If fracking was just a new-fangled way of tapping natural gas sources, it would be welcomed by most people as a cheaper, cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The problems lie in the method of extraction.In order to get the gas out, a witch's brew of toxic chemicals has to be pumped into the shale at high pressure.
More specifically, this is a mixture of water, sand, lubricants, poisons to keep bacteria and other microorganisms from clogging the pipes, and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the excess cement in the pipes (Brooks, 2013). If these fluids stayed far underground, they might not damage the human environment.
The problem is that they find their way back to the surface through accidents at well heads, well blowouts, backflow of fluids to the surface, and leaks throughout the system. Altogether, more than 650 products containing chemicals with potential cancer-causing properties have been used in fracking (Balaba and Smart, 2012).
One would think that a country such as the US would have laws to protect the environment from toxic pollutants like these, but unfortunately the current laws are full of loopholes when it comes to fracking. For instance, an exception to the Safe Drinking Water Act is made for toxic chemicals injected into wells during hydraulic fracturing. An exception to the Clean Water Act permits temporarily stored waste water from fracking facilities to go untreated.
Other exemptions to US environmental safety regulations mean that fracking well operators are not obliged to report annual releases of toxic chemicals from their wells (Centner, 2013).
Finally, the government does not require well operators to disclose the chemical contents of the fluids they use in the fracking process. These are considered trade secrets. It seems ironic that these companies do not have to disclose the contents of their fracking chemicals, when the manufacturers of household cleaning products must disclose every detail of their contents (Lauver, 2012).
Fracking wells have been developed across the country, with highest density in Texas, Wyoming, California and Pennsylvania. (Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012)The Obama administration is proposing a new set of fracking rules, and their initial proposal has received an enormous number of comments from the public (more than 175,000 responses). The new set of rules only cover fracking on public lands, but the administration hopes that these rules will be adopted by individual states for use on private lands as well.
The rules set standards of well integrity and management of polluted water that flows back to the surface. Groundwater pollution is another serious concern, but results of an EPA study on that threat are not expected before 2016. In the meantime, thousands of new fracking wells are springing up all over the country.
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/fracking-the-pros-and-cons
Exactly the same in the UK as shown in this contradictory report by Greenpeace - notice how the link isn't available to the 'information' about UK laws on disclosing which chemicals are used as it is
“subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
For all future fracking activities, the companies must disclose the chemicals used either on their own websites or on third party websites. However, this is “subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
More specifically, this is a mixture of water, sand, lubricants, poisons to keep bacteria and other microorganisms from clogging the pipes, and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the excess cement in the pipes (Brooks, 2013). If these fluids stayed far underground, they might not damage the human environment.
The problem is that they find their way back to the surface through accidents at well heads, well blowouts, backflow of fluids to the surface, and leaks throughout the system. Altogether, more than 650 products containing chemicals with potential cancer-causing properties have been used in fracking (Balaba and Smart, 2012).
One would think that a country such as the US would have laws to protect the environment from toxic pollutants like these, but unfortunately the current laws are full of loopholes when it comes to fracking. For instance, an exception to the Safe Drinking Water Act is made for toxic chemicals injected into wells during hydraulic fracturing. An exception to the Clean Water Act permits temporarily stored waste water from fracking facilities to go untreated.
Other exemptions to US environmental safety regulations mean that fracking well operators are not obliged to report annual releases of toxic chemicals from their wells (Centner, 2013).
Finally, the government does not require well operators to disclose the chemical contents of the fluids they use in the fracking process. These are considered trade secrets. It seems ironic that these companies do not have to disclose the contents of their fracking chemicals, when the manufacturers of household cleaning products must disclose every detail of their contents (Lauver, 2012).
Fracking wells have been developed across the country, with highest density in Texas, Wyoming, California and Pennsylvania. (Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2012)The Obama administration is proposing a new set of fracking rules, and their initial proposal has received an enormous number of comments from the public (more than 175,000 responses). The new set of rules only cover fracking on public lands, but the administration hopes that these rules will be adopted by individual states for use on private lands as well.
The rules set standards of well integrity and management of polluted water that flows back to the surface. Groundwater pollution is another serious concern, but results of an EPA study on that threat are not expected before 2016. In the meantime, thousands of new fracking wells are springing up all over the country.
http://www.elsevier.com/connect/fracking-the-pros-and-cons
Exactly the same in the UK as shown in this contradictory report by Greenpeace - notice how the link isn't available to the 'information' about UK laws on disclosing which chemicals are used as it is
“subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
For all future fracking activities, the companies must disclose the chemicals used either on their own websites or on third party websites. However, this is “subject to appropriate protection for commercial sensitivity.”
How is the water regulated?
In the US, water usage, treatment, and disposal is largely regulated by the individual states.
More generally however, fracking is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Also, under the US Clean Water Act, the definition of a pollutant was outlined so as not to include “water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas.”
Known as the ‘Halliburton loophole’, these exemptions were put into place under the George W. Bush administration in 2005.
In the UK, the Environment Agency assesses the risk on a site-by-site basis to determine the specific permits required.
Also, as a recent DECC report states, regulators take a “risk-based approach to the regulation of the use of chemicals in shale gas fracking activities.”
Factors such as a geological assessment, the casing design, and fracking fluid composition must be provided to the Environment Agency (or, in the case of Wales and Scotland, the Natural Resources Wales or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency) in order to determine the risks and whether a permit is required.
More specifically, companies must apply for an abstraction permit if more than 20 cubic metres per day of water is to be abstracted from surface or groundwater bodies. As DECC points out, “the water requirements for hydraulic fracturing are likely to be much greater than this limit”.
However, if the water is to be sourced from a mains supply then the company must ensure that it can meet the conditions of the abstraction permit under which the mains is operating.
According to the IoD, it is unlikely that Cuadrilla will need a permit for groundwater activity so long as only substances classified as ‘non-hazardous pollutants’ are used in the fracking fluid.
Regarding the fracking fluid, a permit is required from the Environment Agency “where fluids containing pollutants are injected into ground, where they may enter groundwater. This may also be needed if the activity poses a risk of mobilising natural substances that could then cause pollution,” the DECC report explains.
Companies will also be required to get a permit for safe disposal of the waste water produced during the fracking process.
It’s interesting to note, that Cuadrilla fought to be exempt from several regulations.Documents and emails obtained by Energydesk through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the extent of lobbying by Cuadrilla to be exempt from the 2011 regulations on how it monitored and disposed of waste products from drilling.
Unlike in the United States however, Cuadrilla failed to create their own loophole.
A full list of permits required for the various activities and risks associated with fracking can be found in the Environment Agency’s most recent report.
Water UK is currently lobbying to have water companies incorporated into the planning process as consultees, with Marshall stressing that “direct communication links between operator and water company is essential”.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/analysis/shale-and-water-there-risk-water-contamination
No comments:
Post a Comment