[maukdaddy]

Highly disappointed in the WaPo. This read like a PR piece released by the oil industry and/or their lobbyists. No mention of the environmental disaster looming from the tarsands? No mention of the effects from fracking? No discussion about how this will only delay much needed investment in renewables by the US Government?

[blutonium]

Great that you care about this, but the environmental consequences have been largely invisible to Americans for many years. Be it CO2 or destroyed ecosystems in every oil producing country, the damage is largely done.

I'd hardly blame this rag for the oversight at this point.

[gringomorcego]

very odd to not mention the downsides of fracking. a quarter of the article is about it, and it seems like the crux of the argument of the new dependency on america comes from resources attained through fracking.

very biased reporting.

[joe_the_user]

Well...

I'm more a corporate hater than a corporation lover.

But while the downside of tar sands are real and horrific, the downsides of fracking so far seem speculative. I haven't heard any strong argument why North Dakota fracking would have the same effect as the fracking described in Gas Lands.

If anything, fracking seems possibly scary but not something with clear, proven downsides. It may be, for example, that pipelines carrying oil extracted using fracking and that could cause damage somewhere and that does more damage than the actual fracking.

If anyone has a reference to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it (well, maybe not love but appreciate it).