Fracking

The Promised Land of Fracking

The environmental and economic benefits of fracking greatly outweigh the costs.

|

Matt Damon's new film Promised Land is stoking the controversy over fracking, the shorthand for natural gas production using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The film pits a big natural gas production company against economically stressed farmers in a Pennsylvania community who are being offered lots of money to permit drilling on their land. To illustrate the alleged evils of fracking, an environmental activist sets a model farm on fire in an elementary class. The film has gotten decidedly mixed reviews for its dramatic appeal and its characterization of the costs and benefits of fracking.

In fact, natural gas production in the United States is way up due to fracking. The process of fracking, which involves pumping water laced with sand and some small amounts of chemicals under high pressure into deep underground shale formations, has enabled drillers to release vast quantities of trapped natural gas. Thanks to fracking, shale gas production has grown from 1.3 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2007 to 7.8 tcf in 2011. According to the projections of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. natural gas production will rise from 23 tcf in 2011 to 33 tcf in 2040 and almost all of that increase will be due to shale gas production. In his 2012 State of the Union speech, President Obama cited estimates that the U.S. has enough natural gas to last 100 years. That estimate has been questioned, but even if it's off by a few decades, there's still plenty of natural gas to burn.

Environmental activists, who once hailed natural gas as the bridge fuel to the renewable energy future, have turned with a vengeance against it. Originally, activists who worried about man-made global warming produced by burning fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide favored fracking because burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide emitted by coal. However, local and national environmental groups have turned decisively against shale gas based on both not-in-my-backyard concerns and the fear that cheap natural gas undermines the economic case for solar and wind power.

Let's look first at some of the benefits of shale gas production. Natural gas is outcompeting coal as a cheap fuel for producing electricity and the result is that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are down sharply to a level last seen around 1992. In addition, a study comparing the costs and benefits of coal with those of conventional and shale gas in the February 2013 issue of Energy Policy finds that burning natural gas produces far less in the way of air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, soot, and mercury. The authors conclude that a shift from coal to gas would "reduce the overall likelihood of health problems affecting the nervous system, inner organs, and the brain."

Shale gas production in 2010 supported 600,000 jobs and that is projected to grow to 870,000 by 2015 and contribute nearly $120 billion to the overall economy. In addition, shale gas production is revitalizing a number of U.S. manufacturing sectors including the steel, chemical, and fertilizer industries. Thanks to cheap shale gas, Canada's TD Bank estimates that American residential consumers will save around $75 billion in home heating and electricity costs in 2013, the equivalent to about $650 per household.

So what about the downsides of shale gas production cited by environmental activists? Their first claim is that the beneficial reduction in carbon emissions that results from burning natural gas instead of coal is completely offset by the leakage into the atmosphere of much more powerful greenhouse gas methane from shale gas wells. In fact, on a 100 year time scale, the global warming potential of a molecule of methane (natural gas) is 21 times greater than that of a molecule of carbon dioxide. Over a 20-year period, methane is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide. So clearly it is important to figure out just how much methane is escaping from wells. Naturally, activists eagerly highlight studies that find very high levels of fugitive natural gas emissions, while shale gas boosters embrace studies that find low levels of escaping methane.

This fierce battle over shale gas methane heated up with the publication of a paper in Climate Change in 2011 by Cornell University environmental biologist Robert Howarth and his colleagues. The researchers concluded [PDF]  "3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the life-time of a well." If these estimates are right that would mean shale gas production results in more global warming than burning coal does. In 2012, Cornell University geoscientist Lawrence Cathles found that Howarth's estimates for fugitive methane emissions were much too high and were actually in the range of 1 to 1.5 percent

More recently, scientists, measuring atmospheric methane near Denver, Colorado and the Uinta Basin in Utah, estimate that the amount of methane escaping wells is on the high side, 4 to 9 percent respectively. Before activists jump on the anti-fracking bandwagon for a joy ride the Environmental Defense Fund's chief scientist Steven Hamburg notes that while the Colorado and Utah studies are "valuable snapshots of a specific place on a specific day, neither is a systematic measurement across geographies and extended time periods." Consequently, Hamburg warns, "For this reason, conclusions should not be drawn about total leakage based on these preliminary, localized reports [emphasis in original]." 

In the meantime, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have published a new study in Environmental Research Letters assessing fracking emissions in 2010 which concludes, "[I]t is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall GHG (greenhouse gas) intensity of natural gas production." In other words, fracked wells are no worse than conventional wells when it comes emitting methane into the atmosphere. In any case, concern about fugitive emissions should decline since new regulations require drillers to adopt "green completion" techniques that capture natural gas before it can escape from new wells.

The other big but more localized environmental concern is that fracking might pollute water both on the surface and in drinking wells. Of course, any industrial activity can go awry and so water pollution can occur. Lots of water is used in fracking and some 10 to 30 percent of it flows back to the surface as "production water" that must be dealt with. This production water contains some of the chemicals used to dope the water injected into the wells as well as naturally occurring salts and low levels radionuclides. Flowback water is now often being recycled [PDF] for use in fracking new wells although must be treated to remove contaminants.

Contamination of drinking water wells by fracking was dramatized in the dishonest documentary Gasland in which a homeowner in Colorado used a cigarette lighter to cause his running faucet to flame up. As it happens, an analysis by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission found that the natural gas in that homeowner's well was from natural sources and was not related to fracking [PDF] as claimed in Gasland

Gasland also highlighted claims by some residents of Dimock, Pennsylvania that fracking had contaminated their well water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now sampled drinking water wells that served 64 homes. In July 2012, the agency reported finding no contaminants related to fracking, although 5 wells did have elevated levels of naturally occurring hazardous substances such as manganese.  

An initial EPA study did find that water wells in Pavillion, Wyoming were likely contaminated with chemicals associated with fracking; however, that agency finding continues to be contested by pro-fracking proponents. A peer-reviewed study of the EPA's testing results is supposed to be released later this year. If Pavillion is the only confirmed example of contamination out of thousands of wells drilled each year, then it cannot be the case that fracking is a particularly hazardous activity with regard to well water.

One other area of concern is land disturbance caused by fracking. The February 2013 Energy Policy study notes that with regard to the amount of energy produced per land area both conventional well-drilling and coal mining disturb far more land than does fracking. Since fracking uses horizontal drilling, many more well-heads can be crowded into a relatively small area.

Promised Land offers a false choice between rural purity and virtuous poverty on the one hand and industrial degradation and rapacious greed on the other. Fracking poses some risks, to be sure, but the evidence suggests that they can be effectively managed in such a way that the environmental and economic benefits greatly outweigh the costs.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

151 responses to “The Promised Land of Fracking

  1. Of course Matt Damon loves “rural purity and virtuous poverty”. He doesn’t live in a rural area and he certainly isn’t poor. He probably thinks that everyone in flyover country does nothing but sing “Amazing Grace” and mate with their own blood relatives.

    1. He probably thinks that everyone in flyover country does nothing but sing “Amazing Grace” and mate with their own blood relatives.

      I sure as hell don’t! At least, not at the same time.

    2. They like to cling to guns I understand.

      1. In Soviet Pennsylvania, guns cling to you!

        1. Yeah man! I’m like a redneck, heterosexual Magneto.

          1. “MAGNETO IS NOT GAY. MAGNETO JUST CURIOUS!”

    3. Are you sure the little mongoloid actually thinks?

    4. Well I dont think matt damon thinks that. I mean he was the Bourne Identity.

  2. MATT DAMON

    1. I just saw the Coen Brothers’ version of True Grit, which was excellent (as their films usually are) and Matt Damon was actually quite good.

      1. I wasn’t as impressed with him in it (but Bridges was awesome).

        To be fair, though, I was hammered and predisposed to anger at MATT DAMON.

      2. He did OK but keep in mind he was playing a relatively minor character. maybe 1/4-1/3 of the scenes involved him.

      3. I just watched Contagion and laughed. His slut wife gave the entire country a communicable disease before she croaked.

