A Better Way to Frack?

A new technique for natural gas extraction eliminates fears about contaminated water and stops opponents in their tracks.

In a major energy security speech this March, President Barack Obama had some nice things to say about a new technique for extracting domestic natural gas deposits: “Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves—perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves—in the shale under our feet.”

The innovation that has unlocked those vast new reserves of natural gas is a process known as hydrofracking—or fracking for short—in which horizontal drilling is combined with blasts of pressurized water and sand. But for Obama, along with other more strident critics, the natural gas unlocked by fracking may come at too great a cost.

The biggest, most headline-grabbing fear is that fracking chemicals will contaminate drinking water. Last week, environmental scientists at Duke University published a study titled “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study found that natural gas concentrations in water wells within 3,000 feet of gas wells were higher than in wells that were further from gas wells. Interestingly, the researchers included water wells near Dimock, Pennsylvania where it is well known that improperly constructed natural gas well casings had resulted in the fugitive gas contaminating local water wells. 

Sounds like bad news. But when you read the fine print, the Duke researchers admit that “based on our data, we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids." Despite its misleading title, the study did not find that fracking as a technique contributed at all to the natural gas found the nearby water wells. In fact, the gas-rich shale lays several thousand feet below strata of impermeable rock from shallow surface drinking water aquifers. Instead, bad well casings that also occur with conventional gas wells appear to be the culprits. States already set standards for constructing proper well casings and impose penalties when companies fail to comply.

Another major fear about hydrofracking is that chemical-laden wastewater spills will contaminate surface waters. Fracking uses mostly water and sand to blast open cracks in the shale deposits thousands of feet below the surface to release the trapped natural gas. Drilling companies add small amounts of chemicals to prevent corrosion, reduce friction, and kill fouling bacteria. 

In April, the Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives released a report listing the chemical contents of the 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products used by the 14 leading oil and gas service companies. Some of the chemicals such as diesel (used in 51 products), naphthalene (44 products), formaldehyde (12 products), benzene (3 products), and lead (1 product) are deemed hazardous and carcinogenic.

In addition, some of the water and chemicals used in fracking flow back out of the gas wells containing dissolved salts and other minerals from the shale. This wastewater can often be reused, but some is treated and disposed of. There have been cases in which wastewater has escaped impoundment and flowed into streams or contaminated surface drinking water wells. Another issue raised by opponents is that the dissolved salts in well wastewater contain traces of radioactive elements derived from the shale. The good news is that Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection reports that tests downstream from wastewater plants that treat gas well water find that levels of radioactivity are below federal standards for safe drinking water.

In short, the use of water is the aspect of fracking that worries citizens and drives activism against the technique.

Luckily, there may be a technical fix that addresses these water worries and does an end run around drilling opponents: gas-fracking. Developed by GasFrac Energy Services in Alberta, Canada, gas-fracking uses liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), which consists mostly of propane, instead of water to crack open shale formations to release oil and natural gas. Robert Lestz, GasFrac’s chief technology officer, and his colleague Audis Byrd spent 10 years developing the technique. Lestz explains that the company produces a LPG gel using phosphate esters, iron sulfate activator, and magnesium oxide. None are seriously toxic or are thought to be carcinogenic. The injected LPG gel combined with sand fractures shale formations to release trapped oil and/or natural gas.

As a hydrocarbon, propane easily mixes with natural gas and returns to the surface where it can be recovered and reused or flared. Since essentially no water is used and the gelling chemicals are relatively benign, there is no possibility that well wastewater can contaminate wells or streams. 

Gas-fracking is also more efficient than hydrofracking. In conventional hydrofracking, injected water tends to block the pores and cracks through which natural gas would otherwise flow into the well. This does not happen with gas-fracking. As a consequence, Lestz claims that gas-fracked wells often produce 20 to 30 percent more natural gas than do hydrofracked wells. One more advantage: hydrofracked wells often need to be flared for a couple of weeks to purge fracking fluids. This wastes saleable product and emits extra greenhouse gases. Gas-fracked wells, which need far less flaring, save gas and can go into production sooner.

There are, however, additional safety concerns when dealing with large quantities of propane. Unlike water, LPG is flammable. In January 2008, a well site in Alberta suffered a blast as a result of a propane leak. Three workers suffered non-life-threatening burns and GasFrac suspended its operations to devise techniques aimed at preventing future accidents. Lestz claims that insurers give the company the same risk rating as conventional hydrofrackers. So far the company has fractured 300 oil and gas wells in both Canada and the United States.

Lestz has spent time recently at various forums talking with concerned citizens in New York and Pennsylvania. “I have been real surprised at how well accepted our process has been by communities up there,” he said.

In his March energy speech, President Obama declared, “We’ve got to make sure that we’re extracting natural gas safely, without polluting our water supply." So far the evidence suggests that the worst fears about hydrofracking appear to be considerably exaggerated by opponents of natural gas drilling. Nevertheless, a technology like gas-fracking may be just what the president is looking for.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Disclosure: I receive royalties totaling about $1,000 per year from conventional natural gas wells in West Virginia.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BigT||

    It's 'frac', no 'k'. If you can't get that right, what does it say about the rest of your piece? Sloppy.

  • ||

    BigT: With due respect, most of the media use "frack." Engineers aren't the only folks who can coin neologisms. If you don't believe me, just try Google News.

  • Comment Tater||

    Alt title suggestion: Meet the Frackers.

  • ||

    I think Big T is referring to the term coined on the hit late 70s TV show Battlestar Galactica.

  • Neu Mejican||

    coined on the hit late 70s TV show Battlestar Galactica

    "Frack" appears only seventeen times in the Original Series. Most of the time, the expression is used by Starbuck.

    "Frack!" is used once each in "Saga of a Star World", "Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I", "Lost Planet of the Gods, Part II", "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero, Part II", and "Fire in Space". It is used twice in "The Magnificent Warriors".

    "Holy frack!" is used once each in "The Gun on Ice Planet Zero, Part I", "The Magnificent Warriors", "War of the Gods, Part I", "Experiment in Terra" and "The Hand of God".

    "Oh, frack!" is used twice in "Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I" and once each in "The Long Patrol" and "Baltar's Escape".

    In "Greetings from Earth", Boxey says, "Oh, frack," in a classroom where Athena is teaching a group of children, loudly enough for the entire room to hear, but there is no indication that he was punished or reprimanded.

    Starbuck uses the term "frack" after being hit in the battle that results in Starbuck crashing on planet Starbuck (Galactica 1980: "The Return of Starbuck").
  • Spiny Norman||

    But it would still need a k to form the gerund, which is how it's used everywhere except the title.

  • some guy||

    Without the 'k' it becomes a French word? Like Chirac?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It would need to be fraque to be French.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Booyah! Any dude who can spot correctly formed gerunds is ok by me!

  • ||

    I look forward to the enviro-nutter complaints about gas fracking. There'll be something, I have no doubt.

  • The Gobbler||

    It hurts the worms.

  • Platypus||

    it hurts Mother Earth and makes whales cry.

  • ||

    Fracking, it just sounds obscene.

  • ||

    That's just the Battlestar Galactica contamination talking.

  • ||

    Hey Trebeck, the other night I won on a game show called Fracking Alex Trebeck's mother.

    I'll take Swords for $200.

  • ||

    "This sword is actually a demon from another plane that takes the form of a sword in this plane. It gives off a black radiance and screams while wielded, and eats the souls of those it kills, channeling energy from the souls to the wielder."

  • some guy||

    What is the Soul Edge?

  • ||

    BZZZZZZZT

    Sorry, the correct answer was "what is Stormbringer".

  • ||

    Did he rip off Saberhagen, or is it the other way around?

  • ||

    Who, Moorcock? Don't be absurd.

    I like Saberhagen, but he's not in the same class of writer as Moorcock.

  • ||

    I need a ruling from SugarFree.

  • ||

    NutraSweet's Moorcock expertise is much more in the Jerry Cornelius arena; I have more knowledge of the Elric and Corum stuff.

    You would do wise to heed me, ProL.

  • ||

    I heed no man.

  • ||

    I have more knowledge of the Elric and Corum stuff.

    Episiarch is a Champion Eternal? Now it all makes sense.

  • ||

    I like Saberhagen, but he's not in the same class of writer as Moorcock.

    Wait are you actually making the claim that the Elric books are well written?!?!?

    Hell i liked the books if only because it is about a guy who kills lots of people and a few gods with a cool sword.

    But only a lunatic would claim that they were well written in any sense.

  • ||

    Also Stormbringer is an obvious rip off of Shamshir-e Zomorrodnegar.

  • Jim||

    I think it's all based on the play Henry V, in which Shakespeare included that exact description for the sword wielded by the title character, and also described it as, "bitchin".

    Said line having been redacted in almost all subsequent printings of the play, but I'm sure Moorcock would have been familiar with the original text.

  • Jim||

    To be fair, there's probably a good deal of fantasy novels & games with a sword that would fit that description.

    I'm sure D&D has something like that, and I know Warhammer has magic items with almost that exact description.

  • ||

    And almost all of them are based on the Elric saga and Stormbringer and Mournblade. He first wrote about it in 1963, well before any of that other stuff.

  • tote-road||

    The real Stormbringer's work is featured here (between boob shots and right wing commentary):

    www.theospark.net

  • ||

    """This sword is actually a demon from another plane that takes the form of a sword in this plane.""

    I'm sorry, the catagory is S words. S words.

  • ||

    Your mother's a whore.

  • ||

    So one vote pro, one con. Like I said, I need a ruling from SugarFree.

  • ||

    And I got one, over at Urkobold. SugarFree appears not to share Episiarch's enthusiasm for Michael Moorcock.

    The only way I can see to resolve this impasse is to either (1) read one of his books or (2) require Episiarch and SugarFree to fight it out in Recommendationdome. Two go in, one comes out. Two go in, one comes out.

  • mofo||

    What is mourneblade?

  • ||

    They already have global warming.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Look at the mail in this week's New Yorker. Environutters gone mad at the very idea of fracking.

  • NoStar||

    The green meanies and earth firsters will protest those fracking technologies.

  • Ska||

    We'll see how they like it when someone firsts their fracking little asses.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    I love the birds don't like fracking sign.

    You know what birds really don't like. Bird season for hunters.

  • sevo||

    "You know what birds really don't like."
    Hawks.

  • ||

    sevo: Hawks are birds, too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Nothing worse than a self-hating bird.

  • Lord Googoo||

    Must be Jewish.

  • Joe M||

    You know what hawks really don't like?
    Pedants.

  • Realist||

    You know what birds really hate....wind turbines.

  • ||

    If pointing out that hawks fall under the classification of birds passes your pedanticism hurdle, I fear you've set your bar too low. Also, octopodes.

  • sevo||

    OK, bigger birds.

  • rather||

    Polluted water to Kaboom-that's an improvement?

  • ||

    It's like when you go kaboom in your pants, rectal. And then you have to change your diapers.

    UH OH ACCIDENT

  • rather||

    epi, don't be so upset. You still have a chance with Arnold

  • rather||

    or STEVE SMITH

  • STEVE SMITH||

    ME NO FUCK EPI, EVER. EVEN STEVE ON TOP NO FUCK EPI

  • ||

    Or Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

  • ||

    You're a Cylon, aren't you Ronald? Frack!

  • ||

    Andrew S.: Don't believe everything that Dr. Baltar tells you.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Gaia needs milked, motherfrackers.

  • Realist||

    "A new technique for natural gas extraction eliminates fears about contaminated water and stops opponents in their tracks."
    You have got to be kidding. The wacko left will find a problem with it.

  • ||

    Realist: Hope for a rational understanding of benefit cost analysis springs eternal.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If the cost is a raped Gaia, no benefit is sufficient.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Since the Earth is our Mother, these frackers are motherfuckers?

  • ||

    Nevertheless, a technology like gas-fracking may be just what the president is looking for.

    I suspect a technical workaround that eliminates the pretext for blocking oil and gas extraction is pretty much not what Obama was looking for.

  • ||

    He also wants to get re-elected though. That's going to be much harder with the economy still in the dumps (this is the 3rd summer of recovery now, right?) and gas at $4 a gallon.

    Politicians pandering to the idiot masses doesn't always have to result in worse outcomes. It just has a tendency to.

  • T||

    The evidence suggests that the worst fears about contamination of water supplies appear to be considerably exaggerated by opponents of natural gas drilling

    Environmental extremists exaggerating the dangers of technology? I'm shocked.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And every time one of their hysterical claims gets shot down, they quickly dream up a new one.

    The real objective is to prevent people from having abundent energy to use - period.

    If tomorrow morning some new energy source was discovered that was both extremely cheap and not environmentally damaging in and of itself, they eco-wackos would be denouncing it by tomorrow afternoon.

    Cheap engery makes it far too easy to engage in a whole lot of stuff that the eco-socialists hate - like manufacturing lots of consumer goods, developing land, etc. etc.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Precautionary principle -- it means don't do anything.

