Business

EPA Finds No Widespread Drinking Water Pollution From Fracking

Workers use perforating tools to create fractures in rock. An EPA study finds that "fracking" to reach and extract deep pockets of hydrocarbons has not caused widespread drinking water pollution.

Workers use perforating tools to create fractures in rock. An EPA study finds that “fracking” to reach and extract deep pockets of hydrocarbons has not caused widespread drinking water pollution. Brennan Linsley/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Brennan Linsley/AP

The Environmental Protection Agency says it finds no evidence that hydraulic fracturing — better known as fracking — has led to widespread pollution of drinking water. The oil industry and its backers welcome the long-awaited study while environmental groups criticize it.

“We found the hydraulic fracturing activities in the United States are carried out in a way that has not led to widespread systemic impacts on drinking water resources,” says Tom Burke, Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “In fact, the number of documented impacts to drinking water resources is relatively low when compared to the number of fractured wells,” he adds.

The EPA’s draft assessment was conducted at the request of Congress. “It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date,” says Burke, “including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports.”

Fracking has allowed drillers to tap oil and natural gas reserves once thought off-limits deep underground. That has led to drilling booms across the country and boosted the country’s oil and natural gas production significantly. But environmental groups have long argued fracking comes with a cost to the environment, especially to water. Those groups have called for stronger regulations and even bans on fracking altogether.

The EPA study does identify some potential vulnerabilities to drinking water. They include the amount of water required for fracking in dry places and fracking in underground formations containing drinking water. The report also raises concerns about wells that are inadequately cased or cemented — something that can allow gases and liquids to migrate below ground. Another area of vulnerability the EPA highlights in its report is how wastewater and fracking fluids from drilling operations are handled and treated.

The American Petroleum Institute says the conclusions echo what the oil industry has argued all along. “Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship of state regulators and industry best practices,” says Erik Milito, API upstream group director.

Acknowledging the potential vulnerabilities outlined in the EPA report, Milito says, “Continuous safety improvements have been an ongoing part of hydraulic fracturing for 65 years.”

The environmental group Food and Water Watch criticizes the EPA assessment, saying it “has the industry’s oil fingerprints all over it.” The group supports a ban on fracking and says this report should not be used to decide the industry’s future.

“Sadly, the EPA study released today falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect the health and safety of the millions of American people affected by drilling and fracking for oil and gas,” says Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch executive director.

This is just a draft assessment. The EPA study will be finalized after a review by the Science Advisory Board and public comment.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

In A First For Online Media, Gawker Writers Join Union

For the first time, workers at a digital media company have voted to join a union. Editorial employees at Gawker Media are joining the Writers Guild of America, after a vote in which 80 employees or 75 percent voted in favor of forming a union, and 27 employees, or 25 percent opposed.

In a post on the Gawker website, the editorial employees say the next steps are “determining what we want to bargain for, forming a bargaining committee and negotiating a contract.”

Gawker, based in New York, runs a number of websites, including Gawker, Gizmodo and Jezebel. Together they claim 64 million readers. While Gawkers move is a first in the digital world, employees of many newspapers and broadcast networks, including NPR are union members.

In an earlier post explaining why employees wanted to form a union, writer Hamilton Nolan praised Gawker as being “relatively well run”, but added this:

“The online media industry makes real money. It’s now possible to find a career in this industry, rather than just a fleeting job. An organized work force is part of growing up. I fully expect that Gawker Media will emerge from this experience stronger than it has ever been.”

Gawker CEO Nick Denton issued a statement, saying he is “pleased Gawker is leading the movement in the online media world toward collaboration and inclusion.”

In an op ed piece in the LA Times published before the vote, former New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse said a successful vote “would be a big PR boost for the ailing labor movement.”

“It will show that unions, which have focused in recent years on organizing low-wage workers, can also attract hip, highly educated workers, many of them Ivy League graduates.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.









No Image

No Room For Corporate Bullies

March 28, 2015 Zimbabwe on Thursday witnessed the worst development in the history of media freedom. NewsDay Editorial While in the past the onslaught had been perpetrated by government agents, this time, it was the…