Vermont first state in nation to ban fracking for oil and gas

[Ought Six]

So it has not occurred and occurred, so this is Verschränkung.

You are not too stupid to understand the difference between aquifer pollution from fracking itself and from other sources, such as the improper disposal of fracking fluids. This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you are being disingenuous and trying to twist what I said for a total lack of valid and meaningful arguments.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

You are not too stupid to understand the difference between aquifer pollution from fracking itself and from other sources, such as the improper disposal of fracking fluids. This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you are being disingenuous and trying to twist what I said for a total lack of valid and meaningful arguments.

If you find trimethylbenzenes in an aquifer but no trace of nitrates then you would deduce migration had been upwards rather than downwards?

[Marsch]

I'm glad somebody hasn't bought into the gas land crap. Proper regulation of the industry is what is required. The Germans have done this properly for years and have very little issue with the whole thing.

Do we?

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitr...aehrliche-Gier

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/chemik...e_fracking.pdf (read Point 5)

[Ought Six]

If you find trimethylbenzenes in an aquifer but no trace of nitrates then you would deduce migration had been upwards rather than downwards?

How about you just tell us exactly what area you are talking about, and what evidence you have to support your claim?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

How about you just tell us exactly what area you are talking about, and what evidence you have to support your claim?

Read the EPA Pavillion, WY report linked a few posts back.

[Ought Six]

Read the EPA Pavillion, WY report linked a few posts back.

A draft report is not a peer-reviewed study, and it seems that the draft report was deeply flawed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3419...on-methane.htm


And when one looks at the actual data, it tells a very different story.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/gues...st-report.html

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

A draft report is not a peer-reviewed study, and it seems that the draft report was deeply flawed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3419...on-methane.htm


And when one looks at the actual data, it tells a very different story.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/gues...st-report.html

Whats not being denied is that fracking and drilling chemicals made into that particular aquifer.

[Ought Six]

Whats not being denied is that fracking and drilling chemicals made into that particular aquifer.

Let me help you:

"For the EPA to adequately test their hypothesis that deep groundwater in the Pavillion area is impacted by hydraulic fracturing activities, additional samplings [of wells] is required," read the report.

That is a straightforward, declarative statement in perfectly clear English, right out of your own cited source material. It is not difficult to grasp what it says, and what it says is the opposite of what you are claiming the report says.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

For the EPA to adequately test their hypothesis that deep groundwater in the Pavillion area is impacted by hydraulic fracturing activities, additional samplings [of wells] is required," read the report.

The above quote is from the ibtimes article not the report.

Let me help you:That is a straightforward, declarative statement in perfectly clear English, right out of your own cited source material. It is not difficult to grasp what it says, and what it says is the opposite of what you are claiming the report says.

The conclusion of the reports states the following;

Additional investigation is necessary to determine the areal and vertical extent of shallow and deep ground
water contamination

Reading the report is not that difficult but I suppose quoting an editorial is easier.