Now you're just being silly, presenting a logical fallacy, and misrepresenting the situation. My argument is that in this specific instance the DMRM identified the decision to frack as one of three factors leading to the events that occured at Bainbridge. The bulk of the discussion has amounted to Arthur stating "But you've ignored this", and me pointing out where I have specifically or implicitly addressed that point in my argument, and Arthur presenting such claims as "The contamination did not proceed through the bedrock", and "The concrete in the well had nothing to do with sealing the Newburg". Addendum: I think the key point to understand in the difference between my view and Arthurs view, is that Arthur's view essentially amounts to the claim "It would have happened anyway". In other words, Arthur appears to be of the opinion that with the well improperly sealed from the newburg, and left closed for 31 days, pressures would have built up to the point where the contamination that occured would have occured, even without the fracking. My position is, in essence, that we don't know that, it may not have happened, we can't rule the fracking out as being a neccessary step in what happened. This is best illustrated by the Lisa Jackson's quote, often cited by Arthur, versus the title of the page I linked to earlier in the thread. The page I linked to was titled "Cases where gas well fracking is SUSPECTED to have caused groundwater contamination". Lisa Jackson stated "There is no case where fracking has been PROVEN to cause groundwater contamination." Inspite of what has been asserted in this thread, the two statements are not irreconcilable, when one considers the significance of the emphasized words.