published Sunday, February 3rd, 2013

Fracking would be a blessing for our area

Our region is sitting on a potential gold mine — a tremendous natural gas reserve, accessible by safe, responsible hydraulic fracturing stands to create hundreds of jobs and generate millions of dollars for the Chattanooga area.

Opponents of the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” procedure used to coax the natural gas from bedrock, claim that fracking creates a perilous threat to the environment.

But that simply isn’t the fracking truth.

Some green alarmists claim the process of fracking, which involves pumping soapy water mixture into wells more than 3,000 feet below the surface, contaminates groundwater.

Research performed by Popular Mechanics magazine determined that fear simply isn’t founded.

“The shale that contains natural gas lies below thousands of feet of impermeable rock, so the fracking process itself will not contaminate drinking water aquifers, which generally are only a few hundred feet below the surface at most,” the magazine concluded.

The EPA performed tests in three areas where green activists claimed fracking was polluting groundwater — Pavillion, Wyo.; Dimock, Pa.; and Parker County, Texas. In each case taxpayer-funded studies proved fracking in the area did nothing to threaten water supplies.

Anti-frackers also claim that the tiny amount of chemicals included in the mixture used for fracking will harm the environment.

Modern fracking techniques have eliminated that concern. The liquid used in fracking — which includes water, instant coffee and walnut shells, as well as a trace amount of chemicals — is not left underground. Instead, the energy companies involved in fracking retrieve the liquid and reuse it to drill their next well.

The increased reliance on natural gas instead of oil and coal in energy production as a result of fracking is a primary reason America’s air quality has improved significantly over the past two decades. In other words, fracking has actually greatly helped the environment, not harmed it.


Not only is fracking environmentally safe, it is extraordinarily beneficial to the economy.

The dramatic increase in natural gas as a result of fracking has saved all Americans a substantial amount of money on their electric bills. Cheap shale gas will save the average American family $650 in home heating and electricity costs, according to Canada’s TD Bank.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce report found that fracking has “created 1.75 million jobs over the past few years alone,” and will be responsible for $62 billion in tax revenue this year.

Given the exceptional benefits of fracking with so little downside, why is there so much opposition to fracking?

It seems much of the anti-fracking activism was spurred on by “Gasland,” a 2010 documentary that has been widely discredited for containing false accusations, poor science and misleading claims. John Hanger, the former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection called the film “fundamentally dishonest” and “a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.”

One of the film’s most resonant moments comes when a Colorado man lights the water tricking from his kitchen faucet on fire — a result of fracking, the film falsly claims. The movie director now admits that the man had accidentally drilled his home’s water well into a naturally occurring pocket of methane. The movie certainly didn’t let that fact get in the way of a good story.

It may seem surprising that more environmentalists don’t embrace fracking. After all, natural gas is much cleaners than coal or oil. Popular Mechanics points out that natural gas “emits half as much carbon dioxide, less than one-third the nitrogen oxides, and 1 percent as much sulfur oxides as coal combustion.”

In fact, the Sierra Club was once a cheerleader for fracking. The environmental organization “helped fund a breakthrough study at the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University that concluded that shale gas is a fantastic, low-carbon replacement fuel for higher-carbon-generating oil and coal,” according to the New York Post.

So why did environmentalists jump off the fracking bandwagon?

It seems the abundance of cheap natural gas not only widely replaced oil and coal, but it also made the green energy alternatives beloved by environmentalists economically uncompetitive.

If environmentalists want to attack the ability of people in our area to have access to well-paying jobs and cheap energy, they certainly have that right. It’s just too bad that green extremists so often rely on spurious science, hyperbole and outright fiction to criticize fracking, rather than engaging in a meaningful debate.

In reality, fracking is not the dangerous boogeyman that environmental radicals claim. Fracking is a safe, effective, time-tested way to draw natural gas out of the ground. If truth and common sense win the debate over lies and unfounded hysteria, one day soon our area will benefit from jobs, economic prosperity and cheaper energy as a result of the rocks we are lucky enough to have beneath our feet.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
librul said...

