Unfortunately things aren't so simple.

My understanding is that the land in question is traditional Native land which was never surrendered to Canada.

Rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have established a duty to consult and accommodate aboriginal people when development is considered on their land, even non-reserve traditional lands. This was either not done, or wasn't successful.

There is also some suspicion that one of the individuals who set fire to the police cruisers is an RCMP informant. But I haven't found satisfactory evidence of that yet. If true, it would not be the first instance of police provocateurs infiltrating protests in Canada.

*promote *quality

I don't expect this is the last the protesters will see of the police. Gasco's want their money, and fracking wells is how they will get it.

Rule 5:

No Lense Flare.

Rule 6:

No. FRACKING! LENSE FLARE!

Fracking Cylons...

Agreed that the contamination is the worst part, the earthquakes are merely yet another potential hazard.

So far, the science is still at a reasonably early stage, but there is certainly some evidence to suggest that earthquakes in previously non-seismically active areas have been caused (or at the very least worsened) by fracking.

Groundwater contamination is the worst that's happening with this process since seismic anomalies created by the same will most likely be isolated and easily blamed on nature-Fracking is pretty frikkin' whack, it seems akin to the gold mining industry returning to 1890s technology to uncover the juice.

Frick'n fracking!

There's also some evidence to suggest that fracking can produce induced seismicity. It's one of the reasons why lots of people in NZ are opposed to it (what with the country still recovering from earthquakes)

Your video, Fracking Explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

This basically ends while dismissing, literally, the most important part of the discussion: "The long term problems with fracking our therefore, unseeable".

That's literally the pass card for corporations, because as stupid humans we will continue to trudge on ahead until the consequences are initially felt, then irreversible, and finally have impacted us to such an extreme point that finding an alternative is our only choice.

The future implications are absolutely not unforseeable, when you measure the history of human nature, the history of corporate behavior in this country, and the projected negative aspects of the process. It's a pretty clear-cut formula for understanding exactly what's going to happen.

The rationale for Assad in using chemical weapons is a group punishment of sorts for aiding the rebels. The conflict has been locked in back and forth territorial plays between Assad and the rebels. Dumping chemical weapons in a contested zone is a powerful psychological disincentive to the local civilian population in aiding the rebels.

Comparing this to Iraq '03 is misguided. Obama has shown no evidence of being a neoconservative, politically any serious involvement would be hugely damaging. There's good evidence to suggest that once Assad goes, there would be a civil war between the rebels for control. From there the rebels who come to power will likely be Islamic fundamentalists.

Besides, with fracking and CSG, the US is in a vastly different situation visa vi oil and gas, and either way Syria is hardly an oil slick. There's really little reason to get involved besides humanitarian reasons to act as disincentive to future dictators, at this point and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@Buck

The opposition to Assad is ragtag of mostly the local Sunni majority as the local Christians, Druze and Alawites have generally aligned themselves with Assad. They have little to nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reporting I have read is saying the strongest insurgents who are doing the weight of the fighting are generally fundamentalist Islamists, they also seem to be receiving the bulk of the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar unofficial groups who are sponsoring them.

The US is giving arms to purportedly moderate groups through the Supreme Military Council and Syrian Opposition Coalition political organisations, however it is not clear how extensive this program is.

Frack off hehehehehehe