RSS Feed
February 17th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda Last updated at 8:13 PM on 16th February 2012
There is no evidence that the controversial ‘fracking’ technique used to extract natural gas trapped in rocks deep beneath the ground pollutes drinking water, scientists said last night.
Supports of hydraulic fracturing say that the exploiting natural resources would cut energy costs and create new jobs.
Shale gas accounts for almost a quarter of the natural gas supply in the U.S.
Cuadrilla Resources’ shale drilling operation near Preston, Lancashire: Scientists now say that there is ‘no evidence’ that the controversial technique pollutes drinking water
Protesters scale a Cuadrilla shale gas rig bringing a halt to work at the site near Southport, Merseyside
In Britain, Lancashire is sitting one of Europe’s biggest reserves, with enough fuel to last 50 years, plug the looming energy shortfall caused by reduced North Sea gas supplies and create more than 5,000 jobs.
But opponents of fracking claim it pollutes water supplies, harms health and even causes earthquakes.
How shale gas is being extracted from deep beneath Lancashire
Their concerns relate to the technique used to remove the gas, which is much harder to extract than its North Sea counterpart.
During the fracking process, the shale is drilled into horizontally, and water, gas and chemicals pumped in at high pressure, causing the rock to shatter and allowing the gas to escape.
To separate fact from fiction, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin sifted through scientific and other literature on the safety of three large shale gas sites in the US.
They concluded that there is no evidence that fracking directly contaminates groundwater and any pollution is more likely to be due to above-ground spills of water produced by the drilling process.
Reports that the chemicals used in fracking cause leukaemia and other health problems are largely anecdotal, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference in Vancouver heard.
The scientists not address the potential to cause earthquakes but a recent British report blamed the technique for two tremors that hit the Blackpool area last year.
That probe added the mini-quakes were caused by an ‘unusual combination of factors’ and would be unlikely to recur elsewhere.
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
Let’s have some scientist’s views who don’t come from an oil rich state.
Report abuse
Ha Ha Ha. Scientist paid by the oil companies say the water where they do not live will not be effected by their actions. Why don’t I believe them?
Report abuse
texas university, that would be texas usa a state famous for its oil and gas drilling operations no conflict of interest there then , where do they think the chemicals go . once in the ground they have no where else to go but into the water table .an environmental disaster waiting to happen .
Report abuse
Bullony, Google Gasland video and see the truth.
Report abuse
“The scientists not address the potential to cause earthquakes but a recent British report blamed the technique for two tremors that hit the Blackpool area last year.” – What kind of a sentence is that all about Alfie?
Report abuse
“No evidence that controversial ‘fracking’ technique pollutes drinking water.”
Er, the EPA in the US say different.
Report abuse
It’s just the earthquakes, subsidence and radiation we need to worry about then.
Report abuse
That is playing with statistics and a feeble effort at that. People who’s water has been contaminated in the US also had to sign non-disclosure agreements so the figures are going to be all over the place. Why do you think the Environmental Protection Agency in the US is fighting for disclosure of the chemicals? 594 chemicals are used for each frack, MANY of which are carcinogenic at the worst and damaging at the least. Over 5 million gallons of water have to be used for each frack. Where do you think that comes from? And where do you think the tainted water should go?
Do your homework, DM. There’s a WHOLE load of documented cases where the water has turned into pure swill- actually, not even as natural as that. I do wonder what companies have you in their pocket?
Report abuse
It’s going to be a fracking nightmare – AND we know who is behind it…..
Report abuse
Adama FTW
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
