Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," was a major topic locally and nationwide this year. And it's clear that the controversy over the practice will continue in 2013. What do you think?

Nature is warning Americans about fracking through the deaths of livestock in fracking regions. A peer reviewed study of 24 cases linking animal morbidity to fracking by Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine from Cornell, and Michelle Bamberger, a vet from nearby Ithaca, presents some highlights:

Seventeen cows died after one hour of exposure to spilled frack fluid in Louisiana. In Pennsylvania when an impoundment of frack fluids was breached about 70 cows died, and near a waste water spill, half of the pregnant cows produced stillborn calves. In four states including Colorado, death of goats have been reported near fracking. In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residues in 96 percent of the samples.

The study's counts of animals sickened and killed may seem negligible, however the appalling details warn sharply. And, if multitudes of tainted well-seeming animals enter the food system this frack-tamination is more than a tragedy for a few.


Colorado has a pressing new cause for vigilance and resistance. Our North Fork Valley, hailed as "America's Tuscany" for its fast growing organic food and wine production, may see 20,000 acres leased for fracking this February, unless stopped by petitions.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has an office to address such encroachment onto our food supply called the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, rumored to be able to giving real heartburn to the oil and gas industry. Colorado, be ready.

Anne B. Butterfield



Colorado's glaciers are retreating. Weld County's hydraulic fractured wells are polluting. Tail pipe emissions continue. I am complicit but I am beginning to connect the dots: climate change is exacerbated by poorly regulated fracking practices. These and other finite fossil fuels give us hydrocarbon products we waste with inefficient buildings and vehicles. There is no "Clean coal", and no "Clean gas or oil" as the dirty energy extractive industries try to tell us. Fracted wells generate negative externalities and are unsustainable financially.

The EPA estimates nearly 140 billion gallons of water are used to fracture 35,000 wells yearly. That is equivalent to annual water consumption of 14 million homes. One shale well can use up to 10 million gallons, 4 million pounds of proppant and 80 tons of chemicals. Here is a list of a few fracking chemicals (each have more than ten severe health impacts) that petroleum companies tried to keep secret: ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, ethylbenzene, peroxydisulfates, methanol, sodium hydroxide, toluene, and xylene. Impacts include injury to nervous systems, kidneys and the cardiovascular system. This isn't cheap energy.

Up to 85 percent of fracking fluids remains in the ground. Toxic volatile organic compounds in flowback and ponds can exceed hazardous air quality standards 3,300 feet from an impoundment .The Denver Post states, "People living within a half-mile of oil and gas fracking were exposed to pollutants 5 times above federal hazardous standards." And there are oil or gas spills every 3 ½ days in Colorado.

Fighting fracking is a worthwhile endeavor.

Spense Havlick



"First, do no harm" is the main precept of the medical profession. Surely we may borrow and apply it to hydraulic gas fracturing, "fracking."

Many claim fracking is inherently unsafe and detrimental to our waters, air and public health. I would like to see better scientific explanations describing what is safe and what is not in the fracking environment. We need better and stronger operational regulations and punishment when the prescribed rules are ignored or handled irresponsibly.

Fracking requires water, sand and chemicals. Fracking firms have been slow to disclose what these chemicals are and how they would safely dispose of them. One report claims that 93 percent of the chemicals used are dangerous. Industry's unwillingness to explain has given it a black eye. There are 250 communities that have passed resolutions banning fracking. Boulder County has now developed what experts describe as the toughest fracking regulations.

One serious concern is how current fracking practices affect underground waters. The gas is seldom near a water source. Thus when fracking is done by incompetent "wildcatters" there are dire consequences.

I would like to believe that fracking, when done properly, will produce gas that will enable us to achieve a coal-carbon-free environment. We know the detrimental impact of burning coal.

We need access to natural gas from shale if we are to free ourselves from transferring our wealth to countries whose government we would otherwise ignore except that they are petroleum producers.


Marc Raizman



The issues surrounding fracking will not be resolved by a flurry of local regulations, lawsuits, and countersuits, and certainly not by gold-rush development. They can be resolved by sensible and comprehensive state regulations.

I recently viewed a presentation on energy development delivered by Boulder economist Pete Morton at Utah State University. (The presentation is available on YouTube. I can provide a link if you email me at the address below.) Among other things, Dr. Morton identifies two major problems with energy development in general. First, prices, and existing taxes do not fully reflect the true costs of energy development. Second, energy development tends to occur in boom and bust cycles, with the effects of the booms and busts very unevenly distributed. He recommends a "phased" development trajectory, with impacts mitigated by specific policies.

In the words of Dr. Morton:

"Phased development can be implemented by limiting the acres leased, limiting the number of drilling permits granted, limiting the number of drill rigs permitted to operate in an area at one time, capping the number of wells allowed, allowing new wells only after old ones are closed and sites fully restored, and by placing some areas off-limits to drilling. Phased development requires full disclosure, collecting baseline data, monitoring environmental and socioeconomic impacts, (through) inspection and enforcement, and adjusting the pace and scale (of development) based on monitoring results."

These policies will be costly, but so are the hidden costs of energy development.

Steve Fisher



What the frack are we doing? Isn't insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have made shale oil and gas the "it" fuels for the energy industry. The gold rush like fervor has resulted in a drilling explosion across the country. Natural gas will save our economy and free us from dependence on foreign oil. Shale oil will make America great again. If a little fracking is good, a lot of fracking is great. Let's open the floodgates and frack, baby, frack.

What about the side effects of fracking? We are told it is perfectly safe. The undisclosed chemicals used are forced far down into the earth and then blocked with concrete so that they can never contaminate our water table. "Flowback", the 40 percent of contaminated fluid that does wash back through the well, is disposed of carefully. Methane leaks, which have caused tap water in homes near drilling operations to explode, are rare. One should never light matches near a faucet anyway. Earthquakes? What earthquakes? And the 6.5 billion gallons of water used for hydraulic fracturing in Colorado this year? Nobody will miss it.

Does this sound familiar? Remember when DDT and PCPs were safe? Ever hear of The Love Canal, Exxon-Valdez or Deep Horizon?

Serial exploitation of natural resources is unsustainable. Everybody knows that. So who's crazy, the fracking detractors or the fracking enthusiasts?

Judy Amabile


