Like anything from this Right Wing Tank can be believed or taken academically seriously.

Tell this to all the people of the world who have poisoned water due to fracking that it is manageable.

How can anyone with one working brain cell gave anything good to say about fracking.

The gas comPnies fracking don’t have to tell us what chemicals they are using as its a trade secret.. May cause your well water to be contaminated but sorry we don’t have to tell you what you may be drinking..how stupid is that.

Also they leave this chemical concoction in the ground so it gas as long as it wants to contaminate the ground water.

Oil companies fill up dead wells with these chemicals and others to dispose of them..

Fracking gas caused numerous earth quakes etc and a earth quake is not manageable.

In any big businesses eyes killing a few people is ” the cost of doing business” cheaper to pay them off than stop making money..

Fraser instatoot , the stink of the Koch’s oozes out with each word they speak .

According to who will prosper “standards”

“Like anything from this Right Wing Tank can be believed or taken academically seriously.” Like anything from the left tards with a biased agenda can be believed.

“But as a recent US Environmental Protection Agency multi-year study found, hydraulic fracturing has not led to systemic impacts on drinking water.” Guess you folks overlooked that statement in the above piece, the EPA actually being very left bias.

Bcracer you got facts? Do you use gas? Take a look around you, your stuff is made out of oil and gas.

And the sun created every drop of oil , gas and everything else around you , including you .

Seamut: “Like anything from the left tards with a biased agenda can be believed”
Like the Fraser Institute is totally value-free. Man, are you ever gullible.
The article emphasizes the critical need for “best practices” and therein lies the problem: who monitors the fracking crews to ensure they are utilizing best practices? The simple answer: nobody, because environmental stewardship is left almost entirely up to the oil and gas companies and like all such enterprises, they do not always adhere to best practices when those practices encroach of profits. It’s like the best practices that suggest that when little Johnny comes home from school he should do homework but when left to his own devices, he drops his homework on the floor and grabs the Play Station. In other words, the Fraser report is completely useless because it doesn’t reflect the industrial reality.

Krusty, read what I wrote, then read it again, did I mention any support to the Fraser institute but they do make the most sense in a lot of cases if you can get by your biased ideology. One should be open to new ideas and information. I pointed out the information came from the EPA.

What would your life be without oil and gas, ever think about that. Is there any source of energy that does not leave an environmental footprint?

Here is an interesting read, check out the comments especially the Canadian comment.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/vladimir-putin-climate-and-political-realist/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/13/stanford-publishes-a-report-on-the-balanced-use-of-fracking/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/breaking-epa-fracking-poses-no-widespread-systemic-harm-to-drinking-water/

Now why would I get a thumbs down when the information and studies are from Stanford and the EPA. I suppose the links where not read so those persons who gave the thumb down must suffer from myopic bias and are too immature for continued learning.

Like everything else, the energy sector is constantly evolving, become more efficient, more technologically advanced and more environmentally conscious. Things are far better than they were 50, 25 or even 10 years ago. I recently read of a new fracking technology that does not use fluids. Will try to locate the article and will post it if I can find it and if I don’t get too many trick-or-treaters!

While I am looking, I’m sure that each and everyone of us will continue using our petrochemical products, plastics, etc! Enjoy!

FRom http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/06/05/dont-be-fooled-epas-fracking-study-explained

The multi-million dollar study did not answer the fundamental questions about the pollution of water from hydraulic fracturing. The oil and gas industry pressured the agency in the design of the study, narrowing its scope and focusing it on theoretical modeling conducted by researchers that often conduct research favorable to the industry.

In a shocking display of the power of oil and gas interests, they successfully blocked the agency from gathering data from direct monitoring of fracking operations. Rather than demanding that companies like Exxon (the largest fracker in the U.S.) or Chesapeake allow them to monitor water wells near fracking operations, the EPA caved to industry pressure. For the study to be meaningful, the agency needed to conduct baseline water testing at prospective wells that would provide a snapshot of water quality before fracking and that would be retested after a year or more after oil or gas production began.

Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist and a member of the EPA’s 2011 Science Advisory Board, a group of independent scientists who reviewed the plan for the study, remarked on the failure of its design: “This was supposed to be the gold standard. But they went through a long bureaucratic process of trying to develop a study that is not going to produce a meaningful result.”

Yet even with the study’s poor design and the deceptive headlines, the 600-page document does include concrete examples that fracking does indeed contaminate groundwater resources, a fact already confirmed by numerous studies based on existing scientific data. The study confirmed cases of water contamination with five after-the-fact, or retrospective, case studies, each focused on a community where residents have complained about water problems for years. This embarrassingly limited review of the impacts from spills and releases, water withdrawals, and issues with waste disposal provide proof that fracking negatively impacts our water resources. They included:

Drinking water monitoring wells had “chemicals or brine” from a blowout that occurred during fracking operations in Killdeer, ND.
“Up to nine out of 36” wells considered in a Northeastern Pennsylvania case study “are impacted by stray gas (methane and ethane) associated with nearby hydraulic fracturing activities.”
In Southwestern PA, wastewater pits and other storage sites caused chloride contamination. Regarding stray hydrocarbon gas found in domestic water wells, the EPA determines it was from shallower gas formations, not the targeted shale formation, but whether nearby drilling through the shallower formations led to such contamination remains unanswered.
At the same time as hydraulic fracturing operations in Wise County, TX, two water wells were impacted by increased presence of brines.
This incomplete and inadequate study is an embarrassment for the Obama Administration and the EPA. It falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect the health and safety of the many millions of Americans living in watersheds impacted by fracking — nearly ten million within one mile of a fracked well, according to the study.

Choose who you trust carefully, and choose the precautionary principle if in doubt. Not like industry would lie, hmmmmm.

Just another special interest group putting out any information that supports their agenda. Not sure why this is news. If the story was that the Fraser Institute doesn’t think fracking is a good idea, then THAT would be news.

If your against fracking and have a gas heating bill.. Your a special kind of stupid aren’t ya..

Someone might be a “special kind of stupid” if they want to extract natural resources at any cost with no thought to our kids future and only to save money on their monthly gas bill

@ dennlemieux.. what’s your definition of extracting resources at any cost.? We actually have it pretty lucky in BC and in this country for that matter. I challenge anyone in disagreement to read an environmental assessment from cover to cover..

I love it, you leftard econazies didn’t even know what fracking was 5 years ago. This practice has been going on for 50 years. I have lived in Alberta for most of my life and have not heard of one water well being contaminated from fracking. Some Micheal Moore wannabe puts out a totally biased film, “gasland” and you guys are now experts. Hahaha, love how the Fraser Institute can’t be believed but the Center for Policy Alternatives, The Pembina Institute or other crack pot climate change institutions are treated as gospel. Believe what you want to hear I guess. This why any rational debate with the likes of you, P Val, Ataloss and others is pointless……….but fun.

Dow7501 the idea that any of us could engage in a rational debate with the likes of you and Seamutt makes me laugh. Your handles completely indicate what kind of cons you are. Rational conservatives would be embarrassed to be associated with you people. You people are exactly the types that rational conservatives would like to see purged from their ranks.

Also, you claiming to not hear about contaminated wells from fracking in Alberta is zero evidence that such contamination hasn’t or isn’t taking place. Alberta’s environmental regulations involving the oil and gas industry were and still are mostly a sick joke. What else would you expect in a province that has had the oil and gas industry setting policy via their Conservative government puppets for that period of time? I mean the 50 year period that you are so proud to trumpet is about exactly the amount of time the CONservatives were in power.

Haha show me some proof of all these contaminated wells. I would say as a farmland owner with 2 fracked gas wells and several pipelines on my land, I have a bit more knowledge of the oil and gas industry than a light weight like you. Your out of your league.

I have a brother who is a petroleum Engineer and if your pea brain thinks the O & G industry is not regulated very highly, you’ve just proven your complete lack of understanding of the sector. Stick to making hemp products to sell at farmers markets.

apoliticalgeek that piece you posted was written by Wenonah Hauter, here is information on her as a director of Food and water watch

Food & Water Watch is a political organization masquerading as a charity. It’s dirty tricks campaign against natural gas is very profitable.

http://naturalgasnow.org/food-water-watch-profits/

hahaha that all you got come on, no information to add what so ever, just a school yard rant.