Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, I don't want it happening

    Fracking for gas is dangerous and opens up people and the environment to all kinds of health hazards and the ruin of natural resources. Fracking, especially certain types of fracking, releases gases and chemicals into the air. Once released, there is no way to contain them. Those chemicals have carcinogenic qualities. To me, fracking seems like a dangerous way to find one more greedy way for people and the government to exploit natural resources for a lot more gain than necessary, at the expense of public health.

  • Pretty much...

    Since fracking involves digging beyond layers deep within the earth, I do believe it is dangerous. Those layers of the earth are deep for a reason. When we go digging into parts of the earth that are meant to be left alone, we cause environmental problems that put the world in danger.

  • Everything is dangerous

    You will see arguments both ways and from what I understand there is more then one way to frack. Yes many fracking operations have poisoned the land and water around the area but if you listen to the officials in North Dakota it is done differently there and won't have the same effects.

  • Fracking has proved to have negative impacts on the areas surrounding the fracking sites

    There have been numerous complaints nationwide of the negative impact that fracking and the chemicals involved in the process have had on communities and properties surrounding the drilling sites. There have been reports of cows and other livestock being affected by the residual effects of the fracking process. Veterinarians have noticed and reported adverse health conditions, still births, cows whose tails inexplicably fall off and even, in extreme cases, dead livestock in areas that re impacted by fracking technology. Some veterinarians and farmers have advised against eating the meat of these animals as they say the meat may be tainted in the animals with such strange afflictions. There has also been a marked increase in seismic activity in areas surrounding fracking sites, as well as tainted water supplies and a noted increase in human maladies, such as increased migraines, rashes, diarrhea and breathing ailments. Many researchers have also pointed out illness clusters, such as statistical spikes in cases of cancer and unexplainable illnesses in children, in these same areas. So far, the only people claiming that fracking has no impact and is not dangerous are the ones who stand to benefit from the process in one way or another.

  • Fracking has a few neg effects but coal/ other ways to get energy are more dangrous

    First of all 1000 out of the 500,000 spots used for fracking have had some sort of minor problem so most of the time it works.

    1. No ground contamination / is safe
    2. Even though 90% of oil and gas wells in the United States (one million wells total) have undergone fracturing to stimulate production, there have been no confirmed cases of contamination of underground sources of drinking water.
    Water is safe
    3. Current industry well design practices ensure multiple levels of protection between any sources of drinking water and the production zone of an oil and gas well.
    “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater.” (Fox News, April 27, 2013)
    And:
    "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011)
    • A 2011 report for the Secretary of Energy counted 19 times that water from hydraulic fracturing operations has been released, out of thousands of wells drilled. None of these instances included groundwater contamination.
    Hydraulic fracturing allows improved recovery of valuable energy resources and production of greater volumes of hydrocarbons from each well. The size of the area drained by a hydraulically fractured well is larger than wells that are not stimulated by the process. Therefore, fewer oil and gas wells need to be drilled if hydraulic fracturing is utilized, which in turn minimizes waste volumes and surface disturbance associated with oil and gas drilling.

    Scenario for if the so called spills were to happen and the low cost compared to the economic benifits
    • costs for a scenario that assumes 100 spills a year out of 10,000 new wells drilled each year. They figure that if 5,000 gallons of polluted hydraulic fracturing fluid were to spill into a field, the cost to scrape up a hypothetical 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and dispose of it at an offsite landfill would be on the order of $2.5 million. Furthermore, if potable water wells were polluted by hydraulic fracturing, the cost to haul in a potable water supply and drill new water wells would be about $5,000 per well. Given 100 incidents in a year, the clean-up costs associated with hydraulic fracturing accidents would be roughly $250 million.
    Comparing $250 million a year in phantom damages against the $100 billion in savings and economic benefits, it is reasonable to conclude that benefits exceed costs to by 400-to-1.

    The only real alternative fuel would be coal which is more harmful and inconvenient

    • According to the Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas-fired electricity generates half the carbon dioxide of coal-fired production.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.