A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed what many fracking critics have argued for years: hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas can contaminate groundwater.
If each state adopts its own unique set of shale gas regulations, a regulatory race to the bottom is possible. However, if the federal government adopts rigid regulations, America's shale gas boom may prove to be more environmentally friendly.
A recent investigation appears to connect the dots between shadowy lobbying efforts by shale gas fracking company Range Resources, and the Obama EPA's decision to shut down its high-profile lawsuit against Range for allegedly contaminating groundwater in Weatherford, Texas.
The Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) censored a smoking gun scientific report in March that would have explicitly linked methane migration in groundwater to hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") in Texas.
Fracking, like any truly controversial topic, has developed the tendency to repel stable facts with magnetic force. Finding reputable information is not easy. There is one thing that's agreed upon, however: Fracking is a 100 percent consumptive use.
I've read your report on hydraulic fracturing, and I couldn't find anything that proposes requiring compensation for people who might experience damage to their property, contamination of their water, or adverse health affects.
With recent evidence that fracking chemicals can migrate far from a frack site, should people have to play "believe it or not" with the safety pronouncements made by gas industry P.R. and advertising campaigns?