I dunno, seems like a simple enough question. Is, or is not the ground water being contaminated by toxic fracking chemicals? After reading the posted web pages and considering the testimonies of land owners, scientists, and doing their own visual site inspections and confirmations themselves. I don't find much reason to disagree with their opinions. I can't imagine what kind of psychological hurdles you must jump every day to maintain your trust in yourself, your wife, and your children. I suppose its all in a days work for brilliant spinners like yourself. But I have to admit to a secret desire to know the real reason why grown men would cover themselves in so much dishonor. Or at the very least, how it really came to that.

"Is, or is not the ground water being contaminated by toxic fracking chemicals?"

Good, a question we can address, we're getting somewhere. I don't have evidence like yours which appears to have come from the guy down the pub, but I don know that the EPA investigated claims that there was widespread ground water contamination in the report below. There wasn't but you'd better read it anyway.

"Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources, May 27, 2009, http://www.gwpc.org/e-library/documents/general/State%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Regulations%20Designed%20to%20Protect%20Water%20Resources.pdf; Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing, June 2004, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_exec_summ.pdf".

"Energy In Depth, Frac In Depth, http://www.energyindepth.org/in-depth/frac-in-depth/."

"Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Remarks on Hydraulic Fracturing from State Regulatory Officials, June 2009, http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/Websites/iogcc/Images/2009StateRegulatoryStatementsonHydraulic%20Fracturing.pdf."

"Ground Water Protection Council, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, April 2009, http://www.gwpc.org/e-library/documents/general/Shale%20Gas%20Primer%202009.pdf, p. 61."

"Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing, June 2004, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_exec_summ.pdf"

As to the "dangerous" chemicals most are basically household chemicals, but there are some which can be carcogenic in sufficient quantities. I suppose the proof of the pudding is in the fact that there are 1 million fracking wells in the USA and no widespread harm through chemicals from fracking reported, except by environmentalists. Fracking is safe if it is tightly regulated. You should take this message back to your pastor Reverand Jim Scarealot of the Church of Environmental Survivalists. Although you might have to take the flavor-aid so I should be careful how I put it to him if I were you.

"I don't have evidence like yours"

That's why I gave it to you. And it's perfectly obvious the evidence didn't come from the guy at the pub. It is completely evident who it is authored by. It is perfectly obvious that the chemicals are much more than household chemicals. And furthermore you and all your ilk are highly disingenuous and total liars. You think you can just go around the world laying waste to whatever you want and being dismissive of everybody's concern while pretending to stand for all this high fallutin freedom. Unbelievable the pathetic depths to which humans are capable of descending. You have no shame, honor, integrity, empathy or even basic common sense.

Of course we all can't help but notice how dismissive this site is to government statistics regarding global warming but are more than willing to use government info if that confirms the innocence of your corporate friends. That the EPA produces such accurate stuff for you to fawn over and present with such endearing confidence just shows you what government scientists can come up with when they have a mind to huh. It's good to see you finally found that confidence in the government. I have read such disparaging remarks about our elected officials elsewhere on these pages. It's good to come across at least one person who thinks otherwise.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom/

Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom

In Pennsylvania, the closer you live to a well used to hydraulically fracture underground shale for natural gas, the more likely it is that your drinking water is contaminated with methane. This conclusion, in a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in July, is a first step in determining whether fracking in the Marcellus Shale underlying much of Pennsylvania is responsible for tainted drinking water in that region.

Robert Jackson, a chemical engineer at Duke University, found methane in 115 of 141 shallow, residential drinking-water wells. The methane concentration in homes less than one mile from a fracking well was six times higher than the concentration in homes farther away. Isotopes and traces of ethane in the methane indicated that the gas was not created by microorganisms living in groundwater but by heat and pressure thousands of feet down in the Marcellus Shale, which is where companies fracture rock to release gas that rises up a well shaft.

But it is so terribly hard to come by evidence which contradicts yours. This is the first link which popped up. But this is all academic anyways. You know as well as I do that this industry (and you) and many others are completely unconcerned with any and all health affects. Neither are you concerned with any pretentions of health concerns about anything. We all know it. You know it. Your government friends know it. Even your children know it.

So you didn't read the EPA reports then, preferring the opinions of the bloke down the pub?

Do you really need to use such abusive language especially to people you don't know anything about? I've always found that people who resort to such abusive behaviour in print are without exception physical cowards, cowering as they do behind the distance and anonymity of the personal attacks. Although I'm sure that's not the case for you and you're as brave as a lion.

