There is no question, oil and gas funding drives Texas ' political and economic atmosphere. Oil tycoons contribute to political campaigns and fund lobbyists in order to expedite favorable bills in both state and national legislatures. The Texas Legislature passes hundreds of bills while in session and the 84th legislature was in session last summer. The 84th session showed Texas constituents just how quickly they move when motivated and just how powerful big oil is. Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, or the process of polluting millions of gallons of water to create a viscous toxic solution that is then highly pressurized and injected thousands of feet below the earth to break apart rocks and release natural gas and oil deposits, was at the …show more content…
This decision would make sense in California but this is Texas, the heart of oil country, and Denton the birthplace of hydraulic fracturing. This sent shockwaves of discontent through the oil industry executive offices and the homes of oil workers that culminated in a tsunami of media coverage. This prompted lawmakers to jump into action and work feverishly to pass House Bill 40 (HB40) during the next session, the 84th legislature. HB40 banned fracking bans and essentially crushed the voice of the people. After all the Denton drilling moratorium was a culmination of a grassroots campaign that started with city residents creating a group, The Denton Drilling Awareness Group and obtaining enough signatures on a petition (Malewitz, 2014), (Dropkin & Henry, 2016). Governor Greg Abbott signed HB40 into law and essentially forced Denton City Council to repeal the city wide fracking ban after Denton citizens worked to stop the noise, pollution, and inevitable damage to city infrastructure (Dropkin & Henry, 2016). Several cities have passed fracking or drilling bans for the same reasons. They too will have to repeal any bans enacted in order to comply with HB40.
This decision should not come as a surprise to anyone paying attention, as big oil has been funding political candidates for years. The Koch brothers have been funding political campaigns for years and a few years ago got the Wilks brothers involved also. Both families have made billions from fracking previously
Till this day, Texas is known to look out for its benefits. If a person wants to get rich, they invest or move into Texas. Self-interest and money are major keys in Texas politics, making it a continuous traditionalist state. Texas is for the most part hostile towards taxes and refuses to meet the concurrent standard. Texas is known to uplift personal growth to those who step out of their comfort zone and take action into what they want to do. Drastic changes in population growth, lack of education, aging population, regressive taxes and public service demand sometimes make it hard for individuals to look out for their self-interest and rise above the predicted standard. Usually those who do look out for their benefit are those that are not even Texas made. Texas takes its luke warm advantage and inclines towards its individualistic side for this aspect of its political culture. Self-interest mainly and ultimately revolves around its business aspect towards society. In a sense, this can be looked upon as survival of the fittest. Those who “pull themselves by the boot straps” are the ones that will succeed in a state where everything is known to be bigger and better.
Texas has had a history of suing the government. Since 2008 Texas has sued the government 40 times, winning 7 times, losing 10 and 16 still being decided.
In today’s society with so many disagreements between the state and federal government going on the thought crosses some Texans minds about secession. The movement, headed by the Texas Nationalist Movement and the Tea Party, is seeking to remove the state from the union and institute Texas as a new country. Many questions arise over the topic of secession covering topics such as economy, currency, population, and if Texas would be helped or hurt by leaving the United States federal government behind. It has been shown that Texas has a much larger population than many countries as well as gold to back a currency should it decide to create one. The Texas economy is extremely strong with a mass of exports and natural resources being gathered in the state. These natural resources tied with other products made in Texas give the state one of the strongest economies in the world. Even with all this knowledge the question over secession still persists.
Texas will meet the increased demands placed on it by an ever-growing population with continuing to focus on and expanding the four industries (cattle, cotton, timber, and minerals) that have dominated its history. The expansion and increased revenue of these industries will help Texas sustain and even nurture its population growth. For years Texas politics has been dominated by individualism and traditionalism. The tradionalistic and individualistic cultures that abound in Texas can make this issue difficult to solve. Expansion often brings change in the many political and financial areas of these industries.. Texas individualists have a negative viewpoint of government and are against government involvement or regulation in industry and Texas traditionalists favor wealthy individuals and
It is a fact that in Wyoming they are finding contamination in water tables as far away from fracking as forty miles. You tube videos of people igniting their tap water are numbered in the hundreds. These gas companies are poisoning our environment and destroying people’s entire way of life just to make money. Now most of us on some level are concerned about the environment, you don’t have to live in a tree and only eat organic fruits and vegetables to care about the future of earth. You just have to open your eyes and become comfortable to the fact that big corporations dictate government. These people live to make money, at all costs.
The state of Texas is one of the biggest state of the United States. The state of Texas has major cash flows from many industries some of these industries are the oil industry, transportation and logistics and agriculture and food production are some to mention that make the state of Texas a major money maker. Just the state of Texas oil refineries produces more than 4 million barrels of oil per day. The state of Texas is a major growing state in the business industry, we as residents of the state should realize the potential that the state has, and should work together to bring in more jobs to our people.
Environmental safety should always be a priority and when people stress economic benefits above all else, it shows they don't care about the future for other humans, when they are long gone. When evidence shows that North America produces more than enough gas, I see no purpose of ruining more land for fracking sites like Rumpler. While Everett uses the Keystone Pipeline example, he ignores that we are all connected. Even if some protestors don't live in that area, they can still care and not support it, supporting those against it who live there. Likewise if that argument is applied to him, his views would be irrelevant on it since he doesn't live there. When communities near fracking sites "experience noise, light, vibration, and truck traffic, as well as air, water, and soil pollution" (Casey, Rasmussen and Schwartz) views are paired with those benefiting the most from that industry, it shows the true intentions of that industry. The industry exists with economic benefits as a priority, and no matter how many verified studies show that people living close to fracking sites are more likely to have a long range range of health issues; from preterm birth issues, reduced birth weight, asthma attacks/hospitalizations, ER department visits, fatigue, migraine and sinus issues (Casey, Rasmussen, and Schwartz), the industry will continue satisfying its agenda above those negatively affected by
This brings up the first issue against fracking that critics point to, which is the fact that it often occurs near established towns and cities where many live. This would be merely an issue of aesthetic unpleasantry occurring near peoples' homes (paving the way for this issue to join so many others under the theme of "Not-in-My-Backyard"-style public protests) were it not for the fact that the chemicals being pumped into the ground are not just limited to the veins they create, but in fact may seep into groundwater, contaminating it. These two issues, water contamination and the right to private property, are major sticking points when a company wishes to set up a rig near a human population close enough to be affected by it. In 2006, the state of Texas ruled in the case of Coastal Oil and Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust that damage to any property by or through the act of inducing hydraulic fracturing would not warrant a trespass claim. In 2012, four towns in Pennsylvania attempted to bar drillers from setting up infrastructure at the companies' discretion, with some to be built near homes and schools. Coastal Oil is being used as a precedent case now, but here the local courts ruled in favor of the towns, protecting their zoning rights. Going beyond the fact that oil rigs near homes can create what can certainly be called an unsafe, or at the very least unsightly,
The mere cost of fracking makes the entire process itself irrelevant and should not have allowed it to progress past the proverbial drawing board. “A recent report from the Department of Transportation which estimates that gas drilling cost 2 billion dollars in road damages to the East Ford Shale of South Texas alone” (Remington). This only means that the company is in it for pure profit and does not mind the global impact their actions have on humanity as a whole. This exemplifies the quote that common sense is anything but common
Last year alone, oil and gas companies put hundreds of millions of gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the earth. Many of these fluids were found to contain harmful chemicals such as carcinogens- substances that directly cause cancer. This is why hydraulic fracking has been the topic of heated debate over the past few years. This process of drilling for natural gas has become increasingly popular over the past decade, and has in turn produced many questions about the safety of its wells and the chemicals that are used in drilling. Under current regulations, hydraulic fracking is permitted to be conducted at drilling sites that are located very close to residential areas. The chemicals used in the drilling process have been leaking out of wells, and have contaminated drinking water for some communities. In addition, it pollutes the air by putting methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Concerned about the safety of fracking, cities such as Longmont have shown great opposition to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)’s regulations. In fact, Longmont citizens voted to put a ban on fracking within city limits in 2012. This ban has been met with retaliation from COGA, who sued the city because of the ban. If fracking isn’t allowed to be banned by cities that don’t want it, then the regulations need to change in order to make the practice both prosperous and safe for the community.
As researchers started to become aware of what fracking was doing to the environment, people, and water wells. In the article “Gov. Andrew Cuomo To Ban Fracking In New York State,” James Gerken explains how important it was for Governors to decide whether to apply fracking sites to their state or to avoid the contraption. In New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had the decision to allow fracking or refrain from it. Cuomo gave the option to the state health and environmental official to decide if it’s worth using, “The officials said the potential health and environmental impacts are too great to allow fracking to proceed in the state at this time” (Gerken). This was the beginning towards fracking sites being banned. People started to become aware of the destructiveness of oil fracking and people’s opinions started to shift from supporting oil fracking to not wanting oil fracking. People started to protest the use and states started to ban fracking such as Maryland, New York, California, Colorado, Texas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia,
Fracking has equal benefits and drawbacks. Another big benefit it the amount of jobs one well would create. To frack, there would be hundreds of truckloads of equipment to be carried from one place to another. As well as the need to have an individual to watch over the fracking stations and watch for any troubling signs. These people would be important in the safety of the town and the people. Not only would there be hundreds of jobs created to build the wells, but there has to be people to maintain the wells, perform maintenance work on them. In the past years, jobs have been a hard thing to come by, unemployment rates have soared high and people would do anything to earn income. Fracking helped create many jobs, and it still is creating
Energy production has been one of the most paramount forces that have influenced the actions of the United States as a country. Wars have been fought and treaties have been signed over the opportunity for oil. However, there has been a recent transition to cheaper and domestic energy sources of energy. Oklahoma has become a microcosm of these events that have occurred. With the discovery of natural gas reserves throughout the state, hydraulic fracturing has seen a boom in utilization. However, this has been largely detrimental for the state. Fracking should not be allowed in Oklahoma because of its environmental implications, its effect on Oklahoma’s future, and its impact on the people of Oklahoma.
s American energy firms look for new sources of petroleum, natural gas has become an increasingly important part of their portfolios, especially after the 2005 Energy Policy Act (created with the participation of Dick Cheney, a former executive with energy giants Halliburton) removed environmental protection restrictions against hydraulic fracturing drilling (known in the trade as "fracking"). Since then, gas drilling has been sharply on the rise, and when Josh Fox, a theatrical director and filmmaker, was offered $100,000 for the gas rights to family property on the Delaware River Basis in Pennsylvania, he was curious about the possible effects of drilling. Fox set out to talk to other property owners about what he could expect, and their answers startled him -- fracking taints water sources near drilling sites, and many households have discovered their water is not only undrinkable after gas drilling, it's even flammable.
While most of the health and environmental questions surrounding fracking stand unsettled, it is difficult to say with certainty whether continuing the practice is worth it in any calculable terms. Nonetheless, the economic impacts and negative consequences of traditional fossil fuel energy production are understood. These practices are cleaner and more efficient than ever but not viable for long-term use. Other clean energies of the future such as solar and wind are not yet able to carry the consumption needs of the nation. In this undesirable gap with no better choice available, the benefits of utilizing natural gas as an energy resource are still too extraordinary to just simply halt the practice entirely. Once the facts are in, federal regulation needs to be