PA's Dept. of Homeland Security Shared Oil-Shale Protester Info With Companies 293
Western Pennsylvania's shale oil deposits have lately attracted interest not only from companies who have been extracting some of that oil, but from locals who object to what they perceive as sharp dealing by the companies involved, favorable treatment by the state government, and environmental degradation as a result of the extraction. Some of the most visible of those protesters, it turns out, have been tracked (including "Web traffic") by Pennsylvania's own Homeland Security department, and that information about them has been shared not only within the department, but with the oil companies themselves. Homeland Security director James Powers defended the information shared with the oil companies as part of a triweekly bulletin, saying "We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Pennsylvania is a fascist state? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knew...
I bet the trains run on time though.
Someone needs to be kicked out of office (Score:5, Insightful)
This is terribly interesting, the worst nightmare posible. The entrenched law inforcement and investigatory agency, tax payer funded being used to unabashedly help business over the general welfare. Someone should be going to jail here.
Re:Pennsylvania is a fascist state? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. I thought it was a classic kleptocracy.
Most definitely not.
"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had to re-read this a few times. Are these guys taking their cues from North Korea newspapers? Whoever this guy is he should be 1) reminded of what the 1st amendment is about 2) fired.
Problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone is shooting at my stuff, especially if it's the large, exploding kinda stuff, like a gas storage tank. I'd expect to be told about it. This doesn't sound so sinister.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cos they are working for the companies. Not for you. Think directorship, member of the board. that kind of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [wikipedia.org]
hth.
Re:"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
3. Sued by every person whose information was "shared."
4. Prosecuted by the attorney general of the state.(and if he refuses to prosecute, by the US Attorney General.)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you create the legal fiction that an intangible conglomeration of people, united solely in their desire to exploit other people for monetary gain, counts as a human being under the law, weird shit starts happening.
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
and to think those of us who objected to PATRIOT, state fusion centers, and the rest of the expansion of the surveillance / police state were called wingnuts: after all, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and so what's the harm in letting the government spy on you? oh wait. and to think that this is merely the tip of the police state iceberg. i foresee far darker days ahead on our society's current path.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you expect the appropriate authorities to be told about it. You might rightfully expect some information on the general nature of the threat (if any) but you should not expect to be told about specific persons which seems to be what is happening here.
That would be vigilantism.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone were to ruin your water supply, especially with poisonous, exploding kinda stuff, by drilling at an adjacent property, wouldn't you also expect to be told about it? Keep in mind that the locals depend heavily on well water. This is a serious issue.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
They could...
If the people actually cared about ethics in government and business...
Instead everyone wants to get rich by any means necessary, including cheating and reality tv shows.
What is the government? Its you... Its me... Its the people. Its our country. If we cant trust the government, we cant trust each other or our country.
If we want a better government, elect better people and be a better person yourself. Be vigilant
Re:Tell me again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure they would too, but it's one of those issues where it really points out the hypocrisy of the party. It's like when a Republican violates family values and has a homosexual affair. It invokes a Nelson "ha ha" response.
Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we put every politico that did this in jail for bribery then virtually all of them would be there......hmmm.........
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
People only tend to appreciate the evils of government when the party they dislike is in power.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat. When a new government is elected, all the existing people in various departments aren't fired and replaced with people from the new party.
Re:payback at later date (Score:5, Insightful)
The Marcellus Shale Formation is a geological feature. It's not in any position to be buying politicians. The companies extracting gas from the shale - that's a different story.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Show me a sane person who likes evil.
Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?
Re:Tell me again... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear all the time about how government protects people from corporations
Corporations are people too!
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell, Animal Farm
Should be Fired (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but a lot of them stopped talking about it.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of them did. It's for two reasons, one the biggest protesting point was that Bush was involved and anything to rail on Bush seemed to be acceptable. Another reason is that once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)
Maybe a re-naming is in order? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh? Both Republics and Democrats have been pushing this shit. Who the hell is standing against it?
Re:Tell me again... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
No, because the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company. Which is, btw. what they do today already, even without your proposed "death penalty for unruly corporations".
Instead, we should introduce death penalties for unruly executives, and start recognizing corporate psychopathy for the that it is.
Re:payback at later date (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gasland (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil naturally leaks into the oceans. That doesn't mean all oil leaking into the oceans is natural. Lightning naturally starts forest fires. That doesn't mean all forest fires are natural.
Yes, it can happen naturally that a well might be contaminated with oil or natural gas. But, when it's the case that a well wasn't contaminated then suddenly becomes contaminated after recently drilling near or on your property, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about it being natural. Nor, really, would I find it "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply that it was contaminated from recent drilling.
However, if it's the case that the recent drilling involved pumping a trade secret mixture of chemicals into the ground and you can find it in your well, that's a pretty strong link. So, the situation becomes finding out, in some fashion, that trade secret mixture to perform a simply comparison. I think that's all that people who feel they are effected are really demanding. Of course, if they find that fingerprint mixture, I'm sure they'll want to file lawsuits, have passed regulation changes, and/or see criminal charges to be pressed. But, all of that's pretty reasonable.
