Why did these people agree to have them build fracking wells on their property only to complain when the water was contaminated.
They should have known better.
Life is the *beep* that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come.
That's what I want to know.
shareThis is the key question I was left with after the doco..
Why weren't they asked, "Why did you take the gas company's money? Do you think you are entitled to complain when the gas company does what they paid you to do on your land?"
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Although I didn't like "Batman's" doc too much I believe it wouldn't have mattered if you took the Oil Baron's money or not. Sooner or later someone would take the money and then the whole water table would be contaminated. That was my take, anyway, but there's plenty of arguments for Fracing from the other side.
sharewho wouldn't take up the offer of a tens of thousands of dollars for a seemingly (and i'm sure the initial contract letters received would have been reassuring) innocuous and clean way of extracting energy. the middle and lower class have never been so poor (when you take into account wages/cost of food) so it's a no brainer really - don't think it's fair to blame them for wanting to ease their financial troubles.
sharewell said me
shareTwo points:
1. I agree completely with people WHO DIDN"T SIGN UP for the fracking complaining because their water has been contaminated. That's not my point. It is the people who agreed to let these companies onto their land, took their money and then complained that I wanted the question put to.
2. I have no problem with poor people wanting to improve their lot and agree that if someone came along and threw fistfulls of money my way I might let them do the same. BUT, if I did a deal with the devil and took his money, do I still have the right to complain that I have lost my soul? No one forced them to sign the leases... If, however, the gas companies actually obtained those consents by fraud or misrepresented the possible side-effects, different story.
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If, however, the gas companies actually obtained those consents by fraud or misrepresented the possible side-effects, different story.Yes, the honorable fracking companies, who won't willingly come on camera to defend their practices, were totally honest in their initial dealings with the people who agreed to drilling on their lands. "You and your children and your livestock and your family pets will probably incur poor health effects; your water will become polluted to the point that you can't use it to water plants or wash your clothes, much less drink it, and in fact it may turn black and/or BE FLAMMABLE; and for good measure we will decimate your landscape and kill your wildlife." I'm sure that was the first line of the contract, and everybody was able to sign with eyes wide open. No need for a documentary to expose this; it was all laid out by the companies ahead of time!
They're trying to start fracking here, the proponents are talking of bringing employment to the area but soon after i'm sure the same complaints will arise from them.
Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion
When the gas companies put the contract in front of them with the promise of x sum of money I highly doubt they said "But this could contaminate your water and potentially make your property unsafe to live on." They probably said "It's perfectly safe, here's a lot of money".
share[deleted]
I believe that this is a case of something much bigger than a few sick people. No matter how these people feel, fact is that these places are being raided with toxic compounds. Even if there would be no people around, this would still be wrong.
Im not a nature activist or anything like that, but I guess it doesnt take an activist to understand that poluting water on such a scale is WRONG, and should be regulated and terminated by the goverment.
This is my point WJ.
I have no problem people suing the companies based on their misrepresentations and/or their contamination of their land. I do have a problem if these risks were explained and people still signed up.
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Agreed, blaircam.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
From waht I could see of the contract that it would contaminate their water. Even the whistleblower is complaining that they hadn't been regulated or even asked to voluntarily divulge the damaging information.
You can live on fishes but you can't live on wishes