EPA Concludes That Fracking Isn't a Widespread Threat to Drinking Water

By -
The long-awaited results of the EPA's four-year investigation of fracking's impacts on drinking water are finally released (click here to check out the actual EPA report).  As always, the conclusions are being spun far differently depending on what side of the fracking debate a person/organization had already settled on.

The main headline of the report, and focus from the EPA's conclusion, is that fracking is not a systemic threat to drinking water.  I guess that could be paraphrased as the EPA saying that the practice in and of itself is not likely to contaminate groundwater.

From the New York Times:
A long-awaited Environmental Protection Agency report on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water has found no evidence that the contentious technique of oil and gas extraction has had a widespread effect on the water supply in the United States, according to adraft of the report released on Thursday.
The report does point out that this does not mean that there is no risk whatsoever.  It notes that there are certain practices that could specifically pose a risk.  It also documents some examples of drinking water being impacted by fracking, but notes that the number of cases where this has occurred is very low relative to the number of wells drilled.

From Politico:
Still, the EPA’s findings do not fully dismiss environmentalist concerns that fracking could imperil the water supply, pointing to “potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water.”

Among the possible areas of risk from fracking, according to EPA’s study, are “water withdrawals in areas with low water availability; hydraulic fracturing conducted directly into formations containing drinking water resources; inadequately cased or cemented wells resulting in below ground migration of gases and liquids; inadequately treated wastewater discharged into drinking water resources; and spills of hydraulic fluids and hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including flowback and produced water.”
Of course, the oil and gas industry was quick to seize onto the results and trumpet the EPA's proclamation that fracking is safe.  That is not surprising, since the conclusion of the study aligns precisely with what drillers have been saying - that there is always some risk in an industrial activity, but that when best practices are followed fracking is not a major threat to drinking water.

Energy in Depth's Steve Everley took to Twitter to celebrate the victory for the industry.



Anti-drilling activists, meanwhile, are focusing on the portion of the report that notes the few times drinking water has been impacted.  They are also accusing the EPA of being in the oil and gas industry's pocket, a political agency rather than a scientific one.

For example, Gasland director Josh Fox went after the EPA for focusing on the infrequency of the negative effects on groundwater rather than making those few cases the headline of its conclusion.



Everley responded to Fox.


Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the fiercely anti-drilling Food and Water Watch, had this to say:
“Sadly, the EPA study released today falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect and health and safety of the millions of American people affected by drilling and fracking for oil and gas. The fate of our precious water resources should not be decided by an industry-driven study that will be used to justify the industry’s desire to drill and frack many thousands of new wells across the country each year. It is outrageous that the oil and gas industry refused to cooperate with the EPA on a single ‘prospective case study.’ This reveals the undue influence the industry has over the government and shows that the industry is afraid to allow careful monitoring of their operations.”
When it comes to the fracking debate, the one thing that is clear is that scientific conclusions are not going to change anyone's mind at this point.  Both sides will latch onto whatever they can find to support their pre-existing view, and when a study or report conflicts with that viewpoint they are simply going to stick their fingers in their ears and yell that it can't be true as loud as they possibly can.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!

Popular posts from this blog

Fracktivist in Dimock Releases Carefully Edited Video, Refuses to Release the Rest

By -
Image
From Energy in Depth: There is something very strange going on along Carter Road, in Dimock, Pennsylvania, and I’m not speaking of natural gas, methane migration, contamination, litigation or even the extensive water testing there by the EPA and others.  No, I’m talking about a new “Watergate” conspiracy, complete with 18 minutes of missing tape (well, video, actually). It seems the ever-present Green Party member and  naturist   Vera Scroggins  (a/k/a  Vera Duerga ) has posted a video of Craig Sautner meeting with the EPA.  Mysteriously, the video is but 14 seconds in length, cutting off conversation in what is obviously mid-stream.  It raises a question Craig Sautner, like  Ronald Reagan in Kings Row , might have asked, “Where’s the rest of me?’  Carter Road, isn’t Kings Row, of course, (at least not until you arrive at  the mansion Scott Ely, one of the Dimock litigants, is building with his royalty money ), but there appears to be...
Read more

The Second Largest Oil and Gas Merger - Cabot and Cimarex

By -
Image
       Due to investor pressure, the U.S shale drillers are being pushed to improve financial and operational performance after a few years of poor returns. Even though the industry has improved its numbers, when compared to last year, investors still want more to be done for them to earn more money.      That's why two mid-tier shale drillers, Cabot and Climarex, have decided to merge in order to eliminate $100 million in annual costs, which means more money for the investors. This all-stock transaction is valued at about $7.4 billion, which is relatively high for the oil and gas sector.      The new entity will be renamed and the headquarters located in Houston, Texas. Cabot shareholders will own 49.5 percent of the new entity, and Climarex the rest.       The Cimarex-Cabot merger will address the investor's demand for a higher amount of returning cash. The initial plan is to pay a 50-cent-per-share special dividen...
Read more

Do You Know The History of Fracking?

By -
Image
  In 2018, 59% of total oil production in the U.S came from hydraulic fracking, which means it accounted for more than two-thirds of domestically manufactured gas. By 2024, fracking will reach an astounding $68 billion market value! Of course, fracking is not a new drilling method as you can trace it back hundreds of years. That's why we want to consider the history of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). We will be stating historical facts about it and focusing on the major historical occurrences that have influenced modern-day fracking. Pre-Fracking Days The idea of fracking started back in 1862 when Edward A.L. Roberts (Civil War veteran) witnessed Confederate soldiers exploding artillery rounds into a canal that obstructed a battlefield. At the time, Edward A.L. Roberts called it superincumbent fluid tamping. On April 26th, 1865, Edward A.L. Roberts began experimenting with exploding torpedoes, which consisted of lowering a torpedo containing an amount of powder from fifteen to tw...
Read more