Let’s see if I think Bloomberg has any business in public life?
NNNNNOOOO.
Let’s study it to death–dredge that data–does anyone think that the Human Effects research on fracking will be any more reliable than the air pollution or climate change research.
EPA get the results they pay for. Same with every other Federal Agency.
I don’t like preordained research results. Fracking has been around for how long? 50 years, and I am supposed to believe that pollution effects wouldn’t have been discovered? Fracking takes place at the end of sealed casing drilling at more than 5000 feet, so I am supposed to believe it contaminates subsurface water tables?
http://acsh.org/2014/04/shale-gas-development-getting-best-bang-buck/
The green bully armies are everywhere. Planting fear. How could 49 % of those polled object to fracking? Agit prop.
Fracking could prove to be an enormous economic benefit to many countries. As a South African I have continuously been exposed to the issue of fracking. The thought of fracking is one that scares me. There is talk about extracting shale gas from beneath the surface of the Karoo, in the Free State province. The Karoo boasts a large biodiversity in terms of plant life and if fracking contaminates soil and water this biodiversity may disappear.
On the other hand, the economic benefits behind fracking seem to be more appealing than protecting the land. American companies seem to focus on the economic benefits that their own country has displayed, eg America’s trade deficit has been balanced due to them relying on local fracking of shale gas instead of relying on off-shore oil imports.
Simply put, if a country such as South Africa does not have to import fuel and instead can produce it locally, it reduces the amount of money South Africa owes the international community. This results in a lower interest cost and thus the country will owe less money and be sble to raise debt at a cheaper rate.