Dr. Strangelove, haven't we told you the computers in the editorial offices are off limits ?!?!?!?!?! Now go on back to the mailroom where you belong and PLEASE take your meds.

February 3, 2013 at 1:07 a.m.
nucanuck said...

In reality, Drew does not know with any certainty whether fracking is completely safe in all applications or not. Drew does not mention, even once, the need to have regulations in place that would protect the public from possible problems that might arise associated with the fracking process.

Any editorial with such unrestrained praise for a practice without insisting on public safeguards should earn it's author Industry Shill of the Month designation.

It's one thing to have an opinion and quite another to take a stand against having public protections in place. I remember when personal honour used to mean something.

February 3, 2013 at 1:31 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck:

Would fracking do more harm than those 2.3 earths that you are consuming?

You never did tell me how many millions of the poor in India it would take to equal the carbon footprint of Al Gore. How much jet fuel do you think that hypocrite has burned anyway?

February 3, 2013 at 9:17 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Tennessee's "gold mine" is its clean water and unspoiled natural spaces. Industrial fracking will ruin both. It is simply dishonest to pretend that fracking does no harm to the water tables. And, as for "impermeable rock" -- HA! Not after it's fracked.
Fracking in Hamilton County will be another example of profits for a few while everyone else is left with a poisonous and degraded environment.

February 3, 2013 at 10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Drew says: “Some green alarmists claim the process of fracking, which involves pumping soapy water mixture into wells more than 3,000 feet below the surface, contaminates groundwater. Research performed by Popular Mechanics magazine determined that fear simply isn’t founded.”

I guess Germany doesn’t subscribe to Popular Mechanics:

“The Bundesrat upper house, which represents Germany's 16 federal states, passed a resolution that demands an assessment of the environmental impact of fracking and public consultation before it can be started.

"This is about rejecting the use of this technology until the risks are cleared up 100 percent," Torsten Albig, the Social Democrat (SPD) premier of the northern state of Schleswig Holstein, said in the Bundesrat, adding peoples' safety had to be the top priority.

The resolution was proposed by states run by the opposition SPD and Greens in the house where Merkel's centre-right coalition do not have majority.

Permits for fracking, issued by individual states, may only be granted if it is absolutely clear that there is no possibility of the water supply being affected, according to the resolution.”

February 3, 2013 at 10:21 a.m.
nucanuck said...


My family has reduced their carbon footprint by more than half over the last six years...and we continue to work on it. I have never heard you utter a word about taking personal ecological responsibility for yourself or family. May we assume that you are a cabon hog who cares not a wit about the environment that sustains you?

February 3, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...


Conservative thinks the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. When you talk to Conservative, you're talking to someone that is patently ignorant about even the simplest science.

February 3, 2013 at 10:25 a.m.
proandcon said...

Tennesseans should look at the areas that have been part of the fracking debate before fixating on either side of the issue--monetary gain or environmental harm. The article, Fracking Would be a Blessing for Our Area, mentions three specific studies and states that in "each case taxpayer-funded studies proved fracking in the area did nothing to threaten water supplies." That statement is at least incomplete, if not completely disingenuous. In the case of Dimock, the AP reported, the "Court documents filed this week indicate that residents in the tiny community of Dimock Township have agreed to a confidential settlement with Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp." The suit, filed in 2009, was based on contaminated drinking water, harm to health, and harm to property. The details of the settlement were supposedly confidential, but the several sources (to include Reuters) reports that Cabot Oil and Gas paid $4.1 million (in late 2010) to residents for the contamination.

Combine this settlement with loopholes that give “the oil and gas industry...sweeping exemptions from provisions in the major federal environmental statutes intended to protect human health and the environment” tells me there is much more to the story than just fracking = blessings or fracking = certain environmental destruction. Are there positives to fracking (jobs, economic impact, etc.) certainly—but do these benefits outweigh the potential harm that fracking causes?

Could the risks be better mitigated while still providing much of the positives of jobs and domestic energy—potentially. My concern is the pro fracking side will obfuscate the facts in order to promote fracking. After the drilling has started, does it become nearly unstoppable and thus a tipping point of damage is reached (and exceeded) before all the facts are in?

FYI, the statutes that have fracking exemptions (according to the Oil and Gas Accountability Project) are: • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act • Safe Drinking Water Act • Clean Water Act • Clean Air Act • National Environmental Policy Act • Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in the Clean Water Act

February 3, 2013 at 11:02 a.m.
acerigger said...

a 2009 study, never made public, written by an E.P.A. consultant who concluded that some sewage treatment plants were incapable of removing certain drilling waste contaminants and were probably violating the law.

The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

February 3, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.
acerigger said...

serious questions have been raised about the integrity and economic viability of the entire enterprise. Officials within the United States Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, have suggested that estimates of gas reserves may have been purposely inflated, a concern graphically illustrated in hundreds of industry emails and internal documents—some of them dripping with contempt.

According to one industry insider, “The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work.” Another equated the hype around shale gas as a “charade” and said companies involved were “having an Enron moment,” adding that “they want to bend light to hide the truth.”

February 3, 2013 at 11:12 a.m.
CathyB3 said...

Currently there is a complete glut of natural gas. This means that prices will not be spectacular. Why rush?

February 3, 2013 at 2:06 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy123 takes liberal superior meds. For some reason, he believes that he is correct and superior on every subject and issue. Therefore, it is impossible for Easy123 to learn from others. When you cannot learn from others, you are really clueless. Now, he knows everything about science and engineering, and I would be willing to be bet he has never had a chemistry class.

February 3, 2013 at 2:25 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

aae1049...What Easy said is true. Where's your beef? Feeling "superior" has nothing to do with it. The con-man has let it be known over and over again that he does not accept science and he places his faith and trust in the Bible instead, completely, as being historical, valid, and the inerrant word of God. As for "learning from others," the only thing that one can learn from people like con-man is that blind faith kills creativity and the quest for knowledge and truth. There is nothing to be learned from blind faith except how foolish and immature one can be to embrace it.

February 3, 2013 at 3:10 p.m.
librul said...

Right on Rickaroo -

Conservative believes Earth is only 6,000 years old but he fails to consider that if the frackers have to drill down 5-10,000 feet through layers of limestone, sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate; i.e. SEDIMENTARY rocks that were deposited on the seafloor as natural erosion broke down exposed igneous and metamorphic rocks of the ancient Unakas to their components which were further reduced by natural processes into grains of sand or mud that were washed by ancient rivers into and deposited on the floor of inland seas which extended to Arkansas - a total of over 30,000 feet of sediments which were formed by heat and pressure into the rocks we see today - which we see only because they were forced up by mountain-building process resulting from sea-floor spreading and plate tectonics.

Sorry, Con-man but these are facts revealed by enlightenment science, not your babble, and anyone who believes all of that could occur in 6,000 years is just irretrievably stupid.

February 3, 2013 at 6:25 p.m.
conservative said...


"I have never heard you utter a word about taking personal ecological responsibility for yourself or family"

I'm not sure what you mean by all that but I am sure I have not made some "ecological" statement of any kind. What's the rule on that? I have received no notice of a court apppearance, have not been fined or even scolded by someone in authority on the matter. I must have fallen through the cracks.

"May we assume that you are a cabon hog who cares not a wit about the environment that sustains you?

"We", are you one of a committee?

"May we assume that you are a cabon hog"

I think your mind is already made up, so I'll take the 5th.What is the highest score on that anyway?

"the environment that sustains you"

Nope, my God does the sustaining no need for me to worry at all. Believe me He created the universe and He will sustain it.

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" Hebrews 1:1-2

February 3, 2013 at 10:09 p.m.
Easy123 said...

More evidence of Conservative's ignorance. Nauseating pedantry as well.

February 3, 2013 at 10:19 p.m.
nucanuck said...

c-man, either god has shorted you in the processor department or you have failed her by not getting full benefit from your potential. Either way, you come up lacking and have become something of a comedic character on this forum. Way too many comments seem to go right over your head.

February 3, 2013 at 10:44 p.m.
Easy123 said...


"Easy123 takes liberal superior meds."


"For some reason, he believes that he is correct and superior on every subject and issue."

No, I don't. However, I do believe my opinion is more correct and more superior than yours and Conservative's considering mine is based on facts.

"Therefore, it is impossible for Easy123 to learn from others."

Wrong again. It's impossible for me to learn from ignorant people. But that would be the case for most people.

"When you cannot learn from others, you are really clueless."

I can and do learn from others that actually have something substantial to offer.

"Now, he knows everything about science and engineering, and I would be willing to be bet he has never had a chemistry class."

I never claimed to know everything about science or engineering but I do know exponentially more about science than Conservative and yourself. How much money are you willing to put up on that bet? You truly have no clue who you are dealing with.

February 3, 2013 at 11:45 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Easy 123 "you truly have no clue who you are dealing with."

Oh, I am so impressed. For the record, I do have the education and decades of NPDES experience to understand the dynamics of Fracking. There are alot of environmental regulators that follow these matters, just because they have worked in the profession or are engineers.

The condition of surface waters in the state of Tennessee are appalling, primarily from discharge from MS4 surface discharges and wastewater system exfiltration and overflow. I was on the founding team that started the first MS4 Phase II NPDES program in Hamilton County for TDEC. I read the comments that our surface water are quality, and laugh. After years of sampling, and posting public notification. I know better from epa protocol sampling and the State lab.

I served as an NPDES regulator for EPA and TDEC for over 10, monitoring discharges to surface water and enforcing standard violations on municipalities. I have BS in engineering and worked with the mining industry. So, I am uniquely versed in hydrology and NPDES discharge standards which govern all discharges. The state and EPA will set discharge limits in permitting. Does that mean, I have confidence that treatment of discharge standards will be adequate, absolutely not.

Easy123 and Rickaroo, you are both consistently arrogant and smug and marginalize other posters, rather than sticking to the facts based in science.

February 4, 2013 at 3:39 a.m.
conservative said...


"c-man, either god has shorted you in the processor department or you have failed her by not getting full benefit from your potential. Either way, you come up lacking and have become something of a comedic character on this forum. Way too many comments seem to go right over your head."

"either god", "you have failed her"

What is the name of this her god you referred to?

February 4, 2013 at 7:55 a.m.
Easy123 said...


"Easy123 and Rickaroo, you are both consistently arrogant and smug and marginalize other posters, rather than sticking to the facts based in science."

That's actually the exact opposite of the truth. You are the arrogant, smug one that marginalizes others posters. You just posted your resume as if that gives you some type of authority on the subject. You aren't sticking with any facts. You are just appealing to your perceived authority on the subject. You started this argument because you really wanted to post your credentials. If you'll notice, I never said one word about fracking. You just felt the need to attack me because you felt like it would give you the opportunity to post your resume on here. It's truly comical.

Again, stick to the facts and the science instead of trying to start some baseless, fallacious argument so that you can appeal to your own perceived authority.

February 4, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
conservative said...


Today we will tell you how to reduce your Al Gore, i.e. carbon footprint.

Today's tip:

The true believer's have abandoned their carbon heat factories and walk to work. Now, if you carry your partner piggy back there will only be one set of footprints resulting in a 50% reduction!

February 4, 2013 at 9:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

You're a moron.

February 4, 2013 at 9:26 a.m.
nucanuck said...

c-man, she spells her name g-o-d.

February 4, 2013 at 9:43 a.m.
conservative said...


Where do you go to learn of her?

February 4, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Regarding the con-man's comments on global warming:

While individual efforts to reduce our carbon footprint are admirable, it will take much more than a few individuals or families here and there to truly a make a difference. In order for us to stem the tide it will be necessary to implement changes on a national and global scale. And that is the number one reason the wing-nuts are so insistent that global warming is a "liberal conspiracy." They know that it will take government action, with stringent laws and policies, to implement those changes. And more than that even, it will take governments of all nations acting in concert, which to them represents another step in the direction of a one-world government - and of course the very thought of that is abhorrent to them.

