3 ms·

"The decision was taken after a new scientific study warned it was not possible to rule out “unacceptable” consequences for those living near fracking sites. T

by sova 7y ago

"The decision was taken after a new scientific study warned it was not possible to rule out “unacceptable” consequences for those living near fracking sites. The report, undertaken by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), also warned it was not possible to predict the magnitude of earthquakes fracking might trigger." In Ohio, where I grew up, I know, home of the fault lines, right? We have had several earthquakes and tremors. Fracking, despite environmentalist messages to Congress, is alive and well. And the deeper the well, the stronger the earthquake.

yostrovs 7y ago
Were these earthquakes unacceptable?
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Economics will kill it eventually; which is an additional reason that British conservatives are less enthusiastic about the notion of fracking now. A few years ago it was sold as a clean and cheap way to get gas and oil. Indeed there has been a bit of an investment bubble around this. However, ROI for fracking investments is very dependent on a combination of a lack of accountability for the damage the process causes (which proponents deny is a thing) and the ability to sell at a high price. Neither is a sure bet. Rather the opposite. With clean energy becoming price competitive in the UK, the high price of fracking gas means less demand and people expecting more bang for their buck in terms of cleanness. In the UK they've already deployed a lot of wind power and more is coming. That means expensive gas surrounded by scandals of pollution, minor earth quakes are not just inconvenient but major obstacles for any financial returns. Grumpy citizens translates into wide popular support for action against companies involved; which could be costly. Additionally, politicians are very sensitive about not pissing off their voters. Fracking never had much popular support to begin with and the topic is increasingly politically toxic. So, they shut it down. Wise choice. The US is a bit of wild west in terms of accountability when it comes to this but it will eventually face the same economics.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It's one thing to say there are externalities; it's another thing to say that nobody can put bounds on them. There is an equivocation in saying something is not economical while implicitly rejecting the idea of measuring it at all.

by sova 7y ago

yostrovs 7y ago

Were these earthquakes unacceptable?

jillesvangurp 7y ago

Economics will kill it eventually; which is an additional reason that British conservatives are less enthusiastic about the notion of fracking now. A few years ago it was sold as a clean and cheap way to get gas and oil. Indeed there has been a bit of an investment bubble around this. However, ROI for fracking investments is very dependent on a combination of a lack of accountability for the damage the process causes (which proponents deny is a thing) and the ability to sell at a high price. Neither is a sure bet. Rather the opposite. With clean energy becoming price competitive in the UK, the high price of fracking gas means less demand and people expecting more bang for their buck in terms of cleanness. In the UK they've already deployed a lot of wind power and more is coming. That means expensive gas surrounded by scandals of pollution, minor earth quakes are not just inconvenient but major obstacles for any financial returns. Grumpy citizens translates into wide popular support for action against companies involved; which could be costly. Additionally, politicians are very sensitive about not pissing off their voters. Fracking never had much popular support to begin with and the topic is increasingly politically toxic. So, they shut it down. Wise choice. The US is a bit of wild west in terms of accountability when it comes to this but it will eventually face the same economics.

perl4ever 7y ago
It's one thing to say there are externalities; it's another thing to say that nobody can put bounds on them. There is an equivocation in saying something is not economical while implicitly rejecting the idea of measuring it at all.