Fox Guest: 'Fracking is incredibly good for the environment'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
OverVolt said:
Wow its amazing how the internet should have made sharing CORRECT information faster and easier but it seems like it actually made everyone dumber.

And BTW, I'm not sure if fracking is bad for the environment or not. I'm sort of 'meh' about the whole issue so long as it won't contaminate the drinking water.
Click to expand...

No. What the internet has done is made it easier to demonstrate just how dumb so many right-wing zealots are.
 
C

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
shira said:
No. What the internet has done is made it easier to demonstrate just how dumb so many right-wing zealots are.
Click to expand...

"I win because you're dumb!" ;)

Bottom line for me, is, it doesn't matter what is said in this thread, the methods of energy production will continue on it's exact same path regardless. There is no "win" in this thread. The only thing that irritates me is when people have this notion that green energy advocates are better just because they say all the "right" things. Like my most liberal/progressive friend who loves to talk about how much more liberal and progressive he is and this country should be (basically declaring himself the superior being), and yet is also the friend who is most proud to litter the most trash around making the world less environmentally clean.
 
Last edited:
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,547
1,127
126
BlueWolf47 said:
In Texas, aquifers are beginning to dry up from the severe drought and fracking is exacerbating the problem. Farmers have to sell off their herds while oil drillers are allowed to keep draining water supplies.



Around 30 counties are at risk of going completely dry by the end of the year.
Click to expand...

And there is nothing that can be done about the water usage because of the texas oil and gas law and the way Texas does water rights. Not to mention Farmers benefit from the same water rights and don't want them changed. The state has tried to water usage meters for farmers over the ogallaga. Farmers refuse. The state would like to limit aquifer water usage all around but they would have to pass legislation and that will never happen.

The problem with the water isn't frac'ing, it's the record drought that had lasted several years in parts if the state. Texas is projected to run out of water eventually. The biggest contributor to that eventuality is rapid urban/suburban growth. Lawn watering is a bigger water suck than frac'ing.
 
Last edited:
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
cubby1223 said:
"I win because you're dumb!" ;)

Bottom line for me, is, it doesn't matter what is said in this thread, the methods of energy production will continue on it's exact same path regardless. There is no "win" in this thread. The only thing that irritates me is when people have this notion that green energy advocates are better just because they say all the "right" things. Like my most liberal/progressive friend who loves to talk about how much more liberal and progressive he is and this country should be (basically declaring himself the superior being), and yet is also the friend who is most proud to litter the most trash around making the world less environmentally clean.
Click to expand...

An honest argument by conservatives would be to acknowledge that fracking is harmful to the environment, but state that they believe the benefits outweigh the costs AND currently represents the best bang-for-the-buck compared with other technologies, including green technologies. That would move the debate to a different place. But most conservatives don't seem to be capable of making honest arguments; instead, they resort to conspiracy theories and other faith-based nonsense, and use this "truthiness" to justify ignoring scientific and other fact-based evidence.

I'm not saying the liberals don't sometimes engage in this sort of intellectual dishonesty, but truthiness really does seem to have become a hallmark of the far right.
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,547
1,127
126
shira said:
An honest argument by conservatives would be to acknowledge that fracking is harmful to the environment, but state that they believe the benefits outweigh the costs AND currently represents the best bang-for-the-buck compared with other technologies, including green technologies. That would move the debate to a different place. But most conservatives don't seem to be capable of making honest arguments; instead, they resort to conspiracy theories and other faith-based nonsense, and use this "truthiness" to justify ignoring scientific and other fact-based evidence.

I'm not saying the liberals don't sometimes engage in this sort of intellectual dishonesty, but truthiness really does seem to have become a hallmark of the far right.
Click to expand...

Frac'ing didn't invent waste water injection sites. These sites have been used for decades by the oil and gas industry as well as the chemical industries. Almost all chemical plants have said waste water injection sites. Chemical sites are more regulated though. If there is a problem it's with site selection and that can be fixed by increased regulation.
 