The science weighs heavily in favor of human induced global warming being a reality, with the actual climate scientists having come to a consensus on it a long time ago. But the pig-headed deniers will never accept the facts of the real scientists, instead taking the word of the pseudo-scientists and the shills paid off by big oil and related industries and their backers. The sad part is that, even as evidence of the reality of it mounts every day, they still cling to their silly story that it's all just a "liberal hoax."

This should not be a political issue at all, but simply one where we see the facts and evidence before us and we then act accordingly. But their heads are buried so deep in their ideology that they're willing to bring it all crashing down upon us rather than cede any power whatsoever to a government they think shouldn't have any powers in the first place. I'm convinced that even when the time comes that we are seeing the worst case scenarios played out from our destructive behavior and our stubborn refusal to change our ways, the wing-nuts will still be saying that it's "God's will" anyway or that it's just "global cyclical weather patterns" and it had nothing to do with our hundred years' worth of spewing ghastly, obscene amounts of CO2 and other toxins from our dirty coal and dirty oil into the atmosphere.

February 4, 2013 at 12:17 p.m.
dontfrackhc said...

Fracking is not proven to be safe in the long term by any means. The potential environmental and health risks that is presents far outweigh any "benefits". On the other hand it has been proven to contaminate wells, livestock, water supplies and pose cancer risks.

We are not the Saudi Arabia of gas theres only enough gas us to last 20 years in the whole country. Tennessees most valuable asset looking into the future is our clean water and diverse natural habitats, let's not ruin it and our health for a few jobs that will disappear after a few years.

You would think that our community would know better than any other the environmental and economic issues that extraction industries create. You don't have to wander far from Chattanooga to stumble upon abandoned wells and the pollution that they have left behind.

February 4, 2013 at 12:28 p.m.
nucanuck said...


I fear that waiting for governments to agree on a path forward for the environmental change that is needed will take two weeks past forever. If individuals begin to act on their own, a movement can begin. Where I live we have relatively large numbers of people who are rapidly changing how they live. There is definitely a "can do" spirit in the air.

We have to start somewhere.

February 4, 2013 at 1:57 p.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck,

There are tens of millions on this planet who already practice what you preach.

They are the poor and destitute in 3rd world and Communist/Socialist countries who have no electricity, no clean water or just dirty water, no refrigeration, no cars, no heating, no air conditioning, no grocery stores, little food, few doctors or hospitals, no education etc.

However, they would love to renounce all that, become hypocrites and come to the United States!

February 4, 2013 at 2:32 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Nucanuck, I'm not meaning to imply that individual efforts are not necessary or meaningful. And I do hope that enough individual efforts can bring about a groundswell of change, enough to convince the government to do what is needed to be done. But we have waited so long (too long) about taking action, and there are still way too many people who absolutely refuse to take it upon themselves to make a difference - or even acknowledge that we really do have a serious problem! - that it will still take herculean effort on a governmental, national, and global level if we expect to even make a dent in climate change.

February 4, 2013 at 2:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative is the most ignorant human being that posts here. The sheer amount of ignorance that emanates from him is scary.

February 4, 2013 at 2:38 p.m.
bbeforec said...

Very easy to understand why Tennessee is so near the bottom of the best educated states list. Let us know when you can set your tap water ablaze.

February 4, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

It is quite clear that the writer of this editorial did not adequately read the Popular Mechanics article. Here are some quotes directly from the article:

"There is no question that hydraulic fracturing uses a lot of water: It can take up to 7 million gallons to frack a single well, and at least 30 percent of that water is lost forever, after being trapped deep in the shale."

"And while there is some evidence that fracking has contributed to the depletion of water supplies in drought-stricken Texas..."

"The amount of water required to drill all 2916 of the Marcellus wells permitted in Pennsylvania in the first 11 months of 2010 would equal the amount of drinking water used by just one city, Pittsburgh, during the same period, says environmental engineering professor Jeanne VanBriesen, the study's lead author."

"The methane that escapes during the drilling process, and later as the fuel is shipped via pipelines, is a significant greenhouse gas."

"In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of 8000 gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa., have contaminated groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region."

"Pavillion, Wyo., a remote town of 160 where high levels of chemicals linked to fracking have been found in groundwater supplies."

"In May, Pennsylvania officials fined Chesapeake Energy $1 million for contaminating the water supplies of 16 families in Bradford County."

"But even its most ardent supporters, men like T. Boone Pickens, concede that it should be a bridge fuel between more polluting fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable energy. In the meantime, the U.S. should continue to invest in solar and wind, conserve power and implement energy-efficient technology."

February 4, 2013 at 8:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

A lot of frigging fracking experts weighing in on this article. The EPA web site may be a better source of information than some journalist or publisher trying to increase sales by sensational opinions or highlighting failures. Fracking can and must be done safely following the EPA regs with close monitoring by the EPA.

Conservation and reduced demand are essential if we are to ever reduce the need for imported petroleum products. Natural gas is certainly a big improvement over crude oil but needs to be the transition source to alternatives which are not yet affordably available and possibly not yet known.

February 5, 2013 at 5:52 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

If fracking replaces more coal with gas than it adds methane, it's a net benefit, right? Isn't that why the US is both richer and less polluting than when Al Gore was veep?

Love is more than niceness, but conservative shows more signs of knowing God is love than his (her?) liberal critics here, and has researched a better Book though maybe not as many lesser books.

February 5, 2013 at 6:10 a.m.
conservative said...


Today's tip :

I hope you have abandoned those heat producers.

Till then, if you must be a hypocrite and drive at least change your air filter once a month.

This tip brought to you by NAPA.

February 5, 2013 at 9:31 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

It is not hypocritical in the least for libs and proponents of renewable energy to go on driving our cars or heating/cooling our homes. Driving is a NECESSITY for almost everyone in our culture. So is staying warm in the freezing temps of winter and cool in the sweltering heat of summer. Our entire society is based on fossil fuels and we realize that. The big difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that we libs acknowledge that we have polluted our planet, probably beyond repair, and we cannot keep doing it - it's unsustainable. These resources are finite and fast approaching their end and, moreover, our dependence on them makes us vulnerable and unsafe in a hostile world. We are aware of the urgency of changing our course and focusing on the greener, cleaner, renewable energy sources. We know that we cannot just stop cold turkey and dispense with coal or oil today, that there has to be a transition period. But the technology for these cleaner and safer energy sources is already there - it's just a matter of focusing more of our attention and funding in that direction.

But you righties want only to pay lip service to renewable energy and just keep plowing stubbornly along on our dead-end path, pouring more and more money and development into resources that only serve to continue to pollute the planet and are becoming more difficult and more dangerous to extract and process.

In the meantime, just because we still drive our cars or because Al Gore takes a jet somewhere to give a speech doesn't mean we are being hypocritical. We all have to make a living to the best of our abilities. What would be served by us ceasing to drive and living in a cave, going nowhere and only subsisting in one place? We are not calling for everybody else to do that and we should not be expected to do that ourselves. We can be energy frugal in what ways we can (recycling, driving cars that get better mileage, driving a little less than we really need to, using reusable bags when shopping, being more conscious of all the ways that we waste energy) but we still have to live our lives in the society that we are part of today.

February 5, 2013 at 2:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The reputable sources I have read on fracking make it look like a massive benefit as an energy source with very manageable potential downsides. Those screaming claims of risk of groundwater contamination appear to have boughten into claims from environmental groups that are more grounded in drama and emotion than in fact.

Yes, there needs to be oversight to ensure the environment is protected. Any talk about not fracking because of a supposed environmental catastrophe is just crazy.

February 6, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
Easy123 said...


"The reputable sources I have read on fracking make it look like a massive benefit as an energy source with very manageable potential downsides."

They weren't reputable sources then.

