Fracking issues on your land??/
Rameth, I'll go out on a limb here and assume I was the one you were referring to....lol.
Just this year, PA adopted something called an impact fee to cover the wear and tear on the roads by the Gas machinery. At 2.5% it's the lowest by far of all the Marcellus producing states. For example, Texas 5.4%, WV 6%, MD 7.5%. The governor claims that if our taxes are too high the drillers will go elsewhere. Not sure how they're going to extract PA gas from NJ but according to the Gov, it's a possibility.
As far as political contributions are concerned, the attached link will answer those questions.
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/political-contributions.htm
I didn't know if it was you I was pointing out what was said, or not, sometimes I'll look at threads and, retain information and refer back to what was posted while I have reply box open. Thanks for clearing that up.
Even then, though, you'll admit, rather the taxes are higher or lower than most states it's a tax specifically aimed at the gas industry.
Yes, some of the roads shouldn't be handling heavy truck traffic, but I think that, over time, it won't make a difference as the money earmarked for "wear and tear" on the roads won't be going to the roads at all, especially some of the more rural roads that the trucks will be using to haul in equipment. Once the valve is set, the traffic ends and the need for upgrading doesn't exist. And I don't see anyone going along before the gas drillers and doing the necessary upgrades first.
That money will used for other things inside the political/bureaucratic machine.
Even it it's applied to other roads, such as interstate or state routes, most of those roads are already designed for heavy truck traffic and the "wear and tear" will be minimum as thousands of trucks pass over them on a daily basis to begin with.
The thing of it is, though, when it comes to drilling, much like global warming, both sides have "facts" to present their arguments. Most of the time those "facts" have more to do with an agenda than with reality.
Such as: Cornell University's study on fracking saying how evil it is, yet other major universities in the state of NY have done research on fracking and have not found the things Cornell is saying. Who to believe? Considering Cornell sits in Ithaca, NY and Ithaca truly is San Francisco east, (unofficial motto of Ithaca is "five square miles surrounded by reality") perhaps their study is more than likely to be slanted towards an environmentalist point of view.
The other universities may have had their studies paid for by the gas industry and therefore the viewpoint is going to be slanted towards the flow of money? I don't know, it's speculation.
What I do know is that many of the people who against fracking are against drilling in general. It doesn't matter if fracking occurs on the well or not, simply put, most are against the drilling to begin with. If you keep your ears open you'll hear it. Fracking is just more ammunition in a lot of cases.
Either way, I don't think you'll dispute the fact that there are specific taxes aimed just at the industry (high or low in your opinion is just that, it still exists), that jobs have been created when jobs are scarce, and a lot of people want cheap energy and they want it
now. And all the while everything must be weighed together.
Is it a good thing to drill while unemployment is high, putting people to work? Is it a good thing that the flow of NG means energy costs stay low? Can it be done in such a way as to have a low environmental impact? Those are the questions that have to answered.
