The Trouble With "Drill, Baby, Drill"

I’m not looking to host a debate about whether or not the US should do more to encourage drilling here in America.

On one side, we have the oilmen, who would look to drill enough holes to turn the entire continent into a block of Jarlsberg cheese.  On the other side, there are the treehuggers who are so wrapped up in their ideology that the dangers of foreign oil dependence is entirely beyond their comprehension.  My personal opinion is that the right path, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

That said, ProPublica gives us reason for concern today…

Pennsylvania residents whose streams and fields have been damaged by toxic spills and whose drinking water has allegedly been contaminated by drilling for natural gas are suing the Houston-based energy company that drilled the wells. A worker at the company is among the 15 families bringing suit.

The civil case, filed Thursday in U.S District Court in Scranton, Pa., seeks to stop future drilling in the Marcellus Shale by Cabot Oil and Gas near the town of Dimock.

Cabot is a public company, and is one of many natural gas and oil concerns currently converging on Pennsylvania’s natural gas-rich Marcellus Shale.  This is a development that could impede future projects in this and other shales should the story happen to go national.

Source:

PA Residents Sue Gas Driller (ProPublica)

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web
  1. Steve Hamlin commented on Nov 20

    “My personal opinion is that the right path, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.”

    I agree.

    “That said, ProPublica gives us reason for concern today…”

    Why so? Certainly we can increase domestic supply while NOT contaminating drinking water and toxifying land. That’s not weenie environmentalism – that’s common sense.

    “This is a development that could impede future projects in this and other shales should the story happen to go national.”

    No, it will make producers internalize previously external costs, which will raise the cost of development, raise the cost of resulting energy, and cost the people who use those resources. As it should be. Previously they were free riders on someone else’s serious environmental problems – that’s not free market.

    Otherwise, you are advocating for cheaper oil at the expense of contaminated drinking water. That’s not “somewhere in the middle.”

  2. Steve Hamlin commented on Nov 20

    “My personal opinion is that the right path, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.”

    I agree.

    “That said, ProPublica gives us reason for concern today…”

    Why so? Certainly we can increase domestic supply while NOT contaminating drinking water and toxifying land. That’s not weenie environmentalism – that’s common sense.

    “This is a development that could impede future projects in this and other shales should the story happen to go national.”

    No, it will make producers internalize previously external costs, which will raise the cost of development, raise the cost of resulting energy, and cost the people who use those resources. As it should be. Previously they were free riders on someone else’s serious environmental problems – that’s not free market.

    Otherwise, you are advocating for cheaper oil at the expense of contaminated drinking water. That’s not “somewhere in the middle.”