Thursday, June 6, 2013

Oily Bed-Fellows

There are some things in life that are just so utterly delicious in their irony that you simply cannot pass them up. Take for instance this little factoid. DID YOU KNOW that one of the premium bank-rollers for Matt Damon's propagandist piece of shit hit-piece, "Promised Land" (a dramaturgical counterpart to Matthew Fox's ant-fracking HBO screed, "Gasland") , was none other that the royal family of the United Arab Emirates? It seems, folks, that these "more money in their pockets than brain cells in the noggins" low-lives stand to lose a massive amount of revenue to the American natural gas industry if in fact this fracking continues, and what better way, SERIOUSLY, to head it off at the pass than to hitch your oil tanker to yet another leftist Hollywood vehicle. It's brilliant!....Well, except for the fact that movie itself tanked (no pun intended).

9 comments:

dmarks said...

Michael Moore's State Theater here is always showing the Damon frackfest, it seems.

dmarks said...

And right after I posted the above comment, two local morning radio commentators were discussing it. One of them mentioned "Promised Land" showing. The other snored loudly.

No, I rather doubt that the theatre will show "Gasland".

On the bright side, they are showing "Ghostbusters" tonight.

Either that, or one can turn to HBO and see Matt Damon fracking Michael Douglas.

Lisa G. said...

I have a question - how did we get natural gas out of the ground before "fracking"? This seems to be a recent problem and a lot of people are being injured by it.

If Matt Damon made a movie sponsored by the UAE royal family, then he's a freaking idiot.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, they've been working on "Gasland 2" for 3 years now. It seems as if they're fearful of getting sued at this point.......Lisa, we've been fracking for gas and oil for decades now. It's only gotten more publicity because of the massive discovery of shale gas all over the country.....And there really isn't any perfect energy. But when you find something that is a) plentiful, b) relatively safe (Obama's own EPA chief has said that there's never been a documented case of fracking causing well-water contamination), and c) relatively clean (gas has a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 2:1, coal a 1:2 ratio), you really gotta go for it (not without adequate regulations, I grant you), I think.

Rusty Shackelford said...



Hey come on Damon has a lot of upkeep on that 20 million dollar shack he calls home.

dmarks said...

One thing I disagree with is keeping the chemicals used secret:

http://rt.com/usa/fracking-wioming-judge-secret-010/

This is one of those things that cries out for being Wikileaked.

Lisa G. said...

Will, now that the EPA has turned into a lobbyist free for all, I don't trust a damned thing they say. There ARE many documented cases of fracking causing well water contamination. For the EPA to say that there are not is complete bullshit.

Natural gas can be our "bridge" energy until we find something else that will fuel our cars other than oil. (See T. Boone Pickens website.) IL is now considering allowing fracking - without the appropriate environmental studies. (I swear, this state is run by a bunch of mental morons.) Some PA residents wrote to our assembly begging them not to allow it based on their experiences with it, including water contamination, seismic activity, pollution, etc. What a lot of people don't know is that signing a leases with an energy company also entitles them to build roads and pipelines on their property as well. Maybe we are just now hearing about the ill effects of fracking because it's happening on a larger scale. It just seems like the energy companies could come up with a better way to get natural gas out of the ground than fracking - especially with all the new technology and given that this practice has been in place for so long.

I know that we have huge natural gas deposits in this country and it would seem that we should be able to get it out without wrecking the environment in the process.

We all know that the energy companies have a shitty record for safety and environmental concerns - should they really be in charge of getting these resources out of the ground safely? You'd think with all the money that they make, they could find a better, cheaper solution. Time to ramp up some R&D on this fracking BS. That's gotta be cheaper than paying lawsuits all the time.

In other news, the Chinese are getting all the Iraqi oil leases - because their companies don't care about profits - just the energy. Our energy companies are being underbid by them - and we are providing the security for them to do it. There's some irony for ya. Cheney was wrong AGAIN.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Lisa, you don't trust the Obama EPA (Lisa Jackson was the one who made this assertion)?......And just because somebody makes a claim, doesn't mean that it's legit. That idiot in "Gasland" who lit his water on fire was a prime example. There have been THOUSANDS of episodes of water catching on fire (from the naturally occurring methane in the water) WAY before fracking was ever even conceived and even the Native Americans have had their experiences with it over the years. This is crap science and I'm totally surprised that you've fallen for it.......And the new technology IS improved fracking, horizontal drilling, etc..

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And what are the frigging alternatives? Coal? Windmills? I mean, my God, frigging windmills are some of the least environmentally sound pieces of shit on the planet; the fact that they're resource intensive to make, require a fossil fuel back-up, take up copious amounts of land to build (you need to build roads for those suckers, too), destroy THOUSANDS of endangered species every year, etc..