3 ms·
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 oper
by 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 agoWhere is the evidence that there are a huge number of sloppy operators? That isn't in the NY Times article.
- dbecker 11y agoPeople in the industry seem to universally agree that there are some sloppy operators.
- redfalcon6 11y agoYes, 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.