It depends on how rigorously the industry is regulated.
If we apply good ideas developed elsewhere, such as a severance tax, we can control the rate of devleopment, avoid the worst environmental and cultural downsides, and reap some of the benefits. The key is to moderate the pace and scale of drilling activity in a way that will not damage exisitng communities and industries like tourism and farming. There are many ways of doing this. See Penn State's Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research website on the subject.

No They do not. As the woman from Pa. stated on your program you can not turn back time. Once the damage is done game over. Unless you live under a rock you know the weather patterns are changing as a result of our negligence environmentally. Remember the flooding and the earthquake of 2011 and you know what our negligence is capable of. If we destabalize the environment we sign or own death certificates.

No, this extraction is very reckless and has poisoned water supplies and is doing damage to air quality especially if you live near the fracking. Animals have been dying from this as well as some people who have had cancer who live near the wells. There is illegal dumping of the fracking fluids, methane leaking into the air and so much more. Is it worth OUR clean water and air and the lives of many?

Where is the EPA? Have they been gagged? This is the worst form of greed and is totally irresponsible. Our government has destroyed the economy and now want to fix it by killing us. If the soil and water are contaminated and become toxic, how are we to survive? America has always been the bread basket of the world. How, in good conscience, can our government allow this defiling of our land to continue? Destruction of this scope must be prohibited.

NO! The economic, environmental and health risks far outweigh any benefits.
It never ceases to disgust me how ignorant and short-sighted politicians, economists, energy companies and even many citizens continue to be about such matters in this day and age.
I can only hope that our/their children, grandchildren, etc... have any Earth left that's fit to live on during their time on it.

No! There is no benefit to hydrofracking except to lining the pockets of the greedy GAS Moguls. There is no safe way to do it. Gas Moguls are lying to you. No amount of regulation can control for safety. The method itself cannot be controlled with any degree of precision: neither the amount or type of dangerous chemicals poured miles underground, nor the mini-explosions through the Shale. The processes cannot be controlled. The exterior cement and other materials used to encase and sheath the underground drilling pipes to allegedly protect the underground and aquifers that the hydrofracking pipes drill through DO NOT do the protection job. If they did, people wouldn't be able to ignite water from their kitchen sink, their drinking and bathing water would still be clean, the animals on the farms near the hydrofracking drilling sites would be healthy, instead of losing weight and their fur. Remember BP's oil spill? They claimed their drilling pipes were being encased by cement, etc. and would protect the oceanic environment. That technology failed because the truth is it only had about a 50% accuracy of working. What a disaster and now Hydrofracking is selling the same lies of allegedly being able to protect the underground aquifers and grounds. Impossible! Hydrofracking is threatening the lives of the entire human race because it is contaminating our drinking water and that of the livestock you eat! If you permit hydrofracking to continue, your legacy to your great great grandchildren will be to leave them with chemically treated drinking water plants worldwide. In less than 100 years fresh drinking water will be history in hydrofracking areas...it is already history now wherever hydrofracking has been implemented where fresh water is being trucked in and paid for by the culprit Gas companies who are now putting EPA in bed with them because EPA is some areas has halted the trucking in of that fresh water. It seems the GAS Moguls have gotten to the EPA and is lining their pockets with blood money now. I urge you, buy the film GASLAND. It may take a century, or so, but no more fresh water will exist wherever hydrofracking has been implemented. And where was the media when Josh Fox was arrested? They are hydrofracking on our public lands for pennies reaping billions, do you know about that? You need to buy GASLAND, Josh Fox's docmentary film, it isn't perfect, but the film will open your eyes. Hopefully you will cry, as I did, for my America that is slipping away between our fingers. And pass the film along, and buy his new one when it comes out. Write to your Congressmen and to Governor Cuomo...do not let New York become another hydrofracking casualty as we lose our fresh clean water. Doris D. Manhattan, NY>

Doris, you have alot to say...unfortunately, none of it, excuse the expression, holds water. How do you heat your home? How do you power your computer? Do you know that hydraulically fractured wells have dotted our landscape for more than 50 years? Do you know that Josh Fox is compensated by a deep-pocket foundation that opposes fossil fuels in general but uses low-cost energy (read: natural gas) in its core business? MOST importantly, do you know that there has NEVER been any legitimate claim of hydraulic fracturing fluids EVER contaminating groundwater supplies? Do you know where your drinking water comes from? ? The answers: all NO. You don't know. Your ignorance is apparent in your verbose and unscientific post here. Educate yourself.

Not nearly; The earth is greater than the dollar.

