4 ms·

> Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer impo

by dgfitz 5y ago

> Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. This reads like the NIMBY stance of oil production. “Make whatever mess you want, keep it where it is! Can’t have that happening in my state/country!” So you’d rather export pollution instead of being energy independent and trying to fix fracking laws?

Symbiote 5y ago
Oil produced from other sources (i.e. traditional wells) is presumably less bad for the environment, since it isn't using huge amounts of fresh water.
brokencode 5y ago
The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields. It’s not NIMBY if it truly is worse when it happens in your backyard.
- fredophile 5y ago
  I'm not sure that was the original point. If extracting oil results in $x of long term damage to the local environment, but that cost isn't passed along, it makes economic sense to buy oil from somewhere else so you don't end up footing that bill. Sure it would be better overall if that other place could extract oil without that cost but that doesn't make the decision less rational even if that environmental cost is as much or more than it would be to extract it locally.
  - techNoob123 5y ago
    i think what’s missing is that fracking is used in the U.S. non-fracking methods are used outside the U.S. fracking is worse for the environment than non-fracking methods. i hold my personal opinions on each point but i think this is what OP was trying to convey
- yyyk 5y ago
  >fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields Is fracking really worse overall? One can screw up non-fracking oil methods too, e.g. Nigerian oil delta, BP oil spill, etc.

by dgfitz 5y ago

Symbiote 5y ago

Oil produced from other sources (i.e. traditional wells) is presumably less bad for the environment, since it isn't using huge amounts of fresh water.

brokencode 5y ago

The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields. It’s not NIMBY if it truly is worse when it happens in your backyard.

fredophile 5y ago
I'm not sure that was the original point. If extracting oil results in $x of long term damage to the local environment, but that cost isn't passed along, it makes economic sense to buy oil from somewhere else so you don't end up footing that bill. Sure it would be better overall if that other place could extract oil without that cost but that doesn't make the decision less rational even if that environmental cost is as much or more than it would be to extract it locally.
- techNoob123 5y ago
  i think what’s missing is that fracking is used in the U.S. non-fracking methods are used outside the U.S. fracking is worse for the environment than non-fracking methods. i hold my personal opinions on each point but i think this is what OP was trying to convey
yyyk 5y ago
>fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields Is fracking really worse overall? One can screw up non-fracking oil methods too, e.g. Nigerian oil delta, BP oil spill, etc.