We don’t have enough water to shove billions of gallons of it down holes. So it’s a non-starter here.
I’m not yet convinced that the technology can be handled responsibly, but I’m willing to be convinced.
There are plenty of legitimate, often serious problems with extracting mineral resources from the earth. The fracturing of a shale formation a mile underground is not high on the list.
And that’s from me, Mr. hippy dippy energy-from-the-sun-and-sky.
Neither. Studies show that it currently is safe and has been safe. This isn’t a hypothetical situation that says that at some point in time or under certain circumstances it will be safe. There have been thousands and thousands of wells drilled. Where is all the supposed contamination if it is unsafe?
Oil companies produce something like to 85 million barrels of oil per day and 307 billion cubic feet of gas per day. This all gets transported by pipeline, rail, truck, barge, and tanker. This all gets refined or processed into numerous end use products daily. Much of this takes place in some of the harshest environments on Earth and in some of the most dangerous countries on Earth which includes operating in active war zones and amidst terrorism attacks. I think that if you put into perspective the scale of the industry, it’s pretty impressive that more accidents haven’t occurred. I think that issues like Macondo are incredibly serious and all reasonable efforts should be made to avoid them in the future as well as hold responsible parties responsible in all respects. The track record is a good one though from my perspective.
More and more of the water used in frac operations is from produced water as well as recycled. This becomes less of an issue over time.
Except that they so often are when it comes in conflict with maximizing profits.
But there is an even larger reason to aver from fracking beyond the immediate environmental impact; by extending the petroleum supply by artificially processing shale oil and other low yield resources, we delay adopting and developing the distribution infrastructure for more sustainable fuels that offer less CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per net energy yield. Fracking is like moving back in with your parents after college; sure, you can and it lets you extend your adolescence a few more years, but really, shouldn’t you grow the fuck up and start taking responsibility for your life?
<michael bluth>Her?</michael bluth>
Stranger
How the hell does one explain the water faucets catching on fire that all happen to be near fracking sites? (In the documentary Gasland.)
I know, “testing” has shown fracking to be safe, but I’m not completely sold that the method for testing is a 100% solid.
It wouldn’t be the first time in history we thought something was safe when it was indeed not.
I’m against it, not because the inherent process itself could’t be conducted in a way I’d be OK with (I’m leery of the long-term groundwater and geophysical effects - such as susceptibility to 'quakes), but because it will be conducted by petrochemical corporations and they will do it irresponsibly. I do not trust those fuckers to care about anything other than a quick buck.
Totally for it.
Those who are against fracking remind me of the anti-vax, anti-fluoride, and anti-nuke folks.
Another petroleum geologist here. I think there are huge environmental issues associated with oil and gas production, but fracking is pretty close to the bottom the list. IMHO the fixation on fracking by environmental groups is huge distraction from real issues where pushing for better regulation and oversight genuinely could improve the environmental safety record of the industry.
Like so many environmental issues these days, you’ve got one extreme that’s calling for the shutdown of the whole industry (which is essentially what a fracking ban would mean for the domestic oil and gas industry at least onshore) and then on the other you’ve got industry groups that obviously don’t want any regulation at all. There’s not really any advocacy groups in the middle who are trying to implement reasonable measures to prevent accidents and environmental degradation instead of just using them for political ammunition when they do happen. This frustrates me to no end.
It was biogenic gas, made by microbes living in the water table near the surface and almost certainly unrelated to the fracking thousands of feet below. Methane in water wells is a pretty common issue in some places and, contrary to what’s implied in the movie, it’s pretty easy to remedy.
After the fiasco that was the BP spill, and the discovery that there was no plan B, should something go wrong. To have lived through the lies and ineptness displayed as oil spilled into the gulf, was a real environmental education, I think, for people who prior felt many environmentalists were just prone to hysteria and hyperbole.
I think it may be time for projects such as this, which carry enormous potential for disastrous consequences, should something fail, to be required to be underwritten with insurance paid up and in place before moving forward. If they had not so clearly demonstrated a complete lack of preparation to deal with such, again and again, it might not be required.
I think most people are not opposed to seeking ways to safely extract our own oil over imported oil. But the people doing so should not be trusted to manage disasters that may result. I truly don’t think it’s too much to demand that all such risks be underwritten by requirement. I consider it emergency management, and don’t want BP execs making the hard choices in such circumstances. I want to know environmentalist types are determining the cleanup etc.
So, you have no concern about your well water?
All for it, especially in the UK. The places most suitable for fracking (Northern England) also have some of the highest levels of unemployment. The UK’s regulatory regime will also be more strict than in the US, and following the Royal Society report stating it was basically incredibly safe if you institute some obvious regulations, I see no reason to oppose its use here.
Just like people who aren’t anti-vaccine have no concern about their kids getting autism? :rolleyes:
None whatsoever.
OK. I’ve read enough contradictory stuff reports to maintain a concern for the integrity of my well.
Yep. And Ann Veal, too. 
For it, with the caveats already expressed by those for it in this thread. To me it’s similar to the anti-nuclear debate in that some environmental groups what to block an option that actually has less environmental impact than the alternative (namely coal). Not even getting into the rather obvious stimulus effects of new revenue (which can be taxed) and new jobs which the UK could use even more than the US can.
Nuclear is safer than coal or oil, on average. That’s obvious and indisputable.
But ask folks at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima about the matter, and opinions vary.
Having a coal plant in your town doesn’t seem like such a bad thing then.
And that’s the problem with fracking. Maybe it’s safe. Maybe not.
No way to really know until something bad happens because of it.
Nuclear is safer full stop…not on average. Orders of magnitude more people die every year from coal fired power plants…and that’s if you include Chernobyl which was a one off disaster (how many have died from 3 Mile Island or at Fukushima due to radiation again? Zero?). Otherwise it would be hard to compare zero to thousands (really 10’s or 100’s of thousands if we look world wide) a year, not to even mention all of the other, non-fatal health risks from coal.
Might want to check your risk assessment hardware or software if you think having that coal fired plant in your town isn’t such a bad thing. It’s the equivalent of rushing to the air port in your sports car without your seat belt on while talking on your cell phone, texting and eating a burger, large fries and a trough sized coke and worrying about whether the plane might crash…