The problem in answering this question, benefit vs. risk, is that both sides seem to be mostly perception and founded on very little fact. On one hand, you have communities of people who think they will soon become wealthy and an industry chomping at the bit to move as fast as they can while proclaiming they will save us from foreign oil. After 3+ years of shale gas drilling in PA, our economic “benefit” seems to have resulted in the slashing of our state’s education and social services budgets while lowering taxes for industry. Is this what economic benefit looks like? I hope not. On the other hand, you have people who have become ill shortly after a well pad or compressor station is constructed near their home, but in spite of the evidence, necessary “proof” that might conclusively determine the cause seems elusive .
I think the only way to ever get to an answer to this question is for our government authorities to fund more complete and concerted research into the impacts this industry has on air, water, soil, and the health of those living in relatively close proximity to unconventional wells. There are many examples of people falling ill shortly after the drilling/fracking process, and strong evidence of water and air contamination across the country, but to date, every attempt to get at the facts is crushed by this industry and O&G sponsored state governments that support it. As a country we are very good at hind site. We deal with problems only as they surface, and have to deal with them for decades after the damage is done, and at great expense to the taxpayers. It is not necessary for this to be the case with fracking. We have enough permitted activity to date to be able to perform much more grounded research into the real health impacts and would just need government sponsored baseline testing of water, air, blood, and soil prior to the drilling/fracking of a nearby well or construction of compressor station, so that when problems arise (as they almost always do), subsequent tests can actually be used to compare to baselines and provide conclusive proof – one way or another. An example of just why this is so important can be found in the Barnett Shale in Texas. In Dish, families who have complained of illness have since been tested by their state, and told that, although the excessive toxic chemicals found in their blood are emitted from the nearby natural gas compressor stations, there were no prior baseline tests to compare, so the toxins could have already been in their blood from smoking, or cleaning fluids, or anything else in the environment. The state supported the industry and concluded that the toxins could not be specifically linked to the nearby wells and compressor stations. The problem is, you can’t go backwards in time to get the necessary baselines to prove the cause. This is a common theme for states supporting this industry and one that must be prevented by taking a more pro-active approach to the research to actually get at the truth.
Until the truth is known, fracking chemicals fully revealed (rather than being protected as a proprietary “special sauce”), and this industry is made to comply like any other to our clean water and clean air acts, all unconventional drilling should be stopped. As long as there is such doubt, isn’t it only reasonable that the benefit of this doubt goes to the safety of the public who may be at risk, and not to the O&G industry regardless of any economic benefit? If it really is as safe as they claim, then why not just let the research be conducted and concluded. If they are indeed correct, then there will be plenty of time to drill . If they are not, then perhaps it just may be a matter of perfecting the methods so they don’t kill us n the process.

No! Consider the arguments in favor:"hydraulically fractured wells have dotted our landscape for more than 50 years?" Not relevant, because only partially true. The important point is how long have slick-water high-volume HORIZONTAL wells been hydrofracked? These are the wells we are talking about in the Marcellus, and this combination of technology is not even 10 years old. "there has NEVER been any legitimate claim of hydraulic fracturing fluids EVER contaminating groundwater supplies" It is pathetic how often this claim is repeated; but consider: 1)Chemical migration from the fracking site to ground water would not necessarily be so rapid that it would be detected in the less than 10 years that the technique has been used. 2)The hundreds of chemicals used (many not known to investigators) has made testing for all of them a time-consuming, expensive job. 3)The endocrine disruptors included in the fracking fluids are toxic in parts per billion, further complicating detection. 4)There is no way to know how soon after fracking aquifers should be tested to be sure that there is no contamination, or in which aquifers samples should be taken--the potential direction and rate of migration is unknown. 5)For these reasons and others, few comprehensive chemical tests have been carried out in terms of detecting chemicals proved to escape during the fracking process as such. 6)Nevertheless, EPA tests currently underway in Wyoming strongly point to this kind of link, especially when added to findings in other states. 7)Furthermore, there are many cases of human error that have resulted in wells being contaminated by the overall drilling procedures in use. 8)This is in spite of industry attempts to smother such reports through out of court settlements with binding non-disclosure agreements, making it as difficult to PROVE harmful effects from this kind of fracking as it was to prove smoking causes lung cancer. 9) Is it reasonable to argue that fracking should be continued until somebody proves in court that it is contaminating our water? For chemicals sprayed on food crops, the industry must go through lengthy trials to demonstrate safety. If some chemicals show up anyway, the food is recalled from the market. Shouldn't we have at least that much concern for our water? When an aquifer is contaminated, no recall is feasible. 10)Gas stocks already on hand are so excessive that the price has hit bottom--what is the rush to drill before we know more about the damage that may be done?

I for one don't know anything about fracking but I know something about believing things are safe and finding out later it was not as safe as advertised. I can think of a couple of oil spills and Nuclear Power plant catastrophes.

Is it worth the risk? Only if we know exactly what the risks / rewards are and our fears regarding the worst case scenario's can never happen. No Guarantees? Then NO fracking.

No, the economic benifits could never outweigh the risk to our pure water, clean air, the loss of pristine forest land, not to mention the public health and safety of people who are being forced to live in gas fields.

This industry is notorious for creating the classic "boom/bust economic cycle".

But even if that weren't the case, it is absolute maddness for us, as a society, to allow the wholesale trading-off of what we know to be finite, life-sustaining, natural resources like our drinking water and clean air for another finite resource that is not life-sustaining, and is in fact dangerous, natural gas.

It is time we focus on developing a real national enery policy and start investing in renewables. Sooner or later, fossil fuels will run out and we will have to look towards renewable energy sources, but by then, if we continue on the irresponsible path we're on now, we will have impacted our life-sustaining resources beyond repair.

So, no. The economc benefits are not, and could never be worth that trade-off.

Josh Fox was spouting off about Pavilion, WY, without current information or facts/ Check this out: http://eidmarcellus.org/2011/12/09/six-questions-for-epa-on-pavilion/ I wish the reporter had spent more time with the "Enough is Enough" group in Dimock. Those few seconds of reason, positioned against several minutes of complaints was tiresome.

