Fracktilious

While we know that methane does decompose in the atmosphere, it has more twenty times the radiation trapping power of carbon dioxide as it rises into the atmosphere to accelerate the greenhouse effect. And besides the massive release of methane resulting from climate-change warming that melts organic tundra, heavily laced with that gas, natural phenomenon also release methane as well. An earthquake for example: “Methane seeps and hydrates pair up with subduction zones around the world. These zones are areas where one of Earth's tectonic plates dives beneath another and where some of the world's strongest earthquakes occur. The incredible pressure from the colliding plates squeezes methane out of seafloor mud and folds the sedimentary layers into ridges — the perfect environment for natural gas deposits.” LiveScience.com, July 28^th.

But some of man’s actions, in searching for oil and gas, mimic this natural occurrence. “Induced hydraulic fracturing orhydrofracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures (typically less than 1mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum and brine water may migrate to the well.” These fractures release pockets of fossil fuels, mostly natural gas but oil deposits as well, a good deal of which leaks into the atmosphere and is not captured. Since natural gas is mostly methane…

And then there are the “chemicals” – which the so-called Halliburton exemption (guess how this exception crept into the law?!) to environmental protection statutes excepts from disclosure or control – that have caused many communities of the thousands located near fracking sites to complain about irrigation and drinking water toxicity from local groundwater. But since fracking is paving the way to make the United States the second largest producer of oil (behind Saudi Arabia) and the leading producer of natural gas in the world, this newfound energy “independence” is making environmental limitations take a back seat, water well toxicity and global warming notwithstanding.

For the most part, the companies involved in fracking have consistently denied that they are harming groundwater used for consumption and irrigation. Under pressure from many local communities, however, and notwithstanding the Halliburton exemption that makes investigation more difficult, the Environmental Protection Agency recently agreed to begin assessing water quality near fracking sites. Even at this preliminary stage of the EPA inquiry, what they found is anything but reassuring. The EPA checked out Dimock, Pennsylvania, the little community depicted in the Gasland documentary showing water faucets that you can light with a match when they are turned on.

Of course, the EPA found methane that was produced by the fracking itself, something that was denied by the company engaged in looking for fossil fuel. “The findings contradict Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., which drilled in the town and said the explosive methane gas was naturally occurring… Drilling for natural gas caused ‘significant damage’ to drinking-water aquifers in a Pennsylvania town at the center of a fight over the safety of hydraulic fracturing, according to a report prepared by a federal official…

 “Gas production in Pennsylvania surged in the past few years as companies expanded their use of fracking. The Marcellus Shale is about 5,000 feet under Pennsylvania, separated by thick rock layers from water aquifers, which are at most a few hundred feet beneath the surface… The surge in fracking has been accompanied by complaints from many homeowners who say their water has been contaminated, resulting in sick children, dead livestock and flammable tap water. Industry groups representing companies say evidence has failed to establish that water contamination is tied to fracking.” The Washington Post, July 29^th. What exactly are those “chemicals” used in fracking? They don’t have to tell us.

So now that the EPA has this evidence, it must be ready to start applying new regulations and solving the environmental issues, their mandate for existence, right? Life and death stuff. “The report ‘is a preliminary evaluation that requires additional assessment in order to ascertain its quality and validity,’ Alisha Johnson, an EPA spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. ‘The data and conclusions have not been peer-reviewed and do not in any way reflect an official agency position.’ …The EPA will consider this information as part of its ongoing study of the impact of fracking on drinking water, she said.” The Post. Ah, America does love its energy “independence.” So what if a few thousand… hundred thousand?... folks get sick or die before their time. That’s just life. Or not life.

I’m Peter Dekom, and do you rely on local groundwater that is near a fracking site?