
Stanford researchers show fracking's impact to drinking water sources - rezist808
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2016/march/pavillion-fracking-water-032916.html
======
btilly
Our legal system has created limited liability corporations to improve
economic efficiency, and then a network of regulations to keep corporations
from doing bad things that liability might dissuade a normal person from
doing. We lurch between economically damaging regulations after something
really bad happens, to regulatory capture after industry lobbying gets the
attention of politicians.

It seems to me that the whole thing is a mess that doesn't work very well.

Here is my alternate proposal. Corporations who engage in risky long-term
behavior should have to purchase long-term insurance to cover liability for
what they are doing. These insurance contracts would be on terms set by
insurers.

Behind the scenes insurers could cover these contracts by putting money into
index funds. The fund would cover liability, the cost ensuring compliance with
insurance terms, and after the period was up, would pay off investors.

These funds would therefore trade at a discount to regular index funds that
represents market estimates of the present value of future liability.
Therefore the insurance costs to companies would be a free market estimate of
the cost to others of what you are doing.

And voila! Very little regulation. No regulatory capture. And people will get
compensation. (And LLCs can remain limited liability.)

~~~
kafkaesq
_Here is my alternate proposal. Corporations who engage in risky long-term
behavior should have to purchase long-term insurance to cover liability for
what they are doing. These insurance contracts would be on terms set by
insurers. And voila! Very little regulation. No regulatory capture. And people
will get compensation._

No. The whole point is that these "risky behaviors" are quite capable of
inflicting damages (such as the _permanent_ contamination of water tables in
certain areas) that can't possibly be compensated by the any conceivable
"insurance payout". Such behaviors (once identified) should be strictly
prohibited. Economic penalties against the corporate entities (aka
"regulation") will of course never be sufficient. The only effective deterrent
is jail time for for the decision makers (in addition to complete confiscation
of their personal assets).

And BTW by "jail time" I mean _serious_ jail time, as in multiple decades of
jail time, and/or life sentences if necessary.

Flipping back in the chronology of your post a bit:

 _We lurch between economically damaging regulations after something really
bad happens, to regulatory capture after industry lobbying gets the attention
of politicians._

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the need to stop lurching. That's why we
need to get serious about criminal penalties for this kind of behavior -- not
to throw in the towel and entrust the safety of our irreplaceable freshwater
resources wondrous self-regulating powers of the insurance industry.

The environment is not a casino, in other words. This is the health of
uncounted generations we're talking about -- which will come into being long
after any of these massive insurance payouts your proposal would seem to bank
on could have possibly had any ameliorative effect.

~~~
sitkack
Some mistakes can only happen once. Money doesn't fix that class of mistake.

~~~
narrator
One of the most annoying cliche arguments in American political discourse is
that money is the universal 100% effective solution to all problems.

We just had a nuke plant melt down? That's going to just cost a lot of money!
We want to provide universal top quality free on-demand healthcare for
everyone? Just quadruple spending and change absolutely nothing else! We want
to colonize mars in 10 years. That will just be a few trillion. No problem!
Nine women working together to have a baby in 1 month? Just a few billion in
government R&D bucks and we'll have it solved in a jiffy!

~~~
cat-dev-null
Argh, that's a frustrating fallacy, often posited with sincere intentions but
often disconnected from practical implementation considerations.

In general terms, effectiveness and affordability of budget outlay should be
the primary concerns. Instead, budget is typically orthogonal to effectiveness
of quality of problem characterization, planning, procurement, execution and
follow-up. Oddly, better results can sometimes be paradoxically realized by
reducing budgets where there are capital-inefficient organizations by teaching
resourcefulness... many bad habits emerge when people have too much cash
available to spend frivolously. There are many instances where greater outlays
are cheaper TCO-wise in the long run, so the "penny wise, pound wise" mantra
tends to be a good guideline.

Also, in the US, defense spending, education and social security are sacred
cows for various reasons.

Question military-industrial complex spending and be prepared for accusations
of unpatriotism and treason for "not supporting the troops." These are
completely specious but used to guard the hen-house. Robert Gates was the most
recent, effective reformer of DoD, but the honeymoon didn't last long.

