Fracking Up

I'm determined to have my user name at exxonmobil blog revoked. They tried to sell fracking to me and this is what I have to say:


So, in the past few years hydraulic fracking has been developed, criticized, supported, halted, expanded, attacked, legitimized, slandered, studied and popularized and this is the final word on it? Natural Gas production companies will proceed because immediately following the invention of the technology no towns were destroyed by gigantic cave ins and no aquifers ignited spontaneously? The testing phase is complete? Well, congratulations. This sounds like a junkie who wakes up after his first binge and says, "See, it's safe."
It's ironic, the fact that you would lay your argument over the delicate shoulders of a single study in the UK on a brand new, frankly inconceivable, but obviously contentious practice, not only doesn't reassure me but makes me think you sold lead paint and asbestos siding in a previous occupation. "4 out of 5 Doctors smoke Chesterfields!"

Parliament's decision to proceed at full speed until something proves them wrong only perpetuates the cart before the horse paradigm that is both a noble human characteristic and a great flaw.
If ExxonMobil were studying the environmental effects of capturing natural gas 10 FEET UNDER MY GARAGE then I'd accept the UK study as reassurance. When the scale is somewhat larger then I expect 100% consensus on the part of everyone impacted by this method, which is everyone on the continent where it is practiced. The very fact this consensus is not required is of conspicuous relevance here and only emphasizes the importance of voluntary reassuring.

I'm very suspicious of widespread industrial methods that are innocent until proven guilty. Because everyone in the nation is not qualified to study hydraulic fracking, at least in my eyes, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent to the least among us and right now any reasonable jury would find this fracking method scantily clad in legitimate and proportionately scaled study. "Not inherently dangerous?" So, a "process of creating fissures, or fractures, in underground formations" is safe? It sounds like it compromises the integrity of the earth directly beneath the gas recovery facilities. That sounds inherently dangerous. Try again. The stakes are indeed high for our nation, too high to be influenced by a single UK study. At the very least we should wait for the results of the New York and Pennsylvania studies that ARE PART OF THE 3 YEAR FRACKING MORATORIUMS in those states. That sounds reasonable considering what is at stake. I'll turn my thermostat on low for the next three years. I promise.