Study: Hydraulic Fracturing Doesn't Contaminate Water Supplies

Uh, that's not what the study means bob.

 

No it really is not dangerous if performed correctly.

The video everyone references has the tap water setting on fire. While it is entirely possible that that could be a result a bad frac, it is not the case. The tap was contaminated already.

Most water tables, aquifers, are around 500 ft and fracking depth is around 6000 to 10k feet. I am not eliminating the possibility of contamination, but it is not as prevalent as one might believe. Many measures are made to avoid tapped water supplies. God, I sound like the dark side now! The economic benefit here is pretty big. It has made land owners rich in areas that are economically depraved and created jobs around the site. These jobs are temporary but I suppose it is a nice start, but once these reserves run dry so does the corporate capital.


Source: Fracking is my job.

 

Why the misleading title then?

 

#1. fracking is going full bore all over the country. There are very few "setbacks" other than public relations.

#2. Keystone XL has nothing to do with fracking. It's so the Canadian oil sands (thick crude) can be transported to the gulf coast and exported. Absolutely no relationship to domestic fracking.

Nice trolling, however.

 

Thats not an article, its an NCPA summary of the original article by CBS. Secondly, you added the word study as if that was the conclusion of the study which it was not.

NCPA is a conservative think tank group funded by businessmen.

 

The CBS article carries the same message. Not really sure what your interpretation is...

 

No, not really.


"This is good news," said Duke University scientist Rob Jackson, who was not involved with the study. He called it a "useful and important approach" to monitoring fracking, but cautioned that the single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute, since geology and industry practices vary widely in Pennsylvania and across the nation.

While the lack of contamination is encouraging, Jackson said he wondered whether the unidentified drilling company might have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with the research site, since it was being watched. He also noted that other aspects of the drilling process can cause pollution, such as poor well construction, surface spills of chemicals, and wastewater.

Jackson and his colleagues at Duke have done numerous studies over the last few years that looked at whether gas drilling is contaminating nearby drinking water, with mixed results. None of them have found chemical contamination, but they did find evidence that natural gas escaped from some wells near the surface and polluted drinking water in northeastern Pennsylvania.

 

This process has been extensively studied, environmental impact studies, one after another. It's the biggest nonstory there ever was. Unless you're talking about its economic impact, of course. Ask the Dakotas how it's treating them.

The only people opposed to this are the environazis who simply oppose any fossil fuel production and will not listen to reason on the subject. They can be safely ignored.

 

Worthless post is worthless.

 

^THIS^

I happen to be one of those folks benefiting from the fracking technology. Our family has held oil leases in the Bakken for several decades. We knew there was oil, but using traditional drilling techniques were unsuccessful in the past. Over the past several years, 32 people in my family (sister, brother, cousins, Aunt) have begun receiving royalty payments we would otherwise not have received. I say this not to lord it over folks, but as a reminder that Americans are benefiting in many ways from fracking...including keeping money that would otherwise be going overseas right here at home to be reinvested in our economy.

Its not a lot of money, but it certainly is enough to make a big difference to me and some in my family.

 

Hopefully you won't become one of the folks poisoned by it because putting chemicals into the ground without understand its effects is a brilliant strategy. Kind of like the tobacco farmer that profits from cigarettes while the companies lie about the effects of smoking. THAT worked out well

 

See this is what happens when someone like yourself starts talking about a subject you have no idea about. Like the fact that I am nowhere near this land, and even if I was, the fracking is taking place 2 MILES DOWN. Oh and the farmer where this is taking place fully supports the well and after 3 years has had no ill effects nor has anybody in the entire state.

But by all means, keep buying into the stupid BS that surrounds fracking.

 

If performed properly and regulated correctly, then sure. I lived in North Dakota for a little while and the fracking there is practically a free for all. The government there basically has no regulation (and what regulations do exist are not given any funding for enforcement so they really don't have any weight)

There have been all kinds of ridiculous things going on there. All of that land was farmland or borders farmland and much of it is already contaminated. You can't grow anything near the wells anymore. Not to mention there are no cleanup regulations so the fracking wastewater isn't even properly disposed. There have been all kinds of reports of water table contamination, farmland being poisoned, and poisoned dirt and dust just ending up in the air around there.

Its practically the wild west over there and the government is just letting companies do their thing. If we have proper regulation and enforcement, I have no problem. But our biggest oil boom is happening in a state that has chosen to exercise zero regulation of the industry. And there's no reason to believe (or evidence that) oil companies will be responsible.

 

I'm sorry, how many peer reviewed studies have you done on fracking? Please do tell. And what is my opinion on fracking? Again, please do tell.

 

I'd be more than happy to do so right after you tell me where exactly I live, where the well is that I'm supposed to be "poisoned" by and what safeguards have been taken (or not taken) at this sight to protect humans from being "poisoned".

You see, my post was simply RESPONDING to your post about my individual situation that you seem to be an expert on.

Once you respond to this, I would be more than happy to respond to your request. I think its only fair.

 

I don't care where you live or where your well is located. Yours is not the only instance of fracking in America. I do find it impressive that you're aware of the effects of fracking on public health. Please let me see your data and analysis.

No, you actually referenced and apparently agreed with a post that said people who are opposed to fracking are environazis. Then you said you profited from fracking which, unbeknownst to you apparently, speaks to your position on fracking which is that it's perfectly safe for if you had questions on its safety you would be incredibly irresponsible and morally bankrupt for accepting money without knowing the potential effects. Then I said I hope you don't get sick, assuming it was land in a community you lived in, and then I mocked the brilliant strategy of fracking land without knowing its effects. Then you said I didn't know what I was talking about and called concerns about fracking BS because nobody in the entire state, whichever state that is, showed ill effects from fracking as if you would really know that and as if those effects could only manifest themselves after three years. Seriously, how long does it take for smoking or asbestos poisoning to manifest itself in disease? If it were you, after three years and no ill effects, you'd be pretty happy with yourself until you developed lung cancer or mesothelioma years later. I don't even know why I have to address this with you. Any review of history would surely enlighten you that this is the game played by industry time and again.

So again I ask , where is your peer reviewed study? I'd like to read it.

 

Nope. I simply asked you one question. Why did you think I would be poisoned? Its a simple question. How do you know enough about me and my situation to make that claim?

YOU made this claim. I made no claims about you. Answer this, and we can continue.

Except...you can't. Can you?

Just admit it was a backhanded insult. Its not like anybody could see it any other way is it? Then you can rant all you want without my interference.