[speedybird]

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?

[dpierce9]

This is from 2016: 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-%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]

This 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.

[DennisP]

The 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]

Sure, 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.

[mhh__]

Is it possible that they are in for the money and the grand plan is just marketing even if they would do it if they could?

[zionic]

I 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.

[groby_b]

The 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

[smoldesu]

Well, 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.

[X6S1x6Okd1st]

Ah yes, the "The ends justify the means" move.

[boringg]

I 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.