I wrote this report a couple of years ago, when local misguided fracktivists tried to get our local board of supervisors to issue a county-wide ban against fracking. I thought it might do some good for my readers here, so I decided to publish it.
A report to the Butte County Board of Supervisors and to the Butte County Planning Commission
Introduction
I had considered speaking before you, but in the emotionally charged venue of your chambers it is often difficult for a rational voice to be heard without being shouted down. Plus, I have a hearing impairment that makes interaction difficult. Therefore, I thought I’d prepare a document.
My intent here is to help you make the most enlightened decision possible, by sorting through the hyperbole, political agendas, and emotions which have presented themselves in this debate by providing a factual guide that is based on reality, and not on any viewpoint from any vested interest.
The history of hydraulic fracturing aka “fracking”
Modern hydraulic fracturing technologies started on April 25th, 1865, when Civil War veteran Col. Edward A. L. Roberts received the first of his many patents for an “exploding torpedo.” Nitroglycerine and later Dynamite was used back then to provide the force. Roberts was awarded U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) in November 1866 for what would become known as the Roberts Torpedo. The new technology would revolutionize the young oil and natural gas industry by vastly increasing production from individual wells.
On March 17, 1949, a team of petroleum production experts tried a new technique on an oil well about 12 miles east of Duncan, Oklahoma – to perform the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing. This began the modernized process that is still in use today.
Since 1949, hydraulic fracturing has done more to increase recoverable reserves than any other technique. In the more than 60 years following those first treatments, more than two million fracking treatments have been drilled and pumped with not a single documented case of any fracking treatment polluting an aquifer.
Reference: American Oil and Gas Historical Society
RELEVANCE: Hydraulic fracking is not a “new” technique. History of use shows it has not polluted groundwater/aquifers.
How does “fracking” actually work?
Fracking is simply a technique use to increase the surface area of a drilled well. By having an enlarged surface area of cracks, crevices, and seam splits, more oil or natural gas can be recovered. It improves the production of a new well or an existing well.
In virtually every case, the shale seams are far below the water table, as seen in this cross section below showing how shale is fractured to increase surface area to retrieve more natural gas.
The gas is pulled from the ground through a process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which large volumes of water, plus sand and chemicals, are injected deep underground to break shale apart and free the gas.
RELEVANCE: most fracking is conducted well below the water table.
What is in fracking fluid? Water, sand, and, some common chemicals.
Water accounts for about 90 percent of the fracturing mixture and sand accounts for about 9.5 percent. Chemicals account for the remaining one half of one percent of the mixture. This graphic illustrates the breakdown.
RELEVANCE: Traditional fracking fluid is mostly water & sand, with 0.5% common household chemicals. There are no large amounts of “highly toxic” chemicals as some activists claim.
Why the worry over fracking water?
Many people worried about what chemicals are used in fracking cite the potential danger of a hypothetical scenario where fracking fluids leaking into the groundwater as the primary reason for their concern. However, there are many misconceptions about how fracking water is collected and disposed of after it has been pumped into the shale to release natural gas trapped inside.
Once the fracturing process is completed, the water rises back to the surface, forced upward by the geologic formation’s natural pressure. Then, the fluids are stored in pits or tanks to be treated – if the water is to be discharged into surface water – or is injected deep underground.
Spent or used fracturing fluids are normally recovered at the initial stage of well production and recycled in a closed system for future use or disposed of under regulation, either by surface discharge where authorized under the Clean Water Act or by injection into Class II wells as authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Regulation may also allow recovered fracturing fluids to be disposed of at appropriate commercial facilities. Not all fracturing fluid returns to the surface. Over the life of the well, some is left behind and confined by thousands of feet of rock layers.
Treatment of fracking water is highly regulated by EPA rules, and many states are working to revise or create their own laws overseeing gas drilling operations in their areas. So, there is a huge financial incentive for drilling companies to do it right, otherwise they are faced with fines, and possible shutdowns.
A 2004 study from the EPA investigating the environmental impact of disposing what chemicals are used in fracking into coal bed methane production wells found no confirmed cases of drinking water wells’ quality being compromised as a result. The study noted that:
“Where fluids are injected, EPA believes that groundwater production, combined with mitigating effects of dilution and dispersion, absorption, and biodegradation, minimize the possibility that chemicals included in fracturing fluids would adversely affect [underground sources of drinking water],”
Source: EPA: Hydraulic Fracturing of Coaled Methane Reservoirs; National Study Final Report, June 2004 http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/uic/pdfs/cbmstudy_attach_uic_final_fact_sheet.pdf
It’s our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet (1,500-2,400 m) underground have returned to contaminate ground water.
