WOOLLAM: Why Fracking is so Dangerous

[Oscar]

WOOLLAM: Why Fracking is so Dangerous

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Woollam
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:31 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor on why fracking is so dangerous

Editor:

A local resident recently wrote about the monetary significance of hydrocarbon extraction and exportation. What many advocates of the oil-dependence industry seem to ignore completely is the short-sighted and toxic process with which 'unconventional oil and gas sources' are being extracted. This process is known as 'induced hydraulic fracturing' or 'fracking' (for short).

There is growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harmful effects of shale gas development. 'Pro-fracking' opinions focus on the big bucks and ignore the detrimental effects on our limited fresh water systems.

There are a million well sites in North America which have used fracking. A horizontal well in a shale formation can use between 7.5 million to 19 million litres of water. That water used for extraction in gas shale 'plays' becomes toxic by the addition of: water‐based fracturing fluids mixed with friction‐reducing additives; biocides to prevent micro-organism growth and to reduce biofouling of the fractures; oxygen scavengers and other stabilizers to prevent corrosion of metal pipes; and acids that are used to remove drilling mud. 80 % of this fracking fluid comes back to the surface and 20 % stays in the shale excavation 'play'. This fracking fluid is highly toxic and contaminates local well-water, rivers, and underground water systems.

This is the part which outweighs the financial benefits of present 'fracking' and non-conventional oil extraction methods. Our North American water reserves are limited. Toxifying our limited water resources is insanity to say the least. No amount of remuneration can justify contaminating underground water beds and surface-water courses for coming generations.

As of 2012, 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide!

Do an Internet Search on the topic of 'fracking' and (learn) why it is so controversial.

Be wary of industry-backed politicians who would smooth over the dangers of 'fracking'.

Water well testing must take place both prior to and after seismic testing operations. If a well-owner does not test and show healthy conditions (which) were present prior to nearby 'fracking', then there is no possibility of claiming damages when contamination does eventually occur.

For the last hundred years, water rights belonged to the owner of the land. Tough luck for those landowners and city-dwellers downstream, since liability favours industry - not local taxpayers. High cancer rates and damaging side-effects to human and animal life occur where tailing ponds and fracking fluid has escaped into underground and above-ground waterways.

How can we not seriously demand alternatives to oil/gas addiction and its collateral damage? There is money to be made and jobs to be had, but it requires focusing on developing those alternatives. Industry is not going to encourage that shift. Politicians serve industry and corporate interests, not the long-term health of the nation. And once again...fresh, drinkable water is becoming threatened by 'fracking' practices.

Bill Woollam
Marchmont Rd.
Duncan, BC V9L 2M5
250-746-0290

= = = = = =


WOOLLAM: Contaminated Freshwater Systems caused by Fracking
[ http://www.blissful-wisdom.com/contamin ... cking.html ]

DATE ?

( DIAGRAM: Fracking fluid from oil and gas extraction is contaminating our freshwater systems.
Fracking Diagram link: [ http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... g-Diagram/ ])

A local resident recently wrote about the monetary significance of hydrocarbon extraction and exportation. What many advocates of the oil-dependence industry seem to ignore completely is the short-sighted and toxic process with which ‘unconventional oil and gas sources’ are being extracted. This process is known as ‘induced hydraulic fracturing’, or ‘fracking’ (for short).

There is growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harmful effects of shale gas development. ‘Pro-fracking’ opinions focus on the big bucks and ignore the detrimental effects on our limited, freshwater systems.

There are a million well sites in North America which have used fracking. A horizontal well in a shale formation can use between 7.5 million to 19 million litres of water. That water used for extraction in gas shale ‘plays’ becomes toxic by the addition of: water‐based fracturing fluids mixed with friction‐reducing additives; biocides to prevent microorganism growth and to reduce biofouling of the fractures; oxygen scavengers and other stabilizers to prevent corrosion of metal pipes; and acids that are used to remove drilling mud. 80 % of this fracking fluid comes back to the surface and 20 % stays in the shale excavation ‘play’. This fracking fluid is highly toxic and contaminates local well-water, rivers, and underground water systems.

This is the part which outweighs the financial benefits of present ‘fracking’ and non-conventional oil extraction methods. Our North American water reserves are limited. Toxifying our limited water resources is insanity to say the least. No amount of remuneration can justify contaminating underground water beds and surface-water courses for coming generations.

As of 2012, 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide!

Do an internet search on the topic of ‘fracking’ and why it is so controversial. Be wary of industry-backed politicians who would smooth over the environmental collateral damage left from ‘fracking’ practices.

Water well testing must take place both prior to and after seismic testing operations

If a well-owner does not test and show healthy conditions were present prior to nearby ‘fracking’, then there is no possibility of claiming damages when contamination does eventually occur.

The Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior are preparing a research plan for fracking that will include analysis of potential impacts to drinking water, the potential for spills and wastewater treatment. The agency oversees water quality through the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) but does not directly regulate fracking except where diesel fuel is used. The draft is scheduled to be released in October. http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=2699

“EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to regulate fracking but whatever is produced, those fluids are covered by the SDWA as a class two activity,” Albright said. “If it’s discharged on the surface it would need a Clean Water Act permit, but solely the injection – that is exempted from SDWA coverage.” Meaning, industry has its rear covered. Fracking has been going on without proper oversight and accountable regulation by our governments. This is the danger.

For the last hundred years, water rights belong to the owner of the land. Tough luck for those landowners and city-dwellers downstream, since liability favors industry not local taxpayers. High cancer rates and damaging side-effects to human and animal life occur where tailing ponds and fracking fluid has escaped into underground and above-ground waterways.

How can we not seriously demand alternatives to oil/gas addiction and its collateral damage? There is money to be made and jobs to be had, but it requires focusing on developing those alternatives. Industry is not going to encourage that shift. Politicians serve industry and corporate interests, not the long-term health of the nation. And once again…fresh, drinkable water is becoming threatened by ‘fracking’ practices.