-
Features
-
Friends of IIDBFriends Recovering from Religion United Coalition of Reason Infidel Guy
Forums Council of Ex-Muslims Rational Skepticism
Social Networks Internet Infidels Facebook Page IIDB Facebook Group
The Archives IIDB Archive Secular Café Archive
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fracking, again.
- Thread starter robnisch
- Start date
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,487
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Pet peeve, articles the lead up with fracking being the cause, when it is the fracking waste water disposal that is the cause.
This has been observed in Oklahoma, Texas (apparently), and Ohio. Once again, it proves that while we aren't creating giant lizards roaming the Earth, destroying power plants, we can and do impact very large system on our planet.article said:Instead, it must be pumped back deep underground where it cannot leech into groundwater, a process called saltwater disposal.
The large amounts of water being pumped underground in turn can cause earthquakes. "We've found evidence that saltwater disposal is the most likely cause of the earthquakes in Scurry County. This specific area has seen seismic activity going back to 2020," Rubinstein said.
Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,487
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I presume it'd be the ancestors of Professor Lidenbrock who are wondering why there is this periodic flooding of their home.Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,453
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.
Project 2025: Drill baby drill!Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.
It would be safer to drill more in Alaska.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,487
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
No, it wouldn't. Fracking isn't a dreadful thing.Project 2025: Drill baby drill!Yes you can, mostly by not allowing the activity that generates the waste, or by mandating regulations that require a deposit (a very high one, associated with the expected resource value of the site) prior to drilling operations.It's not the fracking, it's improper disposal of the waste. You can't fix that with regulations on the fracking.Who is "you"? What is the problem "you're are not addressing?Yeah, once again focusing on the wrong thing. You can't hope to solve a problem you're not even addressing.
This would increase the liability of the frackers, possibly to the point where they don't frack... But it would guarantee care is taken if a major portion of the company's assets were tied into a bond on environmental responsibility.
It would be safer to drill more in Alaska.