No Evidence That Fracking Can Operate Without Threatening Public Health
desmogblog.com
desmogblog.com
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.
Ok so why are the fracking chemicals being found in groundwater and giving people cancer?
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.
Couldn't agree more. Oklahoma's problem was one exacerbated by negligence and cost cutting. Blanket ban would be inconsiderate to how these particulars can ideally be used.
> 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.
Which parts of the country would you be referring to? North Dakota? Even Pennsylvania has regulatory enforcement issues (ex. orphaned wells). Nobody really tracks methane/non-spill emissions. That said, I agree that fracked wells are not unique but the sheer quantity of smaller unconventional ventures worries me. Companies can go bankrupt and the abandonment bonds required by states can be insufficient to properly abandon the wells.
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.
I’m not sure that is what the article can confidently assert.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.