Except the industry as a whole makes itself look bad when it opposes the kind of (admittedly brutal) regulation that would terrify the corner-cutters out of exi

Except the industry as a whole makes itself look bad when it opposes the kind of (admittedly brutal) regulation that would terrify the corner-cutters out of existence. The degree of recklessness and criminality at the fringes of an industry is directly proportional to the contempt in which the public is held by those at the center. If the "leaders" are continually pushing the limits (e.g. BP), it's not surprising when the more marginal players overshoot them entirely. This is doubly true when the same "leaders" have spent more than a decade lavishly financing a public disinformation campaign (read: systematic lying) to downplay the environmental safety risks of their product, while twisting the arms of any elected officials who dare stand in their way. And remember, "standing in their way" goes beyond the imposition of effective health and safety regulations. It also includes efforts to curtail enormous public subsidies for what would remain an exceedingly profitable business with no subsidies at all. It's like a Gambino family shakedown run by people with the political clout of the U.S. military. It's true, stuff like the (potential) destruction of aquifers does make the industry as a whole look bad. But if the OP thinks this represents the extent of the PR problems faced by the oil and gas industries, he needs to start paying much closer attention to the political agenda of the business in which he makes a living. It's...not pretty. The best thing we could do with our oil and gas resources is to use the amount we can safely burn to make the massive infrastructure changes that a sustainably low-carbon economy will need, then write off the balance of the planet's known reserves, and peacefully and voluntary close up shop once the transition is complete.