5 ms·

No Evidence That Fracking Can Operate Without Threatening Public Health

63 points by darkwater 7y ago

tynpeddler 7y ago
As a former oil field worker and a former scientist, reading articles on fracking is always confusing. Most writers on this topic do not adequately distinguish between drilling, fracking, extraction, maintenance or cleanup. When comparing fracked wells to non fracked wells, all of these processes are very similar except for the fracking itself and the cleanup. Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table, direct effects on the surface are rare. It took 60 years of fracking before we even discovered that it could cause surface earthquake detectable by humans. And even then, the last I checked the number of noticeable earthquakes caused by fracking can be counted on both hands. Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a matter of geological particulars, and a blanket ban doesn't make sense. With the exception of these two processes, a fracked well is very similar to a non fracked well. On the other hand, the following statement doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between fracked and non fracked wells: >“There’s really definitive evidence now that methane leaks at every stage of the fracking process” from drilling to storage, she says. And that’s contributing to a surge in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. There's nothing in this statement, or in the surrounding context, that says this problem would be unique to fracked wells. Any well that emits methane (which is quite a few of them) would have the exact same issue. It appears that what organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York (which doesn't seem terribly non partisan in the first place) are really concerned about is not fracking, but any hydrocarbon extraction. The real issue at hand seems to be the expansion of oil wells into parts of the country that did not historically have that industry. Banning fracking may simply be the wrong approach. For example, as technology advances, non fracking methods may be discovered that would once again put oil wells in communities that don't want them. In addition, talking about fracked wells without comparing them against similar non fracked wells is sloppy science. Most of the research and white papers I've read on the topic do not adequately use traditional wells as controls, meaning it's impossible to tell if the deleterious health and environmental effects apply only to fracked wells or to every oil well.
- cwkoss 7y ago
  Fracking was marketed around the world by the US State Dept under Clinton as a cleaner alternative to oil. It increasingly appears that fracking is as bad or worse for the local environment than standard oil drilling.
- 693471 7y ago
  > Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table Ok so why are the fracking chemicals being found in groundwater and giving people cancer?
  - tynpeddler 7y ago
    Because of flaws in the casing which allows fluids in the well bore to leak outside of it. This exact problem can happen to any well, not just fracked ones.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      Ok, but this seems to belie your previous point about groundwater contamination. If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? You certainly can't control where the excess pressure you're providing goes, it's hydrostatic. Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects.
      - devoply 7y ago
        We have many better methods of producing energy. This sort of 20th century tech and resources need to die.
      - wigl 7y ago
        > If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? It's not always permeable. It's more of a design issue because well completion is not a science, it's more of a process of optimizing production vs cost. You're not going to just use the thickest strongest metal there is everywhere. > Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects. Not necessarily. There's layers of permeable and effectively impermeable rock, depending on the fluid. Typical fracking depths are well below groundwater layers and separated by impermeable layers. Shale for example, is so tight that basically only methane flows through it because it's the smallest hydrocarbon. Fracking fluids (ex. water) + extra materials (such as sand, isopropyl alcohol) are used precisely because they can't flow through, build up pressure, and then physically create fractures in the production layer. The fluid can get lost as the rock fractures more and pressure drops, but this is monitored and again, is well below groundwater depth.
randyrand 7y ago
This title is true even if zero research had been done.
aussiegreenie 7y ago
You can not "prove" a negative.
- no-dr-onboard 7y ago
  “Fracking cannot operate without harming public health” would be a more interesting and precise title. I’m not sure that is what the article can confidently assert.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  No Evidence That Headlines Will Never Not Be Accurate
- reallydude 7y ago
  That's a bastardization of the headline and inaccurate. Do a little substitution over there... and here... and away you go! No Evidence that you have been employed without killing my pet Liger Proving a negative, is possible. It's relatively difficult and uncommonly done. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27130 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27130
pbecotte 7y ago
I don't understand articles like this. Do they really think it helps their case to say fracking is bad because of climate change? The fact that the technique is effective shouldn't be a reason to ban it! If you want to regulate carbon emmisions, then do so, but I really feel that trying to attack it from different angles just weakens the argument. It also means that the article spends virtually zero time talking about things that may actually be risks of the practice, or potential solutions. We aren't getting rid of natural gas powerplants any time soon. We could do a better job of monitoring and cleaning up leaks of fracking chemicals and wastewater injection though, if we focused on that.
growlist 7y ago
I don't see any qualification of on/offshore, which presumably is a pretty important omission? Even though one can probably make arguments about the impact of offshore fracking on public health, surely (at least) also a whole class of impacts relating to the human habitation around/above the fracking area (methane leaks, earthquakes, groundwater contamination etc) are not relevant. I'd be interested in a pragmatic study that calculates the net benefit of fracking. Some of us don't want to go back to the dark ages, and like not being dependent on nasty regimes to keep the lights on. And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" It's pretty inevitable that our world is going to change dramatically over the next century as equatorial regions dramatically change climate, ocean ecosystems go through rapid extinction phases in some regions, and coastlines are redrawn. So if you're concerned about a change to your life and environment, too bad. You're getting that no matter what. What matters now is not exacerbating the problems presented by using technologies that appear to be harmful like fracking. You don't need to return to "the dark ages" to preserve a post-industrial society. That society needs to pool resources, spread out less, and use more decentralized infrastructure. > And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface. This is simply a non-sequitur and you should realize it. No technology or even a theoretical framework exists to stop volcanos from erupting. What's more, we know factually that volcanos have historically tweaked the environment one way or another, and humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano. So we should focus on the things we can change.
  - growlist 7y ago
    > Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. > You're getting that no matter what. That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc. in those economies, but apparently for some reason the concrete used in housing etc. built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. > humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity.

63 points by darkwater 7y ago

As a former oil field worker and a former scientist, reading articles on fracking is always confusing. Most writers on this topic do not adequately distinguish between drilling, fracking, extraction, maintenance or cleanup. When comparing fracked wells to non fracked wells, all of these processes are very similar except for the fracking itself and the cleanup. Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table, direct effects on the surface are rare. It took 60 years of fracking before we even discovered that it could cause surface earthquake detectable by humans. And even then, the last I checked the number of noticeable earthquakes caused by fracking can be counted on both hands. Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a matter of geological particulars, and a blanket ban doesn't make sense. With the exception of these two processes, a fracked well is very similar to a non fracked well. On the other hand, the following statement doesn't seem to recognize the similarities between fracked and non fracked wells: >“There’s really definitive evidence now that methane leaks at every stage of the fracking process” from drilling to storage, she says. And that’s contributing to a surge in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. There's nothing in this statement, or in the surrounding context, that says this problem would be unique to fracked wells. Any well that emits methane (which is quite a few of them) would have the exact same issue. It appears that what organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York (which doesn't seem terribly non partisan in the first place) are really concerned about is not fracking, but any hydrocarbon extraction. The real issue at hand seems to be the expansion of oil wells into parts of the country that did not historically have that industry. Banning fracking may simply be the wrong approach. For example, as technology advances, non fracking methods may be discovered that would once again put oil wells in communities that don't want them. In addition, talking about fracked wells without comparing them against similar non fracked wells is sloppy science. Most of the research and white papers I've read on the topic do not adequately use traditional wells as controls, meaning it's impossible to tell if the deleterious health and environmental effects apply only to fracked wells or to every oil well.

cwkoss 7y ago
Fracking was marketed around the world by the US State Dept under Clinton as a cleaner alternative to oil. It increasingly appears that fracking is as bad or worse for the local environment than standard oil drilling.
693471 7y ago
> Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any water table Ok so why are the fracking chemicals being found in groundwater and giving people cancer?
- tynpeddler 7y ago
  Because of flaws in the casing which allows fluids in the well bore to leak outside of it. This exact problem can happen to any well, not just fracked ones.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    Ok, but this seems to belie your previous point about groundwater contamination. If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? You certainly can't control where the excess pressure you're providing goes, it's hydrostatic. Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects.
    - devoply 7y ago
      We have many better methods of producing energy. This sort of 20th century tech and resources need to die.
    - wigl 7y ago
      > If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to crack, right? It's not always permeable. It's more of a design issue because well completion is not a science, it's more of a process of optimizing production vs cost. You're not going to just use the thickest strongest metal there is everywhere. > Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious health effects. Not necessarily. There's layers of permeable and effectively impermeable rock, depending on the fluid. Typical fracking depths are well below groundwater layers and separated by impermeable layers. Shale for example, is so tight that basically only methane flows through it because it's the smallest hydrocarbon. Fracking fluids (ex. water) + extra materials (such as sand, isopropyl alcohol) are used precisely because they can't flow through, build up pressure, and then physically create fractures in the production layer. The fluid can get lost as the rock fractures more and pressure drops, but this is monitored and again, is well below groundwater depth.

randyrand 7y ago

This title is true even if zero research had been done.

aussiegreenie 7y ago

You can not "prove" a negative.

no-dr-onboard 7y ago
“Fracking cannot operate without harming public health” would be a more interesting and precise title. I’m not sure that is what the article can confidently assert.
RandomBacon 7y ago
No Evidence That Headlines Will Never Not Be Accurate
reallydude 7y ago
That's a bastardization of the headline and inaccurate. Do a little substitution over there... and here... and away you go! No Evidence that you have been employed without killing my pet Liger Proving a negative, is possible. It's relatively difficult and uncommonly done. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27130 https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27130

pbecotte 7y ago

I don't understand articles like this. Do they really think it helps their case to say fracking is bad because of climate change? The fact that the technique is effective shouldn't be a reason to ban it! If you want to regulate carbon emmisions, then do so, but I really feel that trying to attack it from different angles just weakens the argument. It also means that the article spends virtually zero time talking about things that may actually be risks of the practice, or potential solutions. We aren't getting rid of natural gas powerplants any time soon. We could do a better job of monitoring and cleaning up leaks of fracking chemicals and wastewater injection though, if we focused on that.

growlist 7y ago

I don't see any qualification of on/offshore, which presumably is a pretty important omission? Even though one can probably make arguments about the impact of offshore fracking on public health, surely (at least) also a whole class of impacts relating to the human habitation around/above the fracking area (methane leaks, earthquakes, groundwater contamination etc) are not relevant. I'd be interested in a pragmatic study that calculates the net benefit of fracking. Some of us don't want to go back to the dark ages, and like not being dependent on nasty regimes to keep the lights on. And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface.

KirinDave 7y ago
Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" It's pretty inevitable that our world is going to change dramatically over the next century as equatorial regions dramatically change climate, ocean ecosystems go through rapid extinction phases in some regions, and coastlines are redrawn. So if you're concerned about a change to your life and environment, too bad. You're getting that no matter what. What matters now is not exacerbating the problems presented by using technologies that appear to be harmful like fracking. You don't need to return to "the dark ages" to preserve a post-industrial society. That society needs to pool resources, spread out less, and use more decentralized infrastructure. > And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface. This is simply a non-sequitur and you should realize it. No technology or even a theoretical framework exists to stop volcanos from erupting. What's more, we know factually that volcanos have historically tweaked the environment one way or another, and humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano. So we should focus on the things we can change.
- growlist 7y ago
  > Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark ages?" I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look. > You're getting that no matter what. That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment for their heresy. Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing stupendous sums in prevention. I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc. in those economies, but apparently for some reason the concrete used in housing etc. built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2. > humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate far more than humanity.