  • Jim||

    I'm curious if the estimates for the amount of nat gas available takes into account any scenerio whereby we begin using it much more heavily than we are now, or if it's only indexed to population growth at current usage rates.

  • ||

    Shill.

  • GILMORE||

    Disclosure: I receive royalties totaling about $1,000 per year from conventional natural gas wells in West Virginia

    A day without disclosures is like a day without sunshine.

    SHILL!!!! CORPORASHUNS!! HE HATES THE NATURE!!

  • Juice||

    "Birds don't like frakking."

    They also don't like wind turbines.

  • GILMORE||

    Birds don't like anything. They shit all over our monuments, artworks, cars. Flocks of geese sometimes come once a year and have shit-parties in our yards, mocking us with their honking sounds. So they don't like fracking either huh? I am not surprised. I am interested in this woman's ability to speak "Bird" however. Ornithology has progressed further than I had thought.

  • ||

    Our Prez burns jet fuel at the rate of 1 gal./second in Air Force 1 then goes local carting the entourage around in a fleet of V-8 Suburbans. The Audacity of Green Hypocrisy!

  • Myrah||

    What about the concerns that some fracking operations have caused increased earthquake activity, as has been reported in Arkansas?

  • Comment Tater||

    I seriously doubt that fracking can move tectonic plates, but I'm just a comment tater.

  • sevo||

    Myrah|5.17.11 @ 6:52PM|#
    "What about the concerns that some fracking operations have caused increased earthquake activity, as has been reported in Arkansas?"

    Yeah, what about those?
    Ding, ding, ding........

  • ||

    Ron
    You should look into Halliburton's clean frac systems that uses food processing additives and water treatment to eliminate contamination concerns. The solutions to environmentalists worries already exist. This entire debate is nonsense

  • Erin Bra-Kovich||

    Liar!

  • ||

    The byline on this article: A new technique for natural gas extraction eliminates fears about contaminated water and stops opponents in their tracks, is not true.

    The problem 'establishment' environmentalists have with this CH4 revolution in concept is it answers their best arguments (foreign dependence, air pollution in general, AGW in particular) without the answer being elimination or market-manipulation of fossil fuels to subsidize their pet causes and technological dead-ends.

    You already see studies that load up on the front-end of producing CH4 to exacerbate the AGW effects of the gas far beyond what you get when you burn it. They will ignore the fact that burning CH4 produces no long-chain products, no sulfur, no solid particulates, and no single-oxide poison.

    These developments - combined with the intrinsic properties of this fuel - are a huge challenge to 'Big Green' and you will see increasingly novel and far-fetched analysis coming from their academia buddies to discredit anything that makes fossil fuels cheaper, cleaner, or accessing domestic sources. Fossil fuels are the problem, their elimination is the only solution in such green tiny minds.

    CH4 will have to be made into a boogeyman of some kind, and I am curious in how those types will 'scientifically' try it.

  • sevo||

    TheZeitgeist|5.17.11 @ 9:04PM|#
    ..."CH4 will have to be made into a boogeyman of some kind, and I am curious in how those types will 'scientifically' try it."

    Agreed. Among the rabid eviros, the issue is "original sin"; despoiling "mother nature".
    It's not a matter of cost/benefit, it's paying penance for enjoyment. Hair shirts are the only proper attire.

  • dmoynihan||

    I agree that GasFrac is promising, but... let's be a little cautious about anything from the TSE, OK? There was a fire in Jan., and things are probably under control, but let's hope the process of fracking is continually refined--by Gasfrac, Haliburton and others...

  • chaussures mbt||

    nice job!

  • ||

    The real problem with Natural Gas extraction, from my limited understanding, is not the fracking fluids or even the fracking per se, but the fact that other gases, such as benzene are expelled into the air and if a NG field is too close to your home, you might get a serious dose of toxic and carcinogenic gases.

  • Dick Cheney||

    So?

  • Mother Earth||

    Pull my finger

  • ||

    Wrong.

    Contaminated waste water fouling water supplies is only one of several issues facing fracking. This occurs when the waste water is brought to a facility to treat and then release it, or when a pond of it is breached and it runs directly in to rivers, ect. Underground water tables have also been contaminated, most likely due to the effects of the fracking explosions themselves, not necessarily only due to poor casings (which will continue to occur). Yes, it is below 'thousands' of feet of 'impermeable' rock. But setting off what amounts to a large bomb, has an effect. Have you read about the small earthquakes that have been caused by fracking? Have you seen video of the 15% of natural gas/methane simply leaking out of a well head? Or of the people that live near these well heads who have all sorts of health problems? 'Small amounts', 1-2% of millions of gallons of water, is still 80-100,000 gallons of carcinogenic chemicals.

