one percent.
LOL....that is not even an apples to apples comparison......and the point still stands.....it is not by any standard a "re-indutrialization" of the US.

What is really weird is that the OP and I had a series of debates on the de-industrialization of the US....so you would think that he would have a grasp of the magnitude of such a term.
 
I have to add that the premise of the thread is false since "industrialization" has primarily been applied to manufacturing production, to production of value added products using large amounts of labor input. Natural gas production is a capital intensive product with a very small level of labor input.....hence its very low share of employment.
 
You are right, every GOP candidate should jump on this idea.....and offer tax breaks, Halliburton exclusions, subsidies......for an industry that provides one half of one percent of US private employment.

Reindustrialization....indeed.

Remind me again how many UAW workers there are?

That being said, why don't you take a gander at the unemployment rate in (say) South Dakota?

I don't know about subsidies or tax breaks other than what our code already offers to any company who invests in America (imagine that, the idea that we would want companies to invest in America. How atrocious :roll:.)

Nor do I think this would be reindustrialization - and thank goodness! We are past the industrial era and into the information era, and it's a good thing, too. But this would reduce unemployment and offer above-median-wage jobs to the same non-college graduate demographics who have been hardest hit during this recession and "recovery".
 
Remind me again how many UAW workers there are?
Many fewer now than in 2000....hence the op should have a better grasp of the term being used.
That being said, why don't you take a gander at the unemployment rate in (say) South Dakota?
No doubt that one can point to low population areas and say how small increases make big % changes......we call that data manipulation.....but it hardly translates to "reindustrialization".

I don't know about subsidies or tax breaks other than what our code already offers to any company who invests in America (imagine that, the idea that we would want companies to invest in America. How atrocious :roll:.)
I would not expect you to know how gas extraction corporations avoided Clean Water regs....or the subsidies they receive...or other inconvenient facts...in fact facts are being avoided at all costs.

Nor do I think this would be reindustrialization - and thank goodness!
Well you just destroyed the OP's premise.

We are past the industrial era and into the information era, and it's a good thing, too. But this would reduce unemployment and offer above-median-wage jobs to the same non-college graduate demographics who have been hardest hit during this recession and "recovery".
Um, govt jobs, construction and manufacturing were the hardest hit. NG production, like other petro extraction in the US, is a boom-bust industry.

But like I said, you agree....this is NOT a path to "industrialization"....and you are wrong about the US not needing to reclaim its manufacturing base. It is actually a essential structural requirement.
 
It would not make much sense to mention "public NG extraction employment". My mentioning that they are private corporations.....got your attention?

You deemed it important. If you say it wasn't, well, that's your deal.

Whatever, your query was still straw.

No, it wasn't. You were being quite dismissive.


You can juggle the stats to your hearts' content....it is an insignificant level of employment in the US.




The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) have published figures indicating that oil and gas industry employment is growing much more rapidly than private sector employment.

Between the beginning of 2007 and end of 2012, total US private sector employment increased by more than one million jobs, approximately 1%. Over the same period, oil and natural gas industry jobs increased by more than 162 000 jobs, equivalent to a 40% rise.

The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) accounts for oil and natural gas industry employment in three categories: drilling, extraction, and support.

Drilling involves any employment relating to the spudding and drilling of wells, as well as reworking of wells, and accounted for more than 90 000 jobs by the end of 2012, an increase of 6600 jobs since 2007.
Extraction includes establishments primarily engaged in operating, developing, and producing oil and natural gas fields, including exploration and production work up to the point of shipment from the producing property. Employment in the extraction category numbered more than 193 000 jobs by the end of 2012, 53 000 more jobs than in 2007.
Support involves performing supporting activities for oil and natural gas operations, including exploration, excavation, well surveying, casing work, and well construction. Support is the largest oil and gas category, and employed more than 286 000 people by the end of 2012, up more than 102 000 jobs from 2007.
About half of workers employed in crude oil and natural gas production are in the support category of oil and natural gas industry employment, and employment in this category accounted for the majority of increases seen in oil and gas industry employment.

The three industry categories combined equal just 0.5% of total US private sector employment.

Huh...I was optimistic when I said 1.5% of US jobs....it is only 1/3 of that.

Yes, chicken feed......not a "reindustrialization"

16% of all of the jobs created during this "recovery" is not "chickenfeed," though I understand why you must insist it is.


PS, counselor....you skipped the best part:

But i suppose it could be a boon for environmental clean-up jobs, funded by taxpayers....not to mention the increase in water bottling/purification jobs.......or the boost to moving companies needed for those who have to leave their homes.....the spin-offs could potentially be enormous!
Just imagine the litigation employment...for either the contract work.....or the civil suits for ruining your water supply.

Indeed, I ignored and "skipped" it for the juvenility it is.
 
You deemed it important.
Really? Clairvoyant? Secret twins language? How did you derive this?
If you say it wasn't, well, that's your deal.
Hold on there....I only said it wasn't.....because you claimed I made it so.....so the question is.....HOW? Did it glow in your eyes, showing that I gave it special emphasis?

Perhaps....the issue is on YOUR side of the screen....you think?



No, it wasn't.
Yes, complete straw.
You were being quite dismissive.
Of the characterization of it being a "reindustrialization" of the US. Now you are trying to ignore the CONTEXT of my comment.




16% of all of the jobs created during this "recovery" is not "chickenfeed," though I understand why you must insist it is.
Again with the straw and ignoring the context of my comment....it is chicken feed since it is 0.5% of US employment. Again, hardly a measurable "reindustrialization".




Indeed, I ignored and "skipped" it for the juvenility it is.
And yet, it would not surprise me if it surpassed 0.5% of US PRIVATE employment.
 
Really? Clairvoyant? Secret twins language? How did you derive this? Hold on there....I only said it wasn't.....because you claimed I made it so.....so the question is.....HOW? Did it glow in your eyes, showing that I gave it special emphasis?

Probably from the fact that you used the word "private" when it wasn't grammatically or conceptually necessary to use it. You included it for a reason, or one could assume

If you say now that you're just tossing in words at random for no coherent reason, then so be it.




Yes, complete straw. Of the characterization of it being a "reindustrialization" of the US. Now you are trying to ignore the CONTEXT of my comment.

No, I'm not. I said why.


Again with the straw and ignoring the context of my comment....it is chicken feed since it is 0.5% of US employment. Again, hardly a measurable "reindustrialization".


And yet, it would not surprise me if it surpassed 0.5% of US PRIVATE employment.

I didn't ignore anything. Representing 16% of all new post-recession jobs is a pretty good track record. It's YOU who are hell-bent on "dismissing" and "ignoring" things.
 
Back
Top Bottom