Skip to main content

View Diary: Should New York State Require Frackers to Buy Watershed Insurance? (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In a properly installed natural gas or oil (0+ / 0-)

    well, there isn't any physical bases for considering that either hydraulic fracturing fluid or produced process wastewater is discharged, either to surface waters or to potable groundwaters.

    There isn't any demonstrated connection between hydraulic fracturing and pollution of groundwater or discharges to surface waters in a properly constructed and completed natural gas or oil wells.

    For properly constructed and operated oil and natural gas wells, the only physical basis for the effect of these operations on surface water quality is if water supply wells to used to provide water to hydraulic fracturing operations cause reductions in stream flow in inland lakes and streams, and the most serious effects of reduced streamflow inure to inland fisheries and biota.

    •  Accepting all that, then (6+ / 0-)

      If you fished downstream from or lived next to or drank the water from near  one of these facilities, wouldn't you want insurance to make sure that it's all 'properly constructed'?

      And wouldn't you want it fixed if it's all compromised, without needing to go to court?

      •  Insurance does not solve any problems. (0+ / 0-)

        If an oil or gas well is causing a problem with groundwater or surface water because of an underground blowout or because of careless wellhead area activities, no insurance policy is going to resolve such problems which must be addressed by the operator in some manner for resolution.

        •  Insurance will incentivize care (6+ / 0-)

          Fire insurance doesn't prevent fires, but encourages care.

          (Flood insurance ...bad example...)

          Car insurance encourages careful driving but doesn't prevent accidents, injury and death.  It even encourages (through the threat of product liability litigation) sound vehicle design and assembly.

          Still, that's a way we share risk; and a way we help lessen risk.

          Under this scheme I think careless drillers will find their rates going up; and drillers with a proven record of care will be rewarded with lower rates on new projects and rebates on successfully (meaning no damage) projects.

          The threat of litigation also encourages some care.

          Sound regulation, too encourages some care.  But I think we have a lot of regulatory capture at federal and state level.

    •  "Properly intalled" being the key terminology (6+ / 0-)

      No-one ever cuts corners for the sake of profit, or in a bid to please their managers and get ahead..

      See 1988's North Sea Piper Alpha disaster.

      How does one "reclaim" a fracked and poisoned water-well anyway? It's probably about as easy as replacing a mountaintop in Appalachia.

      We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting privacy and liberty of innocent Americans - Then Senator... Barack Obama

      by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 07:28:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good then- the insurance policy should be very (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tommymet

      cheap in that case, since according to you, the risk is so low.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site