|
Classic, I actually had "scanned" that report earlier. I don't remember
all my thoughts, but IIRC I felt it was a valid engineering study.
By that, I mean... as written from the "technical side" of the industry.
In scanning the Study Group Participants, it looks as though all are
well-credentialed members from engineering, management, or banking.
For a technical study group, that is fine. (I do believe this)
But I looked for people that might be representing public health or
environmental aspects, and found only one... maybe there are others.
Technically, I'm sure everyone in the industry believes fracking is technically and economically feasible.
But I also believe the industry has so far avoided discussion of environmental damage,
and especially the means of remediation for when, not if, it occurs.
It seems to me the majority offered so far is "low probability", "best practices", etc.
As I've posted earlier, we are still dealing with contamination problems
that resulted from the "best practices" of industry years ago.
Urgency is a factor in making decisions, but short term economic
needs should not overwhelm planning for long term (unintended) consequences.
My major concerns to avoid repeating our history in Montana and Appalachia,
are the technical "how-to's" and the $cost of cleanups after a water supply is contaminated.
For me right now, deliberately leaving toxins and carcinogens in the ground is a non-starter.
|