I've been away for awhile due to computer problems (hopefully now resolved). Meanwhile I've been busy. The other night I went to a forum about fracking. It was a real eye-opener but not in the way its organizers intended. I ended up walking out a quarter of the way through in disgust and that's something I don't do very often.
Now, before I explain WHY I walked out, I want to say that I lean more to the side of the anti's. I have reservations about the safety of the process and I don't think the energy companies have the greatest track record when it comes to being honest with the public. However, I do try to keep an open mind. I want to hear BOTH sides for myself. So what I was expecting to hear and see were well-reasoned, well-supported arguments for and against. Remember, I work in a science field, so I know what is and isn't good evidence.
Unfortunately the industry side failed to show up, which the moderator (Steve) used to great advantage. Borrowing a page from Clint Eastwood, he set up not one but a whole panel of empty chairs which he spent the rest of the evening addressing in a mocking manner. But as it turned out it didn't matter that the industry people weren't there to present their side of the story.
Because I did not hear one solid fact. I heard allegations, accusations, insults, but I heard no evidence from the anti-fracking side. One woman stood up and said she represented a local environmental group. She said that she did not know how many wells there were in Michigan, or where these wells were located, or even who owned these wells. (I thought that was a matter of public record.) Then she went on to describe an incident that took place in either Pennsylvania or Ohio, she wasn't sure which. (I know exactly how one of our senior scientists would react if confronted with such sloppy data, and it wouldn't be pretty.) But she WAS sure, dead sure, that fracking represented a clear danger to Michigan's water. Oh, and the trucks used by the industry don't have mufflers or brakes. I am not sure how that relates to the main issue of water safety but you know when you are against it, you are against it, you don't need to present a logical, factual case as long as you can appeal to emotion. Score one for the industry side--and they weren't even present!
Then Steve told a story about the big bad Upjohn Company (now defunct). He told it several times and each time it got better. What the big bad Upjohn Company did was dispose of chemicals by dumping them into injection wells in Portage, Michigan. Now, it does not matter WHEN the Upjohn Company did this or what chemicals were involved. No, what matters is that this contaminated water flowed all the way to Kentucky where it polluted the groundwater to the point where Upjohn had to supply water to Kentucky. Where in Kentucky? Again, this does not matter. Anyway these people are in sorry shape because Pfizer won't supply water to them. Are you following this? Any way, several people drank this water and some died. Really? In the first place, I don't see how water from Michigan can affect people in Kentucky and not anyone else in between. But Steve was very confident that it could. He knew ALL about the water cycle and geology even though he was NOT a hydrologist or a geologist or a chemist or any kind of a scientist. Because you don't need no stinkin' scientists, they are all in the pay of Big Oil. He made a remark disparaging statistics, which tells you right there he doesn't know beans about statistics and how they are used. And I have news for him, when you start casting doubt on the OTHER side's numbers (especially when they are not there to defend themselves) then you'd better be very, very sure of the numbers you use. Score another for the absent industry side.
At that point I was fed up with the sloppy propaganda and cheap theatrics so I walked out. Quite frankly, I am beginning to think that perhaps fracking supporters are right and that the dangers are being exaggerated. Nothing I saw at that meeting gave me any reason to think otherwise. It sounds like the anti-fracking folks have got a weak case indeed.
Now, before I explain WHY I walked out, I want to say that I lean more to the side of the anti's. I have reservations about the safety of the process and I don't think the energy companies have the greatest track record when it comes to being honest with the public. However, I do try to keep an open mind. I want to hear BOTH sides for myself. So what I was expecting to hear and see were well-reasoned, well-supported arguments for and against. Remember, I work in a science field, so I know what is and isn't good evidence.
Unfortunately the industry side failed to show up, which the moderator (Steve) used to great advantage. Borrowing a page from Clint Eastwood, he set up not one but a whole panel of empty chairs which he spent the rest of the evening addressing in a mocking manner. But as it turned out it didn't matter that the industry people weren't there to present their side of the story.
Because I did not hear one solid fact. I heard allegations, accusations, insults, but I heard no evidence from the anti-fracking side. One woman stood up and said she represented a local environmental group. She said that she did not know how many wells there were in Michigan, or where these wells were located, or even who owned these wells. (I thought that was a matter of public record.) Then she went on to describe an incident that took place in either Pennsylvania or Ohio, she wasn't sure which. (I know exactly how one of our senior scientists would react if confronted with such sloppy data, and it wouldn't be pretty.) But she WAS sure, dead sure, that fracking represented a clear danger to Michigan's water. Oh, and the trucks used by the industry don't have mufflers or brakes. I am not sure how that relates to the main issue of water safety but you know when you are against it, you are against it, you don't need to present a logical, factual case as long as you can appeal to emotion. Score one for the industry side--and they weren't even present!
Then Steve told a story about the big bad Upjohn Company (now defunct). He told it several times and each time it got better. What the big bad Upjohn Company did was dispose of chemicals by dumping them into injection wells in Portage, Michigan. Now, it does not matter WHEN the Upjohn Company did this or what chemicals were involved. No, what matters is that this contaminated water flowed all the way to Kentucky where it polluted the groundwater to the point where Upjohn had to supply water to Kentucky. Where in Kentucky? Again, this does not matter. Anyway these people are in sorry shape because Pfizer won't supply water to them. Are you following this? Any way, several people drank this water and some died. Really? In the first place, I don't see how water from Michigan can affect people in Kentucky and not anyone else in between. But Steve was very confident that it could. He knew ALL about the water cycle and geology even though he was NOT a hydrologist or a geologist or a chemist or any kind of a scientist. Because you don't need no stinkin' scientists, they are all in the pay of Big Oil. He made a remark disparaging statistics, which tells you right there he doesn't know beans about statistics and how they are used. And I have news for him, when you start casting doubt on the OTHER side's numbers (especially when they are not there to defend themselves) then you'd better be very, very sure of the numbers you use. Score another for the absent industry side.
At that point I was fed up with the sloppy propaganda and cheap theatrics so I walked out. Quite frankly, I am beginning to think that perhaps fracking supporters are right and that the dangers are being exaggerated. Nothing I saw at that meeting gave me any reason to think otherwise. It sounds like the anti-fracking folks have got a weak case indeed.
