Most of the discussion about fracking misses the forest for the trees.
Yes, there's a rather significant amount of groundwater contamination due to poorly operated and/or improperly abandoned wells.
However, the vast majority of the contamination has nothing to do with whether or not hydrofracturing was applied. It's far more frequently due to bad casing jobs, etc.
In other words, most of the contamination is due to sloppy work. It would happen regardless of whether it was a convention or unconventional well.
There are situations where fracking can directly lead to contamination. After all, you're deliberately creating permeability in an aquitard. However, these are not anywhere near as common as the cases where a bad casing job, etc can lead to groundwater contamination (every well).
In a nutshell, we're seeing an increase in groundwater contamination because of the spike in the number of wells drilled in the areas. It's not directly related to the completion method used in the well (e.g. fracking).
However, it doesn't help that there are highly variable state/local regulations and a huge number of sloppy operators.
Yes, but... There are now a huge number of new wells being drilled precisely because of the fracking boom. So if no fracking, then the water doesn't get contaminated. It's not the actual fracturing of rock thousands of feet below that does it, true, it's the pipe that goes there and back. But the responsibilty does roll up to "the driller" which are the guys getting gas out of the ground.
FTFA: But environmental groups pointed to what they saw as holes in the report. In particular, they said, the report’s authors relied on data supplied by companies and wrote that limitations in data “preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty.”
So, i guess that report is next to worthless then if it solely relies on data that comes from a group that is interested in "proving" the safety of fracking?
Except it doesn't solely rely on that data. From earlier in the article:
"In conducting the study, the agency evaluated more than 3,500 previously published reports, studies and data sources, including articles published in science and engineering journals; and reports by federal and state governments, nongovernmental organizations and industry groups.
The agency also conducted additional scientific research, resulting in more than 20 peer-reviewed reports and papers. The draft report will now be made available for public comment and peer review by an independent board of scientists before being finalized."
But lets assume the EPA is doing its job. At minimum, there needs to be more inspectors - currently there is a huge backlog where high-risk wells are not being inspected. So this problem will just keep getting worse.
>the EPA was not able to legally force cooperation by fracking companies, almost all of which refused
and
>One of the companies, Chesapeake Energy, "chipped away at the scope of the plan over two years of talks, limited when and where the EPA could monitor water,"
Questions about the truth of the results aside, I would say that the title of the study should maybe be, Fracking Has Not Had Big Effect on Water Supply Yet. This stuff is still pretty new, after all.
"Worrying over fracking is like seeing an upper middle class family who are $6,000 in debt, and freaking out because one of their kids bought a gumball from a machine."
You are taking that quote wildly out of context. That quote refers to the use of water as part of the drilling process, not the contamination of water-sources by fracked wells.
OK I downvoted this. And I'm stating that even though I know it's not kosher to have a meta-debate about upvoting/downvoting, but just to dissuade the reflexive suspicion that the downvote is because HN is secretly owned by drilling companies.
I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but linking to a bunch of Youtube videos without context is not helpful evidence. And then going on to refer to a vague "THOUSANDS of similar reports" claim without some kind of link to source...that's kind of lazy. I think it's safe to say that the EPA is aware of a high quantity of reports of contaminated water...and that's why they've (belatedly) undertaken this study. The critique should be focused on their assertions and the evidence they use (I mean, they did the courtesy of drafting a report to make such a point by point critique easier), not on generalizations.
In at least some of those areas where those "flammable tapwater" videos have been made, the tapwater has always been flammable, because the natural gas deposits we are fracking have been leeching into the groundwater for millions of years.
This is the response I received(astonishingly fast) after writing an email inquiring about the total figure of drinking water contamination cases:
"Thanks for your email. To clarify--the purpose of the study was not to count every instance of impacts to drinking water resources. The purpose was to follow the water and to better understand the potential vulnerabilities. In the draft assessment we looked at all the hydraulic fracturing activities that may have had potential impacts to drinking water resources and make mention of specific events throughout the chapters that serve as examples and illustrate vulnerabilities.
Based upon the information brought together for the assessment – information drawn from over 950 citations– we did not identify widespread impacts on drinking water resources due to hydraulic fracturing operations. The information available is adequate to qualitatively characterize the frequency of occurrence as being small, particularly relative to the number of wells that are hydraulically fractured each year. That same information, however, is not sufficient to quantitatively measure occurrence nationwide. That was one of the information gaps highlighted by the assessment.
