Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States Technology

EPA Says No Evidence That Fracking Has "Widespread" Impact On Drinking Water 266

Posted by samzenpus from the go-ahead-and-drink-it dept.
sycodon writes: A long-awaited EPA report on hydraulic fracturing concludes that the extraction process has "not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources." The report also cautions of potential contamination of water supplies if safeguards are not maintained. "The study was undertaken over several years and we worked very closely with industry throughout the process," Tom Burke, EPA's science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development, said on a conference call hosted by the agency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Says No Evidence That Fracking Has "Widespread" Impact On Drinking Water More

EPA Says No Evidence That Fracking Has "Widespread" Impact On Drinking Water

Comments Filter:

  • Oops ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @06:46PM (#49844015)

    ... and we worked very closely with industry throughout the process.

    • Well I'm glad that's settled. No more problems here! Also, it doesn't cause earthquakes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stevew ( 4845 )

        Uhm - that wasn't the National Geographic Survey reporting - it was the EPA.

        However - I do get the sarcasm ;-)

    • Re:Oops ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by mikeiver1 ( 1630021 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @07:49PM (#49844479)
      And in other news, my penis just grew 4 inches simply by the force of my will!!!

    • Biased (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Albinoman ( 584294 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @11:40PM (#49845577)
      From reading the comments already on here, why not just admit there's no amount of proof you work accept. Let's face it. If you're unwilling to trust EPA than there's no one you would trust.
      • Meant to say "would accept" of course. Thank you autocorrect.

      • Re:Biased (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday June 05, 2015 @06:24AM (#49846759) Homepage Journal

        The problem is more subtle than that. It's basically the same problem that nuclear power has. Yes, in theory it's safe and nothing bad will happen. In practice, especially for fracking, you have a bunch of money driven companies who will always put profit above the environment and your health. They will be as cheap as it is economically possible to be, taking into account insurance costs and the risk of being fined or sued for damage they cause.

        Take the flammable tap water seen in Gaslands. When they finally admitted it was due to fracking their excuse was that it was just one company that didn't secure their well properly and it will never happen again blah blah. Well, okay, but do we trust those guys? They won't even tell us exactly what shit they are pumping into the ground. If something bad does happen we know from past experience they will try to bankrupt anyone who sues them by racking up massive legal fees for a pittance in compensation a decade or two after the fact.

        The EPA's report does nothing to fix these issues.

      • I have a general distrust of government agencies who have experienced regulatory capture, that doesn't mean there is no one that I trust.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Fracking chemicals are considered trade secrets, at least the companies involved regularly bleat like stuck pigs whenever some legislature want them to divulge their special sauce. So where exactly do you expect the EPA to get the lists of chemicals used except from the companies involved. How else would you expect them to discern which chemical pollution came from which source? There's a lot of industry in the U.S., some pollute using a wide range of chemicals and which have nothing to do with fracking.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by carbonates ( 695043 )
        False. There are very few fracing chemicals that are considered trade secrets and the vast majority of fracing chemicals are disclosed online on a public website that is required by most state regulators. http://fracfocus.org/ [fracfocus.org]

        Even the patented compounds are required to have Material Safety Data Sheets onsite and available for anyone who wants to see them, which essentially disclose the contents, just like the contents of your food are disclosed on labels. They don't tell you the exact percentages but

  • Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    From the report:

    "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. "

    So in other words they're saying it could have been too contaminated to tell where it came from.

    • Re:Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dpidcoe ( 2606549 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @07:32PM (#49844345)

      So in other words they're saying it could have been too contaminated to tell where it came from.

      More like there was already contamination there from other sources, so it was impossible to say for sure if the fracking was at fault or not.

      Which opens up an interesting possibility for the whole fracking controversy: what if the fracking in and of itself isn't causing contamination, but something about it exacerbates already existing issues (e.g. natural sources of contaminates or long forgotten buried crap from the first half of the 1900s). Sort of like how someone might claim to be allergic to wifi, and even show symptoms when a router is turned on or off nearby, but in actuality it's the high frequency noise from the power supply switching kicking off their previously undiagnosed anxiety disorder.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 )

        Or what's going on is that people tend to not bother testing their well water until they hear fracking is going on, then blame anything found on the fracking, even if it was present years ago.

