Page 1 of 1

Response to "Not one incidence of water contamination"

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 9:12 pm
by HVPA_research
* Archived from Marcellus Gas Info *

BRILLIANT response to "Not one incidence of water contamination..." "... been done since 1947..." etc.

This is a truly international - video from South Africa discussing environmental consequences of the shale gas production in the USA. We hear pretty much the same spin from the CSG companies and governments in Australia!

Unearthed: The Fracking Facade

William Huston <***> to

This is a longer excerpt of a BRILLIANT new film by
South African filmmaker Jolynn Minnaar.

Send this in response to all those repeated lies, like

"Not one incidence of water contamination..."
"... been done since 1947..."

Please share this on social media, comments to newspaper articles, etc.

Features local experts Lou Allstadt, Chip Northrup, Ron Bishop, Tony Ingraffea...

May you, and all beings
be happy and free from suffering :)
-- ancient Buddhist Prayer (Metta)

The video goes some way to explain the gas companies spin
"Not one incidence of water contamination..." "... been done since 1947..." etc.

by focusing on a very narrow definition of hydraulic fracturing or on mutual non-disclosure legal agreements,
but there is a lot more to it than that. For example:

- fracking can contaminate surface aquifers through naturally-occurring fault lines and fractures. It is up to the gas companies avoid gas production in such areas and only they will know is if such contamination occurred.

- horizontal drilling and fracking of clusters of wells from the same drilling pad can damage the casing of the already-existing wells.

- methane and other hydrocarbons escaping from the gasfields are very hard to detects without specialised and expensive equipment. The only situation where such fugitive emissions become easily visible is where the gas bubbles through surface water e.g. in rivers, lakes and streams.

- fracking occurs deep underground and as such is difficult and expensive to study. Only gas companies have resources and technology to do so but proving that they may be damaging surface water resources is not in their interest.

- most of the specialists capable of evaluating environmental effects of unconventional gas extraction already work for the gas companies or hope to do so. It is not in their interest to rock the boat. Like the rest of us they have families and mortgages.

- government regulatory agencies are understaffed and under-resourced. They cannot effectively regulate resource industries even if they wanted to do so.

- when it comes to environmental protection resource companies work under the regime of self-regulation. They have discovered long time ago that

is by far the best policy.