Re:Oh, Good, my state is in the news again. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The state Department of Homeland Security is a "fusion center" serving to "facilitate" cooperation between state and federal authorities. Given that, I wouldn't rule out federal involvement.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gasland (Score:4, Insightful)
lol, are you for real? Try reading the article you cite as evidence. Last time I checked, ultimatums are generally issued after significant resistance.
The Obama administration urged gas companies to voluntarily disclose the toxic chemicals they inject in the ground in a type of natural gas exploration that uses hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
If companies rebuff the request — a seemingly unlikely event — environmental regulators could get tough.
I also find it absolutely hilarious that you're trying to use an article that was printed this week as evidence that these companies haven't been fighting to keep these chemicals secret for the past several years.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:1, Insightful)
I keep hearing this, but I never hear why people should *lose* rights simply because they are pooling resources and acting as a group... Why should corporate contracts be treated as contracts between individuals? Well, because they are. What is wrong here is that a government is acting for one party and against another. It is rule by men instead of by law. Nothing to do with corporations, except that as representatives of wealthy interests they are better than individuals at corrupting the system.
Re:A what-if, for your consideration (Score:4, Insightful)
Vandalism is a crime. Protest is not. If the latter turns into the former, then by all means, prosecute, but we can't just make the assumption that it will.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's especially bad considering PA has a 2nd term Democrat for governor, Rendell.
Same guy pushed landfills from the cities onto farmland (he's from Philadelphia, you know, just over the river from NJ literally). While NJ was cutting down their use of landfills, he pushed PA into accepting the business. Where I am, we have an incinerator that was built in the county (before Rendell) that's rarely used on route 441. Instead, we've opened up yet another landfill outside of Elizabethtown, since it's cheaper to buy farmland and dump. We've got another a couple counties north of here adjoining state gameland/park.
And a 3rd one county over, adjoining what was a wonderful state parker, done largely to kiss waste management business ass _and_ to ruin an old farmer who was selling lots adjoining the park...to private buyers who wanted to build high end homes. The farmer had the bright (imo, a good one) of selling lots at the edge of his farm adjoining the park; they sit on a crest and have a nice view of the park. I don't know the details on this one, but what I recall was the state had some disagreement with this practice of piecing out the edge of his farm that adjoined the park for some reason (I guess the local politicians didn't get their deserved cut)--I think the reason was that the farmer had planned to do this for quite awhile, then state decided they wanted to use eminent domain and expand the park. Fighting ensues--state wants to buy $11,000 an acre as farmland, farmer protests because he's selling 3 acre lots for $110,000. State gets pissed, picks land right next to homes already built to put a landfill, stop farmers plan, shorts farmers income, and essentially salts what was prime real estate land.
Anyways, regardless of the details, some land (whether park or taken by the state from the farmer) is now landfill, upstream from the park, and you've got these people who thought they were buying nice homes next to state land and would get a view, a nice place to go home to, etc., that they bought in a private transaction and become private land in accordance with the local building zoning. Instead, they are staring down an open pit of landfill. Now covered, but with methane relievers coming out of the ground. Literally stinks.
imo, rather spiteful and a petty move by the state government..
Oh, did I mention there's a school up the road that can smell it and gets some of the truck traffic? The area around the landfill/park is dead. No one really wants to go there, and I've heard from a couple people (I'm a county over) that used to go to the park that they don't frequent it anymore. Strange how landfills are rarely if ever put on those empty vacant lots in the city, which Philly has a lot of.
Anyways, PA accepts a huge amount of trash from other states. When citizens tried to take action, the state threatened them and there was some undertone in some of the comments that officials threatened the land of certain individuals that were protesting to help their neighbors (maybe the landfill would have to be expanded at a future time, so we'll "buy" your land).
It's also pretty shitty that, for some reason, the landfills always seem to be near small communities. We have plenty of 100+ acre farms and wide open space, but it's always put near a small town of 10-15 people, who almost certainly use ground water. I realize there is suppsed to be no runoff, but come on. Even after the mandatory monitoring, there will still be some. Just an unnecessary risk. Stupid shit.
So I'm not exactly surprised that some state branch, under this administration, is kissing some energy company ass.
Similarly, don't forget, PA is the home of Comcast, and Comcast got a lot of benefits while Rendell was mayor of Philadelphia (before he become governor)--this is suspected as to why a lot of broadband plans were delayed in PA, and why several years ago (2004 I think), the PUC plans that were to be approved for opening up all lines, was shut down (Verizon didn't want to share lines either, but Comcast didn't want Verizon to be forced too, since that was more competition for them too).
Anyways, as a PA resident, I'm disappointed, but it's just another crappy thing on a long list.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell me again... (Score:1, Insightful)
That problem predates fascism by a couple of centuries. Adam Smith knew it as "mercantilisim".
