The first thing to understand about fracking is that it is
the latest cause of the silly people in Hollywood
most of whom know nothing about fracking.
Hollywood
gave an Oscar to “Gasland” a movie starring Matt Damon that purports to show
how fracking destroys our drinking water while rewarding the oil
companies. Another documentary
“Fracknation” offered a rebuttal and less emotional response to “Gasland” but
was generally ignored. The Director of
“Gasland” Josh Fox refused to discuss “Fracknation” or the fact that
environmental officials concluded that the pollution shown in “Gasland” had
nothing to do with fracking.
Nevertheless the hue and cry against fracking continues but it doesn’t
seem to rest on facts as much as a belief that it destructive to the surface
environment.
Fracking is a short term used for “hydraulic fracturing”. This is a process where water mixed with sand
and various chemicals are injected into a gas or oil producing geological
formation under high pressure to fracture the rock to release the gas / oil
trapped there. This process has
rejuvenated old oil wells and is helping to release America from its dependence on
foreign oil. However, most of the
fracking is used to release natural gas, a resource the US has in
abundance so it really has little impact of oil imports. On close inspection it seems the opponents of
fracking are mostly focused on the environmental issues not caused by fracking
but caused by ancillary issues.
The fracking process does bring additional industrial activity into
communities. In some cases this requires
clearing land, building roads, preparing new well sites, casing the well,
etc. The process itself requires water
and materials to be trucked into the site and the toxic waste to be trucked
away. These are the things the opponents
to fracking focus on but it should be noted that these well sites are not in
the middle of urban areas, they are not located on some pristine beachfront or
a local neighborhood, but generally are located in remote locations. Many times the well sites are pre-existing
and are being rejuvenated through fracking.
The position of the environmentalists that fracking is turning our
communities into “sacrifice zones” is overstated and even misleading,
especially the claims that fracking is polluting our drinking water. The
irony is that the anti-fracking lobby doesn’t seem to have any real scientific
basis but rests entirely on anecdotal data.
The oil and gas producing strata lie thousands of feet below the water
table and fracking has no impact.
Actually the Department of Energy released a federal study on fracking in
2013. This report states they found no
evidence that chemicals from the drilling process moved up to contaminate
drinking water aquifers This test lasted
a year and the researchers found that the chemical laced fluids used in
fracking stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water.. This study
lasted a year and the study is ongoing, but these preliminary results are the
first independent look at whether the toxic chemicals used in fracking pose a
threat to people during normal drilling operations. The DOE does not view these early results as
a final answer but they do bear out claims made by the companies using this
process.
This test used drilling fluids tagged with unique markers were injected
into the strata more than 8000 feet below the surface. A common depth for oil and gas wells. These tagged fluids were not detected in the
monitoring zone which was at 5000 feet below the surface and well below the aquifer
used for drinking water. The researchers
also tracked the maximum extent of the fractures made from the process and
these were at least 6000 feet below the surface. This means the potentially hazardous fluids
stayed a mile or more away from drinking water supply which usually are no
deeper than 500 feet.
The debate over fracking has received a great deal of
attention from state and federal authorities mostly driven by environmentalists
who have focused on the chemicals used in the process. But the experts have concluded that if there
is any danger from fracking it is more likely to be from poor well construction
or other human failures. Nevertheless
there are other issues which still must be explored such as; chemical spills,
waste water disposal, or escaping gas.
Still the independent researchers at Duke University
concluded that most of the problems associated with fracking have been related
to well construction not the chemicals used in the process.
It is important to
note that these results are preliminary and the tests were conducted in one
area in Pennsylvania
but geological structures vary widely across the country. More tests must be conducted but these early
results tend to show that the process itself does not pollute the drinking
water.
1 comment:
A friend of mine once made a distinction between "ecologist" and "environmentalist," an ecologist being a scientist who studies the environment, and an environmentalist being an anti-scientific airhead.
At the time, I thought the characterization a bit harsh, but over time it's making more and more sense to me.
I do have to quarrel with the term "dependence on foreign oil," however, because that's a silly way to look at it.
We're not talking about charity, where the giver can, on a whim, stop giving. We're talking about exchange. We don't need their oil any more than they need our money.
Mark Read Pickens
Post a Comment