Josh Fox is an activist who is benefiting from appearance fees and Park Foundation funding. He is not a credible source for this, yet RNN seems giddy to pander to him. And lose the flaming faucet scene. Colorado officials concluded it was not caused by drilling activity (look it up), and Josh Fox knew it before he released the film (look that up, too).
Journalism is long lost.

All phases of shale gas development including drilling, FLARING, open impoundment pits, compressor stations, and pipelines are TOXIC and HEAVY industrial development!!! They do not belong ANYWHERE NEAR, let alone a MERE 300 ft from homes, school, hospitals, daycare centers, etc. This industry SPEWS carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins, and endocrine-disruptors into our air, water, and into our FOOD-SHED!!!!!!
Natural gas infrastructure is DANGEROUS!!!! It BLOWS UP, it subjects land, water, animals and people to spills, leaks, accidents, blowouts- COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!! Fracking is PROVEN to contaminate private wells, ENTIRE AQUIFERS (Pavillion, WY), and surface waters. Entire creeks have been “KILLED” from accidents. Rivers have been polluted from the INADEQUATE “treatment” of flowback waste fluids from drilling, and subsequent release into our waterways of dense brines antagonistic to LIFE, heavy metals, and RADIOACTIVITY released from the shale. There is no KNOWN “TREATMENT” process that removes radioactivity from the water!!!! We are andàtaking *WATER*, NOT a commodity, NOT a “resource”, but LIFE itself!!! turning it, on a scale of TRILLIONS OF GALLONS, into a “BEARER OF DEATH” when the gas industry irrevocably poisons it. AT THE SAME TIME, they are ALSO removing TRILLIONS OF GALLONS of water from the ENTIRE hydrological cycle, FOREVER, which is COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED in history!!!! We do not have TRILLIONS of gallons of PUBLIC water belonging to the commons to GIVE PERMANENTLY to industry for privatized profit agendas!!!! Water’s value and scarcity will soon rival OIL and GOLD, which are NOT necessary for LIFE, but water is!!!! Water gets left in the shale formation from fracking, and that water will never again become a rain drop, a dew drop, a tear, or a drop of blood in the veins of someone YOU LOVE.
In PA we have long enjoyed BILLIONS of dollars from the SUSTAINABLE sectors of our economy: recreation (hiking, boating, fishing, biking), tourism, certified sustainable forestry, FARMING, wine- and beer-making. All these things require clean air land and water. These billions of dollars of profits, and the livelihoods of MILLIONS of Pennsylvanians who run small businesses which employ MANY, will be IRREVOCABLY DECIMATED by the boom-bust cycle of destructive and toxic drilling, which is already pricing local rural folks out of the housing markets of their own communities, and raising the price of food, goods, and services 30% or more! This is a crisis for rural poverty, NOT a boon! All the jobs are going to out-of-state wild-catters.

More than a million wells have been drilled and hydraulically fractured in the past 60 years in the U.S. There is not a single case where the frack fluid has come in contact with groundwater. The opponents have pit the environment and economy at odds. The truth is energy and the enviroment have co-existed quite successfully.

Julie Edgar - Do your homework, please. Your last sentence about all the jobs in PA going to out-of-staters is blatantly wrong and easily checked on a variety of PA websites. Bradford county has the lowest unemployment in the state. A high-school educated welder (with vocational training) earns $65,000 per annum there because of this industry and that's just one example. Readers, scroll back through all these comments.Most of the too-long for a blog comments are replete with opinion and emotion was not one prove-able fact to back it up. Who do you want to believe?

Just the facts.... Julie Edgar "Bradford county has the lowest unemployment in the state."

Wrong: This statement is false as written.

http://www.bls.gov/ro3/palaus.htm

Another Julie Edgar comment that is exaggerated "A high-school educated welder (with vocational training) earns $65,000 per annum there because of this industry and that's just one example."

http://www.ehow.com/info_12011899_gas-pipeline-welder-salary.html and in regard to this link, Pennsylvania is no Alaska......

Most of the time the people who are for something so destructive yet very profitable are usually industry hacks that are just trying to make sure to confuse the issue by misleading and not fairly addressing the issues. They also have a tendency to attack the naysayers to try to make them look unbelievable or basing all their logic on emotion. They take their mantra from Fox News where if you repeat a lie often enough then it must be the truth......

Just the facts.... Andrew "More than a million wells have been drilled and hydraulically fractured in the past 60 years in the U.S. There is not a single case where the frack fluid has come in contact with groundwater."

A lie - http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1211/Fracking-Pollution-finding-could-hurt-gas-drilling

You industry people are idiots in your blanket statements that anyone with a search engine can disprove in 10 seconds just like I did. Also it is energy act of 2005 that won't allow for testing of the chemicals used in fracking by the EPA. Wonder why??? since Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton and that Halliburton had a financial stake in this process. All we have to do is connect the dots and follow the money trail......

Forget about regulations protecting our interests! New York's DEC has never really regulated this industry: Their own records show that more than eight out of every ten oil and gas wells in this state have been left by operators for someone else to plug and clean up after, and the record has only gotten worse in the last ten years. If the industry ignores our current regulations with impugnity, then new regulations -- and our neighbors -- will be given the same disrespect. History shows that we can trust this industry to make a colossal mess.

One aspect of hydofracking that is missed by most is that properly done (and yes it can be properly done)hydofracking is a positive for the environment. The burning of natural gas creates about 40% less CO2 than coal(a greenhouse gas) and reductions in polutants (such as sulfur, mercury and carbon monoxcide) by over 90%. Add the possible reductions attributable to natural gas use in transportation (Navistar is now making trucks that are gas compatible and Pickens is building 150 natural gas filling stations nationwide)and you have a environmental winner. Environmentalists should be working to make certain that we get natural gas to to power oour production of electricity and to use in thansportation - and to insure thast we drill for it in a way that issures a minimum of problems. No source of energy (including renewables) is without problems.

I think that people with an open mind on an issue are generally people who have nothing to gain or lose. Like the used car salesman, he isn't going to voluntarily tell you anything that he'd rather you didn't know, and for the worst of them, will lie to you rather then tell the truth. Makes me think of the cigarette industry and its relationship to cancer.

Like others who have sent statements before me, just follow the money to help you determine the credibility of a source. Most of the people I know who have nothing to gain or lose from this Marcellus shale gas industry either don't care or are against what they see happening. However, many of my friends who have something to gain are now against it,now that they see what has been happening in their neighborhoods and on their land. I myself have much to gain financially as I own unleased land, own the mineral rights, and have been approached many times by the industry to lease. Of course, not knowing if fracking is safe enough to take the risk, and realizing that I am being talked to by a salesman, I was skeptical. That resulted in a trip to a lawyer with an industry contract that I had them rewrite to accommodate my concerns. I was left with the fact that I cannot trust anything they say they are willing to do for me. It was all buried in the legalese only a lawyer would understand. I do not want to be in business with a group I cannot trust. I will hang on to my mineral rights until the day I feel confident that giving them to the fossil fuel people will not contribute to diminishing the earth. There are many cases where I wish our forbearers had done the same for us.

All I want to know is how do I make sure the food and consumable liquid I buy IS NOT from a Pennsylvania fracking farm!!

But that isn't enough protection, is it? After seeing the RNN youtube vids it's clear to me that the probable contamination radiates out from any given well pad location. I know this: I for one don't want to buy ANYTHING my family consumes from a "frack zone"!!!

I am from Ohio where we have been (un)fortunate to receive Pennsylvania leftover unnamed poisonous chemicals from their fracking practices. And now our great(not)governor is trying to lease our state parks for fracking. And the earthquakes that have been found to happen in several areas where fracking is behing done.

I also believe that with the Great Lakes being so near to we are eventually going to make this great water asset to the states of OH,PA,NY and many more states.

WE DON'T NEED THE GAS. IF WE DO, WHY ARE THEY GOING TO SHIP THE GAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY? WHY ARE THEY BUILDING EXPORT PLANTS AS WE SPEAK? WHY,TO MAKE TOP DOLLAR; NOT TO MAKE US ENERGY INDEPENDENT.THERE ARE SAFER WAYS TO GET THE GAS IF WE IN FACT NEEDED IT. LET THE GAS COMPANY AND THERE FAMILIES DRINK THEIR WATER FROM THOSE AREAS FOR A YEAR AND SEE IF THEY GET SICK IF ITS SO SAFE. DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DEPRESSED PEOPLE. THE JOBS ARE TRANSIENT AND NOT LONG LASTING. ALSO, THE COMPANY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR- EVER INVOLVING ANY AND ALL DAMAGES. THE MAN WITH THE MOST MONEY ALL-WAYS WINS AND YOU CAN BE SURE THIS WILL HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT .IT CAN'T BE DONE SAFELY . JUST AS THE INVENTOR OF THE PROCESS.

I went to the gas pad at Elk Lake School with my FLIR GasFindIR OGI (optical gas imaging) camera to expose the source of the odor that both Kim and Mr. Stark (Cabot spokesman)were trying to describe.
There are condensate tanks on the site that are usually labeled as BRINE, these vent off emissions and are found on every finished Cabot gas pad that I have come across in NEPA. Please look at the footage on my youtube channel titled "Elk Lake Well Pad.....". And also look at my footage of compressor stations as well as leaks, etc. Most is from PA but I have traveled through TX, AR, and LA with this camera as well.
This is not just a PA problem, it is national and international. Please click on this link for my youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/balckbart0930/featured

Keystone Decision - A Canadian perspective:

This clip is from a Canadian newsman about the Obama decision to not let the Keystone pipeline continue.
In my mind, It raises some serious questions regardless of your political leaning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NEu98L7_2c

No. Shale gas extraction is inherently dangerous and the process must be considered from cradle to grave. From start to finish the process it riddled with flaws. Legislative loopholes and industry directed regulations allow it to be even more dangerous.

As it stands, where I live in Sullivan County NY the relatively few individuals that are for fracking for shale gas are the ones who stand to make some money by leasing large tracks of land. They are supported by industry, who has endless piles of money to throw into advertising and PR. It is a tough battle to get the truth out to the public and your series is well balanced and strikes to the heart of the matter. It is rhetoric on the industry side and a stark and sad reality that comes from the people living within gasland.

The arguments to frack fall apart when poked. Energy independence, nope; ports are turning to export. Job creation, nope; the Bureau of Labor statistics show numbers that are in stark contrast to what industry purports. Shale gas is clean; nope, when the extraction process and transmission is factored in shale gas is dirtier than coal.

Contaminated aquifers can never be restored; property values, public health and safety, quality of life and existing economic sectors are all at risk. The industry ignores the truth, the administration has called for science and to take the "emotion" out of the decision making process, but when presented with independent science somehow casts it aside.

Once the general public weighs the risks of fracking they overwhelmingly reject the process as too dangerous for NY State. Opinion polls of residents on the shale in Sullivan and Delaware Counties support this fact, 70% say no to fracking and yes to local control (home rule).

The medical community is concerned, the DEC employees union is concerned, independent scientists and economists are raising the red flag, the alarm has been rung. Please exit the fracking building.

No. This is just another case of the oil and gas industry exploiting communities for their own profit. Any economic boom will be limited and fleeting. The jobs will go to specialized out-of-staters and the money will go the gas companies, many of which are foreign-owned. The gas itself will be exported, so don't believe the notion about domestic energy independence.

hello; as I can see there is much debate to the benefits of fracking for natural gas, but during your coverage I've yet to hear discussion about the cost of fuel and resources to facilitate such large multipal drilling operations 800
gallons of diesal fuel per rig per pad site operating 24 hrs on each site until completion. Each fracking up to 18 times per well. By the thousands,fuel for heavy equiptment to transport and be used for each site. The transport of liquids in 100,000,000 of gallons. I'm not an expert on ecconomics but I can see it doesn't at all help to save our demand for energy. And no mention of the radioactive issotopes being brought up to and released in to our water and envionment. It as BRINE (A.K.A) produced water is a fact that radium 228 and other highly active metals where found by the DEC and EPA that can NEVER be treated are being swept and washed away without the publics awareness. To public water treatement plant's and public landfills Under permit by DEC and town officals that can't treat them.That dirty dollar still keep's moving around I am certified for hazmat 80hrs the highest in any region with 40hr classroom 40hr field training and awareness I recieved and reviewed and was tested on after that I took this information very seriously and there was a lot of littiture from state and federal and all that training was useless because the partys that wrote it don't even comply to it them selves. It feels like the training was to get ready for the mess they are in motion to create over the capital if there is any after the whole outcome......But there's no dought there will an enviormental catastrophie that's 1 and 50 that is FACT

How can this be question be answered with any certainty when the gas industry itself acknowledges this is an experiment?
A cost/ benefit analysis cannot be done on an unknown. This is just a crap shoot and should be halted right now.
Just listen to Prof. Terry Engelder on this topic,
"Engelder agrees that this drilling comes with a risk to the environment. “This is a very complex industry and there will be accidents,” he said. “People expect that level of risk in automobiles.” “If we want to talk about sacrifice, then we look to Dimock,” he said, referring to the best-known Pennsylvania site for drilling accidents. Engelder acknowledged that surface spills and other problems with the drilling process can cause water contamination. He provided a figure from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection which implies that 0.25 percent of wells negatively impact groundwater. This statistic does not include surface accidents like spills or casing failures that happen below ground."

http://srs444.blogspot.com/2010/05/engelder-speaks-on-necessary-sacrifice.html

How can there be an economic advantage in the end if the water table of the region is destroyed? What if water had to be imported forever? Somebody would gain. but not the people of the region, that is sure.

Instead of conserving what we have left and focusing on renewable energy, we are using our remaining fossil fuels in a demented dash to pursue what remnants are left which were previously considered too expensive and dangerous to obtain. How to make it profitable, get rid of regulations!The American people will now suffer like the rest of the world before us.

BillF &[not quite]Energy Savvy:

Confirmed: Fracking caused Ohio earthquakes
Published: 03 January, 2012, 22:42

"Ohio lawmakers have put a temporary ban on fracking after experts say it is certain that recent fracking in the Buckeye State caused an outbreak of earthquakes.

According to some seismologists, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is to blame for a string of tremors in Ohio, including a 4.0-magnitude quake on New Year’s Eve. It has long been suggested that fracking, which involves deep-earth drilling to extract gas for natural resource reserves, has been culpable for quakes. In the fracking process, wastewater collected during the deep drilling is injected back into the Earth for disposal. Thought to be safe by some, other experts insist that the brine water could find its way into subterranean faults and force parts of the planet to separate. **** The Youngstown, OH area has seen 11 small quakes since last spring, and now a moratorium has been instated in the area to keep future fracking from occurring while seismologists reinvestigate the quakes..."
--------------

State official: Fracking not cause of earthquake

The Associated Press
Posted Jan 01, 2012

McDONALD —

Officials said Saturday they believe the latest earthquake activity in northeast Ohio is related to the injection of wastewater into the ground near a fault line, creating enough pressure to cause seismic activity.

The brine wastewater comes from drilling operations that use the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale. But Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer said during a news teleconference that fracking is not causing the quakes.

“The seismic events are not a direct result of fracking,” he said.

Environmentalists and property owners who live near gas drilling wells have questioned the safety of fracking to the environment and public health. Federal regulators have declared the technology safe, however.............
There are 177 similar injection wells around the state, and the Youngstown-area well has been the only site with seismic activity, the department said. Zehringer said that to shut down all of the wells because of seismic activity near one would be an overreaction.

"State official: Fracking not cause of earthquake"

"The brine wastewater comes from drilling operations that use the so-called fracking process to extract gas from underground shale. But Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer said during a news teleconference that fracking is not causing the quakes.'

So what this article is saying is that those in charge of the drilling operation dumped waste water from the fracking process into the ground near a fualt line without thinking. And we are supposed to trust them when they claim fracking is safe?

