• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill would ban gas fracking in Mass. for 10 years

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,312
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
BOSTON — A bill aimed at temporarily banning a natural gas drilling technique that involves blasting chemical-laden water deep into the ground is making its way through the Statehouse.
The Legislature's Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources has approved a bill that would create a 10-year moratorium on the technique, called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Although the state isn't seen as a rich source of shale gas, there could be limited deposits in Western Massachusetts.

Environmental activists argue that fracking can lead to water contamination, illness and damaged rural landscapes. They say the potential problem is heightened in Massachusetts by the fact that many communities in the Pioneer Valley rely on groundwater as their sole source of drinking water.


Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping huge volumes of water, sand and chemicals underground to split open rocks to allow oil and gas to flow. Supporters say the technique is safe and is a way to extract natural shale gas that would otherwise remain trapped underground, helping keep energy prices lower. They argue the new gas resources also will help the country maintain its energy independence.

Northampton Democratic state Rep. Peter Kocot, one of the bill's sponsors, said the measure will help the state protect its drinking water and "ensure that the health and prosperity of our communities is maintained."
Click to expand...


Read more @: Bill would ban gas fracking in Mass. for 10 years | masslive.com

Hell to the yea. Health should always be a #1 priority over anything. I applaud this bill.

 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Bill would ban gas fracking in Mass. for 10 years | masslive.com Hell to the yea. Health should always be a #1 priority over anything. I applaud this bill. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Since the ban isn't permanent, that makes good sense. By the end of ten years a lot of other states will either have paid the price and be examples of why not to, or things will still be fine and they can more surely feel things are safe. And of course that's above and beyond any scientific research that sheds light on the effects and after effects of fracking.
 
Thom Paine said:
Those folk are idiots who don't know gas from apple butter... Ya' can't fix willful stupidity Let the bastards freeze in the dark Thom Paine
Click to expand...
And if they don't know, it makes sense to hang tight for ten years and have a chance to learn and see what others learn. What you think 10 years delay is going to keep them in the cold and dark. Hype much?
 
Summerwind said:
Since the ban isn't permanent, that makes good sense. By the end of ten years a lot of other states will either have paid the price and be examples of why not to, or things will still be fine and they can more surely feel things are safe. And of course that's above and beyond any scientific research that sheds light on the effects and after effects of fracking.
Click to expand...

Hey there Summer


The silliness in this situation is that there is about 60 years of history and research already;

I guess it aggravates me when politicos decide agenda without doing their own extensive research.... Hell, I'm old enough that maybe by now I shouldn't expect more.

Good eve to ya'

Thom Paine
 
Thom Paine said:
Hey there Summer The silliness in this situation is that there is about 60 years of history and research already; I guess it aggravates me when politicos decide agenda without doing their own extensive research.... Hell, I'm old enough that maybe by now I shouldn't expect more. Good eve to ya' Thom Paine
Click to expand...
They are taking ten years to do research and such, so you're righteous indignation makes no sense upon you typing, "it aggravates me when politicos decide agenda without doing their own extensive research." I'm guessing that 10 years ago it wasn't an issue to them as they were worried more about things more current to their constituents, now it is an issue, there are conflicting reports.
 
Summerwind said:
They are taking ten years to do research and such, so you're righteous indignation makes no sense upon you typing, "it aggravates me when politicos decide agenda without doing their own extensive research." I'm guessing that 10 years ago it wasn't an issue to them as they were worried more about things more current to their constituents.
Click to expand...

The point is .. there is 6 times that amount of research already accomplished.... why 10 more years.... it seems willful laziness or stupidity or what? and for what real reason?.

We will not agree, probably...
have a good eve

Thom Paine
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Bill would ban gas fracking in Mass. for 10 years | masslive.com

Hell to the yea. Health should always be a #1 priority over anything. I applaud this bill.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

While the environmentalists in MA feel good about themselves for this possible victory in a State that has very little oil, I'll still be getting my oil money from North Dakota for the next 10 years...and ND will be providing jobs.

North Dakota Fracking Jobs | Fracking Jobs
 
Thom Paine said:
The point is .. there is 6 times that amount of research already accomplished.... why 10 more years.... it seems willful laziness or stupidity or what? and for what real reason?.

We will not agree, probably...
have a good eve

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

There has been research that states is safe and research that states its unsafe. There has also been first hand accounts of what this can do to peoples groundwater.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There has been research that states is safe and research that states its unsafe. There has also been first hand accounts of what this can do to peoples groundwater.
Click to expand...

Certainly there has been; even with geological variables.... do some pointed research at your leisure... learn exactly how it is accomplished .. you will find much if you seek it.

Good eve sir

Thom Paine
 
Thom Paine said:
Certainly there has been; even with geological variables.... do some pointed research at your leisure... learn exactly how it is accomplished .. you will find much if you seek it.

Good eve sir

Thom Paine
Click to expand...

I have done research on the issue and have heard both sides of the arguments.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Bill would ban gas fracking in Mass. for 10 years | masslive.com

Hell to the yea. Health should always be a #1 priority over anything. I applaud this bill.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the bill, if that is what it is used for. Safety of course, but I'm not so sure that is it's real purpose. From the remarks by the democratic senator on the end of the thing, I get the feeling this is political posturing..

"Northampton Democratic state Rep. Peter Kocot, one of the bill's sponsors, said the measure will help the state protect its drinking water and "ensure that the health and prosperity of our communities is maintained.""

He already treats it as if it is a known and definite threat, and as if it's a permanent ban and not a temporary one for research to assess the threat, if there is one... A sure sign of political posturing. Why put up a temporary ban to assess the situation and possible threat, if he already feels the threat is so definite?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There has been research that states is safe and research that states its unsafe. There has also been first hand accounts of what this can do to peoples groundwater.
Click to expand...

Care to share links about these water problems?
 
gslack said:
I have no problem with the bill, if that is what it is used for. Safety of course, but I'm not so sure that is it's real purpose. From the remarks by the democratic senator on the end of the thing, I get the feeling this is political posturing..

"Northampton Democratic state Rep. Peter Kocot, one of the bill's sponsors, said the measure will help the state protect its drinking water and "ensure that the health and prosperity of our communities is maintained.""

He already treats it as if it is a known and definite threat, and as if it's a permanent ban and not a temporary one for research to assess the threat, if there is one... A sure sign of political posturing. Why put up a temporary ban to assess the situation and possible threat, if he already feels the threat is so definite?
Click to expand...

That's a very strange interpretation of what he said. The purpose is to wait and make sure it's actually safe before diving in.

Although personally I think the ban is heavy handed and arbitrary. Why 10 and not 15 or 20 or 5? What research can be expected to complete/improve by then?
 
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes: New Study Finds High Levels of Arsenic in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites - ProPublica
http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf
EHP – Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American
Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube
Scientific study confirms groundwater contamination by hydraulic fracturing - World Socialist Web Site
Exclusive: Censored EPA PA Fracking Water Contamination Presentation Published for First Time | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

Note that all of these are based on a single source, yep, one study, done in a single place, yep, one place, in PA done by Duke University. The conclusions of most quoted "experts" are that fracking needs more study, in other words, stop it until we find a better reason to stop it.

Why are gold mines, or any other natural resource extraction project, done in only certain locations? Because they likely contain what you want. Was the fracking done in that spot in PA because the gas was already coming out there, or did the gas start coming out after the fracking started? That single study does not (cannot?) say, since they studied only one place and only after the fracking was under way. Hmm....

