This post may have some value if you already hadn't revealed yourself as uninformed and biased on the topic of energy with this post:
Nonsense. It is painfully obvious from this post that you've never read the EPA report (understandable, it is very long), or even looked at a summary. Let me summarize the summary for you. The report is full of examples of how fracking can contaminate drinking water including: spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of waste water. The report also states that freshwater is being used for fracking in areas and times of limited water availability, water which is made permanently unusable after the fracking process (fracking activities in the United States used on average 44 billion gal of water a year in 2011 and 2012).
Somehow, in spite all of these findings, the conclusion of the report states that fracking doesn't cause "systematic impacts on drinking water" even though the report also admits that "data limitations preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty." Some of the problems they mention include: 1) fracking occurs below ground and the impacts are not directly observable; 2) local water quality data for pre- and post-hydraulic fracturing conditions are not consistently collected or readily available, 3) Information (identity, frequency of use, physicochemical and toxicological properties, etc.) on the chemicals associated with the hydraulic fracturing water cycle is not complete and limits understanding of potential impacts on drinking water resources (ie. they didn't know what chemicals to test for), 4) Lack of specific information about private drinking water well locations and the depths of drinking water resources in relation to hydraulically fractured rock formations and well construction features (e.g., casing and cement); and 5) Lack of a definitive well count particularly contributes to uncertainties regarding total water use or total wastewater volume estimates, and would limit any kind of cumulative impact assessment. I won't even get into the footnotes of the report, stating that many gas companies refused to provide data that was deemed confidential.
Of course the only part of the EPA report that conservative media outlets and politicians cared to repeat was the lack of "widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water" even though the report itself says that any kind of cumulative impact assessment was limited. The main takeaway most people repeated about this study was the one thing the study itself admitted was flawed.
The ambiguous wording of the EPA report (which both sides were celebrating), along with general EPA policies on fracking are completely inline with the Obama administrations mixed policies towards fossil fuels. Some decisions have been pro-fossil fuels including pro-fracking policies (including covering up the negative impacts) and approving off-shore drilling. Other policies have not been favorable, including the rejection of the Keystone pipeline and cuts to power plant emissions (not to mention the creation of protected areas through executive orders). Some might call this a balanced approach that considers both economic and environmental realities, not to mention the geopolitical benefits of low oil prices that have weakened OPEC countries (including Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia), and seemingly sent the Chavismo in Venezuela over the tipping point. However it has only resulted in both sides being angry with his energy policy.
I think a reasonable conclusion from this study would be that we are currently unable to sufficiently quantify the real impacts of fracking, and that we should be hesitant to conduct wide spread fracking until we better understand the impacts. After all, the report also states that "Between 2000 and 2013, approximately 9.4 million people lived within one mile of a hydraulically fractured well. Approximately 6,800 sources of drinking water for public water systems were located within one mile of at least one hydraulically fractured well during the same period. These drinking water sources served more than 8.6 million people year-round in 2013" (remember this is incomplete data). Even if just a small percentage of these wells have leaks and/or accidents, it will affect a lot of people. Let's be honest, accidents have and will happen in extractive industries experiencing a boom period where employees work extremely long hours, health and safety regulations are pushed to their limits, and the technology is still being developed.
I don't have time to provide a lot of links to research on the health impacts of air and water contaminated by fracking, but some of the impacts of the incomplete list of chemicals used in fracking include problems with the skin, eyes, sensory organs, respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, liver, and the brain and nervous system. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, flu like symptoms, headaches, fainting, numbness, and convulsions. Several of the chemicals used are either known or probable carcinogens. These impacts are most damaging during prenatal development. Perhaps building hospitals in PA is a more appropriate way to give back to local communities instead of building hockey rinks.
Furthermore, this report never considers the additional impacts of fracking. Recent studies by the Environmental Defense Fund (who work WITH the gas companies) have shown that the EPA has underestimated methane emissions from fracking wells in Texas by 50% (I've also read 90%, but I'm currently unable to find a good source on that). Methane is of course one of the most potent green house gases. We are obviously unable to accurately measure methane emissions at this point.
The economic argument you seem to be making is also highly flawed. Sure fracking produces national and regional economic benefits (as well as geopolitical benefits resulting from the dive in oil prices), but those benefits can be short lived. For one, it is typically outsiders that are brought in to work on wells, not local people. Local people benefit from the influx of people and money, but once the wells close down the communities are left with damaged infrastructure from heavy machinery, a landscape blighted with wells, and a chance that environmental contamination has occurred and caused serious health problems. These problems generate costs, for which the general populace will have to help cover with their tax dollars. The worsening impacts of climate change will also generate significant costs, as the world will have to deal with increasingly irregular weather patterns that will disrupt food production patterns, lead to extreme weather events and rebuilding efforts, and necessitate major infrastructure expenditures in low-lying coastal cities.
Let's not forget that most of the places in the world that are cultivating extremist groups also suffer from severe environmental problems. Look at Syria, where the 2006 drought helped contribute to the civil war as the influx of rural farmers into urban areas led to a large population of unemployed and angry men. It can not be understated that people lacking sufficient food, water and opportunities are often highly motivated to join extremist groups. The vast majority of extremists also come from areas that have been affected by extractive industries for decades. All of this will of course lead to higher national defense budgets. The US Department of Defense even acknowledges climate change as a serious risk to national security.
With all due respect nfreeman (I love your hockey posts), the combination of ignorance and outspokenness you have expressed in your post on fracking is extremely dangerous. I would recommend reading scientific reports instead of parroting headlines that you've read on Drudge Report of Fox News. Spreading blatantly false information on extractive industries and fracking is an intentional strategy conducted by oil and gas companies, lobbyists, and media outlets intended to cultivate doubt among the general populace. This doubt has been enough to help maintain the status quo and not make meaningful changes to our lifestyles that could have diminished our reliance on fossil fuels a long time ago.
Cultivated doubt has been enough to persuade many people that admittedly difficult and expensive changes to our infrastructure and lifestyles wasn't necessary. It was never predetermined that a lifestyle of internet access, refrigeration, and accessible transportation needed to be built on a foundation of fossil fuels. We could have been begun to transition away from those energy sources decades ago if it were not for the efforts of a small group of rich, greedy people who took advantage of a broken economic system that fails to take into account the real costs of environmental contamination and the limited natural resources our planet is capable of providing.
While I think the main reason Terry bought the Sabres and the Bills because he wants sports franchises to play with. I also think he certainly considered that he will have serious clout in NYS if he is someday a successful sports team owner bringing championships to WNY. This would of course put him a strong position to lobby for the approval of fracking in NYS if it ever comes up for a vote. He obviously has the lobbying angle in mind, seeing as how he as already done it once in HSBC arena.
