EPA Won't Confirm Frack-Pollution Tie (in central Wyoming)

[The Straight Story]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it is abandoning its longstanding plan to have independent scientists confirm or cast doubt on its finding that hydraulic fracturing may be linked to groundwater pollution in central Wyoming.

The EPA is standing by its findings, but state officials will lead further investigation into the pollution in the Pavillion area. The area has been a focus of the debate over whether fracking can pollute groundwater ever since the EPA's initial report came out in late 2011.

The decision was detailed in a draft news release obtained by The Associated Press. EPA spokesman Tom Reynolds in Washington, D.C., confirmed the information, saying the federal agency will let state officials carry on the investigation with the EPA's support.

"We stand behind our work and the data, but EPA recognizes the state's commitment to further investigation," he told AP.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-epa-confirm-frack-pollution-tie-19450433#.UcN7zhhEr2Q

[badtoworse]

1. Maybe fracking isn't the horror that many would have you believe.

Can there be accidents? Sure, but that is true of any kind of energy production. Fracking can be done with minimal risk.

[burnodo]

4. actually, no

fracking is direct poisoning of the ground

when chemicals are poured into the ground in order to fracture rock, earth, and slip faults, those chemicals will be leeching into groundwater

This is not debatable

see Gasland and Gasland II if you're truly interested in the truth

[badtoworse]

6. Gasland is a crock of shit

The shales are thousands of feet below the aquifers. A bad casing could result in groundwater contamination, but proper design and well construction will prevent that.

[burnodo]

9. is that you Niall Ferguson?

You say its a crock of shit. And just who are you?

[badtoworse]

11. Who's Niall Ferguson?

[hootinholler]

15. Fracking is bad enough

Ignoring the science is worse.

There are too many bore holes that are emitters right now. Leaks, vents and flare stacks because some wells are producing more than can be handled.

Then there's the ground contamination from holding ponds and fracking fluid spills. Oh and the returned fluid? It seems to have this habit of coming back out radioactive.

That's doesn't even begin to consider aquifer infiltration. Which all it needs is a fault line to follow, or a blown plug in a bore.

Maybe it isn't the horror, maybe it's worse.

[badtoworse]

16. Old wells get plugged and water gets reused

The radioactivity is slight and limited to portions of the Marcellus. IIRC, it has a short half life.

The environmental zealots will never be satisfied with any energy production. They oppose literally everything. I'm comfortable that the impacts can be managed and I don't want to live in a cave, so fracked wells are OK with me.

[limpyhobbler]

2. typical

Lobbyist Intervened For Oil Company to Stop FrackingContamination Case
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/05/ed-rendell-range-resources-obama-epa-texas-fracking-water-contamination-lawsuit



After a Powerful Lobbyist Intervenes, EPA Reverses Stance on Uranium mine Polluting Texas County’s Water
http://www.propublica.org/article/after-a-powerful-lobbyist-intervenes-epa-reverses-stance-on-polluting-texas

[byeya]

3. Maybe fracking is so bad, and so profitable, that 0bama doesn't want the citizens to know

the nature and extent of fracking's environmental rapine.

[Socialistlemur]

5. Hard to tell

Its hard to tell because its politically loaded. From what I've studied it's possible for any well, whether fracked or not, to leak. Fracturing a well requires high pressure, therefore it's reasonable a leak may take place. But what's a lot harder to figure out is the actual size of the leak or what the contamination consists of. I can't find details. And there seems to be a lot of lying on both sides.

[byeya]

7. I get the impression that there are more lies coming from the extration industry but there has been

over excitability on the other side.
But then again, when you can ignite your water tap there is a problem.

[Igel]

12. Yes, there is.

But enough methane has been pouring from water taps to be ignited *long* before fracking started.

Natural processes can cause methane to move into aquifers and doesn't attract much attention. You let the water stand, it's not a problem. The problem is, that's only likely to happen in areas where there's motivation to also engage in hydraulic fracturing of the rock. Then that water releasing enough methane to be ignited gets attention, there are political and legal gains to be won, and those who watched it happen the week before the first bore-hole was sunk are suddenly motivated to keep quiet.

That's particular bit of media display isn't excitability. That's manipulation and greed.

It probably happens more on the extraction side, but the instances of it happening in areas that the media and activists care about are fairly few so it's hard to know.

[reformist2]

8. So they're going to have "industry experts" evaluate their findings instead. :rolleyes:

[Igel]

13. That's how it works.

One side makes a claim. The other side works to disprove it.

I've known a few grad students that went into the EPA or regulatory agencies to be impartial. Most were decidedly left of center and wanted to do "public service" that they defined as protecting the public from private companies and human greed. They had a fairly explicit bias in their career choice. So it's not like there's the unbiased EPA versus greedy, blood-sucking corporate lackeys. It's just a question as to which bias we share and consider "neutral"--after all, I know I'm *never* biased.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. Important issue, deserves another rec.

I fail to see how anyone with an open and a modicum of sense fails to understand the Corporate capture of our government.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. There's a push I have noticed

The people with something to gain are wanting to push being for the labelling of Monsanto GMO in foods as being "anti-science", well do not be surprised to see this turn into a being against fracking as a similar thing. The "anti" usage is designed specifically to marginalize, and push public opinion towards acceptance.

[burnodo]

17. Kick