Energy. Environment. Economy.

My Fracking Valentine

Fractivists had a Valentine message for Gov. Tom Corbett on Wednesday in Philadelphia’s Love Park, a year after Corbett signed Act 13, the state’s new drilling law.

Tom MacDonald / WHYY/

Fractivists demonstrate against natural gas drilling in front of Robert Indiana's Love sculpture, Love Park, center city Philadelphia.


  • TheProspector

    One question for the people with the sign: “Where?”

  • Paul Roden

    In response to The Prospector’s question of where, in general where ever the use of fracking is or is proposed to be conducted to extract natural gas. The picture with the baby and her mother in a home was taken in PA. They can drink, cook or clean with water from their well since fracking began. Fracking is too dangerous, too expensive and totally unnecessary for our energy needs. Read the Nov 2009 issue of Scientific American. We can power the globe with renewable energy by 2030.

  • Sam Bernhardt
  • DustyBottoms

    Paul, explain to me how that will happen by 2030? I am for the environment but that is a dream. The industry can’t even stand on its own two feet without being subsidized. After some advances in the future, possibly but 2030 is a stretch.

    ‘Fracking is too dangerous, too expensive, and totally unnecessary.’ Dangerous, you could argue that anything is dangerous. Brushing my teeth I could choke on my tooth brush. From experience, most people already have bad water before any mining or drilling occurs and want a free well. We test the water before and after, and nothing has changed. Gives people a reason to gripe and join the bandwagon. You said it yourself ‘They can drink, cook or clean with water from their well since fracking began.’ Exactly.

    Expensive, windmills are $4 million a piece and are subsidized. That’s not expensive? Do you have electricity and/or gas in your house? Too unnecessary doesn’t even make sense. Watching too many Matt Damon movies.

    • Steven O.

      Hello Dusty,

      One factor of cost that should be considered is the long term environmental cost. Not just in the sense of the natural environment but the economic effects this poses. The waterways that would be affected are vital for over 6 million people. The money needed to clean up polluted waterways and ecosystems will be the burden of who? The tax payers, the very people who are to benefit from low prices yet pick up the tab on the back end.

      Another example, let’s say 1% (60,000) of those 6 million are directly impacted from a health standpoint. The medical cost and loss of productivity will surely result in a trickle down. At some point the long term cost are going to outweigh the shorter term gains as great as they may be.

      I’m not well versed enough yet on this topic to go on about immediate solutions. However, should fracking prove to be detrimental to the environment as suggested and our ecosystems of life; I fear the cost will be regrettable.

      While the economics of this greatly favor ramping up production to the point of generating a good export, great folly could come from narrowing the focus to this end. We’re no strangers to the wonders of human ingenuity and accomplishment. Anerobic biodigestors are just one of a litany of examples that was once impossible. My hope is that should the trigger get pulled on this we all don’t get shot.

      A combination of new solutions and existing resources is a viable and possible path. May not be the easier path but would push us further to a better end than the other.

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »