America Is About To Have Its First Fracking Election

This has never happened before. The oil and gas business – the industry, its health and its impact on inflation and consumer prices – has always played some small role in presidential politics, at least since the oil shocks and embargoes of the 1970s. Most times in the past, the key issue surrounding oil and gas has related to the price of gasoline and what the candidates planned to do about it.

The issue of oil and gas has only arisen whenever gas prices were considered to be too high, never when consumers were benefitting from them being historically low, as they are today. Yet, suddenly this year, this key industry is playing a huge role in the 2020 presidential politics, and it is wholly unrelated to anything having to do with prices at the pump.

The issue in this election campaign is fracking, and whether or not it will remain legal should Democrat candidate Joe Biden become our next president. While this longstanding and well-regulated industrial process has hovered around the periphery of presidential politics since 2008, when the anti-development lobby decided to politicize it with a focused and highly-organized demonization campaign, it has suddenly become one of a handful of crucial issues that dominate the political landscape this year due to its job-creating and economic impacts in a single swing state: Pennsylvania.

How important is it? Early Monday morning, the Trump Campaign announced that President Donald Trump would be holding three separate campaign rallies that day. This is nothing unusual, given that the President has made a habit of holding multiple rallies each day during both of his presidential efforts. On Saturday alone he held rallies in the state of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

What is unusual about Monday, though, is that all three of the Trump rallies will be held in Pennsylvania, which has become perhaps the single most crucial swing state in the 2020 election. Biden is also paying special attention to the Keystone State, holding events there on Friday and Saturday, and sending both ex-President Barack Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders there to campaign on his behalf over the weekend.

Pennsylvania was certainly a key swing state in 2016, but its importance was equaled by Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina as the race played out. This year, though, it has become increasingly difficult to see how either major candidate can prevail in the Electoral College without having Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes included in his total.

All of which explains why the issue of fracking and its continued legal deployment has become so elevated in the national discourse this year. Pennsylvania is, after all, the fulcrum for the development of the enormous Marcellus Shale/Utica Shale resource plays, the largest natural gas reserve in the Western Hemisphere.

 

Read the Rest Here

 

That is all.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever. Whatfinger.com is the only real conservative alternative to Drudge, and deserves to become everyone’s go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time.

8 thoughts on “America Is About To Have Its First Fracking Election

  1. Stuartswede - October 26, 2020

    Bravo Mr. B, well done. I will be glad when this fracking election is over with!

  2. Jimmy MacAfee - October 26, 2020

    Voters under the age of 60 likely don’t remember the gas lines, the odd-even license plates: one day you can buy gas if you have an odd number, the next even- (not sure what we’d do today with messaged license plates?) Gas rationing, the constant cry that “the world is running out of gas….” All BS.

    One of the things President Trump said just before opening Anwar, was that energy issues are national security issues. That is right on so many counts, but one that most people don’t think about is Alaska – the juicy state that the Russians salivate over and want back. By opening Anwar, the President had made it clear that Russia had better not get any ideas.

    But had HRC “won,” Russia would have had her ear – remember that the Russiagate documents she bought to try to take down Donald Trump were of Russian origin. The Russians wanted her to win…because Alaska.

    1. Stuartswede - October 26, 2020

      Yes, we bought Alaska from Russia for 2 cents an acre. Seward’s folly it was called by detractors, but one of the best decisions ever made. Pretty cool.

  3. Gregg - October 26, 2020

    People don’t realize how much it really costs per mile to run a car. There is a reason why the government pays people about fifty cents per mile to use their own car for official business. That is because it costs that much to run the average car. For example:

    A new car that lists for: $35,000. Add in the taxes, registration, finance interest and other fees and the cost adds up to closer to forty to fifty grand.

    Say a new car lasts ten years and 150,000 miles. That equates to $5,000.00 per year to own a car that is on average driven 15,000 miles per year. The owner does get a trade in, for a ten-year-old car which serves to mitigate the overall cost to a degree, but it would be pennies on the dollar. It will be very curious to see how the ten-year trade-in value of Electric Vehicles (EVs) match up to the gas-powered vehicles.

    So that equals 33 cents per mile
    Insurance at $1,200.00 per year equals 8 cents per mile
    Maintenance and other incidentals: about $900.00 equals 6 cents per mile

    This is how you get to 47 cents per mile

    Gas at $2.00 per gallon (under President Trump) and your car gets 20 miles per gallon equals to 10 cents per mile for a total of 57 cents per mile.

