Originally posted by stevemcc
So Obama's EPA issues a report saying there's no 'systemic' damage caused by fracking. Does everybody believe them?
Taking your statement at face value it's difficult to know what to believe.
I don't know why the EPA wouldn't want to back all
of Obamas efforts to limit US exploration and drilling (or fracking), as well as preventing the building of new refineries. But the political climate in Washington is already starting to change because everyone knows the leadership will change, and no one can know with 100% certainty that a democrat will be the next president.
So it could be that the EPA may simply want to distance themselves from Obama, because they've been feeling some of the heat generated over negative public opinion (of Obama and his policies). Hillary obvious intends to distance herself from him, even though she was instrumental in helping him cover up some rather big boo boos.
Most or all of the fracking is done on privately owned land, and the federal government is not able to exercise as much control as they can (and do) with federally 'owned' land. So it wouldn't make sense for anyone over at the EPA to not
tell the truth about fracking. Obama won't punish them for contradicting him because he will soon be out of office. But even if we had Obama for another 8 years he couldn't do much to discourage fracking, because the EPA doesn't have the same level of control over privately owned land as they do with public (federally controlled).
If you're only wondering why the EPA says no 'systematic' damage, I'd have to know what you mean by systematic damage. Active volcanoes and earthquakes can cause unsightly cracks and wrinkles, and I suspect fracking can also cause changes in the landscape... because oil is replaced with water*.
* I'll need to double check if oil is replaced by water... I think they need to first break up the rock to isolate the oil, and then pump in water to provide pressure for getting the oil out.