Linda Halteman Lewis: Our ‘moon’ moment

Advertisement

I’m sure the vast majority of people living in the Yampa Valley have a special love and relationship with our natural setting. It’s what attracted us here in the first place and it’s what keeps us here through the good and bad times. Taking the highly probable chance of contaminating this beautiful part of the Earth by bringing the poisons of oil and gas development to our community is not worth the risk for the following reasons:

1 We have 2 percent of petroleum reserves located in the U.S. but use 25 percent of the oil and gas produced worldwide. We will never be able to drill or frack our way to energy independence, even if a well went up in everyone’s front yard.

2 A large portion of the natural gas that is being produced domestically is being exported.

3 We live in a seismically active region and fracking is known to stimulate earthquakes.

Rather than risk our health and the health of our environment, let’s look at conservation first. Seriously reducing our oil and gas usage hasn’t even begun. Each of us drive more, consume more and waste more than our share. Individual and group efforts like carpooling, using bikes and public transportation, recycling, and making our homes and workplaces energy efficient are important and need to become part of who we are as a culture. We need to back off the $4 billion of yearly subsidies given to the petroleum industry and instead invest in seriously incentivizing alternative and renewable energy to make it affordable to all.

Truly, we are at a crossroads in our development as a society. We can choose to continue to ravage and exploit the Earth for the promise of a few more years of our familiar lifestyle and some short-term job increases, or we can take a hard look at how we can preserve our environment for our children and get creative with our energy use.  We’d all be healthier with the increased physical activity of getting ourselves places without the carcinogenic and neuropathic toxic residues from oil and gas development in our air, water and soil, and with the increased social support system available to us by living a slower, simpler and more community-oriented lifestyle.

At some point, oil and gas development may be made to be safe for all affected, but that is not currently true. Why risk all that we love for some fuel to export and some short-term job growth that comes with huge negative effects to the community? I believe this is our “race to the moon” moment. We can make it a national priority to work together to need less energy in the first place by practicing meaningful conservation. Then we can move to the next step of fulfilling our reduced energy needs from clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and sustainable biofuels. We will get to keep our beautiful countryside, our rural way of life, and even create good jobs in the process.

Linda Halteman Lewis

Steamboat Springs

Comments

Fred Duckels 2 years, 1 month ago

Linda. Noble goals all, but we are on the brink of insolvency from living beyond our means, much due to the nanny state that we are nurturing daily. To pay for all our security we need more tax money, more workers, more fuel, more of everything. In the end we will need more yet to provide for the added workers, a never ending spiral. Maybe the first step should be to address our inability to live within our means. Economic collapse is not out of the picture and I have heard some form the left claim that it is the only way. Would your recipe hasten the day?

0

Rob Douglas 2 years, 1 month ago

I love how the "environmentalists" in this valley lecture everyone and every industry. The only truly "green" thing a so-called environmentalist can do is move out of the valley. By definition, if you live in this valley, you are NOT an environmentalist no matter how much you may be deluding yourself into thinking you are. Your very existence in this valley means you are consuming far more energy than folks who live in highly concentrated urban areas close to the coasts - or at least a major city like Denver. So, if you fancy yourself an environmentalist and feel the need to tell others how to live - walk the talk by walking right on out of the valley and down to Denver or San Francisco. Otherwise, be truthful and admit that you are willing to consume more energy than needed in order to soil this sacred valley with your very presence like the rest of us environmental heathen.

0

Rob Douglas 2 years, 1 month ago

Quoting from the above piece: "The opposition to fracking isn’t at its heart environmental or economic or scientific. It’s ideological, and that ideology is nihilism. Environmentalism is a movement that began with the fire on the Cuyahoga River in 1969 and a few brief years later had mutated into the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (motto: “May we live long and die out!”), which maintains: “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.” (Good luck with that “less dense” thing, geniuses.) "Benign environmentalists are opposed to pollution, as all sensible people are; malign environmentalists are opposed to energy and most of what it enables. Their enemy isn’t drilling rigs and ethane crackers and engineers and their technological marvels: Their enemy is the kind of civilization that makes such feats and wonders possible, the fact that a smart guy with a big idea can make a hole in the ground and summon up power from the vasty deep. Their enemy is us. We can debate best drilling practices, appropriate emissions regulation, wastewater-disposal techniques — the engineering stuff — and even hare-brained ideas like the Pickens plan. "But we can’t really debate the course of modern technological civilization with people who are opposed to modern technological civilization per se, your mostly middle-class and expensively miseducated (and forgive me for noticing but your overwhelmingly white) types afflicted with the ennui of affluence, who suddenly take a fancy to the idea that life might be lived more authentically with a bone in one’s nose and a trip to the neighborhood shaman — the shaman who might, if the spirits smile upon him, initiate you into the ancient mysteries of the burning spring."

