Fracking - It's a strange old world | Vital Football

Fracking - It's a strange old world


Vital Football Legend
Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking


Two Pennsylvanian children will live their lives under a gag order imposed under a $750,000 settlement


Two young children in Pennsylvania were banned from talking about fracking for the rest of their lives under a gag order imposed under a settlement reached by their parents with a leading oil and gas company.

The sweeping gag order was imposed under a $750,000 settlement between the Hallowich family and Range Resources Corp, a leading oil and gas driller. It provoked outrage on Monday among environmental campaigners and free speech advocates.

The settlement, reached in 2011 but unsealed only last week, barred the Hallowichs' son and daughter, who were then aged 10 and seven, from ever discussing fracking or the Marcellus Shale, a leading producer in America's shale gas boom.



Vital Football Legend
I would love to know this is going to be imposed and checked up on. Isn't this a form of child abuse?..

So weird


This fracking will wreck the land we live in, we have been slowly killing this planet bit by bit planting nukes and detonatint them under ground for years, this country should be investing in proper alternatives to energy than oil,

As for this gag order it shows they don't want people aware of this too much and try and sweep it under the carpet, what will our lands end up like keep cracking the very land we live on ffs.


Vital Reserves Team
Interesting Kefkat. Not sure how they can impose that and reliably monitor and uphold any breaches if they were to occur. I have heard some serious horror stories about CSG. The CSG revolution is just hitting its straps in Australia and the environmentalists have been understandably out in force.

Hydraulic fracturing, if done correctly, can be safe and not impact on the environmental, particularly land fertility and contamination of the water table. The main issues are often high salt and heavy metals content and BTEX contamination. It depends on the the depth of the coal seam and whether or not fracking is required or whether removal of contaminated water to release the gas is an option. Either way it can be argued that both are not environmentally friendly (what to do with the contaminated water?). It can also be argued a necessary (evil)?

It is easy to say we need to move away from hydrocarbon (coal, oil and gas) sources Clive, but it is commonly perceived as the most acceptable form of energy production globally.

In my opinion the cleanest, safest, cheapest and most efficient form of energy available is nuclear. Cost is always a driver behind these decisions. The energy in 1.2 tonnes of coal is equivalent to the size of 1 capsule size of ceramic U3O8 pellet (which can be handled without gloves, etc). The cost of purchasing U3O8 as a fuel is far cheaper than coal and less carbon emissions. Nuclear has comparative CO2 emissions to wind and less emissions than hydro, solar and geothermal (indirect) from the energy life cycle. The problem and obviously most controversial topics for debate is the waste storage (well what little waste that can not be reprocessed through fast-breeder reactors) and security.

Sorry, didn't mean to get so off topic.


Vital Reserves Team
Safer? Apart from Chenobyl there has not been a single death directly related to a nuclear power plant disaster. Most radiation or nuclear related deaths are from radiotherapy or nuclear medicine.

I would also argue it is far less efficient as it is not a readily available primary source. Hydrogen generation is required through electrolysis or some other means. Cleaner? Maybe. It would have to be fairly clean and low emissions throughout the energy life cycle. Again, safer? Given the safety record of the nuclear energy industry which is one of the most heavily regulated industries on the planet, that is unknown until Hyrdrogen energy is used on the same scale as nuclear.