posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:24 PM
As a Louisianan, I've been following the story pretty closely. First of all, the "giant explosion" theory is highly improbable even if the butane well
is compromised. And there will certainly be no nuclear type blast
These are sensationalist stories by blogs to gain web clicks and make advertising dollars. Those "activist" blogs live and die financially according
to page views, so the more sensationalist the better.
It is definitely not a good situation, though. Clearly it will have a negative effect on the people in the immediate area. It is not good for the
environment in that immediate area but it's not the end of the world.
The secrecy surrounding the story does not stem from government conspiracy but from big money legal/liability issues. The Texas brine company does not
want to be liable to the state for the environmental damage or to the citizens who will justifiably sue. The accusations that nearby fracking is the
ultimate cause are shaky at best, but the brine company is seeking to pin the legal liability on other companies if they can. Call it an alliance of
environmentalists and an environmental destroyer in the name of a common cause. One wants to pin the blame on fracking to avoid liability and severe
monetary loss. The other is more concerned with the fracking industry as a whole more than anything else so will support the polluting giant as a
matter of ideological convenience.
But to sum up:
No dramatic explosions
It will negatively effect many locals (which is a shame)
There are heavily exaggerated claims being made by internet sources because that is what internet sources do.
The company likely at fault is trying to avoid liability
Anti-fracking activists join likely guilty company because it better fits their agenda
(Side note: This isn't a pro-fracking post. I just haven't seen a single shred of real evidence, other than the speculative, that fracking is the
culprit on this one)
edit on 27-9-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)