Regarding the letter from John Janitz Jr. of Mount Vision:
John makes a good argument for the process that is misnomered “fracking.” He describes the mechanics of the procedure quite well; however, it should more accurately be called “mega polluting.” He quotes a poll showing 46 percent are opposed to “fracking.” John, why do you think that is? Could it be they know something you don’t or just failed to mention, such as the fluid you say is 99 percent water and sand also contains toxic chemicals?
Just ask the poor folks in Pennsylvania who had their wells polluted by fracking. You also don’t address the adverse effects such as the tons of water required, the damage to the roads caused by the trucks and equipment needed.
Additionally, these drilling companies don’t have the best record of taking care (supplying bottled water) to those people whose wells were contaminated.
Ah yes, you say fracking is a precise and highly regulated procedure. Regulated by whom? Themselves?
And here’s the kicker, the real meat of the matter. Again you say “when done correctly.” Indeed, who is going to police fracking and who is going to police the police?
Natural gas prices will not go down and no jobs will be created (locally). If you do allow fracking on your property and you get thirsty and your water is not fit to drink, have a nice cool glass of GAS!
Save Our Water