So they would have you believe that they don't know how often it happens, however, they do know it doesn't happen often.
Yeah, this is the type of science, no fuck that, pseudo-science, that leads to dubious legislation.
[+] [-] jofer|10 years ago|reply
Yes, there's a rather significant amount of groundwater contamination due to poorly operated and/or improperly abandoned wells.
However, the vast majority of the contamination has nothing to do with whether or not hydrofracturing was applied. It's far more frequently due to bad casing jobs, etc.
In other words, most of the contamination is due to sloppy work. It would happen regardless of whether it was a convention or unconventional well.
There are situations where fracking can directly lead to contamination. After all, you're deliberately creating permeability in an aquitard. However, these are not anywhere near as common as the cases where a bad casing job, etc can lead to groundwater contamination (every well).
In a nutshell, we're seeing an increase in groundwater contamination because of the spike in the number of wells drilled in the areas. It's not directly related to the completion method used in the well (e.g. fracking).
However, it doesn't help that there are highly variable state/local regulations and a huge number of sloppy operators.
[+] [-] redfalcon6|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barney54|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moepstar|10 years ago|reply
So, i guess that report is next to worthless then if it solely relies on data that comes from a group that is interested in "proving" the safety of fracking?
[+] [-] fieryscribe|10 years ago|reply
"In conducting the study, the agency evaluated more than 3,500 previously published reports, studies and data sources, including articles published in science and engineering journals; and reports by federal and state governments, nongovernmental organizations and industry groups.
The agency also conducted additional scientific research, resulting in more than 20 peer-reviewed reports and papers. The draft report will now be made available for public comment and peer review by an independent board of scientists before being finalized."
[+] [-] 13thLetter|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clumsysmurf|10 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-Pollution...
But lets assume the EPA is doing its job. At minimum, there needs to be more inspectors - currently there is a huge backlog where high-risk wells are not being inspected. So this problem will just keep getting worse.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/massive-fracking-federal...
Also, just a few weeks ago from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-che...
[+] [-] kanetkarster|10 years ago|reply
>the EPA was not able to legally force cooperation by fracking companies, almost all of which refused
and
>One of the companies, Chesapeake Energy, "chipped away at the scope of the plan over two years of talks, limited when and where the EPA could monitor water,"
[0] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/4/epa-says-frac...
[+] [-] thewhizkid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LordKano|10 years ago|reply
On a geologic time scale, sure.
Fracking in one form or another goes back between 80-150 years.
[+] [-] punee|10 years ago|reply
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...
[+] [-] dbecker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AC__|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|10 years ago|reply
I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but linking to a bunch of Youtube videos without context is not helpful evidence. And then going on to refer to a vague "THOUSANDS of similar reports" claim without some kind of link to source...that's kind of lazy. I think it's safe to say that the EPA is aware of a high quantity of reports of contaminated water...and that's why they've (belatedly) undertaken this study. The critique should be focused on their assertions and the evidence they use (I mean, they did the courtesy of drafting a report to make such a point by point critique easier), not on generalizations.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AC__|10 years ago|reply
"Thanks for your email. To clarify--the purpose of the study was not to count every instance of impacts to drinking water resources. The purpose was to follow the water and to better understand the potential vulnerabilities. In the draft assessment we looked at all the hydraulic fracturing activities that may have had potential impacts to drinking water resources and make mention of specific events throughout the chapters that serve as examples and illustrate vulnerabilities.
Based upon the information brought together for the assessment – information drawn from over 950 citations– we did not identify widespread impacts on drinking water resources due to hydraulic fracturing operations. The information available is adequate to qualitatively characterize the frequency of occurrence as being small, particularly relative to the number of wells that are hydraulically fractured each year. That same information, however, is not sufficient to quantitatively measure occurrence nationwide. That was one of the information gaps highlighted by the assessment.
I hope this is helpful!
Dayna
202-564-7983
[email protected]
Communications
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency"
So they would have you believe that they don't know how often it happens, however, they do know it doesn't happen often. Yeah, this is the type of science, no fuck that, pseudo-science, that leads to dubious legislation.