rus wrote >>
Of course, to you that means I'm trying to drown out some point of view. Awesome.
that's not what he said.
Also why bring the same tired left/right politics into this? You have a habit of doing that and most of the time it makes me say "wait... wut?"
But whatever, people, can we get back to discussing the damned drilling please? geez.
Rus has a a point (around trying to tangentially argue about what appears to be some other subject entirely), if you're interested, watch the damned movie for yourself. You don't have to consider it authoritative to evaluate it's merits.
Arguing about whether or not it's an advocacy piece is pointless, as it pretty much obviously is. But, disregarding the ideas those who advocate something you might not agree with just because of that advocacy is a logical fallacy. Disregard ideas on their merits not who says them.
In this case, the previous poster who mentioned the depth of the formations in question is absolutely correct about the situation in Ohio (I went back and looked it up to refresh my memory). There is very very little possibility of fracturing those units somehow mingling methane or frac fluids with potable groundwater. Nobody drills water wells that deep (our deeper groundwater is largely brine anyway). Other states are not so lucky. :(
As that poster said: The drilling fluids and brine disposal are more important issues in Ohio and it's been a problem from the beginning. Preventing drilling fluid and brine contamination of the usable aquifers should be a priority and fairly easily doable thing in this state, but it needs to be monitored carefully and NOT by a state agency being hobbled by the governor's office, and IMHO, not one that is dependent on oil/gas leases for part of it's revenue, as ODNR is.