        Natural gas is in the water of wells in some areas naturally, but it's not especially harmful to drink it. After all, it's just a hydrocarbon, and our body knows how to handle them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by GrantRobertson ( 973370 )

          Yeah, gasoline is "just a hydrocarbon." Drink up, buddy!

          I bet you earned all of two cents for that post. Hope it was worth it.

          • Methane and Natural Gas are consumable in water. But no one has studied the amount of safe levels and the long term. For example if you're camping, drink some natural spring water that is also mixed with methane you'll be fine. http://www.realclearscience.co... [realclearscience.com]

            • Oh, I don't doubt that. I was just challenging the "just a hydrocarbon" fallacious generalization of that fact.

              A lot more hydrocarbons are getting into water than just methane and natural gas.

        • Some hydrocarbons are pretty nasty to humans. And yes they can occur in wells anyway. It pays to test.

    • Re: Misleading (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, they're saying the effect was small if any was present at all. Don't read what you want it to say, read what it says.

  • Sure, if your disposal wells don't get too close to drinking aquifers and nobody needed the millions of gallons their pumping up to drink, there's not much effect on the water table.

    But it's causing hundreds of earthquakes. Which kinda sucks.

  • Hashtag GreenTears (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wallsg ( 58203 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @06:49PM (#49844051)

    EPA is God when they agree with the environmentalists. Now we'll hear all about why they're wrong or why this is misleading.

    • Re:Hashtag GreenTears (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04, 2015 @06:52PM (#49844077)

      Or from the Con-side, the EPA is the devil when they regulate industry, but when they say it's A-Ok, it's the voice of angels.

      So this is news to you for some reason?

      • Re:Hashtag GreenTears (Score:4, Insightful)

        by NostalgiaForInfinity ( 4001831 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @09:15PM (#49844967)

        Or from the Con-side, the EPA is the devil when they regulate industry, but when they say it's A-Ok, it's the voice of angels.

        Not at all. People who oppose the EPA (myself included) don't do so out of some hatred for the environment, we do so because we believe the EPA is an ineffective way of protecting the environment. We want stricter civil liability for corporations instead of EPA-granted licenses to pollute, and we want more appropriate local and state regulation instead of blanket federal regulations.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @09:21PM (#49845023)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Anecdotes are meaningless. That you get a 'good feel' for what the EPA has accomplished is just that. Your story about your good feelings.

            • I wouldn't knock anecdotes. Science is basically a set of carefully written anecdotes confirming one another.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by khallow ( 566160 )
                "Carefully written" is not the only catch there. Those anecdotes also have to be well observed and reproducible.

                For me however, the real problem is assuming that optimizing society for eliminating air pollution is a good idea. Just because things sucked in the 60s doesn't mean that we should be trying just as hard now to reduce today's far less polluted environments.

          • Every time I'm stuck behind some clunker from the 1970s, or even a diesel from the 1990s, with my car's AC sucking in (despite being on the recycled air setting) the fumes from an era of under-regulation, I'm reminded of why the EPA is generally a good thing, and how much better off we are with it. Remember: you're choking on air that twenty years ago was the norm for driving through.

            The strict emissions standards have generally been set by California first and are then adopted by the EPA. It's also unclear

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      It is simple.
      Both the left and the right believe what they like and scream that the other side if full of idiots for doing the same.
      anti-fracking
      anti-vacc
      and anti climate change are all in the same boat now.

  • The water was flammable decades... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    before fracking was invented. The Republicans claim that was caused by fracking, but that is a typical Republican lie. At my grandparent's house in PA, they can at times light the water coming out of their faucet on fire. They've been able to do that since the late 1920s. Obviously, this was not caused by fracking, but my grandmother has been on TV several times and used as a pawn in this Republican-created scam. Fracking did not pollute that water. Fracking takes place many thousands of feet blow the

  • I call bullshit... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There is no way in hell that we aren't contaminating our water supplies when pushing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground. Yeah they worked closely with the industry. Those golf outings can be brutal.

    • That's a little like saying "there is no way we are not polluting the minds of all our four year olds when pushing hundreds of terabytes of porn out onto the Internet.

      It's amazing that the classic response from a big government guy when something is determines by a big government operation that they don't agree with. Suddenly the big government operation is rift with corruption and 'golf outings.'

      Look again. The same government shysters are behind things like the 'cap and trade' schemes and subsidies to '

    • The water is pushed thousands of feet below the water table, so if the wells are cased appropriately (which is what the report is noting) then there is very little chance of groundwater contamination.

      From what I've read of the report, it was a well-done study that listed best practices and lessons learned, as well as guidance to industry to maintain safe practices. It's not always bad when government and industry work together, sometimes a real benefit is achieved.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      "There is no way in hell that we aren't contaminating our water supplies when pushing millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground."
      There is no way that injecting babies with all those vaccines filled with chemicals and virus particles can not cause harm.
      There is no way that the earth is getting hotter. Look at all those blizzards last week and snow.

      Science... Try it some time.

  • wide-spread /wid.spred/
    adjective
    affecting the affluent or oligarchy

  • ACs (Score:2)

    by Fwipp ( 1473271 )

    Sure are a lot of Anonymous Cowards on here. Do the shills not even bother registering anymore?

  • But (Score:3)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @07:34PM (#49844353)

    When the water is bad though, it's a real gas.

    I'll be here all week, try the veal.

  • Which would you rather have, fracking, or geothermal?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      Which would you rather have, fracking, or geothermal?

      Can't run a car on geothermal and it's not economical to burn fracked oil to generate electricity for the normal market.

    • Geothermal, but that's only if transportation can reasonably be brought off hydrocarbons and onto battery tech. Otherwise I'll take both.

  • > "While 90 percent of residential indoor water use is reused because it is processed by a wastewater treatment facility, water used for fracking is too polluted to be recycled for indoor use."

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_consumption

    As I understand it, it's an awful lot of water.

    Might be worth remembering while California cries about their drought.

    • Re:Frack water cannot be recycled (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Friday June 05, 2015 @07:33AM (#49847051)

      Hmm, EPA estimates all fracking in the USA amounts to 70-140 billion gallons per year.

      CA uses about 38 billion gallons per DAY (2010 estimate).

      So, if ALL of the water used in fracking (worst case estimate) were diverted to CA, it would increase their water supply by about 1%.

      Note that all of the water used in fracking can't be diverted to CA in any case, since we don't have a national water distribution system. Best case would be the water from the western States could be diverted to CA.

      So, a quick look around the web shows that maybe 5%, tops, of the fracking is done in places where the water could be diverted to CA. Which amounts to maybe 7 billion gallons of water per year, tops. Which is almost FIVE EXTRA HOURS PER YEAR of water available for CA.

      Assuming, of course, that the two DESERT States doing almost all of that fracking couldn't find a use for that water themselves....

  • Revolving Door: Monsanto and the EPA .. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nickweller ( 4108905 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @08:02PM (#49844575)
    "The two largest private sector sources for these EPA positions are Monsanto and Waste Management Inc. Since the creation of the EPA in 1970, at least twelve high-level employees of the agency also have one of these two companies on their resume." ref [ivn.us]

  • A "national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

    Trading profit for the future.

  • Might want to RTFA (Score:3)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @08:17PM (#49844681)

    > "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of potentially affecting water] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," the report said.

    Note that it did not say that the gahzillions of gallons of fresh water that are used for fracking could ever be recovered.

    Also, what is "widespread?" A lot of fracking goes on in sparsely populated states, like Wyoming. So maybe only one million people will be poisoned. Not really widespread, right?

  • And so after sacking any scientist that did actual research, and slashing the EPA budget, and specificly exempting fracking from any laws that stop anybody else from polluting or contaminating drinking water, the EPA now releases a report based on information from the fracking companies themselves that says "most" fracking wells do not contaminate drinking water. Toxic fumes are not considered. This is mostly because the water was never tested before-hand and those toxins specific to fracking "might" have

  • Same EPA Study: Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @08:41PM (#49844791)

    EPA Study Says Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water

    June 4, 2015

    > “Despite industry’s obstruction, EPA found that fracking pollutes water in a number of ways,” said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel. “That’s why industry didn’t cooperate. They know fracking is an inherently risky, dirty process that doesn’t bear close, independent examination.”

    > The report also pointed out the declining amount of water that could be available for drinking purposes due to extended drought, saying, “The future availability of drinking water sources that are considered fresh in the U.S. will be affected by changes in climate and water use. Declines in surface water resources have already led to increased withdrawals and cumulative net depletions of ground water in some areas.”

    > And, while saying it didn’t find evidence of widespread impacts on drinking water to date, the U.S. EPA report did conclude, “The colocation of hydraulic fracturing activities with drinking water resources increases the potential for these activities to affect the quality and quantity of current and future drinking water resources. While close proximity of hydraulically fractured wells to drinking water resources does not necessarily indicate that an impact has or will occur, information about the relative location of wells and water supplies is an initial step in understanding where impacts might occur.”

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-pollutes-drinking-water/

  • Instead of industry why not work with home owners whose wells are now rancid with chemicals. All fracking needs to be banned everywhere.
  • Give it time...

  • The science is settled!

  • Nice use of ambiguous quotes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anchovy_chekov ( 1935296 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @10:14PM (#49845269)
    From the FA: 'no evidence fracking has a "widespread" impact on drinking water'

    What does "widespread" mean? Is this like bullets, where statistically they do no harm but in certain localised scenarios (e.g. entering a particular human body at speed) they cause a lot of damage?

    I'm not sure what the water management strategies are like in the US, but I find it hard to conceive that communities may not be affected by the impact of fracking in their region. The article mentions the impact in "select areas" - and problems when the water supply is constrained (US never suffers droughts, do they?) - but doesn't go into details in the article. Does this mean that some communities are effectively shut off from their local water supply because of fracking? It's unclear.

    I suspect the potential impact of fracking is more complex than the one-line takeaway from a report. But I'm not a geoscientist, so I'll shut up now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      Yeah. So far, fracking has been primarily used in areas that are sparsely populated and/or don't have much surface water (e.g. dry with not much rainfall).

      There are lots of examples of local contamination... Drinking water supplies in Dimock, PA have basically been destroyed by fracking.

      The big controversy is the Marcellus Shale in NYS - It's a massive resource pretty much located over either the Susquehanna watershed, or worse, the NYC water supply - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]

      NYC's water supply is

  • The question becomes, what did the EPA do with the evidence?

  • But the tapwater lights on FIRE (Score:3)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) on Thursday June 04, 2015 @11:12PM (#49845487) Journal

    So I don't claim to be an expert on this, but unless the videos and various accounts of residents nearby significant fracking sites are outright fabricating their stories as part of a massive conspiracy, their fucking tap water can burn seemingly indefinitely once fracking has sufficiently fucked up the local environment. That's pretty messed up. At the very least, the fracking companies should be required to provide a constant supply of clean, drinkable, non-flammable water in place of any water supply they're ruining. Further, they should compensate the homeowners for the additional risk of being surrounded by enough flammable gases that water ignites. Finally, once this whole earthquakes thing is settled, they may owe a lot of people a whole lot more in compensation.

    And with all that said, I have no problem with the practice so long as residents are properly informed of the practice, its approval process, the risks involved, and the path to a quick and simple compensation method whereby they can be made whole in the event of any ill effects from the practice.

    • The rebuttal I've heard is that while it is certainly distressing to be able to light your tap on fire, you were probably able to do so before the fracking began.

      • It's a valid point. Gasland was a 2010 film, and like the catalyst that started the run of people lighting tap water on fire. One that that was discovered about the film was that the scene in which tap water was set on fire was in an area where residents had reported being able to light their tap water on fire in the 1930s. Even a 1976 study done in the area had shown high concentrations of methane in tap water. These are reports and studies done prior to the start of fracking. So yes, I would say it is app

  • That worked hand-in-hand with several university researchers who claimed to 'independently' have 'proven' President Obama's claims regarding environmental policy...

    Turns out the 'independent' researchers kept scheduling private meetings with EPA officials and asking for funding to attend symposiums, fund future studies, etc.:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]

    • If you see words like "Republicans", "Democrats", "socialist", "fascist" or the name of a current or past President in a post in a thread that's not actually political, you can save time by assuming it's nonsense and not reading it.

  • EPA?? (Score:2)

    by idji ( 984038 )
    I thought EPA meant Environmental PROTECTION agency.
    Who is advocating for the Environment.
    Why aren't they saying that fracking is too dangerous because the risk of leakage over decades into groundwater is unknown?
    We are fracking today because economics/tech is making fracking cheaper AT THE MOMENT.
    What a foolish shot term monetary gain that future generations will curse us for.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close