Slashdot Mirror
EPA Says No Evidence That Fracking Has "Widespread" Impact On Drinking Water
sycodon writes: A long-awaited EPA report on hydraulic fracturing concludes that the extraction process has "not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources." The report also cautions of potential contamination of water supplies if safeguards are not maintained. "The study was undertaken over several years and we worked very closely with industry throughout the process," Tom Burke, EPA's science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development, said on a conference call hosted by the agency.
... and we worked very closely with industry throughout the process.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
From the report:
"In its report, the EPA notes that its findings could have been limited because of an insufficient amount of data and the presence of other possible contaminates that made it impossible to conclude fracking's effects on certain areas. "
So in other words they're saying it could have been too contaminated to tell where it came from.
EPA is God when they agree with the environmentalists. Now we'll hear all about why they're wrong or why this is misleading.
before fracking was invented. The Republicans claim that was caused by fracking, but that is a typical Republican lie. At my grandparent's house in PA, they can at times light the water coming out of their faucet on fire. They've been able to do that since the late 1920s. Obviously, this was not caused by fracking, but my grandmother has been on TV several times and used as a pawn in this Republican-created scam. Fracking did not pollute that water. Fracking takes place many thousands of feet blow the deepest of wells and it was happening decades before the invention of fracking. It is not the cause.
However, since the water is already polluted, fracking should be made illegal because the water is already polluted. That is the only logical thing to do.
There is no way in hell that we aren't contaminating our water supplies when pushing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground. Yeah they worked closely with the industry. Those golf outings can be brutal.
Greedy cocksuckers like you
Yeah. You tell 'em. As you sit there barefoot in your yurt posting on Slashdot using telepathy; no electricity, polymers or climate control involved.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
When the water is bad though, it's a real gas.
I'll be here all week, try the veal.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Yeah - earthquakes that are dwarfed by the vibrations from passing trucks. Why exactly does that suck?
You are either (1) rationalizing a harmful practice in which you have a vested interest, (2) being paid to take deceptive positions on the internet, or (3) have bought the lies of persons in category 1 or 2. That doesn't necessarily make you bad--the oil companies hire *very* good people to do this, and of course as humans we are all very good at rationalizing things and somewhat bad at spotting lies.
These earthquakes are not limited in effect to the side of an interstate. An oil company should not be causing people living in their own homes to go through an earthquake every day, and certainly shouldn't be doing it unless *paying* to insure all of those people for property, casualty, or medical harm resulting from the earthquakes, not to mention partial loss of the use and enjoyment of their property and any decrease in market value.
Admittedly, most are big enough to be felt but too small to do direct and immediate damage. Still, that doesn't mean they always will be, and shaking houses is obviously not good for them and over time causes settling, cracking, etc...
It's called private property, and they have to know when the fracking is taking place so they can get before and after samples. Think much?
Rarely. It is on leased land, not private property (at least not the Industry's private property). Often Federal leases.
"The two largest private sector sources for these EPA positions are Monsanto and Waste Management Inc. Since the creation of the EPA in 1970, at least twelve high-level employees of the agency also have one of these two companies on their resume." ref
> "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of potentially affecting water] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," the report said.
Note that it did not say that the gahzillions of gallons of fresh water that are used for fracking could ever be recovered.
Also, what is "widespread?" A lot of fracking goes on in sparsely populated states, like Wyoming. So maybe only one million people will be poisoned. Not really widespread, right?
And so after sacking any scientist that did actual research, and slashing the EPA budget, and specificly exempting fracking from any laws that stop anybody else from polluting or contaminating drinking water, the EPA now releases a report based on information from the fracking companies themselves that says "most" fracking wells do not contaminate drinking water. Toxic fumes are not considered. This is mostly because the water was never tested before-hand and those toxins specific to fracking "might" have been there before they started. Does anybody think that releasing this report that has taken years to create, at the same time that States are stopping citys and counties from banning fracking is just coincidence ? http://www.usnews.com/news/bus...
This EPA report is not based on science, it is based on pharmaceutical science, where research is simply not done on things that might harm profits. The report does not reflect the facts so much as it reflects how far corruption has seeped into politics. Cancer causing Roundup in your food anybody ? , only if it makes a profit, Secret international trade deals that prevent GMO food labeling ? Copyright laws that make killing someone less of a crime than copying a movie ? Copyright laws that keep getting extended instead of reduced as it becomes easier to make and publish ? Welcome to the land of the free, where liberty is the highest priority.
EPA Study Says Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water
June 4, 2015
> “Despite industry’s obstruction, EPA found that fracking pollutes water in a number of ways,” said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel. “That’s why industry didn’t cooperate. They know fracking is an inherently risky, dirty process that doesn’t bear close, independent examination.”
> The report also pointed out the declining amount of water that could be available for drinking purposes due to extended drought, saying, “The future availability of drinking water sources that are considered fresh in the U.S. will be affected by changes in climate and water use. Declines in surface water resources have already led to increased withdrawals and cumulative net depletions of ground water in some areas.”
> And, while saying it didn’t find evidence of widespread impacts on drinking water to date, the U.S. EPA report did conclude, “The colocation of hydraulic fracturing activities with drinking water resources increases the potential for these activities to affect the quality and quantity of current and future drinking water resources. While close proximity of hydraulically fractured wells to drinking water resources does not necessarily indicate that an impact has or will occur, information about the relative location of wells and water supplies is an initial step in understanding where impacts might occur.”
http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-pollutes-drinking-water/
Here's a starter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
The composition of fracking fluid is well documented. It's highly dilute and the chemicals are common and generally harmless at the concentrations in the fracking fluid (they are even more dilute if they should enter the water table).
Which would you rather have, fracking, or geothermal?
Can't run a car on geothermal and it's not economical to burn fracked oil to generate electricity for the normal market.
From the FA: 'no evidence fracking has a "widespread" impact on drinking water'
What does "widespread" mean? Is this like bullets, where statistically they do no harm but in certain localised scenarios (e.g. entering a particular human body at speed) they cause a lot of damage?
I'm not sure what the water management strategies are like in the US, but I find it hard to conceive that communities may not be affected by the impact of fracking in their region. The article mentions the impact in "select areas" - and problems when the water supply is constrained (US never suffers droughts, do they?) - but doesn't go into details in the article. Does this mean that some communities are effectively shut off from their local water supply because of fracking? It's unclear.
I suspect the potential impact of fracking is more complex than the one-line takeaway from a report. But I'm not a geoscientist, so I'll shut up now.
So I don't claim to be an expert on this, but unless the videos and various accounts of residents nearby significant fracking sites are outright fabricating their stories as part of a massive conspiracy, their fucking tap water can burn seemingly indefinitely once fracking has sufficiently fucked up the local environment. That's pretty messed up. At the very least, the fracking companies should be required to provide a constant supply of clean, drinkable, non-flammable water in place of any water supply they're ruining. Further, they should compensate the homeowners for the additional risk of being surrounded by enough flammable gases that water ignites. Finally, once this whole earthquakes thing is settled, they may owe a lot of people a whole lot more in compensation.
And with all that said, I have no problem with the practice so long as residents are properly informed of the practice, its approval process, the risks involved, and the path to a quick and simple compensation method whereby they can be made whole in the event of any ill effects from the practice.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
From reading the comments already on here, why not just admit there's no amount of proof you work accept. Let's face it. If you're unwilling to trust EPA than there's no one you would trust.
Hmm, EPA estimates all fracking in the USA amounts to 70-140 billion gallons per year.
CA uses about 38 billion gallons per DAY (2010 estimate).
So, if ALL of the water used in fracking (worst case estimate) were diverted to CA, it would increase their water supply by about 1%.
Note that all of the water used in fracking can't be diverted to CA in any case, since we don't have a national water distribution system. Best case would be the water from the western States could be diverted to CA.
So, a quick look around the web shows that maybe 5%, tops, of the fracking is done in places where the water could be diverted to CA. Which amounts to maybe 7 billion gallons of water per year, tops. Which is almost FIVE EXTRA HOURS PER YEAR of water available for CA.
Assuming, of course, that the two DESERT States doing almost all of that fracking couldn't find a use for that water themselves....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"