ShareThis Page

Anti-fracking argument not sound

| Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017, 8:55 p.m.

Dorothy T. Hufford's letter “Ban fracking to protect water” claims justification for the proposed Delaware River Basin fracking ban is “scientifically sound” and fracking “will destroy our drinking water.” But the latest studies show that Hufford's argument is anything but “scientifically sound.”

The Environmental Protection Agency's report “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States” found no evidence of widespread water contamination from fracking, despite expanding fracking's definition to include activities that are part of all oil and gas development and not exclusive to fracking.

That report is one of no fewer than 28 studies reaching the same conclusion, including a Department of Energy study that found “no evidence” of Marcellus shale natural gas or brine migration into Pennsylvania groundwater.

In 2013, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission found no “significant” impacts to the river over three years, despite the fact it runs through the heart of Marcellus drilling regions. And the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released a 2016 report that found no water contamination threat posed by fracking to streams, lakes and groundwater.

As these studies show, the Delaware River Basin Commission's entire justification for its unconstitutional land grab is based entirely on an anti-fracking talking point that's been thoroughly debunked. Not only is DRBC's proposed fracking ban anything but “scientifically sound” — it's flat-out unconstitutional.

Bill Shaughnessy

Glenside

The writer is a member of Upper Delaware River Basin Citizens (udrbc.org).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.