    Unfortunately, NG that comes from fracking, is not a solution to our energy issues. 'Eliminates Fears', stops opponents '"in their tracks'? Please. It really seems like you have an interest in this. It is neither comprehensive or reason based.

  • ||

    Are you high? They don't set off "explosions" underground. WireLine companies do use guns with shaped charge explosives on them, but only with enough oomph to blow 1/5 inch holes in the casings of the well - and sometimes up to a third of the charges don't even penetrate the casing. And your claim of 1 or 2 percent out of millions of gallons of water - You realise that like 80 percent, sometimes more of the water is flowed right back out of the well when they flow it back, right? Nope, didn't think so. So you're really talking about fractions of fractions - and may I add that your comment about small earthquakes is bullshit. Your methane leaking water wells has allready been debunked as being caused by producing wells with bad casings. Everybody has health problems everywhere - And environmentalists have allready been caught multiple times trying to "spike" areas in order to achieve their political goals. Basically, you're a hack.

  • ||

    FracMasterbater:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....d=13431093

    I'm not sure if you or your dumbshit neighbor sevo can read, but take a gander. The companies doing the fracking admit that they are causing the minor quakes. By the way u fucking dumbshit Frac, I said they were equivalent to explosions (and they are), I did not say they were explosions. Yes u tard, the frac waste water comes out of the well after they frac, i fucking understand that. I guess its the next fucking part that you dont underfuckingstand. The waste water then gets dumped in the nearest stream, or taken to a treatment facility that is not equipped to filter out the now slightly radioactive and carcinogenic waste from the water. Or it just spill outs from a containment pond.

    http://www.counterspill.org/ar.....-statewide

    I hope Reason has the balls to at least edit this keep it. You mother fucking retard.

  • sevo||

    jk|5.18.11 @ 9:01AM|#
    "Have you read about the small earthquakes that have been caused by fracking?..."

    No, but I've read claims of such from ignoramuses.
    Such as yourself.

  • ||

    Sevotard,

    http://gdacc.wordpress.com/201.....ste-spill/

    The spill was first discovered last week by a DEP inspector who found a valve had been left open on a 21,000-gallon fracking fluid tank, discharging fluid off the well pad into local waterways, threatening a nearby cattle herd that had to be fenced off from the contaminated pasture. Exxon/XTO has not provided an explanation on why the valve was left open.
    “This spill was initially estimated at more than 13,000 gallons by the company and has polluted an unnamed tributary to Sugar Run and a spring,” said DEP Northcentral Regional Director Nels Taber. “There are also two private drinking water wells in the vicinity that will be sampled for possible impacts.”
    DEP’s sampling confirmed elevated levels of conductivity and salinity in the spring and unnamed tributary, clear indications that the fracking fluid was present in the waterways.
    Exxon paid $30 billion in its June 2010 merger with Texas-based XTO Energy, making Exxon/XTO the largest natural gas producer in the United States, with extensive holdings of “unconventional resources” throughout the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere.
    Concerns over natural gas fracking are widespread through the Marcellus Shale region and in several Western U.S. states where a boom in natural gas development is underway thanks to the controversial hydraulic fracturing technique. Residents living near fracking operations are on the front lines as their drinking water supplies and health are threatened by the fracking process, which involves injecting a mixture of sand, water and undisclosed toxic chemicals into the shale rock to free up the trapped gas.
    Pennsylvania is no stranger to fracking disasters, notably the high-profile contamination in the town of Dimock, where resident Norma Fiorentino’s water well famously blew up on New Year’s Day 2009, and at least 15 families have had their drinking water ruined by fracking, leading to illness, livestock deaths and other maladies.
    Last week, the Pittsburgh City Council banned natural gas fracking within city limits due to concerns over the threat of water contamination and public health risks.
    But Pennsylvania is hardly alone in the fracking fight. Fracking operations have contaminated water supplies across America from New York, to Wyoming, to New Mexico, to Ohio, to Virginia, to Arkansas, to Colorado and beyond.
    The Environmental Protection Agency currently has no power to regulate hydraulic fracturing thanks to the Halliburton Loophole inserted into the 2005 enegy bill at the behest of former Vice President Dick Cheney, the former head of Halliburton.

    Sevotard, face it, or i should say pull your face out of it. Your ass I mean.
    Fuck you.

  • ||

    "have you read about the small earthquakes..."
    "have you seen video of the 15%of natural gas/methane simply leaking..."
    "Or of the people that live near these well heads..."
    actually, i see people focusing on one particular industry, using unquestionably biased data, with fear and emotion rather than rational thought being the deciding factor...

  • ||

    Ok Buck,
    I love when one person's deficiencies are projected on to someone else. My data is from various sources. Emotion does not make something false. A lack of reason usually does. But in this case there is no lack of objective reason or facts. You plithy statement is deviod of any facts of your own. Have any?

    http://www.propublica.org/arti.....o-fracking

  • ||

    sorry, meant 1/2 inch holes in that post above..

  • Bob threadneedler.com||

    It looks like this technique may address some problems with fracking - specifically, the use of huge volumes of water.

    I oppose fracking because I don't want to see the massive industrial footprint that would be required across rural America. Call me names if you want (yes, I'm an enviro-wacko for opposing thousands of miles of additional roads through untouched forests, traversed by hundreds of industrial trucks per well).

    There are other potential fuel supplies, some of which are still in development, that we could use to bypass temporary, environmentally-destructive practices like fracking altogether.

    Also, with serious conservation, the U.S. could reduce its energy use by at least 1/3.

    Let's do that before wastefully forsaking the land, okay?

  • sevo||

    Bob threadneedler.com|5.18.11 @ 2:36PM|#
    "I oppose fracking because I don't want to see the massive industrial footprint that would be required across rural America. Call me names if you want (yes, I'm an enviro-wacko for opposing thousands of miles of additional roads through untouched forests, traversed by hundreds of industrial trucks per well)."
    No one has to call you names, just as no one has to value your opinion.

    "There are other potential fuel supplies, some of which are still in development, that we could use to bypass temporary, environmentally-destructive practices like fracking altogether."
    Prove it.

    "Also, with serious conservation, the U.S. could reduce its energy use by at least 1/3."
    Prove it.
    Or, shut up.

  • ||

    You dummies, there is no K in fracturing!!!

  • Myrah||

    I'm not sure about the issues with contamination, but the earthquake thing might actually be a serious problem in some areas. I've read about the communities in Arkansas that are experiencing a marked increase in systemic activity, with multiple quakes a day. Businesses and homes are being damaged. They closed the injection wells to investigate and there was a marked decrease in the number of quakes. That seems like a pretty strong correlation to me. This isn't environmentalists or people who are just anti-business bringing this up, it's residents who are actually experiencing the quakes. Don't they (and residents near future sites) deserve to have this matter taken seriously?

    Also: There may be no "k" in fracturing, but no one spells it "fracing." It looks better with the "k." Get over it. That's not really the important part.

  • ||

    Sure, except - what do they mean by having the matter taken seriously? Is anyone stopping them from doing a study, or leasing some specialized equipment to do some research on their own? Has anyone refused to allow these companies access to their mineral rights because of their doubts?
    Also: just use "fracturing", since that's the long form. While we say "fraccing", no one uses it as a written word..

  • ||

    Yes they are being taken seriously:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....d=13431093

    "Since the two injection wells were shut down in March, the earthquakes have not completed stopped in Arkansas. But Scott Ausbrooks, a geologist with the Arkansas Geological Survey and a lead detective on the case, said they have tapered off dramatically.

    "It's too much of a coincidence," DeTurck said."

    Hey look FracMaster, I know you are not much of a r-e-a-d-e-r. Maybe your sister, I mean you wife, can help you with this.

    Ciao

  • Radiis Shoes||

    Very useful information. I love this article. I have hunting it for a long time. So happy I got it today. I hope that our owners can share more good things with us.

  • saul tigh||

    What the frack

  • kg||

    As long as it's not my backyard when they screw up the drilling! Those locals have no need to worry anyway, as cited by the "impose penalities" link - I'm sure the million will go towards buying them a lifetime supply of Culligan

  • eric||

    "Frac" is the correct spelling. It is short for "fracture".

  • cs||

    This sounds like a great idea, by the way, anyone ever been to Centralia Pennsylvania?

  • ||

    nice

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement