Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeJay
Sources?
No one has made a scientific claim that fracking is safe. They cannot: they refuse to disclose the thousands of chemicals that are mixed with our freshwater during the fracking process -- water which must be stored underground forever because it becomes far too toxic to permit evaporation.
Aside from permanently destroying large volumes of drinking water, regions in which fracking takes place are at risk for earthquakes, but the most obvious side effect of fracking is the human health concern from neurotoxins (i.e.: headaches and developmental problems in children).
By "done safely," I think you mean to say "done without enough public complaints to stop it."
|
It has been carried out safely for natural gas and/or oil in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and B.C, among others.
The chemicals which are used are of proprietary nature and specific to the company which uses them and protects that combination for business reasons. Much the same as engineering firms do not disclose the nature of their work when under contract to other companies. Most of what is used is a combination of water and sand with chemicals used primarily to loosen what's there and help draw it out.
Nobody has firmly linked the occurance of earthquakes to the use of fracking methods to withdraw oil. Correlation? Earthquakes have occured in areas where fracking has taken place, yes. They have also occured in places where there hasn't been fracking. Much the same as fracking has taken place in locations where there have been no earthquakes.
I fail to see how it destroys large volumes of drinking water. We're going a thousand meters down, far below the water table. Unless gravity pulls the fracking fluid up, I have no fears.
The instances in which fracking has caused issues which have been widely demonstrated in TV documentaries such as the Nature of Things and Gasland were mainly cause because of a lack of knowledge. Fracking was carried out in places like Pennsylvaia when it was a very new process. Fluids were injected at high pressures causing fissures to open which allowed the fluid to flow upward in it's over-pressured state. It then pushed itself and natural gas upward into the water in isolated locations.
Since Newfoundland has a widely documented and understood geology, particularly the west coast because of interest in the development of various mineral deposits, fracking can be carried out safely and efficiently with far less impact on the natural environment than either the Alberta tar sands (and produce a higher grade product than the tar sands) or the Newfoundland offshore. There would be fewer scars on the landscape and a lessened chance of a major blowout, such as occured in the US Gulf region, in a valuable and delicate environment such as the Grand Banks, no-less. The NL government is currently investigating fracking in various jurisdictions of North America for the purpose of documenting the positives, negatives, and difficulties of such processes.
When, not if, fracking takes place, it will be done safely. It will be done for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and their communities. It will benefit them and it will be for the best.
It's a whole lot of hoopla that environmentalist groups exploit for their benefit to great success, not unlike the seal hunt.