10 ms·
How could it be that SpaceX is answerable only to the FAA and is immune to the EPA? Why is it on the FAA to regulate a well? I think the author of the articl
by speedybird 5y ago
How could it be that SpaceX is answerable only to the FAA and is immune to the EPA? Why is it on the FAA to regulate a well? I think the author of the article should work on including a bit more exposition and a bit less snark (if he actually intents to persuade people, anyway.)
Also I'm a bit confused why people are surprised the methane for these rockets will come from a well. Did people really think Elon Musk was going to stick a hose up a cow's ass to collect the methane?
- zionic 5y agoI also don’t see what all the fuss is about here. SpaceX making a well to power the human colonization of mars is a drop in the bucket vs all the other wells in the state.
- smoldesu 5y agoWell, what SpaceX is doing doesn't really matter. I can't just show up to Arkansas and say I'm fracking for oil to cure cancer and get hand-waved through. They're private entities, no matter what they're doing, and they're subject to the same scrutiny that everyone else puts up with.
- ESGHound 5y agoThis is not true at all. Doubly not true when your program is subsidized by Federal dollars and takes place adjacent to protected federal lands. The FAA is subject to NEPA review, and hence any SpaceX activity in this area must go through the same process as every other industrial activity that impacts federal interests.
- randy408 5y agoSurely you know by now that Elon/SpaceX will get its fuel no matter what, even if it means trucking the fuel there, seems to me your best case scenario will increase net emissions. Protecting the environment is not the point of this stunt, is it?
- smoldesu 5y agoWell my cancer cure is subsidized by federal dollars, and our headquarters is right next to the post office. Can't we just start drilling already?
- lazide 5y agoThat is ideally how it is supposed to work, but there are many examples of regulations being bypassed and other folks being stepped on to get a desired employer or a potentially lucrative investment into a place. It doesn’t sound like it is happening here necessarily, but it does happen pretty frequently.
- boringg 5y agoI mean SpaceX is trying to colonize mars, if it doesn't manage to pull off this risky gambit we might as well make our only livable planet unlivable in the process. Seems like a good way to operate. At least we will have some cool space tech too.
- twofornone 5y agoSpacex drilling a well to fuel its rocket is not going to have any measurable effect on climate change. And an "unlivable" planet is essentially a hypothetical black swan event, extremely low probably worst case event. This is hysteria.
- lazide 5y agoThere is currently no known way a Mars colony could be economically self sustaining or self contained. Literally zero. So unless there is something truly magical up someone’s sleeve, we need to keep Earth workable for us for the foreseeable future. And I think that is a good thing.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y agoAh yes, the "The ends justify the means" move.
- consumer451 5y agoI was just thinking about this phrase in regards to Musk about ten minutes ago. “The ends” are the most laudable things I can imagine: electrifying the world and colonizing other celestial bodies. While I love the goals, I am afraid of what a mission-driven person might rationalize and do to achieve them.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoThe ends justify giving people like Musk wide latitude but keeping them in check when the negative externalities tip the scale away from the benefits.
- consumer451 5y agoI certainly give Musk wide latitude even when he makes it difficult. I was thinking more along the lines of how one in his position could drift in their perspective and values as they get distorted by the blinders of hyper mission focus.
- lazide 5y agoAnother thought to add here - he also gets paid very well in a very concrete way to LOOK like he is doing those things, and if he never gets in a spaceship but still enjoys the billions? Hard life.
- xyzzyz 5y agoYes, heaven forbids he drills 10,000th gas well in the US on his way.
- consumer451 5y agoI was not thinking about gas wells at all. I have no opinion there except I thought we were doing the Sabatier reaction process to prep for Mars and be carbon negative.
- groby_b 5y agoThe big deal is that the well is seemingly exempt from the regulation all other wells go through. It doesn't matter what Musk does with the methane, what matters is that he's at best exploiting loopholes and at worst operating extrajudicially. Also, SpaceX "powering the human colonization of Mars" is a pretty huge sip of the Kool Aid there. Given the founder's track record, it's about as believable as "fully self-driving cars in a year". But, more importantly, it's irrelevant to the problem at hand, sidestepping the regulation process
- toomuchtodo 5y agoFile a complaint with the Texas Railroad Commission and the US EPA, in all seriousness. If you need methane to escape the gravity well, follow the rules like everyone else in O&G.
