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.

 

Good information.. however I would take the water samples information carefully. (I will try to watch the programs at home.) There is today's result from these samples and there is tomorrow's result. The chemical contamination may or may not present itself immediately. Monitoring reuslts are generally required in the result of a contamination for many years.

 

Again, common sense to me is that introduction of poisonous substances into our environment...whether air, ground or water...is going to cause a problem at some time.

 

I realize there are people who will do anything to justify making an almighty dollar.

You are correct and precautions should be taken. The fracturing actually occurs at depths way below our drinking water...hundreds even thousands of feet.

 

The biggest risk would likely be chemical leaks at or near the ground surface.

 

I'm totally in favor of environmental protection but we have to balance. We're getting a lot of natural gas from fracking. It's cheap and relatively clean. As long as it doesn't cause significant ground water contamination then I'm generally in favor.

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.

 

Don't forget to throw coal somewhere in there too.

I don't know what you all think about it, but fracking keeps me in a job, and I gotta eat and pay off student loans so...

 

(as if anyone needed another reason to think I was a jerk).

In all seriousness, I'd imagine that most standard leases include water testing provisions if you are talking about someone leasing out their own land.

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!

 

 

We're talking about the State that gave us Caperton v. Massey here.

You are correct and precautions should be taken. The fracturing actually occurs at depths way below our drinking water...hundreds even thousands of feet.

 

The biggest risk would likely be chemical leaks at or near the ground surface.

 

I'm totally in favor of environmental protection but we have to balance. We're getting a lot of natural gas from fracking. It's cheap and relatively clean. As long as it doesn't cause significant ground water contamination then I'm generally in favor.

 

No doubt there are benefits cost wise and a perceived favorable environmental offset to burning gas rather than coal.

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.

 

I watched both and is the reason fracking doesn't scare me.

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.

 

Chaney has not been VP for 6 years. 2 of those years the Dems had both houses of Congress and the White House. They could have passed something during that time period. I wish Congress would push for legislation to slow down the EPA. Congress should do their job. But in a manner that is seen, not by hiding it inside another bill.

 

As far as politics, it is this type of response I was speaking of. Chaney had influence, but if the situation is that bad, then opposition would have been pushed to the side.

Chaney has not been VP for 6 years. 2 of those years the Dems had both houses of Congress and the White House. They could have passed something during that time period. I wish Congress would push for legislation to slow down the EPA. Congress should do their job. But in a manner that is seen, not by hiding it inside another bill.

 

As far as politics, it is this type of response I was speaking of. Chaney had influence, but if the situation is that bad, then opposition would have been pushed to the side.

 

The democrats aren't interested in slowing down fracking right now, because then they can't say "United States' international energy dependency has been reduced under president Obama's watch".

The democrats aren't interested in slowing down fracking right now, because then they can't say "United States' international energy dependency has been reduced under president Obama's watch".

 

That is the type of politics I do not want hear. Stand on your beliefs. Hate the hypocrites in both parties.

That is the type of politics I do not want hear. Stand on your beliefs. Hate the hypocrites in both parties.

 

I don't want to hear them either....but that doesn't change it from being the truth.

Gas is at $2.50 or lower thanks to fracking, just sayin.

Gas is at $2.50 or lower thanks to fracking' date=' just sayin.[/quote']

 

Not if your a few miles from the refinerry that supplies it.

Break-even for some of these fracking operations is $80-$85-barrel oil. Price yesterday (12-10) for a barrel of oil was below $61.