Project would bring 400,000 tons of drilling waste to Pa.’s ‘Grand Canyon’

[MKern]

Yes current logging and timber harvest management. But there was a time where it was "cut it all and ship it around the world" without thinking about any consequences.

How did that work out for PA? We are still dealing with the ramifications today.

How's Brazil doing currently?

Humans have the desire for a quick profit without consideration of what it might effect immediately and down the road. We are causing the next mass extinction. Plant and animal species are dying at a rate similar to several of the other mass die-offs as a direct result of unregulation ocean pollution and deforestation.

 

[pcray1231]

I favor a safe extraction of natural gas through fracking and a fair fee to compensate neighbors and state and local government that bear an unfair burden of costs resulting from this profit-making activity.

Yet, you want to use the money for education in Philadelphia?

Gas companies should and do pay normal business taxes, which can be used for anything government funds wish to be used for, including education.

On top of that, they should pay a fair value for any and all "extra" costs they bring. For instance, extra road maintenance, clean up of any environmental accidents, etc. This is supposed to be covered by the "impact fee", although if the current fee is insufficient, well then let's fix that.

But I staunchly oppose an extra extraction tax, which may be justified on those terms, but will actually be used for something entirely unrelated. Jack compared the situation to the coal industry of years past. It's not as serious, but I'll play along with that. What if the coal companies actually were required to pay a fair value for all of their damages, as they should have been? And what if they did pay it? What would you think of the politicians who decided to take that money, and instead of cleaning up the ruined streams, decided to use it instead to pay some public employees in a region which saw zero coal mining?

Further, if such an "extra" tax is based on amount of extraction, rather than the damages caused, then it leaves ZERO incentive for the companies to cause less damage to begin with. The goal from a public policy perspective is to minimize the impact per volume of gas extracted, right? Hence, any extra taxes should be based on level of impact, not volume of gas extracted. You have to punish the bad behavior, and allow reward for good behavior.

So Jack, I have to ask whether the motivation for the tax is to minimize damage and compensate those who are damaged, or is it to simply generate revenue on the backs of an unpopular industry?

Anyway, MKern, I do live in a gas free area now. I s'pose I use some as some of my electricity is generated with gas. But I have no gas line to my house. That said, the house I grew up in has 5 wells in sight of the back door, none of them on our property so we receive no royalties. My parents are heavy gas users. They are shallow gas wells, but all 5 were hydrofracked, and all 5 while I lived there. I have a cabin in NW PA where there are thousands of shallow gas wells, most of which were hydrofracked, and a new Marcellus well a mile or so away.

Full disclosure, I also work for a company which sells material, some of which is used to make drilling equipment, and much of my job is oil & gas projects. I somehow became the oil & gas project guy, unofficially, but I tend to get those projects. Though our customers are more on the oil side of things than the gas side.

 

[JackM]

pcray1231 wrote:
So Jack, I have to ask whether the motivation for the tax is to minimize damage and compensate those who are damaged, or is it to simply generate revenue on the backs of an unpopular industry?

No, the tax is to remediation as much as possible the damage being caused and to compensate the government for the privilege of appropriating a natural resource-- so both.

 

[pcray1231]

government for the privilege of appropriating a natural resource

We'll start here. When the land is government owned, the companies must LEASE the land to buy the privilege of utilizing it. Further, if the mineral rights are also government owned, the companies must also pay royalties to compensate the government for the loss of its resource. Hence, a new tax is not needed to cover this aspect, it's already covered, and yes, this money goes to the general fund, as it should. If you feel the drillers got leases and royalties at too low a cost, may I suggest hiring better negotiators on behalf of the government?

If the land and/or resources fall under private deeds, then the gas isn't government owned to begin with, and government has no claim to any lost resource, nor is it in a position to grant or refuse the privilege of drilling (provided the companies meet all applicable regulations). The drillers still must negotiate leases and/or royalties, but it's with the private owners in this case.

Much of the land is indeed publicly owned and it's a large revenue source for the government, WITHOUT the extra tax.

the tax is to remediation as much as possible the damage being caused.

Fantastic. I agree 100%. So you wouldn't be opposed to, say, demanding that every red cent of the added revenue is used to remediate the damage, would you? As opposed to, say, funding education in Philadelphia?

 

[KeithS]

Pcray,
You keep referring to the Phila. School District. There are MANY other school districts in the state that are broke. Some that aren't offer very few programs for the students.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't disagree, I'm using it as a stand-in for any non-drilling related issue.

I actually believe education funding, in Philly and elsewhere, SHOULD be increased. And it's fine to use regular ole taxes, from businesses like drilling, to pay for it. Even increase them if necessary.

But if you're going to add an extra tax for one specific industry, there should be justification. If that justification is environmental damage or other special burdens caused by that industry, then the extra money should go to remediation of that damage and special burdens, and absolutely, positively NOTHING ELSE.

I consider it HIGHLY dangerous to tax an industry extra just because "we don't like them". If there's a reason, fine, but all extra funds must go to remediating that reason.

