Sign in  |  Register  |  Help

Most Read on APEsphere

Most Commented on APEsphere

Blogs we like

Resources



"Fracking": a word that sounds dirty...

Add this link to:

Related Links

Report Abuse:

So that we can keep the site friendly, legal and on-topic, please click the Report Abuse button if this story breaks the APEsphere Code.

Added by madameape on 28 May 2009
From: www.propublica.org

Image courtesy Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr

The 2005 Energy Policy Act contained a nice loophole for natural gas companies, exempting a practice known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" from the Safe Drinking Water Act, thus allowing the companies to pump unspecified chemicals mixed with water into the ground in search of natural gas depsosits.  There's widespread concern--and not a little anecdotal evidence--that the practice is polluting drinking water supplies and wreaking environmental havoc all over the US. 

 

Environmental groups are pressuring Congress to take action and regulate fracking, which, obviously, industry is strongly against.  They argue that regulation should be--and is being--performed by the states, and any Federal regulation would be unduly burdensome. 

 

Considering that none of the states are paying particular attention to this issue, and that state budgets typically don't have the resources to enforce what regulations they have on their books, it would appear that the natural gas industry has been benefiting from artificially low operational costs for several years, not having to pay attention to any regulations whatsoever. 

 

For a quick audio story of the fracking issue, here's yesterday's NPR story.

ADVERTISMENT

Comments

Add a comment

Already an APEsphere user? Login for one-click commenting. If not, sign in by email.
 
 
dakotaranger
on 11 Jun 2009
I wasn't saying it was necessarily false, but if the anecdotal evidence is very widespread the area around the Bakken Field would be one of major areas that fracking is taking place the country.  One of the areas that isn't discussed is the ground water being naturally being 'contaminated' by oil or natural gas just because oil is found where the biomatter died and was entombed.  It also doesn't talk about oil states where it is more likely to drill for water and ending getting oil or an oil water mix.  I guess my point was it just seams a little to incomplete to change how things are done without any real sense to it.
madameape
on 29 May 2009
Ah, but I didn't say there's no "real" evidence!  What I said was, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence.  "Anecdotal" doesn't mean "phony" or "suspicious"--it means "not scientifically measured," which is to say, there hasn't been a scientific study of the situation yet.  But it looks increasingly like this process is polluting groundwater.
dakotaranger
on 28 May 2009
I may be misreading this, but if there is no real evidence that it is polluting what is the problem?  It seams like it's a little more than conjecture.  On a separate note:  The Sci-Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica" used frack as a substitute for the big profanity word here in the States.