So I started looking into it. At first what I found was that it harms the watershelf, pollutes ground water... so much so that you can light your tap water on fire? And this is becoming so popular that even states without any fracking going on in them are symbolically banning fracking in support of the cause (despite them still receiving energy from Canada from fracking) http://ow.ly/b1jNK
And then I found this guy: Alex Epstein who really made things clear at least to me. Starts off a bit slow but then he starts making killer points. <--- Please watch as a lot of the questions asked in the comments are answered here. If you disagree with the speaker we can discuss that.
There's also a Q&A:
Q&A about Fracking with expert Dr. Mukul Sharma: Covers what is, cost, risks, benefits, alternatives.
And here's a funny about fracking although I encourage you to look at the red link as it is more important:
Another source discussing fracking:
What do you guys think?
P.S Alex Epstein also debated against GreenPeace... a terrorist organization.
Edit: Clarification
Last edit: 2012-10-06 15:59:30
bw4life
Man with a Plan United States. May 20 2012 05:10. Posts 387
There was recently fracking tests in the area where I live in the UK(Morecambe bay area), and we don't often have earthquakes or tremors at all. We had two in a short time while they were doing it, and it was stopped instantly lol. I think its a really good way of getting energy, but there's a lot of points that need to be tested and cleared up before people will fully support it.
Freddybear United States. May 20 2012 05:14. Posts 111
I think fracking is just another technology to be used when appropriate. It's not evil. And yeah, the thing about setting your tap water on fire has been happening in that area since long before they started using fracking to extract natural gas from deep rock formations. Now there can be a problem with high-pressure injection wells when they are too shallow, but that in itself is not fracking.
But hey, fracking is only good for getting at natural resources that radical eviro alarmists want to keep locked away forever, so it MUST be evil.
Older than the usual n00b
OrchidThief Denmark. May 20 2012 05:26. Posts 1640
I don't think you have to be very radical to not like us developing and increasing our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm also really hesitant to go into scientific discussions based on youtube clips.
Aerisky United States. May 20 2012 05:29. Posts 9164
Haha, this was the first free response question for AP env sci this year
It's not...terrible. It's definitely better than coal (almost everything is better than bituminous coal), and does have very advanced technology developed for it. It does have the potential to leak or catastrophically fail, though.
sigh
Chimpalimp United States. May 20 2012 05:32. Posts 1012
Rarely is anything in life cut and dry to label it as good or evil, it just depends on how you look at it. Fracking is no exception; it is a fairly cheap and simple method of obtaining energy, which is, as always, a growing concern. Fracking, like many other forms of energy, has drawbacks. Fracking's dawbacks are a bit more devastating than that of other energy solutions. Fracking is done because it is cheap. Unfortunatly, many companies are negligent in their fracking operations, and in turn endanger human lives.
I personally don't think fracking should be done without more strict regulations, but I also think it should not be simply done away with. Energy generation in an increasingly energy hungry planet is rather difficult to resolve, until we develop more efficient clean energy solutions, fracking is always going to be an option.
Last edit: 2012-05-20 05:42:11
I like money. You like money too? We should hang out.
Watching these vids, it's like a company that owns the atlantic ocean funding a flat earth society to make people believe it's the only way to ship goods from NA to Asia.
The fact that resources are finite, and there are consequences to their extraction is such an uncontestable boundary condition of life on earth -- it's interesting how interests that stand to profit from their immediate exploitation are able to funnel so many resources in such a coordinated way into initiatives that attempt to create public doubt over it, that some people start believing it.
Fascinating, but terrifying given its consequences.
Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a ... public outreach campaign
Hardly impartial, don't you think?
dozens of studies shows it does in fact contaminate groundwater. I'd link google, but you can type it in yourself to see. There's a reason it's banned in most of Europe.
GreenPeace... a terrorist organization.
... what? 'Terrorism' sure has evolved as a term, hasn't it.
My issue with fracking is it's only a temporary band-aid fix for the fact that fossil fuels will run out before we know it. Couple that with the likely pollution it causes to ground water and it seems pretty bad. I know I wouldn't want to live nearby where fracking is going on.
Aerisky United States. May 20 2012 05:43. Posts 9164
... what? 'Terrorism' sure has evolved as a term, hasn't it.
Yeah, it sure has. Hm, I remember reading a while ago that this sort of description for greenpeace emerged because it doesn't so much help out with direct environmental protection so much as intimidate a bunch of companies into complying with certain rules...yeah it's pretty hazy. But basically something about them being anti-bad stuff but not very pro-good stuff...
Last edit: 2012-05-20 05:44:12
sigh
WTFZerg United States. May 20 2012 05:44. Posts 648
On May 20 2012 05:32 Chimpalimp wrote: Rarely is anything in life cut and dry to label it as good or evil, it just depends on how you look at it. Fracking is no exception; it is a fairly cheap and simple method of obtaining energy, which is, as always, a growing concern. Fracking, like many other forms of energy, has drawbacks. Fracking's dawbacks are a bit more devastating than that of other energy solutions. Fracking is done because it is cheap. Unfortunatly, many companies are negligent in their fracking operations, and in turn endanger human lives.
I personally don't think fracking should be done without more strict regulations, but I also think it should not be simply done away with. Energy generation in an increasingly energy hungry planet is rather difficult to resolve, until we develop more efficient clean energy solutions, fracking is always going to be an option.
It's funny how this thread becomes a whole lot funnier when you read f*cking instead or fracking
Ugh, I have had this argument far too many times. Fracking gets a ton of bad press and is just the new buzz word for people to get upset. Fracking in NY and PA is generally not a good idea, because the rocks you are trying to stimulate are very shallow, and this can impact the water table. However, if you frack rocks very deep (like the Williston Basin of ND) you are far too deep to affect any drinking water, and there is no danger for chemical leaks.
Also, I might be biased, considering that I am a geologist and I do work for an oil complany that is involved in fracking, but I also think this gives me a pretty informed position
There is a reason why it is banned on most Europe and in countries like Brazil. Even president Obama himself acknowledges the environmental issues of fracking (link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53423.html). So I'm inclined to say, based on overwhelming evidence, that fracking is indeed bad.
"..it all comes thumbling down thumbling down thumblin down"
Freddybear United States. May 20 2012 05:59. Posts 111
On May 20 2012 05:49 ThirdDegree wrote: Also, I might be biased, considering that I am a geologist and I do work for an oil complany that is involved in fracking, but I also think this gives me a pretty informed position
I never did quite understand why knowledgeable people who work in an industry should be considered biased about the very things that they work with every day.
Older than the usual n00b
whiteguycash United States. May 20 2012 06:05. Posts 472
On May 20 2012 05:49 ThirdDegree wrote: However, if you frack rocks very deep (like the Williston Basin of ND) you are far too deep to affect any drinking water, and there is no danger for chemical leaks.
Love me some Bakken Crude!
Lets be frank. The majority of Fracking has no risks when standard operating regulations are followed. There are always outliers, as you said, in different geographies, but the high majority of those are understood and avoided as it is. Actually, I'm supervised that it came up as an issue now, in 2012 instead of 60+ years ago when the technique was developed, or at least some time between them.
ThirdDegree United States. May 20 2012 06:06. Posts 306
On May 20 2012 05:56 mrafaeldie12 wrote: There is a reason why it is banned on most Europe and in countries like Brazil. Even president Obama himself acknowledges the environmental issues of fracking (link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53423.html). So I'm inclined to say, based on overwhelming evidence, that fracking is indeed bad.
This is the major problem with this topic. People read news reports and think that they have done proper research. If you actually want to do unbiased research, you need to look at technical/scientific papers published in journals. Nature, Geology, Journal of Petroleum Geology, etc. Reading a second hand report of watered down science is not research. And countries not liking a technique is hardly 'overwhelming' evidence. There are a plethora of things that are illegal in many countries that aren't actually as bad as they've been made out to be.
On May 20 2012 05:59 Freddybear wrote: I never did quite understand why knowledgeable people who work in an industry should be considered biased about the very things that they work with every day.
The reason is that people make up their minds on the topic without being properly informed, and they stick to their guns. Hearing any information to the contrary is uncomfortable, and since someone might lack the schooling on the subject, they resort to condemning a statement by saying someone is biased, thinking that invalidates their point.
Edit: mrafaeldie12, I did not mean that as a personal attack against you. I have had this discussion with many people and it tends to be a sore subject when people discount 8 years of education in geology simply because they don't like my point of view
Last edit: 2012-05-20 06:10:44
I am terrible
smokeyhoodoo United States. May 20 2012 06:20. Posts 1021
On May 20 2012 05:26 OrchidThief wrote: I don't think you have to be very radical to not like us developing and increasing our dependence on fossil fuels. I'm also really hesitant to go into scientific discussions based on youtube clips.
I think your confused on whats being discussed. This decreases dependence.
Store
smokeyhoodoo United States. May 20 2012 06:20. Posts 1021
