If you can look past your own horse shit, you people would notice that it is a really informative video that shows how the Fracking process works. This is not meant to be a political tool nor is it about water issues. God damn hippies get me in a twist sometimes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'drilling, gas, oil, hydraulic, fracturing, fracking' to 'drilling, gas, oil, hydraulic fracturing, fracking, well site, whipstock, lease' - edited by BoneRemake

Agree with @Fairbs...this is total self serving fracking propaganda and nothing more.
It is good they take some steps to not pollute.
It is ridiculous and terrible that they pretend the steps they take are fool proof and all inclusive. They have failed repeatedly (almost consistently) causing irreversible damage FAR more expensive than fracking is profitable. If they had to pay to really completely clean up even one contaminated aquifer, it would cost more than they could ever make off of the entire US gas reserves, and would never be completed because it's impossible to do.

15% of the fluid recovered means up to 85% of the toxic fluid is being pumped up through fractures, some of it into the water system. Even if only 10% makes it there, that's millions of gallons of unknown, poisonous contamination of our water systems.
True, aquifers may sit mostly at higher levels, but they have channels and fractures that reach below the level of the fracking, making a channel for the toxic drill fluid to enter the water table. Pretty simple to understand.
Also, the method used to fracture the rock is pulsing huge pressures through the tubes. Under those conditions, steel 'casings' flex (and sometimes rupture) and concrete fractures, destroying any 'seal' it could have made or, at best, creating channels outside the casing for the toxic fluid to travel up and out of.
I see many reasons this is not a viable industry without exemptions from legal and environmental regulations, which should never be granted to anyone.

Propaganda. It would be nice if it was safe, but it is not. Fracking pollutes water and uses chemicals that pollute the land.

Holly Frack!!
I am always blown away when I hear someone with absolute music talent....

Department of Energy study says Fracking is Safe. Do you believe them? Also the idea that we'd allow Fracking BEFORE it's proven to not put harmful chemicals into our drinking water is absurd. Why would we conduct a mass experiment on the public, why aren't the chemicals released to the public.

I'm sorry but some of you guys are off the fucking reservation if you think that it's just ok to do experiments on humans. Let's just try shit and hope it doesn't kill everyone. Yeah that'll work. NO these corporations need to be stopped.

Nuclear, when located away from population zones and areas of high seismic activity is a much better alternative to fracking. It doesn't carry any caveats in contaminating or draining aquifers and not being a fossil fuel it doesn't have the carbon emissions cost. Unfortunately Three Mile and now Fukushima have made that unlikely.

I do agree with Mikus that it needs to be put in perspective. The other point is that while not ideal, fracking is a much better alternative to coal in terms of emission cost.

You may not like it, but it's not a strawman argument. If we were fracking in Uganda and shipping the gas here, no one would be complaining. Any serious environmentalist would rather we burn natural gas than coal or oil.

I'm not in a position to argue about why Americans use so much oil. But the fact is that they do, and if natural gas displaces that, then you calculate the net benefit. The only way oil comes out on top is Nimbyism and a disregard for the people we kill overseas.

That is rather a strawman argument there man. We do get to complain about the source of our energy if that source is poisonous and deadly. The dependency on oil has been orchestrated because the US economy is backed by oil dollars. No matter how bad it got and all of the deaths and wars it has caused, it does not justify fracking.

*quality

As long as we Americans want to waste cheap electricity and drive SUVs, we don't really get to complain about where it comes from. Sure, fracking needs some common sense regulation, but let's talk about how many people have died to maintain our supply of cheap foreign oil.

This is self centered NIMBYism at its worst. Either put solar panels on your house and drive a Volt, or shut up.

Dave is also angry about fracking http://videosift.com/video/David-Letterman-on-Fracking

@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

Democrats are the party of NO
No Nuclear power
No coal,
No fracking,
No oil,
No gasoline.
No cars,
No GOD,
No getting ahead,
No profits,
No equality
No capitalism
No Free markets
No critical thought
No Jobs

This is not the party of "Move Forward" but the party of the dark age.
And by looking at this video we will be heading back to the dark age soon

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-anti-fracking-protester-sue-greater-6676499

"Dr Steven Peers, who was filming the demonstration at Barton Moss in Salford, was arrested for refusing a breath test after the policeman accused him of driving to the site drunk.

He was later charged but the case fell apart at court when prosecutors offered no evidence."

Other interesting anti-science partisan issues are GMO/biotech, nuclear power, evolution, big bang, vaccines, AIDS, fracking, organic foods, vitamin supplements, and a host of others. Note that many of those are pegged in liberal circles as well, anti-science is a bipartisan issue, just depends on the issue.