It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Yesterday, June 4th, the EPA came out and said that after a four year study, that water contamination from fracking is not widespread.



Taken from The Wall Street Journal - Fracking Has Had No ‘Widespread’ Impact on Drinking Water, EPA Finds
Fracking isn’t causing widespread damage to the nation’s drinking water, the Obama administration said in a long-awaited report released Thursday.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—after a four-year study that is the U.S. government’s most comprehensive examination of the issue to date—concluded that hydraulic fracturing, as being carried out by industry and regulated by states, isn’t having “widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water.”



So even though there are countless posts here at ATS concerning this, it seems that the EPA has spoken, pockets were lined with money from the lobbyists, and the fracking community won.

So you may want to start bottling and storing water before there is none left that isn't contaminated.

Thank you for protecting the environment EPA. Thank you.

Related Links:

Haliburton Subpoenaed by EPA For Fracking Fluids, page 1

EPA finds fracking chemicals in Wyoming groundwater

3 Billion Gallons of Fracking Wastewater 'Accidentally' Pumped Into California Aquifer

Study Finds Radioactive Fracking Water In Stream

Fracking and drinking water map shows where contamination may be

Nebraska man offers "fracking polluted water" to Oil & Gas commissioners

Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water.

edit on 5-6-2015 by xmaddness because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xmaddness

I think the EPA ruling solidifies who really pulls the strings in DC and it sure ain't the citizens that are affected by the actions of Big business, especially energy companies.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xmaddness


So even though there are countless posts here at ATS concerning this, it seems that the EPA has spoken, pockets were lined with money from the lobbyists, and the fracking community won.


Yep, countless posts on ATS....That mean nothing but hear-say and speculation....

It has been proven MANY times that fracking has no drinking/underwater contamination factors involved...But ATS have people they talk to or read on a website about contamination and all of a sudden it is true....I stopped arguing because people just believe what people tell them, but I live in south-western PA and we have wells everywhere, EVERYWHERE, and every person in our families have well water to drink and nobody that I know has any issues with drinking water! My grandma has 17 gas wells on her property, 2 as close as a few hundred yards away and her water well is nearby also and her water has been tested many times with no issues, and tastes amazing!

I feel bad for people who have no idea on the topic and just spout nonsense because they don't know....



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
B$!

God only knows how they define widespread.

This is the WSJ, and they only like to run stories that are good for the stock market. Running stories that paint the big industries who are responsible for the maddness will hurt their value.

I think the bottom line is the White House is also under an order to 'protect the economy', the economy being big oil, big pharma and friends.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xmaddness

Does anybody else notice the distinction between drinking water and groundwater ?

I guess they aren't including drinking water that comes from Wells ?
edit on 5-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

If, as you say, "fracking has no drinking/underwater contamination factors involved", then why was one gas company forced to pay more than 4 million dollars in a settlement having to due with fracking water contamination?

I mean, from your standpoint it is completely obvious that it had nothing to do with fracking....

Maybe the fracking companies lawyers were just horrible at their job??

I mean, if it's that obvious, then it MUST be because the lawyers for the gas company were just completely useless....

Or you are just defending the fracking because your family is having their pockets lined as well?




My grandma has 17 gas wells on her property


Sounds like a nice pay day to me...
edit on 5-6-2015 by xmaddness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Bold statement , Can we talk about the underline problem ? that being why we cant seem to break away from fossil fuels ?


you make claim it has no impact on the "water " but what about the environment from the fuel that is used ?

ether way you look at it the end result is bad for health and environment .
edit on 5-6-2015 by Kapusta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xmaddness

OK so this is going to be off topic and I am sorry OP...........Take a good hard look and apply the logic learned here and put it in context with other arguments like GMO foods and Monsanto.




These government agencies and labs are 100% corrupt. Employes floating back and forth between government and private jobs is tell tale sign.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Carefully chosen words. Widespread, wth does that mean, OK they are most likely telling the truth if your talking the entire nation, now round that down to just the states that are doing the fracking, and lets see if its widespread. And how do they even know what they are looking for, when the companies wont even acknowledge or say what chemicals are being used. EPA is a total PR scam



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Released Thursday so the EPA employees making the decision could go on Friday to deposit their extra checks in the bank. I bet some of them sent the money to Switzerland.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Before everybody goes ballistic over the headline here - trying looking at a few other sources for a little more perspective first:

EPA study: Fracking hasn't widely harmed our drinking water — but it does pose risks

EPA report: Fracking has caused isolated, not widespread, water pollution

Or better yet - just look at the actual report itself:


Conclusions

Through this national-level assessment, we have identified potential mechanisms by which
hydraulic fracturing could affect drinking water resources. Above ground mechanisms can affect
surface and ground water resources and include water withdrawals at times or in locations of low
water availability, spills of hydraulic fracturing fluid and chemicals or produced water, and
inadequate treatment and discharge of hydraulic fracturing wastewater. Below ground mechanisms
include movement of liquids and gases via the production well into underground drinking water
resources and movement of liquids and gases from the fracture zone to these resources via
pathways in subsurface rock formations.

We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
we found specific instances where one or more of these mechanisms led to impacts on drinking
water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The cases occurred during both
routine activities and accidents and have resulted in impacts to surface or ground water. Spills of
hydraulic fracturing fluid and produced water in certain cases have reached drinking water
resources, both surface and ground water. Discharge of treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater has
increased contaminant concentrations in receiving surface waters. Below ground movement of
fluids, including gas, most likely via the production well, have contaminated drinking water
resources. In some cases, hydraulic fracturing fluids have also been directly injected into drinking
water resources, as defined in this assessment, to produce oil or gas that co-exists in those
formations.


The real story is a lot more complicated than some right wing fishwrap like the Wall Street Journal tries to make it out to be.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Okay. I' m confused. The government is the only body that can help us so we must have governmental controlled healthcare and regulations and the government must force people to bake cakes because only the government has the ability to protect us, except when we don't like what the government says?


Is that about right?



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
So fracking doesn't cause it, I think we all knew that (right?). What causes some contaminations are companies taking shortcuts and not following the rules. As stated earlier though, internet fear spreads and people parrot what they hear without understanding. It happens.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm still chewing through the actual report, but here's some more choice bits (my bold):


The frequency of on-site spills from hydraulic fracturing could be estimated for two states, but not for operations nationally or for other areas. Frequency estimates from data and literature ranged from one spill for every 100 wells in Colorado to between approximately 0.4 and 12.2 spills for every 100 wells in Pennsylvania. These estimates include spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals, and produced water reported in state databases. Available data generally precluded estimates of hydraulic fracturing fluid and/or chemical spill rates separately from estimates of an overall spill frequency. It is unknown whether these spill estimates are representative of national occurrences. If the estimates are representative, the number of spills nationally could range from approximately 100 to 3,700 spills annually, assuming 25,000 to 30,000 new wells are fractured per year.

The EPA characterized volumes and causes of hydraulic fracturing-related spills identified from selected state and industry data sources. The spills occurred between January 2006 and April 2012 in 11 states and included 151 cases in which fracturing fluids or chemicals spilled on or near a well pad. Due to the methods used for the EPA’s characterization of spills, these cases were likely a subset of all fracturing fluid and chemical spills during the study’s time period.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: xmaddness


So even though there are countless posts here at ATS concerning this, it seems that the EPA has spoken, pockets were lined with money from the lobbyists, and the fracking community won.


Yep, countless posts on ATS....That mean nothing but hear-say and speculation....

It has been proven MANY times that fracking has no drinking/underwater contamination factors involved...But ATS have people they talk to or read on a website about contamination and all of a sudden it is true....I stopped arguing because people just believe what people tell them, but I live in south-western PA and we have wells everywhere, EVERYWHERE, and every person in our families have well water to drink and nobody that I know has any issues with drinking water! My grandma has 17 gas wells on her property, 2 as close as a few hundred yards away and her water well is nearby also and her water has been tested many times with no issues, and tastes amazing!

I feel bad for people who have no idea on the topic and just spout nonsense because they don't know....


So could you please post a video of you going and getting a few glasses of fracking water and could you then please drink them on camera? Only after I watch you drink a few glasses of toxic waste, will I even consider the possibility for myself.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Okay. I' m confused. The government is the only body that can help us so we must have governmental controlled healthcare and regulations and the government must force people to bake cakes because only the government has the ability to protect us, except when we don't like what the government says?


Is that about right?


I'm a Liberal who doesn't trust the government. You know why? Because industry has their greasy paws all over the government. Here's an interesting comment from the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette article I linked above:


I was on the call the EPA held back when it launched the study. The EPA representatives on that call explained that the retrospective portion of the study would provide helpful information, but that the prospective portion would be the centerpiece of the study because it would provide baseline data against which follow-up tests could be compared over the course of the study. The industry blocked the prospective part of the study, however, and it was eventually dropped.


So what's your solution though - just hand the keys over to that same industry corrupting the government, and expect everything to be hunky dory? We need accountability, which starts with an informed electorate that actually cares and holds their representatives responsible.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Okay. I' m confused. The government is the only body that can help us so we must have governmental controlled healthcare and regulations and the government must force people to bake cakes because only the government has the ability to protect us, except when we don't like what the government says?


Is that about right?


I'm a Liberal who doesn't trust the government. You know why? Because industry has their greasy paws all over the government. Here's an interesting comment from the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette article I linked above:


I was on the call the EPA held back when it launched the study. The EPA representatives on that call explained that the retrospective portion of the study would provide helpful information, but that the prospective portion would be the centerpiece of the study because it would provide baseline data against which follow-up tests could be compared over the course of the study. The industry blocked the prospective part of the study, however, and it was eventually dropped.


So what's your solution though - just hand the keys over to that same industry corrupting the government, and expect everything to be hunky dory? We need accountability, which starts with an informed electorate that actually cares and holds their representatives responsible.


So is more government the answer or not?



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

It is not that simple.

We need a economic revolution. The economy still depends on destroying the planet for profit.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: xmaddness


So even though there are countless posts here at ATS concerning this, it seems that the EPA has spoken, pockets were lined with money from the lobbyists, and the fracking community won.


Yep, countless posts on ATS....That mean nothing but hear-say and speculation....

It has been proven MANY times that fracking has no drinking/underwater contamination factors involved...But ATS have people they talk to or read on a website about contamination and all of a sudden it is true....I stopped arguing because people just believe what people tell them, but I live in south-western PA and we have wells everywhere, EVERYWHERE, and every person in our families have well water to drink and nobody that I know has any issues with drinking water! My grandma has 17 gas wells on her property, 2 as close as a few hundred yards away and her water well is nearby also and her water has been tested many times with no issues, and tastes amazing!

I feel bad for people who have no idea on the topic and just spout nonsense because they don't know....


So could you please post a video of you going and getting a few glasses of fracking water and could you then please drink them on camera? Only after I watch you drink a few glasses of toxic waste, will I even consider the possibility for myself.


I actually have drank thousands of gallons of well water from high fracted areas. I wire and shoot explosives in wells that the fract crews then fracture the sediment through. If you were in a helicopter where I work say two thousand feet off the ground you would see a landscape absolutely riddled with wells.


Fracturing occurs at least 13k feet. Yes over two miles deep (unless it's a vertical well(different story there)). The water I drink from wells come from about 500 feet deep. The two levels are separated by hundreds of formations which even if fract water seeped up would purify and filter the migration.


No I'm not taking a video of myself drinking water and putting it anywhere on the web. Take it off of faith im not lying... Or not



What I am actually opposed to is water re injection practices. That is what people should be up in arms about.
edit on 5-6-2015 by Legman because: Big thumbs little phone



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: xmaddness


So even though there are countless posts here at ATS concerning this, it seems that the EPA has spoken, pockets were lined with money from the lobbyists, and the fracking community won.


Yep, countless posts on ATS....That mean nothing but hear-say and speculation....

It has been proven MANY times that fracking has no drinking/underwater contamination factors involved...But ATS have people they talk to or read on a website about contamination and all of a sudden it is true....I stopped arguing because people just believe what people tell them, but I live in south-western PA and we have wells everywhere, EVERYWHERE, and every person in our families have well water to drink and nobody that I know has any issues with drinking water! My grandma has 17 gas wells on her property, 2 as close as a few hundred yards away and her water well is nearby also and her water has been tested many times with no issues, and tastes amazing!

I feel bad for people who have no idea on the topic and just spout nonsense because they don't know....


So could you please post a video of you going and getting a few glasses of fracking water and could you then please drink them on camera? Only after I watch you drink a few glasses of toxic waste, will I even consider the possibility for myself.

Who would do that!? I wouldn't drink well water without knowing what is in it. I wouldn't even drink water out of a river! Unless you were talking about groundwater around fracking sites that then goes on to be treated?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join