What's the big objection over fracking?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

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]

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".

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Speaking of fracking.....some win here:


http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-fracking-bans

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

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

Mike Judge

[SamSpade]

Speaking of fracking.....some win here:


http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-fracking-bans

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.

[Tilted (Premo)]

A federal court in Wyoming has set aside the BLM regulations relating to fracking on federal lands.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

More on the rogue EPA...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2016.../#3ec004077f9e

[This_person]

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]

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.