December 9, 201411 yr This is nonsense. I am not a fan of fracking anyway. How is allowable for energy companies to inject any hazardous or regulated materials into the ground when if one runs a manufacturing plant, this would cost you millions in fines and remediation and long-term monitoring requirements? It's because the energy companies have NO conscience and they have bought many of our politicians. Putting these chemicals UNDER a major water supply seems risky to me!
December 10, 201411 yr If fracking is so bad, why has the EPA not put out regulations to stop it? Why has Congress not passed a bill to put an end to it? At the very least Obama could issue an executive order to stop it. Must not be as bad as the environmentalists say, as it has been around for 40-50 years. Please do not give the answer of politics, if it is that bad and unhealthy, standup for your beliefs.
December 10, 201411 yr Author If fracking is so bad, why has the EPA not put out regulations to stop it? Why has Congress not passed a bill to put an end to it? At the very least Obama could issue an executive order to stop it. Must not be as bad as the environmentalists say, as it has been around for 40-50 years. Please do not give the answer of politics, if it is that bad and unhealthy, standup for your beliefs. There was a bill in place for YEARS that prevented it. Then Dick Cheney became vice president....the same guy who used to work for energy company and fracking frontier-company Halliburton....the same guy who still held major financial interests in Halliburton. He was the vice president, and suddenly a law was pushed through as an add-on to another unrelated bill that cut out the EPA's legs below the knee when it came to enforcing themselves in the world of fracking. The EPA has no ability to regulate it.
December 10, 201411 yr There was a bill in place for YEARS that prevented it. Then Dick Cheney became vice president....the same guy who used to work for energy company and fracking frontier-company Halliburton....the same guy who still held major financial interests in Halliburton. He was the vice president, and suddenly a law was pushed through as an add-on to another unrelated bill that cut out the EPA's legs below the knee when it came to enforcing themselves in the world of fracking. The EPA has no ability to regulate it. Hey. Hey. He said don't give the answer of politics. :lol2:
December 10, 201411 yr Author Hey. Hey. He said don't give the answer of politics. :lol2: That's like arguing about the winner of a game and saying, "Don't give the answer of score."
December 10, 201411 yr Why does this surprise anyone? This is the state where people will frack their beagles.
December 10, 201411 yr If fracking is so bad, why has the EPA not put out regulations to stop it? Why has Congress not passed a bill to put an end to it? At the very least Obama could issue an executive order to stop it. Must not be as bad as the environmentalists say, as it has been around for 40-50 years. Please do not give the answer of politics, if it is that bad and unhealthy, standup for your beliefs. What answer is one supposed to give then? Laws and regulations are made by politicians and enforced by the government. Politicians are influenced by PAC's, and the oil and gas people have a big one! The oil and gas people make a living off of scaring the public "don't approve this pipeline and gas will be $5.00 per gallon" to get what they want.
December 10, 201411 yr Attached link has some fracking facts: Dangers of Fracking However, on the good side, fracking has opened up significant reserves especially for the US. Fracking has provided natural gas which has reduced the US dependency on coal. The chemicals just scare the heck out of me.
December 10, 201411 yr If we can prove any negative effect outweights the financial gain of the state I will listen. Sorry if I don't shed a tear over the EPA losing some power. They have to much power as it is.
December 10, 201411 yr If we can prove any negative effect outweights the financial gain of the state I will listen. Sorry if I don't shed a tear over the EPA losing some power. They have to much power as it is. We generally agree on a lot of things, but the chemicals injected into the soil are known carcinogens and including uranium. Do you need to be convinced that they are harmful? If not, then the question is whether they will at some point create an exposure to humans. I think most geologists will say that it is likely. It used to be OK to dump all our waste in the ocean and/or into lakes...like Erie. How did that work out? Do we every wonder why so many people are getting cancers and diseases and why there are so many children with behavioral and physical defects?
December 10, 201411 yr As I would suggest with any topic, do the research for yourself. Watch Gasland. Watch FrackNation. You'll get both sides. Gasland will scare the crap out of you. But then when you watch FrackNation and see the power of the Freedom of Information Act, you won't be as scared. It was very easy to debunk much of what was stated as fact in Gasland with federal and state EPA reports including video of them presenting clean water results to people who are at the forefront of anti-fracking movement. Hilariously the anti-frackers went ballistic on the EPA representatives because their water was clean. I noted with a very easy internet search, that the 2005 energy bill in question was voted into law with significant support from Democrats (around 20 senators and 200 representatives), including a 'yes' vote from the senator from Illinois, B. Obama. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213 Each state should be able to decide for themselves if natural gas fracking is for them.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.