If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Longmont Times-Call)   Boulder County: "If you don't like fracking then vote to ban it." Citizens: "That sounds reasonable. Ok." Ban passes. Boulder County: "lulz. One does not simply ban fracking"   (timescall.com) divider line 61
    More: Scary, Boulder County, city limits, county board, current limiting, county commission, Longmont, gas exploration, land uses  
•       •       •

17608 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Nov 2012 at 3:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-15 09:47:22 PM
6 votes:

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


Money buys judges.
2012-11-15 08:14:26 PM
6 votes:
F*ck you people, trying to practice direct democracy on a local level. Don't you have any shame?! There are old money white guys trying to profit at your expenses here, so get ready to bend over and take it in the water table.
2012-11-15 08:58:07 PM
5 votes:
Next you dumb bastards will start thinking you have "rights"

/when the fossil fuel industry buys someone or something, it STAYS bought
2012-11-15 08:39:47 PM
5 votes:

real_headhoncho: [upload.wikimedia.org image 200x250]

Ban "fracking?"


I approve of this reference to the REAL Battlestar Galactica.
2012-11-16 06:36:54 AM
4 votes:

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


There was a study that was recently published on the subject. Basically, it looked at a variety of fracking sites across the country and concluded that fracking will likely contaminate water aquifers because it's basically self-regulated.

The companies are not required to disclose the chemical cocktail used to frack but a few scientists have ambitiously taken on that task. The federal government doesn't even monitor fracking sites. They're purposely excluded from the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

These scientists have discovered known incredibly powerful chemicals that are explosive, carcinogenic, and are otherwise banned for use by other industries.

However, there are a few alarming trends.

The majority of fracking wells have contaminated local water sources to the degree that the fracking companies are forced to supply entire towns with water. The contamination, however, isn't discovered until people start either igniting their water, their house explodes, or they sustain permanent brain damage.

PA was considering (and possibly passed? )a bill in which physicians could obtain a list of the fracking chemicals used because there were people showing up with unusual symptoms. The physician could treat the toxicity but the patient would be forbidden to know the source of the illness.
2012-11-16 04:00:47 AM
3 votes:

nmrsnr: Lsherm: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.

Thanks, all I could find was that the county "doesn't have the legal authority" but I have no idea what that means.


What little it explains is here: county's currently limited legal authority to adopt any rules that would substantially conflict with federal and state laws and regulations about oil and gas development, according to Commissioner Will Toor.

This was a county referendum. The laws and regulations on fracking were made at the state and national level. So for a county to vote "ban fracking" has about as much impact on a Federal law as if a city decided to take marijuana off of the DEA Schedule I. A city or state can say it won't enforce a drug law that's on it's own books; but it has no authority to change the federal laws or to remove a drug off the federal schedules.

Also, there are contracts to consider. A county may say "No fracking in our borders" and it could be legal...IF they're willing to pay ABC Gas and Oil the mineral rights they legally bought or contracted for for all the land within the county that they were going to be doing the gas drilling on. Part of contract law and property rights cover the value of the land, and if a county passes a regulation that makes the formerly valuable land worthless, then they can end up owing the contract holder the value of that property. So the County could suddenly find itself on the hook for tens of millions of dollars worth of natural gas if they go ahead and let the citizens have their way--money the citizens may not have realized they were going to have to pony up. It's a lot easier to blame it on the Feds, however, than to explain to the righteously angry citizens that they just cost themselves a lot of tax money by opposing fracking.
2012-11-16 03:31:28 AM
3 votes:
That would totally suck. I feel for a liberal community like Boulder who would totally understand why fracking is a bunch of bullshiat that shouldn't be happening.
2012-11-16 03:29:37 AM
3 votes:
Maybe we could just, y'know, remoke the fracking exemptions to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, etc?
2012-11-16 03:29:29 AM
3 votes:
Lol "democracy". Welcome to the world, folks. Choose party A or party B, it makes no real difference, we own them both.
2012-11-16 03:26:35 AM
3 votes:

GAT_00: nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.

Money buys judges.