B

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
Wreckem said:
And there is nothing that can be done about the water usage because of the texas oil and gas law and the way Texas does water rights. Not to mention Farmers benefit from the same water rights and don't want them changed. The state has tried to water usage meters for farmers over the ogallaga. Farmers refuse. The state would like to limit aquifer water usage all around but they would have to pass legislation and that will never happen.

The problem with the water isn't frac'ing, it's the record drought that had lasted several years in parts if the state. Texas is projected to run out of water eventually. The biggest contributor to that eventuality is rapid urban/suburban growth. Lawn watering is a bigger water suck than frac'ing.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing the at fracking is the main cause of running out of water. However, when water rationing measures must be taken that should include fracking.

Further, fracking consuming 1% of water for the ENTIRE state of texas is huge when all the fracturing is concentrated in one area. Obviously the entire state of texas doesnt share one water source.
 
Last edited:
KMFJD

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
32,640
52,072
136
cubby1223 said:
Ah, thank you for the clarification. All we need to do as a society is want hard enough and better energy sources will rain down upon us. I'm glad you replied, I learned a lot.
Click to expand...

Seemed to work for the Manhattan Project
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,732
10,043
136
I'm on the fence on fracking. Some popular videos regarding its ill effects have been faked. OTOH, toxifying the water table is a HUGE concern. It should not be taken lightly or overlooked.
 
Mani

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Fracking is great for the environment. Not only is Fox News reporting this, but it's been corroborated by Rush Limbaugh. Game, set, match, hippies.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Incorruptible said:
Insults again so I was right. Fracking will create jobs that the economy desperately needs unless your against those jobs?
Click to expand...

Legalizing child labor in the U.S. (and paying children sub-minimum wages) would help us compete with third-world countries. So I guess that means we should do it, right? I mean, if it's good for the economy, it's just plain good; isn't that pretty much the substance of your argument?
 
thraashman

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
shira said:
This is an argument?
Click to expand...
For him, it's about par for the course.
shira said:
Legalizing child labor in the U.S. (and paying children sub-minimum wages) would help us compete with third-world countries. So I guess that means we should do it, right? I mean, if it's good for the economy, it's just plain good; isn't that pretty much the substance of your argument?
Click to expand...

Considering who you're talking to, he might actually agree with what you're saying.
 
I

Incorruptible

Lifer
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
shira said:
Legalizing child labor in the U.S. (and paying children sub-minimum wages) would help us compete with third-world countries. So I guess that means we should do it, right? I mean, if it's good for the economy, it's just plain good; isn't that pretty much the substance of your argument?
Click to expand...

Finally we agree. Who cares about child labor laws make the lazy kids work. Its good for the economy.
 
Spungo

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
I started listening to Frank Curzio's investing podcast, and he had a story about visiting fracking sites with some oil engineer dude. According to the engineer, fracking is very safe if done properly, and it's been used since the 1940s (wikipedia says this too). The engineer's main concern was a lack of experienced guys doing the job. Anything can be dangerous if done wrong. Fracking is supposed to be done using a steel pipe surrounded by concrete. The oil well is far below the water table, sometimes miles underground, so the oil and water should never meet. This goes out the window if the guys doing the fracking are inexperienced.

I'm not worried about earthquakes since modern civilization is very skilled when it comes to handling earthquakes. Ground water contamination is a much bigger concern. It's rare, but it can happen. Oil accidents are very rare, but they tend to be a huge problem when they happen.

I don't think we could cause and earthquake if we tried.
Click to expand...
Sure we could. Drill a hole that goes 1 mile down. Put a 50 megaton bomb in the hole. Fill the hole. Detonate the bomb.
 
Last edited:
kage69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,317
47,529
136
hal2kilo said:
Done! For the last year. If not for others quotes, he would not exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Everyone just needs to ignore him and let him continue to embarrass himself. He'll eventually fade away like all the other shills that we've had to put up with.

Laugh at him, feel pity for him, whatever, but please people, stop quoting him.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,856
31,346
146
Matt1970 said:
There is a huge difference between "may be related" and "has been caused by"
Click to expand...

Science isn't your strong point, I see.

Also, even if you interpret "may be" as you wrongly do, it still rejects your comment. Quite directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom