
No Evidence That Fracking Can Operate Without Threatening Public Health - darkwater
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/05/report-fracking-threatening-public-health
======
tynpeddler
As a former oil field worker and a former scientist, reading articles on
fracking is always confusing. Most writers on this topic do not adequately
distinguish between drilling, fracking, extraction, maintenance or cleanup.
When comparing fracked wells to non fracked wells, all of these processes are
very similar except for the fracking itself and the cleanup.

Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below any
water table, direct effects on the surface are rare. It took 60 years of
fracking before we even discovered that it could cause surface earthquake
detectable by humans. And even then, the last I checked the number of
noticeable earthquakes caused by fracking can be counted on both hands.

Wastewater injection is a known issue. In certain areas, waste water injection
can cause earthquakes. In other areas, waste water injection is fine. It's a
matter of geological particulars, and a blanket ban doesn't make sense.

With the exception of these two processes, a fracked well is very similar to a
non fracked well. On the other hand, the following statement doesn't seem to
recognize the similarities between fracked and non fracked wells:

>“There’s really definitive evidence now that methane leaks at every stage of
the fracking process” from drilling to storage, she says. And that’s
contributing to a surge in methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in the
atmosphere.

There's nothing in this statement, or in the surrounding context, that says
this problem would be unique to fracked wells. Any well that emits methane
(which is quite a few of them) would have the exact same issue. It appears
that what organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility and
Concerned Health Professionals of New York (which doesn't seem terribly non
partisan in the first place) are really concerned about is not fracking, but
any hydrocarbon extraction.

The real issue at hand seems to be the expansion of oil wells into parts of
the country that did not historically have that industry. Banning fracking may
simply be the wrong approach. For example, as technology advances, non
fracking methods may be discovered that would once again put oil wells in
communities that don't want them. In addition, talking about fracked wells
without comparing them against similar non fracked wells is sloppy science.
Most of the research and white papers I've read on the topic do not adequately
use traditional wells as controls, meaning it's impossible to tell if the
deleterious health and environmental effects apply only to fracked wells or to
every oil well.

~~~
693471
> Given that fracking usually happens 10,000 feet underground, and far below
> any water table

Ok so why are the fracking chemicals being found in groundwater and giving
people cancer?

~~~
tynpeddler
Because of flaws in the casing which allows fluids in the well bore to leak
outside of it. This exact problem can happen to any well, not just fracked
ones.

~~~
defterGoose
Ok, but this seems to belie your previous point about groundwater
contamination. If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in
any well, then using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more
likely to crack, right? You certainly can't control where the excess pressure
you're providing goes, it's hydrostatic. Therefore it's much more likely that
a fracked well will contaminate layers above the production layer, right? Not
to mention the fracking fluid contains extra materials which are likely the
cause of any deleterious health effects.

~~~
wigl
> If the bore lining is theoretically a permeable structure in any well, then
> using fracking techniques would almost definitely make it more likely to
> crack, right?

It's not always permeable. It's more of a design issue because well completion
is not a science, it's more of a process of optimizing production vs cost.
You're not going to just use the thickest strongest metal there is everywhere.

> Therefore it's much more likely that a fracked well will contaminate layers
> above the production layer, right? Not to mention the fracking fluid
> contains extra materials which are likely the cause of any deleterious
> health effects.

Not necessarily. There's layers of permeable and effectively impermeable rock,
depending on the fluid. Typical fracking depths are well below groundwater
layers and separated by impermeable layers. Shale for example, is so tight
that basically only methane flows through it because it's the smallest
hydrocarbon. Fracking fluids (ex. water) + extra materials (such as sand,
isopropyl alcohol) are used precisely because they can't flow through, build
up pressure, and then physically create fractures in the production layer. The
fluid can get lost as the rock fractures more and pressure drops, but this is
monitored and again, is well below groundwater depth.

~~~
defterGoose
You've just repeated OP's point verbatim, though. The whole point is that in
an _idealized_ system, you have the well bore travelling down through a
groundwater later which by definition is permeable by water. If your bore
lining fails (which it is likely to do, given the hydraulic pressure required
for fracking _lower_ layers) you then have an open circuit to the groundwater
layer. It doesn't matter how much further down the production layer is.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that a small leak into a groundwater layer would be
A. Easily detectable or B. Cause the producer to immediately abandon pumping
anything else into a well which has already taken a significant investment to
drill and line.

~~~
tynpeddler
My point is that this is not unique to fracked wells. Literally any well can
have this problem and it's something that wells have to be regularly tested
for. If a new technique is developed that allows hydrocarbons to be extracted
from these wells, but does not fall under the fracking bans, then we're back
in the same spot. In addition, if scientists have discovered a systematic flaw
in regulation on well casing integrity, then I hope we apply that knowledge to
all our oil wells, and not just the fracked ones.

------
pbecotte
I don't understand articles like this. Do they really think it helps their
case to say fracking is bad because of climate change? The fact that the
technique is effective shouldn't be a reason to ban it! If you want to
regulate carbon emmisions, then do so, but I really feel that trying to attack
it from different angles just weakens the argument.

It also means that the article spends virtually zero time talking about things
that may actually be risks of the practice, or potential solutions. We aren't
getting rid of natural gas powerplants any time soon. We could do a better job
of monitoring and cleaning up leaks of fracking chemicals and wastewater
injection though, if we focused on that.

------
aussiegreenie
You can not "prove" a negative.

~~~
reallydude
That's a bastardization of the headline and inaccurate.

Do a little substitution over there... and here... and away you go!

No Evidence that you have been employed without killing my pet Liger

Proving a negative, is possible. It's relatively difficult and uncommonly
done.

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27130](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/27130)

------
growlist
I don't see any qualification of on/offshore, which presumably is a pretty
important omission?

Even though one can probably make arguments about the impact of offshore
fracking on public health, surely (at least) also a whole class of impacts
relating to the human habitation around/above the fracking area (methane
leaks, earthquakes, groundwater contamination etc) are not relevant.

I'd be interested in a pragmatic study that calculates the net benefit of
fracking. Some of us don't want to go back to the dark ages, and like not
being dependent on nasty regimes to keep the lights on. And before we start
fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and hazards thrown out by a
volcano, of which there are many on the earth's surface.

~~~
KirinDave
Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark
ages?"

It's pretty inevitable that our world is going to change dramatically over the
next century as equatorial regions dramatically change climate, ocean
ecosystems go through rapid extinction phases in some regions, and coastlines
are redrawn. So if you're concerned about a change to your life and
environment, too bad. You're getting that no matter what.

What matters now is not exacerbating the problems presented by using
technologies that appear to be harmful like fracking.

You don't need to return to "the dark ages" to preserve a post-industrial
society. That society needs to pool resources, spread out less, and use more
decentralized infrastructure.

> And before we start fetishing the environment, consider the pollution and
> hazards thrown out by a volcano, of which there are many on the earth's
> surface.

This is simply a non-sequitur and you should realize it. No technology or even
a theoretical framework exists to stop volcanos from erupting. What's more, we
know factually that volcanos have historically tweaked the environment one way
or another, and humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a
volcano. So we should focus on the things we _can_ change.

~~~
growlist
> Why is fracking a requirement, even rhetorically, for "avoiding the dark
> ages?"

I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists there
are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own ends, and I
suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark ages. There is
evidence, if one cares to look.

> You're getting that no matter what.

That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And
there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment
for their heresy. Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than
investing stupendous sums in prevention. I'll also point out that the same
organisations that are pushing climate change hard (UN etc.) are doing little
to halt growth in global population, and are also promoting mass migration to
high income economies, thereby creating a need for further development of
infrastructure, housing etc. in those economies, but apparently for some
reason the concrete used in housing etc. built for migrants magically doesn't
generate co2.

> humanity's combined industrial output exceeds the output of a volcano

And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate
far more than humanity.

~~~
KirinDave
> I strongly suspect that alongside the well-intentioned environmentalists
> there are malign influences piggy-backing on the movement for their own
> ends, and I suspect some of these would happily see us back in the dark
> ages. There is evidence, if one cares to look.

Even if we ignore the conspiratorial nature of this statement for the sake of
assuming positive intent... this doesn't even remotely answer or even address
my question. Even if there are sinister cabals of powerful regressives, what
does Fracking have to do with it? And even if someone might have a less than
pure motive, does it matter if there are positive scientific findings and
plenty of alternatives?

> That's the consensus, but none of us have a crystal ball, including you. And
> there are dissenters from the orthodoxy, though they risk severe punishment
> for their heresy.

Really? "Severe punishment?" Other than being called wrong and having their
papers refuted over and over what exactly is that? It seems strange to offer
such an _unmeritocratic_ view on this.

> Some say we are better off managing the impacts rather than investing
> stupendous sums in prevention.

Like that guy who said folks displaced by rising sea levels can sell their
homes and move?

> I'll also point out that the same organisations that are pushing climate
> change hard (UN etc.) are doing little to halt growth in global population,
> and are also promoting mass migration to high income economies, thereby
> creating a need for further development of infrastructure

Firstly, are you suggesting the UN is "encouraging" refugee crisis? Couldn't
then this symmetrically be spun as tyrranical dictators and religious
governments oppressing populations such that they flee, "thereby creating a
need for further development of infrastructure, housing etc?" And doesn't that
seem like the more reasonable assignment of blame?

> built for migrants magically doesn't generate co2.

Construction is hardly the primary source of CO2 in most developed nations.

> And there are those that argue that non-human factors influence our climate
> far more than humanity.

I am aware some small minority of people believe in unproven ideas, and that's
fine. But simply finding people who agree with you isn't the point of science
_or_ my post.

You've said a lot of things but not said why fracking, specifically, is
important. It's certainly not a tradition. It, as it is currently performed,
is not particularly important for global energy production. It's not the
preferred method for helium harvesting.

If I were to stop for a moment in my meticulous assumption of positive intent,
I might be inclined to believe you're much more interested in _signaling your
distaste for technological progress_ rather than _actually caring about the
specific legacy technology at hand._

------
randyrand
This title is true even if zero research had been done.

