ECOGAB

This acronym sums up a great deal of what passes for government around here.   A dab of gab grows your government flab.

L.) ELBERT COUNTY OIL & GAS ADVISORY BOARD (ECOGAB)
The Board shall form the Elbert County Oil and Gas Advisory Board (ECOGAB) to provide a forum for the oil and gas industry, the public, impacted landowners, and county government to prevent or minimize conflict associated with oil and gas development through positive and proactive communication and actions that encourage responsible and balanced development of oil and gas resources within Elbert County. ECOGAB shall have two (2) representatives from citizens, two (2) representatives from the oil and gas industry, and one (1) county staff member to hear comments and complaints from county residents regarding oil and gas activity. ECOGAB shall investigate citizen complaints and attempt to resolve complaints If a solution cannot be agreed upon, the matter will be forwarded to the Board and/or COGCC or other regulatory authorities. If a solution can be agreed upon, ECOGAB will report their findings and solution to the Board for appropriate action. Membership to the ECOGAB shall be appointed by the Board.

planning mumbo jumbo

Re: Draft Elbert County Oil and Gas regulations (currently in rewrite):

Section 26.2(B)(1)(i)(2)(d)

“In the event the Applicant fails to mail a notice to an abutting landowner or otherwise fails to comply with the written notice required in this section, the landowner who did not receive such complying notice may waive such notice by submitting a written waiver to the Director prior to the hearing.”

In other words, if you don’t know what’s going on, you have the right to waive, with proper written submittal to the county lords, knowing about what you don’t know.

Thank God we have planners to protect our interests.

green myth meets reality

WTFrack? Greens Flummoxed By Cheap, Clean U.S. Gas

By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 10/20/2011 02:30 PM ET

 A worker steps through a maze of hoses being used at a remote fracking site in Rulison, Colo. The process uses water, sand and chemicals fired at...

A worker steps through a maze of hoses being used at a remote fracking site in Rulison, Colo. The process uses water, sand and chemicals fired at… View Enlarged Image

Green groups have a major new concern: fracking, the process of extracting natural gas from shale deposits far underground. What they don’t have is much hard evidence that fracking is a danger.

Fracking already is producing a bonanza in the U.S. Theoretically it could provide enough to replace all coal-powered electricity with cleaner-burning natural gas.

So what’s the problem? The process uses water, sand and various chemicals fired at high pressure to shatter underground shale rock, releasing the gas. Greens allege those chemicals could seep into groundwater.

But is there evidence of this? In testimony prepared for a Senate Energy and Water Committee panel hearing Thursday, Tom Beauduy, deputy executive director of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, says no.

That’s key because one of America’s largest shale depositories is the Marcellus deposit, which lies mainly underneath the basin. Both sprawl across New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

The deposit has been widely explored. More than 1,000 fracking sites have been permitted.

Since 2008, the basin commission created an elaborate 50-station monitoring system.

“We are not aware of any water quality impacts on systems,” Beauduy told IBD. “There have been incidents related to individual wells, but not to public water supply systems.”

That is in line with other surveys. A 2008 study by the Groundwater Protection Council, a coalition of state environmental agencies, found the “potential for impacts to surface water and groundwater … are expected to be minimal.”

A 2010 study by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection admitted the “theoretical possibility” of contamination, but concluded: “no groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations.”

Most criticism of fracking cites Dimock, Pa., where leakage from wells did seep into local groundwater. The drilling company was fined and required to provide the town with drinking water. The state environmental agency determined that the leakage was caused by faulty well casings, not by the fracking itself.

Green lawmakers are stuck over what to do. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., requested Thursday’s Senate hearing. One of her staffers told IBD that Shaheen is just gathering data.

Earlier this year the White House created a panel to examine fracking. An interim report in August made few concrete proposals. Another report is expected next month.

The issue is complicated by the fact that natural gas is cleaner than coal and gasoline. Replacing them with natural gas could, experts say, reduce carbon emissions by 25%.

The abundance has slashed prices too. One of the greens’ concern may be that prices are so low they could further hurt already-struggling efforts to boost renewable energy.

Even green groups concede that hard evidence against fracking is, well, hard to come by.

“There is only one case that I know of — in Ohio — where the state regulator did attribute groundwater contamination to fracking” as one of three contributing factors, said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Nevertheless, Mall says much anecdotal evidence suggests that fracking is dangerous and reason to think state regulations are lax.

For now green groups are urging the government to watch the drilling closely.

“We cannot stop drilling,” said Erin Mooney, spokeswoman for Trout Unlimited, which advocates for clean water. “Marcellus Shale development is going to happen. So it is imperative that it is done correctly.”

Occupy this

Free enterprise, or to use the Marxist pejorative–capitalism, never had a conscience, and never will.

A “conscience” is a quality of a single mind expressing a moral conclusion.  This moral conclusion comes from a person making a decision that something is either right or wrong.  It is a subjective individual assessment.  To say that capitalism should have a conscience is to say that capital should be employed to do the right thing.  While easy enough to say, this statement assumes an objective moral answer exists, and it assumes that capital is a single entity.  Both assumptions are wrong.

The current Occupants of various streets around the world, politicians, religious leaders, historians, in fact just about everyone has an opinion about the right way to employ someone else’s capital.  But capital doesn’t belong to society, governments, taxpayers, beneficiaries, or to the public.  Capital belongs to individual legal entities who hold title to it, and only those holding title have the right to decide how to employ it.

Undeterred, the protesting Occupants of Wall Street along with their Occupant Organizer in Chief currently running the executive branch demonize the owners of capital.   They’ve reached a moral conclusion that the capitalist system is mistaken, unfair and a crime against humanity.  They prefer social justice instead.  Social justice amounts to the forceful removal of wealth from some people, giving a small percentage of the removed wealth to leftist associates, and consuming the rest of it in government bureaucracy.  It’s a fluid notion that means something different to each proponent, however, the common denominator between all versions seems to be the confiscation of private wealth for government redistribution.

In the real world, the owners of capital don’t control people, natural events, the environment, or government, as the Occupants allege.  Moreover, entrepreneurs could never be culpable as a group for some collective wrong doing because, technically, there is no such thing as a collective mind.  Reality, however does not deter believers in collectivism from pushing political myths.  Alleging groupthink sins against the collective is one tool they us to bury their opposition in a fuddle of mysterious indefensible wrongdoing.  Once you step outside the bounds of cause and effect, the supply of mudballs to hurl at opponents becomes limitless.

Entrepreneurs live in the world of real markets where they must make a profit to survive.  The market is neutral.  It doesn’t have a conscience, an ability to think, a moral sense, a free will, or qualities of mind like beneficence or malice.  It is merely the point where two freely thinking people voluntarily agree that two different things have roughly equivalent value and are potentially worth trading between them. The market is a place in space and time where valuations are objectively decided between willing buyers and sellers.  Those valuations are as close as the market ever gets to a moral decision about right and wrong.

The capitalist enters a market at the risk of losing his capital to create something he thinks people in that market will want to trade freely for.  In doing so, jobs are created, products are made, and a stream of commerce springs up around his products to the extent other people freely choose to engage in the trade of his product.  If the capitalist is right he is rewarded with profit.  If he’s wrong he loses his capital and goes away. These voluntary transaction points form the economic basis for our entire society.  When we allow ourselves to freely function in this milieu, amazing things happen that organically, systemically, broadly, accrue to the benefit of all of us.  Creation and trade generate wealth, prosperity, the fabric for society, and a place for subsequent generations to flourish.

Moreover, the psychosis of moral repugnance that seems to possess the minds of the Occupants from the President on down through the ranks of community organizers and foot soldiers in the streets, is obviated, made moot and superfluous by the mechanism of free trading.  When the fabric of our social dealings is built on a voluntary set of trades for values that we individually judge to be equivalent and in our own best interest to make, we simply lose all legitimate grounds for umbrage against other people in society.

It’s only when we introduce corruptions into the market mechanism that the system breaks down.  And a lot of corruptions–encumbrances–have been introduced.  Taxation, regulation, tariffs, price controls, trade barriers, unionization, guilds, fees, legislated social and behavioral controls, market interventions abound.  We are quick to adjudicate power over this or that individual act, quick to narrow the domain of freedom in which we can express our individual judgment, quick to make a rule in our own favor.  Literally hundreds of new general rules are created every day.

The Occupants really despise the market mechanisms our system provides to thrive in our society, but at the same time, they blame the market system for failing to guarantee them a job, health care, sustenance, and housing.  It was never our society’s responsibility to provide these things to them.  Moreover, no society in history that made those sorts of promises ever made good on them.   All experiments in collectivism have failed, or are in the process of failing.

Societies don’t have responsibilities.  They have rules to govern their members.  In our society people have responsibilities to provide for their own well being.  We have God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  These fundamental rights imply responsibilities, in this case, duties to ourselves.  A failure to adequately perform a duty to our self does not create a duty for other people to step in and pick up the slack for us.  Third parties may freely choose to help those who fall short, and we uphold charity throughout our society as a moral good.  But a law that forces people to be charitable is an enslavement.  A slave cannot make a moral choice.

For too many years we have burdened our markets and our society with well intentioned controls that have had the effect of shutting down free choices, foreclosing free trades, and removing individual responsibility.  In doing so we have narrowed the risk and reward potential for human life.  By what right did we limit the future potential of our offspring?

Industry didn’t leave America voluntarily.  It was taken away by capital owners acting as they have always done, in their own best interests, chased out by people–unions in many cases–who failed to uphold the individual rights and voluntary foundations of the market system.  Capital and industry were moved to places where people, under adverse political systems in many cases, knew how unleashing human creativity would improve their society as it had done for America, and they created conditions attractive to entrepreneurs.

Capital and industry will return to America only when we reestablish legal conditions favoring the accumulation, application, movement and employment of wealth.  Industry won’t return to America by government order, by redistribution of wealth scheme, by equalization of condition regulation, by any freedom-limiting law, or by any appeals to fictional collective morality.  All of these tactics of the left can only serve to further discourage entrepreneurs from returning.

