Fracking: Worth the Risk

[Tubbsalot]

fracking has been going on for 60 years, only just recently have we been able to do it at this state.

I'm aware.

fracking is mostly used for natural gas and there are strict regulations placed on them. They are a transition energy that meets the demand like no other source can at an insanely cheap price.

Yes, which makes it a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's become readily apparent that nobody is going to do anything whatsoever about climate change unless it becomes physically impossible to continue using hydrocarbons. So upwards pressure on the price of hydrocarbons is a good thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I honestly question why we take the risk when there is safer and cleaner energy available. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy. To put it simply the cost of fracking to our environment is much greater than the cost of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy, so I do not think it is worth the risk.

We already are using Nuclear, it's why you have cheap energy bills currently if you life in a state with a nuclear power plant.

Texas alone has 4, however, we're not ready to make nuclear widespread yet.

[Ripoll]

fracking has been going on for 60 years, only just recently have we been able to do it at this state.

I'm aware.

fracking is mostly used for natural gas and there are strict regulations placed on them. They are a transition energy that meets the demand like no other source can at an insanely cheap price.

Yes, which makes it a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's become readily apparent that nobody is going to do anything whatsoever about climate change unless it becomes physically impossible to continue using hydrocarbons. So upwards pressure on the price of hydrocarbons is a good thing.

As new techniques develop, we pollute less while producing more. Green energy agendas are already being pursued, we've already made great strides. The extremism of certain green supporters is frankly way over the top and unrealistic. Green energy dominance will have it's time, but for now we just need to cut down and maximize efficiency.

Hydraulic fracturing has 0 indicated cases of polluting bodies of water, no ties to earthquakes, and because of the technique itself carbon emissions are insanely low.

[Atomic Utopia]

I honestly question why we take the risk when there is safer and cleaner energy available. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy. To put it simply the cost of fracking to our environment is much greater than the cost of safe, clean, reliable nuclear energy, so I do not think it is worth the risk.

We already are using Nuclear, it's why you have cheap energy bills currently if you life in a state with a nuclear power plant.

Texas alone has 4, however, we're not ready to make nuclear widespread yet.

Yes, we do have nuclear energy, however the expansion of it from a mere 20% of our energy consumption to the near replacement of coal would be practical and possible, look at France and their overall independence from oil and lack of CO2 emissions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We already are using Nuclear, it's why you have cheap energy bills currently if you life in a state with a nuclear power plant.

Texas alone has 4, however, we're not ready to make nuclear widespread yet.

Yes, we do have nuclear energy, however the expansion of it from a mere 20% of our energy consumption to the near replacement of coal would be practical and possible, look at France and their overall independence from oil and lack of CO2 emissions.

Yes, there's a difference though.

While France is one country that is particularly big for Europe, it's not as big as the U.S. where you'd have to devise a way to both make nuclear profitable and cheap to produce as well as having to plan new infrastructure to provide no downtime as possible during the transition.

In other words, it is perfectly practical and possible, if we weren't such a big fucking country. The fact that we are and we're pretty anti-nuclear some of us in the country is a factor why integration of Nuclear is slow.

[Tubbsalot]

As new techniques develop, we pollute less while producing more.

The carbon content of hydrocarbons is not affected by new extraction techniques. Carbon dioxide is the pollutant of primary concern. Other emissions can be dealt with by proper oversight of extraction facilities.

Green energy agendas are already being pursued, we've already made great strides.

Yeah, strides great enough that we're looking at 5+ degrees of warming. Woo hoo. Who doesn't enjoy a minor apocalypse every now and again.

Hydraulic fracturing has 0 indicated cases of polluting bodies of water, no ties to earthquakes, and because of the technique itself carbon emissions are insanely low.

Carbon emissions are reduced by switching from oil to gas, certainly. But the resulting 10% reduction in emissions is not nearly sufficient to make it The Energy Source Of Tomorrow.

[Braberbourg]

I don't bother it, although our glorious companies only frack in filthy American and African countries... Etc.

Oranje Boven!

