Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
scientificamerican.com
Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
1–10 of 110 posts
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#2Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are negative outcomes to the environment for doing this (let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. Its unlikely to be a neutral impact.)
Its like what cigarette companies used to do- just constantly deny what's completely obvious.
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#3Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are negative outcomes to the environment for doing this (let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. Its unlikely to be a neutral impact.) Its like what cigarette companies used to do- just constantly deny what's completely obvious.
Because it will take decades for any lawsuits to make it through the courts. If they were to lose such lawsuits,
by that time they'll have already pulled out enough money to cover the cost of the lawsuits with the rest just being gravy.
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#4Why isn't there a way to track without toxic chemicals?
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#5The OP is a kind of shallow summation of the details here...first of all, the study was published in June. Second, it's not the "first step" in determining the link between fracking in the Marcellus Shale and water contamination...a previous study by Duke, which the OP references later, documented "systematic evidence" of such a link.
2013: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221635110.full...
2011: http://biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011.html
I bring this up not to be pedantic, but to point out that the OP comes off as that this is new conclusive evidence...it is not. Opponents of fracking would argue that there are several other studies showing similar data, and they'd argue that politics/industry has shelved other planned studies. In other words, it's not just amount or existence of evidence that comes into play in this debate.
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#6Why isn't there a way to track without toxic chemicals?
Maybe there is, but it works with the chemicals they currently use. I'm sure the geological engineers would welcome suggestions.
Additional information:
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#7Aside from money (which is pretty motivating), I don't understand why the gas companies simply continue to deny that there is contamination and that there are negative outcomes to the environment for doing this (let's put it this way, its almost certainly not a positive impact. Its unlikely to be a neutral impact.) Its like what cigarette companies used to do- just constantly deny what's completely obvious.
(Hi David!) Well, yes it's money, but the complication is that fracking has that effect only in some places. The contamination is much more a function of the geology than the fracking process itself. Pennsylvania has been hit heavily with contamination. Most wells drilled are safe: http://mitei.mit.edu/publications/reports-studies/future-nat...
There is an annoying combination of legal and commercial pressures that prevent the companies from going "actually it's more dangerous than we previously said" without it seeming like "it was a lie all along this is TERRIBLE".
The crucial take-away is that there is a bunch of additional geologic due diligence that the gas companies could be doing that would actually enable them to continue fracking. But the boom is driven in part by the utter dirt cheapness of it now and they're afraid of hopping off the wave.
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#8Why isn't there a way to track without toxic chemicals?
I believe they need to use a fluid that is viscous enough to stay in place after being pumped into the rock, so that the fissures do not immediately close when pressure is released.
Edit: source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proppants_and_fracking_fluids
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#9Why isn't there a way to track without toxic chemicals?
To clarify, the problem discussed here is methane contamination of water rather than contamination from the process itself (though that's been an issue in some places). Methane is the gas extracted. The fracturing process tends to exacerbate existing fractures in addition to the one intended allowing more of that gas to enter groundwater.
Re: Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas-Fracking Boom
#10For anyone interested, I'd recommend Gasland.
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/
This "new" evidence of contamination will not end it. People will be paid in quiet settlements, sell their houses at a fraction of what they paid for them, and move somewhere else. This will probably continue until the oil/bitumen/gas is gone.