9 ms·

Fracking Has Not Had Big Effect on Water Supply, E.P.A. Says While Noting Risks

37 points by emgeee 11y ago

moepstar 11y ago
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?
- fieryscribe 11y ago
  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."
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  No more than if it relied on data that comes from a group that is interested in "proving" that fracking is unsafe.
thewhizkid 11y ago
Read "Trust me, I'm lying" by Ryan Holiday. Tracing the sources mentioned in this article is a good first exercise.
AC__ 11y ago
Riiiiiggghht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A There are THOUSANDS of similar reports from fracked areas all over North America. That isn't the only problem either, when they do what's called "venting" there is large release of carcinogenic chemicals(although some large scale operations mitigate this by capping the vent stack to collect the gases in practice this is the exception not the rule) We are doing it in Canada as well, absolute insanity! Here is a great documentary http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/2332883489/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID...
- danso 11y ago
  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.
  - AC__ 11y ago
    They have NO evidence, I downloaded their full report in search of the "official" total of cases where drinking water has been contaminated due to hydraulic fracturing and it is omitted from the report they simply make the assertion that "the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells" This study doesn't serve to advance our understanding of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing in the least, it's 999 pages of nothing! Down vote all you want
    - danso 11y ago
      I wouldn't have downvoted this comment...because it actually refers to the report at hand and directly critiques it. I'm not anti-anti-fracking, just anti-anti-anti-fracking generalizations.
      - AC__ 11y ago
        Also this "A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and local governments." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_poll...
mikeash 11y ago
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.
- LordKano 11y ago
  This stuff is still pretty new, after all. On a geologic time scale, sure. Fracking in one form or another goes back between 80-150 years.
punee 11y ago
"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." http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...
- dbecker 11y ago
  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.
  - punee 11y ago
    You're absolutely right. I guess I was misled by the title that talks about the "water supply" when they really mean "the quality of water" or something along those lines.
jofer 11y ago
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.
- barney54 11y ago
  Where is the evidence that there are a huge number of sloppy operators? That isn't in the NY Times article.
  - dbecker 11y ago
    People in the industry seem to universally agree that there are some sloppy operators.
- redfalcon6 11y ago
  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.
clumsysmurf 11y ago
I'm a bit skeptical of what the EPA says, because it has been documented to suffer from regulatory capture. http://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-Pollution/dp/1608199266 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-lands-overwhelms-critical-inspections 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-chemicals-detected-in-pennsylvania-drinking-water.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-che...
kanetkarster 11y ago
From Aljazeera: >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-fracking-doesnt-contaminate-water.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/4/epa-says-frac...

37 points by emgeee 11y ago

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?

fieryscribe 11y ago
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."
13thLetter 11y ago
No more than if it relied on data that comes from a group that is interested in "proving" that fracking is unsafe.

thewhizkid 11y ago

Read "Trust me, I'm lying" by Ryan Holiday. Tracing the sources mentioned in this article is a good first exercise.

AC__ 11y ago

Riiiiiggghht https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A There are THOUSANDS of similar reports from fracked areas all over North America. That isn't the only problem either, when they do what's called "venting" there is large release of carcinogenic chemicals(although some large scale operations mitigate this by capping the vent stack to collect the gases in practice this is the exception not the rule) We are doing it in Canada as well, absolute insanity! Here is a great documentary http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/2332883489/ http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID...

danso 11y ago
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.
- AC__ 11y ago
  They have NO evidence, I downloaded their full report in search of the "official" total of cases where drinking water has been contaminated due to hydraulic fracturing and it is omitted from the report they simply make the assertion that "the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells" This study doesn't serve to advance our understanding of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing in the least, it's 999 pages of nothing! Down vote all you want
  - danso 11y ago
    I wouldn't have downvoted this comment...because it actually refers to the report at hand and directly critiques it. I'm not anti-anti-fracking, just anti-anti-anti-fracking generalizations.
    - AC__ 11y ago
      Also this "A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and local governments." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_poll...

mikeash 11y ago

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.

LordKano 11y ago
This stuff is still pretty new, after all. On a geologic time scale, sure. Fracking in one form or another goes back between 80-150 years.

punee 11y ago

"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." http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...

dbecker 11y ago
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.
- punee 11y ago
  You're absolutely right. I guess I was misled by the title that talks about the "water supply" when they really mean "the quality of water" or something along those lines.

jofer 11y ago

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.

barney54 11y ago
Where is the evidence that there are a huge number of sloppy operators? That isn't in the NY Times article.
- dbecker 11y ago
  People in the industry seem to universally agree that there are some sloppy operators.
redfalcon6 11y ago
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.

clumsysmurf 11y ago

I'm a bit skeptical of what the EPA says, because it has been documented to suffer from regulatory capture. http://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-Pollution/dp/1608199266 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-lands-overwhelms-critical-inspections 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-chemicals-detected-in-pennsylvania-drinking-water.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-che...

kanetkarster 11y ago

From Aljazeera: >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-fracking-doesnt-contaminate-water.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/4/epa-says-frac...