Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
scientists on both sides of the fracking debate agree that it is very unlikely that microfracturing of rock formation itself contributes to the vertical migration of gases. The problem, they say, is with a minority of badly cased or cemented wells—they just disagree on how often this occurs.
The second rebuttal piece likewise acknowledges that poor construction is the cause of whatever problems exist.
The supporting piece cited by the second rebuttal carries the headline: "No water-based contaminants found in Colorado wells". But the article reveals the headline to be spin:
Carlson’s team found that 2 percent of their sampled wells showed seepage of oil- and gas-related methane – a flammable greenhouse gas that’s the main component in natural gas.
And that’s not good, Carlson said. Methane, a concern for climate change emissions, can also be explosive (which is why coal mines blow up, and why the movie “Gasland” portrayed flaming taps). But it’s not toxic, and isn’t a huge factor in terms of drinking water safety. It also is found in large quantities in the basin from naturally occurring, biogenic sources.
With regard to the really bad stuff – the bariums, chromiums and other soluble contaminants that people have been worried about getting into their water – Carlson’s team didn’t find any.
It's not that there isn't methane seepage. It's just that methane isn't really the "bad stuff". (And this piece isn't labeled opinion.)
As to the study cited by Science, "Chesapeake Energy Corp., which has large oil and gas stakes in Pennsylvania, supplied the researchers with the database, the largest of its kind, and also funded the work. "
@ catch22 : Thank you for the re-awakening. I left the trade about the time this fracking was taking place & only dealt with a hand full of local wells. Unfortunately the polluting one way or another still happens today.
Comments
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2202?s=1&r=5
like air pockets but not quite
https://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
(old)
rebuttal:
https://www.science.org/content/article/methane-drinking-water-unrelated-fracking-study-suggests
https://www.cred.org/is-fracking-connected-to-burning-tap-water/
So the question is: how much do you trust the oil companies to spend the time and money needed to construct their wells safely?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.html
(The field that the NYTimes shows in its article, Permian Basin, is tapped via fracking.)
Back to the methane contaminated water ...
The supporting piece cited by the second rebuttal carries the headline: "No water-based contaminants found in Colorado wells". But the article reveals the headline to be spin: It's not that there isn't methane seepage. It's just that methane isn't really the "bad stuff".
(And this piece isn't labeled opinion.)
As to the study cited by Science, "Chesapeake Energy Corp., which has large oil and gas stakes in Pennsylvania, supplied the researchers with the database, the largest of its kind, and also funded the work. "