Obama Administration Approved Gulf Fracking During Deepwater Horizon Disaster



**Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) technology has been widely used to maximize oil-and-gas production in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, and the government allows offshore drillers to dump fracking chemicals mixed with wastewater directly into the Gulf, according to documents released to Truthout and the Center for Biological Diversity under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

From 2010 to October 2014, the Obama administration approved more than 1,500 permit applications for offshore drilling plans that included fracking at hundreds of wells across the Gulf of Mexico, according to the documents. An unknown number of permit applications have yet to be released, so the scope of offshore fracking in the Gulf is likely larger.**

This news report continues at the link.


Great! I’m glad to the Obama administration do something right for change. Fracking has been a benefit for all of us .


Of course. :shrug: Most people who work in or for the oil industry do feel that way.

However, people whose communities have been subjected to fracking tend to know better.

There’s something about cancerous, flammable drinking water which tends to annoy people, though I can’t imagine what it is.

Which is why fracking in the ocean is so lovely: pollution is easier to ignore and easier to lie about.


Anybody that drives a car or buys goods that are shipped by trucks should feel that way . Fracking has bought about a huge drop in the cost of energy in this country which is to the benefit of everyone.


Bernie of recent…


“Secretary Clinton in one way or another wants to quote unquote ‘regulate’ fracking. I think it is too late for regulating. I think fracking has got to be banned in America,” Sanders said. He also noted that Clinton promoted the dangerous technology around the world when she was secretary of state.

The toxic chemicals used in fracking can cause cancer and birth defects. Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Academy of Sciences have shown clear evidence that fracking can lead to a contaminated water supply. The pollution from fracking causes nausea, nosebleeds, headaches and high rates of asthma and other respiratory illness.

The threat of Methane emissions from fracking also presents a profound danger to our climate. Methane traps more than 86 times the heat of carbon dioxide in the short term. A report published last week by Environment America found that “newly fracked wells released 2.4 million metric tons of methane in 2014 — equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 22 coal-fired power plants.”

The growing body of evidence finds that fracking is a huge danger to the water supply – a precious resource in the Golden State. It takes 160,000 gallons of clean water to frack just one well. With California in the midst of a five-year drought, it makes no sense to allow fracking in California.

Monterey County voters will consider a local ballot initiative in November to ban fracking and all new oil drilling. Santa Cruz, San Benito and Mendocino counties already have banned fracking. Sanders’ home state of Vermont was the first state in the nation to ban fracking in 2012.

“In my view, if we are serious about safe and clean drinking water; if we are serious about clean air; if we are serious about protecting the health of our children and families; and if we are serious about combatting climate change, we need to put an end to fracking all over this country,” Sanders said.


With political involvement the EPA has been just as suspect as the FDA. Hard to see how climate control is of issue with this position by Hillary.



It is amusing when the hypocrisy of President Obama is pointed out. It increases my enjoyment when he criticizes me for being a troglodyte.


No. Not all of us. But, thanks for trying to speak on behalf of the entire world.:smiley:


And Hillary is all for fracking as well, so you can praise her too. I don’t know about Trump’s position on the issue, but Sanders is against it.


You’re completely right in a way, but I think you’re overlooking the hidden costs. We’re talking about permanent environmental degradation and destruction, God knows what health impacts, methane air pollution, fires, seismic events, enormous water usage, and permanently contaminated water. There’s so much of it that they’re actually using train tanker cars to store the stuff, and it’s been reported that these hundreds upon hundreds of toxic chemicals are eating their way through the walls. So it’s not just affecting the fracking sites themselves. Also, we don’t really know what effect the practice is having on entire continent-sized aquifers, which is something we shouldn’t be toying with. I realize what you’re saying is pragmatic in a certain way, but I suspect it will turn out to be an illusion somewhere down the line.


These comments sound more like environmentalist propaganda. Oh yes, they’re quite capable of lying, too.

Also, I should point out, some of these folks who live near fracking may have natural gas (ie flammable faucets) in their water BEFORE the fracking industry even showed up.


Well, Trumps position is expedient and we the people orientated. At the moment same as Hillary leaning toward Bernie with “responsible fracking”. Apparently america itself isn’t convinced its an issue and it is rife with government corruption which is most disturbing but indicates why the population isn’t convinced its an issue. Hard to conclude in a case study of just PA alone let alone the rest of the states Bernie isn’t right.

Course the offshore is a bit different with water tables and their immediate effect for us land bound but surely the same fracking issues exist which is leaking gass. Certainly needs to be carefully regulated and with public transparency not cover up when something goes south.


Well, show us some evidence then.

Also, any kind of energy development entails risks, which is why risks and private property must be respected in the process.

It’s either that, or give CAF, facebook, internet, cars ect.

Don’t see too many people willing to take the hit though.





You must have the mistaken perception that fracking is bad, or dangerous.
That’s the only explanation I can see for this thread.


Let me clear:

I am not going to make someone else’s arguments for them.

Finally, I looked at the document. It called for monitoring, which would be the sensible scientific solution but I don’t see where it says fracking is definitely the cause of all these terrible things previously mentioned.


It has been proven to be relatively safe in that it does not cause any more and environmental problems than regular oil extraction . I know the radical environmentalists put out all sorts of horror stories but they’re simply not true. Like modern-day Luddites they oppose things that make life easier for millions of people , especially the poor and needy, in some kind of perverted Gai worship


I believe that in New York it is still illegal however- costing uncounted thousands of jobs and put in a bigger financial burden on the people of the state . The anti-fracking people should be happy however in that the drop in oil prices has made fracking in shale formations no longer profitable



The issue is the pipelines fail in many cases almost immediately. They need another method of fabrication with the pipe lines which they fail to address.



















There are actually hundreds of abstracts and reports that explicitly discuss the hidden costs of fracking.


Radical environmentalists and Luddites are just buzzwords neo-Pavlovian propagandists like to throw around.

They don’t actually mean much, though.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.