EDIT: actually two studies but one found methane and the other found arsenic.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes: New Study Finds High Levels of Arsenic in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites - ProPublica
http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf
EHP – Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American
Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube
Scientific study confirms groundwater contamination by hydraulic fracturing - World Socialist Web Site
Exclusive: Censored EPA PA Fracking Water Contamination Presentation Published for First Time | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

And yet the EPA hasn't found cause to shut down one Fracking site due to contamination. Not one person has been caused illness as a direct causation of fracking. The problem with the argument is that all fracking jobs are done far below the water table, thus automatically eliminating the risk of contamination. Could there be risks to Fracking? Sure, I'll grant you that. But they are negligible when compared to other means of energy production. Face it, some people won't be happy unless we're all paying sky high electricity and gas bills due to us getting off the quote "dirty means of energy producing." Clean energy doesn't work, and until it does, we must rely on these sources of energy. Nay, we should be exploiting these resources to create the largest economic resurgence in this countries history.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And yet the EPA hasn't found cause to shut down one Fracking site due to contamination. Not one person has been caused illness as a direct causation of fracking. The problem with the argument is that all fracking jobs are done far below the water table, thus automatically eliminating the risk of contamination. Could there be risks to Fracking? Sure, I'll grant you that. But they are negligible when compared to other means of energy production. Face it, some people won't be happy unless we're all paying sky high electricity and gas bills due to us getting off the quote "dirty means of energy producing." Clean energy doesn't work, and until it does, we must rely on these sources of energy. Nay, we should be exploiting these resources to create the largest economic resurgence in this countries history.
Click to expand...

these articles state that they are not doing below the water levels and are in fact contaminating water supplies.
And yes there have been people ill caused by fracking
http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/list-of-the-harmed51.pdf
PA Public Health Assessment Finds Fracking Makes People Sick | EcoWatch
Health Impacts of Fracking
 
TheDemSocialist said:
these articles state that they are not doing below the water levels and are in fact contaminating water supplies.
And yes there have been people ill caused by fracking
http://pennsylvaniaallianceforcleanwaterandair.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/list-of-the-harmed51.pdf
PA Public Health Assessment Finds Fracking Makes People Sick | EcoWatch
Health Impacts of Fracking
Click to expand...

In each of those incidents that the EPA checked on, there was no evidence that the symptoms were caused by a result of Fracking. Most of these studies, as the previous poster mentioned, are done from uncorroborated studies. Speaking of studies though, I can match you study for study if you want:

Study Finds No Evidence of Water Contamination from Shale Gas Drilling in Arkansas
DOE STUDY: FRACKING CHEMICALS DIDN'T TAINT WATER
STUDY FINDINGS ALLEVIATE SOME ANTI-FRACKING FEARS
New fracking research led by Durham University finds it is “not significant” in causing earthquakes

And now that I've helped to dispel some of the unjustified rumors, let's talk about the positive side of "Fracking"

Fracking Boom Seen Raising Household Incomes by $1,200

Bottom line, there is no conclusive evidience of the ill effects of Fracking on either the air or water supply. Without such overwhelming and consensus evidence, we cannot make policy in regards to halting an industry that is revitalizing not only the energy sector and communities, but the country as a whole.
Fracking Boom Seen Raising Household Incomes by $1,200
 
Deuce said:
That's a very strange interpretation of what he said. The purpose is to wait and make sure it's actually safe before diving in.

Although personally I think the ban is heavy handed and arbitrary. Why 10 and not 15 or 20 or 5? What research can be expected to complete/improve by then?
Click to expand...

LOL it's not an interpretation, it's what he said..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes: New Study Finds High Levels of Arsenic in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites - ProPublica
http://www.epaosc.org/sites/7555/files/dimock-action-memo-01-19-12[1].pdf
EHP – Blind Rush? Shale Gas Boom Proceeds Amid Human Health Questions
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom: Scientific American
Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube
Scientific study confirms groundwater contamination by hydraulic fracturing - World Socialist Web Site
Exclusive: Censored EPA PA Fracking Water Contamination Presentation Published for First Time | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...
You said "I have done research on the issue and have heard both sides of the arguments," so where are the arguments from the other side?

PS: You lose all credibility for citing DeSmogBlog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom