Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–February 22, 2017
An EPA study earlier this year suggested that hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from shale beds could be a threat to drinking water, but that actual problems were “rare.” However, there may be reason to be concerned, because the number of spills related to fracking may be much higher than previously thought. The EPA’s previous efforts for estimating spills generated a broad range of numbers.
… approximately 100 to 3,700 spills annually, assuming 25,000 to 30,000 new wells are fractured per year.
That the EPA values ranged from low to ungodly—an order of magnitude and then some—comes from all the factors they tried to consider: the amount of fluid used in each well, proximity of wells to drinking water sources, what mixture of the over 1,000 chemicals(!) used in fracking fluids were most common, the quantity of chemicals used, disposal techniques, storage, and more. With such a large number of variables and a broad range of values available at each step, the estimate was, at best, a rough estimate. Supposed “real world data,” mainly based on self-reporting, showed 457 spills over a period of six years—76 spills a year. Such a low number seemed to suggest an equally low threat.
But that now seems like the actual number of spills is many times higher.
The analysis, published Feb. 21 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, revealed 6,648 spills in four states alone—Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota and Pennsylvania—in 10 years.
That’s 665 spills a year from four states. Granted, those states are some of the most active when it comes to fracking, but they’re hardly the whole picture. If the numbers hold true across the country, then the annual number of spills would be around 1,600—more than 20 times higher than previously indicated.
Most of the spills occurred in the drilling process or in the storage or transport of fluids immediately after drilling.
For the four states studied, most spills occurred in the the first three years of a well’s life, when drilling and hydraulic fracturing occurred and production volumes were highest.
One factor the study turned up was a wide disparity between what constitutes a reportable spill. Right now, most of those rules are set at the state level.
“Our study concludes that making state spill data more uniform and accessible could provide stakeholders with important information on where to target efforts for locating and preventing future spills,” [Lauren Patterson, a policy associate at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions] told ResearchGate. “States would benefit from setting reporting requirements that generate actionable information—that is, information regulators and industry can use to identify and respond to risk ‘hot spots.’ It would also be beneficial to standardize how spills are reported. This would improve accuracy and make the data usable to understand spill risks.”
The original EPA study concluded that the actual threat to drinking water supplies was low, but not negligible.
The number of identified cases where drinking water resources were impacted are small relative to the number of hydraulically fractured wells. This could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, or may be an underestimate as a result of several factors. There is insufficient pre- and post-hydraulic fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources. This inhibits a determination of the frequency of impacts. Other limiting factors include the presence of other causes of contamination, the short duration of existing studies, and inaccessible information related to hydraulic fracturing activities.
If the real number of spills annually is greater than the numbers used in the EPA study, then the threat is equally increased.
However, Donald Trump has already moved to relax rules related to allowing how much methane can be vented from wells. Considering the various plans to slash or ‘terminate’ the Environmental Protection Agency and the pro-fracking stance of new EPA director Scott Pruitt, it seems unlikely that even news of a threat 20 times greater than expected would stop the relaxation of both regulations and enforcement.
Source: http://dailykos.com