Who knows what else they are ignorant about when it comes to this process? I guess we will find out after the fact, after the damage is done and perhaps is irreversible.

"So what this article is saying is that those in charge of the drilling operation dumped waste water from the fracking process into the ground near a fualt line without thinking."


What this is obviously saying is "don't
throw out the baby with the wash water".
The process of dumping brine waste water can easily be reworked around possible geographic problem areas without demonizing the entire vital process of fracking.

"The process of dumping brine waste water can easily be reworked around possible geographic problem areas without demonizing the entire vital process of fracking." BillF

Well is it really vital? Is it worth the risk? Do we know all the risks and are we careful enough to prevent worse case scenario's that cannot easily be reworked?

I was under the impression that deep sea oil drilling was vital and safe. Then we had the BP oil spill which was an environmental disaster not easily resolved. It could have been avoided and better regulated but it was not. If it is vital and we really need it, then it is probably worth the risk. Yet, history has shown that profits rule over diligence and vital just means the ability for some to make more money and not what is truly best for the people of our nation or this world.

"Well is it really vital? Is it worth the risk?"

I'm surprised in you Mike....If evolving man had taken that attitude
towards developing technologies associated with risk and opted instead to abandon them then we would never even have had the invention of fire. Needless to say, man would have become extinct millenniums ago. Given the single most issue, "oil" that leads to world domination or third world status, leads to wars or can also lead to peace, and certainly leads to total economic breakdown or can lead to prosperity and given the time you spend posting here hoping to solve these issues, I would think you would be the first to answer your own question above with a Resounding YES!

"If evolving man had taken that attitude towards developing technologies associated with risk and opted instead to abandon them then we would never even have had the invention of fire. Needless to say, man would have become extinct millenniums ago." Billf

Fracking is not a means to some new invention or breakthrough technology but an attempt to squeeze out more and more of the same old technology, plain old fashioned fossil fuels. A new, safer, cleaner better technology would be worth the risk but not simply trying to maintain the old. Besides, you give man too much credit. We did not invent fire, we found a way to harness a natural phenomenon. The same goes for air travel, electricity, nuclear power and so on. If we use all these things toward our advancement and improvement, then we move forward and evolve. If we use them simply to make money or as a way to destroy, then we move backward and become extinct.

"A new, safer, cleaner better technology would be worth the risk but not simply trying to maintain the old."


You are living in a dream world if you believe we can afford to drop development of any form of energy. The reality of the 2012 world economic , foreign political and national defense implications
automatically render that proposal to be totally irresponsible. Expanded use of all cleaner burning fossil fuels, nuclear energy and solar and wind power, etc. must be allowed to grow together in order for solar, wind, geothermal and other unexplored environmentally friendly power sources to be fully developed in order to some day phase out the more objectionable forms of power. The answer is certainly not to stifle the use or development of other forms of energy in order to create an emergency that would only end America up as a third world country and do little else.

"Besides, you give man too much credit. We did not invent fire, we found a way to harness a natural phenomenon."


The means and details to start fire in the first place by utilizing friction by rubbing sticks or rocks together was a man made invention. You are mincing words, of course everything found on earth can be considered to be a "natural phenomenon", directly or indirectly including life itself. Without man's development we would still be living like the baboon. What is your point?
My point is progress can only be achieved by trial and error....nothing can be improved unless it is tested and developed, and certainly including that which involves risk. As far as whether or not some of these technologies are developed partly or mostly by greed is merely a personal and probably biased opinion. Besides, the motivations for positive development of science, technology and invention in history rarely have any meaning compared to the benefits that were forwarded to man.

MiukeG: If I didn't already know better, I'd have thought that I was just reading a real life rendition of the Cro-Magnon Archie Bunker vs Einstein debate on the theory of Evolution.

When are you guys going on tour? lmao

"You are living in a dream world if you believe we can afford to drop development of any form of energy....As far as whether or not some of these technologies are developed partly or mostly by greed is merely a personal and probably biased opinion." BillF

But you are living in a fantasy world if you think greed does not exist or there is little potential for corporations to take extraordinary risks based less on our needs and more on profits. I hope you would agree that our nations risks verses our rewards can be worthwhile and needs to be regulated to prevent disasters but our risk for the sole purpose of corporate reward, should not take place, period.

There needs to be a way to measure how much risk is motivated for our need and how much is based on corporations looking to make money. I figured one way is to to determine how much oil we export. To my surprise it was somewhat less then I thought. I think around 10%. The link below brings up a chart showing oil exports. Notice in the 1970's there was very little. Yet other times it was much higher. My contention is, we should not take risks in order for some sector or business to make money. We measure how risky something is verses how much we all need and benefit from the risks we take and use that as the only basis for pursuing a risky endeavor.

Big government wants to regulate our lives, what lunches our children bring to school, what healthcare we can buy, licenses, home inspections and so on, Yet, they don't do nearly enough to protect us from those that can do us real harm with risky endeavors. What you think is biased opinion is probably only a lack of trust with the decision makers to do what is in our overall best interest.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCREXUS1&f=M

"but our risk for the sole purpose of corporate reward, should not take place, period."


So Mike based on your postings you've decided that fracking and off shore drilling as well as developing and increasing other new sources of oil in the USA are not the way to go and that all efforts should go towards green energy. Unlike you I agree more with Ron Paul who wants to remove restrictions on drilling, coal and nuclear power, eliminate gasoline tax, provide tax credits for alternative fuel technology.
Your energy stance more closely emulates that of Barack Obama and OWS.....there's no denying.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sabotaging America: The Obama Energy Agenda:

February 24, 2012

The Obama administration’s lack of any coherent, realistic energy policy is providing Republican candidates with a good deal of ammunition, as gas prices and oil prices continue to rise. The issue has put the president on the defensive as the specter of five dollar per gallon gas this summer gives Team Obama heartburn.

“It’s the easiest thing in the world (to) make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,” Obama said, speaking at the University of Miami yesterday. “What’s harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem that may not be solved in one year or one term or even one decade.”

Indeed. Clearly, making a serious, sustained commitment to a sound energy policy is well beyond this administration’s capabilities. Rather than investing in proven, affordable and plentiful sources of domestic energy, Obama has thrown billions of tax dollars away in misguided efforts to find pixie dust solutions to America’s energy needs.

From wind, to solar, to bio-fuels, the president has abandoned the free market to cast his lot in with the most extreme of environmental utopians and we’re all paying the price for his folly. This president, who asserts that America’s future depends on science and technology, has yet to even come to grips with the basic laws of thermodynamics. That level of scientific ignorance doesn’t bode well for consumers, or for Obama’s re-election prospects.

The president has tried to blame rising gas prices on factors that are beyond his control, such as increased demand from China and India, increasing tension with Iran and speculation in oil futures. While it’s accurate to say that America can do little to influence those factors, it’s entirely disingenuous to ignore the fact that we could have – and should have – taken action to mitigate those market effects.

We have seen crude demand in China and India rise steadily for over a decade now. That it continues to do so as those economies continue to grow shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all the president of the United States. The same holds true for the effect of the Iranian nuclear crisis. And, given all of the uncertainty and demand-side pressure, it’s clear that the free market is going to respond by hedging its bets in the form of rising oil future prices. The president sees the latter in terms of greedy speculation, but Obama has long-since abandoned any pretense of understanding – or caring – about the way that a healthy free market actually works.

Rather than whining about all of the predictable market pressures that are out of his control, the president should have spent his time planning ways to counterbalance them so that consumers would not get slammed. This he could have done, in both the short term and the long term. Short term efforts like pushing drilling in the Gulf and encouraging more development of more wet shale gas production would have helped stabilize prices immediately. Longer term projects, like Keystone XL and opening up federal lands like ANWR for drilling, would have taken the winds out of the sails of speculators, along with generating billions in tax revenue and tens of thousands of jobs.

Instead, the president continues to funnel tax dollars into ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky, money pit energy projects. For example, during his University of Miami speech, the president announced that his administration was committing $14 million to help develop algae-based fuels. He expects that will sound terribly cutting edge, but here’s the punch line: we know how to make algae-based fuels already. There’s no magic about doing so. There are no secrets to be uncovered. We’ve known how to turn algae into fuel for decades, but there’s a reason that we haven’t done so: it’s not even close to being cost competitive compared to traditional fuels.

At least it’s not cost-competitive to undertake such projects unless one is determined to game the system such that using less-expensive energy alternatives is no longer allowed. In that case, tossing money at ridiculous, expensive and unreliable forms of power generation under the guise of developing “clean energy” makes all the sense in the world. That is, if your ultimate objective is to make sure that your friends cash in on the scheme, no matter what happens to the average consumer.

"So Mike based on your postings you've decided that fracking and off shore drilling as well as developing and increasing other new sources of oil in the USA are not the way to go and that all efforts should go towards green energy." BillF

Abandon new sources of oil? ALL efforts toward green energy? Of course, NO WHERE in any of my postings did I ever suggest that. But I understand why YOU must lump me in with the Lefty fanatics. Because if it does not fit exactly into the standard right wing talking points or agenda, then it has to be Progressive. You are thinking, nope, nope, there cannot be views in between that make sense. Or, thinking that people must identify exactly with some political figure or party. I got news for you bub, if you are a real person, honest and think for yourself, you cannot align perfectly with any political party.

So again, I will state what I believe. OUR RISK for the SOLE purpose of corporate reward should not take place. We need to regulate risky endeavors such as nuclear, fracking and deep sea offshore drilling and even rethink them, if we can ascertain that the risk outweighs the reward. I like Ron Paul and I don't agree for the most part with Obama's energy policies.

BillF - That can't be, you cannot think that way and not emulate Obama and OWS!

Mike G - Sorry Bill, Yes I can, because I have a mind of my own and it is not what your mind thinks it is.

Lol..you crack me up with your predictable way of viewing the world. Be real man! Be yourself!

"Abandon new sources of oil? ALL efforts toward green energy? Of course, NO WHERE in any of my postings did I ever suggest that. But I understand why YOU must lump me in with the Lefty fanatics."

I didn't lump you in with the lefty fanatics, you did. All I said, and I stand by that, is your views regarding oil, and other fossil fuels very closely match that of Obama's and the DNC talking points and couldn't be further from Ron Paul's, the Tea Party or even Conservative positions. I also know they are grossly contraindicated to your own desires for repairing a broken American economy. We've had this discussion before Mike at other times, on other boards and that is why I do know your consistent disdain for anything other than green energy.

