Fracking Tied to Drinking Water Damage by EPA Regional Official

July 31, 2013

  • July 31, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    M. Prankster says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    Flammable tap water – YIKES!

    Real bad news for people who extinguish their cigarettes under the faucet in the sink.

    • July 31, 2013 at 2:49 pm
      Vickie says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 0

      or the toilet….. LOL

  • July 31, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    anon says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 17
    Thumb down 16

    What Bullsh*t !

    “according to a report prepared by a federal official”
    “previously unreleased document from an employee”
    “and perhaps during the fracking process and other gas well work,” according to the undated power-point presentation prepared by the EPA coordinator in Dimock, who isn’t identified”
    “is The data and conclusions have not been peer-reviewed a preliminary evaluation that requires additional assessment”

    Gasland is a fraud!

    • August 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm
      TomTom says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 7

      So the EPA studies that say there is no contamination are 100% factual, but when one gets released that doesn’t fit your pro-drilling agenda it’s a fraud? Hypocritical much?

  • July 31, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    Lesha says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 2

    No surprise there.

  • July 31, 2013 at 3:31 pm
    Becky says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 17

    I just don’t understand how anyone can think blasting chemicals, water and sand into the Earth to break it up is a good idea!

    • July 31, 2013 at 5:36 pm
      InsGuy says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 15
      Thumb down 7

      That’s only 1/2 of it. When there done, they “inject” the waste water into to the hole to dispose of it. Of course, I say “dump”.

      • August 1, 2013 at 9:29 am
        Becky says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 11

        Not to go all “hippie” on everyone (trust me, that is the opposite of who I am!), but don’t people understand that this planet is the place we live and not a giant waste bin?

        • August 1, 2013 at 10:26 am
          M. Prankster says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 5

          Becky,

          Two people disliked your comment? That is very telling. And kinda sad.

          We do not need to be hippies to be stewards of the Earth. We can all be “eco-warriors” in our own personal way. I truly believe, every little bit helps.

          • August 1, 2013 at 12:47 pm
            Becky says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 1

            Maybe two hippies were offended that I wanted to distance myself from that label ;)

          • August 5, 2013 at 1:55 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            Planets like ours are so rare, I don’t understand why we continue to look for ways to destroy it. How many species must we kill? Our own, perhaps? The planet was living long before humans were. Why do we constantly act like the planet is here primarily for us? And, I don’t care if I sound like a hippie.

          • August 5, 2013 at 3:58 pm
            Don't Call Me Shirley says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            The planet is here primarily for us. The Magical Wizard who lives in the sky gave it to us, along with all of the animals. We are the supreme creation (in His image, in fact). It’s in the book. All is justified.

          • August 8, 2013 at 11:38 am
            Libby says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Right on, Shirley! Science Schmience.

    • August 9, 2013 at 2:33 am
      Anteaus says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Becky, if you understand what shale is, then you will realise that this isn’t a case of destroying bedrock which supports the Earth’s structure. Shale is a very poor structural material; it is already laced with cracks and fissures, and contains a fair amount of organic material. It mostly occurs in narrow layers. Putting a few more cracks in this stuff isn’t going to cause the planet to split in two any time soon.

      There might be issues with groundwater contamination, and the best way to address that concern is to allow controlled testing. Yet, the Greens desperately want to stop those tests. Why? Perhaps, because they are afraid of an outcome which declares shale gas to be safe, and prefereable to wind or solar.

      It’s when you separate the facts from the propaganda that a meaningful picture emerges.

  • July 31, 2013 at 5:35 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    Does any independent testor hired by the company come back and say, “Gee, I know you hired me to run this test for you and I must say that your screwed. By the way, here’s my $20,000 invoice, please note it says ‘due upon receipt’”.

    yeah, right!

  • August 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    Ben says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 9

    If this is the first you are hearing about this then you ABSOLUTELY have to watch the documentary Gasland part 2(its on HBO).

  • August 1, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    Doubting Thomas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 1

    I grew up in OK/TX. Fracking is a very safe way to extract oil out of the ground. Did you see the documentary where the oil company exec drank the fracking fluid? The EPA is full of it.

    Yes, if you frack near a water supply, you are incredibly stupid. Of course, you are going to ruin the water supply if you do not use the right chemicals.

    Please do some research before commenting. The EPA is just posturing. They have not won a lawsuit in years. Yes, if you are a tree-hugger and want to find where a very unsafe method of fracking caused problems, PA will do.

    Gasland is just that – hot gas with no substance.

    • August 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 14
      Thumb down 1

      So what’s your point? Fracking is safe if done correctly and it’s not safe if it isn’t? I guess I would agree with that. The problem is that when mistakes are made with the environment, it can be a long painful, costly process to fix. In the past our titans of industry dumped sewage and chemicals into rivers because it was cheap and convenient. And in some cases they just didn’t know better. But I hope we’re smarter than that now. Don’t you?

      • August 5, 2013 at 10:41 am
        Whodathunkit? says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        I agree SWFL, only government can do thses types of things safely and cheaply. Obamagas, yeah, that’s the ticket.

        • August 5, 2013 at 11:22 am
          SWFL AGENT says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Never said I thought Gov’t can do it safely and cheaply. How do you get that from my post? Just make it up?

          • August 5, 2013 at 1:58 pm
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            He just wanted to say “Obama” something, in my estimation. Obvious Obama Derangement Syndrome.

  • August 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    EPA won’t confirm fracking pollution tie, tells states to do their own investigation http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/21/epa-wont-confirm-frack-pollution-tie/

    EPA decides peer review of fracking study not such a good idea http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/23/epa-decides-peer-review-of-fracking-study-not-such-a-good-idea/

    Does anyone know what ended the last Ice Age? Anyone? Beuller?

    • August 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 3

      Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. Now, will you stop asking about the end of the ice age?

  • August 9, 2013 at 9:07 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Libby, there used to be a mile high glacier where I’m sitting right now. So, call me crazy but I think you are overstating your case – also known as spouting nonsense.

  • August 9, 2013 at 9:08 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    http://www.ClimateDepot.com



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features