View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Employ some balance when considering fracking

Posted: June 14, 2013 2:00 a.m.
Updated: June 14, 2013 2:00 a.m.
 

Cher Gilmore’s anti-fracking column ("California doesn’t need fracking," June 6) would have been more balanced if the anti-fracking propaganda film "Gasland" had not been given credit for being a documentary.

The list of truths in the film was miles shorter than the list of false assertions and contentions. For example, the flaming water faucets may be great attention-getters, but they have been totally debunked.

Ms. Gilmore might even have mentioned that substantial funding for Josh Fox’s film came from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. She might be surprised that our friends at OPEC declared U.S. shale oil a grave concern.

It’s fine to be a zealot, but sometimes we must balance an obvious good with the suspected bad.

On the good side, U.S. oil production has soared 20 percent in just the last year. North Dakota’s economy is booming so much that McDonalds is now paying $20 and hour to hire staff.

Because of fracking, the U.S. has become a net energy exporter. Please note that the "nonsense" study by Jacobson/Delucchi of UC Davis postulates the world can be powered entirely by alternative energy within 20-40 years ignores practical matters like land use.

Finally, fracking is rigidly controlled in every state where it is done. It is not an unregulated industry.

California could reap enormous benefits from tax revenues due to fracking in the state; that’s a fact, not conjecture.

Worth thinking about?

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...