1/22/12 Mike G. wrote: "My point is why have we not been able to harness the power of the Sun? Why can't we find a cleaner, better, cheaper way? Why must we be dependent on costly foreign AND domestic oil company's when the power of the Sun is clean and free?"

This is just a sample of previous discussions......as if there was a grand conspiracy by Corporate America against developing other forms of energy. You are the one who needs to get real Mike. You also need to walk the talk regarding oil and energy when so much of your other rhetoric about the economy depends on it - now, not 15, 25 or 100 years from now. In other words, we need to
find ways to immediately drop the price of oil, by being much more friendly to drilling and finding new sources in and around this country and at the same time putting a greater emphasis on natural gas, which this country has an abundance of.

Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

"All I said, and I stand by that, is your views regarding oil, and other fossil fuels very closely match that of Obama's and the DNC talking points and couldn't be further from Ron Paul's, the Tea Party or even Conservative positions...I do know your consistent disdain for anything other than green energy." BillF

Bill, there is a big difference. The DNC talking points are for green energy regardless of whether it is "cheaper" for us and regardless of whether it is "better" for us but ONLY because it is cleaner, which gives government an excuse to control more of our lives. So I don't have disdain for anything but green energy but expected by now we would be further along, if we really wanted to be. When we walked on the moon 1969 most of us thought we would be further along in our space program by now but we are not. It is not because we are not capable but because we choose to spend our money elsewhere. So if we could run our cars on water or solar energy instead of oil and it is cheaper better and cleaner I would welcome that and not insist we stay with oil but would you?

As for Ron Paul, he is a principled Libertarian. His motivation for deregulation is less government involvement in our lives. He is honest and consistent with that principle which is why he believes in less taxes, less military and less regulation. I don't believe exactly like he believes because I want small government but not no government. I believe we need some military presence and we need some regulation but I agree with his principle of less government. Where as DNC and Obama want more government and that is the opposite. As I tried to explain in my other post, just because my point of view does not align perfectly with one party that does not mean I automatically belong to or value the principles of another party. I consider myself an Independent, not a Democrat or a Republican because neither party has gotten it right, in my opinion.

Wow, incredible blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make blogging look easy. The overall look of your site is excellent, let alone the content!

"As for Ron Paul............"

I only mentioned Ron Paul because I know you favor many of his proposed policies and I could draw a stark contrast between his and your take on energy. I wouldn't vote for Paul, no matter what only because his foreign policy stance is utter lunacy. If it came down between him and Obama, I guess I would have to shoot myself.
My frustrations regarding this country's non-energy policy has hit new heights especially when it becomes so apparent
that energy independence is so very much a part of our national defense. This may sound odd to you but I have always considered myself an environmentalist,
but a level headed one. While seeking greater environmentally friendly forms of energy we cannot allow our enemies to enslave our economy and future in gut wrenching dependence, as they have
so we must utilize the home grown energy available to us now to the fullest: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear as well as wind, solar and geothermal . This entails not unsnarling
those who explore, develop, construct and refine these fuels in nonsense political red tape, as is so often done, especially by the Democratic Administrations. On the other hand no one, including me is suggesting giving these developers a free hand......of course the public's safety should always be the priority, that goes without saying.

"My frustrations regarding this country's non-energy policy has hit new heights especially when it becomes so apparent that energy independence is so very much a part of our national defense." BillF

I agree! But my frustration is that if we really care about energy Independence then we have to develop and find other renewal sources of energy because the worlds demand for oil is increasing and the worlds supply is finite. So what have we been doing since the 1970's to prepare for the future? That is where government has let us down. Just like the deficit, SS and Medicare. Worry about it tomorrow but for now, let's just spend more and when it comes to energy just drill more or eventually ration and limit what we can use. We were able to create and use Nuclear power about 60 years ago, technology that many countries today still do not have. Yet for some reason, we cannot find a better, cheaper, renewal and more long term sustainable way for this country and it's citizens to be more energy independent. I can't help but think it has more to do with money and less to do with ability and concern for our best interest.

BTW, your last post was very good, non-partisan and logical. You might be a closet Independent after all!

I want to get across my admiration for your kindness in support of persons who must have help on this important area of interest. Your special dedication to getting the message all around had become quite effective and has frequently empowered many people like me to achieve their endeavors. Your new informative guideline can mean so much a person like me and somewhat more to my fellow workers. Warm regards; from everyone of us.

Awsome website! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am bookmarking your feeds also

Hi nice art! i'm Augusta and i add "Like" (facebook) to - Do the Economic Benefits of Fracking Outweigh the Risks?

I know the people in your video personally. To claim your wife can't have a baby because of the water?? WTH?!? And the Farnelli's were on assistance even before the gas wells came to the area (and no I'm not making fun of them), so for them to make it sound like they can't make ends meet because of medical issues is rediculous! The school is surrounded by dairy farms and also has it's own sewage treatment area. So where do you think the smells may have come from? I am so sick of my neighbors and their greed! We all knew the risks when we signed leases and now people are complaining? They still collect that lease check every month! Dimock is a wonderful area to live and 99 percent of us think so. Stop labeling Dimock because of a few greedy few that were offered money and methane burners to fix their trouble but they think they can get more. TWO new houses were built on that road recently by residents who have water troubles. WHYYYY would you build a new house on the same property with the same water issues?? We all know why!

I am sure this article has touched all the internet viewers, its really really pleasant article on building up new weblog.