Of course you are.
Not just directly through IRA's, mutual funds, and the like. But also because it holds down energy prices, including electricity. Plus even more indirectly in that it's pumping money into the local economies which helps everyone.
In addition, there's an environmental benefit, as coal power plants are shutting down all over the place because of a healthy supply of gas, which is cleaner than coal.
That's not to downplay the dangers that do exist from gas. Just that in the grand scheme, they are better than the alternative. Still, it can and should be done as wisely as possible. And I too have concerns over companies pushing the safety limits to make an extra buck.
The part of this I'm failing to understand is greenghost's assertion that this particular well is more of a danger than all the other wells. I'm open to being on his side, but I need some logical reason why this one is more dangerous. Bringing up Dimock does nothing towards this. It's an example of a well that went bad, as have a couple of others, out of over 4000 Marcellus wells in the state now (and 200,000+ shallow wells that were all fracked as well). The key to verifying Dimock seemed to be that the methane levels were higher the closer you get to the well. That is a bit of a smoking gun, however, it also verifies that the gas migration was not from depth up through the overlying rock, nor through legacy wells, but rather, up the bore-hole for THAT well. i.e. either the seal near the surface wasn't sound, or else, it wasn't deep enough. i.e. it has nothing to do with the surrounding geology, legacy wells, or anything. It's either poor design or poor execution on the part of the driller.