John Hanger, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Fracking fluid is now going through a change to make the small 0.5% portion of chemicals even safer.
As The Associated Press reported in August 2011, one Halliburton executive drank a new recipe for hydraulic fracking fluid at a conference by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The intent was to quash fears about what is hydraulic fracking and the chemicals that are used – Halliburton’s development uses food industry materials – by showing how safe they can be.
“During a keynote lunch speech at the conference presented by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Halliburton Co. CEO Dave Lesar talked about addressing public concerns about hydraulic fracturing, which extracts natural gas by blasting a mix of water, chemicals and sand underground.
He raised a container of Halliburton’s new fracking fluid made from materials sourced from the food industry, then called up a fellow executive to demonstrate how safe it was by drinking it, according to two attendees. The executive mocked reluctance, then took a swig.
The thing I took away is the industry is stepping up to plate and taking these concerns seriously,” Ken Carlson, a Colorado State University environmental engineering professor, told the AP. “Halliburton is showing they can get the same economic benefits or close to that by putting a little effort into reformulating the fluids.”
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/halliburton-executive-drinks-fracking-fluid_n_933621.html
The process is safe, and continues to be proven as such.
For example, on May 13th 2011, the New York Times reported:
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” got a clean bill of health this week in the first scientific look at the safety of the oil and production practice.
In a May 6th 2011 story on a senate hearing, E&E Newswires reported:
The debate about hydraulic fracturing has intensified as advances in the technology have opened vast gas-bearing formations in densely populated areas, like the Northeast. Critics say fracturing could cause some of the hazardous chemicals in the fluid to find its way into groundwater, but industry representatives say the fluid would have to travel upward through thousands of feet of rock, and there has never been a proven case of that happening.
Source: http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2011/05/06/2
The British also aren’t worried about it:
The British government’s health agency is the latest body to give fracking a clean bill of health, in a move that should galvanize the country to act on its considerable reserves of shale gas. Reuters reports:
Public Health England (PHE) said in a review that any health impacts were likely to be minimal from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the pumping of water and chemicals into dense shale formations deep underground….
“The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated,” said John Harrison, director of PHE’s center for radiation, chemical and environmental hazards.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-britain-health-fracking-idUSBRE99U0KX20131031
RELEVANCE: The EPA sees no threat to drinking water in studies they have conducted. Neither do the British.
There is a huge financial incentive by drilling companies to manage fracking water properly or face fines. Newer formulations of fracking fluid are safe enough to actually drink.
Scientific studies show the process is safe.
If fracking is safe, and has been in use since 1949, with it used in over 2 million wells, how did it get such a bad reputation?
The answer lies in an activist movie known as “Gasland”, seen on HBO in 2010 and also shown in “alternative” theatres in the USA, such as the Pageant Theater in downtown Chico.
In that movie, a claim is made that fracking caused groundwater to become flammable, due to methane gas leaking into the water table. This frame from the dramatic scene in that film shows a Colorado resident igniting his tap water with a cigarette lighter.
Source: GASLAND trailer, 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8
The implication made by the director/producer (Josh Fox) in the film is that this was caused by the recent increased in fracked wells in that part of Colorado, Weld County. To the untrained and uncurious, this certainly seems like a valid conclusion.
However, research shows that a few inconvenient facts about that movie. A 1976 study by the Colorado Division of Water found that this area was plagued with gas in the water problems back then. And it was naturally occurring.
As the report stated there was “troublesome amounts of methane” in the water decades before fracking began. It seems that in geographical areas gas has always been in the water.
But Josh Fox knew this and chose not to put it in Gasland anyway.
Another filmmaker asked Fox about this omission at a screening at Northwestern University in Chicago. You can watch that video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9CfUm0QeOk
And as way of verification of the Gasland’s claim of fracking causing methane in groundwater was based on a fabricated claim or not, I went looking for the 1976 report that McAleer cited. I didn’t find it, but I did find another report from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) which was equally damning:
Source: http://search.datapages.com/data/doi/10.1306/03B5B46B-16D1-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Also, the state of Colorado Department of Natural Resources came to a similar conclusion in a report they produced about the Gasland movie, saying that the methane came from nearby coal seams (biogenic) and what not from fracking operations, and had been present for quite some time:
…we concluded that Mike Markham’s and Renee McClure’s wells contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity. Unfortunately, Gasland does not mention our McClure finding and dismisses our Markham finding out of hand.
The Markham and McClure water wells are both located in the Denver-Julesburg Basin in Weld County. They and other water wells in this area draw water from the Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifer, which is composed of interbedded sandstones, shales, and coals. Indeed, the water well completion report for Mr. Markham’s well shows that it penetrated at least four different coal beds. The occurrence of methane in the coals of the Laramie Formation has been well documented in numerous publications by the Colorado Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists dating back more than 30 years. For example, a 1976 publication by the Colorado Division of Water Resources states that the aquifer contains “troublesome amounts of . . . methane.” A 1983 publication by the United States Geological Survey similarly states that “[m]ethane-rich gas commonly occurs in ground water in the Denver Basin, southern Weld County, Colorado.” And a 2001 report by the Colorado Geological Survey discusses the methane potential of this formation and cites approximately 30 publications on this subject.
…
Finally, it should be understood that the COGCC Director, Dave Neslin, offered to speak with Gasland’s producer, Josh Fox, on camera during the filming of the movie. Because the issues are technical and complex and arouse concerns in many people, Director Neslin asked that he be allowed to review any material from the interview that would be included in the final film. Unfortunately, Mr. Fox declined. Such a discussion might have prevented the inaccuracies noted above.
Source: http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf
Essentially, what we have is an activist movie director making false claims that can be easily refuted with geologic studies done by the State of Colorado, refusing to have his work reviewed, and those false claims being used to incite and worry people who are otherwise unable to make distinctions themselves.
Despite this and many more inaccuracies being well documented, activist organizations like Greenpeace, with multi-million dollar budgets, include the “flaming faucets” claim in their own anti-fracking materials, such as this one from their website, seen below.
Item# 10 says: “Concentrated Methane gas create flammable water and poisonous fumes”
Despite the science being well known and well documented, anti-fracking activist groups simply don’t care; they’ll make the claims anyway. Their goal is to stifle energy development, more on that later.
This is what is happening in Butte County with the “Frack Free Butte County” activists. Much of the claims they are making can be easily refuted if you bother to do a modicum of research.
For example, one of their claims is:
Fracking uses gross amounts of water. In a drought, the last thing we should rely on is fracking for purposes supplied by other sources.
What they don’t seem to realize is that fracking is a closed water system, it does not use “millions of gallons of water” (a common citation to position fracking as a water hog), but instead uses water that it treats and recycles at the surface.
The shale gas industry uses water: 1-5 million gallons per well. However, its needs are not great in comparison with those of other industries, such as the power generation industry, or even the quantity used in domestic appliances. Gas drilling in Pennsylvania uses less than 60 million gallons per day, compared with 1,550 million gallons per day used in public water systems, 1,680 million gallons per day used in industry and 5,930 million gallons per day used in power generation in the state (US Geological Survey). A single shale gas well uses in total about the same amount of water as a golf course uses in three weeks.
Sidenote:
If you look at the amount of water used by the Sierra Nevada Brewery in Chico per year, you’ll find it far and regularly exceeds any expectation of water to be used for hydraulic fracturing in Butte County, should it ever occur in Butte County.
For example in 2007, SNB used over 6 million barrels of water (31 US gallons/barrel) for a total of 186 million gallons of water.
Approximately one-third of the water pumped down the well for fracking returns eventually to the surface together with gas during production. In the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, this water is saline, because the shale rock was formed on the bed of an ancient sea. The water is extracted from the gas, collected in pools doubly lined with heavy-duty polythene, and either re-used for fracking in other wells or desalinated, treated and disposed of as waste. This is no different from the treatment of waste water in any other industrial process. Pollution incidents involving such `produced water‘ are rare. A gas well operated by EOG Resources blew out in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, in June 2010, spilling 35,000 gallons of slick water. The water was contained by berms and linings, and there were no injuries or significant damage to the environment.
Another claim used by activists is that the water coming to the surface is radioactive.
The returning water is also slightly more radioactive than surface water because of naturally occurring isotopes within the rocks. However, this radioactivity drops when the salt is removed and before the water is disposed of in the sewage system. In any case many granite rocks have higher natural radioactivity, so exposure to waste water from gas drilling is likely to be no more hazardous than exposure to some other kinds of rock. There is no evidence that either gets close to being hazardous. Indeed the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has tested the water in seven rivers to which treated waste water from gas wells is discharged and found not only no elevation in radioactivity but:
All samples were at or below background levels of radioactivity; and all samples showed levels below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228. — Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 7 March 201140
All technologies have environmental risks. Press coverage that talks about `toxic‘, `carcinogenic‘ and `radioactive‘ `chemicals‘ is meaningless. Vitamin A is toxic. A single cup of coffee contains more known carcinogens than the average American ingests from pesticide residues in a whole year. Bananas are radioactive. Dihydrogen monoxide is a chemical (water, H2O).
RELEVANCE: As demonstrated above, the list of easy refutations to activist’s claims about fracking is quite long, if any of you want to have them specifically addressed, I’ll be happy to do so personally on request.
This will surprise you – fracking has actually helped solve the “global warming” problem
The same people who complain that fracking will kill the planet also say similar things about carbon dioxide emissions related to “global warming”.
The great irony of fracking to produce more natural gas is that it has helped make a shift from coal to natural gas in energy production, actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the USA.
As demonstrated in this article, carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years thanks to fracking.
The EIA data shows natural gas on the rise:
So many activists want us to get off “dirty coal” as an energy source, yet they seem unwilling and unable to accept a much cleaner burning fuel, natural gas, because it involves “fracking”.
But, you shouldn’t take my word for it, read what they say at U.C. Berkeley about Natural Gas in their August 2014 report:
Climate Impacts of Coal and Natural Gas
In a world where a cost-‐competitive near-‐ zero carbon energy source is not readily available, particularly in developing countries, replacing coal electric generation with natural gas could provide an effective strategy to mitigate climate change and reduce harmful air pollution.
Source: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/climate-impacts-of-coal-and-natural-gas.pdf
Just as surprising, the leader of the group that produced that report, Berkeley Earth, is an advocate of fracking to produce more natural gas.
Deadly particulate pollution known as PM2.5 (highly regulated in California) is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking. His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.
The summary from that report:
See the full report: http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/131202135150-WhyEverySeriousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf
Study: Fracked shale gas impacts have positive and negative benefits, but there’s no reason not to make it part of the energy mix – September 22, 2014
From The University of Manchester: Fracking’s environmental impacts scrutinised
Greenhouse gas emissions from the production and use of shale gas would be comparable to conventional natural gas, but the controversial energy source actually faired better than renewables on some environmental impacts, according to new research.
The UK holds enough shale gas to supply its entire gas demand for 470 years, promising to solve the country’s energy crisis and end its reliance on fossil-fuel imports from unstable markets. But for many, including climate scientists and environmental groups, shale gas exploitation is viewed as environmentally dangerous and would result in the UK reneging on its greenhouse gas reduction obligations under the Climate Change Act.
University of Manchester scientists have now conducted one of the most thorough examinations of the likely environmental impacts of shale gas exploitation in the UK in a bid to inform the debate. Their research has just been published in the leading academic journal Applied Energy and study lead author, Professor Adisa Azapagic, will outline the findings at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on Monday (22 September).
“While exploration is currently ongoing in the UK, commercial extraction of shale gas has not yet begun, yet its potential has stirred controversy over its environmental impacts, its safety and the difficulty of justifying its use to a nation conscious of climate change,” said Professor Azapagic.
“There are many unknowns in the debate surrounding shale gas, so we have attempted to address some of these unknowns by estimating its life cycle environmental impacts from ‘cradle to grave’. We looked at 11 different impacts from the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing – known as ‘fracking’– as well as from its processing and use to generate electricity.”
The researchers compared shale gas to other fossil-fuel alternatives, such as conventional natural gas and coal, as well as low-carbon options, including nuclear, offshore wind and solar power (solar photovoltaics).
The results of the research suggest that the average emissions of greenhouse gases from shale gas over its entire life cycle are about 460 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. This, the authors say, is comparable to the emissions from conventional natural gas. For most of the other life-cycle environmental impacts considered by the team, shale gas was also comparable to conventional natural gas.
But the study also found that shale gas was better than offshore wind and solar for four out of 11 impacts: depletion of natural resources, toxicity to humans, as well as the impact on freshwater and marine organisms. Additionally, shale gas was better than solar (but not wind) for ozone layer depletion and eutrophication (the effect of nutrients such as phosphates, on natural ecosystems).
On the other hand, shale gas was worse than coal for three impacts: ozone layer depletion, summer smog and terrestrial eco-toxicity.
Professor Azapagic said:
“Some of the impacts of solar power are actually relatively high, so it is not a complete surprise that shale gas is better in a few cases. This is mainly because manufacturing solar panels is very energy and resource-intensive, while their electrical output is quite low in a country like the UK, as we don’t have as much sunshine. However, our research shows that the environmental impacts of shale gas can vary widely, depending on the assumptions for various parameters, including the composition and volume of the fracking fluid used, disposal routes for the drilling waste and the amount of shale gas that can be recovered from a well.
“Assuming the worst case conditions, several of the environmental impacts from shale gas could be worse than from any other options considered in the research, including coal. But, under the best-case conditions, shale gas may be preferable to imported liquefied natural gas.”
The authors say their results highlight the need for tight regulation of shale gas exploration – weak regulation, they claim, may result in shale gas having higher impacts than coal power, resulting in a failure to meet climate change and sustainability imperatives and undermining the deployment of low-carbon technologies.
Professor Azapagic added:
“Whether shale gas is an environmentally sound option depends on the perceived importance of different environmental impacts and the regulatory structure under which shale gas operates.
“From the government policy perspective – focusing mainly on economic growth and energy security – it appears likely that shale gas represents a good option for the UK energy sector, assuming that it can be extracted at reasonable cost.
“However, a wider view must also consider other aspects of widespread use of shale gas, including the impact on climate change, as well as many other environmental considerations addressed in our study. Ultimately, the environmental impacts from shale gas will depend on which options it is displacing and how tight the regulation is.”
Study co-author Dr Laurence Stamford, from Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, said: “Appropriate regulation should introduce stringent controls on the emissions from shale gas extraction and disposal of drilling waste. It should also discourage extraction from sites where there is little shale gas in order to avoid the high emissions associated with a low-output well.
He continued:
“If shale gas is extracted under tight regulations and is reasonably cheap, there is no obvious reason, as yet, why it should not make some contribution to our energy mix. However, regulation should also ensure that investment in sustainable technologies is not reduced at the expense of shale gas.”
The paper, ‘Life cycle environmental impacts of UK shale gas’ by L. Stamford and A. Azapagic, published in Applied Energy (doi 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.063), is available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914008745
From Stanford University – Stanford-led study assesses the environmental costs and benefits of fracking – September 13, 2014
A strange thing happened on the way to dealing with climate change: Advances in hydraulic fracturing put trillions of dollars’ worth of previously unreachable oil and natural gas within humanity’s grasp.
The environmental costs – and benefits – from “fracking,” which requires blasting huge amounts of water, sand and chemicals deep into underground rock formations, are the subject of new research that synthesizes 165 academic studies and government databases. The survey covers not only greenhouse gas impacts but also fracking’s influence on local air pollution, earthquakes and, especially, supplies of clean water.
The authors are seven environmental scientists who underscore the real consequences of policy decisions on people who live near the wells, as well as some important remaining questions.
“Society is certain to extract more gas and oil due to fracking,” said Stanford environmental scientist Robert Jackson, who led the new study. “The key is to reduce the environmental costs as much as possible, while making the most of the environmental benefits.”
Fracking’s consumption of water is rising quickly at a time when much of the United States is suffering from drought, but extracting natural gas with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling compares well with conventional energy sources, the study finds. Fracking requires more water than conventional gas drilling; but when natural gas is used in place of coal or nuclear fuel to generate electricity, it saves water. From mining to generation, coal power consumes more than twice the water per megawatt-hour generated than unconventional gas does.
Unconventional drilling’s water demand can be better or worse than alternative energy sources, the study finds. Photovoltaic solar and wind power use almost no water and emit no greenhouse gas, but cheap, abundant natural gas may limit their deployment as new sources of electricity. On the other hand, fracked gas requires less than a hundredth the water of corn ethanol per unit of energy.
Fracking’s impact on both climate change and local air pollution is similar to its impact on water, finds the study “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking,” published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
Getting a fractured well going is more intense than for conventional oil and gas drilling, with potential health threats arising from increases in volatile organic compounds and air toxics.
But when natural gas replaces coal as a fuel for generating electricity, the benefits to air quality include lower carbon dioxide emissions than coal and almost none of the mercury, sulfur dioxide or ash.
The study highlights several policies and practices that could optimize fracking’s environmental cost-benefit balance, and it highlights the need for further research. For example, the direct impact on the health of nearby residents is virtually unknown. “Almost no comprehensive research has been done on health effects,” said Jackson, “but decisions about drilling – both approvals and bans on fracking –are made all the time based on assumptions about health risks.”
And finally, from a political perspective, just how much support does the anti-fracking movement in Butte County have?
The “Frack Free Butte County” group tried to get their fellow citizens to fund their efforts via a crowd sourcing campaign. They only raised 9% of their expected goal:
Source: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/frack-free-butte-county
That speaks loudly when the citizenry can’t get behind it. It also suggests that the people who did contribute money (just 72 people) are limited to their friends and peers.
UPDATE: Via Tom Anderson in comments.
One interesting sidelight is that the EPA itself grudgingly confirmed in 2015 that fracking does not contaminate groundwater, barring mishap or poor practice.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf
About a year later, in January 21, 2016, the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board endorsed the agency’s findings and recommended its conclusions be stated less ambiguously. I think the agency is still trying to get out of that.
The study had further corroborated a study by the U.S. Department of Energy in which the researchers injected tracers into the hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no observable groundwater contamination after twelve months’ monitoring. It also confirmed reports by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Government Accountability Office, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, the University of Colorado, and the Groundwater Protection Council – to name just a few.
Summary and my best advice
· Fracking is not something that just started, it is a long and well proven process
· Fracking is safe, despite activist claims of flaming faucets and other nonsense
· Fracking is not a water hog in comparison to other industries
· Fracking has benefits, including reduced carbon dioxide and reduced PM2.5 particulates
· Fracking is an emotional issue that is soundly refuted by government and scientific studies
· Fracking is a tool being used improperly by activists to stifle energy production
If you pass a fracking ban, will it affect me? No. However it may affect landowners who may wish to develop or improve wells in the small pockets of natural gas near Willows. A ban may render their mineral rights moot.
But, as we already know, there is only a small amount of gas wells in Butte County, and some of those were enhanced with fracking (check well logs) though owners don’t want to admit it for fear of activists chaining themselves to well or other such things.
A ban probably won’t matter much in the scheme of production, but if passed it will be used as a political bandwagon tool.
A fracking ban will be just about as useless as the infamous “nuclear weapons ban” in Chico, but it will make some emotional folks feel good about themselves.
If I were to be in your position, I’d put it up to a vote of the people of Butte County, rather than approve a ban outright. I think you’ll find it has about as much support in the citizenry as the ill-fated attempt to ban Genetically Modified Food (GMO’s) a few years back.
Thank you for your consideration.
DISCLOSURE:
I have no interests, funds, ownership, business arrangements, or any connection of any kind to any activist or political group, nor any industry that relies on oil or gas exploration, drilling, or production.
I produced this report of my own volition, simply to help educate you on the issues as I have done for myself over the past few years. The outcome of your vote will not affect me in any way, personally or financially.
The opinions expressed are my own, the facts expressed stand on their own merit and are referenced by source.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The events in Weld County were widely reported in the 1980s. See for example here (from Google newspapers): https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19820417&id=msJaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZlkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3491,428893&hl=en
Much mention is made of fracking in connection with the Oklahoma-Kansas Earthquakes of late. Nary a word is spent on the fact that the earthquakes are all clustered around the southern end of a buried fault line, the Humboldt Fault, which parallels a buried escarpment called the Nemana Ridge. This is roughly parallel to the New Madrid Fault Zone in Missouri.
Kansas – April 24, 1867 – an unexpected earthquake measuring 5.1 on the Richter Scale struck. The epicenter was located in Manhattan, Kansas – at the northern end of the same fault/ridge system.
Fracking did not become common practice until the 1950’s.
“with not a single documented case of any fracking treatment polluting an aquifer.”
Complete bovine excrement.
It’s been proven MULTIPLE times.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/06/08/Water-Pollution-Fracking/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/epa-fracking-study_n_7511836.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater
Citing HuffPo or green blogs is only slightly better than POOMA. The EPA (under Obama!) tried to find examples of aquifer pollution, and failed.
Pat – you may have a valid comment but I would not take for fact a single thing written by any of the references you gave. It would be like believing the CBC in Canada provides un-biased reporting. Or that the Canadian NDP party hasn’t fractured over the weekend (pun intended for Canadian readers).
Now, around Fox Creek, Alberta there may have been some seismic activity related to fracturing recently, but it is monitored and not a big issue.
For JimGord – the content of fracturing fluids is proprietary so you are never going to have a company tell you exactly what is in it, the proportions and the exact process.
As for gas in well water, that has been known for hundreds of years. Medicine Hat Alberta developed their own gas plants as gas was so close to the surface – discovered in 1883 while drilling for water. Farmers in the area had gas in their wells for ages and if one were to do an online search – you might find pictures of how gas was captured and used in the “old” days though that is now illegal. Natural gas was tapped in many places that might surprise readers and in fact might show up in the debated on Global Warming since a northerner figured out he could grow a vegetable garden by putting pipes into the ground and burning natural gas to keep the area “warm”. Old wives tale – don’t know but there is documentation and photographs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Naumann
There may be (or may not be) fracturing failures, but anyone on this site is a petrochemical user. Just look at what you are using to type on and tell me it wasn’t produced using electricity/coal/gas/oil and plastics. There may be minor problems with the industry, but I don’t think wind turbines made from bamboo with coconut oil lubricants and transmitting electricity to our houses by magic is going to happen any time soon.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry will continue to work using the best available technology. Just like the biofuels companies – ethanol, wood waste, wood pelletizing. I wonder which industry produces the most CO2? Oh wait. It might be us as individuals – driving our cars, trucks and tractors to go to work, get groceries and develop our resources and provide food from transportation from afar and local farming and ranching. [We must put a stop to that 😉 /sarc off]
Well, now that the frost is gone, time to go rake my pastures (-3C this AM at 7:30, small fire still burning to take the sting off the house.)
Great article Antny. One to archive.
Got a government source, and study? Because you know if that’s true, the govvie would have been all over it like white on rice.
How could there be any documented report about fracking polluting an aquifer? Fracking is not covered by The Clean Water Act. It’s exempt.
According to Wikipedia, Fox’s Gasland received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary, Emmy nominations for Best Documentary, Writing, and Cinematography, an Emmy for Best Directing, and the Sundance Film Festival’s 2010 Special Jury Prize for Documentary. It also received a Writer’s Guild nomination for Best Documentary Screenplay and the Environmental Media Association Award for Best Documentary. For Gasland Part II, Fox received an Emmy nomination for news and documentary Best Research.
Fox has received a Lennon Ono Grant for Peace, five grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, and five grants from the Multi-Arts Program (MAP) Fund. He is also a paid public speaker.
When it comes to receiving fame and money, inconvenient facts about his videos are, as Fox says, “not relevant.”
None of those awards grade the content of his work. As someone who has been involved in fracing for a significant number of years I can say that his film “Gasland” was an utter and total lie from beginning to end.
Here are the “chemicals so harmful that it is illegal to disclose them:”
http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used
Please report this website to the proper authorities.
“Chemicals!!!” some like CHLORINE which you find being injected into your drinking water. And what is your exposure to those spent fracing chemicals over your lifetime? You have a greater chance of getting sick from city treated water than you will ever get from flowback water following a frac.
All industries use chemicals similar to those listed. Why don’t you go shut down the solar PV industry? The chemicals they use are significantly more toxic than what is shown on your list. Your sanctimonious side is showing.
A woman has more exposure to carcinogens putting her makeup “one time” than she will expose herself to in a lifetime of exposure to frac chemicals.
nutso fasst you need to start doing some serious thinking with your head rather than using it as a rectal inspection tool. Always question everything. Be skeptical. Explore options. Common sense will tell you that many of your beliefs are just rubbish.
SMS, you obviously have no clue as to my beliefs. Suggest you read more carefully before contriving inappropriate responses to imaginary foes.
Not much substance to that response. Can you tell me how many of those chemicals listed are used in frac fluid specifically and not for other purposes? Can you give me a list of the chemicals used in the PV industry? If not, you are basing your ideas about fracing on biases developed through your far left readings.
Yes, I may have been a little harsh in my response but I do get so tired of people like yourself blathering on without an idea of what they are talking about. Why don’t you go down to the nearest Halliburton or Schlumberger office and ask some questions. Ask some hard questions.
“People like yourself blathering on?” What a laugh. Look in a mirror, bud.
My point with Fox is that he’s like a lesser Gore, a darling of an awards cabal who spews what they want to believe and gets paid for it. My point with my other post is that–contrary to the silly claim by JimGord (whom I quoted)–there is good fracing information online. Anything beyond that has been invented by your vicious little mind that apparently self-congratulates for not-so-clever ad hominem attacks on imaginary foes whose motives you surmise.
I claim no fracing expertise. Since you do, how about telling me where the FracFocus.org website fails to provide accurate information. Download the database and add substantive information regarding the toxicity and environmental lifetime of each chemical.
Or would you prefer that the listed substances be, as JimGord claimed, “illegal to disclose?”
BTW, the word “chemical” seems to annoy you. Are you not aware that H2O, the primary fracing substance, fits the definition of “chemical?”
Blather on, tedious gadfly.
Hmm, I should check who’s logged in before posting. Obviously the previous comment was from me.
“I should check who’s logged in before posting.”
Yes, nutso, you definitely should. Especially when trading insults. ☺
nutso fasst/verdeviewer, Please tell me where any of those chemicals are found in a toxic or lethal dose due to fracing. Please tell me how geomechanically they can migrate from a formation 12,000′ or so below the fresh water aquifers. What economic reason would oil and gas companies have for fracing into a fresh water aquifer when there is no profit to gain and only ruin that can follow.
Josh Fox lied repeatedly in his silly movie. Similar to Al Gore in his silly movie. And there will always be Henny Penny’s who will not question but believe all with a faith born out of ignorance.
Thanx. At least there is one sane person here.
[Funny. The mods thought you claimed that no one here disagreed with reality. .mod]
Scientifically illiterate “Earth Mamas” fret about what is happening below the surface but the biggest potential issues with fracking are what happens on or above the surface. Spills up top are the real risk. Everything else is noise.
Consider forthrightly acknowledging the Pavilion fiasco. You can’t quite truthfully say, “…more than two million fracking treatments have been drilled and pumped with not a single documented case of any fracking treatment polluting an aquifer,” without acknowledging Pavilion. It did pollute the groundwater. Very shallow wells like Pavilion are extremely rare, and ought not be fracked because of their proximity to groundwater. We can add regulation prohibiting that practice. It remains safe to frack all the usual deep resource plays. Not acknowledging Pavilion offers an unnecessary attack surface.
I believe you need to go back and review this study again. The EPA did two studies. In the first the EPA was contaminating their own samples and were shown to be doing so. The subsequent study at Pavillion showed no contamination to local aquifers. In the end, the Federal EPA threw up it’s hands when they couldn’t find any contamination and turned the investigation to the Wyoming EPA.
So I do not acknowledge Pavillion, and neither should you.
The former lead investigator for EPA disagreed and published a recent study. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04970. You can’t ignore it. And it’s reasonable to expect there to be fracture communication from shallow wells to groundwater. Why not just acknowledge it and fight the real fight? To do otherwise is unreasonable.
Why don’t you read this instead: http://energyindepth.org/mtn-states/state-investigation-finds-fracking-unlikely-to-have-contaminated-water-in-pavillion-wy/
Under what circumstances to you believe that frac fluids could enter shallow fresh water aquifers? What geomechanics would allow such an intrusion?
Oil companies do not want to contaminate fresh water aquifers. They have no incentive to do so. Fracs are very expensive and to suggest that shallow aquifers are contaminated would suggest that it would have to have been done of purpose. I see no reason; geomechanical or profit that would lead an oil company to do what you and others are suggesting.
You’re missing the point, SMS. There’s a credible, fresh study out there. There are reasons to dispute it. Anthony’s article should dispute it, not pretend it doesn’t exist.
The study you refer to is not credible unless it can answer the geomechanical and profit question.
How come this site is so one sided in its opinion? I hardly ever see a dissenting thought. Has it occurred to anybody here that you all might be wrong and the 97% might be right?
bobthebear
Let us assume 5% of the comments here are CAGW alarmist/97% agree-with-government-paid-authority. It is probably 10%, but let us be skeptical.
1,755,200 comments. 5% agree with the government-paid, self-called, “climate scientists” getting paid 97% of the grant receipts.
90,000 pro-AGW alarmist comments or criticisms.
And not one of them has proved true. Been true when analyzed.
Yet your CAGW demands ARE killing millions now, causing proven harm to billions. To “prevent” a potential benefit in a future in 85 years by causing 85 years of proven, known absolute futures of catastrophe and damage and harm. That has less than a 5% chance of occurring at all.
RACook: You are pulling numbers out of thin air and making assumptions that have no validity in real life. 5%, 10%, killing millions, causing proven harm to billions; what kind of nonsense are you promoting?
Andy: I previously did some research of my own and agree with most of what you wrote. Two exceptions:
Hard rock mining has caused extensive environmental damage in some locations because water leaches toxic materials (that were formerly buried safely underground) from mine tailings. In fracking, the mine tailings remain safely underground, but we needed to be concerned with the fracking fluid that has been leaching the fragmented shale deep underground. That water contains hydrocarbons and possibly toxic metals from the shale. So the fracking fluid that returns to the surface CAN be more dangerous than the fluid that went into the well.
The chance that fracking deep underground will allow fracking fluids to reach shallow drinking water aquifers seems remote, but the casings where a well passes though an aquifer are a point of vulnerability. Unfortunately, wells dug decades ago didn’t protect this point of aquifer vulnerability. The ground around the infamous Pavilion fracking site, for example, is honeycombed with numerous old oil wells (and surface pits where waste was improperly disposed in the past).