Education is seen as important human right however NCBLA has foisted short-
term pseudo-results upon teachers. So the problem is still seen as not enough
money, usually because administration bureaucracy typically consumes a
disproportionate fraction of total budget (or in extreme cases, embezzles cash
outright).

Social security is a tough one because many people have no direct retirement
savings, and no one humane wants to go the way of Korea, where the elderly are
de-facto shunned and have nothing.

------
chris_va
"The research paints a picture of unsafe practices including the dumping of
drilling and production fluids containing diesel fuel, high chemical
concentrations in unlined pits and a lack of adequate cement barriers to
protect groundwater."

... So it isn't the fracking per se, but toxic waste disposal and leaking in
transit.

~~~
hughw
Pavilion is a pathological case. It's the rare area where producible oil is
only hundreds of feet below the surface, at the same depths as groundwater
[1]. All other plays of interest in the US are one to two miles deep. It's
irresponsible to permit fracking in Pavilion. At the same time, polluting
groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles below the
surface.

[1] [http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-
blame-e...](http://trib.com/business/energy/fracking-absolved-of-blame-
elsewhere-but-in-pavillion-
it-s/article_0290f527-b30f-512b-a6d0-95854dde38c8.html)

~~~
tremon
_polluting groundwater in Pavilion does not condemn fracking operations miles
below the surface_

Still, this is an excellent example to point out that current regulation
fails.

~~~
barney54
At best it shows that regulation in Wyoming failed. And even then there is
debate: [http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-
rep...](http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-repackage-
epas-discredited-fracking-study-pavillion/)

~~~
tremon
There is always "debate" when an industry's profits are involved.

------
epoxyhockey
A timely posting as Oklahoma experienced a M4.2 earthquake last night, also
attributed to fracking activities.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–16_Oklahoma_earthquake_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–16_Oklahoma_earthquake_swarms)

~~~
aaron695
I get you stated a fact.

But we all know it's a dog whistle.

"As a result of the magnitude 5.6 earthquake on November 5, 2011, an estimated
one million dollars in damage occurred in and around the Prague area.[51] So
far, there has not been a significant amount of damage reported from other
earthquakes"

Most industries cost the community 1 million $ (assuming this particular
earthquake was even due to fracking)

This is why they pay tax.

You're not in a movie, fracking is not going to cause some sort of earthquake
catastrophe.

Ever company that uses trucks could and does kill people.

~~~
Outdoorsman
>>You're not in a movie, fracking is not going to cause some sort of
earthquake catastrophe.<<

I have in-laws that live north of Edmond OK and the almost daily tremors and
quakes there have changed their lives to a certain degree...

My father-in-law goes out to check the brickwork on his house on a regular
basis now, paying special attention to his chimney...things occasionally
rattle off shelves and fall to the floor...

Injection well frequencies and volumes have now been reduced or entirely
curtailed in certain areas of the state...

So, maybe life does indeed seem a bit surreal if you live in an affected
area...

Drilling, fracking, and the use of injection wells to dispose of waste-water
have apparently led to Oklahoma becoming as quake-prone as California...

The USGS quoted in a NY Times article:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/earthquake-risk-in-
okla...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/earthquake-risk-in-oklahoma-and-
kansas-comparable-to-california.html?_r=0)

------
barney54
For balance, here is a rebuttal from the industry:
[http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-
rep...](http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/stanford-researchers-repackage-
epas-discredited-fracking-study-pavillion/)

------
banku_brougham
I'm not surprised at all, nor am I surprised by the brutal effectiveness of
corporate funded influence on legal, regulatory, and community remedies to
these problems. Its as if the system 'wants' people to suffer.

~~~
davidw
People in places like Wyoming pretty regularly vote for less government
interference and regulation of that kind of industry, so I guess they get what
they're voting for.

And meanwhile, the rest of the US is extremely car-centric, so we do our part
to increase demand for oil.

