Letter to the editor: Companies admit fracking’s risks |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Companies admit fracking’s risks

When seeking investors, publicly traded companies are required to reveal the risks of their operations to potential investors. The following excerpt from a gas-company prospectus provides clear evidence that the industry does not belong in residential or agricultural areas:

“Oil and natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, formations with abnormal pressures, pipeline ruptures or spills, pollution, releases of toxic natural gas and other environmental hazards and risks. If any of these hazards occur, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of injury or loss of life; severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment; pollution or other environmental damage; clean-up responsibilities; regulatory investigations and penalties; or suspension of operations.

“As we drill to deeper horizons and in more geologically complex areas, we could experience a greater increase in operating and financial risks due to inherent higher reservoir pressures and unknown downhole risk exposures.”

There is no longer any question that unconventional gas production exposes residents to toxins known to pose grave risks to health. The greatest risk is to our most precious residents, our children.

A recent 20-day blowout in Belmont, Ohio, released 100 million cubic feet of gases per day and over 5,000 thousand gallons of brine, and necessitated a 1-mile evacuation zone.

Yet the gas industry has the audacity to testify in court and to the public that fracking isn’t industrial.

Judy Evans


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.