[Dalcaria]

Fracking damages the environment, is economically draining on society, and gives virtually nothing back for what it takes financially. We spend trillions of dollars a year on gasoline alone, we don't need to increase the prices of living even more by adopting yet another non-renewable (or difficult to renew) resource when there are alternatives that are cheaper, less costly, and ensure we can be powered almost indefinitely with little risk of environmental damage or running out of certain resources. Someone else mentioned nuclear power, and that is definitely an option. Solar power has apparently become very financially feasible too (it apparently forced oil to go back down in price), and then there is of course hydro power, which I'm personally a fan of, but I'm open to all other options that keep our environment safe.

Fracking is just a waste of money that could be spent researching better sources of energy. And for a country like Canada, we're already spending more money on gasoline then we're making off it (with Alberta oil), and frankly this is going to be the same thing. We won't make enough money off it for it to be worth the effort frankly.

[Avaerilon]

Hm, let's see, do I support a short-term energy "solution" that only serves to delay initiative in developing green sources of energy production, that has been proven to contaminate groundwater, involves potentially spoiling pristine natural habitats, may well be the cause of small earth tremors and contributes towards global warming? Hell no

[Mostrov]

‎

[Dalcaria]

Energy policy isn't something that can be sorted out instantly, and gas is better than the alternatives at the current juncture. The people who oppose it seem to be of the same vein of those who deny vaccinations. How much do they actually understand about what is involved?

And why is that? Because every year trillions of dollars go towards oil and gas, and really, how much of that comes back to the government in taxes? If we took all the profits the oil industry made and invested it in clean nuclear, hydro, and solar energy, we could probably be close to solving our energy problem within a decade or two, depending on how long it takes to build the infrastructure for that. But, that in mind, it would employ a few hundred thousand people at least, opening up job opportunities for a lot of young people and a lot of unemployed people as well.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I fracking love hydraulic fracking!

But on a serious note, Hydraulic Fracking can bring down oil prices and make some once unobtainable oil obtainable. Studies have shown that fracking has brought down oil prices, and although lower oil prices may make it less lucrative, it can surely add more energy jobs domestically and improve the economy. Indeed Texas' oil boom was in part because of hydraulic fracking, and that has improved the Texan Economy. Furthermore, this can also bring natural gas down. As we seek to lower pollutants in our air, we need to realize that natural gas energy generation can do such a thing, and through hydraulic fracking, we can get more and more natural gas, to drive down prices and also improve our economy, while once again adding jobs to the economy.

However, I would only support fracking if the owner of the property agrees for fracking, and if one's land is damaged from fracking, they should have the right to sue whoever did that for property damage. This would ensure that private property rights are not violated, and that private owners who want to preserve the pristine nature of their land could do such a thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/26/frack ... -downward/
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2014/11/u- ... er-gallon/
http://dailysurge.com/2014/10/analysis- ... ty-prices/

[Herskerstad]

Impotent rage, the liberal superhero, seemed to be alright with it.

[Tubbsalot]

we seek to lower pollutants in our air ... through hydraulic fracking [we can] drive down prices

These two points are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to pick one; low hydrocarbon prices, or low pollution.

[The Carlisle]

As new techniques develop, we pollute less while producing more.

The carbon content of hydrocarbons is not affected by new extraction techniques. Carbon dioxide is the pollutant of primary concern. Other emissions can be dealt with by proper oversight of extraction facilities.

Green energy agendas are already being pursued, we've already made great strides.

Yeah, strides great enough that we're looking at 5+ degrees of warming. Woo hoo. Who doesn't enjoy a minor apocalypse every now and again.

Hydraulic fracturing has 0 indicated cases of polluting bodies of water, no ties to earthquakes, and because of the technique itself carbon emissions are insanely low.

Carbon emissions are reduced by switching from oil to gas, certainly. But the resulting 10% reduction in emissions is not nearly sufficient to make it The Energy Source Of Tomorrow.

Eh, who needs New Orleans anyways?

