I'm not sure why you "cherry-picked" your sections? There's still zero proof. See inline.

>Can't help but notice you cherry-picked statements from my linked article. Let me return the favor and quote some other sections of the article:
>
>
>But an Associated Press review found that Pennsylvania's efforts to minimize, control and track wastewater discharges from the Marcellus Shale have sometimes failed.

>_ Of the roughly 6 million barrels of well liquids produced in a 12-month period examined by the AP, the state couldn't account for the disposal method for 1.28 million barrels, about a fifth of the total, because of a weakness in its reporting system and incomplete filings by some energy companies.

Unable to control/track is not proof of contamination, rather proof of crappy tracking/reporting.

>_ Some public water utilities that sit downstream from big gas wastewater treatment plants have struggled to stay under the federal maximum for contaminants known as trihalomethanes, which can cause cancer if swallowed over a long period.

It doesn't say they haven't, just that they struggled.

>_ Regulations that should have kept drilling wastewater out of the important Delaware River Basin, the water supply for 15 million people in four states, were circumvented for many months.

OK, so the regs were circumvented. To what extent. Were the regs that were circumvented related to actual dumping or are they reporting/tracking regs?

>In 2009 and part of 2010, energy company Cabot Oil & Gas trucked more than 44,000 barrels of well wastewater to a treatment facility in Hatfield Township, a Philadelphia suburb. Those liquids ultimately were discharged into a creek that provides drinking water to 17 municipalities with more than 300,000 residents. Cabot acknowledged it should not have happened.

>People in those communities had been told repeatedly that the watershed was free of gas waste.


Ok so here's an acknowledged act of improper (illegal?) discharge. What came of it? Was it enough to pollute? What was the outcome? Without context, it's just an anecdote thrown in for...what reason exactly?


>The municipal authority that provides drinking water to Beaver Falls, 27 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, began flunking tests for trihalomethanes regularly last year, around the time that a facility 18 miles upstream, Advanced Waste Services, became Pennsylvania's dominant gas wastewater treatment plant.

>Trihalomethanes are not found in drilling wastewater, but there can be a link. The wastewater often contains bromide, which reacts with the chlorine used to purify drinking water. That creates trihalomethanes.


Here we have the author's conjectory leap of the article. There's zero evidence that the flunked tests have anything whatsoever to do with a substance which is "not found in drilling wastewater", however, the author will mention it and offer a theory.


>The EPA says people who drink water with elevated levels of trihalomethanes for many years have an increased risk of cancer and could also develop liver, kidney or central nervous system problems.


and then scaremonger based upon that theory.

>Pennsylvania's multitude of acid-leaching, abandoned coal mines and other industrial sources are also a major source of the high salt levels that lead to the problem.

They're finding a LOT of this when it comes to supposed fracking contamination.


>Beaver Falls plant manager Jim Riggio said he doesn't know what is keeping his system off-kilter,


Remember this for a moment..."he doesn't know"


>but a chemical analysis suggested it was linked to the hundreds of thousands of barrels of partially treated gas well brine that now flow past his intakes every year.


Whose chemical analysis? The author's or Riggio's or independent?
Also note: Suggested is not proof.


>"It all goes back to frackwater," he said.

Which is it? He doesn't know? It's suggested? or it IS frackwater?

>The Government is heavily influenced by industry through campaign contributions.

Agreed. Solar, wind and ethanol industries who cannot compete on a level playing field with coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas have received the majority of their operational funding through government subsidies that they stand to lose unless the cost of the other fuels rise dramatically. Fraking (due to the massive new finds) represents the most significant threat to the "new" energy companies and must be shut down or taxed and levied to where the "new" energy can compete.

>As such it has repeatedly and consistently endangered the health of citizens through bad policy. Industry has repeatedly endangered the health of citizens for the almighty buck. That you choose to trust them when they promise they can frack safely is ridiculous given their track record. Profit motives will always result in substandard safety practices, pollution, and ultimately the endangerment of citizens' health.

Make no mistake, I don't trust them, the feds, the regulators, the greenies, etc. They all have their own agendas based upon their own personal interests and monetary gains. I'm not blinded by belief to suggest that any of them have my best interest in mind whatsoever. What I'm pointing out is that there is no evidence to support the claims that fraking causes groundwater contamination. Let alone you're outrageous claim that it "regularly pollutes".