EPA report: Methane, arsenic from fracking are contaminating wells in Pa.


don't frack with our water

This was my most recent post on hydraulic fracturing: Fracking linked to methane risk: “When methane concentrations are that high, water can bubble like champagne.”

Regular readers know that fracking (which is when water mixed with sand and chemicals is injected deep underground at high pressure to shatter rock formations to unlock oil and gas trapped inside) is a topic I write about regularly (scroll). If corporations are people, my friend, let them guzzle tap water in the form of chemically induced flames that spew from faucets where fracking is prevalent, as is depicted in the excellent film Gasland.

Now the EPA is suggesting that the procedure resulted in the contamination of well water in Dimock, Pennsylvania.

Via the Los Angeles Times:

In an internal EPA PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Tribune/Los Angeles Times Washington Bureau, staff members warned their superiors that several wells had been contaminated with methane and substances such as manganese and arsenic, most likely because of local natural gas production.

The presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that "methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality." The presentation also concluded that "methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking [hydraulic fracturing] and other gas well work." [...]

"We don't know what's going on, but certainly the fact that there's been such a distinct withdrawal from three high-profile cases raises questions about whether the EPA is caving to pressure from industry or antagonistic members of Congress," said Kate Sinding of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

And of course, all that pressure being exerted on the EPA by the gas industry is about profit, not the health and welfare of the American people.

I wonder how many frackers call themselves "pro-life"... But who cares about life outside the womb and how climate change and pollution affect living, breathing human beings when you can make a lot of money by using methods that can eventually kill them?

right to life my ass pro life

I just stumbled across this from SFGate:

[S]ome experts say arrogance, a lack of transparency and poor communication on the part of the drilling industry have helped fuel public anger over the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. [...]

"Those people moved into our valley like a conquering army," said Thomas Thompson, who complained that the heavy equipment that accompanied drilling in Rifle, Colo., created endless dust storms that caused health problems for him and his wife.

  • I thought the EPA recently absolved fracking from causing water issues in WY. Is that correct?

  • And by anti-life you mean pro-choice? Or literally anti-life, because you're right if that's the case. Anti-lifers support unsafe fracking (aka fracking). Fracking is harming life.

    If you support safe fracking, then that's like supporting clean coal. There is no such thing.

    As for not caring about the unborn (they are not children or babies yet, they are cell clusters and fetuses that become babies/children once they are born or at least viable), as "pro lifers" claim to, once the baby is born, they seem to abandon it in many many ways.

    I am not necessarily referring to you personally, of course, but to the hypocrites who don't mind destroying the air living children, babies, teens, and adults breathe, and the water we drink, things that actually sustain life.

  • I'm pro life and support safe fracking.
    Those who are anti-life should support unsafe fracking by your metric.
    The anti-lifers both don't like people and simply don't care about the unborn child or citizens who must deal with methane in their water.