Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Paul's Here

Vermont first state to ban fracking

14 posts in this topic

Just say NO to fracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say NO to fracking.

The main issue was the effect on ground water which is the source of drinking water. If extracting the gas from the rock poisons the ground water what is the gain? People have to drink water to live.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say NO to fracking.

The main issue was the effect on ground water which is the source of drinking water. If extracting the gas from the rock poisons the ground water what is the gain? People have to drink water to live.

ruveyn

The dangers involving contamination of ground water were grossly exaggerated. This is just another environmental crusade where the ends of strict government controls over the economy justifies the means of faux-science scaremongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say NO to fracking.

The main issue was the effect on ground water which is the source of drinking water. If extracting the gas from the rock poisons the ground water what is the gain? People have to drink water to live.

ruveyn

The dangers involving contamination of ground water were grossly exaggerated. This is just another environmental crusade where the ends of strict government controls over the economy justifies the means of faux-science scaremongering.

The burden of proof should be to show that the gas extraction technology does not affect groundwater adversely.

There is a matter of public safety and health in play here.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say NO to fracking.

The main issue was the effect on ground water which is the source of drinking water. If extracting the gas from the rock poisons the ground water what is the gain? People have to drink water to live.

ruveyn

The dangers involving contamination of ground water were grossly exaggerated. This is just another environmental crusade where the ends of strict government controls over the economy justifies the means of faux-science scaremongering.

The burden of proof should be to show that the gas extraction technology does not affect groundwater adversely.

There is a matter of public safety and health in play here.

ruveyn

There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

If fracking were even half as dangerous as the outlandish claims are, then the entire metroplex of Dallas Fort Worth should be poisoned and dead by now (that is an area with an immense amount of fracking for natural gas going on). Heck, if oil-production in general were even half as dangerous as viros claim then the entire state of Texas should be an inhospitable wasteland.

In case you are totally ignorant on this, the infamous "Gasland" film was total nonsense:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Critics fear the chemicals are seeping into the groundwater.

Like "critics fear power lines cause cancer" from the beginning of the technophobe movement in the 1970s. All it takes is "news" that "critics fear" to stampede the easily panicked. One of these anti-fracking activist groups has already been caught fabricating "evidence" of tap water catching on fire due to fracking in bogus videos. We already know that the Anti-Industrial Revolution "fears" what it smears as a "desperate pursuit of energy", as if loss of energy to civilization is not deadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

To fly an airplane over a populated area the operator of the aircraft must certify that it has undergone appropriate inspection and if necessary engine rebuilding. Why? Because flying over houses where people live is a risk and the operator must show his equipment does not impose an excessive risk on the folks below.

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water. Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.

We need a system where a trusted agent can certify that the equipment meets minimal safety standards. A trusted agent does not have to be a government agency either. It can be an agent that is trusted by the insurance companies and who certification is a requirement for getting insurance. No one should be legally permitted to do risky stuff unless that can indemnify damages by either having insurance or self insuring their operations. Certification should be a strictly technical engineering matter to assure that the equipment is in the proper shape. In fact I would prefer a non-government trusted certifying agent which the insurance companies will vouch for.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

To fly an airplane over a populated area the operator of the aircraft must certify that it has undergone appropriate inspection and if necessary engine rebuilding. Why? Because flying over houses where people live is a risk and the operator must show his equipment does not impose an excessive risk on the folks below.

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water. Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.

We need a system where a trusted agent can certify that the equipment meets minimal safety standards. A trusted agent does not have to be a government agency either. It can be an agent that is trusted by the insurance companies and who certification is a requirement for getting insurance. No one should be legally permitted to do risky stuff unless that can indemnify damages by either having insurance or self insuring their operations. Certification should be a strictly technical engineering matter to assure that the equipment is in the proper shape. In fact I would prefer a non-government trusted certifying agent which the insurance companies will vouch for.

ruveyn

But all of that is already handled by private insurance as well as the companies doing the fracking (or indeed any company that is involved in industry). The issue is not about protecting against risk, the issue if one of the state govt. controlling industries and contractual obligations between companies. No amount of risk reduction will prevent all accidents. The real issue is would you rather freeze in the winter or risk getting some water contaminated? The issue is will freedom be allowed or not? If a company destroys other people's property, then they, or their insurance, should pay for damages, even if the company goes out of business.

As far as you comment about fiying the airplane over houses, you statement is a non sequitur: it does not refute the argument that such laws do not do anything to reduce risk or mitigate damage. Planes still crash into houses, and people are sued all the time because of their actions regardless of how much risk reduction they have or have not done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drilling companies already have to obtain 'permission' from layers of stifling bureaucracy. The viros are trying to shut down the industry with another Anti-Industrial Revolution techno-phobic ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

To fly an airplane over a populated area the operator of the aircraft must certify that it has undergone appropriate inspection and if necessary engine rebuilding. Why? Because flying over houses where people live is a risk and the operator must show his equipment does not impose an excessive risk on the folks below.

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water. Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.

We need a system where a trusted agent can certify that the equipment meets minimal safety standards. A trusted agent does not have to be a government agency either. It can be an agent that is trusted by the insurance companies and who certification is a requirement for getting insurance. No one should be legally permitted to do risky stuff unless that can indemnify damages by either having insurance or self insuring their operations. Certification should be a strictly technical engineering matter to assure that the equipment is in the proper shape. In fact I would prefer a non-government trusted certifying agent which the insurance companies will vouch for.

ruveyn

As far as you comment about fiying the airplane over houses, you statement is a non sequitur...

It's worse than that, he didn't understand the point of what I was saying, which is that you literally cannot disprove that something is dangerous--you can only prove within certain specific limits that it is safe, which is not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water.

Fracking occurs extraordinarily deep within the Earth compared to the normal depth of water wells, and hence it's extremely unlikely the action of fracking will contaminate water. You might as well try to ban satellites on the fear that their orbits will interfere with the migration of birds.
Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.
If literally thousands and thousands of operations don't contaminate drinking water in Texas, then why suddenly does fracking become dangerous in Vermont?

These kinds of concerns about fracking reveal a profound ignorance of the ubiquity and harmlessness of the oil industry within the United States...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

These same people use fossil-fuel powered boats to harvest their sea-life. Existence on earth isn't zero-risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

To fly an airplane over a populated area the operator of the aircraft must certify that it has undergone appropriate inspection and if necessary engine rebuilding. Why? Because flying over houses where people live is a risk and the operator must show his equipment does not impose an excessive risk on the folks below.

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water. Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.

We need a system where a trusted agent can certify that the equipment meets minimal safety standards. A trusted agent does not have to be a government agency either. It can be an agent that is trusted by the insurance companies and who certification is a requirement for getting insurance. No one should be legally permitted to do risky stuff unless that can indemnify damages by either having insurance or self insuring their operations. Certification should be a strictly technical engineering matter to assure that the equipment is in the proper shape. In fact I would prefer a non-government trusted certifying agent which the insurance companies will vouch for.

ruveyn

As far as you comment about fiying the airplane over houses, you statement is a non sequitur...

It's worse than that, he didn't understand the point of what I was saying, which is that you literally cannot disprove that something is dangerous--you can only prove within certain specific limits that it is safe, which is not the same thing.

In other threads, proving a negative point has been argued about fruitlessly with Ruveyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "burden of proof" on disproving a hypothetical threat for which no evidence exists. You might as well try to ban airplanes, claiming the burden of proof is on manufacturers to prove that airplanes won't spontaneously turn into cheese in mid-air and fall and crush entire cities.

To fly an airplane over a populated area the operator of the aircraft must certify that it has undergone appropriate inspection and if necessary engine rebuilding. Why? Because flying over houses where people live is a risk and the operator must show his equipment does not impose an excessive risk on the folks below.

Also recall the BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico. What happened. Neither BP nor the management of the oil platform kept the equipment in safe working order. As a result people who harvest sea life from the Gulf suffered billions of $$$ in lost revenue.

Clearly for someone to crack open rocks to get the methane they should certify that the equipment they are operating will not leak the methane into ground water. Just because Texas fracking went without incident does not mean the Vermont operation will. The equipment must meet certain technical standards.

We need a system where a trusted agent can certify that the equipment meets minimal safety standards. A trusted agent does not have to be a government agency either. It can be an agent that is trusted by the insurance companies and who certification is a requirement for getting insurance. No one should be legally permitted to do risky stuff unless that can indemnify damages by either having insurance or self insuring their operations. Certification should be a strictly technical engineering matter to assure that the equipment is in the proper shape. In fact I would prefer a non-government trusted certifying agent which the insurance companies will vouch for.

As far as you comment about fiying the airplane over houses, you statement is a non sequitur...

It's worse than that, he didn't understand the point of what I was saying, which is that you literally cannot disprove that something is dangerous--you can only prove within certain specific limits that it is safe, which is not the same thing.

You can prove that something is potentially dangerous, such as cars and airplanes carelessly used, or high concentrations of energy. But that doesn't prove that any particular person or instance of it is being negligent or careless and is "unsafe". A general requirement to demonstrate competence and responsibility before going out in public with a potentially dangerous act (such as by having insurance and proof of sufficient training) is not grounds to shut down an entire industry based on envirochondria trying to impose an illogical burden of proof to prove a general negative. Yet that fallacy has been elevated by viros to a general ideological principle called the "precautionary principle". It's not only invalid, they always ignore the danger and damage to people banned from advancements in civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0