@ISIDEWITHQuestionsenvironmentStarted 11yrs agoActive 2wks ago

Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources?

Fracking is the process of extracting oil or natural gas from shale rock. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which fractures the rock and allows the oil or gas to flow out to a well. While fracking has significantly boosted oil production, there are environmental concerns that the process is contaminating groundwater. Fracking has been widely used by petroleum in Canada since the 1960s. Critics of fracking say it pollutes underground water supplies with chemicals, releases methane gas into the atmosphere, and can cause seismic activity. Proponents of fracking say it will drop oil and gas prices in Spain and lead to energy independence.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 37.6k Canada voters.

37%
Yes
63%
No
29%
Yes
49%
No
4%
Yes, but increase oversight
9%
No, we should pursue more sustainable energy resources instead
4%
Yes, but not in heavily populated areas
4%
No, more research is needed to measure the long term effects of fracking

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 37.6k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 37.6k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B37ZT5Nfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

Don't like it. but! until we have more technology and infrastructure in place so we can move away from this, it is sadly a necessary evil.

 @9ZNXRCYfrom Ontario  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, but increase oversight, and continue research on more sustainable energy resources along with measuring the long term effects of fracking.

 @9WYDMSDfrom British Columbia  answered…4mos4MO

Yes, just away from populated areas, public water infrastructure and fresh water sources. we also need to ensure maintainence for those sights even if they get closed down to prevent the overflow of those contaminates from leaking into the ground.

 @9RTLWCPfrom Ontario  answered…7mos7MO

For LNG, I would support fracking with limitations to the environmental damage. I prefer that we pursue more sustainable and renewable energy, also as long as it isn't in heavily populated areas.

 @9QZCYDNfrom Ontario  answered…8mos8MO

Only with heavy oversight and in areas away from heavily populated areas. However we should try and move away from that.

 @9MHCRJ2from Ontario  answered…10mos10MO

Yes, but the companies that does the extraction should be liable for the environmental clean up. A fee should be charges per barrels/Litres extracted and that fee goes into a pool that will be invested in the clean up

 @9LJGNWT from British Columbia  answered…11mos11MO

Yes, ONLY if all chemicals used in the process can be recovered, stripped out of wastewater and the water used put back to potable conditions. If not, then this again is a market force that will either promote conservation, recovery, alternative fuel sources, methods or importation of fuels from elsewhere.

 @9L7D6G4from Alberta  answered…12mos12MO

Yes, however it should be done with consideration of various factors such as human population, wild life and other life sustaining resources.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Fracking” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Peace Over Party: Arab American Leaders Stun Democrats with Mass Trump Endorsement

Former President Trump earned endorsements from "highly respected" Muslim leaders and Imams during a campaign rally in the battleground state of Michigan. Trump, speaking to a crowd in Novi, Michigan, on Saturday afternoon, called the group of Muslim leaders "highly respected," before bringing them onstage."I’m thrilled to accept the endorsement of these highly respected leaders," Trump told the thundering crowd.The group of leaders cited Trump’s commitment to ending wars and ensuring global peace as a primary reason for their support, describing him as a leader who "promises peace, not war.""We, as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace, not war!" Imam Belal Alzuhairi said. "We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine," Alzuhairi said. "The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make that happen. I personally believe that God saved his life twice for a reason.""We're going to stop the wars, we're going to make the United States safe again, and we're going to make the world safe," Bazzi said."What a nice endorsement," Trump said after Bazzi’s speech. "These are great people."The Muslim leaders official endorsement came after Amer Ghalib, the mayor of the Detroit-area suburb Hamtramck, announced his support of Trump in a Facebook post on Oct. 20."Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time," Ghalib wrote in Arabic on his Facebook page. "I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences. For this, and for many other reasons, I announce my support and endorsement for the former, and hopefully, the next President of the United States, Donald Trump."Ghalib’s endorsement of Trump comes after the two met in Flint earlier this week for a private 20-minute conversation. Ghalib told The Detroit News that Trump "knew a lot about me before the meeting." "We talked about various topics including the debates, the polls updates, the statistics of votes in Michigan and Wayne County, the Arab American concerns and the Yemeni Americans in particular. We also talked about the situation in Yemen," Ghalib said.

▲  622 replies

Active 7hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies4 agree1 disagree6