This is all quite factual, but you keep stating it is not. I guess you know better than the EPA and these Reps.
Last fall, the EPA released a report showing that fracking had contaminated groundwater in Wyoming, sparking a deluge of speculation about water pollution as a consequence of natural gas extraction. The evidence was used to back a claim that Pennsylvania water wells were polluted with methane. The New York Times' own investigation in the state showed levels of radiation well beyond federal drinking-water standards. In places like Texas, it's harder to get evidence, which some suspect is because of conflicts of interest.
There are 29 states with fracking in some stage of development or activity. Here is a map showing the location of U.S. shale gas plays, or shale formations in which natural gas is trapped(data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) courtesy of data.fractracker.org):
Since Garfield County, Colorado has experienced fracking development, residents who live within a half mile of the natural gas wells have been exposed to air pollutants, like the carcinogen benzene and toxic hydrocarbons known to cause respiratory and neurological problems, according to a three-year study from the Colorado School of Public Health. Colorado allows companies to drill for natural gas within 150 feet of homes, so nearby residents could be facing acute and chronic health problems like leukemia in the long-term.
Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping massive amounts of water into the earth's crust to break apart rock, so it should be no surprise that small earthquakes that have occurred in Ohio and Arkansas have been linked to nearby wastewater wells. The wastewater wells take in the water used to fracture the rock, and because the water is thousands of feet underground, it is under very high pressure. Since thousands of these new wells are being developed in populated areas, even small earthquakes are alarming for most of these areas haven't been seismically active in the past.
Fracking takes advantage of loopholes in federal laws designed to protect drinking water, so the chemicals used in drilling are not required by federal law to be publicly disclosed. Disclosure requirements for fracking chemicals differ widely from state to state, but the majority of states with fracking have no disclosure rules at all (only 14 out of the 29 have any). The rules that do exist are inadequate, failing to require disclosure of many important aspects, such as:
- pre-fracking disclosure of all the chemicals that may be used (this makes it impossible to trace and prove the source of water contamination if it arises)
- disclosure of the concentration of all chemicals
- full disclosure to medical professionals in the event of an accident because of “trade secret” exemptions
Even for those states with laws, enforcement isn't strict.
1. More natural gas won't mean energy independence. The IEA admits that despite being a top oil producer, the U.S. will still be dependent on exports from the Middle East to meet domestic demands, especially for emergency use during crises like oil spills.
2. Natural gas production estimates are merely guesses. Last year, some companies raved that shale oil could provide 100 years' worth of supply. More recent analysis has shown that only 11 years' worth can be fully verified. The IEA's report includes the important overlooked fact that the peak in domestic production in 2020 likely won't last longer than 15 years.
3. Continued production requires big investment. Recent declines in production have pressured companies to constantly create new drills as they face increasing debt. Aren't there other energy sources we could be investing in that have longer returns?
4. More natural gas drilling means continuous threats to public lands! While most fracking is currently happening on private lands, there has been an increasing demand for use on public lands, especially in the eastern forests. These lands were set aside for all Americans, including future generations, as part of our national heritage. The rush for shale oil will leave these special places permanently damaged.
5. Natural gas costs more than it’s worth. In addition to the contribution to climate change and its many costly effects, fracking is also expensive when it comes to healthcare, the largest driver of our national deficit. Health providers are becoming more aware of related public health issues, which include patients' mental stress due to feeling helpless over the quality of their air and water, stress which in turn can lead to neighborly discord. Should we really sacrifice all of this for a supply of oil that may last a decade?
Still seems more good than harm to you?
Originally Posted by Dameon
yeah, that's a killer right there. What about the feeling of helplessness over our debt? or our dealings with OPEC? How about the unemployment rate? I just realized I probably qualify for disability. I mean, can anyone really be expected to work with all this worry?
Neighborly discord is a killer people! maybe even the number 1 killer if the right group did the study.
link the articles please. you still are cut and paste. When I follow the links they lead to various magazines articles.
I don't consider those newspapers and magazines that accept advertising to be factual.
I want the references as I said.
I can go to any pro-fraking rag and blast back opposite opinions, still not FACTS.
And of course, fear mongering causes stress in a community. That is the purpose.
That's like the old Humbolt country Sheriff saying, ( I heard him) "Of course this marijuana is a problem! Why do think I've been fighting all these years?"
Thank you for taking time out of your busy Mitt Romney Fan club schedule. Your trolling has been a delight. At ANY time, if you'd like to state your fact based case against the harmful affects of Fracking,web supported or not, we would love to hear you scientific analysis of the situation.
Originally Posted by Doer
So, you look them up and copy/paste but won't include the links....you could but you won't. Why? Agenda?
Not picking on you here but it is a pet peeve of mine when people quote articles without links. It serves two purposes that I see, using someone's words as your own which is plagiarism, or just an innocent copy-write infringement. I say I'm not picking on you because I see it done a lot here by others and have wondered why it's allowed. Technically when you quote someone's property without reference they can sue the board. That's shitty.
Originally Posted by Dameon