Fracking (not a Battlestar Galactica thread)

[Powdered Water]

There's more reasons than just water you can light on fire to stop Fracking. (http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2014/05/fracking-earthquakes-get-worse/)

[Yoda]

Nope (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/fracking-doesn-t-cause-significant-quakes-university-study-says.html).

[Powdered Water]

Wow, you got me there. I guess its all a bunch of hooey.

[Powdered Water]

Nope, not hooey. (http://www.examiner.com/article/usgs-oklahoma-earthquakes-fracking-ok-at-risk-for-damaging-quake-study-says)

[Powdered Water]

You always act like I'm trying to take us back to the stone age. Really, I'd just prefer it, if we'd just slow down this conquest of the Earth and all its resources.

[Yoda]

Yeah, it is hooey (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47835612/ns/us_news-environment/#.U2mu2fldXjb). And seismic activity is not a synonym for "earthquakes," by the way, even though it sounds appropriately scary.

The fire thing is bunk, too--the most famous video was explicitly contradicted by the Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/02/10/document_gw_01.pdf) as being the result of naturally occurring methane. Other cases have been traced to problems with the cement in the wells--problems that have zero to do with fracking.

[Powdered Water]

Let me ask you something. Would you have one of these wells in your backyard?

[Powdered Water]

You probably do and might not even know it. You're kinda in gas country over there.

[Yoda]

Yeah I live in Western Pennsylvania. I'm at ground zero. This directly affects me and lots of people I care about.

[Powdered Water]

Yeah man, I know where you live. So, would you have one of these nasty ass wells full of nasty water in your backyard? Not this kid.

[Yoda]

Nobody wants it, but I wouldn't be particularly afraid of it, either. And whether or not someone wants it is different than whether or not it causes earthquakes, makes tap water flammable, keys your car, or whatever else people will think to blame on it next month.

[Powdered Water]

Ask your wife if she'd let you guys live next to one of these waste water wells. Especially if you're planning on having kids some day.

[Yoda]

Sure. And if she says no, that proves it causes earthquakes and flammable tap water...how? Did we somehow switch from arguing about what's true to testing how much I believe it? Because you should give me a heads-up on that kinda thing.

[Yoda]

Here's a question back the other way: why do you think people are blaming fracking for things totally incidental to it, like poorly laid well cement? Does that sound like an issue people are being rational and level-headed about? Because it sounds downright hysterical to me. It sounds like a lot of people are ready to believe anything about this.

[Powdered Water]

It doesn't prove anything. Maybe it'll make you think a little is all. You are so quick to jump on a side and defend that side. You are pretty closed off my friend.

[Powdered Water]

Here's a question back the other way: why do you think people are blaming fracking for things totally incidental to it, like poorly laid well cement? Does that sound like an issue people are being rational and level-headed about? Because it sounds downright hysterical to me. It sounds like a lot of people are ready to believe anything about this.


Are people really that quick to believe that fracking is even bad? Its going on all over the US. I'm pointing out some pretty brand new data, that isn't even really officially data yet because this fracking is still pretty new. But yeah. Who believes any of the stuff I say? Nobody, really. I don't have any followers.

I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fracking causes earthquakes or cancer or can even be set on fire from a tap. But I'm concerned. It concerns me more how few others are concerned. I'm not trying to shut the planet down, but I would love it if we could just take a little step back and slow down a bit. Maybe do some scientific investigation if its not too much trouble.

[Yoda]

And I suppose the mere fact that I disagree is all the evidence you need that I haven't thought about it, right?

Believe it or not, I've heard these arguments, and I didn't just find these rebuttals on the fly. I've read and thought about this before--because I live here. I actually familiarized myself with the other side before I started talking about it. Can you honestly say the same? Because it seems like a big red flag that we always pivot away from the facts and off into glib personal remarks about how I'd obviously agree if I were just more open-minded.

[Powdered Water]

I have very little choice, but to learn about the "other" side as you put it. The other side just gets crammed down your throat whether you want it to or not. Seriously, they even have commercials for this stuff.

What's always interesting to me is how quickly these exchanges tend to devolve into your opinion on how badly I argue. Or my vehicle to get people talking about this. I've built an opinion on fracking over the last 3 years. I've learned a great deal about it. I'm willing to discuss most anything about it.

So, let's start over...

Gee, it sure seems like 'seismic activity' has gone up about 200% in Oklahoma and some of the other surrounding states in the last 2 years in particular. Link. (http://news.yahoo.com/series-small-earthquakes-rock-oklahoma-record-seismic-activity-173349780.html)

Do you think it's possible to likely that fracking might have a little bit to do with this? If not, then do you have any theories as to why it might be happening?

[Powdered Water]

Chris, I just wanna say that I desperately hope that you or any of your family don't become another one of the many horror stories coming from your great state. I've grown rather fond of you over the years. Even if you're a little green fella, that kinda smells funny.

[Tacitus]

Can we move the last 9 or 10 pages of shouts to their own thread?

We can call it Freaking Fracking Friction. Or something.

There's been talk about fracking starting up here in parts of rural Fermanagh and, although I've not paid a lot of attention, the only people who seem not to be opposed to the idea are Tory types: Therefore I'm against it.

It's just how I roll. :p

[Austruck]

I'm also here in western Pennsylvania, and I'm currently on the fence on this issue.

And, PW, don't think we don't hear about this ALL THE TIME, from BOTH sides, out here. There are articles in our local paper here nearly every week about what's up with the fracking industry here. And we've been hearing this stuff literally for years. Well over a year ago my parents and I went to a sort of town hall meeting in our county, which they held in a large school auditorium that filled up quickly. Both sides were represented -- everything from attorneys representing landowners and drillers to actual drilling company reps to folks who have had experience with wells in their area. It was very informative.

My conclusion right now is that this is LIKELY not going to do any permanent damage, but that it wouldn't kill us to do a little bit of research and even waiting to see what happens in areas that are already using wells this way. I don't understand the big hurry, except as it involves money. I tend to think waiting and watching to see how the safety issues play out isn't going to affect anyone except financially (and that means the drilling companies, mostly, and some landowners who wouldn't get residuals as fast as they've been told they would).

The dire cries of panic seem extremely overblown to me (and it doesn't help their cause that many of their claims have been seen to be hoaxes), but if there is a chance of ruining groundwater, I say we do more research first. Once an area's groundwater is ruined, everybody might as well move away completely. Not sure I want to start moving away from western Pennsylvania just yet.

And, unlike Yoda (sorry, Yods), we here a county away from him are REALLY in the thick of it. My brother-in-law is being courted by the drilling companies for rights to his piece of land about five minutes away from our house. He has an attorney looking over paperwork. We have wells around here MUCH closer than Yoda does (which is why we had the town hall meeting and why our paper writes about this all the time). So, it's quite likely I'll have wells fairly nearby me at some point, and probably do already if I care to drive around and look for them.

BUT, I also know I've heard a lot of information about the safety side of things and I know that the panic cries are almost all alarmist. The stories of cement cracks and burning water and other things remind me of the stories we are STILL subjected to up here about nuclear power. (My husband works at the Shippingport nuclear plant, the oldest operating nuke plant in the country, I believe, operating in some capacity for fifty years.) We still get panicky anti-nuke stories in the paper any time someone coughs the wrong way at the plant. I joke that, if someone takes a leak at the nuke plant, the local paper hears the word "leak" and turns it into a big front-page story.

Any time there IS a nuke story in the paper, I ask my husband what *really* happened to trigger the story... and it's ridiculous to hear how much local reporters inflate the situation and use all the right words to induce fear. (Kinda like Yoda mentioned using "seismic activity" as a trigger phrase.)

So, I read these panic stories about fracking and I wonder... and I wait.

Also, yes, the wells are ugly. Yes, the areas immediately surrounding them are ugly. A LOT of industrial sites are UGLY. If you don't want ugly industrial sites anywhere, then you apparently don't want electricity or running water or heat coming directly into your home or any number of other conveniences you take for granted.

I could say a ton more, but I won't. My experience is that the side for fracking seems to engage more in facts and denotations, and the side against fracking is resorting to fear-mongering, illogical arguments (and I mean that in the classic sense of "logic"), and emotional button-pushing. Even if they're ultimately right, I hate feeling as if I am being manipulated into a position.

For now, we watch what happens with my brother-in-law's land, and we wait. And we read. And we ask questions.

[Austruck]

Also, a side note, PW: When Yoda tries to pull the argument back to your methods of argumentation, he's not doing that to poke you personally. The entire point is to make sure we are all arguing in the classic sense and using statistics and facts properly. Unlike most school students, my kids were taught/homeschooled to include good, solid rules for debate in any situation where they disagree with someone. Getting behind the rhetoric and into both sides' methodologies is crucial. Making sure one side isn't misusing words is key. Knowing the difference between denotation and connotation lays the proper groundwork for not spinning wheels and not falling into namecalling.

That's why he does that. It has nothing to do with you personally.

[Yoda]

I have very little choice, but to learn about the "other" side as you put it. The other side just gets crammed down your throat whether you want it to or not. Seriously, they even have commercials for this stuff.
Commercials aren't what I mean. I mean things like the famous scene from Gasland being due to naturally occurring methane. Or the accusations about fracking actually being due to well construction problems. Does any of this stuff come up when the links are being passed around?

It's at the point where if someone got into a car accident on the way to the drilling site the headline would read "FRACKING LINKED TO TRAFFIC FATALITES." That's barely even a joke, BTW: people have actually complained about the fact that there are more truck crashes around drilling sites. It's not a terribly level-headed debate right now.

What's always interesting to me is how quickly these exchanges tend to devolve into your opinion on how badly I argue. Or my vehicle to get people talking about this.
They devolve that way insofar as you treat the disagreement like a psychological condition. The pattern is usually: you say something about the environment, I dispute it on factual grounds, maybe we go a quick round, and then you start trying to break down whatever emotional barrier you've decided is stopping me from agreeing.

Gee, it sure seems like 'seismic activity' has gone up about 200% in Oklahoma and some of the other surrounding states in the last 2 years in particular. Link. (http://news.yahoo.com/series-small-earthquakes-rock-oklahoma-record-seismic-activity-173349780.html)

Do you think it's possible to likely that fracking might have a little bit to do with this? If not, then do you have any theories as to why it might be happening?
Aye. And it starts with a distinction on terminology: fracking is the method of extracting shale gas. As far as I can tell there's virtually no evidence that this is responsible. What they think might be responsible is disposing of the resulting wastewater.

But here's the problem: other forms of drilling use similar methods of disposal, which means a lot of what gets lumped under "fracking" has nothing to do with the procedure. And indeed, it's been suggested that other types of drilling might be the cause in Oklahoma (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/27/oil-addiction-not-fracking-caused-the-2011-oklahoma-earthquakes/). The National Research Council (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13355) agrees that other forms of drilling are more of a concern.

This distinction completely changes the posture of the debate. If you believe fracking causes problems (and it seems to me almost everyone up in arms about it makes this mistake), then it's just going to be a fight to stop it at all costs. But if you recognize that wastewater disposal is the issue, then it can be dealt with. Which makes this a good litmus test to figure out who's really open-minded about fixing problems and who's against the idea on general principle.

So, how much of a problem is this? So far it looks like a pretty small one. The aforementioned NRC report points out that man made seismic activity is both incredibly rare and incredibly small. And the Department of the Interior (http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/Is-the-Recent-Increase-in-Felt-Earthquakes-in-the-Central-US-Natural-or-Manmade.cfm) points out that the overwhelming majority of wastewater disposal wells have no noticeable impact at all, and can't find evidence to suggest that any of the larger quakes stem from it.

Chris, I just wanna say that I desperately hope that you or any of your family don't become another one of the many horror stories coming from your great state. I've grown rather fond of you over the years. Even if you're a little green fella, that kinda smells funny.
I appreciate the concern. :) But there's not a lot to worry about. FYI, my dad and stepmom have agreed to have their land tested for it. Whether or not we'd personally live near one is pretty immaterial as to whether or not it's actually a problem in general, but for the record, the answer is yes. We also live near a pipeline. Everyone's got ten toes, though I haven't checked in awhile.

As for the "horror stories"--there's a heckuva lot more story than horror, especially once you parse out the ones that actually have nothing to do with fracking.

[John McClane]

I'm against fracking for one reason and one reason only: destroys natural beauty. Also, I've found this site to be frequented by naysayers about EVERYTHING. So if we ran the government we'd probably all die in horrific fires caused by earthquakes and floods by receding ice caps. ;)

[Powdered Water]

Well, I guess I'm glad you believe there's not a lot to worry about. I hope you're right. It seems like you're really basing a lot of your opinion on data that isn't even accepted as fact yet. But, I can't stop you.

I do gotta ask though. You really think all the stories are bunk?

What about these people? They seem like regular people. Some of theses folks can also light their water on fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5QqidiEEHw

[Yoda]

I'm against fracking for one reason and one reason only: destroys natural beauty. Also, I've found this site to be frequented by naysayers about EVERYTHING. So if we ran the government we'd probably all die in horrific fires caused by earthquakes and floods by receding ice caps. ;)
If you're against anything which destroys natural beauty, then you should be against pretty much every amenity of modern life. This doesn't sound like a particularly considered opinion.

The word "naysayers" is kind of funny. Though I'm struggling to figure out how it wouldn't apply to the people saying "nay" to a technological advance. Seeing as how everyone's saying nay to something, it's pretty clearly just a loaded word used for rhetorical effect.

[John McClane]

If you're against anything which destroys natural beauty, then you should be against pretty much every amenity of modern life. This doesn't sound like a particularly considered opinion.Yup, pretty much, and I would disagree it isn't considered.

The word "naysayers" is kind of funny. Though I'm struggling to figure out how it wouldn't apply to the people saying "nay" to a technological advance. Seeing as how everyone's saying nay to something, it's pretty clearly just a loaded word used for rhetorical effect.Hence the wink and over-the-top description of our likely death scenarios.

[Yoda]

Well, I guess I'm glad you believe there's not a lot to worry about. I hope you're right. It seems like you're really basing a lot of your opinion on data that isn't even accepted as fact yet.
Er, doesn't this describe literally everything you've posted so far? Absolutely none of it has been accepted as fact, but you seem pretty convinced all the same.

I do gotta ask though. You really think all the stories are bunk?
Again, as I did in the climate thread, I have to resist this either-or framing. Every time I express skepticism about something, you hit me with this false choice where I have to either think everybody involved is lying or embrace doomsday.

Here's a common scenario that I've already referenced a couple of times: a family has a legitimate problem with their water, but it's not due to fracking. So you tell me: would that qualify as bunk?

What about these people? They seem like regular people. Some of theses folks can also light their water on fire.
Can't get the audio here at work, but as I've mentioned a couple of times already, pretty much every case like this has been shown to either be from naturally occurring methane, or problems with poorly formed wells. And the latter is a perfectly legitimate, actionable complaint...but it has zero to do with fracking. Someone laying concrete the wrong way doesn't make fracking dangerous, unless you think buildings are, too.

[Yoda]

Yup, pretty much, and I would disagree it isn't considered.
So you're opposed to all modern technology, but you're telling me on a website a week after taking a job with Apple? What?

[Sleezy]

Gentlemen.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j38/iusreview/Six_zps74749a0a.jpg (http://s76.photobucket.com/user/iusreview/media/Six_zps74749a0a.jpg.html)

[Powdered Water]

Also, a side note, PW: When Yoda tries to pull the argument back to your methods of argumentation, he's not doing that to poke you personally. The entire point is to make sure we are all arguing in the classic sense and using statistics and facts properly. Unlike most school students, my kids were taught/homeschooled to include good, solid rules for debate in any situation where they disagree with someone. Getting behind the rhetoric and into both sides' methodologies is crucial. Making sure one side isn't misusing words is key. Knowing the difference between denotation and connotation lays the proper groundwork for not spinning wheels and not falling into namecalling.

That's why he does that. It has nothing to do with you personally.

I wanna try to respond to this. This makes a ton of sense and I think it may really show why Yoda and I, or people like us can differ so much on issues. I just don't have any of this. I have no training. I never received any homeschooling. I dropped out of school at a pretty early age. I really never even learned any proper manners. And I know I constantly change tack in my social commentary (hell, I'm doing it now in my own thread.) because that's just who I have found out I am. As I grew up I had to learn a lot of things on my own. And while there's things Yoda and I agree on we have two very different backgrounds.

I think I mostly understand what you mean by; "Getting behind the rhetoric and into both sides' methodologies is crucial." - and I get the difference in the balanced view and the persuasive view of things... at least... as much as I can pick up in a few minutes of light reading ;). Clearly, I'm the kind of person that drives you and Yoda nuts!! Sorry about that. It may be too late to change that but I'm learning all the time. I have many things to say and constantly feel belittled by the world because I'm not smart enough to do things or say things the proper way. I'm going to keep reading and learning though, so I'll get better at this. Until then though maybe you could tell the kid to just tone it down a bit? :laugh: If all we ever do is argue about how we argue then how will we ever really talk about anything?

[John McClane]

So you're opposed to all modern technology, but you're telling me on a website a week after taking a job with Apple? What?Yeah, so? Just because I'm good with technology doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm unique like that. Of course, some might say I'm bats*** crazy like that.

[Yoda]

Yeah, so? Just because I'm good with technology doesn't mean I have to like it. I'm unique like that. Of course, some might say I'm bats*** crazy like that.
Well, you don't have to like it, and everyone has ideals they can't entirely live up to. But I don't think of them as actual beliefs unless some kind of effort is made to do so. If someone says they want something and that's the extent of their effort, then to my mind they don't really want it.

[Powdered Water]

Er, doesn't this describe literally everything you've posted so far? Absolutely none of it has been accepted as fact, but you seem pretty convinced all the same.

Not really. I'm only truly convinced that there's a lot of new data coming in literally as we speak and that data is largely pushed to the side in order to maintain progress. That's what really bugs me. Maybe there truly isn't anything wrong with fracking. I doubt it but its possible. But there's a lot of questions and these questions are almost always dealt with after the fact.


Again, as I did in the climate thread, I have to resist this either-or framing. Every time I express skepticism about something, you hit me with this false choice where I have to either think everybody involved is lying or embrace doomsday.


Why? I'm just asking a question. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to trap you into.



Here's a common scenario that I've already referenced a couple of times: a family has a legitimate problem with their water, but it's not due to fracking. So you tell me: would that qualify as bunk?

Well, sure. So, can I ask you something? I can't find any yet. Do you know if there's any or going to be any data on just how many of these are hoaxes? I've been in your DEP website and haven't found much yet but I'll keep looking. I haven't figured out how to look up how many folks across the US have filed claims with the EPA or what have you, but it would be interesting to find out if any or all or some or even none of them come to anything. I only ask you this because you are right in the middle of it and I wanted to know if there's any research like this being done in the area.

[John McClane]

Well, you don't have to like it, and everyone has ideals they can't entirely live up to. But I don't think of them as actual beliefs unless some kind of effort is made to do so. If someone says they want something and that's the extent of their effort, then to my mind they don't really want it.Wait, correct me if I'm misunderstanding: are you saying my belief isn't an actual belief unless I don't use technology? If so, dude, that's whack.

[Yoda]

Wait, correct me if I'm misunderstanding
Okay; you are misunderstanding. :)

are you saying my belief isn't an actual belief unless I don't use technology? If so, dude, that's whack.
To the contrary, I went out of my way to suggest the opposite when I said that everyone has ideals they don't live up to. But trying and failing because of its ubiquity is one thing. As far as I can tell you embrace it. You put computers together, play computer games, work for a computer company, etc.

Also worth pointing out that recognizing technology's downsides is not the same thing as opposing it (or fracking, or any of the other things that in some way disrupt natural beauty), and it's the latter we're talking about. I think technology has tons of downsides, I just think the upsides outweigh most of them.

[John McClane]

OK, gotcha, now the rebuttal.

I loathe technology and your reasons to support that I embrace doesn't jive.

I build my own computers because it's cheaper and better than buying a pre-built system (it's not fun anymore...it's a pain in the a**), I have stopped playing video games, and as far as working for a computer company goes it's just what I understand well. I know nothing about cars, so I don't work on them. Don't know jack about engineering so I don't build bridges. Sales? I shall refer you to the capitalism thread. I work with technology because it's just something that I instinctively understand.

This is coming from the guy that switched back to a dumb phone, so it's not like I'm the guy who's buying the latest and greatest. I don't even like having the dumb phone but I keep it for the sake of ease of mind for family members.

I think it would make sense that I should work in a field I know and understand well rather than taking a job I hate just so I can avoid technology. Besides, you pretty much CANNOT avoid technology in jobs these days.

EDIT: Granted, I don't hate ALL technology. For instance, knives, axes, and pulleys are all very cool things. I'm strictly speaking modern technology here.

[Powdered Water]

Bet John is a big fan of the abacus. :yup:

[John McClane]

I just use mah fingers and toes.

[Yoda]

Until then though maybe you could tell the kid to just tone it down a bit? :laugh: If all we ever do is argue about how we argue then how will we ever really talk about anything?
"Tone what down motherf*cker?"

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p138/aristin/blog/cine/rounders05.jpg

In all seriousness, I don't like arguing about how to argue, either. Like you say, it keeps us away from the real issues. But I think you'll find it only happens when we veer off into personal assessments (IE: "you are pretty closed off"). I'm generally going to stick to the issue at hand unless someone decides to go there first.

[Yoda]

Not really. I'm only truly convinced that there's a lot of new data coming in literally as we speak and that data is largely pushed to the side in order to maintain progress. That's what really bugs me. Maybe there truly isn't anything wrong with fracking. I doubt it but its possible. But there's a lot of questions and these questions are almost always dealt with after the fact.
If you're genuinely willing to wait and see, that's great. I can't say I get that vibe, but I know you're an honest dude and I'll take you at your word. We do have some data, though--we have state examinations, and we know that there are over 60,000 wells, which means the rate of incident is still very small.

Other than that, though, we actually pretty much agree. It's certainly true that people can trample each other in the wake of a technological breakthrough, and it's important to stop that from happening. It'll inevitably happen anytime we do anything worthwhile, but when it does we have to try to make it right. The only discrepancy is whether or not we think of these as examples of things to fix and be aware of, or reasons to discredit the entire process.

Why? I'm just asking a question. Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to trap you into.
Well, "when did you stop beating your wife?" is just a question, too, but it has an assumption built into it. And so does "Is all this bunk?" It carries the assumption that I have to believe this stuff all-or-nothing, and it carries the implication that people are making stuff up, neither of which I believe.

And I assume the question was at least a little rhetorical, yeah?

Well, sure. So, can I ask you something? I can't find any yet. Do you know if there's any or going to be any data on just how many of these are hoaxes? I've been in your DEP website and haven't found much yet but I'll keep looking. I haven't figured out how to look up how many folks across the US have filed claims with the EPA or what have you, but it would be interesting to find out if any or all or some or even none of them come to anything. I only ask you this because you are right in the middle of it and I wanted to know if there's any research like this being done in the area.
I haven't found anything comprehensive on the number of lawsuits, but judgments have definitely been awarded and I saw one source (a couple years old) that said a couple dozen had been filed across a few states. I assume that's higher now. So as far as I can tell the normal legal channels are working fine.

But yeah, the main thing is the transference of basic drilling or constructions errors onto the term "fracking." It's obviously terrible if someone lays cement badly or there's an explosion at a site, but it does happen, and it happens no matter what kind of extraction you're doing. Mistakes happen all the time, but when people become aware of a new process there's an information vacuum, so problems get a lot of attention, even if in the broad scheme of things they represent an ordinary amount of human error.

[Yoda]

OK, gotcha, now the rebuttal.

I loathe technology and your reasons to support that I embrace doesn't jive.

I build my own computers because it's cheaper and better than buying a pre-built system (it's not fun anymore...it's a pain in the a**), I have stopped playing video games, and as far as working for a computer company goes it's just what I understand well. I know nothing about cars, so I don't work on them. Don't know jack about engineering so I don't build bridges. Sales? I shall refer you to the capitalism thread. I work with technology because it's just something that I instinctively understand.
I can certainly appreciate that working with technology is a logical and efficient choice for someone with your skillset, but principles aren't worth much if we only follow them when they're easy. The only real test of their value is whether or not we try to stick to them even when it's inconvenient to do so.

Besides, let's extend this logic to everyone else (and bring this back to the initial topic): if it's okay to do things you think are bad because you're good at them or need the money, why wouldn't that apply to all the people in the drilling industry? Presumably most of them understand that industry well. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same consideration?

[teeter_g]

Do you have any idea how many Americans would be out of work if they stopped fracking?

[John McClane]

I can certainly appreciate that working with technology is a logical and efficient choice for someone with your skillset, but principles aren't worth much if we only follow them when they're easy. The only real test of their value is whether or not we try to stick to them even when it's inconvenient to do so.Yeah, no, you're crazy. It's literally impossible to work anywhere without using "modern technology."

Besides, let's extend this logic to everyone else (and bring this back to the initial topic): if it's okay to do things you think are bad because you're good at them or need the money, why wouldn't that apply to all the people in the drilling industry? Presumably most of them understand that industry well. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same consideration?I'm sure if they had the option to eliminate that bad and not do it they would be interested. Besides, I'm not saying the technology that I'm helping people use is necessarily evil but rather that I PERSONALLY don't like it. In other words, when I have the chance to get away from it I do but in regards to my job it's a luxury that can't be afforded. If I did I would probably be poor and homeless, and I think that's rather crazy to imply my principles aren't worth much if I'm not willing to be poor and homeless.

I also didn't say anything bad about the people on the ground doing fracking. Only two cents I've put into this issue is I don't like what it does to the natural beauty of certain places.

[Yoda]

Yeah, no, you're crazy. It's literally impossible to work anywhere without using "modern technology."
Pretty sure nobody said otherwise. That was in response to a completely different rationale--the "I'm good at it, so it makes sense for me to do it" rationale.

Besides, I'm not saying the technology that I'm helping people use is necessarily evil but rather that I PERSONALLY don't like it. In other words, when I have the chance to get away from it I do but in regards to my job it's a luxury that can't be afforded. If I did I would probably be poor and homeless, and I think that's rather crazy to imply my principles aren't worth much if I'm not willing to be poor and homeless.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there are a few more possibilities other than "work for an explicitly technology-oriented company" or "be homeless." Maybe like three. Three more possibilities. ;)

I also didn't say anything bad about the people on the ground doing fracking.
Saying they're destroying natural beauty for money isn't bad? This belief is sounding really abstract.

Only two cents I've put into this issue is I don't like what it does to the natural beauty of certain places.
Do you think houses interfere with natural beauty?

[Powdered Water]

Do you have any idea how many Americans would be out of work if they stopped fracking?


And there it is. The great American roadblock. We can't stop, slow down or even trudge. We have to go full steam ahead no matter what. We'll fix all the stuff that's broken later... maybe. But in the meantime, don't complain and don't raise any questions about this stuff.

[John McClane]

Pretty sure nobody said otherwise. That was in response to a completely different rationale--the "I'm good at it, so it makes sense for me to do it" rationale.Yeah, which is a perfectly reasonable rationale for taking a tech job.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there are a few more possibilities other than "work for an explicitly technology-oriented company" or "be homeless." Maybe like three. Three more possibilities. ;)Well, I've bounced around from job to job and can tell you if I'm going to suck at a job and constantly worry about losing it that it would make no sense for me to try and leave the IT field. I may dislike it but I don't have to worry about getting the axe.

Saying they're destroying natural beauty for money isn't bad? This belief is sounding really abstract.Even if it was a completely non-profit industry I'd be against it. Doesn't seem abstract to me. Who cares that they're making money? That has nothing to do with it.

Do you think houses interfere with natural beauty?Depends. If we're talking about a well planned neighborhood that's been around for decades who am I to say it was more beautiful beforehand? I can't. Now if there's this beautiful piece of land that I see they're getting ready to drop cookie cutter houses in jammed really close together then yeah, I'd say they do interfere with natural beauty. Keep in mind this comment is based solely on my prior experiences with said land/placement.

For instance, we have an art museum downtown in my city that is the ugliest building and interferes with the natural beauty of the city. It was ugly when they planned it, ugly when they built it, and even uglier now that it's been around for quite awhile. Take it away and I'd say the city is beautiful, so once again, it's strictly based on prior experiences of the landscape.

[Yoda]

Well, I've bounced around from job to job and can tell you if I'm going to suck at a job and constantly worry about losing it that it would make no sense for me to try and leave the IT field. I may dislike it but I don't have to worry about getting the axe.
That all makes sense, but the upshot of this is that you're prioritizing your own worry/comfort over the beauty of nature. Which is no different than the people doing (or advocating for) the work.

To be clear, I'm not trying to give you crap for this choice, I'm just pointing out that this is, in fact, the choice you're making. You use technology despite its downsides because, for you, the benefits are bigger than the problems. But this puts you in the same boat as everyone else: pretty much everyone acknowledges technology has downsides, but uses it anyway because the upside is greater.

Recognizing that something has downsides is not being "against it." To be against it, you'd have to think that trade off wasn't worthwhile.

Even if it was a completely non-profit industry I'd be against it. Doesn't seem abstract to me. Who cares that they're making money? That has nothing to do with it.
I think adding venality compounds the offense, but okay, let's ditch the money part; the point remains exactly the same. How can you say they're doing a bad thing, but not be saying something bad about them?

What's abstract about the belief is that, in addition to not leading to any behavioral change (or even a sense that one's behavior should change), you also don't expect your objection to even register as a negativity with the people who do it. So I'm struggling to figure out what part of this belief is any different from someone who doesn't hold it, other than just saying it.

Depends. If we're talking about a well planned neighborhood that's been around for decades who am I to say it was more beautiful beforehand? I can't. Now if there's this beautiful piece of land that I see they're getting ready to drop cookie cutter houses in jammed really close together then yeah, I'd say they do interfere with natural beauty. Keep in mind this comment is based solely on my prior experiences with said land/placement.

For instance, we have an art museum downtown in my city that is the ugliest building and interferes with the natural beauty of the city. It was ugly when they planned it, ugly when they built it, and even uglier now that it's been around for quite awhile. Take it away and I'd say the city is beautiful, so once again, it's strictly based on prior experiences of the landscape.
So you're not against fracking, you're just against fracking in pretty areas?

[John McClane]

That all makes sense, but the upshot of this is that you're prioritizing your own worry/comfort over the beauty of nature. Which is no different than the people doing (or advocating for) the work.

To be clear, I'm not trying to give you crap for this choice, I'm just pointing out that this is, in fact, the choice you're making. You use technology despite its downsides because, for you, the benefits are bigger than the problems. But this puts you in the same boat as everyone else: pretty much everyone acknowledges technology has downsides, but uses it anyway because the upside is greaterI would agree with you on this if it wasn't for the fact that I've chosen to work at a company that prioritizes the customer over the technology, has green standards/protocols, etc. Yes I have made a choice to work for a technology company but there's a reason why: it's easily one of the best companies in the market right now in terms of how it treats its customers, its employees, and its production methods.

If I was to go somewhere else I'd feel like crap about it, but I don't here. I think that's an important distinction to make.

So you're not against fracking, you're just against fracking in pretty areas?This.

[John McClane]

http://www.apple.com/environment/

[Deadite]

What's the connection between fracking and chemtrails? I don't know but it certainly sounds ominous.

[John McClane]

Relevant article... (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/09/us-usa-fracking-epa-idUSBREA480SM20140509)

[Powdered Water]

If you're genuinely willing to wait and see, that's great. I can't say I get that vibe, but I know you're an honest dude and I'll take you at your word.

I finally have some time to get back into this a bit and I'll just start here. Wait and see? What do you mean? Like I have the power to make these folks slow down or even stop somehow? Please. I have no choice but to let the corporate machine do its stuff. And so do we all. I'm thankful I don't live next one one of these "completely safe" wells though. I'd move off as soon as I got my check. Seriously.


We do have some data, though--we have state examinations, and we know that there are over 60,000 wells, which means the rate of incident is still very small.
Not only is fracking like, really bad but the EPA already knows a good deal about just how bad it is for well water. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-official-links-fracking-and-drinking-water-issues-in-dimock-pa/2013/07/29/7d8b34b2-f8a1-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html) I sincerely hope you don't have any family in Dimock. Because what's being done to these folks and folks across the US is just unconscionable. We should be so ashamed of ourselves.


You want to keep pointing out leaky concrete like that's a separate issue... well, its not. Here's why. (http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/) Wells are leaking at an incredible rate. And Its all apart of the same problem. How many wells constitute 5% of 60,000? 3000... Dude, that's a LOT of wells that are polluting the ground and air IMMEDIATELY. That is not nothing and it definitely isn't a small sample size.



Other than that, though, we actually pretty much agree. It's certainly true that people can trample each other in the wake of a technological breakthrough, and it's important to stop that from happening. It'll inevitably happen anytime we do anything worthwhile, but when it does we have to try to make it right. The only discrepancy is whether or not we think of these as examples of things to fix and be aware of, or reasons to discredit the entire process.I disagree though, that we're talking about "people" trampling each-other. Its corporations that are trampling people and frankly, they're doing it right in your state. This isn't just about the environment. There's also stories surfacing about gas companies coming up with other ways to get at your gas. And you don't have to be in agreement with them, they will get you off or they will get under you. These stories aren't only surfacing on documentaries like Gasland. These stories are being reported now on national news channels. Take this guy for instance. (http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/) Does having a tainted well mean you should be sued by the company that did it? Maybe. At least in Texas it might. Those folks down there know all about what big gas can do to its people. There's also Forced pooling of course... (http://www.propublica.org/article/forced-pooling-when-landowners-cant-say-no-to-drilling) which Daniel Day Lewis taught us all about. "I drink your MILKSHAKE!!!"

[Yoda]

Not only is fracking like, really bad but the EPA already knows a good deal about just how bad it is for well water. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-official-links-fracking-and-drinking-water-issues-in-dimock-pa/2013/07/29/7d8b34b2-f8a1-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html) I sincerely hope you don't have any family in Dimock. Because what's being done to these folks and folks across the US is just unconscionable. We should be so ashamed of ourselves.
That article doesn't show anything within a hundred miles of "unconscionable." And it doesn't say the "EPA already knows a good deal about how how bad it is." Here's what it does say:

It says the EPA determined the drinking water is safe.
It says they have a preliminary report that says some damage may have been done to the well.
It says even the preliminary report doesn't contradict the claim about water safety.
It says even the preliminary report presents no evidence that the chemicals leaked into shallower wells.
How do we go from the actual contents of that article into the kind of description you just gave of it? It's like there's this preexisting outrage that just gets triggered by stuff, but isn't really about it, specifically. I think in most cases the facts are totally incidental to the idea of another human transgression against nature, so the full brunt of that belief comes down on every piece of news whether it's proportionate or not.

You want to keep pointing out leaky concrete like that's a separate issue... well, its not.
I'm pointing it out because it's a problem with drilling in general, and not just fracking. It's a rhetorical bait-and-switch: someone says they oppose fracking, but the reasons they list aren't specific to fracking. So are they going to oppose all drilling, or is fracking just a convenient target because it's new, and new things are always more susceptible to misinformation?

Let's be clear: stuff like this happens every day, not because it's dangerous, but through sheer ubiquity (cars aren't dangerous, but people die from them constantly). But nobody bats an eye if some old drilling process screws up, because we've already been doing it long enough for everyone to realize that the world hasn't ended. But fracking is new to people, so you could easily take even the same rate of incident (or lower!) and make it sound a lot worse/scarier just by suddenly deciding to notice it.

Here's why. (http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/01/09/Leaky-Fracked-Wells/) Wells are leaking at an incredible rate. And Its all apart of the same problem. How many wells constitute 5% of 60,000? 3000... Dude, that's a LOT of wells that are polluting the ground and air IMMEDIATELY. That is not nothing and it definitely isn't a small sample size.
Compared to what? Small samples exist compared to a total, not in a vacuum. 100 people die in car crashes every day. Sounds like a lot, but compared to the total number of people driving, it isn't.

I'm also not sure how you get to the claim that leaking wells "are polluting the ground and air IMMEDIATELY." What qualifies as a leak? Does it have to make ground water unsafe to drink? Does it have to modify it in any way (even if it's still safe for drinking)? Does it count as a leak if methane goes up harmlessly in the surrounding soil? Is it a leak if there's a leak anywhere in the structure, even if it doesn't go outside?

I can't help but notice that most of the anti-fracking rhetoric is like this: either really anecdotal, or really vague. And that might not be an accident, because nobody's imagination fills that information gap with nuanced, innocuous explanations. They hear "damaged drinking water wells" and their minds go right to Erin Brockovich. Which I think is probably the point.

This isn't just about the environment. There's also stories surfacing about gas companies coming up with other ways to get at your gas. And you don't have to be in agreement with them, they will get you off or they will get under you. These stories aren't only surfacing on documentaries like Gasland. These stories are being reported now on national news channels. Take this guy for instance. (http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/) Does having a tainted well mean you should be sued by the company that did it? Maybe.
He didn't get sued for having a tainted well, he got sued for posting a video where he set the contents of a hose on fire, but did so by hooking it up to gas and not his actual water supply. How many people do you think saw that bit of theatricality without realizing that's what was happening?

[Powdered Water]

You refuse even the most glaring facts as some kind of junk theory or rhetoric. I sincerely hope you or your families lives don't get ruined by a bad well site somewhere near you.

I'll try one more time. I'm gonna guess that you'll argue this away as more nonsense, but maybe you haven't seen this. (http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/08/05/censored-epa-pennsylvania-fracking-water-contamination-presentation-published-first-time)

Once again, you're being lied to by the government and I sincerely hope you can at least see that a little bit.

[Yoda]

I think the EPA declaring the water safe to drink is a pretty glaring fact.

As far as I can tell the only thing that makes some of these things "glaring facts" and the others "lies" is whether or not they agree with the idea that fracking is awful.