4 ms·

>In the narrative concerning hydraulic fracturing, there seem to be two dominant points of view: those who unequivocally oppose it, and those who actually under

>In the narrative concerning hydraulic fracturing, there seem to be two dominant points of view: those who unequivocally oppose it, and those who actually understand it. I work in oil & gas data, so I'm surrounded by a bias from people that both benefit from fracking, and also have intimate working knowledge of the process. In my limited experience, I have found the above statement to be true. I always love to hear informed arguments against fracking, I just seem to hear fewer of them than those in support of it. Thanks for the share, good read.

Gravityloss 13y ago
Yes, I guess it could be problematic to find disinterested experts in any hot new business area, since most experts are getting their paycheck from it. I have no deep knowledge about the issue and I hope that someone can point me wrong.
- bradleysmith 13y ago
  exactly right. The only people that intimately know the workings of reservoirs, and know the risks and pitfalls of the fracking and production process from field experience are almost always directly benefiting from increased oil production won by fracking. I'm sure there are some environmental professionals that have been around the oil patch long enough to know what's what, and I'd love to hear their take. I am unabashedly on the fence on the matter. It is one of those things that the consequences are far more irreversible if one party is correct, and I always try to bear that in mind.
astrodust 13y ago
"We pump an enormous volume of chemicals of a proprietary composition into the ground mixed with water, a commodity already in short supply, but don't worry, it's totally safe. We just said so." Engineers, for all their successes, have a long history of getting things very, very wrong. Pumping unknown gunk into the ground at a depth that's theoretically too deep to ever return is a hypothesis, and one that we are now testing apparently. The consequences could be catastrophic.

Gravityloss 13y ago

Yes, I guess it could be problematic to find disinterested experts in any hot new business area, since most experts are getting their paycheck from it. I have no deep knowledge about the issue and I hope that someone can point me wrong.

bradleysmith 13y ago
exactly right. The only people that intimately know the workings of reservoirs, and know the risks and pitfalls of the fracking and production process from field experience are almost always directly benefiting from increased oil production won by fracking. I'm sure there are some environmental professionals that have been around the oil patch long enough to know what's what, and I'd love to hear their take. I am unabashedly on the fence on the matter. It is one of those things that the consequences are far more irreversible if one party is correct, and I always try to bear that in mind.

astrodust 13y ago

"We pump an enormous volume of chemicals of a proprietary composition into the ground mixed with water, a commodity already in short supply, but don't worry, it's totally safe. We just said so." Engineers, for all their successes, have a long history of getting things very, very wrong. Pumping unknown gunk into the ground at a depth that's theoretically too deep to ever return is a hypothesis, and one that we are now testing apparently. The consequences could be catastrophic.