I thought this might be of interest to some and while I am very hesitant to endorse fracking, this article provides another perspective on the much criticised recent moves of President Obama to open up more and more land and sea to oil prospectors, most notably in Alaska and the Gulf of New Mexico. There are always two sides to a story, and I think the long term goal (now more realisable than ever) of moving away from importing oil and welling and producing it their backyard will go a long way to changing the thrust of American foreign policy and the balance of both the US and the world economy. There is, of course, a price to pay. Is it too high? Do the means justify the end in this case? Will this, in the medium to long term, balance out on the side of overall good, for the Americans, for the world and for the planet?
I know this is a potentially volatile subject, so please bear this in mind and respond or comment critically, but with courtesy and respect to others, as I am sure their will be a wide array of opinions on this matter if the article is read (and particularly if it isn't
, so please read it if you wish to contribute.)
I am very interested in learning more about this and having my views challenged, so any well thought out (and preferentially researched) opinions will be much appreciated!
NY TIMES ARTICLEJBArk is a Mandelthought; a non-fiction character in a drama of his own design he calls "LIFE" who partakes in consciousness expanding activities and substances; he should in no way be confused with SWIM, who is an eminently data-mineable and prolific character who has somehow convinced himself the target he wears on his forehead is actually a shield.