[CWuestefeld]

No way did this comment deserve a downvote. It's at least as thoughtful as the comment it replied to. This would appear to be downvoting as "I don't like your opinion", as opposed to "you're not adding any value to the conversation".

Addressing the concern of the actual article:

The fact is that you can't escape from having researchers having some kind of tie to their subject matter, on one side of an issue or another.

The reason that people have chosen a given area of research is that they've got some kind of interest in it -- for or against. There's really no way around this, and so we rely on openness of results, and the peer review process to police research.

The same problem looms in governmental regulation, where regulatory capture [1] is an unavoidable problem. If you want someone to write regulations who actually knows what the heck they're doing, you're going to have to go with someone who got experience from somewhere, which is more than likely from working in the industry. The problem here, of course, is that there is no openness nor peer review in regulation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[sageikosa]

I'll add a couple of things I didn't originally.

First, the operations around fracking do involve risk and the potential for contamination, the same way as drilling any other hole (sealed or unsealed) in the ground, through a water table; and there are already numerous regulations and licenses (and rights issues) involved with these, but typically the fracking injection process itself is fairly well insulated from causing widespread surface damage.

Lode-changing stresses on pre-existing faults should probably be the most pressing area of reasearch, and as always, deliberate malfeasance via oversight and enforcement of existing clean-air and water laws is important regardless of the science behind the fracking operation itself.

[CWuestefeld]

As the owner of a largish block of land on top of the Marcellus shale, I've got an interest in this, and I've been watching the discussion carefully.

The two biggest areas of concern that I've heard are (1) the possibility of releasing methane into drinking water sources; and (2) the manner in which the used water and fracking fluid will be disposed of.

As you note, #1 isn't specifically a fracking thing, but related to any deep, powerful disturbance of the ground.

From what I've read, #2 is generally OK, but marred by occasional malfeasance. (It's difficult to write regulations to deal with people who are, by definition, breaking the regulations.) But I've also read that there are newer methods of fracking being tried, that don't need the same sorts of chemicals, or quantities.