EPA Study of Fracking Finds 'No Widespread, Systemic' Pollution

[Axulus]

Hydraulic fracturing has contaminated some drinking wells but the impact is not widespread, according to a landmark U.S. study of water pollution risks that has both foes and supporters of the drilling method declaring victory.

The draft analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency, released Thursday after three years of study, looked at possible ways fracking could contaminate drinking water. The EPA said these include spills of the fracking fluids, poor wastewater disposal or migration of chemicals shot underground to break apart shale rock.

“We conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources,” the EPA said in the report. But, “we did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ds-only-limited-water-pollution-from-fracking

 

[dismal]

The science is settled.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That seems about where it should be at.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And we're just supposed to accept this as factual? It's from the frigging EPA, FFS. We can't trust them. They've been doing nothing but producing prepaid, partisan bullshit since after they finished that last study they did where I agreed with the conclusions.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And we're just supposed to accept this as factual? It's from the frigging EPA, FFS. We can't trust them. They've been doing nothing but producing prepaid, partisan bullshit since after they finished that last study they did where I agreed with the conclusions.

We should take this with a grain of salt, the "study" or better known as an executive summary.

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.

But it does point out where and how fracking is most likely to impact drinking water.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We should take this with a grain of salt, the "study" or better known as an executive summary.

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.

But it does point out where and how fracking is most likely to impact drinking water.

Fracking itself doesn't impact the aquifers. The wells and how they are cased can... and spills at the surface can.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was watching a documentary on fracking recently and it left me with an impression that agrees with the EPA here.

Most of the time the fracking operation itself doesn't cause problems. Almost all the problems blamed on the fracking have no before and after to compare--flaming tap water has existed before fracking came about.

However, there's another issue: What happens above ground. Contaminated fracking fluid used to be disposed of by evaporation. Considerable venting of volatile organics often occurs at the wellhead.

Are we obsessing about the wrong problem here like we so often do?

 

[NobleSavage]

Didn't the fracking laws pushed through by W or Republicans or Evil energy companies exempt them from the Clean Water Act? I don't automatically assume that is a bad thing. I saw the documentary Gasland (Summary: Fracking is very BAD) and it had the feel of a non-scientific hit piece.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was watching a documentary on fracking recently and it left me with an impression that agrees with the EPA here.

Aquifers are no where deep enough to be a problem.

Most of the time the fracking operation itself doesn't cause problems. Almost all the problems blamed on the fracking have no before and after to compare.

Yeah, imagine that, energy companies don't want to do a baseline.

--flaming tap water has existed before fracking came about.

Yes, but at least one place did have gas getting into the tap water that was from down deep.

However, there's another issue: What happens above ground. Contaminated fracking fluid used to be disposed of by evaporation. Considerable venting of volatile organics often occurs at the wellhead.

Are we obsessing about the wrong problem here like we so often do?

We? Probably.

 

[dismal]

Yeah, imagine that, energy companies don't want to do a baseline.

Wrong again Jimmy McJimmerson in the first four or five decades of fracking they didn't bother to baseline because to trained engineers and geologists there did not seem to be much point. Now it's pretty common practice because because all of the anti-scientific activism makes having proof that the nonsensical is also not true is worth having.

 

[dismal]

*sigh*



http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...ults-in-just-one-hilarious-picture/?ss=energy

 

[laughing dog]

From the CNBC:

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.

(http://www.cnbc.com/id/102733638)

 

[arkirk]

Hydraulic fracturing has contaminated some drinking wells but the impact is not widespread, according to a landmark U.S. study of water pollution risks that has both foes and supporters of the drilling method declaring victory.

The draft analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency, released Thursday after three years of study, looked at possible ways fracking could contaminate drinking water. The EPA said these include spills of the fracking fluids, poor wastewater disposal or migration of chemicals shot underground to break apart shale rock.

“We conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources,” the EPA said in the report. But, “we did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ds-only-limited-water-pollution-from-fracking

It just means they haven't done enough of it yet and have failed to look at the numerous examples we already know exist. Fracking has the same problem that any operation that produces large amounts of toxic wastes in soulution have. Their argument is the same one the Nuclear People use, that they have been carefull enough to keep it from spreading. Tell that to the folks at Fukushima. The fracking operations have wastewater ponds with spent hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and the heavy metals they being into solution. Their study pointed out there is potential and then they didn't find "widespread evidence." This is weasel language.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ds-only-limited-water-pollution-from-fracking

It just means they haven't done enough of it yet and have failed to look at the numerous examples we already know exist. Fracking has the same problem that any operation that produces large amounts of toxic wastes in soulution have. Their argument is the same one the Nuclear People use, that they have been carefull enough to keep it from spreading. Tell that to the folks at Fukushima. The fracking operations have wastewater ponds with spent hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and the heavy metals they being into solution. Their study pointed out there is potential and then they didn't find "widespread evidence." This is weasel language.

Lets presume as did dismal that for water effects the science is 'settled'. Does that mean we have to accept the water results and forget the other settled matter that fracking increases earthquakes in the area which may lead to other more serious impacts on tectonics?

I'm also with those who see too many goof ups by industry relative to handling pollutants and water in fracking to relax for an instant on strong regulation of practices.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It just means they haven't done enough of it yet and have failed to look at the numerous examples we already know exist. Fracking has the same problem that any operation that produces large amounts of toxic wastes in soulution have. Their argument is the same one the Nuclear People use, that they have been carefull enough to keep it from spreading. Tell that to the folks at Fukushima. The fracking operations have wastewater ponds with spent hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and the heavy metals they being into solution. Their study pointed out there is potential and then they didn't find "widespread evidence." This is weasel language.

Lets presume as did dismal that for water effects the science is 'settled'. Does that mean we have to accept the water results and forget the other settled matter that fracking increases earthquakes in the area which may lead to other more serious impacts on tectonics?

Fracking isn't causing quakes. The injection of used fracking fluids into injection disposal wells are causing mild quakes.

I'm also with those who see too many goof ups by industry relative to handling pollutants and water in fracking to relax for an instant on strong regulation of practices.

I say baseline line every site. But that'd cost $20k a site and that adds up in aggregate therefore, see no evil, hear no evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ds-only-limited-water-pollution-from-fracking

It just means they haven't done enough of it yet and have failed to look at the numerous examples we already know exist. Fracking has the same problem that any operation that produces large amounts of toxic wastes in soulution have. Their argument is the same one the Nuclear People use, that they have been carefull enough to keep it from spreading. Tell that to the folks at Fukushima. The fracking operations have wastewater ponds with spent hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and the heavy metals they being into solution. Their study pointed out there is potential and then they didn't find "widespread evidence." This is weasel language.

Reality: Fukushima actually caused far less harm than the same amount of power from coal would have. It's just it was localized rather than dispersed.

 

[dismal]

It just means they haven't done enough of it yet and have failed to look at the numerous examples we already know exist. Fracking has the same problem that any operation that produces large amounts of toxic wastes in soulution have. Their argument is the same one the Nuclear People use, that they have been carefull enough to keep it from spreading. Tell that to the folks at Fukushima. The fracking operations have wastewater ponds with spent hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and the heavy metals they being into solution. Their study pointed out there is potential and then they didn't find "widespread evidence." This is weasel language.

Lets presume as did dismal that for water effects the science is 'settled'. Does that mean we have to accept the water results and forget the other settled matter that fracking increases earthquakes in the area which may lead to other more serious impacts on tectonics?

I'm also with those who see too many goof ups by industry relative to handling pollutants and water in fracking to relax for an instant on strong regulation of practices.

The science is pretty well settled on that too but let the straw grasping continue on at pace.

 

[scombrid]

Hydraulic fracturing has contaminated some drinking wells but the impact is not widespread, according to a landmark U.S. study of water pollution risks that has both foes and supporters of the drilling method declaring victory.

The draft analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA is government. Therefore it is lying and the opposite of whatever it says must be true.

http://www.infowars.com/225-epa-says-fracking-water-safe-to-drink/

 

[scombrid]

The Republican Party has courted a fairly rabid anti-government base when it is expedient for votes. The anti-government noise works for the Republicans when it hurts Obama/Democrat Party.

Now the Republican Party is trying to promote the results of this EPA study but some of the anti-government base is agin them. Local governments are passing anti-fracking ordinances. API and Heartland Institute don't like this. So now we see the Republican news feeds sing from the hill tops about the wonderous safety of fracking.

It is kind of like the Republican Party having to walk back the hysteria over the DHS ammo purchases and the problems the Republican Party is having with the Patriot Act. It is interesting to watch the party deal with that particular devil.

 

[dismal]

Now the Republican Party is trying to promote the results of this EPA study but the anti-government base is agin them.

It's not just this study, there is also reality to consider. There is no plausible way fracking can cause widespread damage to drinking water. This is neither a Republican nor a Democrat point. It's a scientific point.