Dear Mr. Hoffman:
--Certainly you are correct that hydrofracking is no magic answer. My point was that it compares favorably with other sources of fuel. Arguably is has much less impact than coal mining for instance. As to "massive truck traffic". My understanding is that once the wells are in place, transport is achieved mainly by pipe and not trucks or railroads. Coal on the other hand indeed requires "massive truck traffic" as well as extremely large railhead installations.
--Now if I were (and I am not) one of those persons who seeks to use government power against those who disagree with me, I would say something like "Perhaps in view of the special scenic beauty and the tourist appeal of your area, hydrofracking could be forbidden and a special tax imposed on your area for the negative impact on the price of fuel, and the additional CO2 burden caused by having to use more carbon intensive fuels instead."
--Now, water wells are a different matter. At the 2010 Sundance film festival, the film Gasland debuted. This film was later show on HBO. Prominently show in the film was a flaming water tap. What was not mentioned was that this region was famous for flaming water due to methane since the 30s. To me at least, this puts Gasland's director, Josh Fox, in the same school of Documentary Journalism as Dan Rather, Michael Moore and Al Gore.
--Now there is a reputable report of a flaming water tap due to hydrofracking from Scientific American, By David Biello May 9, 2011. This report states that 51 of 60 wells within a 1 kilometer radius of a hydrofrack well showed 17 times as much methane as wells further away. It also stated that one well had 64 times as much methane, this one is no doubt the flamer. The information in this report does not make clear whether these increased methane levels are do to generalized upward migration or of a single casing leak. In any case I will grant that special testing and regulation may be needed in heavily populated areas. The report also states:
"At the same time, the researchers found no evidence that either the chemicals in fracking fluids or the natural contamination in deep waters were polluting relatively shallow water wells in the vicinity of the deep natural gas wells." For the SA article on Hydrofracking see the below link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells--Thanking you for you patience, let me just address a few of your other objections. With regard to trashing the landscape, and ruining the roads. You are correct here, while the wells are being put in they will have a visual impact, but less so once there is just a wellhead and a pipe. There will be a temporary impact on roads and traffic, and some new roads will be built. I think you will find that, now most of the fracking companies, which up till now have made the contents of fracking fluids available only to the government for proprietary reasons, are publishing these facts and in many cases putting them up on the web. I might point out that most people use things in their cars, kitchen sink, toilet, and clothes washers, for which they would be arrested if they just dumped them on the surface.
--If by a democratic decision process the people in your area choose to forgo the vicissitudes and the income from hydrofrack natural gas, that is fine by me. They should not be forced to accept it. If on the other hand it is forbidden by the edict of a government regulatory agency, I would be less than pleased.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill
Best Regards
Clear Ether