Friday, June 12, 2015

What the Frack, EPA?

‘‘The EPA acknowledged that it was hampered in its assessment by inadequate data [but] the report could help ease immediate concerns about damage to water supplies in the areas where fracking is underway.’’ 

I'm feeling better already!

"Fracking gets mixed review from EPA; Thus far, limited damage found in drinking water" by Joby Warrick Washington Post  June 05, 2015

WASHINGTON — The most extensive government review of US ‘‘fracking’’ practices has found no evidence of widespread damage to drinking-water supplies, but it warned of the potential for contamination from the controversial technique used in oil and gas drilling. 

I'm so glad this government and the propaganda pre$$ are looking out for you and I. This is the one area where you can believe they mean to do good. Just ignore all the lies about, well, nearly everything else.

The draft study by the Environmental Protection Agency linked fracking to a few cases of water pollution but said the problems appeared so far to be isolated. It cautioned that a number of fracking-related activities carry a risk of polluting wells and aquifers used for drinking and farming.


Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves the injection of liquids into underground rock layers at high pressure to extract oil and gas trapped inside. It has spurred huge increases in US oil and gas production in the past five years.

The report could help ease immediate concerns about damage to water supplies in the areas where fracking is underway. New York recently banned fracking in part because of fears of risks to groundwater.

‘‘We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States,’’ said the report’s executive summary, released on Thursday. While there are documented cases of contamination, the report said, the problem is ‘‘small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.’’

Thank you. I will no longer worry, and let's get to building that pipeline (that may not be needed after all)!

Energy trade groups and environmentalists reached starkly different conclusions about the report’s central message.

What more mixed me$$ages for the debate as the $tatu$ quo is maintained?

The American Petroleum Institute called the study a validation of the energy industry’s contention that fracking poses little risk to drinking water.

‘‘After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by EPA confirms what the agency has already acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known,’’ said Erik Milito, director of the institute’s Upstream Group. ‘‘Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices.’’

You see? Nothing to worry about. Now drink up!

Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, said the report ‘‘confirms what millions of Americans already know: that dirty oil and gas fracking contaminates drinking water.’’ He, however, criticized the report for failing to adequately consider the full range of impacts to communities.

EPA says no, so....

The EPA acknowledged that it was hampered in its assessment by inadequate data, preventing experts from reaching firm conclusions about whether contaminants in an individual well came from fracking or another source.

Say what?

‘‘This study was hobbled by the oil industry’s refusal to provide key data,’’ said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. ‘‘The EPA found disturbing evidence of fracking polluting our water despite not looking very hard.’’

They wouldn't do that!

The report’s conclusions stressed that many fracking-related activities ‘‘have the potential’’ to affect drinking water. ‘‘Water sources may be vulnerable to impacts, and these vulnerabilities should be considered,’’ EPA science adviser Thomas Burke said. 

I don't worry about what might happen when I'm so damn thirsty.

'course, once the groundwater is poisoned that's it. It's not like you can go clean it up and reverse it. That's it. 

The study cited the possibility of spills of wastewater stored above ground and the leaking of pollutants from poorly constructed wellheads and casings. Some of the most significant risks to water supplies could occur far from the oil and gas wells themselves, it said.


‘‘A truck carrying wastewater could spill, or a release of inadequately treated wastewater could have downstream effects,’’ the report said.

The report results from a nearly five-year effort by the EPA to analyze technical data from thousands of fracking operations and nearby aquifers around the country. The study was ordered by Congress in 2010 and has been dogged by controversy over the scope and scale of the research.

EPA just cleaned it all up. 

Burke called the draft report ‘‘the most complete compilation of scientific data to date,’’ encompassing 950 sources of information, such as scientific papers and technical reports, as well as original, peer-reviewed research conducted by the agency itself. ‘‘It greatly increases our understanding of potential impacts.” Burke said.

They didn't get adequate or key data, but that's no reason not to spew.

The draft will be finalized after a 85-day comment period and a formal review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.



"GOP challenges EPA rule.... Farmers and other landowners have expressed concern that every stream, ditch, and puddle on their private land could now be subject to federal oversight. Some Democrats have supported the effort to block the rules. California Senator Barbara Boxer, the top Democrat on the environmental panel, strongly opposed the legislation. She said failing to protect the nation’s drinking water could put people in danger and called the bill ‘‘a back door repeal of the Clean Water Act.’’

Also seeEPA plans to regulate jet pollution

You can start by grounding John Kerry and Obama.