Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 3, 2017
The USGS Finds Fracking is Not Contaminating Groundwater
Fracking is not contaminating groundwater according to the USGS; a fact that has been proven enough to sound like a broken record.
What does it take to change someone’s opinion on a subject? Many people believe the moon landing was fake and not even Buzz Aldrin could convince them otherwise. Some people still hold on to the misconception that vaccines cause autism based on one completely discredited study. Today’s climate is so torn, we spent weeks last year debating if a dress was blue or white and even after the designer showed the dress in better light, people still argued about it.
I do not see this trend going away as everyone is opinionated and what’s worse is social media sites like Facebook uses algorithms to show you things that you may like, often reinforcing your opinions – no matter how flawed.
One argument that does need to go the way of JNCO jeans is that fracking is contaminating groundwater. For the 7th time, a government study has shown it just doesn’t happen. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently released a report that came to the same conclusion as the EPA, National Energy Technology Laboratory, and U.S. Government Accountability Office among others; fracking is not a threat to groundwater. This time, the USGS studied 116 wells in Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana and found 9 wells that were contaminated; not by fracking, but from natural sources.
The natural contamination that was found, the researchers concluded, was not the fault of fracking:
“Methane isotopes and hydrocarbon gas compositions indicate most of the methane in the wells was biogenic and produced by the CO2 reduction pathway, not from thermogenic shale gas.”
The researchers did find benzene, the name of the scary contaminant fractivists love to say, at high levels. The high levels, in this case, was still attributed to natural sources and were in amounts some 40 times lower the safe limits for drinking water. Those are pretty good odds for groundwater over 2,500 years old.
Nothing, of course, will change the minds of those who oppose natural gas. I wish that I could hire someone to write a version of the song, “I’ve Been Everywhere, Man” that is based on all of the studies that have proven this point. Perhaps a few studies funded by environmentalist groups could be slowed down for dramatic effect. Studies such as Duke’s, funded by the Natural Resources Defense Council, or the nameless funders who asked the University of Cincinnati to keep their study quite would be good ones. I may develop a t-shirt with the studies listed on the back as if it were a band’s tour schedule.
If seven government agencies, can agree fracking poses no threat to groundwater, and other prove it is no threat to methane emissions or air pollution, then why are some governments opting to ban it? That is where special-interest politics and behind-closed-doors lawsuits such as those from California come into play. Yet, the truth outs, doesn’t it? Nick Grealy noted, way back in 2012, how curious it was that big insurers from his home city of London, were not at all scared of fracking and they’re the people who have to pay out hard cash when they’re wrong, so objective facts mean everything to them. The facts supported fracking then and then do even more so now.
We cannot change the minds of the unwilling, but we can continue to spread the good news to those who care!
9 Comments on "The USGS Finds Fracking is Not Contaminating Groundwater"
DMyers on Sat, 3rd Jun 2017 9:17 pm
And the “good news” is? Hmm, hard to figure.
Those who wish the fracking studies to show no affect from fracking are rich corporations, and those who, from experience, know otherwise are poor smucks who live in a place that relies on well water. Who cares about them, anyway? They’re rural focks. Move to city, dumb ass, and find out what water pressure is.
Short of it, it’s a rigged game.
dissident on Sat, 3rd Jun 2017 9:49 pm
USGS can produce all the politically corrupted studies it wants. But when in several decades the various chemicals used to facilitate fracking start showing up in drinking water, these studies will be seen for what they are worth. There is no such thing as deep enough, eventually water cycles through all rock strata, including igneous ones. Fracked shale is no exception.
rockman on Sat, 3rd Jun 2017 11:33 pm
You boys certainly prove his point better the I ever could about folks unable to accept the facts. BTW while you were stuck in that denial mode you missed the most important aspect not addressed in this story: frac fluids did contaminate surface waters in a number of DOCUMENTED cases. But the contamination didn’t come from the frac’d wells. It came from companies that illegally dumped produced frac fluid they hauled from wells. And typically dumped it many miles away from the frac’ng operation.
Of course you cannot change your position: you both appear to have way to much of your egos invested in the subject. LOL.
But I’m curious: why are we going to have wait decades to see frac fluids show up in well water? Tens of thousands of wells have been frac’d many decades ago with most in areas dependent on well water. Shouldn’t we already be seeing thousands of documented cases? After all there’s ample incentive for land owners to make such claims.
But, again, I’m sure neither of you care about that. You’ve both been right from the start and that will never change: that tin foil is permanently attached to your heads. LOL.
Anonymouse on Sat, 3rd Jun 2017 11:58 pm
Exactly narrativeman, its just a ‘few’ (lol), bad apples and their ‘illegal’ dumping, making all the rest of the uS cartels pious, hard-work’n, ethical good-ole-boys look bad.
Oh, btw, rockerman is playing the
2 of clubs (No problem)
Public policy debates on consumer protection and the environment almost always start with the “no problem” theme. The argument emphasizes that whatever consumer reform being debated is unnecessary.[3] This is because there is no problem.
2c“No problem” is the chorus of a denalist argument. The skilled denalist, even after engaging in a debate for an extended period of time, will never concede that a problem exists.
One should get used to hearing it if on the consumer protection side, and one should practice saying it if on the industry side. “A solution in search of a problem” is a typical 2 of Clubs saying.§
and, he is paring it up with the 2 of hearts. (Bad Apples) card.
Next, to the extent that something bad has happened, the denialists will blame it on “bad apples.”[4] Therefore, “no problem.”
Watch for this important technique—a spokesperson from a trade group will make some guarantee that an industry won’t engage in some practice. This promise is illusory and cannot be enforced. Accordingly, it allows the industry to promise never to do what the bad apples are doing, while really not promising anything.
From: The Denialist Deck of Cards
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/the-denialists-deck-of-cards/
Cloggie on Sun, 4th Jun 2017 4:34 am
Most people in the West (including me) have negative associations with fracking technique due to the documentary “Gasland” by a Josh Fox:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8
It turned out to be largely a hoax:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j4pnF8GzqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYrm4P5hCQE
Now why would someone like Josh Fox be a notorious liar?
Perhaps Apneaman can help us out here with valuable insights.
twocats on Sun, 4th Jun 2017 7:21 am
anonymouse – so a pretty weak hand – pair of twos. just for giggles I followed his EPA link – archived report – can’t be read. took 2 minutes of my life and went to
https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/executive-summary-hydraulic-fracturing-study-final-assessment-2016
then took another 5 minutes to breeze over it. you aren’t going to find a statement anywhere even close to what this guy is saying.
Jef on Sun, 4th Jun 2017 8:09 am
So the millions (billions?) of gallons of tainted water produced from fracking are put through a purifier and out the other end comes sweet, potable water and all the nasty toxins are put back in their bottles.
No problem.
wildbourgman on Sun, 4th Jun 2017 2:10 pm
Conceptually all you need to frac a well is guar gum, sand (proppant) and water. I know they use a bit more than that (at this time) but in the big picture the main ingredients are fairly benign.
drwater on Sun, 4th Jun 2017 11:29 pm
“So the millions (billions?) of gallons of tainted water produced from fracking are put through a purifier and out the other end comes sweet, potable water and all the nasty toxins are put back in their bottles.”
Most is sent back in deep well injection, but the rest generally does get highly treated:
http://www.watertechonline.com/hydraulic-fracturing-water-technologies/