What's the big objection over fracking?

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Ok, I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma. But by and large, I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment. There are folks out there on a tear about it, who are even more opposed to it and stumping more furiously than they might about global warming - or 'climate change' (which is a stupid euphemism, because despite the name change, the suspected cause is the warming of the planet by greenhouse gases).

*Everything* I read about it - aside from the protests - tells me that the complaints are absurd. In some of these regions, people have been igniting their tap water for generations. It's what happens when an aquifer sits on top of an oil or gas field.
 
Ok, I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma. But by and large, I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment. There are folks out there on a tear about it, who are even more opposed to it and stumping more furiously than they might about global warming - or 'climate change' (which is a stupid euphemism, because despite the name change, the suspected cause is the warming of the planet by greenhouse gases).

*Everything* I read about it - aside from the protests - tells me that the complaints are absurd. In some of these regions, people have been igniting their tap water for generations. It's what happens when an aquifer sits on top of an oil or gas field.

I think the concerns - to the extent there are still some legitimate concerns - are that fracking can be done in different ways and different areas (with different geological formations) using different materials, and we just can't be sure that none of the uses of it pose risks. I guess the point (of some of those raiseing concerns, though certainly not all of them) would be that we should know that doing this in that kind of area doesn't have much potential to cause problems before we allow someone to do this in that kind of area. So while fracking done in certain ways in certain areas might be fine, we should understand when it is and when it might not be before we allow particular uses.

I'm not one that's all that concerned about it myself, btw.
 
Ok, I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma. But by and large, I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment. There are folks out there on a tear about it, who are even more opposed to it and stumping more furiously than they might about global warming - or 'climate change' (which is a stupid euphemism, because despite the name change, the suspected cause is the warming of the planet by greenhouse gases).

*Everything* I read about it - aside from the protests - tells me that the complaints are absurd. In some of these regions, people have been igniting their tap water for generations. It's what happens when an aquifer sits on top of an oil or gas field.
This site summed the pros and cons up pretty well... http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

Can you explain how you can say "I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma" and then follow that up with "I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment"? Wouldn't Oklahoma be the poster child?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
This site summed the pros and cons up pretty well... http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

Can you explain how you can say "I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma" and then follow that up with "I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment"? Wouldn't Oklahoma be the poster child?

Because I haven't seen data *confirming* that the minor tremors occurring in Oklahoma are directly attributable to *fracking*.
It may well be, and they may be doing something different there. They've also been drilling for oil in Oklahoma for generations, so I don't know if there's anything substantial yet.
Why don't the instances observed there, happen everywhere?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm not one that's all that concerned about it myself, btw.

Oh, me neither - I've just noticed it in the news lately, specifically regarding Hillary. Sarandon was losing it and saying how seriously dangerous it was, and it was brought up in the primaries last week.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This site summed the pros and cons up pretty well... http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-fracking/

Can you explain how you can say "I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma" and then follow that up with "I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment"? Wouldn't Oklahoma be the poster child?

Thank you. :buddies:

Fracking is not that big a deal IF you take the position that the drilling we've been doing is no big deal. They both create voids in the sub surface. There is no logic or reason in saying nature has ONE vacuum it does NOT abhor.

Clearly, fracking is some effed up stuff but so is the drilling we do now. These arguments that it is perfectly safe and ZERO threat to water or can't cause earth quakes or other unintended bad things is silly.

That said, it's like the man made global warming cool changey thing. OF COURSE we impact the environment with burning fuel and, clearly, a least some of it is obviously bad. However, like fracking, we can't exclude the positives from the equation and we have to face the 'then what?'. It is a HUGE thing to replace oil and gas and it ain't gonna come close anywhere soon with propellers and solar panels. Some day, of course but it would cause global instability to stop using oil and gas any time soon.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
I think a fairly big part of the objections is in what chemicals are used and the fact that they are allowed to be kept secret and labeled as a "trade secret".

I don't really see a problem with fracking, considering the process is very close to how we have gotten gas and oil out of the ground for 100 years now, but I think they should have to stick to water or something equally benign.
 
I think a fairly big part of the objections is in what chemicals are used and the fact that they are allowed to be kept secret and labeled as a "trade secret".

I don't really see a problem with fracking, considering the process is very close to how we have gotten gas and oil out of the ground for 100 years now, but I think they should have to stick to water or something equally benign.