~~~
sudojudo
My partner works in civil engineering and water remediation throughout
Wyoming. Most farmers and ranchers there aren't too keen on fracking, because
they suffer from the practice more than anyone (runoff/polluted water tables).
But, there's no chance for any sort of political opposition, because the vast
majority of people simply won't vote blue, no matter what. Often times, on the
city/county level, there is no alternative candidate, it's red vs. red and
neither want to "take away jobs" by buying into "leftist tree-hugger"
nonsense.

It will only change when the "jobs" are cleaning up the mess, which has
already started, but most roughnecks aren't qualified; cleanup requires
educated city-folk from out of town, which widens the us vs. them gap even
more.

I'm generalizing, but the above is often exactly the case.

~~~
barney54
Farmers and ranchers don't need to allow oil and gas drilling if they don't
want to. It's the point of private property.

~~~
davidw
What happens on ranch X may affect the groundwater on farm Y or in town Z, a
few kilometers away. I have no idea about the distances involved, and
presumably they vary a lot depending on a number of factors that you'd have to
ask scientists about.

Ideally, you would be able to detect pollutants moseying off the property
underground, just as you would cattle wandering off the ranch above ground,
and your property system would work fine ("Bob, yer frackin' byproducts done
cross over into mah property yesterday, an I cain't abide by that") , but
presumably it's not easy.

------
totally
Hm, maybe fracking should be subject to EPA regulation and disclose the
chemicals used in the process afterall.

~~~
mmanfrin
Psh, more government overregulation aimed at killing jobs.

/s

~~~
jabits
Of course we all need more and cheaper oil than need clean environment don't
we?

~~~
hanniabu
"Well when there's revenue involved, why does anything else matter?" \- some
business guy probably

------
justsaysmthng
In the other news, parts of India is its second year of severe drought :
[http://www.ibtimes.com.au/suicide-rate-indian-farmers-
rise-c...](http://www.ibtimes.com.au/suicide-rate-indian-farmers-rise-country-
faces-urgent-water-crisis-1510457)

I wonder if Indian farmers would accept oil instead ?

The point being that fresh water is a infinitely more valuable resource than
oil.

And we're squandering it to dig up stuff which we then nonchalantly burn.

I wonder what our grand children will think of these times.

------
exabrial
I was hoping for an article that showed how chemicals drifted thousands of
feet through impermeable rock layers. Instead I see a picture and a bunch of
fluff.

Modern wells with double casings and bentonite seals are far more advanced the
loose standards used through the late 70s. Is there a link anywhere to the
actual research?

------
wallstquant
I've heard that the new laws being written in NY to prevent hydrolic fracking
are being carefully wordsmithed so they will still allow fracking with natural
gas instead. I wish I could find a source but im not sure how well known this
issue is. Can anyone comment further?

------
sjg007
Oklahoma will be a superfund site.

------
ta_03292016
They should not have fracked in Pavilion, where oil is only hundreds of feet
below surface. However, general opposition to fracking is nothing more than
NIMBY sentiment. Let's see how that works:

1\. Fracking should be banned => oil supply decreases 2\. Gas price should
stay low => import oil from the gulf 3\. We should not support Wahhabist Saudi
Arabia => American energy independence! 4\. Back to step 1

People want to drive their cars and don't want to pay tax for public
transportation. At the same time they want to protect the environment and be
called "leader of the free world". They want to tell people they vote Bernie
Sanders but deep down they wish Donald Trump wins the election.

~~~
astrodust
The problem is there's no definition of what's technically safe, what's
technically unsafe, and few, if any guidelines defining acceptable fracking
procedures.

What goes into the ground? A proprietary mix of who knows what, and you can't
find out because they won't tell you. It's a trade secret.

Where does that stuff go? Again, few if any simulations have been run on the
long-term consequences of injecting this stuff into the ground.

It's not that fracking should be banned, it's that it should be _understood_.

------
joeyspn
Clean water will be the next big commodity... Guess who has been buying it...

1+1=2

------
Kenji
How can I ever know who gets it right in such a highly politicized topic?
Topics like that pose an epistemological problem to me because nobody can be
trusted to report truthfully, without any political motivations.

------
mtgx
If you care about this, remember to vote in the primary, accordingly:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPVhPqy_Z6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPVhPqy_Z6U)