And environmental causes should be the most vocal voices about this. You're gonna charge them extra because of environmental damage, but not give any of the money to help the environment? Brilliant!

 

[FarmerDave]

lineman wrote:
Apiculturist?

Nope, that would be me. What do you want? ;-)

 

[lineman]

MKern said to guess his occupation so I guessed Apiculturist, see avatar.

Since the discussion has gone from toxic gas well waste to funding education, can anyone provide factual evidence (numbers) where increased spending on public education has resulted in gains in student achievement?

We've been doing it since the Johnson administration and the positive results have yet to kick in.

 

[McSneek]

lineman wrote:

Since the discussion has gone from toxic gas well waste to funding education, can anyone provide factual evidence (numbers) where increased spending on public education has resulted in gains in student achievement?

We've been doing it since the Johnson administration and the positive results have yet to kick in.

Have some patience. The results should kick in any day now if we just commit a little more money.

 

[MKern]

A couple years ago a representative from Welches Grape Juice Co. came to speak to a groups of teachers about how standards and excellent business practices lead to the best product.

During a question period, a teacher asked the representative what his company does with all the rotten grapes, the one that are not prefect, and ones that are not ripe. The rep. said that his company only uses the best grapes to make their products. The teacher mentioned that educators can't discard the less then perfect students, that we must use them all.

Maybe the lack of performance from schools has more to do with societal changes and homelike changes than it does with teachers.

 

[franklin]

MKern wrote:


Maybe the lack of performance from schools has more to do with societal changes and homelike changes than it does with teachers.

Al the more reason why we shouldn't just go pumping another $2B into education without understanding if there is a payback. (Other than votes for the d party.)

 

[MKern]

So educated people vote democratic?

 

[JackM]

Not quite MKern, citizens who believe in adequate education funding vote Democrat. What's a week or two of military action in the middle east cost? But that's obviously worth it because look at all we've gained.

 

[RyanR]

Schools continue to cut programs and enlarge class sizes. Over at least the last ten years the only thing that consistently goes up & up & up is salaries, and most often at a rate in excess of what the economy and community tax base can support. I believe in education, I believe in funding it, I believe teachers should be paid a fair and adequate salary. I also believe they should be expected to pay a fair share of their healthcare and that raises need to be consistent with what the economy can support. Educators need to also accept the reality that they need to pay more towards their healthcare too. Other public employee sectors have accepted it. But I digress, what exactly does any of this talk have to do with this conservation topic?

 

[lineman]

If memory serves, the current Democratic presidential front runner as well as the majority of other Democrats were all in on their votes for military action in the middle east.

Seems most left leaning people do a lot of assuming. They usually assume they are the smartest people in the room. They assume that anyone they disagree with must be ignorant or uneducated. Might want to keep your assuming in check a little. You know, you could actually be wrong.

And no, I don't work for the natural gas industry or have my land leased to a gas company. I do know a little about hydraulic fracturing, it's been used for gas wells since the mid 40's and is nothing new. Read up a little on it and you will understand why and when and what horrible chemicals they use to do it.

Still waiting for an answer with facts, not theory, to post #28.

 

[pcray1231]

Not quite MKern, citizens who believe in adequate education funding vote Democrat.

I believe in adequate education funding.

What I don't believe in is special taxes for a specific industry just because it's deemed evil by popular opinion.

If special taxes are justified due to an extraordinary impact, then I'm for them, with the stipulation that the "extra" tax is levied in proportion to that impact so-as to provide incentive to lessen it, and that all extra revenue go directly towards alleviating it. And for any accidents, well, there should be hefty fines.

Wanting more education funding is a noble cause.

Proposing an extra special tax on any industry, justified by environmental impact, but not tied to the level of impact, and with the funds going to non environmental causes is perhaps one of the most evil policy proposals I've ever heard of. It is quite simply saying "give us money and we'll let you do whatever you want to the environment." It's a bribe request.

And yes, that makes me VERY angry. And I'm beside myself that so called environmentalists actually support this ruse.

I mean, could you even imagine if back in the coal days we had provided an extra tax on coal to justify their damage (which would have been good), but that the tax was actually structured to incentivize more damage, and the revenue from it was not used to do anything even resembling cleanup? I mean, wow....

 

[Acristickid]

As far as education funding, the ONLY way children become good educated citizens is through parenting. You can throw billions as education but without solid parenting you might as well flush that money down the toilet. Check any inner city- 70% bastard children.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Not quite MKern, citizens who believe in [d]adequate[/d] [color=990000]more [/color]education funding [color=990033]tend to[/color] vote Democrat.

There, fixed that for you.

Adequate was not the right word there because that tends to be a non-partisan thing. I added the other two words to make it less all inclusive and help you avoid someone throwing up a strawman.

 

[JackM]

I believe more would reach toward adequate and therefore resent your attempt to amend my comments.

 

[FarmerDave]

I'm still trying to figure that out.

I'm all for spending adequate. Even better than adequate. But to me, spending adequate doesn't necessarily mean spend more. It often means spend wiser.