Have no coherent opinion on that and there is much I don't know about the process. Read enough about it to understand there is BS aplenty being shoveled from both sides of the debate. Too, I'm not knowledgeable about hydrogeology outside of Florida.

The latter point is significant on several levels, not the least of which being the type of computer models being applied by different regulators. As example, MODFLOW is one that is reasonably accurate over vast reaches of karst topography in 4 dimensions, but ain't worth Chitt for the high resolution necessary for local projects involving a few hundred or a few thousand acres. Mapping a springshed basin of 50-100 sq miles is another inappropriate application if one is trying to evaluate pollution plumes or impacts from groundwater pumping.

The most frequent representation I hear from pro-fracking folks is that their injected fracking fluids are "below the aquifer". Nifty slight of hand to pull that off. If there are confining layers between gas and aquifers, perhaps, but they need to be very robust in nature. Could go on but mostly as speculation, no purposes served.

In all of the debates related to these issues there is one thing clear to me. We would all be better served by science if we could keep social and political agendas out of the fray.

I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain