It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
CONWAY, Ark. (CN) - Eight families sued a natural gas company for personal injuries they attribute to its fracking operations, which emit half a pound of toxic emissions per minute, 24 hours a day, year round.
The lawsuit comes two days after a Texas jury awarded $3 million in damages for fracking there, in what is believed to be the first jury award of its kind. Gas companies customarily settle such claims confidentially, or fight them vigorously, often with help from complaisant legislatures.
Courthouse News
"The compressor stations emit huge amounts of methane and hydrogen sulfide, as well as other flammable, malodorous and noxious gases, chemicals and compounds, directly into the air. These substances are emitted are then allowed to flow freely off of the compressor station property and into the surrounding air and atmosphere."
What is the general consensus on fracking in the US. Is it seen as a good thing because it's bringing your energy costs down or are environmental hazards seen as more of a concern.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
What is the general consensus on fracking in the US. Is it seen as a good thing because it's bringing your energy costs down or are environmental hazards seen as more of a concern.
There is a lot of testing going on in the UK for potential fracking sites. The argument is that it will bring our energy bills down , like it has in the US and that environmental damage is negligible considering the potential benefits.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
I completely, 100%, disagree with Wrabbit2000, on this issue. The EPA, and various other groups have officially come out with low to no environmental impact from Fracking.
In fact, as proven in Col., where environmentalist had 'proven' pollution from fracking turned out to be present in the water in an earlier test PREVIOUS to fracking ever starting.
It's unclear whether the environmentalist were aware of that test or not. Suspicion abounds , however.
There are numerous examples of "exaggerations' by the environmentalist movement over the decades as well as valid ones.
In this case, there are numerous vested interest against fracking, both in the U.S., big oil with their reserves losing well head value, to outside U.S. interests, Russia, Saudi Arabia et al who also lose profit due to the fracking boom.
At the worst, the jury is still out a on fracking. At best, this is an amazing development for the U.S. economy, jobs created and the future survival of the nation.
I, for one, do not believe the environmentalists on this one in the slightest.
P.S. spare me the "Links" crap as well. Forwarding other peoples vested interests is no proof in my books.
If the EPA, certainly no friend of oil, cannot find a single piece of evidence supporting these claims, then anyone promoting otherwise..is .....