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Baloney.

Some of us just like our air and water to have adequate protection and assurance from further contamination. That is not the case today in Colorado. Arguing for a cleaner environment is ideology?

0

Fred Duckels 2 years, 1 month ago

Hi again Steve, When one uses "environment concern" as a political tool, it is ideology. Did you notice that enviros use this "concern" to constantly obstruct, with no regard for fiscal matters? This logically reinforces my suspicions that nihilism is indeed alive and well. Some have pointed out the lack of concern displayed in what other countries are doing, and wondered, why not? My suspicion is, that if this country collapses, the rest of the planet will follow. This would also explain the total lack of concern for common sense. This group goes to great length to show how caring they are, all the while camouflaging a vicious means to an end. After all winning elections is vital to the mission.

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

Linda, Let's try to get at least one thing straight. My "fair share" is whatever I pay for with my own money. Whether I burn it in a Prius or in an Abrams tank is my business, not yours.

And Rob Douglas is totally right. Nobody who really considers burning fossil fuels so bad would live in a valley that requires the intense use of them just to stay alive, not to mention how much of those resources are expended to get here from all over the world and to turn a ski lift 10 hrs/ day just to slide down a snow-covered hill.

I wonder how much support extreme environmentalists would have if they actually came out and leveled with the American people. If they just went ahead and identified every use of fossil fuels that they truly, secretly considered "wasteful". I bet 95% of those who cheered them on would think twice when they found out that their favorite sport, activity, possesion, was soon to be in the cross-hairs. When all else is eliminated, won't ski lifts be the most polluting thing on earth?

0

JC Williams 2 years, 1 month ago

Ms. Lewis,

I found your contribution well written and I truly believe you are sincere in your concerns and desires. I too hope we can over time find more efficient ways to use our energy resources and conservation must be included in the discussion.

Unfortunately, I find your utopian ideal simply unrealistic. It sometimes is hard to separate fantasy from what the true reality is.

Your belief that this is our “race to the moon moment” is interesting. Looking back at what propelled our country into an age of unparalleled advancement directly coincides with our discovery of oil in Pennsylvania 150 years ago. The very reason we were able to accomplish our “race to to the moon” is due to our development of energy from hydrocarbons. There is not enough space here to go into what oil, natural gas and coal has meant to our society.

The crossroads we find ourselves at is what can be done right now to solve our national energy dependence on foreign sources. Right now there is only one answer - we must develop all possible means of providing safe reasonably priced energy from within our borders. Our development of natural gas and oil from domestic sources must continue and be escalated. No energy source today is as scalable as fossil fuels.

The power elite must forget the propaganda and concentrate on converting everything we can to natural gas all while developing supplemental sources of energy. This should include alternatives or so called green solutions. But believe me wind, solar, geothermal and bio fuels etc. are not “clean sources of energy”. There is no such animal.

We as a nation must face the hard cold facts. Energy production not unlike raising beef, farming and most forms of industry it is not particularly pretty. Your meat does not come from Safeway.

Every day oil, gas and coal is produced and then moved around this country employing a remarkable complex system of pipelines, rail and trucking. Considering the enormity of the quantities involved the few spills and accidents are anecdotal. What is amazing is this is accomplished by a talented highly motivated workforce twenty four hours a day, seven days a week all while we sleep at night and ski on the weekends.

The beautiful countryside and rural way of life described in this valley has included coal, oil, rail and ranching as part of its legacy for one hundred years. It is time to move forward and allow the exploration and production of more oil in Routt County. I believe this can and will be accomplished in a safe and responsible manner.

0

jerry carlton 2 years, 1 month ago

JC Well written, very eloquent and true. I keep screaming get off middle east oil by all methods possible. If we do not get off middle east oil, we will eventually have a war that will bring this country down along with most of the developed countries in the world. The acrimony between "environmentalists" and "conservatives" reaches the level of an abortion debate. Everyone should agree we will continue to need more energy and that energy will continue to rise in price. The more alternatives available should help temper those rising costs.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

1500 contaminations in Colorado since 2000 are anecdotal?

