3 ms·

Did you know that driving a car will result in your hurtling through the windshield at 70mph and wrapping your spine around a tree... ...if you drive very fast

Did you know that driving a car will result in your hurtling through the windshield at 70mph and wrapping your spine around a tree... ...if you drive very fast and don't wear a seatbelt? As I have said exhaustively (because I am getting quite tired of repeating myself), the process of fracking - which has been done hundreds of times to no ill effect - is not inherently dangerous or error-prone. No more so than deep-sea drilling (anything but Deepwater Horizon come to mind? Also, another case of underregulation leading to calamity) or nuclear energy (which is extremely safe but evokes an emotional fear response; fun fact: almost 200,000 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are still alive today![1]). It is the lack of effective regulation that results in pollution. I don't know how I'm particularly misdirected by PR given that I fully support NYS Gov. Cuomo's fracking moratorium, precisely because fracking companies don't want to deal with the very regulations that make fracking safe. Side note: most of upstate NY's roads are pretty terrible. But just south of the border in PA - where fracking is ongoing - the roads are all new and well-built, because they are needed to truck the natural gas away safely, so everyone there has safer roads as a result. Can't just pick the pros and cons you like. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/08/01/japan-hiroshima-nagasaki-anniversary/30246223/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/08/01/japan-hi...

homogeneous 10y ago
The car analogy isn't very solid because most drivers are invested in their own safety as opposed to the fracking industry which only cares about environmental damage insomuch as it represents a financial liability. You claim that fracking can be done safely with good regulations, and I appreciate the nuance in your response, but for the most part, fracking proponents tend to be categorically opposed to regulation because additional expense is inherent to the nature of regulation (it's always cheaper to do nothing instead of adding extra steps for safety, clean up and proper disposal)
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Then I would argue the biggest threat to safe and effective fracking is Saudi Arabia. As long as fuel prices are low, people are more willing to cut corners to make a profit. If prices are high, the added costs of effective regulation are an easier sell. Otherwise, you make a great point.
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    Active fracking projects in the US have dwindled to low levels thanks to low oil prices driven by Saudi Arabia maintaining production at current rates. This is a well-established fact.[0] Your claim on the other hand is just an opinion at this point as I have seen nothing that indicates low oil prices lead to worse practices and procedures among domestic fracking firms. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/07/opec-plan-kill-us-shale-oil-price-down-seven-year-low https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/07/opec-plan-k...
unclebucknasty 10y ago
>driving a car will result in your hurtling through the windshield Specious. >I am getting quite tired of repeating myself You're missing my point. You're claiming that fracking can be done safely, but I'm not arguing that in the way that you think. What I'm saying is that there are frequently externalities brought about by the manner in which the fracking industry actually operates vs how you claim they could operate. Doubtless it's cheaper for them. Maybe the problem is that fracking can be done safely, but it's just not cost-desirable or even profitable to do so. I don't know. But you can't go jumping on people's heads for acknowledging the obvious: fracking can be dangerous. >fracking is not inherently dangerous or error-prone. What do you mean by "inherently"? If stringent regulations are required to constrain frackers from causing massive amounts of damage, then it seems to me that it is inherently dangerous by definition. This is where you seem to be mixing things up, as with your nuclear example. None of these things are "inherently safe". They are inherently dangerous if not conducted in a carefully prescribed manner, which is why the stringent regulation you advocate is required. So, you're really saying two different things here and trying to figure out why you're not getting your point across. Anyway, therein lies the danger that people fear: even with the required regulation, mistakes can have and have had dire consequences. It's not unreasonable for people to have concerns. So, It just comes off as a little disingenuous to exclaim that everyone has it wrong on fracking when the current reality is that they don't.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  It is both cost-effective and desirable to have it done safely. There's risk of EPA, of the well owner and of the surface landowner. The whole process is extremely technical and among its practitioners, safety is a key consideration.
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    Then why are we having this discussion?
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      To the limit of my ability to tell, there's what amounts to a horror campaign about the evils of fracking going on out there. There's this film, "Gasland' that slings a bunch of ... inadequate information.

homogeneous 10y ago

The car analogy isn't very solid because most drivers are invested in their own safety as opposed to the fracking industry which only cares about environmental damage insomuch as it represents a financial liability. You claim that fracking can be done safely with good regulations, and I appreciate the nuance in your response, but for the most part, fracking proponents tend to be categorically opposed to regulation because additional expense is inherent to the nature of regulation (it's always cheaper to do nothing instead of adding extra steps for safety, clean up and proper disposal)

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Then I would argue the biggest threat to safe and effective fracking is Saudi Arabia. As long as fuel prices are low, people are more willing to cut corners to make a profit. If prices are high, the added costs of effective regulation are an easier sell. Otherwise, you make a great point.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  Active fracking projects in the US have dwindled to low levels thanks to low oil prices driven by Saudi Arabia maintaining production at current rates. This is a well-established fact.[0] Your claim on the other hand is just an opinion at this point as I have seen nothing that indicates low oil prices lead to worse practices and procedures among domestic fracking firms. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/07/opec-plan-kill-us-shale-oil-price-down-seven-year-low https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/07/opec-plan-k...

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>driving a car will result in your hurtling through the windshield Specious. >I am getting quite tired of repeating myself You're missing my point. You're claiming that fracking can be done safely, but I'm not arguing that in the way that you think. What I'm saying is that there are frequently externalities brought about by the manner in which the fracking industry actually operates vs how you claim they could operate. Doubtless it's cheaper for them. Maybe the problem is that fracking can be done safely, but it's just not cost-desirable or even profitable to do so. I don't know. But you can't go jumping on people's heads for acknowledging the obvious: fracking can be dangerous. >fracking is not inherently dangerous or error-prone. What do you mean by "inherently"? If stringent regulations are required to constrain frackers from causing massive amounts of damage, then it seems to me that it is inherently dangerous by definition. This is where you seem to be mixing things up, as with your nuclear example. None of these things are "inherently safe". They are inherently dangerous if not conducted in a carefully prescribed manner, which is why the stringent regulation you advocate is required. So, you're really saying two different things here and trying to figure out why you're not getting your point across. Anyway, therein lies the danger that people fear: even with the required regulation, mistakes can have and have had dire consequences. It's not unreasonable for people to have concerns. So, It just comes off as a little disingenuous to exclaim that everyone has it wrong on fracking when the current reality is that they don't.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It is both cost-effective and desirable to have it done safely. There's risk of EPA, of the well owner and of the surface landowner. The whole process is extremely technical and among its practitioners, safety is a key consideration.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  Then why are we having this discussion?
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    To the limit of my ability to tell, there's what amounts to a horror campaign about the evils of fracking going on out there. There's this film, "Gasland' that slings a bunch of ... inadequate information.