Hey Rick, how have you been? You’re right that a blog writer isn’t the person to be answering such questions. Perhaps in Alberta the practice of fracking is much cleaner than elsewhere, and if so I apologise. However, what I as a layperson can deduce from the current debate worldwide is that there is no way to guarantee that contaminated water won’t seep back to the surface or enter a water source. Hence damaging the forest and wildlife above with contaminated water. Many of the local people we spoke to told us how fresh water was being pumped from rivers to be taken to the fracking sites and disrupting the eco-system in some areas. So it’s not only the contaminated water as a by-product of the fracking, it is also the harvesting of fresh water from nearby water sources that damages the wildlife above ground.

I understand wholeheartedly that the modern world consumes and requires vast amounts of energy, and fracking is a small part of the resources used to achieve this. However, that shouldn’t prohibit a discussion about how this energy is produced, especially when it is such a divisive method such as fracking. It is difficult to sit on the fence in an 800 word article, and I personally feel that it’s not a controversial statement to say that fracking is a controversial practice. Again, if I am misinformed about the standards in Alberta then I apologise, and I don’t mean to disparage anybody working in the industry. I was speaking from the collective experiences of our group cycling through this region, and the contemporary public dialogue about the issues and controversies surrounding fracking.

Thank you for responding to the article. As far as I am aware nothing I have written is inaccurate. Due to the short form nature of the blog it is difficult to go into details, and again I apologise for making generalised statements. I hope you have been doing well since we cycled TDA 2010, and speak to you soon.

Cheers,

Jacob