Ya I’m a well known climate denier. 
I’d be happy to have a discussion on this topic, maybe in another thread. It has some interesting nuance that would be fun to discuss if we can avoid the urge to strawman each other.
Well, I’m sure micro can speak for himself, but it sounds to me like your point that fracking has been around for 50 years is somewhat specious. You’re probably technically correct, but based on that graph, it would seem that for most of that time it only accounted for a very tiny fraction of oil production. Not zero, but pretty close.
Reminds me of BSG every time I hear it.
2 Likes
The problem with fracking is when it is done properly it is a great way to get more production, but when it is done cheaply or corners are cut it can have severe environmental problems. I imagine the industry polices itself because Republicans are the worst and you can see why banning it wouldn’t be the worst thing to do environmentally.
Saying that fracking has been around for 50 years is pretty misleading. The technology has vastly improved in n recent decades which is why there’s so much more of it now.
period
2 Likes
Yeah, 50 years ago close to zero percent of oil in the US was extracted from fracked wells, and now it’s something like 64%.
It’s also not entirely clear that it can be regulated to safety.
The cracks are below the earth, in an uncontrolled and effectively unknowable environment.
Anyone who tells you that they know exactly where the gasses and liquids from fracking are going in any particular well are lying to you.
If I have a licensed to frack on a certain price of land, but my fracking has an unknown and unknowable impact on my neighbours, how can that be regulated?
1 Like
Maybe it’s good. Maybe it’ll just get better and cheaper and oil will flow and be cheap. It’s euthenasia.
Right but the issue is production then and people shouldn’t pretend there is some huge risk with fracking technology that just doesn’t exist.
The “keep it in the ground” carbon budget argument is a different one than people pretend they are having when they say fracking is bad.
Are you drinking someone else’s milkshake?
6 Likes
It’s not when the argument is supposedly how unsafe it is.
Fracking is bad and the local poisoning is real. You may think it’s overblown and it surely is by some people. Leaving as much in the ground as possible is clearly important though - or, maybe not, maybe it’s just pointless to try.
1 Like
I’m not sure I get the reference. But if I do, the external effects I’m talking about are not consuming someone else’s oil/gas. But more, hypothetically* if Australia was considering granting a large set of fracking rights surrounds by sacred Aboriginal lands and waterways, it might be hard to quantify and measure.
'* not a hypothetical
It was just a joke really, not meant to be taken literally/seriously.
Not getting the reference is a shame. See There Will Be Blood if you haven’t.
4 Likes
People in PA can literally light their tap water on fire, but sure, that concern is the equivalent of being an anti-vaxxer
4 Likes
I thought the whole point of the Keystone fight was to put a brick on Canadian production. Biden came down against the project.
I recall Biden approving a big drilling lease, vaguely recall it was in the Eastern Gulf.
A lot of soil pollution is regulated by allowing a small risk. Like with near surface pollution, you take samples and they’re clean you’re fine, even though it’s entirely possible there is a hot spot somewhere else on the property.
Of course it is.
If it is unsafe and it is almost never being done, that’s not the same concern as if it is unsafe and done most of the time.
It’s not unsafe is the point.
It has environmental risk, just like 100% of development.
Again, that’s why it’s regulated.