I am all about new jobs and sourcing cheap, cleaner fuels but without cost. The Fox article is ridiculously biased towards the industry by providing only industry claims. To say more than 99% water is being pumped into these wells is a crock. Up until recently the industry has been exempt from disclosing the materials being pumped into the wells. Just now are industry actually being required to provide details of what actually is being used for the process. The non-disclosure was created by VP Dick Cheney and called the Halliburton loophole. Halliburton must finally disclose the materials used and they refused! They are or were under subpoena to do so. That is not very forthcoming for an industry claiming that it is mostly water! EARTHWORKS | Halliburton loophole 60 Minutes did a piece on fracking in 2010: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNl6sx059bE"]60 Minutes Video Piece on Dangers of Natural Gas Fracking - YouTube[/ame] Human Health Impacts Associated with Chemicals and Pathways of Exposure from the Development of Shale Gas Plays: http://leanweb.org/our-work/water/fracking/human-health-impacts-associated-with-chemicals-and-pathways-of-exposure-from-the-development-of-shale-gas-plays Fracking actually causes earthquakes, no sh!t!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/ohio-fracking-earthquakes_n_1182079.html Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-fracking just that I would like to see the procedure regulated such that there is no impact to environment and human health.
Balance is required here. Much fracking happens very deep and the drinking water aquifers (some also deep) are protected by layers of impermeable rock. However some fracking takes place where the drinking water aquifers are not isolated from the fracture zone. This is a serious environmental hazard. As long as independent regulators have to approve fracking and protect drinking water aquifers everything will be fine. The FOX article LIES when it says "there has not been a single confirmed case of polluted drinking water anywhere".The Environmental Protection Agency is releasing first results from its three-year study and has found that fracking has polluted local waters in Wyoming. This buttresses anecdotal claims of pollution from folks living in heavily fracked areas of Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Fracking may be causing groundwater pollution, says EPA report | Environment | guardian.co.uk
And cars used to be death traps. There is danger in everything. The key is to produce energy here in the states with an acceptable level of risk... We, at some point, have to pick our poison or take a back seat to energy while the rest of the world...
"Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-fracking just that I would like to see the procedure regulated such that there is no impact to environment and human health." Do you even know what you are asking? Here in the states, we are one of, if not, the worlds most regulated county. Everything that we humans do has an impact on human life and the environment around it… What you seek, and many tree huggers, is a place that cannot and will not exist. NOT POSSIBLE! All we can do is LIMIT the risk by investing time, money, and experience into new technologies to fully understand the process. By doing that, we can gain more for human life than we will lose by losing a grip on world energy…
Do you even know what you asking not to do? Tree huggers say stop for the sake of the tree. I say monitor for the integrity of the process and the environment. That aspect alone adds jobs without the burden of stopping the process.
Nonsense. I can give you many examples of successful balance between environmental protection and economic viability. Fine, so drop your objections to fracking regulations which are there to LIMIT these risks. These oil and gas resources will be depleted in a century, but we will always need unpolluted drinking water. Get your priorities straight. It is foolish to pollute an vital ongoing necessity for an ephemeral resource. Especially when the motive is short-term profits rather than long-term sustainability.
Uh, I was responding to this absurd statement: "Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-fracking just that I would like to see the procedure regulated such that there is no impact to environment and human health." It is statements like these, which are ridiculously vague, yet are taken for face value ranging from people who control no law and those who have the power to withhold energy production here in the states. Dairy farms have more/higher pollutants than fracking does…. [FONT="]“[/FONT]·[FONT="] Drilling continues to a depth below the base of usable water. This depth is specified by state or federal regulators and is based on local geology. While drilling this section, drilling mud – a mixture of fresh water and clay – is pumped into the hole to cool the drill bit, remove any cuttings, and create a boundary between the well and surrounding rock. [/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT] ·[FONT="] The drillpipe and bit are removed, and a steel casing is inserted. Cement is pumped through the casing, filling the annular space between the outside of the casing and the wellbore. This creates a sealed container that extends from the surface to below the base of freshwater zones. The blowout preventer is then installed at the surface.”[/FONT] [FONT="] [/FONT] [FONT="]But you know, **** happens…..[/FONT]
Dairy farms pollute surface water, not drinking water aquifers. Their pollution is on the surface can be cleaned up if it endangers the water. Fracking pollution cannot be remedied. The danger is that both water, chemicals, and oil move between rock layers along subsurface faults and permeable zones in otherwise impermeable layers which pinch out an thin in irregular patterns. It take extremely thorough geologic studies to determine where fracking is no danger. Oil companies tend to rush this and gloss over potential problems. It is essential for independent investigations to be conducted before permits are issued and monitoring well utilized to insure safety.
