http://www.dw.de/canadian-awaits-verdict-on-fracking-nightmare/a-17411547

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-19/meet-the-family-the-tar-sands-industry-wants-to-keep-quiet

Is your opposition to fracking based upon the notion that companies will ignore their own basic safety procedures and contaminate ground water aquifers?

My understanding is that fracking occurs at a level far below ground water aquifers, and so long as this separation is maintained, there is no chance of contamination below ground.

The danger of above ground spills would be very low, and if they ever did occur, I imagine it would be very localised and unlikely to spread outside the immediate spill area, which would make cleanup relatively straight forward.

Are there other issues you consider untenable, that does not go against current scientific understanding of the process?

mozzaok wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Is your opposition to fracking based upon the notion that companies will ignore their own basic safety procedures and contaminate ground water aquifers? My understanding is that fracking occurs at a level far below ground water aquifers, and so long as this separation is maintained, there is no chance of contamination below ground. The danger of above ground spills would be very low, and if they ever did occur, I imagine it would be very localised and unlikely to spread outside the immediate spill area, which would make cleanup relatively straight forward. Are there other issues you consider untenable, that does not go against current scientific understanding of the process?

A few main reasons -
1) There are plenty of examples in the US, where the process is interfering with the Environment, including getting into water aquifers.
2) The benefits are short term, with many wells being sunk, because the supply is exhausted so quickly, so it is not a solution to Peak Oil.
That said, the Problems may be long term, particularly if say an aquifer like Perth's Gnangara Mound were to be affected, it could nearly wipe out Perth, given our current reliance on that aquifer for our water supply!

If you're talking about BTEX getting into aquifers, there is actually much more chance of this occurring naturally through fissures. Associated gas contains these substances.

OK, this is an industry site, but it's probably worth reading both sides of the argument before coming to a conclusion:

http://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/mythbusting/

I won't say much else on the subject, because whatever I say, people will regard it as biased. If you do have any questions, I will try to answer.

muso wrote on Mar 1^st, 2014 at 10:07am:

If you're talking about BTEX getting into aquifers, there is actually much more chance of this occurring naturally through fissures. Associated gas contains these substances. OK, this is an industry site, but it's probably worth reading both sides of the argument before coming to a conclusion: http://www.appea.com.au/oil-gas-explained/mythbusting/ I won't say much else on the subject, because whatever I say, people will regard it as biased. If you do have any questions, I will try to answer.

BTEX BEING -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_for_hydraulic_fracturing

Or, at least those that are known!
What else, which is not known, simply means it hasn't yet come to light!

Oh, as for the industry site, you're orrect, I don't believe what they say -
"Numerous studies have found that there have been no proven cases of contamination of aquifers"

Why don't I believe? Well, because there are just too many examples of where things have gone wrong and the following are but a few amongst many!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-silence-fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10272592/BHP-Billiton-settles-with-homeowners-over-fracking-damage.html
http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-damage-cases-and-industry-secrecy
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

But, the main issue is simply that there is a substantial risk, But the possible benefits simply don't measure up to the risks! 

To start with, it's much more tightly regulated in Australia than it is in the US.

BTEX is Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylenes.

Those substances are components of petrol and diesel. Both diesel, and diesel exhaust are both carcinogens. You knew that though?

Again, it's an emotive issue. I can't really go into any depth with this other that to say that I saw the extremely detailed record keeping required only yesterday, and that it goes far beyond mere regulatory compliance.