I think it's important not to be hostile about the very idea of any fracking taking place. It's a technology that can be used without ripping and running. I agree that there are some places that should be just plain off-limits. But most of the problems from fracking are from doing it wrong- carelessness, cheaping out, etc.
And the oil/gas industry IS feeling pressure from the public, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the other thing to do is to not be completely fatalistic that all resistance/oversight/regulation is futile.
But we need to make sure not to waste our efforts early on, by crying wolf.
Beyond the pollution threat, another problem has to do with water withdrawals. I think that it should be a high priority to learn what the industry plans to do in order to minimize the adverse consequences.
For instance, it should be fairly obvious that it's much less of a problem to take water from a stream during the high water conditions of springtime than it is at any other time of the year. Also, for some of the sites in NW Pa., pretty much the only thing that prevents the industry from using a source like Lake Erie instead is the added expense.
I don't think that the oil/gas company engineers are evil. But they do tend to have different priorities, and they're bound to have gaps in their knowledge base. They're more attuned to thinking of the earth as a bank vault instead of a source of life. So they may need some education. In terms of environmental consequences, what works with no big problem in Wyoming often doesn't work in Pennsylvania. If they don't get that, they need to.
I'm fine with the idea that the industry ought to get as much gas out of the Marcellus shale as possible- as long as they don't cause long-term damage or collapse of ecosystems in their wake.
But that's a big if. Because I do think that poisoning wells and watercourses is a crime. A crime as in felony- not a civil offense.
And the oil/gas industry IS feeling pressure from the public, in the aftermath of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
So the other thing to do is to not be completely fatalistic that all resistance/oversight/regulation is futile.
But we need to make sure not to waste our efforts early on, by crying wolf.
Beyond the pollution threat, another problem has to do with water withdrawals. I think that it should be a high priority to learn what the industry plans to do in order to minimize the adverse consequences.
For instance, it should be fairly obvious that it's much less of a problem to take water from a stream during the high water conditions of springtime than it is at any other time of the year. Also, for some of the sites in NW Pa., pretty much the only thing that prevents the industry from using a source like Lake Erie instead is the added expense.
I don't think that the oil/gas company engineers are evil. But they do tend to have different priorities, and they're bound to have gaps in their knowledge base. They're more attuned to thinking of the earth as a bank vault instead of a source of life. So they may need some education. In terms of environmental consequences, what works with no big problem in Wyoming often doesn't work in Pennsylvania. If they don't get that, they need to.
I'm fine with the idea that the industry ought to get as much gas out of the Marcellus shale as possible- as long as they don't cause long-term damage or collapse of ecosystems in their wake.
But that's a big if. Because I do think that poisoning wells and watercourses is a crime. A crime as in felony- not a civil offense.
