Do you support fracking?

No. Once the water supply is screwed up and the residents don’t have drinking water, who’s going to pay for that? The taxpayers. So the energy companies make money from fracking, the residents who lease their land to the energy companies make money from fracking, and the taxpayer (us) pays in the end.

Not at all. Fracking is believed to be the reason for the increased amounts of earthquakes in Oklahoma and in other areas.

Not with the reports of water contamination ,and earth quakes it causes.
I think it has to be better fined tuned as to not cause those things before industry goes to town on it.

What they all said. ^

Not at all.

The only place I support is in Eastern Saudi Arabia where they have built sea water injection, and what little ground water exists is awful anyway. But none in any place outside of a desert.

Sure as long as those doing it capture 100% of ALL costs associated with the process. That means recovering all material/chemicals injected, using technology to prevent seismic activity, and guaranteeing all groundwater is not contaminated.

Not really.

My mom’s brother had about 200 acres in western Pennsylvania. When I was a wee lad I spent about a month there and he taught me how to fish in the ponds on his property and how to drive a ATV.

Turns out they were sitting on a bunch of gas and about ten years ago agreed to sell the rights and allow fracking. They are old and wanted to move to Arizona anyway.

The land is now pretty much worthless but they were able to retire with a nice chunk of change. Their kids were not thrilled.

@gorillapaws and paying for earthquake damages to homes that had no reason to be built to withstand earthquakes.

Speaking as one who spent months patching up cracks and shoring up walls damaged by earthquakes in Kansas, and looking into foundation repair, no I don’t support it.

But I have to wonder what the alternative is.

Just much as I support earthquakes.

@Dutchess_III There are lots of alternatives; there are quite few places that will be free of hydrocarbon energy in the very near future. It is very achievable.

I hope so. You know, Erin Brockovich is on it.

In general, yes I do support fracking, if it is done properly with a minimal effect to the environment as possible. In other words, Oklahoma gave fracking a bad name.

The bigger geopolitical issue is that fracking let the US break the Saudi stranglehold over US foreign policy, and gave the US leverage to do things like the deal with Iran.

So petroleum aside, being more or less energy independent has been positive for the US and international relations.

Yes, provided the science and practicality backs it up

100% no.

No. Unless I find out some new information about it, I’m pretty sure I’m against it. I believe it’s causing earthquakes.

I’m also against nuclear power. We need to come up with better “natural” passive solutions. Like the wind blowing, water flowing, and the sun shining.

I do agree with @elbanditoroso that getting off of being dependent on other countries for energy is a good thing. Very important.

@elbanditoroso Oklahoma gave fracking a bad name. No, fracking almost destroyed Oklahoma.

I’m with Sanders’ face on this…

No, not I. Too many negatives associated with it. Not even justifiable by the number of NEW jobs ostensibly created.