Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: What's the big objection over fracking?

  1. #1

    What's the big objection over fracking?

    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.
    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    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.
    Nearly all success in electoral politics boils down to convincing people that you recognize that they are not the problem, that someone or something else is.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    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...s-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?
    Imagine how much better America would be if you would simply don a pair a pants before sitting down at your Playskool My First 'Puter.


    LibertyBeacon

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by kwillia View Post
    This site summed the pros and cons up pretty well... http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros...s-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?
    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tilted View Post

    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.
    Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong". Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kwillia View Post
    This site summed the pros and cons up pretty well... http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros...s-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.

    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.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  7. #7
    Registered User PeoplesElbow's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Smackdown hotel
    Posts
    4,692
    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.
    If what I say offends you then you really don't want to hear what I keep to myself.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by PeoplesElbow View Post
    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.
    Nearly all success in electoral politics boils down to convincing people that you recognize that they are not the problem, that someone or something else is.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tilted View Post
    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.
    ADHD; Interdisciplinary

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Gude View Post
    Brawndo. It's got 'lectrolytes.
    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?
    Nearly all success in electoral politics boils down to convincing people that you recognize that they are not the problem, that someone or something else is.

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |