Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water

35 views
Skip to first unread message

VegasJerry

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 9:00:39 AM12/14/16
to
Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water

By CORAL DAVENPORT DEC. 13, 2016

nytimes.com | Dec. 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas extraction technique also known as fracking, has contaminated drinking water in some circumstances, according to the final version of a comprehensive study first issued in 2015.

The new version is far more worrying than the first, which found “no evidence that fracking systemically contaminates water” supplies. In a significant change, that conclusion was deleted from the final study.

“E.P.A. scientists chose not to include that sentence. The scientists concluded it could not be quantitatively supported,” said Thomas A. Burke, the E.P.A.’s science adviser, and deputy assistant administrator of the agency’s Office of Research and Development.

The report, the largest and most comprehensive of its kind to date on the effects of fracking on water supply, comes as President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to expand fracking and roll back existing regulations on the process. His choice to run the E.P.A., Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, has built his career on fighting E.P.A. regulations on energy exploration.

Among Mr. Trump’s key energy policy advisers are Harold Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Resources, an energy firm that has been at the forefront of the fracking boom, and Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota, a state transformed by fracking.

Now that team must contend with scientific findings that urge caution in an energy sector that Mr. Trump wants to untether. Mr. Burke said that the new report found evidence that fracking has contributed to drinking water contamination in all stages of the process: acquiring water to be used for fracking, mixing the water with chemical additives to make fracking fluids, injecting the chemical fluids underground, collecting the wastewater that flows out of fracking wells after injections, and storing the used wastewater.

Still, Mr. Burke said that the report remained “full of gaps and holes,” and that the issue required far more study. He declined to offer policy recommendations based on the study, saying that it will “give a lot of information to help communities and decision makers do better in protecting water supplies.”

What kind of audience the new team of decision makers will be seems clear. In September, Mr. Trump promised a corporate conference of fracking executives in Pittsburgh: “The shale energy revolution will unleash massive wealth for America,” as he vowed to end regulations on fracking.

“I think probably no other business has been affected by regulation than your business,” he told the gas executives. “Federal regulations remain a major restriction to shale production.”

Fracking is subject to only light federal regulations. The Obama administration has put forth one rule intended to protect water from fracking waste. But that rule applies only to fracking on public lands, which hold about 100,000 fracking wells — representing about 10 percent of all fracking in the United States. The vast majority of fracking occurs on state or private land and is governed by state and local regulations.

Environmentalists seized on the new report as evidence that the federal government should strengthen federal protections on fracking.

“This report acknowledges what far too many communities across this country know to be true — fracking is a threat to our clean drinking water,” said Madeleine Foote, the legislative representative for the League of Conservation Voters.

“Given E.P.A. administrator nominee Scott Pruitt’s record of fighting fracking regulations, it will be important during the confirmation process for senators to ask him if he will follow the recommendations of his agency’s scientists, or continue to rely on industry spin,” she said.

Fracking advocates dismissed the report. “Even the new statement is still consistent with the finding that contamination attributable to shale development is neither widespread nor systemic,” Scott H. Segal, a fossil fuel lobbyist with the firm Bracewell Law LLP, wrote in an email. “But evidence of contamination is highly anecdotal and often overblown by the exaggeration often associated with litigation. The vast majority of third-party professional organizations and governmental officials have found shale development to be highly consistent with environmental protection and energy policy objectives.”

The E.P.A has been working on the report since 2010, when it was requested by Congress. Mr. Burke called the study unprecedented in scope and depth, saying it included a review of over 1,000 existing studies as well as new research, modeling and analysis conducted by E.P.A scientists. In the process of completing the study, the E.P.A. produced 13 peer-reviewed reports and published as many studies in scientific journals.

© 2016 The New York Times Company

da pickle

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 9:28:08 AM12/14/16
to
On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water

They did not reverse course.

They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.

If fracking in a specific instance significantly contaminates drinking
water in a community, do not allow fracking in that area. It is not
that hard.





VegasJerry

unread,
Dec 14, 2016, 9:32:33 AM12/14/16
to
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:28:08 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
>
> They did not reverse course.
>
> They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.

ERGO; reversing course.

> If fracking in a specific instance significantly

"Significantly?"

> contaminates drinking water in a community, do not allow fracking
> in that area. It is not that hard.

What part of 2-late don't you understand?




BTSinAustin

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 9:16:01 AM12/15/16
to
Fracking is no more and no less dangerous to the environment than it's ever been. You know fracking is not new, right? It's been going on for many decades. Traditional shallow verticle fracking is a lot more likely to cause problems. The odds of any fracking fluids getting into groundwater from shale are minuscule. The odds of surface water contamination are about the same as any industrial process that makes dirty water. Drilling for hydrocarbons is a dirty business no matter if fracking is involved or not. It's up to the operator and the fates. There are bad actors, Chesapeake got busted a few years back illegally dumping dirty water. Bad news.

It remains to be seen how Trump's administration will deal with this. If the nominated EPA guy turns a blind eye as predicted, it could get ugly. But not fracking, drilling in general.




VegasJerry

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 10:26:22 AM12/15/16
to
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:16:01 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-6, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:28:08 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> > > On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
> > >
> > > They did not reverse course.
> > >
> > > They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.
> >
> > ERGO; reversing course.
> >
> > > If fracking in a specific instance significantly
> >
> > "Significantly?"
> >
> > > contaminates drinking water in a community, do not allow fracking
> > > in that area. It is not that hard.
> >
> > What part of 2-late don't you understand?

> Fracking is no more and no less dangerous to the environment than it's ever been.

Well that’s an improvement over, “It’s no danger at all.” But “2-late” for some, right?

> You know fracking is not new, right?

You do know your positon had been, “It’s no danger at all,” right?

> It's been going on for many decades.

And dangerous all that time.

> Traditional shallow verticle fracking is a lot more likely to cause problems.

As compared to, no problems at all?

> The odds of any fracking fluids getting into groundwater from shale are minuscule.

As compared to, impossible?

> The odds of surface water contamination are about the same as any industrial
> process that makes dirty water. Drilling for hydrocarbons is a dirty business no
> are bad actors, Chesapeake got busted a few years back illegally dumping dirty
> water. Bad news.

That was the point from the very start. The position; “It’s impossible that fracking is causing a problem so we have no need in changing our construction or procedure; and no need to reveal what chemicals we’re using.” (So you can identify the shit you’re finding in your water).

And this on top of the fact the industry went around that Idiot Bush and directly to Dick Cheney – an oil man – and get secret permission, at a secret meeting, in the VP’s Office, to go around EPA rules. And not have to reveal the poisons they pumped into the ground.

Pay the bill.

> It remains to be seen how Trump's administration will deal with this.
> If the nominated EPA guy turns a blind eye as predicted, it could get ugly.
> But not fracking, drilling in general.

Jerry ‘n Vegas

Joe Turner

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 10:44:33 AM12/15/16
to

risky biz

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 11:16:59 AM12/15/16
to
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:28:08 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
>
> They did not reverse course.

It is a reversal from “no evidence that fracking systemically contaminates water”. It turns out there is evidence rather than no evidence. English, Sparky.

> They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.
>
> If fracking in a specific instance significantly contaminates drinking
> water in a community, do not allow fracking in that area. It is not
> that hard.

Once it's contaminated it's contaminated. You don't find out until it's too late. It would maybe make sense if it's scientifically determined beforehand that there's a high probability that it's safe in a particular area. No one, of course, would be able to determine that given your agenda which is to oppose science at any cost.

Sheesh. You'll say anything to oppose whatever makes any common sense. All so a limited supply of oil can be pumped out and shipped to foreign buyers to make a tiny group of individuals extremely wealthy before it is depleted. Like Harold Hamm, for example. Trump's energy advisor. For some bizarre reason you seem to think you're Harold Hamm. He gets the keys to the kingdom and you, 'travel', and Irish Mike get words. What a trio of old fools.

risky biz

unread,
Dec 15, 2016, 11:21:22 AM12/15/16
to
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:16:01 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-6, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:28:08 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> > > On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
> > >
> > > They did not reverse course.
> > >
> > > They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.
> >
> > ERGO; reversing course.
> >
> > > If fracking in a specific instance significantly
> >
> > "Significantly?"
> >
> > > contaminates drinking water in a community, do not allow fracking
> > > in that area. It is not that hard.
> >
> > What part of 2-late don't you understand?
>
> Fracking is no more and no less dangerous to the environment than it's ever been. You know fracking is not new, right? It's been going on for many decades. Traditional shallow verticle fracking is a lot more likely to cause problems. The odds of any fracking fluids getting into groundwater from shale are minuscule. The odds of surface water contamination are about the same as any industrial process that makes dirty water. Drilling for hydrocarbons is a dirty business no matter if fracking is involved or not. It's up to the operator and the fates. There are bad actors, Chesapeake got busted a few years back illegally dumping dirty water. Bad news.

Damn. That's a lot of generalities in one paragraph.

~ It remains to be seen how Trump's administration will deal with this. If the nominated EPA guy turns a blind eye as predicted, it could get ugly. But not fracking, drilling in general.

You don't pick up clues really fast, do you?
'Among Mr. Trump’s key energy policy advisers are Harold Hamm, the chief executive of Continental Resources, an energy firm that has been at the forefront of the fracking boom . .'

Irish Ranger

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 4:12:47 PM12/16/16
to
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 10:26:22 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 6:16:01 AM UTC-8, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 8:32:33 AM UTC-6, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 6:28:08 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
> > > > On 12/14/2016 8:00 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > > > > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
> > > >
> > > > They did not reverse course.
> > > >
> > > > They said they found instances where fracking contaminated drinking water.
> > >
> > > ERGO; reversing course.
> > >
> > > > If fracking in a specific instance significantly
> > >
> > > "Significantly?"
> > >
> > > > contaminates drinking water in a community, do not allow fracking
> > > > in that area. It is not that hard.
> > >
> > > What part of 2-late don't you understand?

Well Gas bag how does it compare to the 3,000,000 gallons of contaminated sludge Obama's
EPA "accidentally" dumped into the Animas river in Southwest Colorado?

"In an event that has led to health warnings and turned a river orange, the Environmental Protection Agency says one of its safety teams accidentally released contaminated water from a mine into the Animas River in southwest Colorado.

The spill, which sent heavy metals, arsenic and other contaminants into a waterway that flows into the San Juan National Forest, occurred Wednesday. The EPA initially said 1 million gallons of wastewater had been released, but that figure has risen sharply."

Go ahead Gas Bag, try to lie your way out of this one. And don't forget to tell us again how Hillary never told a lie and if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan. And tell us again about that big house you live in and how you're a high stakes poker player and all those poker
rooms are fighting to get your business. LMAO!

Irish Mike


VegasJerry

unread,
Dec 16, 2016, 8:05:04 PM12/16/16
to
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 1:12:47 PM UTC-8, Irish Ranger wrote:
> > > Spare us the sour grapes Gas Bag....

> > Knew you couldn't.
> > Knew you'd be embarrassed.
> > Knew you Cut & Paste your embarrassment.
> >
> > I win.
> >
> > Jerry (put away the asshole again) 'n Vegas

> You are one pathetic..

Dodge. Whine. Whimper.

You’re still disgraced.
You still couldn’t.
You’re still embarrassed.
You still Cut & Paste.
You’re still a pathetic loser.

“Where’s the list?”

WHA! HA~HA! Poor Stupid Irish Mick…

J..
0 new messages