Fracking is hardly a public health threat we need to worry about

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Aug. 22, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    "salvational technology", "evangelical, fundamentalist faith of radical environmentalism"

    Is it safe to say that Jay Ambrose's objectivity is, um, questionable? Congratulations, Deseret News, on printing a hysterical far-right response to a perceived far-left criticism of fracking.

    Perhaps you could find the decency to print something in the middle? Something from a reputable source, rather than a political columnist who knows nothing of the matter? How about an independent scientist knowledgeable in the field, or the scientists responsible for the cited EPA study?

  • GiantSquid salt lake, utah
    Aug. 21, 2011 11:07 p.m.

    This article should be an absolute embarrassment to the Deseret News staff who printed it.

    "Sand and water" is really multiple toxic chemicals.

    The problem isn't that the deadly chemicals seep up from thousands of feet, but that reckless companies let them spill at or near the surface.

    As for "more energy than Saudi Arabia", that claim is a ridiculous lie as well. Moderately more natural gas can be recovered, but will be only a small fraction of the energy we will need in the future.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 10:27 p.m.

    Shame on the D-"news" for printing this fabrication.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 9:15 p.m.

    Ask all the people in Pennsylvania and Kentucky who can't drink their well water about fracing.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 7:41 p.m.

    This article is nothing but an apologist piece for the industry. Nothing more.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    McDonalds has to list the ingredients of their hamburgers, why doesn't the oil and gas folks have to do the same with what they are putting into the ground to get the gas? I know it is their "secret sauce" or like the Colonel's secret recipe and it would be more of the nanny State to make them tell!

    WHEN oil and gas are gone, we will figure out a way to get by. What about when there is no fresh water left to drink? Remember when the tobacco companies said that smoking was not harmful?

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Aug. 21, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    Will this process have an effect that can increase the likelihood of earthquakes? Does the elevation of ground level increase or decrease during and after they oil is out of the ground? Where is the 'Saudia Arabia' oil find that is coming out using this technology? Are long term ground water tables going to be effected, a major concern in the Arid West?
    Would those pushing the technology have any problems living near the oil fields using it?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Aug. 21, 2011 3:25 p.m.

    So let me get it straight, you pump fracing fluid into the ground to FRACTURE up the rock that contains more natural gas and then claim that it's impossible that ground water is contaminated because it would have to pass through solid rock?

    Well is it fracturing fluid or rock welding together fluid? Can't be both.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    Fracking (or fracing for the hyperoffended among us) is but one small part of the larger 'drill baby, drill' philosophy we have already signed up for. Whether it has any environmental or health ramifications is inconsequential. We've came out on the side of domestic production and anything we can do except conservation to get cheaper energy. This is what it's going to look like, and we have no right to gripe about it.

  • ljeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 1:09 p.m.

    Fracking is a dangerous technology because of difficulties containing the chemicals used in its application. In an editorial the D-News seemed to understand this.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    So you have the article and greedy industry that cites science and the enviromentalists with money from Mr. Soros the old industrialist and anti-american communist that cites science, which can we trust? Neither make reasonable regulations and hold industry responsible to pay for any future problems. Just like they have been required to pay more than 75 million dollars into the economy of SLC to correct the problems caused by the pipeline leak.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 11:59 a.m.

    Drill, baby, drill . . . and never mind the harm it causes the people impacted by it. Once again the oil companies are trying to cover up the harrm their processes cause. It astounds me that the DesNews would publish such a cover-up article.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    Arsenic, copper, vanadium, hydrochloric acid, various biocides, glutaraldehyde, 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, peroxodisulfates, tetramethylammonium, methanol, potassium, sodium acrylate, polyacrylamide, thioglycolic acid, ammonium chloride, ethylene glycol, polyaccrylate, methanol, isopropanol...

    ...Mixed with water and pumped deep into the ground at pressures of around 10,000 psi, often below natural aquifers...

    ...Oil and gas companies get to keep the short-term profits, and local governments get to deal with long-term contaminated water supply and public health problems...

    How could anyone object to that?

    Drill baby drill! My Escalade needs gas!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 21, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    Lets just let the oil and natural gas companies do whatever they want. I'm sure they'll always maintain high safety and nothing will ever happen. Just ask BP and Chevron. Red Butte in SLC is still suffering from that "small" oil spill from over a year ago.

    Yes.... Lets trust in the billionaire companies. They'll all worry about the health of all of us (as they're living hundreds of miles away in their mansions off Miami Beach).

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 21, 2011 9:45 a.m.

    There is one worry. When they pump stuff into the ground are they actually circulating some back up? Then they have the drilling mud that they have to dispose?

    With regards to the comment about George Soros and following the money, that seems plausible. A BP scientist told me that BP lobbied for low sulfur diesel in Australia because they knew that they could produce it in their Australian refineries. They were then ready with the hydrotreating processes in place and they made a killing because they were the only Australian refiner who was producing low sulfur diesel while the other refiners were scrambling to meet the requirement.

    BP took advantage of environmental regulations to make a lot of money.

    Aug. 21, 2011 5:44 a.m.

    The development of domestic natural gas, made much more available thorugh "fracking", poses a direct threat to the bottom line of one George Soros -- who happens to be one of the nation's largest importers of foreign liquified natural gas. He, through his contributions to groups like, is ginning up fear over domestic gas production because of the financial threat it presents to him.

    Just follow the money, as many of these same people are quite fond of saying.

    I work indirectly in the natural gas production industry in the Appalachian Basin. We have been treated to Mr. Soros' alcolytes' particular brands of misinformation and deception for some time now, and have paid something of a price for it as these Luddites have deceived some public bodies into enacting franking bans in some jurisdictions based upon their bogus "scientific" claims. I trust that public officials in Utah will be a little more level-headed when it comes to reacting to the Chicken Little Brigade than we have experienced elsewhere.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    Aug. 21, 2011 12:54 a.m.

    Leave it to MoveOn and the Sierra Club to twist the fracking truth.