I don't see any real potential for development here, but if there is any potential, the associated cost has to be considered. The quality of life of the people there would decline with hydraulic fracturing, as they would lose their land and source of income while also being exposed to carcinogens. It's not worth it.

It's a far too dangerous thing to do, especially considering that farmers are relying on their lands to provide for themselves. With all the payment they will be provided, it is highly unethical to destroy someone's lifetime achievement just that so other people will get rich on their backs. I for one strongly disagree with it, especially because it affects so many people's lives. If it were just a 'clean' gas exploitation that had nothing to do with endangering people's lives, then it would have been okay.

Same story goes for the gold exploitation mine they want to open at Rosia Montana. Another example of making money by destroying a village and thus many lives that had been living in it for so long.

I think the benefits are far less that the positives. In order for this process to yield any real benefits, the bad effects it has (pollution, health hazards etc) must be taken down to minimum. The greener energy that shale gas provides will be 'defeated' by the environmental pollution the extracting causes, which has more detrimental effects globally than using shale gas has benefits.

Very interesting. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Fracking is a nightmare. Toxic and radioactive water contamination. Severe air pollution. Tens of thousands of wells, pipelines and compressor stations devastating the countryside. I don't see the need I and see a severe problem.

Wow difficult topic to answer. In some way easy to answer because ofcourse it is very wrong to pollute this town and with that endanger the lives of these inhabitants. But on the other side this gas can provide a greener and more sustainable future at a lower cost. And like we all know if America wants it it will happen one way or another. Is it not in Romania it'll be in another country were it will cause the same problems.

One of the biggest problems of the whole fracking thing is the economical one. Romania doesn't actually have a lot to win and most of the gain is taken by Chevron. As in the Rosia Montana case, if Romania would be the one actually exploiting her lands, it would all be understandable and the action would help the Romanian economy. Secondly, one of their arguments is that they are offering to the Pungesti residents jobs, once the fracking begins. Well, they would get some jobs for a few years, but poor paid, as the experts that would really get the best paid jobs would be sent by Chevron and, as they are paying the production costs, Romania would only have very little to gain, just like in the 'good' old communist years, when USSR had SevRom in Romania - although Romania was paying everything, the production costs and the wages, the expert were sent from Russia and all the profit went to Moscow. Thirdly, just like in the case of Rosia Montana, the environment would get destroyed, and it's not only about the fact that the trees won't be so green anymore - people are living there and have a history, families, their own houses and lands, a whole social system that must be respected. Just destroying a community for the sake of Chevron gaining something and Romania still be in the same economical situation is more than wrong. And finally, the most important aspect of the fracking is that the actual residents of Pungesti do not agree with it. They protested against it several times, and this is a powerful enough reason for Chevron to stop the fracking, as it doesn't help develop a community that is against it.

Unfortunately there are always two sides of every questions. Ethically barely anyone would support the continuation of fracking in Pungesti because of the way it harms the people living there. However, from a business perspective it makes a lot of sense to continue the actions regardless of their consequences. From a students point of view I disagree but I am not sure if I would say the same as being the CEO of Chevron. Money talks ;)

I see no positive benefit in this case. It affects many people's lives and It's highly unethical. Many people see this as an economical improvement, but it only causes more damage, in my opinion. However, I don't think this will be up to us, unfortunately.

Ne distrug natura ,ne distrug habitatele unor fiinte neputincioase in fata noastra ,ne distrug sanatatea ,ne distrug viata si ne dau locuri de munca prin care castigam bani? BANI?? si toate celelalte lucruri unde se duc? la cine raman! rusine acestora care au "planuri de dezvoltare " pe distrugere! Nu sunt de acord chiar daca stiu ca este o parere neluata in seama de interesele puterilor statale, politicii si interesele personale ale oamenilor din politica.

No. There are already enough companies totally destroying the environment; endangering animals, humans and the beauty of Earth alike. The UN, EU etc finally need to take a strong stand and stop this foolishness. Money isn't the most important thing.

Another example of short-term profit making while disregarding the long-term effects, which will clearly be negative in both the fields of health (human/ecologically-wise) and economically since the pollution will for example cause the agricultural area to fall in disuse. Hopefully one will realize this and put the well-being of the people before the short-term profits. Profits benefiting international companies which withdrawn themselves when they have taken what they came for, without taking care of the negative environmental externalities they cause.

I don't see how the advantages add up to the disadvantages. Replacing coal is a good thing of course, but replacing it with something as bad as (or even worse than) coal makes no sense. I also don't see how people can say that shale gas can provide a greener future, if it has already proved to cause environmental problems. There are no advantages to fracking, so a big fat disagree for me!

Constitutionally, every romanian has the fundamental right to live in a healthy environment (Constitution, art.35). By allowing Chevron to exploit in Pungesti, Romania violates the fundamental rights of its citizens.

It isn't ethical or legal to endanger local people with long-term effects (like cancer and the inability to work their land) for uncertain long-term positive effects. I use the term uncertain because many researches are financed by companies and motivated by presenting only the positive aspects of their work, not mentioning all potential side effects. Thus, it is not entirely possible to predict ahead of time the consequences of hydraulic fracturing.

However the project may have advantages economically but in the longer period of time, it inflicts more damages to the environment. Exploiting the environment for economical purposes has already displayed the consequences: farmers and landowners desert their business and will head to cities. Overcrowding the cities and increasing the unemployment will ended up in political and economical consequences. Inflecting damage to the environment has already reached its point: no need for more painful steps.

I disagree because it has been proven that this type of exploitation harms the natural environment.

The absolute advantage is that it could (possibly) provide a greener future. A greener future needs to be enjoyed by those who have contributed to the development. Since approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing and it includes cancer causing properties, it can be stated that most will be too sick or (worst-case scenario) will not be with us on earth to enjoy the green development. Fracking counts more disadvantages with a larger weight than advantages and should therefore not be continued.

I disagree. Even though I don't know much about it.. it seems that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I already feel sorry for those farmers.

This statement is untrue in my opinion, because it does not help develop the community. At least not at this point. On a long term it might give way to some jobs for locals of Pungesti, but I don't think there will be many, as I suppose fracking is not an everyday job any farmer can learn.

Furthermore, the environmental damage this process can cause, added up to the loss of land to live on for the locals, probably weighs up to the economical benefit it may have according to Obama. That is, for now. In the future these sort of solutions might be preferred.

Has anyone thought about how much the possible damages to the environment and the farmers will cost in the future if fracking really is that dangerous?