This can be a guest publish by Jamie L. Vernon, Ph.D., an investigation researcher and ambitious policy wonk, who lately gone to live in D.C. to obtain a taste from the action
Lately, Environmental protection agency Administrator Lisa Jackson mentioned that there's no evidence the fracking process has result in contamination of ground water. In reaction to some question in the U.S. House Oversight Committee, she stated,
I m unaware of any proven situation in which the fracking process itself has affected water, although you will find research ongoing.
The word fracking describes a procedure of removing gas from wells drilled deep below our planet s surface. The strategy is formally referred to as hydraulic fracturing and involves moving a water-based fluid right into a well under ruthless in order to make the formation of cracks in deep rock layers. The cracks and also the chemical elements within the fracture fluid facilitate more effective extraction from the gas.
Experts from the process make claims that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated aquifers along with other ponds with elements from toxic fracking fluid in places that gas drilling is happening. A documentary titled Gas Land lately sensationalized the storyline by showing moments by which h2o had become flammable. Here s a famous scene in the movie:
The issue using the experts argument is there's inadequate evidence to prove the contaminated water is unquestionably because of fracking. The procedure has been utilized for several years and is not looked at until lately. Regardless of the scrutiny, nobody has completed thorough research to find out whether the operation is prone to result in water contamination. Sure, there has been cases when it's suspected the process has contaminated ground water. Indeed, I've blogged about this at The Intersection, however with no research into the ground water just before drilling, one cannot make sure that the contamination is directly triggered through the fracking industry.
Personally, despite the fact that evidence is sparse and not yet proven, I still believe the potential risks of contamination are extremely high for all of us to carry on drilling for gas without significant oversight and regulation. A current blowout in Bradford County, Pennsylvania has contaminated the immediate surrounding areas and three private wells with chemical-laced water. Personally i think strongly that fracking is unsafe because it is presently being completed.
Fortunately, the Federal government has managed to get important to have a look in the hydraulic fracturing industry. On Thursday, the Environmental protection agency announcedthe seven gas drilling sites where it'll conduct situation studies. The research will consider the impact of hydraulic fracturing on local h2o.
The websites include drilling in Haynesville Shale in DeSoto Parish, La., Marcellus Shale in Washington County, Bradford and Susquehanna, Pa., Bakken Shale in Kildeer and Dunn Areas, N.D., Barnett Shale in Smart and Denton Areas, Texas, and Raton Basin in Las Animas County, Colo.
Listed here are my concerns concerning the Environmental protection agency s plan:
First, there's little if any evidence the toxic elements in fracking fluid have contaminated h2o from the below-ground wells. Harmful chemicals like benzene and acrylamide are recognized to participate the fracking mixture, but legislation has protected the under intellectual property privileges from fully revealing the contents. Therefore, researchers happen to be not able to complete proper testing for the chemicals included in the mixture. Regardless, it appears the fracking fluid and, actually, the fracking process isn't the problem.
You will find numerous physical arguments against the chance that fracking fluid will discover its distance to h2o throughout the hydraulic fracturing process. The demands at individuals depths are extremely high it's unlikely the harmful chemicals will have the ability to flow upward in to the aquifer. Also, the permeability from the shale is really low it appears unlikely the harmful chemicals will penetrate the rock. Obviously, there's the chance that the cracks produced through the process could interact with natural cracks within the rock formations resulting in an immediate connection between your well and also the aquifer, but this really is statistically unlikely. My point is when the Environmental protection agency targets the fracking process alone it's unlikely that they'll look for a connection between drilling and contamination in the 7 selected sites.
As referred to within the PNAS paper, the issue of contamination is probably because of leaking gas-wells, not the hydraulic fracturing itself. The Environmental protection agency researchers will have to consider the wells along with the fracking process. However, since the sites happen to be introduced in advance, the drillers may take special safeguards to make sure top quality wells are drilled which the concrete is put correctly in order to avoid leaks or spills. If that's the case, researchers might not find any contamination.
Second, you will find an incredible number of gas wells across the nation. Very couple of of these happen to be associated with any contamination. Statistically, for that Environmental protection agency to select only 7 wells, I believe that it is highly unlikely they will discover a correlation between drilling and contamination.
For me personally, the problem of water contamination because of the fracking process isn't just a good or bad question. It's a few risk. We should request ourselves as prepared to risk the potential of water contamination occurring within our neighborhood. Considering the fact that couple of from the gas sites across the nation have triggered contamination, It is not likely the Environmental protection agency study will demonstrate an immediate correlation between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. If this sounds like the situation, this research is going to do more damage than good by supplying evidence, although faulty, for that gas industry to reason that fracking is protected. The question for you is regardless if you are willing to accept chance of getting undrinkable water. Have you been
I suppose we are able to be grateful the fracking process because it is being carried out today is quite different from the plowsharing process suggested within the 70 s.
Let s keep our eyes about this study and hope it yields the outcomes we want.
Follow Jamie Vernon on Twitter or read his periodic posts at his personal blog, American SciCo.
No comments:
Post a Comment