Marcellus Shale provides Erie-area em...

Marcellus Shale provides Erie-area employment

There are 34 comments on the Erie Times-News story from Mar 13, 2011, titled Marcellus Shale provides Erie-area employment. In it, Erie Times-News reports that:

The Marcellus shale natural-gas rush hasn't brought oil and gas companies rushing to Erie.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Erie Times-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Save us from the Moonbats

Irwin, PA

#21 Mar 13, 2011
Wherearethejobs wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they waiting for permission from Boner to start creating them? Or the next election? Business is sitting on over 1 trillion in cash. What are they waiting for? Tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers and consumers so they don't have to risk 'their' money or the shareholders? Once again, Americans held hostage by business welfare recipients.
you stated:
"Business is sitting on over 1 trillion in cash."

which "business" are you referring too that's sitting on this huge wad of cash????

you stated:

"Once again, Americans held hostage by business welfare recipients."

1. Wasn't Obama the one who gave these banks and Auto manufacturers these huge "bailout" packages?

2. When business is taxed more, they simply pass on the higher cost of doing business onto the consumer.

In other words, they don't foot the bill, YOU DO!!

3.business welfare recipients? Would it be better if they were Government welfare recipients??

Or would it be better to have a business friendly environment where business can expand and hire folks thus creating more jobs.
Thereby increasing the tax base and getting more people off of welfare/ food stamp programs and giving people a sense of self-worth rather than relying on the Government to take care of them?
Save us from you Moonbat

Greensburg, PA

#22 Mar 14, 2011
Save us from the Moonbats wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wasn't Obama the one who gave these banks and Auto manufacturers these huge "bailout" packages?
2. When business is taxed more, they simply pass on the higher cost of doing business onto the consumer.
In other words, they don't foot the bill, YOU DO!!
3.business welfare recipients? Would it be better if they were Government welfare recipients??
Or would it be better to have a business friendly environment where business can expand and hire folks thus creating more jobs.
Thereby increasing the tax base and getting more people off of welfare/ food stamp programs and giving people a sense of self-worth rather than relying on the Government to take care of them?
Point #1: No, putz, that was TARP and George "Dubya Dummas" Bush.

Point #2: No, ya' putz, natural gas is a commodity and the price is set by market forces much broader than a single state. And since every other state fracking natural gas does tax it, PA is forgoing revenue and simply allowing drillers windfall profits at the taxpayers' expense.

Point #3: They ARE government welfare receipients, to the tune of countless billions of dollars annually. There are even business tax subsidies to export U.S. jobs, power putz!

Good gawd but you're a lame-brained, right wing-nut of a whack-job!
TaxNoMore

United States

#23 Mar 14, 2011
President-elect Barack Obama asked President Bush today to request the release of the second $350 billion in federal bailout funds so he would have "ammunition" if the country's fragile economy weakened further.

The White House said that Bush has agreed to request the money.

Obama, speaking after a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, said it would be "irresponsible" to enter the White House without having asked Bush to request the funds.

He called the cash "potential ammunition" in case the economy worsened.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Economy/story...
Actually Facts

Erie, PA

#24 Mar 14, 2011
The Soros propaganda machine and shale gas
Ed Lasky
America's huge reserves of natural gas-bearing shale offer lower energy prices, and the hope of increasing our energy independence. George Soros is determined to use his wiles and network of grant recipients to hobble development of America's energy ace in the hole.

The movie Gasland came out of nowhere to slam the shale gas industry -- an industry that has already substantially brought down the price of natural gas throughout the nation, saving consumers and business untold billions of dollars in energy costs. The natural gas boom spawned by technologies such as horizontal drilling and fracking have also enriched citizens and states that have reaped part of the bounty brought to the surface by these technologies. Gasland casts aspersions regarding the safety of these technologies, especially to the water tables.

The film's charges have been rebutted . State departments that regulate energy development have praised energy companies for their environmentally sensitive practices.

Nevertheless, Gasland has provided fuel for critics of shale gas development. I have speculated, with good reason, that Democrats are trying to stop the tapping of this vast resource and that major Democratic donor George Soros would be a beneficiary if shale gas were stopped in its tracks. His bought and paid for group, MoveOn.Org , has diverted from its typical topics of interest and has thrown itself into the battle over shale gas.

