Popular Mechanics on Fracking

Sure, I'll bite.


The Good

Moving Toward Energy Independence.

True. It is allowing for a new manufacturing boomlet which helps
manufacturing jobs, but these jobs will be for a select few who have
the technical and computer experience on a floor more populated
by machines than union workers.

Companies also are exporting gas, which will minimize the benefit
of domestic gas production. It's cheap now, but what happens once
the export market really takes off? The buyer doesn't care if we
destroy our environment to get gas any more than most consumers
care that China is destroying itself to make Wal-Mart garbage.
Not good.

Shale production invariably delays the inevitable jump to less known
energy sources, something Big Oil should have thinking about instead
of making investments in non-energy related markets. Follow the money.
Not good.


A Greener Alternative to Coal.

Not much competition there. By the time you factor in the water use and
how that waste gets into the environment, you've just spun your wheels.

Emissions may be down now, but what are we trading? Note that a former
gas worker came here on record as saying the industry's record for safety
and environmental stewardship is superficial at best. It all boils down to
money. Again. Not good.

Yet, solar isn't there yet either. Solar processes allegedly release CO into
the environment. Wind is barely practical if at all, and that's not counting
the NiMBiES. Not good.


Job Growth.

See above. I'll add that location jobs are dangerous and toxic exposure
to chemicals is not being properly addressed. Of course, the recession
has its grip on the majority of the poor bastards who are willing to do
anything to get ahead, even if it means exploitation on a massive scale.
Good, not so good.


The Bad

Water Quality.

Where do I start? One can count at least two counter claims to the fire water
hose debate. It did happen. It didn't really happen. Fox debunked the debunkers
at the Gasland site. The shills want you to believe either that,

1. the scene was staged by the director by connecting gas into a hose directly into the
water supply, giving the impression the sink was afire. OK, how does one do that without
compromising the homeowner's mechanicals, and / or;

2. the homeowner's well had been compromised by a naturally occurring methane.
We're supposed to believe that THiS would pass inspection? People would never
abandon such a property? I nearly live on top of a Superfund site, and I can tell you
that properties with less water problems abandoned their properties,

so, Big Oil has its bases covered. Two "irrefutable" situations that "explain" the flaming
faucet mystery. I call BS. Still bad.

Dimock, etc. There's far more places affected than Dimock, and it's beyond the odd "spill".
Balding cattle and burning showers have been reported in several states. Much pollution
and runoff from waste water lagoons and there's lots of complaints in Alberta over similar
issues. It's the lagoon issue that sticks in my craw, because this "method" of containment
is exactly what created the Superfund site in my town. Even then, it took 35 years from
discovery to "remediation" by the EPA to address, rather window dress, our situation.
I don't think removing the top 3 feet of topsoil is going to address a spill that had leached
into the bedrock for 50 years, poisoning the water table. Yes, we have well water here.

So, how does Big Oil address such spills? By maintaining that improper drilling was to blame.
Yet, refer back to what our friendly former oil worker posted in one of these threads. Safety
and adherence to proper drilling standards are not priorities Big Oil cares for, yet it continually
"reassures" that methods have been modernized and it has learned from mistakes. Still
we get stories of shoddy cement casings always after the fact. Why? Follow the money.

The problem is that Energy in Depth and other industry PR machines can't adequately
explain pollution issues that are mentioned in Fox's films so it buys as many officials
as it can to spin pollution events to its favor. It even is accused of using military psychology
methods to break down desenters. Read about it, it's there. Still bad.

Another issue not addressed is that we have limited water resources. As it is, the southwest
is suffering the worst drought in decades and we've already experienced Congressional fights
over water rights, so how is fracking going to change that issue? Right - by making water rights
a front page issue, pitting Big and small Ag against city water against Big Oil. Who wins here?
Still bad.

Official BS: So, if fracking is so safe, why did Bush allow Big Oil passes to specific Clean Water
Act regulations? They want you to believe that those passes were over moot issues, so why did
it get the clearances it wanted? Why did Big Oil keep that laundry list of chemicals secret?
Still bad.


The Unknown.

How Will We Treat the Wastewater?

We can't. Just refer to the nuclear waste issue. This point needs no further discussion.

How Much Methane Is Released in the Process?

Really, not even an issue given the wastewater / ground water pollution issue. NEXT!

"Although so many questions remain ..." I'd say too many remain for me to trust ANYTHING
Big Oil has to say on this, particularly taking the historical record as any indicator. We already
know the Big Oil playbook, which is to divide the community by giving false promises, creating
subterfuge by buying out weak, corrupt officials, installing industry-friendly types into regulatory
positions. Look at what the Koch Brothers have been doing to get any indication as to where
the politics on this issue reside. Top it off with a tax-averse political position and you know
who's got the upper hand.

The emergence of populist groups such as "Energy in Depth". Big Oil behind a curtain.
What a surprise. As always, follow the money.

The geology is getting lost in the debate. Industry geologists saying that fracking happens
below the water table so it's not an issue. Gov't geologists calling BS saying that once rock
is cracked water, chemical and waste will find the path of least resistance and eventually
find its way into the water table. I've read both versions and I lean with the gov't geologists
simply because their version is more believable. Big Oil's assertion that there's no pollution
now doesn't mean that fracking chemistry happens immediately after the fact. Gov't workers
maintain that damage takes years to detect, and that the very idea that pumping a cocktail
of carcinogenic nature wasn't a very smart idea. Unknown, and probably not good either.

Finally, regulation. WHAT regulation? If you follow Propublica's reporting on this issue at all,
you'll know that there's a paltry number of investigators who police this industry. Its site gives
a blow-by-blow on which state employs how many agents to drill sites. Just on those numbers
alone gives one a pause on to where allegiances lie. And boy, do they lie.

I've read the science. The hat is tipped towards the "Gasland" camp. The logic may annoy,
but history has shown Big Oil to be an untrustworthy neighbor.

The Good, The Bad, The Unknown: What is known is Ugly.

"That said, I went to Popular Mechanics to hopefully get a unbiased look" HA! I guess you never heard of popular mechanics before. I'm sure you also agreed with their 9/11 horse crap of a debunking. You people....oh boy, we're in trouble.