And he detailed it as an inevitable danger of economic systems which necessitates actively (but carefully) regulating against. It's a pity Libertarians tend to excerpt Smith out of context rather than actually reading and understanding his work since he completely destroys their entire "philosophy".
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company.
Imagine you're on the board of directors of company x. Suppose the CEO of company y, known to be ruthless and to dramatically increase profits, -
but also known to have caused the "execution" of company y, i.e., caused the immediate liquidation of company y, meaning that all of company y's "going concern" value is lost and only the value of its liquid assets are recovered by shareholders,
- wants to be the CEO of your company, company x. Would you want him to be your CEO?
The imposition of an actual "death penalty" for criminal corporations would have an enormous impact on the way business is run in this country... because people would lose money as a result of criminal behavior by a company they have invested in.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you're looking far back enough either. The civil war is when corporations went from time-limited, specific-purpose vehicles to "anything to make a buck" that last forever. Shortly thereafter in 1886 corporations gained personhood. It's been all downhill from there.
Re:Tell me again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why not? He'll help me and my fellow directors loot the company and jump ship before it sinks. Then we'll help him get a new CEO position in whatever companies we've spread to, and repeat the process.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:3, Insightful)
For satisfied people they sure whine a lot!
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I, also, forgot to mention that the Republicans are not fighting to keep tax cuts for the "richest" 2.5% of our population. They are fighting to keep the tax cuts for all, including those who earn in the top 2.5% of income. There is a difference between those with the highest income and those who are the wealthiest. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the country, but he has nowhere near the highest income. The other point on this issue is that most of the top 2.5% of income according to the IRS are S corporations, not actual individuals.
Re:Those damn evil Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
back to the future (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.
That's exactly as it used to be. Pennsylvania was notorious for shutting down banks that were misbehaving in the 1810's and 1820's. All corporations of the time were for limited terms and for public benefit.
Come around towards 1870 and John D. Rockefeller finds he can use his "influence" in Congress to get corporations made permanent, and soon in Santa Clara a footnote to an unrelated case finds that corporations have human rights, and all three branches of government heartily embrace this bizzare idea.
Soon after the "Trust Busters" decided to break up Standard Oil and implemented the break-up plan that Rockefeller himself crafted (as he had found Standard Oil by that time to be too unwieldy to compete nimbly). They showed him, right?
Witness the transformation of the Wall Street banks in the 1990's from partnerships (where the owners' money is directly at risk) to corporate ownership and the resulting shenanigans that ensued.
Corporations remove that direct responsibility, and are, in essence, an agreement between the government and the managers to protect the managers from the People when they engage in malfeasance. Typically, those managers see to it that the representatives in Government are well taken care of, and thus the positive-feedback loop is complete.
Partnerships are the natural structure of companies that need to grow to a large size. There is a limit on their size, in contrast to giant multi-national corporations. Some will argue that the big multi-nationals are essential to provide some kind of product at some kind of price, but the evidence against them is far too compelling to support those arguments of a net-utility benefit.
I'll get a bunch of responses here that we need a big government to protect us from corporations (from well-meaning folks educated in government education centers) but I hope I've given enough of a kernel of information to lead you to read up on how government action is the root problem here, and that corporations exist only at its pleasure.
Re:"Formenting dissent"? (Score:5, Insightful)
and aren't therefore connected to natural gas reservoirs
Yet. Fracking isn't exactly brain surgery. I've worked in the industry (micro-seismic monitoring) and know how poorly understood the rock mechanics of this process is.
Shale gas wells tap the gas from a tight shale that's completely separated vertically from the aquifer.
I'm curious how you managed to get to a deep shale formation without drilling through the rock on top. Once you've put a well in the whole "vertical separation" claim doesn't look so good, and it's not as if well linings never leak, so please don't bother to bring that one up. We're talking about facts here. Well linings leak, rather more than 1% of the time.
Nobody who has just spent $$$ on drilling a well wants the very gas they were after to piss itself away into an aquifer. You may doubt companies stick to regulations, but I'm sure you don't suspect their desire for not literally letting their profit evaporate.
Ok, now you're just being a moron. I guess you also think that no company would ever engage in the kind of systematic laxity that dumped a few millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico three months ago. I know being a corporate shill is mentally and morally damaging, but seriously, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
This bogus argument that "profit maximization in the long term will prevent the people who work for companies from ever engaging in risky behaviour that would limit long-term profits" is the corporate Stata Claus: it would be so NICE if it was true, but y'know what? It's false. Bringing wells/mines/whatever into production FAST is generally strongly incentived in the extraactive industries, and it is not at all uncommon for companies to lose long-term profits in the name of hitting short-term goals. Look up "high grading" [thesudburystar.com] if you're unfamiliar with this all-too-common corporate phenomenon.
The people who work for companies, as witnessed by the idiots at BPHTO (BP/Halibuton/Trans-Ocean), are more than capable of making bad, short-sighted decisions that result in pretty much unlimited environmental damage, and the proof of that is they already have. That is simple empiricism, and for someone to trot out that tired old corporate "just so" story about how profits will protect us all is sad.