WHAT IS IT, FRACING OR FRACKING?

Having gone back-and-forth over how to spell the process, I’ve figured it out.

Why it is “Fracing”:

• That’s what the engineers call it, and they’re the ones who do it.
•  Some law firm blogs stand fast with their friends and agree.
•  It’s a gerund:  A noun formed from a verb by adding “-ing”.  So says Merriam-Webster.  That makes ”fracing” correct.  (Accolades to my linguistically enabled wife for that explanation).
•  The Utopians have stolen a word that doesn’t belong to them about a process they don’t understand. In adding the “k”, they imply a certain lasciviousness to the process and to the industry.

 Why it is “Fracking”:

• Because that’s what it’s called in the popular press.
• Look it up in Merriam-Webster: it’s “fracking”.  Otherwise, ”Did you intend to look for ferrocene … Fresno?” No, I guess I intended to look for fracking.
•  Other firms, whose lawyers matriculated to institutions that charge far higher tuition than mine, have given in, and refer to it as ”fracking”.
•  Bryan Garner, in his excellent legal writing blog LawProse, explains when referring to word usage that some words start out as substandard English until, over a long period of time, they become accepted by more and more commentators, to the point where the words become standard English. Perhaps that’s where we are with our word of the day.
• My autocorrect feature in Word puts that red swirly line under “fracing” but not “fracking”.
• Those not literate in oil and gas lingo might pronounce it like “facing” or “bracing”.

The “k’s” have it, 6 to 4.  Maybe I’ll just call it what it is: “hydraulic fracturing”.

A JUDGMENT IN PARR V. ARUBA 

In the “first fracking verdict ever”, or whatever you choose to call the result, the trial court denied Aruba’s post-judgment motions and confirmed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. That includes the $2.65 million in damages for personal injuries. Thus, the answer to the question posed in the last post is a qualified “yes”. Can you imagine Aruba’s thoughts about the court of appeals?

OPPRESSING THE OPPRESSED MINORITY NO LONGER

In a development not about Republicans’ imagined campaign of voter disenfranchisement, the Texas Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling involving allegations of oppression of a minority owner of a Texas corporation.  Here is Gray Reed’s takeaway, prepared by Mark Wigder.  Generally speaking, it’s fair to say the “majority” won.