Fracking (not a Battlestar Galactica thread)

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

__________________
You are no Vader. You are just a child in a mask.

Yeah, no, you're crazy. It's literally impossible to work anywhere without using "modern technology."

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.

__________________
"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

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.

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.

Saying they're destroying natural beauty for money isn't bad? This belief is sounding really abstract.

Do you think houses interfere with natural beauty?

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.

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

Yeah, which is a perfectly reasonable rationale for taking a tech job.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I 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.

This.

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

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

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Relevant article...

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.


Not only is fracking like, really bad but the EPA already knows a good deal about just how bad it is for well water. 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. 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.


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. 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... which Daniel Day Lewis taught us all about. "I drink your MILKSHAKE!!!"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.