6 ms·
Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are n
by tibbon 13y ago
Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are negative outcomes to the environment for doing this (let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. Its unlikely to be a neutral impact.)
Its like what cigarette companies used to do- just constantly deny what's completely obvious.
- adestefan 13y agoBecause it will take decades for any lawsuits to make it through the courts. If they were to lose such lawsuits, by that time they'll have already pulled out enough money to cover the cost of the lawsuits with the rest just being gravy.
- johnward 13y agoThey will move as fast as they can to make as much money as they can. By the time something could stop it they will be so deep in the pockets of our representatives that it will be hard to make it happen.
- anateus 13y ago(Hi David!) Well, yes it's money, but the complication is that fracking has that effect only in some places. The contamination is much more a function of the geology than the fracking process itself. Pennsylvania has been hit heavily with contamination. Most wells drilled are safe: http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-natural-gas http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-nat... There is an annoying combination of legal and commercial pressures that prevent the companies from going "actually it's more dangerous than we previously said" without it seeming like "it was a lie all along this is TERRIBLE". The crucial take-away is that there is a bunch of additional geologic due diligence that the gas companies could be doing that would actually enable them to continue fracking. But the boom is driven in part by the utter dirt cheapness of it now and they're afraid of hopping off the wave.
- jeffasinger 13y agoThe other thing to consider is that simply not getting natural gas at all is also a terrible idea. A lot of the power infrastructure that handles peaks in demand (and averts rolling blackouts) uses natural gas. The question we need to be asking ourselves is which is the least bad alternative, because they're all bad.
- ars 13y ago> let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. No. It's completely positive. Methane has almost no pollution, and far less CO2 than any other large scale energy source. The "contamination" is methane in water, which is harmless even if you drank it, and trivial to remove.
- lhc- 13y agoWhat about the other pollutants dumped by fracking?
- ars 13y agoSee my reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6265828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6265828 He picked the ones that seemed most dangerous to him, and they are all harmless. (But I haven't checked if there are others.) Don't forget these chemicals are injected deep underground, so unlike lighter-than-air methane they won't easily get to water. (PS. It's not "dumping" if you are actively using them. Dumping is the waste you don't need, no need for inaccurate emotive language.)
- smky80 13y agoMethane's greenhouse gas effect is 20x that of CO2. [0] --- [0] http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
- ars 13y agoThe quantities we are talking about are pretty minimal though, and definitely worth the tradeoff with less coal (or oil for that matter).
- smky80 13y agoI don't have a source handy, but I remember reading something to effect that when you figured in all the transportation costs for the fracking fluid and gas production, it really wasn't so clean.