    2. HODOR!

  3. Holy shit, three people unfriended me. Nooooooooooooooooooo

    1. I was hoping you wouldn’t notice that.

    2. Today’s Lesson: Epi is worth -3 friends.

      1. I’m worth a whole lot less than that.

        1. I disagree. Also, I accidentally sent your fun drugs to Jimbo by mistake. You’ll be getting some Gorilla-cillin instead. Should clear up your…”condition” nicely.

    3. Over what? Something that you linked that questioned the orthodoxy?

  4. So clearly it is important to figure out just how much methane is escaping from wells.

    I just had to laugh.

  5. Oh lord, not another melodrama where Matt Damon plays a folksy local trying to keep the dangers of some evil corporation out of his depressed, but pristine farming town…

    *sigh*

    Who’s the love interest?

    1. I forgot, “folksy, but attractive, well spoken and intelligent”

    2. Your mom?

    3. If I recall correctly from the trailer, Damon starts out as the company shill, signing farmers up for gas exploration, then has a change of heart.

      Yeah, I barfed too.

      1. At the end do a lot of bankrupt farmers, unable to get any revenue from their land, shoot themselves in the head?

        1. Just Disco Stu, who is no longer a farmer and no longer alive for that matter.

        2. I was hoping they lynch Damon.

    4. Sounds intrinsically paternalistic. Also, DEMAND KURV!

    5. Is this, like, “Local Hero” redux?

    6. SPOILERS for those who actually care:

      Damon is the evil corporate salesman and has to deal with John Krasinski’s environmentalist. Apparently, it’s revealed that Krasinski lied about a bad fracking incident, but all because he also works for the gas company, and was there to discredit environmentalists. I think Damon intentionally tried to live up to Team America’s “The corporations! They act all corporationy!” jokes.

  6. Why didn’t the lady that played Vash on ST:TNG get much work afterward?

    1. You get the award for Most Random Comment of the Day.

      1. Oh here, that’s saying something!

    2. She got pretty steady work, just no high-profile work. Does that surprise you?

      1. I wouldn’t call an episode here or there often with years in between as “steady.” And yes, it surprises me. We’re watching the Robin Hood episode (Qpid) at the moment and I noticed that she’s a pretty attractive chick and is also a good actress by TV standards. Usually that translates into better work than this.

        Haha! Worf just pulled a Blutarsky on Laforge’s mandolin. Classic Animal House ripoff.

        1. “Sir, I protest, I am NOT a ‘Merry Man’.”

        2. I dunno, she was okay, but I don’t know that I think she’s such a great actress that something unjust has happened. Actors are a dime a dozen.

          1. Listen, I’m not taking advice on how good an actress is by somebody that eats deep-dish. Sorry, but I’ve got to draw the line on this one.

            1. I dunno, she was okay, but I don’t know that I think she’s such a great actress that something unjust has happened. Actors are a dime a dozen.

              1. Maybe you’re right. As a matter of fact, I’m sure of it.

                1. Let’s go get a slice and discuss it further.

                  1. And we won’t need a snowshovel to get it on our plate either. Win!

            2. *Lights Sugarfree Signal*

              Speaking of pizza, there is a new joint in town, and it’s fucking great.

              NY style (made by a guy who worked in a Brooklyn pizzeria). Get the garlic knots.

              1. There’s a pizza place by us that says NY style–and they do get it right–and they make the water claim, too.

                But here’s a clue for ‘NY style’–

                The menu should say ‘hero’. ‘Sub’ is questionable–and there are no ‘hoagies’ in NY. If you see ‘hoagies’, it ain’t NY style.

                The sausage and meatballs on a NY style pizza are sliced–there are no ground bits of questionable meat.

                They do not put provolone cheese on anything except an ‘italian’ hero. All the ‘parmesan’ heros have mozzarella.

                The ‘supreme’ pizza should ideally be an ‘everything’ or a ‘garbage’ pie.

                They should have ‘sicilian’ pizza. Square, with a thicker crust and a different sauce.

                And, if you’re really lucky, you might find one out here in flyover country that has a potato and egg hero.

          2. Are you implying that pretending is child’s play?

        3. There’s a scene in that episode where Q reveals that Vash is attempting to secretly contact Picard and then dramtically calls for the guards to take her away. However this scene occurs in her prison room, which raises the question of where exactly the guards are supposed to be taking her.

          1. That episode isn’t exactly strong on logical consistency.

            I could see Data just calling up a sword fighting program and being pretty much invulnerable to lacerations anyway, but how did Riker, Geordi, and Worf fight off an entire castle of skilled swordsmen with no casualties despite almost certainly never having fought with a sword before?

            1. I’m pretty sure Q made sure they would win and come out unscathed. If you recall, he never hurt anybody. He merely threatened to do so.

              I’d be willing to bet if Riker, Geordi or Worf left themselves open to attack, the baddies would have somehow missed their mark. The whole thing was a test for Picard, as usual. Q wouldn’t have allowed collateral damage to his crew, as it would have been the end of their relationship.

              1. Well, he let Wesley get gored by a pig-man and turned Beverly into a dog. Plus Picard blamed him for the 23 people who died during the Borg encounter that he thrust them into. I don’t think Q really cared what they thought of him, since he knew he could screw around with them whenever he wished.

                1. That was an improvement over the regular Dr. Crusher.

                  I had forgotten about the Borg killing some crew members, but Q actually didn’t do that. Either way, since Picard blamed him that pretty much blows a hole in my theory.

            2. There was a great series of books in the late 90s called “The Nitpicker’s Guide to ____” which would take various sci-fi series and go through them episode by episode and point out all the plot holes, continuity errors, etc., often coming up with hilarious theories to explain them. Alot of the humor is that some of them were so obvious once pointed out that it was hard to believe you hadn’t noticed them before (in TNG for example, watch how often Johnathan Frakes sits on the control panels while talking to someone. Since they never chirp when this happens, do they have some sort of butt sensor to distinguish this from actual input?)

              Sadly the series got cut off because they weren’t officially licensed and they were getting lawsuit threats.

              1. Another favorite was The X-Files: there’s several episodes featuring prop issues of one kind of another with Scully’s gun which, when taken together, lead one to the conclusion that she routinely gets sent into the field with only one bullet, like some FBI version of Barney Fife.

      2. “Have I told you about the women on Riza?”

        1. No, but I ‘ll tell you this. I doubt Riza minded it at all.

          /Groucho voice

          1. Wasn’t Groucho a Marxist?

    3. Wasn’t she in Friends?

  7. Matt Damon is the smartest guy in the room whenever he’s alone

      1. I too wish to see the evidence. Remember that there are dust mites, paramecia and other creatures there, even if you can’t see them.

  8. Here we have a guy who has spent his entire career pretending to be someone else, and we’re supposed to grant his opinions some value?
    Not me.

    1. He has multitudes!

  9. The problem with Damon is that he can’t not take himself too seriously. He’s openly said he believes that his body of work has to speak for his larger political stance. Hell, even when he plays silly (Kevin Smith or the Ocean’s movies), he comes across as stiff.

    1. Did you see his guest stuff on Entourage? It was actually pretty funny because he plays super-intense and almost threatens Vince to do charity work. I figured maybe he wasn’t acting.

  10. Environmental activists, who once hailed natural gas as the bridge fuel to the renewable energy future, have turned with a vengeance against it.

    Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
    Lisa: But isn’t that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we’re overrun by lizards?
    Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They’ll wipe out the lizards.
    Lisa: But aren’t the snakes even worse?
    Skinner: Yes, but we’re prepared for that. We’ve lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snakemeat.
    Lisa: But then we’re stuck with gorillas!
    Skinner: No, that’s the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

  11. so, when the world discovers in 50 years that “global warming” turns out to be as meaningless as “the population bomb”, will we just move on to some other environmental doomsday scenario, or do you think we might finally stop giving a shit completely?

    i suspect we will have already come up with a new enviro-panic before we entirely debunk the old one. the cycle never ends

    1. Was the “population bomb” just a scam to get public funds directed towards family planning organizations?

      1. Part scam for money, part scheme to kill people.

    2. In 50 years the legislation and regulation will be so entrenched that people will laugh about it as they obey it.

    3. FRANKENFOOD!!!!!1!

    4. science has an amazing facility for moving the doomsday hysteria goalposts down the field.

    5. “i suspect we will have already come up with a new enviro-panic before we entirely debunk the old one. the cycle never ends”

      You win the prize GILMORE

  12. I think Matt Damon is a decent actor but like all actors, I don’t give a rats ass what he thinks.

    1. I don’t make a single engineering decision until I get Sophia Vergara’s input.

  13. “Matt Damon is a hack and all of these Hollywood elites should mind their own business.”

    “Ronald Reagan was the greatest American president in the 20th Century.”

    /Team Red*

    *Not directed at anybody on this site. I just love the irony from a lot of these Reagan pantysniffers on Team Red.

    1. Ronald Reagan wore panties?

      1. Only the first wive’s. Nancy has always been a petite.

    2. Well, you are leaving out the context. The actors of the 40’s and 50’s were of a different stock and temerity. The half that were not Stalinist were Trotskyites, and the half that weren’t pedophiles indulged in choking prostitutes to death at John Huston’s orgies.

      So, in comparison, the current generation of Hollywood stars are obviously too clean cut for politics compared to earlier generations.

    3. Except Reagan didn’t use the films he acted in to promote political agendas, particularly films that flat out lied about the subject material as PL does.

      If Damon wants to promote his agenda by entering the ordinary political process and being honest, I welcome his participation.

  14. Ret. Gen. McChrystal talking out of his fucking ass on guns.

    No wonder we can’t win a fucking war; we’ve got treasonous fucks like this running things.

    Hey Stanley, take yer fucking book and shove it up your ass sideways, ya fucking fuck.

    1. Similarly OT: Cuomo wants new NY gun laws, unclear, of course, what. Bonus depression points for the quotes from a Westchester mommy, as well as this:

      Cuomo’s move comes as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Gun Violence released a new commercial to push for federal action. It features Roxanna Green, the mother of Christina Taylor-Green, who was killed two years ago Tuesday in the Tucson, Ariz., massacre.

      That was the little girl whose father was all, “no, gun control is not the response to this,” right? Wonder what’s going on there.

      1. Looks like mommy and daddy weren’t getting along to well. I wonder if they made their media pleas out of spite; the cynic in me wouldn’t be surprised.

        And the Westchester lady, with her total statistical ignorance is everything wrong with this country. “Well, I’ve seen this on the news more lately so it must be some sort of EPIDEMIC! DO SOMETHING! MY CHILDRENS ARE SO FUCKING SPECIAL! LIKE MY FROSTED HAIR!”

        Fucking fucks, fucking do it every fucking time.

        *barf*

        1. LIKE MY FROSTED HAIR

          I see you are familiar with Westchester.

          1. No, but I know the type.

            It’s like, jesus lady, find somebody to fuck already.

      2. Mom must disagree with Dad on what she considers, “The proper response.” I have it on good authority that married couples don’t agree on everything. Unfortunately, this appears to be one of them.

        1. I love it when people use their, or someone else’s dead kids to push their political agenda; it reminds me that they’re totally fucking horrible humans and can be ignored.

          1. They’re not horrible human beings. They’re simply people who listen to their therapists. Therapists don’t make money when their clients “get over it”. Nope. No money at all. Gotta keep them reliving the pain and horror to keep the payments coming. Therapists are the real monsters.
            I love my daughter, and if I lost her I would be devastated. But then I would get over it and live my life. Without some parasitic therapist having me relive the past so they could get a paycheck in the future.

            1. Do you think the the rapist would tell them to go on teevee to push their previously held political beliefs, being that they are now “victims” and their opinion is worth more than the average American?

              1. So you’re saying you’d take the rapists for $200?

                1. Nae, Alexsh.

                  I’ll take Anal Bum Cover for a thousand.

                  1. I think that’s a Daily Double

      3. Listening to NPR on the ride home from work and they were talking all glowingly about how political rulers were going to come together and create all this new legislation and executive orders that will reduce the scourge of gun violence.

        Seriously?

        Some of us human animals are still living three steps out of the cave in the full belief that incantations scrawled on paper by men and women with power will magically cure human nature and pave the way to paradise.

        The only difference between us and nomads of four thousand years ago is the toys.

        1. Well, there’s a notion that there is less gun violence in some well-developed nations, and that therefore America can have those same rates of gun violence if it just copies those laws. This manages to sail magically past any differences in culture that also contribute to violence. Of course, it also assumes that a country saturated with unregistered, civilian-owned firearms can become a gun-free place through the magic of passing laws.

          1. Also ignores violent crime rates altogether, if people switch to fists, boots, cricket bats, and presumably safety tipped kitchen knives.

            1. Incidentally, I remember that during my first day in London during a semester abroad, I got no attention for buying bagloads of whiskey, but had to show a passport to buy cooking knives.

            2. Exactly! Why is “gun violence” somehow worse than “knife violence”?

              1. Nobody’s ever watched “Wives with Knives”?

          2. Passing laws won’t do it; a thorough confiscation campaign will (almost) do it. You could just pass a law requiring grocery stores, restaurants, banks etc to have metal detectors at the entrances as a “safety measure” to catch the folk with the temerity to CCW. All those things are interstate commerce under existing precedent. The guns stored in people’s homes would be harder to get but you could basically make it impossible to get ammo to take care of those.

            And the people who say there would be an armed rebellion if they tried to confiscate are deluding themselves.

  15. Truly OT, but a statement about free enterprise:

    http://soccernet.espn.go.com/n…..up?cc=5901

  16. Is anybody on here familiar with AZ gun laws? Banjos and I own a house there (I assume I now own it through community property laws). Can I purchase a gun there by proving I am a property owner, or do I have to reside there?

    1. Most states require at least a driver’s license. I know of people that live in Jersey, Maryland, NY, etc that have places in PA and try to buy guns and have had no luck.

      You could always, you know, move to AZ. Because, fuck California. No seasons ain’t no way for a baby to live.

      1. Yeah, that’s an impossibility right now. I can’t move because my two older kids live half of the time with me and half with their mother. It’s worth living in California for that alone.

      2. You have to show some sort of photo ID to fill out the ATF forms. Do they accept passports, which wouldn’t have your address on them of course?

        1. Maybe I could show my CA drivers license and a utility bill for the house we own in our name? Or the bank note on it?

          I may just have to go with a relative that lives there and be luck enough to have them give it to me as a gift when we walk out of the store.

          1. I just don’t want to have everything registered with the state of CA, as I could see them making a go for confiscation out here sometime in the near future.

            1. That might be a perfect spot for used, before those sales are banned.

              You’d have to check, but I *thought* you could make purchases in neighboring states from an ffl, without having to transfer it to your home state. I’m finding mostly stuff on private sales, but would be worth checking/asking.

              1. I already went into a gun store in Phoenix and asked. All the clerk said was that it was illegal to sell to people from CA. I didn’t think to ask about an AZ property owner, and that may be an odd issue since there are so many snowbirds that live there and in another state for much of the year. You’d think someone would have tried to buy a gun while there in the winter by now.

                1. I’d try the utility bill/passport, that might work, actually.

            2. You can buy long guns in any state and do not need to reside there. You must be a resident to buy a handgun from an FFL, but if you buy one off a private citizen, who’s going to know? Plus, you do have a residence there.

              Or just move some of what you have to the AZ residence and unregister it with CA (not really sure how that works).

              1. You can buy long guns in any state and do not need to reside there.

                I wish the local big box retailers knew this. Waiting a half-hour while the sales lady is on hold with PICS sux.

                I tried to tell them that they weren’t required by law to do that, and they didn’t believe me.

                1. Uh, I thought if they have an FFL they have to do PICS for long guns too.

                  1. I’ve never read that. Do you have a link so I don’t make an ass out of myself if that’s the case?

                    1. There’s no mention of an exception for long guns in the FBI FFL manual.

                      III. Transfers That Do Not Require a Background Check

                      A. Permit Exception

                      A NICS check is not required if a transferee presents a valid Permit to Carry issued through the state POC that the ATF has indicated satisfies the provisions for the permit exception included in the Brady Act. A list of valid permits can be obtained from the following ATF website. However, if a NICS check is initiated before the permit is presented, the NICS check cannot be canceled.

                      B. Gunsmith and Repair Services

                      A NICS check is not required for gunsmith and repair situations in the majority of cases. However, if the individual who picks up the firearm is not the same person who brought the firearm in for service, the individual picking up the firearm must complete an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS check must be initiated on that person.

                      I think the difference is that you don’t have to fill out the PA state police form for long guns, only for handguns.

                    2. Ain’t that some bullshit. Guess I’ll keep my mouth closed from now on.

                    3. It’s an understandable misconception. I had one of those once too.

            3. If you’re a new California resident you have to register any handguns (and starting next Jan 1, long guns too) you bring into CA with DOJ within 60 days. (from my research for my own possible move there) I don’t know about CA residents bringing in guns they bought elsewhere.

              I mean, you might be able to do it via a private sale in another state as Epi suggests, but you’re in deep shit if they ever find out about you bringing it back to CA. One possibility I had considered was getting a safe deposit box in Reno and putting vital pieces of some of my handguns there, so that technically I wouldn’t have a complete handgun in CA and thus wouldn’t have to register them.

              1. As long as you have the frame, you have the handgun. I believe for most models that it what is considered the “gun”.

                Like a ar lower receiver.

                1. OK, well, I’d put the frame in the SDB in that case. I would just want to make sure that if somehow it got stolen from the SDB (unlikely, I hope) it would be as difficult as possible for the thief to actually use it in a crime.

                  1. Oh, I thought you meant to take a piece off and replace it, thereby having a gun on you. Not that the gun would basically be in the SDB, and unusable.

                    1. Yeah, I wasn’t clear on my plan. Which is probably a good thing since Bill Lockyer or his heir is probably reading this.

              2. Jesus Fucking Christ

                Why would ANYONE continue to live in that fucking state?

                What a statist shithole!

          2. AZ DPS just says “resident of the state or US citizen” for CC permit:

            http://www.azdps.gov/Services/…..ts/Obtain/

            NRA suggests no permits for anything:

            http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws…..izona.aspx

            1. That’s a carry permit. Here in PA you can get a carry license without being a state resident, but to buy a gun you must be a resident.

              In Arizona you don’t need a permit to carry either, but you can apply for one so that you can get reciprocity with other states.

              1. Nope. I know lots of guys in NJ who buy guns and ammo in PA with the appropriate Jersey permits.

                1. I meant, as a way to get around Jersey’s draconian gun laws.

            2. I found it.

              http://www.azccw.com/purchasin…..rizona.htm

              They’ll have to send it to a FFL dealer in California and I’ll have to comply with the waiting period. Looks like I’m either getting a gift on my next trip down or I’m gonna have to get an AZ driver’s license.

              Fuck.

              1. The Cali FFL probably has to inspect the weapon to make sure it’s legal by Cali’s standards, as well.

                1. The wacky thing about CA is that there are some handguns that are legal for new residents to import but not legal for existing CA residents to buy. Unfortunately, I don’t start getting paid enough to go on a buying spree until after I become a CA resident, if such happens.

              2. If, god forbid, you had to use your AZ-bought firearm in self defense in your CA home, you’d probably be in a beehive of trouble for falsifying residency or something like that. I know you’ve stated that you are trying to protect your family, and I respect that hugely, but getting sent to prison is not helping your family.

                It may be a better path to register and then move to another state in the event confiscation happens in CA. I dunno, you know your circumstances better than me.

        2. You have to put your address on the form too.

      3. Not sure if you can do that anywhere these days, or not. I could try it in IN since I own a house there, but currently reside in MD.

        I do know that MD does not recognize hand gun permits from any other state, but by contrast, IN recognizes hand gun permits from several other states, including MD for what that’s worth.

  17. That just makes a ll kinds of crazy sense dude. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Big.tk

  18. Was this covered?
    When Glenn Beck think’s you’re insane, you must be insane

  19. Maybe now Matt Damon can go to Cuba and talk about the great benefits of their health care, and the people are so happy without all the frivolous goods.
    Then he will immediately leave and go back to his mansion, and talk with Sean Penn and Clooney about the wonders of socialization and how stupid are those who support capitalism.