This brings me back to Gasland, a documentary that was run on the HBO network and that also may have prompted a 60 Minutes report on shale gas. Did Gasland really come out of nowhere, or did it benefit from the helping hands of George Soros?

Gasland was shown at the Sundance Film Festival -- that was the first step in its journey to make the bigtime (including the HBO screenings). Gasland got a major boost in prominence when it landed a coveted spot at Sundance.

This was quite an accomplishment since most entries are rejected. Yet Gasland survived the winnowing process.

Did it have friends in powerful places who helped?

The Sundance Institute receives funding from George Soros; furthermore, the Sundance Documentary Film Fund was formerly known as the Soros Documentary Fund. Soros and his Open Society Institute have given many millions of dollars to the Sundance Institute. The officials who run Sundance know their donors and their special interests.

According to the Capital Research Institute, Sundance founder Robert Redford "genuflected" before Soros when Open Society gave the Institute 5 million dollars in its latest "gift":

Sundance Institute has supported documentary storytellers since its beginning. The recognition of that history by George Soros and the Open Society Institute, and the continuation of our relationship over time, speaks to our shared belief that culture-in this case documentary film-is having a profound impact in shaping progressive change.

Soros responded that he is interested in such moves because "documentary films raise awareness and inspire action."

That presumably includes action that help prevent us freeing ourselves from being dependent for our energy supplies on unfriendly nations. These nations suck hundreds of billions of dollars from our coffers and use some of that to spread hatred of America around the world. Those are the types of actions that Soros likes-and that Sundance helps him accomplish.
Actually Facts

Erie, PA

#25 Mar 14, 2011
January 31, 2011
The energy technology breakthrough the media won't tell you about
Jerome J. Schmitt
Cheaper electricity ought to be a topic of interest, you might think. But because the media is pushing uneconomical "green" technologies, you probably haven't heard of the discoveries which promise to make electricity generated by natural gas cheaper.

Since 1992 the U.S. DOE has "invested" hundreds of millions of dollars into clean-burning, efficient "combined cycle" natural gas turbines made by GE and Westinghouse to power dynamos in central electricity generation stations. From this U.S. DOE Webpage:

"The H System is GE's most efficient gas turbine combined cycle product and is the first platform designed with the capability to reach 60 percent thermal efficiency. The H System's higher fuel efficiency provides power producers and end users lower cost of electricity through fuel conservation while adhering to strict environmental requirements for natural gas fired power plants. The revolutionary H System was funded in part through the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Turbine System Program."

Unlike Jimmy Carter's disastrous Synfuels Corp., this project looks fairly successful. By the year 2000, the full-scale demonstration units achieved 60% energy-conversion efficiency, which is quite good for a "heat engine." By way of contrast Fuel Cells convert hydrogen to electricity with approximately 70% efficiency. Similar to a giant aircraft jet engine, this relatively compact yet power dense electricity supply technology can easily be turned on and off, so it is well suited today for Peaking Power applications in order to augment much larger coal-fired or nuclear installations. Time from ordering to installation is vastly shorter than nuclear and coal plants. And in the long ranger range, with wider-spread use, the economics of gas-turbine generated electricity might improve to the point where it is able to supplant both nuclear and coal in larger installations.

Federal investment began in the Clinton administration, a time when it was expected that future US natural gas supplies would increasingly depend on imports by liquified natural gas tanker. Today this scalable clean electricity generation technology is vastly more significant to national strategic energy needs given the recent discovery and rapidly growing development in New York, Pennsylvania and across Appalachia of the "super giant" domestic Marcellus natural gas fields. At a time when turmoil in the Middle East threatens global energy supplies, the discovery and means to exploit vast new domestic natural gas energy resources and technologies should be good news.

But in homage to the gods of anthroprogenic global warming, all we hear about are "windmills" and "solar shingles" -- technologies ill-suited to meet our rapidly-changing strategic energy needs.
Jon

Roy, WA

#26 Mar 14, 2011
Gov. Corbett pushing hard for "fracking" for natural gas in our state when there are so many signs that it is seriously destructive is impeachably irresponsible. The New York Times found internal documents from the EPA that "show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood." : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.ht ...