I think you're right in that that's part of the issue. Some of the companies that supply the fluids have sought to protect their recipes as being proprietary. I remember one case where the company using the fluids indicated to a court that they themselves didn't know what was in the fluids, that their supplier wouldn't tell them.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I think you're right in that that's part of the issue. Some of the companies that supply the fluids have sought to protect their recipes as being proprietary. I remember one case where the company using the fluids indicated to a court that they themselves didn't know what was in the fluids, that their supplier wouldn't tell them.

Brawndo. It's got 'lectrolytes.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I've never watched that movie, but I understand the reference.

Is it worth me watching or will it be a waste of my time, assuming I already get the references?


Do you like South Park? Lewis Black? Idiocracy is stunningly funny if you get a kick out of our strong need for stupidity and self destruction. It is simply painful if you lament how stupid we tend to be as a society. And it is boring as hell if you don't like that sort of thing and are insistent that 'that could never happen'.

Put another way, if you are on the Titanic, would you be scrambling to find a way, kicking women and children aside to save yourself? Don't go watch it.
Would you grab a cocktail and go listen to the band, notice how lovely the stars are? Go see it.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I've never watched that movie, but I understand the reference.

Is it worth me watching or will it be a waste of my time, assuming I already get the references?

Same guy who made "Beavis and Butthead" and "King of the Hill".
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member

I'm inclined to believe that part of the objection is that it is a technique --

That has a name.

Seriously.

Because otherwise, how on earth would these same folks be able to claim that any kind of oil drilling should not ever be done? I'd hazard a guess that they're opposed to any oil drilling. One of the objections I've read in the past against Keystone was that the oil extraction done in the oil sands of Alberta was a terrible thing, and by opposing Keystone - - well, it doesn't make sense from there. I don't believe for a minute that opposing Keystone would ever have the slightest effect on oil sands in Alberta. None.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ok, I admit that there's some concern in Oklahoma. But by and large, I cannot see any serious scientific reason why fracking poses any danger to the environment. There are folks out there on a tear about it, who are even more opposed to it and stumping more furiously than they might about global warming - or 'climate change' (which is a stupid euphemism, because despite the name change, the suspected cause is the warming of the planet by greenhouse gases).

*Everything* I read about it - aside from the protests - tells me that the complaints are absurd. In some of these regions, people have been igniting their tap water for generations. It's what happens when an aquifer sits on top of an oil or gas field.

The problem with fracking is that it brings up a great deal of energy that is not being bought from the Middle East. People sympathetic to, or otherwise under the control of, the serious sheiks over there tend to find reasons (read: "made-up problems") with the United States or other major world powers not getting their energy supplies from predominantly the Middle East.

So, here's the deal; in 2013/2014, the Saudis lowered the cost of oil in an admitted effort to limit or extinguish investments in other energies or other producers of oil. Venezuela has gone under because of it, but the Saudis really don't care. Other OPEC producers are PO'd, but the Saudis really don't care. Once the competition and thought of need for future exploration is significantly reduced, prices skyrocket again, putting Saudi as a larger world leader, where people really need them in a huge way.

There's nothing wrong with fracking. There's nothing wrong with the United States being energy-independent. But, it IS a free market, and so long as it is not profitable to do so it is unlikely there will be a drive for other sources of energy. By making frackers be held up in courts, regulations, red tape, marketing campaigns to show how they're not the devil, etc., there is less interest in companies getting into fracking, or funding research into better/cleaner/safer ways to get energy. Note, when natural gas prices fell so hard and so fast, all of the new-nuclear dried up. This is the same idea with Middle East oil.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
There's nothing wrong with fracking. There's nothing wrong with the United States being energy-independent. But, it IS a free market, and so long as it is not profitable to do so it is unlikely there will be a drive for other sources of energy. By making frackers be held up in courts, regulations, red tape, marketing campaigns to show how they're not the devil, etc., there is less interest in companies getting into fracking, or funding research into better/cleaner/safer ways to get energy. Note, when natural gas prices fell so hard and so fast, all of the new-nuclear dried up. This is the same idea with Middle East oil.

I have a childhood friend whose daughter now works on oil rigs - she actually travels constantly and is often a good source of knowledge about oil and gas.

While I thought fracking was a technique that's been around fifty years - she says it's more like a hundred or more.
The big difference recently is it is being used to get shale oil.

Despite sensational news - it's impossible for it to pollute ground water, and it's been proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
If the left wants to call the right science deniers, here's a clear case of them doing the same.
 
Top