    1. Tom Morello / Audioslave already did that. I mean exactly that.

  20. I was also wondering if the Al Jazeera takeover of CurrentTV has been covered here? The irony of that shit and the liberal employees freaking out was classical.

    1. Al Jazeera… Gore invented it. Jazeera is just Gore in Arabic. He’s been behind Al Jazeera all along.

      1. I believe Gore in arabic is “sharmouta”.

        1. I thought it was ‘Assahola’.

          1. Azzahola, that sounds more Arabic…

  21. Over a 20-year period, methane is 72 times worse than carbon dioxide.

    How long does the average methane molecule last floating about all the free oxygen? Twenty years? Ten years? More like ten weeks I bet. The stuff burns.

    Also, isn’t methane “fluffy?” Such to say, it rises in air. Methane drifts up to UV-land and zap. More I think about it, the more laughable twenty-year survival rates for methane molecules seem.

  22. It’s frac’ing not fraking. There is no K in fracturing.

    Also it’s not new technology. The horzontal drilling combined with the frac’ing is the “new” business model. Frac’ing started in 1949, vitually every oil well drilled in PA since the 60’s has been fraced. My own early 1980’s vintage oil wells are fraced at a depth of only 800 ft- just a few hundred feet below the deepest freshwater zones. I drink from a spring about 100 feet from one of my wells. Physics doesn’t allow induced fractures to form verticaly shallower then around 2000 ft, they spread out horizontaly so it’s impossiable for them to breach the freshwater zone. The irony is that shale frac’ing is much safer then shallow oil field frac’ing, which was pretty safe to begin with and no one seems to have a problem with. An amish farm has a much higher probability of posioning the water then an gas or oil field.

  23. Good article. Informative and incisive. However, the article does seem a bit lop-sided. It would be nice to see a complete list of pros AND cons concerning cracking as well as a comparative analysis to alternative energy. Also, it would be nice to see you talk about the amount of fracking subsidies being given.

    1. No real subsidies, just the same accounting rules that apply to other extraction industries. These rules alow you to expense items that would otherwise be capitilized, which does alow you to pay taxes later rather then sooner.

      On the other hand there are also “extra” taxes that only the oil and gas industry pay like “impact fees” and, “permit fees” and severance taxes.

      Percentage depletion is a simplification of the capitilization of buying the gas in the ground that some people consider a subsidy, but this is only avaiable to very small producers.

  24. Take a look at this article detailing changes in the original script;
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o…..ey67ZzZV0I
    They took it from fracking is bad, to fracking is bad and the oil industry is subverting environmentalists to protect their core oil business. It’s all leftist propaganda sold as entertainment.

    BTW, all human activity contributes less than 4% of annual global CO2 emissions. Look it up.

  25. Naturally occuring manganese is a hazardous substance in ground water? I don’t think so.

  26. From the article:

    “Environmental activists, who once hailed natural gas as the bridge fuel to the renewable energy future, have turned with a vengeance against it.”

    That is the progressive’s prime directive: always be moving the goalposts.

  27. So tell us why we should care about increases and decreases in carbon emissions. The pseudoscience that gave us global warming, global cooling, climate change holds no place among men of reason. We are carbon-based beings and we need to own up to that blessing. We are also small beings with huge egos who believe that we can do permanent harm to our earthly environment but we are powerful and smart enough to change that environment for the better.

    As Michael Crichton reminded us:

    “The intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.”

  28. I think it’s most sensible to support the technology if it can indeed be done with minimal risk. Also, allow EPA oversight and regulation. Then I don’t think as many people would have a problem with it.

    Lots of people trust the EPA more than oil companies. Their track records speak for themselves, realistically.

  29. I think it’s most sensible to support the technology if it can indeed be done with minimal risk. Also, allow EPA oversight and regulation. Then I don’t think as many people would have a problem with it.

    Lots of people trust the EPA more than oil companies. Their track records speak for themselves, realistically.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.