Brenda wrote:Of course news is biased, but when you have many expert people and many sources saying the same things over and over again there has to be some truth to the matter.
There may not be as many expert proponents coming forward, but they are out there. So there must be some truth in what they say as well. I think somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
Brenda wrote:Risk vs reward? How many families are allowed to get sick to make the reward worth while? Mine? Yours?
Again, is there clear proof that this has even occured? Or are we just taking what a news article states as the gospel? I dont want anyones family sick. I didnt want the gulf to go to ruins due to an explosion. At the same time, if we dont invest now in a viable fuel source...where will be in the future? How many families could be affected when they cant afford to pay their heating costs and state could no longer afford to subsidise them?
Brenda wrote:I'm going to have to look up the sources to give you exact figures on employment, and I don't have the time right now but I do know that they bring in most of the labor and very few permanent jobs are created because once the well is in place...They've created their own encampments, so the impact on the local economy is highly questionable.
•Roughly 75 percent of the jobs will be blue collar jobs.
•It takes an average of 20-30 different companies participating to drill a well.
•It takes an average 410 people in 150 occupations to drill a single well. They don’t all work full-time! But at some point during the process, over 400 people will have worked at least some amount of time on the well project.
•Each well generates 11.53 (rounded to 12) full-time equivalent workers during the life of the well.
•Each well generates .17 full-time production workers, which are long-term “production” jobs. Put it this way, every six wells will yield one full-time job for many years into the future.
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/03/bi ... ly-create/
Your claim that the labor is not local comes...from? I personally worked with a company in Avon just two years ago along with around 100 other employees. All full time. For two years we all had as much overtime as we could ever want. Then the moratorium came and we were all laid off due to lack of work. There is a ton more of work to a well site than just the drilling. Pipefitters, electricians, crane operators, carpenters, fence installers to name just a few. All local people, all with jobs that paid well.
Brenda wrote:The problem is that it's not being regulated properly. You obviously have little faith in our current administration, so what makes you think that they are going to protect our families when it comes to the risks of hydrofracking?
Id rather try to have faith in our administration attempting to harness a "new" energy source, creating jobs, and bolstering our economy HERE than to have them invest in other countries endeavors. And it has nothing to do with the "current" administration.
Brenda wrote:You should see the commercials that they are airing using "locals" to convince us that it's safe.
hobkyl wrote:
You dont think that opponents use the same tactics to convince you that its not safe?
Kyle wrote:No, because they don't have the advertising budget for television!
I was referring to Gasland.
Its not being shoved down my throat. I see a commercial FOR natural gas maybe once a week. On the other hand I read or see news AGAINST it several times a week. So while they might not have the money to buy air time, they are still getting their message across in a big way.
Heres another good fact checker...
http://nwpoa.club.officelive.com/Gasland.aspx