Don't even have to buy the judges. Much of our extraction-industry law was written in the 1800s, when we valued minerals over the environment by a much larger margin.

Attempts to bring even lease rates into the 20th century are, of course, labelled as communism... 

Enjoy the new taste of your drinking water.
2012-11-16 09:13:51 AM
2 votes:

uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.


Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.
2012-11-16 08:48:17 AM
2 votes:

SomeGeologist: f you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.
There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.

Fracking is exempt from key federal environmental regulations.
The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained a provision that has come to be known as the "Halliburton Loophole," an exemption for gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Other exemptions are also present in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.


You might be a geologist, but even I knew that fracking is exempt from some major parts of the Clean Water Act. Not to mention that since the fracking ingredients are secret, even if you find a contaminated well or aquifer, you can't prove that fracking caused it, because you can't show that whatever is in the well is in the fracking water also.

Also, that fracking water doesn't stay under the ground, (where I suppose it would magically break down and become completely harmless or something.) It's brought back up to the surface, and kept in holding ponds, where it then has to be treated before it can be released anywhere. There is no argument that these chemicals are bad and carcinogenics. The fracking companies are in charge of treating their waste water too, and I know that an outfit that's exempt from the Clean Water Act can be trusted to maintain the highest standards of treatment before they release that water back into the nearest river or aquifer.
2012-11-16 07:24:12 AM
2 votes:

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


Voting down human rights because a majority thinks its wrong is not the same as voting to prohibit a corporate activity on public land.

Dumbass.
2012-11-16 06:42:37 AM
2 votes:
I'll consider fracking to be a reasonable and environmentally safe thing to around the same time these companies decide to tell me what it is they're dumping in the ground.

I bet if I dug a hole across the street from one of there executives houses and started pouring random unknown chemicals into it they'd want more information too.
2012-11-16 06:39:38 AM
2 votes:

SomeGeologist: SquiggsIN: When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.

Fracking does not work that way...


Actually it does in thousands of documented cases.
2012-11-16 06:15:35 AM
2 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Part of contract law and property rights cover the value of the land, and if a county passes a regulation that makes the formerly valuable land worthless, then they can end up owing the contract holder the value of that property.


This is the argument that the county (and the article) should have mentioned in the first place. Counties have some ability to regulate property rights, but not to simply revoke them. The typical example is not state drug laws, but state highways. Counties are free to complain about the speed limits, but not to change them. (There are exceptions, but it is just an analogy.)

If a county can demonstrate a public health issue, however, they can regulate as needed. So if a highway contains a dangerous curve, the county can simply pass an ordinance lowering the speed limit in that area. Similarly, a county can specify the maximum amount of benzene that can be released into groundwater. They have to be able to defend the number, though. ("Zero" can't be proven by science, nor instituted by a popular vote.)

In either case, the county has to enforce the law themselves. Although the state could theoretically sue on behalf of speeders and polluters, the county will win in any case where there was a real public health or safety issue. Considering that the EPA (technically) regulates the level of benzene in drinking water, the state would have a hard time winning that case.

The only problem for the county is that most of the benzene in their water comes from far-away refineries, and not from local fracking. Still, there are ways to determine where the chemicals in your water come from. Since those ways involve "science", they won't work in Texas or Utah, but should still work in Colorado.
2012-11-16 05:32:34 AM
2 votes:
SomeGeologist:

This would work only in the cases where owners already own the mineral rights to their property.

In most of Colorado, most of the western US actually, this is not the case. When the Federal government granted the land to homesteaders the government retained all mineral rights (except in certain cases).

Your suggestion, while interesting, fails because the people who own the surface rights do not own the mineral rights and never have.


That's the part my understanding was missing, and thanks.

And after pondering things like a common water table, it still doesn't work. Although then I shudder to think what will happen if gas companies ever get a technology that allows piping gas over unlimited distances through horizontal bores. Basically they could buy one patch of land anywhere and suck gas from every part of the planet with that legal model.
2012-11-16 04:21:41 AM
2 votes:

OgreMagi: it can make us 100% energy self sufficient


Seldom has a bigger lie ever been told.

It's not your fault, you are just repeating what you've learned from liars.

Unless you can find some statement from fuel companies explaining that once we reach a certain level of DRILLBABYDRILL they will stop selling their products on the global markets, we will never be energy self sufficient.

You would need a government takeover of every fuel company operating in our borders to achieve national energy independence.
2012-11-16 04:09:43 AM
2 votes:

OgreMagi: With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment


Ask Exxon and BP how well their safeguards work. Ask the people around Fukushima.
2012-11-16 03:56:43 AM
2 votes:
If voting changed anything it would be illegal.
2012-11-16 03:50:58 AM
2 votes:

fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.
2012-11-16 03:33:23 AM
2 votes:
This type of governance, where those in charge can make deals that are clearly at odds with the will of the people and those deals become binding, even after a public referendum, is a travesty and should be against the law.

For example, many municipalities make deals with traffic camera companies from out of state. However, due to the way the contracts are written, the towns and cities must pay the company a minimum figure and then some percentage of revenues collected above that. If the town doesn't take in that minimum figure from the cameras, the town must still pay the company that minimum amount.

When the people get fed up with the scam, they vote the cameras down, only to find that the contract is for a set number of years and breaking the contract would end up costing the taxpayers an obscene amount of money.

It's a travesty.
2012-11-16 03:28:13 AM
2 votes:

GAT_00: Money buys judges.


money buys whatever they want
2012-11-16 03:21:24 AM
2 votes:
Step 1: Legalize marijuana
Step 2: Make bong water flammable
2012-11-16 05:06:10 PM
1 votes:

FTDA: MurphyMurphy: OgreMagi: it can make us 100% energy self sufficient

Seldom has a bigger lie ever been told.

It's not your fault, you are just repeating what you've learned from liars.

Unless you can find some statement from fuel companies explaining that once we reach a certain level of DRILLBABYDRILL they will stop selling their products on the global markets, we will never be energy self sufficient.

You would need a government takeover of every fuel company operating in our borders to achieve national energy independence.

If only we could vote in someone that likes to take over private businesses for the government.


Like Mitch Daniels?
2012-11-16 12:40:32 PM
1 votes:

uber humper: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

Washinton Post

Your own link

says he was pointing to someone in the audience, you stupid shiatfarker.
2012-11-16 12:21:15 PM
1 votes:

uber humper: RminusQ: uber humper: The media usually ignore the anti-scientific left. And they are just as farking crazy as the anti-scientific right. The progressive democrats are cut from the same, crazy, illogical stone as the bible-thumping right.

Could you name some anti-scientific leftists in Congress on the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology alongside Paul Broun ("evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell"), Dana Rohrabacher ("could be dinosaur flatulence"), and Todd Akin (I shouldn't need to quote his stupidity)?

Maybe there's a reason anti-science conservative nutjobs get media attention: THEY'RE IN THE FARKING CONGRESS, MAKING OUR LAWS ABOUT SCIENCE.

And Obama believes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.


Citation needed.
2012-11-16 11:48:54 AM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: Personally, I think the hate for fraking is unwarranted. With proper safeguards to protect the water supply and the environment it can make us 100% energy self sufficient. But what's wrong with banning it within the city limits? This seems to be a reasonable limitation that should be perfectly legal (unless someone tried to pull a fast one by declaring the city limits to cover the entire country).


No it can't. Where did you get that from?
2012-11-16 11:22:55 AM
1 votes:
If you can't tell people what's in the fracking mixture, you can't frack. End of discussion.

Fracking mixture shouldn't wind up in drinking water, as it's supposed to be sealed when it goes down, and it goes down WAY under the water table. But there are too many people worried that this isn't the case, and too many places where it seems like it may not be. Plenty of industries have to reveal what goes into their product.

Second, fracking uses a TON of water. Not all of that water is recovered. Colorado's water resources are very, very scarce. This is a legitimate issue as well.
2012-11-16 09:40:57 AM
1 votes:

SomeGeologist: Bontesla: It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.

No, it's not.
If no previous gas contamination of the aquifer was present then any contamination caused by leaking natural gas (not fracking fluid) is because of a cracked casing. Which can happen anytime you drill, fracking or not. Natural gas comes out of the well under pressure in all circumstances. That's why it comes out.


If you have actual data that proves aquifer contamination then you should probably contact the EPA.

There is a thing called the "Clean water act" that those guys tend to take seriously.
Maybe the gas companies have some sweet deal, but in the area I work a CWA violation usually ends up with someone in jail.


No.
2012-11-16 09:01:00 AM
1 votes:

dolphinburger: as a resident of boulder county who is OK with hydraulic fracturing, i just want to say this:

it's about god damn time boulderites learned that they don't control the whole world.

/they should also learn that bicyclists need to practice defensive riding
//and that even though pot is legal here it's still too expensive
///and that nobody thinks you're cool because you're vegan
///slashies


////GET OFF MY LAWN!

...you missed one.
2012-11-16 08:39:54 AM
1 votes:
We have a winnar -
macquirelatory.com
2012-11-16 08:32:57 AM
1 votes:

newtigator: Heh, this surprises you? "Let's have a vote to legalize gay marriage! Ooops.. voters said 'No', guess we'll have another election since they must have made a mistake!" GOTO 10


Tell me again how it is morally correct to vote away the rights of a minority you happen not to agree with.
2012-11-16 08:28:20 AM
1 votes:

SomeGeologist: Generation_D: Pro tip: Its been proven engineers tend to skew conservative, and make these kinds of rationalizations. Best thing you can do is just humor them in public, then politically end-run them. They'll never see it coming, other than they got blindsided by the "ignorant public" yet again.

Hey, I've been civil. If you're trying to accuse me of being an Engineer, you should at least have the courtesy to do so to my face.


Thats not how Fark works.

I get you, but I've been on these arguments before. The argument will move over to your areas of expertise, and we'll wind up mostly agreeing that everything's being done safely and the public has nothing to worry about.

But then, over in the next well or the next county will be unscrupulous or illegal drilling, or drilling that circumvents current law, and there will be an engineer happily explaining all the things they can do, an engineer who goes home at night and sleeps soundly while the groundwater his work helped foul quite possibly is poisoning many others who happen not to have the good fortune of living in the fracking impact zone.

I've seen 40 years of this kind of mental gymnastics, and rather than move the argument into technical slicing and dicing, I just decided to cut to the chase: Some engineers, many in fact, are political right wing (who self-identify as libertarians, but who tend to vote hard right) because they hate and abhor the idea that the public who isn't them might actually question the validity of the work or the politics behind the idea of rushing fracking into the marketplace without a thorough understanding, when the consequences (like fouled groundwater) can last decades and impact far more than just the profitability of the well in question.

So I cut to the chase and called out engineering: often right wing/libertarian, and often at odds with the general wellbeing of the public. With cherry picked studies you can prove anything in court, and the deck is stacked anyway, your employers (the ones you happily cited earlier) have a vested interest in keeping you pumping out data that supports their cause.

Cry moar.
2012-11-16 07:58:23 AM
1 votes:

Generation_D: SomeGeologist: PunGent: Every single well casing is perfectly poured, and concrete never erodes over long periods of time. That REALLY the line you want to push?

Fracking WILL happen, guys like me WILL make money from it, and people WILL lose drinking water.

At least I'm honest about it.

Fraking does not cause water to burn.

Leaking well casing causes water to burn. You don't need to Frack the well to have your casing leak.

Undoubtedly literally true, but isn't it kind of disingenuous to claim this -- most wells arent pumped up full of chemicals at a higher than normal PSI.


It's like saying because not all explosions are caused by a gas leak, we can't possibly know if any explosions are caused by gas leaks. It's an odd argument to take under the facade of impartiality.

We do know that fracking has directly resulted in contamination in thousands of cases.
2012-11-16 07:52:34 AM
1 votes:
www.samuelsdesign.com
"I suppose the environment can take one more for the team"
2012-11-16 07:48:32 AM
1 votes:
The only way to stop fracking in your area is to buy up the mineral rights yourself.


/$$$$$$$$$$$$$....
// more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$...
2012-11-16 07:19:39 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.


Endorsed and signed.
There are so many possibilities for creating fuel and electricity from renewable sources that it is unbelievable, and the quicker we can get them deployed in large scale the better. These sources will only decrease in price and increase in efficiency over time, instead of the exact opposite as with fossil fuels. They wouldn't even bother fracking if there weren't a dearth of easy-to-access deposits because fracking is more expensive and takes more energy to do. But the only thing left are the harder and more expensive-to-access fossil resources which will only decrease in productivity and increase in price over time. Untethering ourselves from fossil resources will be extremely profitable, not just by driving down the price of power and fuel but because we won't have to buy fossil resources off the market and burn them. It is time to jump off the bandwagon.
2012-11-16 06:43:58 AM
1 votes:

Smidge204: whidbey: fusillade762: And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?

Just like stabbing yourself in the knee is better than poking yourself in the eye.

We should be putting every penny into renewable energy. Just my two cents.

Natural gas released 43% less CO2 per unit energy released while burning compared to coal, produces no soot or ash, and does not contain any mercury, lead, uranium or cadmium which coal tend to. Natural gas plants also tend to be a lot newer and therefore more efficient, so that increases the benefit even more.

So maybe more of a stab to the thigh, where it'll still leave a lifetime scar and a limp but it's not *quite* as crippling as a stab to the knee.
=Smidge=


When you examine the amount of Co2 released during the fracking process - you lose your argument. The problem is that the industry is self-regulating. The federal government doesn't have any authority to ask questions, monitor sites, and obtain the chemical lists.

Besides, you also have to consider the other problems we're encountering. Water contamination is huge and has already been documented in the majority of fracking well sites.
2012-11-16 06:18:26 AM
1 votes:

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


Yeah. Stupid citizens don't realize energy companies have more rights than they do.
2012-11-16 05:58:52 AM
1 votes:
Legally, they are limited from doing that by the nature of extraction permits that limit the 'field' from which they can draw gas.

In Pennsylvania industry killed the 'limit' and it now stands that they can drill as much as they want as long as they only have X number of active drilling sites at one time.

Here's what popped up in the four years since they moved into a single area of Penn... 

farm9.staticflickr.com
2012-11-16 05:25:15 AM
1 votes:
Same thing already went down early this year in Pennsylvania.
When townships and municipalities started banning fracking...

Industry went to the state and made it illegal for townships and municipalities to keep fracking out.
Representatives of seven municipalities say the law, known as Act 13, takes away their ability to control gas drilling operations through local zoning, leaving them defenseless to protect homeowners, parks and schools from being surrounded by drilling sites or waste pits.


July 26
A Pennsylvania court on Thursday struck down a provision of a state law that forbade municipalities to limit where natural gas drilling can take place within their boundaries.

Oct 17th it went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court...
The justices have hundreds of pages of legal briefs to consider, and gave no indication of when they may issue a ruling. 

DRILLING/FRACKING IS ALLOWED ON A-1 AGRICULTURAL LAND.
I have witnessed it occurring in Pennsylvania myself.

Sick.
WTF.
2012-11-16 05:11:01 AM
1 votes:

whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.

Into another region where they're fracking. Good plan there, Hendrix.


They should only frack beyond the environment.
2012-11-16 04:08:42 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?


Not if you ruin the water supply to acquire it. Fossil fuels are not, have never been, and will never be sustainable. PERIOD. If we don't start investing in solar and wind power, we're idiots. We would save billions a year in transmission loss by encouraging LOCAL power production via green sources. (beyond the environmental impact of procuring said fossil fuels)
2012-11-16 04:04:43 AM
1 votes:

dolphinburger: as a resident of boulder county who is OK with hydraulic fracturing, i just want to say this:

it's about god damn time boulderites learned that they don't control the whole world.