We have hundreds of thousands of pages of well intentioned legislative and regulatory nonproductive nonsensical laws we must eliminate if we expect industry to return to America.  This insane statutory burden–the legacy of the progressive century–will kill us if we don’t kill it first.   The sooner it is done the sooner we may begin to heal our economy and put our standard of living back on an upward trajectory.

Do you suppose it’s a coincidence that the former Communist countries in the world who have woken up, have all embraced free enterprise to cure the ills of their respective collectivist nightmares?  These Occupants, these perpetual children, need to get a clue.  The disgraced myth of Collectivism can only expand through force and oppression because it violates human nature.  The Market system, built on voluntary exchange, seeks equilibrium, is intrinsically peaceful, and harmonizes with human nature.

Ironies don’t get much thicker than a first black President attempting to lead America to a future of collective state sponsored enslavement.

Community Reinvestment Act

It’s The CRA, Stupid!

Investors Business Daily, Posted 10/12/2011 06:54 PM ET

Meltdown: To their chagrin, the media elite moderating the latest GOP presidential debate got schooled in the real causes of the financial crisis by the line-up of candidates.

At Tuesday’s forum, the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty asked Michele Bachmann if she thought Wall Street bankers have been sufficiently punished for “the damage they did to the economy.” Only, the Minnesota congresswoman didn’t take the bait, instead giving the misinformed Tumulty a much-needed education.

“If you look at the problem with the economic meltdown, you can trace it right back to the federal government,” she said. “It was the federal government that pushed the subprime loans. It was the federal government that pushed the Community Reinvestment Act.” (more…)

Cedar Point Windmills at sunrise

Cedar Point Windmills

(click to enlarge)

Stimulus II

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, said Congress must pass the American Jobs Act immediately so Americans can be put to work “rebuilding outdated and dangerous roads and bridges and ensuring our kids have first-class schools….keep[ing] teachers in our classrooms, police on the beat, healthcare workers at our hospitals and clinics, and ensure[ing] that we have enough firefighters to protect our communities.”

She says [in so many words] the Occupy Wall Street protests are a new spark of destiny for a new union resurgence to give every American a job, presumably working in road and bridge construction, public education or as a first responder of some sort.

Leave aside, for the moment, that Stimulus I already swelled the ranks of police, fire, teacher, road construction and school janitor staffs with fresh new faces, and leave aside that Stimulus I already re-equipped first responders and construction crews across the nation with new fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, SWAT vans, and all the gear that goes into them.

Stimulus I and II [the American Jobs Act] are funded with public debt and they don’t add a nickel of net new value to the economy.  They are wealth redistribution schemes that move capital from the productive private sector into the consuming public sector, with a large amount of government overhead consumed in the process.  They don’t add any productive–wealth generating–capacity to the economy.  Public sector employers can only hand out paychecks for as long as the debt Ponzi scheme funding them keeps functioning.  The jobs they provide don’t create products, don’t yield profit, don’t generate capital, and don’t lead to new investment.

Eventually, perhaps soon, the well will run dry on public debt and a whole lot of unfunded public employees will become very angry.  Many of them will be well armed for a living.

Only jobs created through private capital can potentially–there’s always risk–produce a profit and thereby build new capital which can grow the economy and create more new jobs.  Only private sector jobs can replicate capital to grow new jobs.  Publicly financed jobs can never do this.  They may look nice and shiny driving down the road in a brand new fire truck or police vehicle, but those vehicles are symbols of a debt that will never be re-payed, and a job that will never create wealth to re-invest and grow our economy.

Moreover, public sector jobs pull scarce labor out of the private sector and thereby raise the cost of labor to the private sector.  Increased costs reduce the private sectors productive capacity to generate profit, capital and wealth, and to create more productive jobs.  In addition, more public sector jobs enlarge vocal voting constituencies who advocate for more public spending, more public sector jobs, more taxes, and more non-productive public-debt-financed economic activity.

It is a pernicious, vicious cycle, and Mary Kay Henry and the Occupy Wall Street bunch couldn’t be more wrong.

Best Will column ever

Collectivists’ Goal Is To Dilute Our Concept Of Individualism

By GEORGE F. WILL
Posted 10/05/2011 06:05 PM ET

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor and former Obama administration regulator (for consumer protection), is modern liberalism incarnate. As she seeks the Senate seat Democrats held for 57 years before 2010, when Scott Brown impertinently won it, she clarifies the liberal project and the stakes of contemporary politics.

The project is to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual’s zone of sovereignty. The regulatory state, liberalism’s instrument, constantly tries to contract that zone — for the individual’s own good, it says. Warren says:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you.

“But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. … You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts. (more…)

Cedar Point Wind Farm at night

Cedar Point Wind Farm at night

(click to enlarge)

From 60 miles away the red lights of the Cedar Point Wind Farm dominate the eastern horizon.

Search

Blogroll

Categories

Archives

Meta

Wikio