I've tried to explain that the fracking that carol and others are talking about is different to fracking for shale gas . And other forms of unconventional gas extraction, such as Coal bed methane extraction and underground coal gasification. The unconventional gas industry is very different to the conventional oil and gas industry.
Calloh, I have genuinely tried very hard to only link to reports and sources that are completely independent. There is nothing that I have linked to that is scaremongering. I could quite easily post hundreds of links to anti fracking sites, Friend of the Earth and personal testimonies from this effected. The links I have posted are independent. I'll ask again, has anybody read the compendium fem New York that informed the fracking ban there? concernedhealthny.org/compendium/ It's comprehensive and independent and clearly points out that the risks outweigh the benefits. Even if the belief of energy independence and jobs are true then it clearly states that the risks are too great.
Carol, that report you linked to is very interesting, have you read it?
It's conclusions tell of some of the same concerns that I have. Here I'll quote them.
That the companies involved are left to self regulate, do not need to disclose what chemicals they use that are at risk of entering the water table.
"One recommendation is for greater transparency from companies and regulating agencies . Although companies and most US states now provide some information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (e.g., the FracFocus disclosure registry; www.fracfocus.org), approximately one in five chemicals is still classified as a trade secret. Phasing out the use of toxic chemicals entirely would boost public confidence in the process further. Other examples of transparency are to disclose data for mud-log gases and production-gas and water chemistry to regulatory agencies and, ideally, to the public and to end the use of nondisclosure clauses for legal settlements with homeowners over issues such as groundwater contamination. The challenge is to balance the needs of companies with those of public safety."
That there are no short or long term health studies on the effect on human health.
" A second recommendation would address one of the biggest research gaps today: the need for short- and long-term studies of the potential effects of unconventional energy extraction on human health. Virtually no comprehensive studies have been published on this topic (76, 162–164). Nevertheless, decisions on when and where to drill are already being decided based on this issue. France and Bulgaria have bans on hydraulic fracturing that are directly associated with perceived health risks. In the United States, New York State has a moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing until a review of the potential health effects is completed."
That there is no legislation for baseline studies to be taken. Without them it's not possible to prove that environmental damage has occurred. The HSE, Environment Agency and SEPA need to be funded by the companies to take baseline studies for at least two years prior to extraction
"Third, the importance of baseline studies prior to drilling is increasingly recognized as a critical need. Predrilling data would include measurements of groundwater and surface-water attributes, air quality, and human health. In this review, we have not covered the many critical issues of social and community impacts of the unconventional energy boom. One suggestion is to create a baseline community needs and assets assessment (CNAA) to address potential social impacts (164). The CNAA should identify what jobs will be available to local workers, develop citizen stakeholder forums and reporting mechanisms, update transportation planning and safety training, and implement strong consumer protections before drilling begins (164).
A fourth recommendation is to place particular focus on surface and near-surface activities rather than on what occurs deep underground. Surveys of groundwater contamination suggest that most incidents originate from the surface, including faulty wells, wastewater disposal, and spills and leaks from surface operations (60, 88, 165). These problems may be reduced through best management practices or regulations. There are additional risks associated with hydraulically fractured wells connecting with old, abandoned wells that are not properly sealed. Increased attention to improving well integrity in shale-gas operations and to potential interactions between hydraulic fracturing and abandoned wells would help reduce environmental risks and impacts.
And that these wells need to last forever, the cement and steel casings need to hold the gas and fracking fluids away from aquifers and routes to the surface FOREVER. At the very least, companies should be made to clean up after themselves and pay restoration bonds. Currently they do not.
"Lastly, we believe that state and federal governments are underinvesting in legacy funds in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere for addressing future problems accompanying the unconventional energy boom. Drilling millions of new oil and natural gas wells will inevitably lead to future issues (e.g., see Section 4, above). Pennsylvania, for instance, currently has no severance tax on oil and gas production and took in only ?$200 million yearly in impact fees from 2011 to 2013. Most of this money was used to fund county and state operations, with $16 million from the fund allocated to current environmental initiatives in 2012 and 2013, including habitat restoration, flood protection, and P&A. To place these numbers in the broader context, Pennsylvania produced >$10 billion worth of natural gas in 2013 alone. At this rate, very little money will be available years to decades in the future when Marcellus and other wells age, leading to the kinds of shortfalls that some states face today from past industrial activities.
The biggest uncertainty of all is what the future energy mix across the world will be. Compared with coal, natural gas has many environmental benefits, and replacing old coal-fired power plants with new natural gas plants makes sense in places. However, natural gas and shale oil are still fossil fuels, releasing GHGs when burned. Will natural gas be a bridge fuel to a cleaner, renewables-based future? How long will the bridging take? Will natural gas be used to supplement renewables in the future or instead become the world's primary energy source? Will the unconventional energy boom lower energy prices, making conservation less valuable and slowing the adoption of renewables? Societies face difficult choices that can be informed by strong, interdisciplinary research. The answers to these questions will drive earth and environmental sciences for decades."
This report clearly shows that there are huge concerns about Unconventional Gas. Are you too blinded by the alleged economic benefits to see that?