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.
<sigh> You've been lied too but it certainly makes for a great sensationalistic piece that has dominated these discussions and the news hasn't it? Here's the director of Gasland responding to a question about omitting the historical documentation of the methane in the water in that location going back more than a century. At most the drilling has exacerbated the issue with this natural phenomena.
What's the official position now?
We view natural gas as a significant source of air and water pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition to its large climate footprint, the extraction of natural gas is having a big impact on rural communities, state forests, and the landscapes that we've worked hard to protect. Our primary goal is still to retire coal plants as quickly as possible and replace them with genuinely clean energy like solar and wind. Investing in gas actually hinders deployment of wind and solar, so we want to leapfrog gas as we move to a clean-energy future.
What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.
Fracking has other dangers besides polluting the water table, it also causes earth quakes...
There is some indication a specific type of well may be causing earthquakes, it's not a fracking well extracting gas but where they are injecting used fracking fluid tens of thousands of feet below the surface for disposal. At least that's my understanding.
Sanspeur the Sierra Club is primarily made up of "elite" wealthy liberals that have no problems paying their bills. With the closing of all the coal plants electric prices are being held down by low natural gas prices. This has been the savior preventing backlash from consumers who have not seen their rates go up dramatically yet. Low income people can't afford their electric bills now, how do you expect them to afford them in the future if there is no coal or natural gas power plants?
I guess the question is what will they go after when they get done with the nat gas? Probably ethanol. lol
Once the honeymoon with NG is over and the prices rebound it remains to be seen if NG can remain as cost effective as coal and just as important can keep a nice stable price.
corporations mine these areas the majority of which are public lands then export the fossil fuel to the highest bidder pocketing the profits
Public land belongs to you and me selling the resources off of public lands for a profit is theft.
They lease that land, if you want to make any arguments argue about the leases. We don't need the government going into the fossil fuel business. The private fossil fule industry in the US is the most efficient, most technologically advanced and safest in the world. There is a reason so many companies hire US companies for a lot of these projects. FYI nearly all of the gas wells in PA are on private land and the landowners are making $$$.
So what are your thoughts on being lied too with the Gasland documentary?
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.