New report: Fracking is safe (companies, dollar, state, support)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or are you saying only the environmentalists are allowed to have lobbyists and only they are to be believed?
LMAO
The information I personally consider to be worthwhile does NOT include a PayPal page begging for $5000 donations that are explicitly NOT tax deductible.
He's a scam artist. He also clearly has a ve$ted interest in a particular world view (and protecting his financial backers' interests), which makes his articles biased in the extreme.
The information I personally consider to be worthwhile does NOT include a PayPal page begging for $5000 donations that are explicitly NOT tax deductible.
He's a scam artist. He also clearly has a ve$ted interest in a particular world view (and protecting his financial backers' interests), which makes his articles biased in the extreme.
No, we're discussing the basis of your thread and the validity or bias of the source article.
Please read Post #48......
If you think the author is biased and wrong be my guest, by all means bring it up with him, after all, YOU are the one who says he is wrong.
So it should be up to YOU to discuss with the author why you think it is wrong and to tell him he is nothing more than a scam artist....
I highly suggest you also contact your people in the Congress and Senate because he has testified in front of both bodies and they accepted his testimony as fact in other scientific area's. I think they will be amazed at your revelation that he has perpetrated numerous scams on both bodies....
It's hilarious that I don't see you badmouthing all the other threads in this forum challenging the OP's demanding what basis they had for starting the thread...
If you think the author is biased and wrong be my guest, by all means bring it up with him, after all, YOU are the one who says he is wrong....
It's hilarious that I don't see you badmouthing all the other threads in this forum challenging the OP's demanding what basis they had for starting the thread...
I wonder why that is
I think there is ample proof the author is biased. I don't see any need to "speak to him" because actions speak louder than words.
Your suggestion of policing other threads is absurd. The guy in question is obviously a paid shill. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Accept that fact and move on.
I think there is ample proof the author is biased. I don't see any need to "speak to him" because actions speak louder than words.
Your suggestion of policing other threads is absurd. The guy in question is obviously a paid shill. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Accept that fact and move on.
I highly suggest you contact your people in the Congress and Senate because he has testified in front of both bodies and they accepted his testimony as fact in other scientific area's.
I think they will be both amazed and shocked that a know-it-all from C-D has accredited information that he has perpetrated numerous scams on both bodies....
Dumping toxic chemicals into the air wasn't enough, now we're injecting toxins right into the ground beneath us. Humans have a death wish.
We can call anything toxic, having said that list what toxins you take exception to them pumping into the ground. What I'm interested in here is exactly what toxin it is you think is being injected into the ground (below the water table I might add) that you have such grave concerns about the fracking process?
Wonderful! I think America should pump as much toxic chemicals and poisons into the ground as possible. I can't think of any other nation that deserves it.
Yea, those who think this is "safe" should be forced to drink the flammable water it produces.
Amazing how energy companies can get these people to carry their polluted water for them. You can make these people believe anything if you have Glenn, Bill, and Rush all scream together in unison
Researchers found no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth.
Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
Methane found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely be traced to natural sources, and likely was present before the onset of shale gas operations.
Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from hydraulic fracturing itself.
Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid releases during construction or operation — are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