"Those screaming claims of risk of groundwater contamination appear to have boughten into claims from environmental groups that are more grounded in drama and emotion than in fact."

By "environmental groups", you must mean the EPA because that's who investigates this stuff. They aren't claims either. There are verifiable instances of groundwater contamination. Everything in those various reports are based on facts. What you are saying is not based on facts or reality.

"Any talk about not fracking because of a supposed environmental catastrophe is just crazy."

By "crazy", you must mean "reality". Fracking has already been shown to cause damage to the environment. You might want to find some real, reputable sources to get your information from instead of spewing your ignorance here.

February 6, 2013 at 11:17 a.m.
conservative said...


Today's tip :

I hope you have abandoned those heat producers.

Till then, if you must be a hypocrite and drive use only roads going downhill in order to save on gas.

February 6, 2013 at 11:59 a.m.
Easy123 said...


You're a moron.

February 6, 2013 at 12:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

It would seem that the EPA agrees that fracking is a responsible extraction technique with manageable risks. They acknowledge the risks and are continuing to study the science of fracking but anyone who would say that the risks are not manageable does not seem to be looking at the right sources.

February 6, 2013 at 2:43 p.m.
librul said...

That would be the Bush/Obama gutted "paper tiger" EPA, right?

All you wingnuts missed the YouTube clips from the Pennsylvania citizens press conference on fracking the other day posted under the Times editorial on the subject. And since you likely wouldn't go there to read it or see them .... (sorry for the unfortunately necessary crossposting)

February 6, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

No one is saying that fracking is completely without risk, but that the risk is low and manageable.

The technique has been in widespread use for 50 years. If incidents were frequent Obama's EPA would be all over the fracking industry. We need to keep things in perspective here.

February 6, 2013 at 3:58 p.m.
librul said...

So until the timeless aquifers in east Tennessee are all lost to foul water for a short run of a non-renewable resource and we have the same scenario as in the above clips played out here with multi-generation farm families who have no clean water, can't raise livestock or sell the produce they are able to raise; and after the gas drillers leave, that crap they'll gift us with (but cannot remove) migrates, as it will, into the rivers fed from those aquifers and the recreation industry withers because water contact becomes an "at your own risk" proposition and nobody wants to eat the fish because of the toxic cocktail they'll be living in - your kids will look at you and say "Why the devil didn't you do something to stop those people when you had the chance?"

February 6, 2013 at 4:49 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...


Do you know how many acres of land are involved in fracking in this country and how many acres have been identified as problematic, or do you just look at a youtube video or two and assume that the results shown in those videos are typical?

February 6, 2013 at 5:21 p.m.
librul said...

The companies drill and subsequently screw up people's water; the people go to try to get whatever help they can from their environmental authority which, sadly, was not looking out for them proactively as it should have been; the company sends its suits to "talk" to the people and, often, agrees to get them water trucked in AFTER they agree to sign a gag order that prevents them from discussing their situation at all - thus the old saw about "I know of no documented cases where the "fracking process" has damaged domestic water supplies." Note, the reference is to "the fracking process" and NOT the EFFECTS resulting from the fracking process. Legal sleight of hand. If you aren't willing to listen to flesh and blood people suffering through a bout with a fracking operation and take warning from it, woe be to you. If I owned a family farm in east Tennessee, I wouldn't want to have to answer to my kids (4:49).

February 6, 2013 at 6:55 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

"While most have seen the images of faucets on fire with polluted water, the fact is that when done properly, fracking protects our air and water. Regulations are the only measures that can minimize that small minority of badly drilled wells—having consequences and standards for all procedures. The few cases of contaminated groundwater were not from the miles-deep drilling but from spills and leakages at the rig on the surface—in many cases, these occurred before regulations and public attention turned to fracking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes for Health, two of the most highly respected government agencies for scientific health research, are yet to provide unequivocal evidence of the dangers of fracking to human and environmental health. Yet just as other industries have strict restrictions and regulations, the hydraulic fracturing industry must be held accountable for its actions."

February 7, 2013 at 8:29 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.