I'm about the pollution, but I just don't get these "strategic policy" arguments. The "conservatives'" rush to get at these resources NOW!!!, in the shoddy manner that, for example, would "off-gas" and flare an otherwise useful energy resource, forgoes the steps the industry must do to be responsible as they profit from a publicly owned resource.

It also completely disregards that this rush means coming American generations will have directly and exponentially less energy security of their own.

This becomes compounded betrayal, strategically speaking, when you understand we are exporting large portions of these resources of "our national security" abroad to China and elsewhere so hat Big Oil can make a buck.

Seems absurd, doesn't it?

0

JC Williams 2 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Lewis,

You obviously missed the point of my post. Your emotional words fail to provide for an intelligent give and take.

First, yes there is a rush to drill and find additional reserves while the demand for oil and natural gas continues to rise worldwide. The oil industry has been successful at finding large new reserves of natural gas and oil through horizontal drilling in combination with fracing, which has been used with good results since the 1940’s.

Due to the large finds of natural gas the price has plummeted to $2.3 per mcf. This fuel is clean and abundant. But necessary steps must be made to build infrastructure and a commitment made to using natural gas as a transportation fuel. Our government from both sides of the isle simply can’t seem to form an energy policy.

Regulations are in place and gas is only flared for a short time as gathering systems are built to move the gas through the pipeline system. Please check your facts. Shoddy is not a word appropriate for the companies exploring and producing oil and gas. The term “big oil” is used as a hammer when the argument is weak and devoid of facts.

Independent oil companies make up most of the exploration and drilling in the United States. Regulators and the industry alike have long championed responsible drilling. Pollution is always a concern. Most companies are responsible and diligent in their efforts to run clean operations. New technology like multiple drilling from a single pad is only one of many examples where industry has solved problems and created a smaller environmental impact through its own innovation.

I am not sure where you came up with the misconception this is a publicly owned resource. Since the administration has slowed exploration on federal lands to a crawl most of the recent development has taken place on private held lands. The ongoing interference by certain groups causes never ending treading on private property rights.

In order to assure security and self-reliance for generation to come we must develop our own reserves now and supplement with new reliable alternative energy.

0

Rob Douglas 2 years, 1 month ago

From the Washington Post editorial board: "In an otherwise gloomy economic time for the United States, the boom in natural-gas production has been a dazzling bright spot. Thanks in large part to expanded production of previously inaccessible shale gas, the United States has passed Russia as the world’s largest gas producer, with an output of more than 23 trillion cubic feet in 2011. As the price of natural gas has plummeted, consumers have benefited from lower electricity rates, the cost of manufacturing in the United States has gone down, and thousands of jobs have been created." see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/natural-gas-exports-offer-much-to-the-us-economy/2012/03/13/gIQA4WibCS_print.html

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

JC Williams, Sorry. Mine was not a proper response to your post. It was to the bulk of the above, but I appreciate the difference of your post.

You are right. It isn't correct for me to speak of natural gas as a "publicly owned" resource. I thought we received tax income from every well. But I realize the rancher, in many cases, still owns his mineral/and or natural gas rights. There are differences within these. It also seems subsurface rights trump surface rights. I need a better understanding of the the whole.

We will disagree on how shoddy this industry is. Certainly wells are done with every precaution taken and done safely. Unfortunately far too many are not. In some cases the pollution is intentional as a cost saving. Attending the Routt visits of COGCC and CDPHE made it obvious this is an honor policy industry. COGCC was reluctant to fine anyone because they fear abuse of the honor policy. It was clear that insufficient oversight was due to funding constraints.

Air quality concerns fall entirely to CDPHE, who then only has only advisory input back to COGCC, who runs the industry. CDPHE has 4.2 FTE employees site inspecting for the state. They visit a given well once every ten years, completely irrespective of well phase activity.

It seem clear to me the industry enjoys profits overly detached from its impact on the commons.

Its a beautiful day. More later.

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

I agree with Steve about the industry getting by without paying for its impact on the commons. Steve and I both think that any entity which fails to carry its own costs should be stopped, don't we Steve?

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Mark, No we do not agree. Stop the industry? My argument is the industry should provide preventative monitoring, emission capture, etc. It should also provide funding for the state to fully oversee the industry. Thom Kerr, interim director of COGCC, was honest in saying he was limited in adequate oversight by his funding. Thus the O&G honor policy is what we have, and the state will tell you it is reluctant to fine anyone for fear they will not report problems. Meanwhile we have hundreds of small problems. Some are probably not small, and the larger the problem the larger the incentive to not report it.

Sure I could move, live like a monk and devote my life to offsetting the energy needs of your Abrams tank. Or offset my brother burning far more energy in FL than I do in CO. No thanks. I'm not that pure, and it seems smarter to stand up for Routt's environment than to leave it. So I'll minimize my negative impacts as I can and try to improve the county. I stayed here for the environment decades ago. My effort here will make a bigger difference than my departure could.

It is a flawed proposition anyway. Morality is a half-penny in a market of dollars, and the market pricing holds the real answers. If the price of natural gas stays lower via un-costed pollution in Routt, we are on the wrong course, on many levels. 100 monks made moot. Correcting that course is the effort that matters.

Interesting to see the U.S. military response on energy use.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

"Failure to adequately enforce existing drilling rules is harming Colorado’s public health, safety, and environment"

http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/REPORT-Colorado-Enforcement.pdf

"In 2010, there were more than 43,000 active wells in Colorado. That year the COGCC employed 15 inspectors,(7) who performed a total of 16,228 inspec- tins.(8) Assuming that each inspection was conducted for an individual well site, approximately 27,000 wells or 63% of Colorado’s active oil and gas wells were not inspected in 2010.(9) Even fewer inspections were con- ducted in 2011 (12,239), while the number of active wells increased to 46,835,10 leaving an even greater num- ber of wells with little or no oversight.

Colorado’s inspection capacity has lagged behind other states such as Pennsylvania, which has greatly increased its inspection and enforce- ment staff in response to the Marcellus shale gas boom. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of active wells in Pennsylvania almost doubled from 36,000 to 71,000.(11) In response to the drilling of thousands of shale gas wells, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently quadrupled the size of its enforcement

At minimum COGCC should be inspecting new wells three times and producing wells once per year. In 2012, that would mean approximately 55,000 inspections. In 2011, COGCC conducted just over12,000inspections.15 staff to 130 employees, 65 of which are inspectors.(12) In 2010, each Pennsylvania oil and gas inspector was responsible for, on average, 1,092 active wells.

With 43,000 active wells in 2010, and just 15 inspec- tors in Colorado, each inspector here was responsible for an average of 2,890 active wells – more than twice the number of their Pennsylvania counterparts.

It is nearly impossible for one inspector to visit, let alone carefully inspect 2,890 well sites a year. In 2010, each of COGCC’s 15 inspectors performed, on average, 1,082 inspections.(13) That number is high compared to oil and gas inspectors in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York state, each of whom conducted 253, 499 and 154 inspections in 2010, respectively,(14) and implies that COGCC inspectors are not able to spend as much time on each inspection as their counterparts in some other states."

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

"Failure to adequately enforce existing drilling rules is harming Colorado’s public health, safety, and environment"

http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/REPORT-Colorado-Enforcement.pdf

"In 2010, there were more than 43,000 active wells in Colorado. That year the COGCC employed 15 inspectors,(7) who performed a total of 16,228 inspec- tins.(8) Assuming that each inspection was conducted for an individual well site, approximately 27,000 wells or 63% of Colorado’s active oil and gas wells were not inspected in 2010.(9) Even fewer inspections were con- ducted in 2011 (12,239), while the number of active wells increased to 46,835,10 leaving an even greater num- ber of wells with little or no oversight.

Colorado’s inspection capacity has lagged behind other states such as Pennsylvania, which has greatly increased its inspection and enforce- ment staff in response to the Marcellus shale gas boom. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of active wells in Pennsylvania almost doubled from 36,000 to 71,000.(11) In response to the drilling of thousands of shale gas wells, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently quadrupled the size of its enforcement

At minimum COGCC should be inspecting new wells three times and producing wells once per year. In 2012, that would mean approximately 55,000 inspections. In 2011, COGCC conducted just over12,000inspections.15 staff to 130 employees, 65 of which are inspectors.(12) In 2010, each Pennsylvania oil and gas inspector was responsible for, on average, 1,092 active wells.

With 43,000 active wells in 2010, and just 15 inspec- tors in Colorado, each inspector here was responsible for an average of 2,890 active wells – more than twice the number of their Pennsylvania counterparts.

It is nearly impossible for one inspector to visit, let alone carefully inspect 2,890 well sites a year. In 2010, each of COGCC’s 15 inspectors performed, on average, 1,082 inspections.(13) That number is high compared to oil and gas inspectors in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York state, each of whom conducted 253, 499 and 154 inspections in 2010, respectively,(14) and implies that COGCC inspectors are not able to spend as much time on each inspection as their counterparts in some other states."

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

End Note #15.

"States, such as Pennsylvania, North Dakota and New York recommend that each producing well be inspected at least once per year, and new wells, especially horizontal wells, be inspected multiple times during the drilling and completion process. (E.g., see Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management. June 25, 2005. Compliance Monitoring of Oil and Gas Wells and Related Facilities and Activities. Document number 550-3000-001. http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/ dsweb/Get/Document-48286/550-3000-001.pdf )

To do an adequate job of inspecting new and active wells, all new wells should be inspected at least three times (e.g., twice during the drilling/ completion process, and once after drilling is completed), and each active well in Colorado should be inspected at least once a year. This means that COGCC should perform at least 55,000 inspections in 2012.

3 inspections x 2,700 new wells in 2012 (assumed to be similar to wells spud in 2011 and 2010)] + 46,800 inspections of active wells (number of active wells at beginning of 2012) = 8,100 + 46,800 = 54,900 inspections .

If COGCC inspectors continue to perform approximately 1,000 inspections per year (as they did in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010), then COGCC would need 55 inspectors to keep to this schedule. There are currently 15 inspectors. If each COGCC inspector conducted fewer inspections per year (i.e., spent more time on inspections like their counterparts in PA, NY and OH), e.g., 500 inspections per year, then approximately 110 inspectors would be needed to do the work. That is more than seven times the current inspection staff."

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

OK Steve. I can see you have no intention of reconciling your contradictory positions on gas vs affordable housing. I'll just chalk that up to a W in my column and we can move on to the next topic.

Inspectors.

"It is curious that heaven has bestowed on certain men-inspectors and legislators-the exact opposite inclination as what it bestowed on oil-men. While oil-men tend towards evil, the inspectors and legislators yearn for good; while oil-men drag mankind towards darkness, inspectors and legislators aspire for enlightenment; while oil-men are drawn toward vice, inspectors and legislators are attracted toward virtue; oil-men tend toward degeneration, and are stopped from their downward course only by the mysterious and virtuous hand of the inspector and legislator."

It is indeed a curious miracle how the same blood can flow through mens veins, the same breath fill their lungs, but until a man work for government he can not summon the moral fortitude to be trusted.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Mark, A W in your column? This has anything to do with affordable housing? Please explain what you are talking about.

When you quote someone, the source should be given, no? Please explain what the quote has to do with the real world. Or anything to do with my posts - far more inspectors are needed.

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

You want oil and gas to carry its true cost to the commons. You are always saying that. You want affordable housing's cost to be carried by everybody BUT the homebuyer. That's the exact opposite philosophy. That was the point.


The qoute and the author is irrelevant to the conversation but I certainly thought it was easily understandable. The broad message was: I find it laughable that so many can think that government employees are somehow not susceptible to the sins of those in private industry. THATS THE POINT.

Yes there is a place for inspectors, no question about it. But, as someone who has spent my entire life in heavy construction and real eatate development and has worked alongside inspectors and their expectations DAILY I can tell you they are not the end-all fix to your percieved problem. I do not wish to speak ill of anyone in particular, nor does the following story take place in this state, but:

I have seen inspectors come on the job to inspect huge concrete retaining walls and never check the grade of rebar, the size of rebar, the spacing of rebar, the lap in the joints of the rebar, the clearance of the rebar relative from the edge of concrete, the thickness of the concrete, the psi of the concrete, the air entrainment of the concrete, its slump, its calcium cloride content, its temperature, etc. In fact, I have been on some jobs so complex and widespread that the inspectors had to be shown what they inspected the day or week before and what they had not so they could approve the correct phase of the project. I have seen the utter confusion in their eyes that said " I have no idea what the hell I'm looking at..."

You know who did check all those things and make sure they were satisfactory? ME! The guy in the private sector who was there to make a profit. Inspectors are not bad or evil or useless, but they are made from the same fallible, corruptible flesh and blood as the guys on the oil rigs.

0

Fred Duckels 2 years, 1 month ago

Steve, you are constantly harping on spills, but both Scott and I have asked, what constitutes a spill?, no answers are forthcoming. A spill means nothing until we know the parameters.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Mark, This is a bizarre conversation.

I want oil and gas to stop polluting on the scale currently becoming evident. The accompanying point that these pollution prevention costs should be higher and should be be in their pro-forma; Is this something you disagree with?

My philosophy on who pays for pollution should be the same as my philosophy on pays for affordable housing? The whole point of affordable housing was shifting the cost - for a social and economic benefit. Note that it was a city majority, that endorsed that choice. It's day is over in my opinion. Will you also insist I still advocate for affordable housing?

Can you present a majority in favor of un-costed pollution?

You lost me after that.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Fred? For the 3rd time. The spills must include many small spills to show 1,000 in that timeframe.

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

Your philosophy can change as you see fit. And it does.

I, on the other hand, remain consistent with the position that ALL entities should be held to the same standards and the government should not pick some to benight and some to anoint.

"Shifting the cost for a social and economic benefit"? Benefit to whom? It did not benefit builders. It did not benefit adjacent homeowners. It did not benefit taxpayers.

These cute little nudges like affordable housing or Solyndra or First Solar are just a grand ole' thing for the recipients. And they certainly make the grantor feel benevolent, visionary and egalitarian. But they cost others tons of money; far worse however, is that they introduce continual uncertainty into commerce whereby corruption, confusion and frustration are made to rule the day.

On uncosted pollution: Show me $4 + gasoline and your darn right I can present you with such a majority. At $6/ gallon the majority of Americans wouldn't give a hoot where the spent butane went either.

Can you present me with a majority in favor of not drilling and even fracking for gas and oil? How about a majority vote on the Keystone xl pipeline? How about on affordable housing or any number of other things that get rammed down the peoples throat?

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

But here's what you asked for: The spill incident threshold is 5 barrels of fluid (x 42 gallons per barrel) or 200 gallons as an incident threshold to make it into the database.

When they have a spill reported, they will dig or drill down until they establish the spill extent. If they hit groundwater before they reach the spill extent, it becomes a COGCC groundwater contaminated entry.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years, 1 month ago

Mark, You don't agree with affordable housing. Fine. But if you cannot acknowledge that an AH program is MEANT to shift costs, your self discipline may be an illusion. Affordable housing polled well here, believe it or not.

You have a list of hated items. Big money eh?

I hated the Iraq war.

Get over yourself. Or at least calm down and stop insulting everyone you disagree with.

0

mark hartless 2 years, 1 month ago

Never claimed AH wasn't "meant" to shift costs. I only questioned the consistency in wanting to do so while wanting to do the opposite in other matters.

My "list" changes from time to time. I used to be way more pro-war, for instance, than I am now. I too think Iraq was a foolish temper-tantrum of GW's. Hell, I even agree with you on a lot of this fracking stuff.

One of the biggest pebbles currently in my shoe is people who can't take criticism. Talk about somebody needing to get over themself...

Claiming to be insulted and dismissing opposition as hateful, irrational, or arrogant is handy; and let's face it, it works well with most people. Not with me. Know why?? I am here to offend you and anyone else that gives me permission! But I can only do so IF you give me permission! Seems you have. Too bad for you; you could have just as easily refused to be offended... your choice. You see, what I am really here for is to impart what I think is sanity to a community I believe is losing it's mind. Who is right? We'll just have to continue to disagree about that, won't we?

For all I know you are a fine, upstanding member of this community who strives for the betterment of it as best you know how. But I will not apologize for being critical of bad ideas; nor do I intend to soften my vocabulary to levels which soothe all. I have not insulted you, I am way "over myself", and I am as "calmed down" as one can get with the help of fine Scotch.

Cheers,

0

Fred Duckels 2 years ago

Steve, Thanks for the info on spills. 2% of the worlds oil is deceiving. This statistic is determined by existing wells plumbed and on line. It has nothing to do with potential reserves. My source is Fox News so don't have a coronary.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years ago

Mark, That was a good post, other than taking permission to be offensive.

If you think my earlier complaint has anything to do with my inability to take criticism, reconcile what you believe with my post 2 days ago to Scott Wedel under the Holly Wilde letter:

"Hi Scott, Just curious about the citing of lunatic fringe sites. Could you post some examples that? Feel free to review mine. I'd like the feedback."

Mark, Fred Duckels describes my low and flawed character on a continual basis. I'm wondering where you've seen me bother to defend my character.

There is a fundamental difference, isn't there, between being critical of ideas and being critical of character? Each sentence has a choice to offend the other guy or to invite his sincere thoughts. A sentence or post cannot do both, in my opinion.

My other difficulty with your criticism is it is often about about something else. Defend this, defend that. I'm tired of defending what I never said and the tangents to your other politics. Where I am saying there aren't enough inspectors, you have no comment. Your "inspectors" reply was about good vs evil, and how you did a better job at inspecting than the government's guy.

Please be critical of bad ideas. But I'd rather defend what I said, not what you said.

Thanks.

0

Fred Duckels 2 years ago

Increasing inspectors is an open invitation for the agenda driven like the Garfield County opportunist,We have done that with the EPA and it has become another arm of the Sierra Club. It need not be this way but common sense is a casualty when the agenda driven will have no part of it. Steve, you and your cohorts have played a major part in some of our communities more regrettable moments. I feel an obligation to shadow you and point out your MO in order to help prevent future follies. I receive encouragement from many corners to keep up this vigilance. This is not a lot of fun but I can remember the times when it was an embarrassment to read the Pilot and find front page articles that would be better located in the funnies. Remember the first article on fracking when I said "you ain't seen nothin yet". Where you are concerned I will continue to be a seer.

0

mark hartless 2 years ago

Re Robs link: Seems like I heard a news story just a couple days ago... They DID win in Supreme Court!

Steve, The topic was inspections. My point was simply that inspectors are human and subject to the same faults. I acknowledged that inspectors are needed and they do help. It wasn't meant to say I did a better job, just that everyone can do right or wrong; it's their choice every day.

I did have another thought. If we did baseline water testing you can bet there would be a lot more "inspectors" on every oil rig in the form of everybody who didn't want to be responsible for water quality. The foreman, the owner, everybody would have a vested interest in complying with best practices whether the government inspector was there or not. Baseline water testing is something I completely support, within reasonable parrameters. I like it when people have a vested interest in things. It changes attitudes quicker than any sermon can.

0

mark hartless 2 years ago

Fred, I liked the way you put that: "... have played a major part in some... regrettable moments."

Well said.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years ago

Fred, I do enjoy the difference between what I write and what you write. Pointing to some crowd standing behind you - that says a lot doesn't it?

You are the seer. You know who the villains are and you'll call them out, if I read you correctly. And so of course you'll keep pissing on the Sierra Club. Yes I've been a member on and off for many years.

Ask your many endorsers what they think of the pollution reducing particulate scrubbers installed on the Hayden Power plant. You are welcome. Courtesy of the Sierra Club. Did you fight the Sierra Club on this one too? :

http://www.hcn.org/issues/48/1482/print_view

I seriously doubt, Fred, you know anyone would like to take those Sierra Club scrubbers off.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years ago

Rob, If the link has the important information, I hope they did win. That's what courts are for.

I'm not sure of your point. Is this supposed to be an indictment of the EPA? Lawsuits have similarly overturned wrongs in many institutions. The military for instance.

0

Steve Lewis 2 years ago

Mark, I'm glad we'll get the baseline testing too. Routt added a water quality monitoring well for the life of the well and held firm through Quicksilver hints of lawsuits over it. Routt also insisted on more frequent testing which will keep everyone honest, as you said.

It is amusing to read Fred's rendition of the power I hold. I wish. My losing streak is pretty epic since the annexation. Pretty epic before it too. But its an interesting conversation either way.

0

mark hartless 2 years ago

The problem with touting the sierra club scrubbers is that if they were unrestrained they would take the entire plant down. I think it is they who also endorse blowing the Hoover and Powell dams...

A pinch of sierra club is like a pinch of salt. Makes the stew taste better. Pour in the whole can and whatever you're cooking is ruined.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.