Lauren a comment from LinkedIn:

Janos Castro • Lauren, I recently completed a technical paper on sustainability of alternative energy and I agree with the comments made. Not only are there exclusions for oil and gas companies drilling for natural gas in the 2005 Act but there are also exclusions in the current proposal. There are reports of chemicals such as diesel fuel being injected in the fracking process and evidence of contamination of the aquifers. O&G companies claim that they can control the leaks of these chemicals by building concrete and other layers of protection through the injection holes - typically these reserves are found under the aquifer, thus they must drill through it to get to the deposits. This is not the problem and focus of concern of some environmentalists however, it is the fact that once these uncontrolled fluids get injected there is no proven way to control where they go. Some studies prove that these liquids have filtered through into the underground drinking water (aquifer). You can find online several reports of people/towns reporting sickness from drinking water, smells coming from underground, water odor, etc.

There is also the (major) issue of water allocation for production of NG. Many states in the US are already facing water shortages (nature cannot replenish drinking water faster than what we are consuming it). Allowing the rapid and careless growth of NG production poses a major risk to water allocation for drinking purposes.

Natural gas, when consumed, produces about half the CO2 Equivalent emissions as coal but its production leads to high risk of chemical contamination of our drinking water and added CO2 Eq. emissions.

Natural Gas is being marketed as a CO2 reduction alternative, but what everyone should be talking about is Hydraulic Fracking and underground water contamination