[Ripoll]

Fracking damages the environment, is economically draining on society, and gives virtually nothing back for what it takes financially. We spend trillions of dollars a year on gasoline alone, we don't need to increase the prices of living even more by adopting yet another non-renewable (or difficult to renew) resource when there are alternatives that are cheaper, less costly, and ensure we can be powered almost indefinitely with little risk of environmental damage or running out of certain resources. Someone else mentioned nuclear power, and that is definitely an option. Solar power has apparently become very financially feasible too (it apparently forced oil to go back down in price), and then there is of course hydro power, which I'm personally a fan of, but I'm open to all other options that keep our environment safe.

Fracking is just a waste of money that could be spent researching better sources of energy. And for a country like Canada, we're already spending more money on gasoline then we're making off it (with Alberta oil), and frankly this is going to be the same thing. We won't make enough money off it for it to be worth the effort frankly.

citation needed because frankly this entire paragraph was skewed bullshit not supported by anyone with a phd

[Rhodisia]

We cannot pretend that we can keep burning fossil fuels forever. Certainly within our lifetimes we're going to have to slowly transition over to nuclear steam generation and renewable energy.

[Ripoll]

Energy policy isn't something that can be sorted out instantly, and gas is better than the alternatives at the current juncture. The people who oppose it seem to be of the same vein of those who deny vaccinations. How much do they actually understand about what is involved?

Absolutely nothing because almost everyone that works within the energy sector regardless of what type is on board.

[Ripoll]

I fracking love hydraulic fracking!

But on a serious note, Hydraulic Fracking can bring down oil prices and make some once unobtainable oil obtainable. Studies have shown that fracking has brought down oil prices, and although lower oil prices may make it less lucrative, it can surely add more energy jobs domestically and improve the economy. Indeed Texas' oil boom was in part because of hydraulic fracking, and that has improved the Texan Economy. Furthermore, this can also bring natural gas down. As we seek to lower pollutants in our air, we need to realize that natural gas energy generation can do such a thing, and through hydraulic fracking, we can get more and more natural gas, to drive down prices and also improve our economy, while once again adding jobs to the economy.

However, I would only support fracking if the owner of the property agrees for fracking, and if one's land is damaged from fracking, they should have the right to sue whoever did that for property damage. This would ensure that private property rights are not violated, and that private owners who want to preserve the pristine nature of their land could do such a thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/26/frack ... -downward/
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2014/11/u- ... er-gallon/
http://dailysurge.com/2014/10/analysis- ... ty-prices/

In many contracting deals it's clearly stated you don't necessarily own what is underneath your home. They should be compensated for sure, but fracking should almost always be able to take place.

[Avaerilon]

Fracking damages the environment, is economically draining on society, and gives virtually nothing back for what it takes financially. We spend trillions of dollars a year on gasoline alone, we don't need to increase the prices of living even more by adopting yet another non-renewable (or difficult to renew) resource when there are alternatives that are cheaper, less costly, and ensure we can be powered almost indefinitely with little risk of environmental damage or running out of certain resources. Someone else mentioned nuclear power, and that is definitely an option. Solar power has apparently become very financially feasible too (it apparently forced oil to go back down in price), and then there is of course hydro power, which I'm personally a fan of, but I'm open to all other options that keep our environment safe.

Fracking is just a waste of money that could be spent researching better sources of energy. And for a country like Canada, we're already spending more money on gasoline then we're making off it (with Alberta oil), and frankly this is going to be the same thing. We won't make enough money off it for it to be worth the effort frankly.

citation needed because frankly this entire paragraph was skewed bullshit not supported by anyone with a phd

Care to explain why you think this, then? Simply saying someone's point of view is incorrect and then offering no reasoning as to why you think that isn't constructive, and neither is being unpleasant about it. It is also a little rich to call it "skewed" when you've been very pro-fracking indeed. I also think you'll find plenty of people with a phd would support said view you denounced

[Ripoll]

citation needed because frankly this entire paragraph was skewed bullshit not supported by anyone with a phd

Care to explain why you think this, then? Simply saying someone's point of view is incorrect and then offering no reasoning as to why you think that isn't constructive, and neither is being unpleasant about it. It is also a little rich to call it "skewed" when you've been very pro-fracking indeed. I also think you'll find plenty of people with a phd would support said view you denounced

No, no one will ever say it's economically detrimental and practically every Government Agency free from donations supports it as a transition fuel and a job builder. He never offered one site for the radically extreme and incorrect information he posted and it solely seeks to perpetuate uninformed extremist hogwash that would cost us entire communities that have revolved around the practice and lose all progress with a transition fuel source.

Carbon Emissions have been going down since fracking's inception, yet productivity is going through the roof. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ears_.html

The EPA has conducted several studies and not one case of water contamination could be associated with fracking.

The earthquake argument is a very big reach as well.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I fracking love hydraulic fracking!

But on a serious note, Hydraulic Fracking can bring down oil prices and make some once unobtainable oil obtainable. Studies have shown that fracking has brought down oil prices, and although lower oil prices may make it less lucrative, it can surely add more energy jobs domestically and improve the economy. Indeed Texas' oil boom was in part because of hydraulic fracking, and that has improved the Texan Economy. Furthermore, this can also bring natural gas down. As we seek to lower pollutants in our air, we need to realize that natural gas energy generation can do such a thing, and through hydraulic fracking, we can get more and more natural gas, to drive down prices and also improve our economy, while once again adding jobs to the economy.

However, I would only support fracking if the owner of the property agrees for fracking, and if one's land is damaged from fracking, they should have the right to sue whoever did that for property damage. This would ensure that private property rights are not violated, and that private owners who want to preserve the pristine nature of their land could do such a thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/26/frack ... -downward/
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2014/11/u- ... er-gallon/
http://dailysurge.com/2014/10/analysis- ... ty-prices/

In many contracting deals it's clearly stated you don't necessarily own what is underneath your home. They should be compensated for sure, but fracking should almost always be able to take place.

So when one buys 10 Acres of nice land and wants to preserve its environmental integrity, he cannot do so and should be deprived of the rights to his hard-earned land?

[Ripoll]

In many contracting deals it's clearly stated you don't necessarily own what is underneath your home. They should be compensated for sure, but fracking should almost always be able to take place.

So when one buys 10 Acres of nice land and wants to preserve its environmental integrity, he cannot do so and should be deprived of the rights to his hard-earned land?

I'm stating what the law says, what is best for US energy independence, and what's in the interest of job creation. All of which are more fundamental to freedom and liberty than property rights a person has never possessed.

[Jazz Commies and Sexy Astrophysicists]

In my own opinion, I'd say that no, fracking should not be done. There are cleaner sources of energy, such as solar, geothermal, or even nuclear, with all lack the side effect of making a region's water table flammable.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Fracking damages the environment, is economically draining on society, and gives virtually nothing back for what it takes financially. We spend trillions of dollars a year on gasoline alone, we don't need to increase the prices of living even more by adopting yet another non-renewable (or difficult to renew) resource when there are alternatives that are cheaper, less costly, and ensure we can be powered almost indefinitely with little risk of environmental damage or running out of certain resources. Someone else mentioned nuclear power, and that is definitely an option. Solar power has apparently become very financially feasible too (it apparently forced oil to go back down in price), and then there is of course hydro power, which I'm personally a fan of, but I'm open to all other options that keep our environment safe.

Fracking is just a waste of money that could be spent researching better sources of energy. And for a country like Canada, we're already spending more money on gasoline then we're making off it (with Alberta oil), and frankly this is going to be the same thing. We won't make enough money off it for it to be worth the effort frankly.

Fracking produced nearly 300 Billion dollars in 2012. What cheaper alternatives do you speak of? Because Solar requires gov subsidy, Nuclear is more expensive,wind isn't practical for all of America, and neither is hydro. Fracking will cut energy costs, and raise living standards across America. We haven't made green energy practical yet, and in theory it could support us, it can't today. So instead of focusing on what could be, we need to utilize what is. Fracking is not a waste, we're currently powering homes because of fracking, we're extracting record amounts of natural gas. What is worth the effort is making sure that our country doesn't have to rely on a foreign power like Saudi Arabia to heat our homes, and keep our cities lit. You claim we aren't making enough money from oil, but I'm not so sure we'll be swimming in the green because of solar panels.