The president talked a lot last night about gas

[boston bean]

and he was talking about how the government helped with the gas. And how wonderful it was.

Was he talking about fracking?

[Skidmore]

1. Did you really listen to him speaking about

making certain that the health of people is protected while energy needs are addressed? He definitely linked the need for environmental and health safety to viability of future explorations.

[boston bean]

2. yes I did, and I am wondering if he was referring to fracking

was he or wasn't he? And how the gov't helped develop the technology for shale gas.. Is that fracking?

[Skidmore]

3. I believe he was.

And I believe he was giving a message that it is not acceptable for just anything to be done in the name of meeting energy needs, including polluting ground water.

[MinervaX]

8. The real question is if energy needs would trump health concerns

in that scenario. I think we all know the answer to that. Look at the Deepwater Horizon spill. And ye shall know them by their actions.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. He was talking about what was under the ground

but he didn't get into any specifics for how to extract it - i.e., alot of folks on DU have jumped on the mention of gas deposits and lock onto one particularly egregious means for getting it out - "fracking" (with water and hazardous solvents) as a way to bash the President.

The hope would be to find a better way or abandon it because it can't be done ecologically.

[boston bean]

6. he gave a whole history of the gov't helping to develop the technology

and my impression was that he thought it was a great collaboration, getting gas from shale.

I wasn't sure if that was fracking. Was he referring to fracking?

I pretty much liked the speech, but the fracking(if that is what he was referring to) and the agreeing to working with republicans on medicare and SS, concerned me some.

That is all.

[joshcryer]

9. Yes, he was referring to fracking, unambigiously.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. (Applause.) And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. (Applause.) Because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. (Applause.) And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock –- reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground. (Applause.)

He was taking a "Republican" idea and showing that government helped make it happen.

Here's a Washington Post article where they credit the government for the shale gas boom: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-boom-in-shale-gas-credit-the-feds/2011/12/07/gIQAecFIzO_story.html

[theophilus]

16. A good start.

But.......let's make the disclosure law on ALL lands drilled. Let's also stop fracking if it pollutes water anywhere anytime and makes it undrinkable or toxic to wildlife. Then.......let's get off of burning gas for energy and transfer to solar, wind, geothermal, etc. Then it will all be good.

[joshcryer]

5. Yes.

Unfortunately.

Little known fact, though, the renewable energy industry likes natural gas, and since conventional gas has peaked, you have to use fracking to get at the non-conventional gas. It's one of those really nasty catch-22s. Want to do the Renewable Energy 2030 plan (PDF)? Gotta use fracking. (Page 153)

[joshcryer]

7. Here, found this list of grants for Hydrofracking:

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/08/us-dept-of-energy-awards-grants-for-hydraulic-fracturing-research-looking-for-greener-alternatives/

[mmonk]

10. Yes among other things.

And of course the natural gas industry likes to promote itself as part of both energy independence and clean which it is not.

[joshcryer]

11. Per quantity of energy natural gas peaking plants are cleanest of all...

...fossil fuel options.

Note: I am not saying it is clean, nor do I advocate it, particularly when natural gas wellheads have clean air exemptions (which the natural gas industry exploits, see Gasland). Many renewable energy plans rely on natural gas peaking plants to maintain grid stability, you don't need them in the long run, but short term they're needed more and more.

[mmonk]

12. I'm familiar with the argument.

But what I'm against is deep sixing our environmental standards for fossil fuels due to their undue influence in government.

[joshcryer]

13. The federal disclosure requirement will help with that, but it doesn't have a chance...

...in hell of passing unless we get a Dem congress.

[mmonk]

14. Add in state legislatures, many Republican, and we'll look like a fracking minefield

along with accidents surrounding hauling and holding pools.

[kentuck]

15. No, he was talking about Solyndra ?

Because he knows that is the issue the Repubs plan on using against him in the next election.