I know that we discussed this over email, but I might as well copy in my response to you for others to see:
Always good to hear your thoughts on this (and other) environmental issues.
As indicated in my post, I'm sceptical of the ability of tort/common law to adequately address the concerns surrounding fracking in of itself. I'm certainly less inclined to believe that the Deepwater Horizon disaster would simply not have happened in the absence of regulation. (Poorly enforced as it might have been. It seems to me a false dichotomy to argue otherwise.) However, our opinions will have to suffice in the absence of satisfactory counterfactuals!
I think that robust regulation can underscore, rather than undermine, the preventative and recompensatory elements of common law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you more or less seem to reach the same conclusion in your Petroleum Economist article, no? In that sense, I think that we are in agreement regarding the importance of liability obligations that reflect the full extent of damages.
I have a post fleshing out my broader scepticism of (sweeping) claims regarding the (innate) superiority of the tort system here if you're interested!
PS - To those still reading the thread, David and I had in-depth discussion about this topic via Google Hangouts. You can watch the YouTube video here.