- politician 5y agoWell, apparently not everyone else [1]: "The FTSE 250 group, which is the largest well owner in the US with over 61,000 in its portfolio, found itself on the defensive after a Bloomberg report said several wells owned by the company were leaking methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas." [1] https://newsflash.one/2021/10/12/market-report-leaking-wells-send-diversified-energy-crashing-20/ https://newsflash.one/2021/10/12/market-report-leaking-wells...
- speedybird 5y ago> "he's at best exploiting loopholes and at worst operating extrajudicially. [...] But, more importantly, it's irrelevant to the problem at hand, sidestepping the regulation process" Again, the EPA exists, so where are they in this? What loophole is SpaceX using to skirt around the EPA?
- oceanplexian 5y agoIMHO SpaceX should get an exemption for national security purposes (For the same reason the US Military doesn’t need to abide by the EPA). Access to space is in the national interest. I don’t think something that has an immeasurable impact on the climate is anywhere close to being more important.
- dpierce9 5y agoThis is from 2016: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale-insight/2016/09/feds-to-assess-if-spacex-south-texas-lng-plants.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/eagle-ford-shale... It suggests the FAA’s role is consideration of launch failure and safety on the proposed plant. FERC also evaluated the proposal. FERC doesn’t really do environmental reviews. Here is a document from April which at the time said EPA had no comment on the draft environmental impact statement as part of an interagency process: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%20Texas%20LNG%20Brownsville%20LLC%20April%201%202021.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/SAR%20-%2... In short, it looks as if all the usual players are engaged here. While I suspect the FAA has considered the impact of Oil and gas infrastructure on flight paths and airports, I would guess their involvement in this kind of process is an extra layer, not a circumvention.
- speedybird 5y agoThis makes sense. If the EPA is slacking and rubber-stamping things, that warrants investigation and criticism. But I'm not buying the angle that the FAA should be expected to enforce the EPA's rules. That's what the EPA is for.
- criley2 5y agoThe EPA was utterly gutted over the past 4 years. The sad part is that it takes much longer to rebuild than it does to tear down. The EPA being unable or unwilling to enforce environmental protections is by design.
- reddog 5y agoUtterly gutted? How do you figure? The EPA headcount was 14,779 in 2016 and was 14,172 in 2020. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
- speedybird 5y agoSupposing the EPA is gutted as you suggest (my sibling comment suggests otherwise), it surely still has more capability and expertise when it comes to environmental regulation than the FAA. I think expecting the FAA to act as a surrogate EPA is expecting too much.
- DennisP 5y agoThe ultimate plan is actually to make it from water and CO2 in the air, using the same tech they'll use to make methane on Mars for the return trip. They're just not there yet.
- lazide 5y agoSure, and I have a bridge to sell you. The technology already exists. Fundamentally (damn laws of thermodynamics) it is also a energy negative process, and hence expensive. It is far cheaper to just frack and burn fossil fuels (where that energy expense was paid however many millions of years ago by someone else), than it is to expend the energy to reverse the process - even if they were getting nearly free energy.
- Denvercoder9 5y agoSpaceX wants to make a roundtrip to Mars, though. There's no fossil fuels on Mars.
- lazide 5y agoAnd if it doesn’t make any economic sense to do it here, where it is super convenient, shipping it to Mars (with nothing of known value there to return or any known economic model that could make it worthwhile) to do it there is going to be worth it? Not saying all human endeavor needs to have a healthy profit margin. SpaceX is a business however and besides doing it for the lulz, or getting a government contract, it doesn’t make much sense to try to spin up colonies or the like there. Everyone will starve and/or their US backers will go bankrupt pretty quick.
- MPSimmons 5y ago> SpaceX is a business however SpaceX has been described as a company with a Mars cult inside of it. I think it's more fair to say that it's a Mars cult that has organized a company. If you think that SpaceX won't do hydrocarbon generation on Mars, then you don't understand why SpaceX exists.