
Fracking Has Not Had Big Effect on Water Supply, E.P.A. Says While Noting Risks - emgeee
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/epa-hydraulic-fracking-water-supply-contamination.html
======
jofer
Most of the discussion about fracking misses the forest for the trees.

Yes, there's a rather significant amount of groundwater contamination due to
poorly operated and/or improperly abandoned wells.

However, the vast majority of the contamination has nothing to do with whether
or not hydrofracturing was applied. It's far more frequently due to bad casing
jobs, etc.

In other words, most of the contamination is due to sloppy work. It would
happen regardless of whether it was a convention or unconventional well.

There are situations where fracking can directly lead to contamination. After
all, you're deliberately creating permeability in an aquitard. However, these
are not anywhere near as common as the cases where a bad casing job, etc can
lead to groundwater contamination (every well).

In a nutshell, we're seeing an increase in groundwater contamination because
of the spike in the number of wells drilled in the areas. It's not directly
related to the completion method used in the well (e.g. fracking).

However, it doesn't help that there are highly variable state/local
regulations and a huge number of sloppy operators.

~~~
barney54
Where is the evidence that there are a huge number of sloppy operators? That
isn't in the NY Times article.

~~~
dbecker
People in the industry seem to universally agree that there are some sloppy
operators.

------
moepstar
FTFA: _But environmental groups pointed to what they saw as holes in the
report. In particular, they said, the report’s authors relied on data supplied
by companies and wrote that limitations in data “preclude a determination of
the frequency of impacts with any certainty.”_

So, i guess that report is next to worthless then if it solely relies on data
that comes from a group that is interested in "proving" the safety of
fracking?

~~~
fieryscribe
Except it doesn't _solely_ rely on that data. From earlier in the article:

"In conducting the study, the agency evaluated more than 3,500 previously
published reports, studies and data sources, including articles published in
science and engineering journals; and reports by federal and state
governments, nongovernmental organizations and industry groups.

The agency also conducted additional scientific research, resulting in more
than 20 peer-reviewed reports and papers. The draft report will now be made
available for public comment and peer review by an independent board of
scientists before being finalized."

------
clumsysmurf
I'm a bit skeptical of what the EPA says, because it has been documented to
suffer from regulatory capture.

[http://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-
Pollution...](http://www.amazon.com/Poison-Spring-Secret-History-
Pollution/dp/1608199266)

But lets assume the EPA is doing its job. At minimum, there needs to be more
inspectors - currently there is a huge backlog where high-risk wells are not
being inspected. So this problem will just keep getting worse.

[http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/massive-fracking-
federal...](http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog/massive-fracking-federal-
lands-overwhelms-critical-inspections)

Also, just a few weeks ago from the NYT:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-
che...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/science/earth/fracking-chemicals-
detected-in-pennsylvania-drinking-water.html)

------
kanetkarster
From Aljazeera:

>the EPA was not able to legally force cooperation by fracking companies,
almost all of which refused

and

>One of the companies, Chesapeake Energy, "chipped away at the scope of the
plan over two years of talks, limited when and where the EPA could monitor
water,"

[0] [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/4/epa-says-
frac...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/4/epa-says-fracking-
doesnt-contaminate-water.html)

------
thewhizkid
Read "Trust me, I'm lying" by Ryan Holiday. Tracing the sources mentioned in
this article is a good first exercise.

------
mikeash
Questions about the truth of the results aside, I would say that the title of
the study should maybe be, Fracking Has Not Had Big Effect on Water Supply
_Yet_. This stuff is still pretty new, after all.

~~~
LordKano
_This stuff is still pretty new, after all._

On a geologic time scale, sure.

Fracking in one form or another goes back between 80-150 years.

------
punee
"Worrying over fracking is like seeing an upper middle class family who are
$6,000 in debt, and freaking out because one of their kids bought a gumball
from a machine."

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-
do...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/)

~~~
dbecker
You are taking that quote wildly out of context. That quote refers to the use
of water as part of the drilling process, not the contamination of water-
sources by fracked wells.

~~~
punee
You're absolutely right. I guess I was misled by the title that talks about
the "water supply" when they really mean "the quality of water" or something
along those lines.

------
AC__
Riiiiiggghht
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-tmudFg0)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A)
There are THOUSANDS of similar reports from fracked areas all over North
America. That isn't the only problem either, when they do what's called
"venting" there is large release of carcinogenic chemicals(although some large
scale operations mitigate this by capping the vent stack to collect the gases
in practice this is the exception not the rule) We are doing it in Canada as
well, absolute insanity! Here is a great documentary
[http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID...](http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/2332883489/)

~~~
danso
OK I downvoted this. And I'm stating that even though I know it's not kosher
to have a meta-debate about upvoting/downvoting, but just to dissuade the
reflexive suspicion that the downvote is because HN is secretly owned by
drilling companies.

I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but linking to a bunch of
Youtube videos without context is not helpful evidence. And then going on to
refer to a vague "THOUSANDS of similar reports" claim _without_ some kind of
link to source...that's kind of lazy. I think it's safe to say that the EPA is
aware of a high quantity of reports of contaminated water...and that's why
they've (belatedly) undertaken this study. The critique should be focused on
their assertions and the evidence they use (I mean, they did the courtesy of
drafting a report to make such a point by point critique easier), not on
generalizations.

~~~
AC__
They have NO evidence, I downloaded their full report in search of the
"official" total of cases where drinking water has been contaminated due to
hydraulic fracturing and it is omitted from the report they simply make the
assertion that "the number of identified cases, however, was small compared to
the number of hydraulically fractured wells" This study doesn't serve to
advance our understanding of the hazards of hydraulic fracturing in the least,
it's 999 pages of nothing! Down vote all you want

~~~
danso
I wouldn't have downvoted _this_ comment...because it actually refers to the
report at hand and directly critiques it. I'm not anti-anti-fracking, just
anti-anti-anti-fracking generalizations.

~~~
AC__
Also this "A 2009 ProPublica investigation found that contamination was far
more prevalent than indicated in the report, citing more than 1,000 cases tied
to drilling and fracking that had been documented by courts and state and
local governments."
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_poll...](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution)