    Now factor in $4.00 gallon gas (20 cents per mile) which happened under Bush Jr., or $8.00 gallon gas (40 cents per mile) which was the preferred cost per gallon by some of ‘the One’s’ cabinet members and you get close to a dollar per mile to operate a car. This was to be accomplished by choking off domestic oil and other sources of domestic energy production, which will force America to be dependent on unfriendly suppliers. And by keeping a ‘lid” on nuclear power and eliminating coal for power generation our managed decline would be ensured. Doubling the price of diesel fuel, which is even more expensive than gasoline though it shouldn’t be, is responsible for the production of our food supply and delivery thereof, along with virtually all construction would greatly increase the price of everything. Hello recession/depression.

    The idea was to make cheap and effective energy so expensive that the awfully expensive, often corrupt (Solyndra) and taxpayer subsidized “renewable” energy would become cheap and affordable and thus an acceptable alternative by comparison. That is market manipulation.

    The cost of owning and operating a fossil fueled car as described above is low as long as the fuel is available and its cost is reasonable, compared to a “GREEN” car when you factor in the taxpayer subsidized “GREEN” enviro-vehicles and their ultimate cost to the environment.

    Buy a PC EV and here is what you have – especially when you consider that wind and solar might produce <5% of our electricity despite being highly subsidized by everyone's tax dollars:

    1. A coal, natural gas, or nuclear-powered car – what do you think produces the electricity?
    2. A very non-environmentally friendly car that requires all kinds of components (especially the battery) that use a lot of fossil fuels to produce and transport around the world to build it
    3. When you factor in the cost of the replacement battery and its disposal/recycling fee that will be a big shock 3-5 years after you buy the car
    4. Greatly diminished performance and longer refueling times. Ask Californians about how great their EVs are during their current government contrived and, in effect, mandated power blackouts
    5. After giving some perks to owners such as HOV lane privileges for their zero emision vehicles, some states are looking to make up the lost gas tax revenue (supposedly for roads in most cases) by monitoring how many miles you drive and charge you a tax per mile driven. So much for saving on gas.

    Furthermore, if you eliminate all fossil fuels, you kill off most other industries. Virtually all plastics are derived from oil in one form or another. Years ago, the ABC “History Channel” actually did a factual show on oil and many of the products derived from it. From the program: over 200 everyday products owe their existence to oil. The only conclusion that could be drawn from the show would be that getting rid of petroleum derived products would put America and the industrialized world back into the 1800s. And make us all so much poorer – especially the middle and lower class.

  4. Carlos Dangler - October 26, 2020

    Gregg,
    In addition, those batteries require rare earth minerals that are only found in abundance in places like Afghanistan, and…………wait for it………..CHINA.

    1. brian - October 26, 2020

      My understanding of the rare earth minerals isn’t so much of a rarity, meaning every continent has the minerals in quantity. Its the processes to removing and purifying these minerals that is very toxic and dirty. Of which China has zero pollution controlling mandates and why most rare earth manufacturing happens there.

      Notice that ‘greens’ never talk about the manufacturing processes that go into making their green tech and completely avoid the disposal/recycling of that tech when its life is over. Both processes are very toxic and those toxins disposals never seem to factor into the discussion equation.

      Its never been about climate but about the money, always is, and the corrupt to the core parasites driving these agendas. Why the nuclear isn’t explored and developed is because theres little money to be made in energy supplies. Especially when several grams would run your vehicle for years, not enough tax money can be extorted.

      Math skills, ninja level Gregg. I keep telling people math is our friend, do the math. That and a little applied thinking, common sense.

    2. Jimmy MacAfee - October 26, 2020

      Brian is right, but so are you! And Gregg – excellent summary!

      North Korea apparently is sitting on a bunch of rare earth minerals, which could be beneficial to both Koreas, if they ever make a real peace and unite – and Japan has an island that has an enormous amount, more than anyone ever suspected. We do, too, in Alaska and elsewhere – (Alaska is a biggie, but Environutalists always throw dirt in the gears.)

      As Brian says, though: the rarity is in the manufacturing facilities. This is true, vis a vis China, of a lot of things, such as pharmaceuticals. China is willing to sit on a dung pile in order to vie for power.

      But China has to have oil shipped in. (Shipped. Shipped. Shipped) Let that sink in. (Sink. Sink. Sink.) There’s a message here somewhere.

  5. Jimmy MacAfee - October 26, 2020

    Amy is getting sworn in now, by the future Chief Justice of the SCOTUS!

Comments are closed.

Scroll to top
%d bloggers like this: