Fracking (not a Battlestar Galactica thread)

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.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

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.

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.

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.

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. The National Research Council 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 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.

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.

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.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

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.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

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.

Yup, pretty much, and I would disagree it isn't considered.

Hence the wink and over-the-top description of our likely death scenarios.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Gentlemen.

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? If all we ever do is argue about how we argue then how will we ever really talk about anything?

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

Okay; you are misunderstanding.

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.

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.

Bet John is a big fan of the abacus.

I just use mah fingers and toes.

"Tone what down motherf*cker?"



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.