Now be a good chap (if you are a chap that is, but my experience is that women seldom use the sort of abuse you do because they don't feel the need to be pseudo macho) and read the EPA reports and stop relying on your mates down the pub for information, they might, heaven forbid, be rabid environmentalists pumping out lies to their gullible followers, you never know.

So tread wearily and look at what the EPA and many other organisations with no dog in the fight have to say.

And cool it with the abuse, you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Is this what you're talking about when you say that fracking causes methane to get into the water supply. You should know that it was well known that Northeastern Pennsylvania had methane, which is harmless unless lit, then it burns, in its water supply long before fracking took place. Don't believe the guys who are feeding you this propaganda.

"The study looks at test results for 1,701 water wells around Susquehanna County, PA (where Dimock is located), both close to and far from shale drilling. What does the cold, hard data show? Methane is everywhere in Susquehanna County groundwater–and it has been for hundreds of years. No wonder Susquehanna County is such a productive gas field for Cabot! The study finds that methane in water is more prevalent in certain locations like valleys. Perhaps most importantly–the study finds no correlation between shale drilling and the level of methane in water wells. There’s no more methane in water wells close to drilling than there is in wells far from it. Science is science, and this study cannot be discounted simply because the wizards at Cabot wrote the report…"

The abstract from the study:

Testing of 1701 water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania shows that methane is ubiquitous in groundwater, with higher concentrations observed in valleys vs. upland areas and in association with calcium-sodium-bicarbonate, sodium-bicarbonate, and sodium-chloride rich waters—indicating that, on a regional scale, methane concentrations are best correlated to topographic and hydrogeologic features, rather than shale-gas extraction. In addition, our assessment of isotopic and molecular analyses of hydrocarbon gases in the Dimock Township suggest that gases present in local water wells are most consistent with Middle and Upper Devonian gases sampled in the annular spaces of local gas wells, as opposed to Marcellus Production gas. Combined, these findings suggest that the methane concentrations in Susquehanna County water wells can be explained without the migration of Marcellus shale gas through fractures, an observation that has important implications for understanding the nature of risks associated with shale-gas extraction.*

*Groundwater (Apr 5, 2013) - Evaluation of Methane Sources in Groundwater in Northeastern Pennsylvania "

EPA 816-R-04-003
Figure ES-4. Hypothetical Mechanisms - Fracture Creates Connection to USDW

ES-5 How Do Fractures Grow?
In many CBM-producing regions, the target coalbeds occur within USDWs, and the
fracturing process injects “stimulation” fluids directly into the USDWs. In other
production regions, target coalbeds are adjacent to the USDWs (i.e., either higher or
lower in the geologic section). Because shorter fractures are less likely to extend into a
USDW or connect with natural fracture systems that may transport fluids to a USDW, the
extent to which fractures propagate vertically influences whether hydraulic fracturing
fluids could potentially affect USDWs.

The extent of the fractures is difficult to predict because it is controlled by the
characteristics of the geologic formation (including the presence of natural fractures), the
fracturing fluid used, the pumping pressure, and the depth at which the fracturing is being
performed. Fracture behavior through coals, shales, and other geologic strata commonly
present in coal zones depends on site-specific factors such as the relative thickness and
in-situ stress differences between the target coal seam(s) and the surrounding geologic
strata, as well as the presence of pre-existing natural fractures. Often, a high stress
contrast between adjacent geologic strata results in a barrier to fracture propagation. An
example of this would be where there is a geologic contact between a coalbed and an
overlying, thick, higher-stress shale.

Like I said. It is more than obvious you are of grade school intellect that needs government studies when it come to ground water protection but of Phd quality in matters of global warming. For 300 years no one has talked about flaming tap water or fracking chemicals in their ground water. They frack, and lo and behold everyone finds flaming tap water and fracking fluids. And its all because of hysteria and greenies who have the internet to play with. If they would just read the government studies. They would know that they were safe.

And think on this too (not that I believe anything would be able to cause a person like you to think) all those millions of gallons of highly toxic chemicals (much less than half are ever recovered) which are pumped down there, are down there - forever. To all intents.

"There’s no more methane in water wells close to drilling than there is in wells far from it. Science is science, and this study cannot be discounted simply because the wizards at Cabot wrote the report…"

That's a good one. Nosiree. Just like those government reports (which are based on industry reports) cannot be discounted simply because those wizards at government agencies wrote the report. Hey, what do you take me for anyways, the government has a long history of telling the truth. Yea, go baby. Let's roll.

Leave it Geronimo. You'll get no sense into our out the prat.

You know the saying...wrestle with a pig etc,etc.

