EPA says no evidence that fracking has 'widespread' impact on drinking water

[n2doc]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a Thursday report that it found no evidence fracking has a "widespread" impact on drinking water.

The EPA report concluded that there are above and below ground mechanisms by which fracking have the potential to impact drinking water resources, but that the number of identified cases were "small" compared to the number of fracking wells.

"We did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of potentially affecting water] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States," the report said.

In March, the federal government unveiled its first set of fracking safety mandates. Affecting only federal and Indian lands, the Bureau of Land Management rule includes provisions for ensuring groundwater protection though well integrity standards, increased transparency by requiring companies to publicly disclose chemicals they use, higher storage standards, and requiring companies submit more detailed information on preexisting wells.

more

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102733638

[Politicalboi]

1. The idiots at the EPA should have to

Use fracking water for their drinking fountains. EPA got paid off.

[djean111]

2. Aww, don't worry, United States - we can catch up with China if we really try!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141109965

More than 60 pct of China's underground water rated unfit for human contact

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Green sleaze: The EPA helps corporations scrub their images while screwing the planet

EPA’s Green Power Partnership

http://grist.org/business-technology/green-sleaze-the-epa-helps-corporations-scrub-their-images-while-screwing-the-planet/


The Amazing Revolving Door -
Monsanto, FDA & EPA

http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

[Duppers]

4. Sickening, in every sense of the word. nt

[Nihil]

7. But, sadly, not surprising. (n/t)

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. To submit comments on the report…

To submit comments on the report, see http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/HF%20Drinking%20Water%20Assessment?OpenDocument



If you’re interested in the actual report, http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. From the Executive Summary

…

[PRE][TT]11 From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which
12 hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These
13 mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of
14 hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking
15 water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and
16 discharge of wastewater.

17 We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
18 drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
19 we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water
20 resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases,
21 however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.

22 This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to
23 other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality
24 of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other
25 sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an
26 impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential
27 impacts.[/TT][/PRE]

…

[mackdaddy]

8. "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" my 9th grade science teacher.

Aquifers move at very slow rates. It may take some time for this fracking crap to reach more wells at detectable levels.

And by that time the fracking companies will have filled their pockets with cash and gone out of business.

Can you imagine your results if these statitistics were applied elsewhere. "But officer, I only hit 5 out of a thousand pedestrians I passed" - Well OK then, be on your way.....

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Donald Rumsfeld said the same thing about WMD in Iraq

Last edited Fri Jun 5, 2015, 12:49 PM - Edit history (3)

It’s clever, but not true.

If you’re looking for something, and not finding evidence it exists, that is evidence (although not proof) of its absence.


In Rumsfeld’s case, UN weapons inspectors had looked for WMD and not found evidence. He didn’t like that, so, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” (Let’s go to war!)

In this case, the EPA looked for evidence of “widespread” contamination of drinking water. They didn’t find it.

I don’t care for fracking, however, I tell people “fracking is a side issue.” Not because I don’t think that there is widespread contamination of drinking water. My reason is much simpler. Fracking allows us to produce and burn “unconventional” oil and gas. Which (according to Hansen et al) we cannot afford to do.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_13/

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

The second figure shows that if coal emissions were thus phased out between 2010 and 2030, and if emissions from unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shale were minimized, atmospheric CO₂ would peak at 400-425 ppm and then slowly decline. The peak CO₂ amount would depend upon whether the smaller oil and gas reserve estimates of IPCC or the optimistic estimates of EIA are more accurate. The authors note that even if the large EIA reserve estimates are valid, peak CO₂ could be kept close to 400 ppm if the most difficult to extract oil and gas is left in the ground via a rising price on carbon emissions that discourages remote exploration and environmental regulations that place some areas off-limits.



…

The authors conclude that "humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate." Specifically, they say that humanity "must begin now to move toward the era beyond fossil fuels", and "the most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

Reference

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO₂: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.[/font][/font]

[Panich52]

9. The Hill: FRACKING CLEARED - MOSTLY

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Thursday that it found no "widespread, systemic" drinking water contamination problems from hydraulic fracturing, but the oil and natural gas industry isn't completely in the clear.

While the EPA referred to its nearly 1,000-page study as the most comprehensive analysis of the drinking water impacts from fracking to date, it acknowledged multiple limitations with the research. Chief among them was that researchers relied heavily on the industry for their data.

"We feel very confident in our conclusions about identifying key vulnerabilities," EPA science adviser Thomas Burke told reporters Thursday. "The study was not, nor was it intended to be, an empirical catalogue of all incidents of contamination."

That kind of limitation spurred Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, to declare that the research "falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect the health and safety of the millions of American people."

The study also documented numerous cases of groundwater or drinking water contamination from fracking and related activities, including some well casing structures that were compromised from the fracking process itself, Burke said. (emphasis added)

Read more here
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001QKuttMGOjRN1tPu6GmXC1h8HQWmHC-lEk9RUWY33_WEePxcDwtJ90Duteg8JAGG0TgFqrX6Vmz9GHxUDsHMkqL6yePGkdycyPid5zF0JULDtKZTBbqZqKrL1LI-u8aXRO8ZeIA4ne-64m5GxBWqPKhkvbJ8aDjwQax5cuavST_6XPRh_j9lzaC1EJmjxUqVw4-T34AHo2OwIip2s5K5b6MRnRMSggPYlqlN0_YF52YSgMt5bIVfmGF6mWsLg2inNa4q2oK_upAMMs6mLjUMbzB0jvrOS3g2dUPNMnVZhwrI=&c=PlFsukTuldWA_11WT6IeCn3Bk55gKx3rPE05hn0kA38BTyFaTAkfEw==&ch=33_HxcQXmlG5AOtNBwGRlZrQIjm0T352WAJFG4X7fzlbmXYEskWN1g==

•

Of course, the fackers who flagrantly ignore safety regs will be overlooked by those pushing the drilling. And those dependent on well water who are near frackers continue to deal with fouled wells or fears their water could be useless in near future.