Fracking: it's going to end in tears!

[+ouija ouija]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2361876/Fracking-lead-earthquake-domino-effect-weakens-fault-lines-deep-earths-crust-scientists-claim.html

Okay, I'm no scientist but fracking seems like a seriously BAD idea to me.

It looks as if it won't be stopped until there's a really bad catastrophe caused by it

[TSS]

It looks as if it won't be stopped until there's a really bad catastrophe caused by it

It won't be stopped. Full stop.

[+ouija ouija]

It won't be stopped. Full stop.

Why do you think that?

[questionmark]

Why do you think that?

As long as big oil and big coal get subsidies for fracking they will, come hell or high water.

[Babe Ruth]

http://www.dailymail...ists-claim.html

Okay, I'm no scientist but fracking seems like a seriously BAD idea to me.

It looks as if it won't be stopped until there's a really bad catastrophe caused by it

There have already been countless 'catastrophes', as documented by Gasland 1 & 2. If one's home is lost to contaminated water, I'd say that's a catastrophe, and that's happened to many.

You won't hear Brian Williams or Bill O'Reilly talking about it, but it's happened in too many places.

It's a travesty.

[Ashotep]

Fracking needs to stop. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There has to be a better way of heating our homes and running our cars. This planet depends on us doing something different. No actually humanity depends on us doing something different. Once we kill the environment and we die from it the Earth will restore itself.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Fracking needs to stop. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. There has to be a better way of heating our homes and running our cars. This planet depends on us doing something different. No actually humanity depends on us doing something different. Once we kill the environment and we die from it the Earth will restore itself.

which way is that?

[Doug1029]

Why do you think that?

The only way to stop it is to quit using oil. There are many deposits that can't be economically drilled without it.

Fracking is expensive. No oil company wants to use it when it doesn't have to. But when you've already sunk three million dollars into a well and the tests show the oil is there, but the well isn't producing, there aren't any alternatives left. Except one: abandon the well and cover the cost by raising the price of gas obtained from other wells. Even if we go completely to other sources of fuel/power, there will still be a demand for petroleum. We make a lot of things from it. And removing the fuel market won't reduce demand for it as a raw material in manufacturing.

There is one thing we might do: build the Keystone Pipeline. Admittedly, tar sand oil is a bad idea environmentally, but the Baaken Oil Field currently has no way to sell its waste natural gas. The Keystone Pipeline would provide a right-of-way along which another pipeline could be built for natural gas. What does the Baaken do with the waste gas? It burns it - in gigantic flares. From one new well site last winter, a geologist reported seeing eighteen of these. And there are thousands of them. That's a gigantic source of pollution that could be fueling our economy so that other gas sources can be left in the ground.

This is the real world: the is no free lunch. Everything is a tradeoff. So what do you want to give up so we don't have to frack?

Doug

[Doug1029]

which way is that?

Wind power can cut the need for petroleum and gas. It can't totally eliminate it because there are other uses for these products than fuel. But it can help - A LOT.

And wind power is cheaper than coal and oil as we talk and is competitive with gas (I'm not sure, but it may be cheaper.).

Doug

[Frank Merton]

Somebody help me: if it "fracking" or "frackting" (from fracture).

[Mr.United_Nations]

Wind power can cut the need for petroleum and gas. It can't totally eliminate it because there are other uses for these products than fuel. But it can help - A LOT.

And wind power is cheaper than coal and oil as we talk and is competitive with gas (I'm not sure, but it may be cheaper.).

Doug

Here in the UK when someone wants wind turbines to be built, people will complain because it ruins the scenery..people nowadays want compensation for anything

[Doug1029]

Here in the UK when someone wants wind turbines to be built, people will complain because it ruins the scenery..people nowadays want compensation for anything

How are wind turbines any worse than smoke stacks? At least, you can't smell them 200 miles down wind.

Doug

[keithisco]

As long as big oil and big coal get subsidies for fracking they will, come hell or high water.

From Wiki:

Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity

And this is just coal, not including oil and gas subsidies

Edited July 14, 2013 by keithisco

[Frank Merton]

I thought the idea was to get rid of coal. You've confused me (actually I know full well where you are coming from and find it dishonest).

[Frank Merton]

The word is "fracture," so the derived word should be "fracting," not fracking. People who would impress the world what experts they are on these subjects might make a note of that, although the battle appears lost before it even began,

What I pick up is that North America and a few smaller countries like Estonia and Israel are going full steam on this and see a fifty or so year supply on the horizon, with, with just reasonable care, no net harm to the environment. Worst-case scenarios in situations where there was no regulation do not typical cases make. The argument, such as it is, seems to be over ground water, not global warming, since the technology appears to be a net gain for global warming.