Trying to get there too quickly makes errors. I meant to say,and it's pleasing to say it twice, "you'll get no sense into or out of the prat."

In many CBM-producing regions, the target coalbeds occur within USDWs

The extent of the fractures is difficult to predict

Isotopes and traces of ethane in the methane indicated that the gas was not created by microorganisms living in groundwater but by heat and pressure thousands of feet down in the Marcellus Shale, which is where companies fracture rock to release gas that rises up a well shaft.

Duh-uh, I dunno Martha, the gubbermint agunt said ittud be hundurd percent safe.

Is this like beyond your reading capabilities or are you just dyslexic? There are probably exercises you can do to improve your comprehension level.

In many CBM-producing regions, the target coalbeds occur within USDWs, and the
fracturing process injects “stimulation” fluids directly into the USDWs.

On the other hand of course there exists people who wilfully pursue the destruction of other peoples property and livelihood for their own gain. Of this variety are you? That's OK, you don't have to respond. It's just a rhetorical question. But there you have it in black and white. Read at your own discretion I suppose.

David Porter, I've left it. There are obvious signs of some sort of...well not normal behaviour.

Geronimo

He/she appears very angry. One thing I would say, most of his comments seemed to relate to fracking of coal bed methane and not shale gas. A difference of many thousands of feet.

A difference of many thousands of feet.

According to Schlumberger, the world's largest oilfield company, there are problems galore. In 2003, the company reported that 43 per cent of 6,692 offshore wells tested in the Gulf of Mexico by U.S. regulators were found to be leaking. In fact, by the time a well gets 15 years old, there is a 50 probability it will leak significantly and therefore contaminate other zones, wells, or groundwater.

Completely different. Phooey. Shale is like 100% safe MAN. Not the same at all.

What a bunch of whining greenies. Worried about things like ground water contamination and Gulf of Mexico oil seepage. Sheet man. That Corexit can make sure none of that leackage gets to the surface. They got nothing to worry about. That's just good for the environment if it is done in a safe and regulated manner.

The Tar Sands are impossible to ignore. Pressure is mounting to build a huge new pipeline from Alberta to refineries in Texas. It will cement the hold of Canada's dirty oil on the U.S. market for a generation. The Alberta Tar Sands lie under Boreal Forests drained by the Athabasca River as it flows northward. Where the river empties into the lake, it forms one of the world's great freshwater delta ecosystems.

Under Canadian law and British Imperial law, the Cree people own that part of Alberta. The most important promise in the treaty is that the Cree Indians would have the right to hunt and fish. Except now, if you look at northern Alberta, particularly northeastern Alberta where the Tar Sands developments are, the developments are so vast, the destruction of the landscape is so extensive, that it's now fair to say that treaty rights themselves can no longer be meaningfully exercised because the habitat of the animals is being destroyed right before our eyes.

Imagine this. In another 20 years the Alberta tarsands development will have destroyed an area of land al least equal in size to all of England and it will leak thousands of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere for centuries to come to be spread all over the world. Toxic chemicals will spread into the Antarctic for centuries and centuries. I wonder what the cost of that will be. I mean as long as we're all always tallying up the costs of energy creation and use and all.

During the winter the industry deposits soot in the form of poisonous chemicals of a multitude on the surrounding snow. In the spring there is a release on an oil spill the size of Exxon Valdiz onto the surface water, into the ground water, through the lakes and out to the ocean. I wonder what the cost of that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_River

Extremely wasteful gas flaring in Nigeria

The world must develop energy says the oil energy. Yet in the Niger Delta natural gas valued at anywhere from $500 million to $2.5 billion is simply burned off. Unbelievable.

https://www.google.ca/#q=gas+flare+nigeria+shell

Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth

http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth

Because of their sheer scale, all Canadians are affected by the Tar Sands, no matter where they live.

If you live downstream, your water is being polluted and your fish and wildlife may be dangerous to eat. If you live in Saskatchewan you are a victim of acid rain. If you live in BC, "supertankers" may soon be plying your shoreline carrying Tar Sands oil to Asia. If you live in Ontario, you are exposed to harmful emissions from the refining of Tar Sands Oil. And the impacts do not stop at Canada's border - US refineries are re-tooling to handle the dirty oil from Alberta.

With the Tar Sands, Canada has become the world's dirty energy superpower.

Some very well taken pictures regarding the extent of the damage.

http://beautifuldestruction.ca/bdexhibitiongala.html

Listen replicant, you're really in need of some help, normal people don't behave like this, no one is reading what you've written and you must know that, so why carry on?