Here is a pro-fracking article. It appears in a publication for energy industry employees. You might ask, “Why preach to the choir?” Even people whose paychecks depend on fossil energy have consciences. The want to feel justified. So publishing stories that help them feel good about work that harms people and the environment is how the industry seeks to promote job satisfaction.
The more I know, the less honor I find in the energy industry.
The big lie strategy is alive and well in Washington. The Administration hopes to blunt outrage at lax policies for the fossil energy industry by institutionalizing climate denial.
Wright’s critics see his views on global warming as a dangerous and self-serving misinterpretation of climate science. In their view, the fundamental role of fossil fuels in modern life is precisely the problem. Without a rapid shift to other energy sources, humanity risks undoing the types of progress Wright and his allies love to celebrate.
More and cheaper fossil fuel is the wrong direction to take. The damage caused by the use of fossil fuels and products made from them is conveniently externalized. Gas and oil are cheap because the user does not pay for the life-cycle cost, only for the initial production and distribution costs. And, in many hidden ways, the production cost is subsidized. Though he doesn’t mean it this way, true “climate realism” would assess the full life cycle cost of the fuel and include that as a penalty tax. But how do you price loss of coastline, extinction of species, wildfires, floods, and extreme weather? What’s the value of the casualties, what could compensate the child with asthma?
We aren’t even sure that humanity will survive what’s coming.
The article below is presented as an example of propaganda produced to promote fossil fuel interests. The charged language, attacks on people instead of issues, lack of evidence all should be a tip-off. And your skepticism is confirmed by Media Bias Fact Check, and organization that holds sources accountable by checking facts and tracking the integrity with which they report. Here’s what they say about Townhall the source of the article:
Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased and Questionable based on consistent one-sided reporting that always favors the right and numerous failed fact checks.
Senator Dave McCormick wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times that says, “The more I travel across the Commonwealth, the more convinced I become of the potential Pennsylvania has to guide America’s energy future. Philadelphia Gas Works is working to export LNG through the Port of Philadelphia. Penn America Energy and the Pennsylvania Building Trades are collaborating on a $7 billion project to build a new LNG export terminal along the Delaware River in Eddystone.”
It’s a bad idea for many reasons, both economic, global, and local. The reason energy interests want the terminal is to exploit foreign markets. Natural gas can be burned or made into plastics and chemicals. If burned, it contributes to global climate change. Plastics are polluting everything because we don’t have practical ways of recycling them. So whatever happens to the gas we liquify and sell, those who profit don’t pay the long-term costs; society does.
The social economics are bad too. Cheap fossil fuels compete with renewable, non-polluting energy. So their availability hinders the growth of sustainable energy production.
Then there are the pipelines. They create long, deep scars across the landscape and introduce the risk of leaks and disasters to the neighborhoods they traverse. The pumping stations vent substantial amounts of gas, and create other damage to the neighborhoods where they are located.
Last but not least is fracking. Overseas markets increase demand and bring higher prices, which encourages more drilling. We’ve extensively documented that nothing good comes to locals from fracking.
Senator McCormick is only telling half the story, the rosy half. He’s left it to the rest of us to tell the whole story and reveal the truth. You get all the facts right and still mislead people.
Follow the money.
The shale gas propaganda and disinformation folks are at it again. They claim that New York State families could get $27,000 a year in income from gas production if the state had not banned it. But what they don’t mention is the damage to the local environment, the health of the kids, not to mention the terrible cost of climate change. The massive cost of wildfires, epic weather events, and coastal flooding are all “externals” not to be discussed.
It’s not surprising that the Heritage Foundation is the source. They spawn many of the bad ideas that plague America today.
If you read the following article, you would think that fracking was a benign technical option. The problem with articles like this one should be obvious. It fails to address the history of things that can and do go wrong. Nor does it discuss the issue of sealing abandoned wells, which may be a practical impossibility once we punch holes through layers of rock. Steel rusts, concrete cracks, but the hole they attempt to seal with those materials is there forever. There is a long history with plenty of evidence that wells leak, and companies drill negligently, or exhaust their financial resources and fail to do as they should. The locals bear the long-term risks and costs. The lie is in what’s not said.
Here is a Reuters article about a government study that concludes fracking doesn’t necessarily hurt our water. The problem with such studies is always in the circumstances that were not considered. Keep in mind that the process involves punching a big hole through many different layers of strata, lining it with a big pipe and attempting to fill the gaps between pipe and strata with a cement-like substance. If successful, nothing leaks from the casing, and nothing can move up or down along the outside of the casing. The problem is that metal expands and contracts, the earth itself moves, and the pressures inside the pipe are extreme.
If you have ever had a wet basement, you know the problems inherent with holes in the ground and water. Once that hole has been punched it is there forever. Even if the well is properly sealed, the hole, the steel, the bentonite are all there to move and loosen and eventually leak. So be skeptical when you read reports like this:
The study does not consider the disposal of produced water.
Forbs Magazine is not known for its advocacy of the common good. MediaBiasFactCheck.com says, “We … rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to some misleading or false stories related to climate science.” So, we have some skepticism when a feature article suggests that the health problems attributed to fracking may be offset by the generalized benefits of fracking to local economies. It is a sorry state of affairs when the marginal economic benefit of fracking to locals is sufficient to improve their lives enough to show up as more and healthier babies.
Nevertheless, here’s the story. You decide if this report is propaganda or a genuine reason to relax prohibitions on fracking.
Phys.com, a site that reports science news, spun the finding that earthquakes caused by fracking could be mitigated as “Good News.” This would only be something to celebrate if fracking, or removing fossil fuels from the earth’s crust, was a good and desirable thing. It is not. We are killing the planet.
Those earthquakes that require mitigation are caused by a drilling process that the government permits, knowing that there will be collateral damage to people and the environment. We’d be better off not drilling in the first place.
Good fracking news
Hydraulic fracturing gave the petroleum industry access to ground resources that were previously inaccessible, along with side effects including air emissions, groundwater contamination, adverse health effects and the honestly astonishing phenomenon of human-induced earthquakes.
The magnitudes of many of these quakes are too small for humans to detect, but a number have been directly reported by affected populations, with damage including broken home foundations. Over the last two decades in Oklahoma, there has been a dramatic rise in seismic activity associated with fracking.
Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey are reporting that regulatory efforts to backfill injection wells with cement and reduce injection volumes have lowered Oklahoma’s induced seismic activity rate. The finding suggests that reducing the depth of wastewater injection could also control seismic activity in other states.
“Each basin is different, but we’ve repeatedly seen the connection between injection depth and the likelihood of inducing earthquakes across the country,” says Robert Skoumal of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Source: Phys.org
