![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
So if no corners are cut, how is groundwater being contaminated when a frakking operation starts? If they're not being cut, that means they're literally incapable of preventing it from happening. While not frakking, in the case of BP, corners WERE being cut. You talk about self-interest, but you're thinking at a higher levels than a lot of companies do. If you can save time and cut costs by 25% by using cheaper materials or less thorough safety operations and you have a 98% success rate, they just have to compare that against the costs of a potential failure and the likelihood of it reaching court or some governing body. 99.9% would be better, but if that means 25% extra costs immediately, delayed production, then it's not in management's self-interest to do so if the financial risks are low enough. It's the same reasoning HSBC used for laundering money for criminal organizations over a decade, they knew the consequences were too low to stop doing it, it was good money.
This is absolutely true, that's why it represents such a conundrum. There is no full replacement to fossil fuels. The way we're operating our society is simply unsustainable, but hard stops to energy production would be cataclysmic also. On the other hand, polluting the groundwater is fairly horrific, so it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The only solution would be for society to start scaling down its use of resources, but that goes so against the mainstream way of thinking, it's practically impossible until some sort of collapse.
tetris42 said:
Yes, you win, it's not frakking, that's why I specifically said that.
It's called an ANALOGY. BP also does drilling. They cut corners on safety, many of them, this has been proven. They had a huge screwup. It was to prove a point that the self-interest argument doesn't hold up at all if short term profits are to be gained. You're making it sound like that's impossible in the frakking industry. It sure as hell isn't in the rest of the oil industry.So what, if they do damage before they're gone, that just reinforces the point.
Actually, no they don't, that was deep water horizon, they were the drilling contractor and I think it was a Halliburton rep on the service company side.
You're putting hyperbolic words in my mouth. If the system has too many failures, I would argue tighter regulation if the current methods aren't adequate, or if they are, but aren't being followed properly, then raise the charges. Enforce it as a criminal offense with actual prison time if willful negligence is being shown. But whatever, you seem to have your mind made up with everything I'm saying.
If I'm not an engineer, am I disqualified from recognizing when you contradict your own position?