Corbetts refusal to place a moratorium on fracking at least until the question of its safety is resolved shows that he does not care about the risks to PA citizens and the environment. Please sign this petition to impeach Gov. Corbett and pass on to every PA resident you know!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/imptc/
TaxNoMore

United States

#27 Mar 14, 2011
Jon wrote:
Gov. Corbett pushing hard for "fracking" for natural gas in our state when there are so many signs that it is seriously destructive is impeachably irresponsible. The New York Times found internal documents from the EPA that "show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood." : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.ht ...
Corbetts refusal to place a moratorium on fracking at least until the question of its safety is resolved shows that he does not care about the risks to PA citizens and the environment. Please sign this petition to impeach Gov. Corbett and pass on to every PA resident you know!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/imptc/
No way!!!

Jack!!!

"FRACK BABY FRACK"
Smack Down

Erie, PA

#28 Mar 14, 2011
Jon wrote:
Gov. Corbett pushing hard for "fracking" for natural gas in our state when there are so many signs that it is seriously destructive is impeachably irresponsible. The New York Times found internal documents from the EPA that "show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood." : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.ht ...
Corbetts refusal to place a moratorium on fracking at least until the question of its safety is resolved shows that he does not care about the risks to PA citizens and the environment. Please sign this petition to impeach Gov. Corbett and pass on to every PA resident you know!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/imptc/
jon use the petition to wipe your backside. It's softer than the NY Times. And it won't irritate your hemmies as much.
whomever

Philadelphia, PA

#29 Mar 14, 2011
I'd like to see everyone envolved in the fracking nightmare die a slow and painful death. All they need to do is drink nothing but water from rural wells.
youheardithere

Ravenna, OH

#30 Mar 15, 2011
Look, if Obama proposed a moratorium on these taxes as a job creation scheme you'd be on your feet applauding him.
MPO

Shippensburg, PA

#31 Mar 15, 2011
What wages are these jobs paying? I seen on the news were they are building apartment for the worker. A one bed room apartment starts at $1400.00 a month. Are we gone back when we live in the corporation housing,buy at the corporation store,etc.
Rex

United States

#32 Mar 15, 2011
This is another reason why "water" is the hottest commodity. I am right there with T. Boone Pickens. Yes, fracking will cause more jobs in the water industry. Those that build and sell the products to purify the contaminated water will be make a killing off those that can afford it. Although, the drilling does often not occur in areas where people do not have the money to correct it. It is very expensive to fix the water through reverse osmosis and even then the water that is not treated running into your home and on you as you take a shower is absorbing through your skin. Therefore in the end your home value is ruined unless you have the money to fix your water.

So, if taxes are imposed will they be in place to protect the water rights of those around the drilling. Or will they go downstream leaving those that need it the most with nothing.

Get your water tested to create a baseline of the TDS.(Mircobac or Free-Col). They can tell you what is a safe level, anything over 500 TDS is considered unsafe. And if your waters' TDS drastically changes b/c of drilling then you will have made your own case to sue the pants off your neighbor and their drilling company.
now hear it correctly

Greensburg, PA

#33 Mar 15, 2011
youheardithere wrote:
Look, if Obama proposed a moratorium on these taxes as a job creation scheme you'd be on your feet applauding him.
Not possible; Obama's nowhere near as "fracking" stupid as Corbett!
Karen Ramsburg

Mercersburg, PA

#34 Mar 15, 2011
For all of those who think that PA is going to get rich from fracking look at West Virgina.

Once upon a time coal was going to make WVa. rich, however, today it's one of the poorest states in America and its environment has been destroyed.

The EPA in writing the 2005 report that said fracking was safe colluded with Halliburton to write the report.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wyalusing Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mary Beth Harshbarger (Dec '12) Nov '16 Link Cornell 10
meshoppen pa (Dec '06) Nov '16 Link Cornell 13
Street Drugs & Suboxen? (Mar '11) Aug '16 imonlyhereforthec... 3
Michele Inch's Body Found? (Mar '16) Mar '16 we the people 1
please help bring justice to robert leone ! (Jun '12) May '15 concerned citizen 47
News Slain school principal remembered in Towanda (Jan '13) May '15 VEG 2
News Nis Prepares To Shine in Jubilee Year (Nov '12) Apr '15 KarpatskiVlaj 58

Wyalusing Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wyalusing Mortgages