Close this Advertisement

Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Fracking’s Narrow Middle Ground

A study that came out last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences added fuel to the fires that rage on both sides of the debate over hydraulic fracturing. If you’ve read about this study already, you likely know that it provided evidence that those flaming faucets of YouTube fame are indeed a result of shale gas fracturing – a no-duh conclusion that drilling companies disputed.

But what you likely haven’t heard from those stories (or don’t remember because it comprised only a tiny sentence at the bottom) is that, while there is a link between the high concentration of natural gas in a well and fracking operations, the mixture of drilling chemicals injected into the ground to force the natural gas out did not contaminate the drinking wells examined in the study. This is significant, given that a great deal of the concern with fracking operations stems from fear of well contamination by this cocktail of chemicals.

The only thing I advocate strongly in this debate – and, indeed, in most debates – is a respect for nuance. As such, I’m not going to say this study represents a “victory” for one side or the other – nor will I say that we should all embrace fracking or that we should ban it everywhere. But I do think this study helps bring the picture of this type of drilling into a little bit clearer focus. It shows us that this method of energy extraction is likely not as dangerous as we thought it would be, which leaves open the possibility that we could count on fracking to supply some of the country’s natural gas needs.

Emphasis there, by the way, is on “possibility” and “could,” because one study cannot prove something conclusively across an entire range of gas wells in different states and circumstances. And that’s why I am still hopeful that Congress passes the FRAC Act. Greater transparency will allow us to make better, more-informed decisions about our energy resources. And more information is something I feel quite comfortable advocating strongly about.

Posted by Laura Williams on May 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Sun, Jun 17, 2012 King Neece http://99ers.me

Easily remove radiation from any water source Our University of Alabama patented solar desalination product uses no electricity, has no filters to replace, can be taken anywhere and extracts pure water from any contaminated water source. It removes radiation, fluoride, salt, pesticides, bacteria, dirt and other contaminants from any water. It aids people to be prepared for disasters. Made tough in the U.S.A. Please visit us: http://freshwater.ecogreenenergies.com These units can also be placed together in arrays of literally any number of panels, as needed, to accommodate a desert farm or any remote area that needs water.

Sun, May 29, 2011 Texas

I apologize because I have not read the study, so I am not aware of any of the details of the evidence discovered by the authors. I just want to state a few things I have observed in my lifetime. Where I grew up, for fun, we also used to set fire to our drinking water. We lived in an area of uplift where natural gas accumulated and was drilled for locally. There was no hydraulic fracturing going on at that time. I am now a geologist interested in shallow groundwater quality. In my career I have drilled thousands of feet deep for other purposes as well. I have observed natural gas accumulating as shallow as 10 to 20 feet, especially in areas where it is also found at depth. In the old days one of the best ways to find oil and gas was to find surface seeps. The same can be true for areas known for salt-enriched subsurface water. Residents in the area complain of poor drinking water quality, and blame the local company drilling for this enriched brine, yet the shallow water in this area has always been bad. It all comes down to when did the fracturing start, and when did the natural gas in the drinking water first occur. Timing is everything. A thorough study with all essential evidence should be indisputable by all. Biased parties tend to present only the evidence that is in their favor.

Thu, May 19, 2011 New York State

I have dealt with a large number of individuals involved in this process from Well Developers to local activists and educators and experts in the field. Our municipality treats natural gas well drilling water daily. In the well water samples we have received so far, we have not seen BETX in anything but non-detect or low ppb measurable levels and low O&G. Pollutants of concern tend to be TDS, Chlorides, Barium, Iron and Zinc. The volume of water has significantly decreased in the last year. Our 12 MGD plant continues to function in compliance with our NPDES permit limits. There are many factors that local EPA-Approved Pretreatment Programs must consider before taking this water. They vary widely with the current levels if industrial waste received a the plant, what class receiving stream a POTW discharges to, what geological formation the water comes from, etc. With the benefits this energy source can provide, let's try not to through the baby out with the gas water.

Wed, May 18, 2011 Chris Salmon Vail, CO

"the mixture of drilling chemicals injected into the ground to force the natural gas out did not contaminate the drinking wells examined in the study. This is significant, given that a great deal of the concern with fracking operations stems from fear of well contamination by this cocktail of chemicals."

Read the Duke paper. They did not test for such chemicals. They tested for the signature of saline frac fluid only. They did not test for the presence of biocides, surfactants, thinners, etc., used in a frac job.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above