/they should also learn that bicyclists need to practice defensive riding
//and that even though pot is legal here it's still too expensive
///and that nobody thinks you're cool because you're vegan
///slashies


When your water is flammable due to water table contamination you may reconsider your pro-fracking position you fracking moron.
2012-11-16 04:01:58 AM
1 votes:
nmrsnr       
 
Smartest
Funniest
  2012-11-15 09:30:38 PM  
Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


The article does a horrible job. It doesn't even describe how the law is worded.

I am too lazy to find the legislation and read through it so, I'll take a wild stab at it. Since few other people here, despite their opposition to "evil" oil companies, seem to have bothered with educating themselves about the applicable laws.

It has to do with extraction rights and the associated environmental law. The citizens of Boulder likely do not have ownership of the mineral rights to their property. If the gas companies do own the mineral rights, it gives them the right to extract the gas (or whatever other mineral wealth lies under the property). There are environmental regulations that dictate how that gas can be extracted and what precautions must be taken to prevent environmental contamination. The regulations tend to be Federal, and then state level.

Usually, as long as the company owns the extraction rights and complies with state and federal environmental regulations, there is little that local governments can do about it.
It is possible that the county commission could influence some things, but Federal and state regulation take precedent over county.
2012-11-16 03:49:49 AM
1 votes:

What_Would_Jimi_Do: whidbey: What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.

Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.

move out of the region.


Into another region where they're fracking. Good plan there, Hendrix.
2012-11-16 03:49:26 AM
1 votes:

LordOfThePings: Bonanza Jellybean: remoke

This should be an actual word.


Yeah, a cross between "revoke" and "remove," which is apparently what happened to the smartness in my head.
2012-11-16 03:45:11 AM
1 votes:
Is fracking really that damaging? I've heard things both ways, so I'm sort of on the fence about this one. And isn't natural gas better than burning coal?
2012-11-16 03:44:22 AM
1 votes:

Okoboji: I do believe that this should prove to the community that their vote doesn't mean shiat. As such, it should be a nice turnout for the next elections.... and numerous council members wondering why they weren't elected for new terms...


I can't imagine there not being some sort of advocacy going on out there. I mean it's freaking Boulder. Activism City.
2012-11-16 03:42:35 AM
1 votes:
First you need to send folks to Congress who will reverse the severing of mineral rights from deeds. Then these same folks need to overturn the legislation that says that the highest and best use of land is generally mineral extraction. Then you need them to pass more legislation that turns mineral extraction regulation over to the states.

At which point, it becomes far easier for the companies to buy votes, since state legislatures are under far less scrutiny than Congress.

Face it, we have the best laws money can buy, and the only thing that can change is which level those bought laws originate.
2012-11-16 03:40:43 AM
1 votes:
I do believe that this should prove to the community that their vote doesn't mean shiat. As such, it should be a nice turnout for the next elections.... and numerous council members wondering why they weren't elected for new terms...
2012-11-16 03:40:07 AM
1 votes:

What_Would_Jimi_Do: you don't want to live where this happens, move away.


Move out of the country? Pretty sure they can do it just about anywhere.
2012-11-16 03:39:00 AM
1 votes:
you don't want to live where this happens, move away.
2012-11-15 10:57:57 PM
1 votes:
Secede already you damn county-rightsers.
2012-11-15 10:55:31 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


bribe money, or splitting political hairs over how the voter initiative was written.
2012-11-15 09:57:33 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.


From what little I could gather, company agreements with the state trump county bans.
2012-11-15 09:30:38 PM
1 votes:
Can somebody explain why/how the ban would be overturned by the courts? The article does a terrible job explaining on what grounds the ban could be challenged.
2012-11-15 09:21:41 PM
1 votes:
was this headline submitted by a meme generator?
2012-11-15 08:28:45 PM
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

Ban "fracking?"
2012-11-15 08:17:33 PM
1 votes:
FTFA: But Toor said Longmont's ban is unlikely to be upheld in court. He said that under current state law, and based on prior court decisions, a Boulder County ban on fracking outside the county's cities and towns probably also would not be upheld.

Despite many residents' demands that Boulder County impose such a prohibition on the process of injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals to free up underground oil and gas deposits, Toor said he believes that "we simply do not have that legal option.


So why hold a vote?
 
Displayed 61 of 61 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report