In a 2019 video for his company Liberty Energy, newly minted Secretary of Energy Chris Wright made a show of how harmless fracking fluid was by mixing some up and drinking it with his staff, as if it were MAGA’s latest Covid remedy.
Problem with the demonstration is, Fracking fluid that goes down into the hole is not the problem. It’s the stuff that comes back out.
Catch this EPA page before it gets taken down.
Q: Have you found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing can impact drinking water resources?
A: Yes. EPA has found scientific evidence that activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. Impacts can range in frequency and severity, depending on the combination of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors. The following combinations of activities and factors are more likely than others to result in more frequent or more severe impacts:
- Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
- Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
- Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
- Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
- Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and,
- Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.
The above conclusions are based on cases of identified impacts and other data, information, and analyses presented in the report. Cases of impacts were identified for all stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Identified impacts generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells and ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable.
Center for Biological Diversity:
2. How does fracking contaminate our water?
Fracking requires an enormous amount of water — as much as 5 million gallons per well. It routinely employs numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol, benzene, naphthalene and trimethylbenzene.
About 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, according to scientists with the Endocrine Disruption Exchange. Evidence is mounting throughout the country that these chemicals are making their way into aquifers and drinking water.
Water quality can also be threatened by methane contamination tied to drilling and the fracturing of rock formations. This problem has been highlighted by footage of people in fracked areas accidentally setting fire to methane-laced water from kitchen faucets. Water pollution from fracking can happen in variety of ways, including through surface spills and well casing failures. Such accidents are disturbingly common. A fracking boom in North Dakota, for example, has led to thousands of accidental releases of oil, waste water and other fluids, according to a ProPublica investigation.
Fracking can also expose people to harm from lead, arsenic and radioactivity brought back to the surface of the land with fracking flowback fluid. In fact, fracking waste water is so dangerous that it can’t be reused for other purposes. The water we use for fracking is permanently removed from our water supply — a serious problem, especially in western states, where water is an extremely precious resource.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
Chemicals associated with natural gas and hydraulic fracturing may travel through cracks in the rock into an underground drinking water source. Water contamination could also occur if a well is improperly installed, if chemicals are spilled from trucks or tanks, or if flowback is not effectively contained. Flowback is when water used in the hydraulic fracturing process flows out of the well.
The EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracking activities can affect drinking water resources under some circumstances. The extent of water contamination from these sources is currently unknown.
Indirect evidence shows water contamination related to fracking influences health. But direct evidence is needed.
RESEARCHERS at Dartmouth College, US, have released a study explaining the transfer of radium to wastewater during hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas extraction. An understanding of the mechanisms involved could lead to the development of strategies to mitigate wastewater production.
During hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, fluid is pumped underground at high pressure to break apart rock and create fractures which oil and natural gas can flow through. A common practice is to use “slick water”, which is a combination of water, a proppant – typically sand – and a mixture of chemicals. After the hydraulic pressure has been dropped the proppant holds the fractures open. Friction reducers, usually a polyacrylamide, are a critical component added to increase fluid flow. Other chemicals, such as biocides, surfactants, and scale inhibitors can also be added.
Once the pressure has been dropped slick-water returns to the surface as wastewater which is salty and highly toxic. It contains toxins such as barium (Ba) and radioactive radium (Ra). As Ra decays it releases a cascade of other elements, such as radon, that collectively generate high radioactivity.
Can’t believe I’m beating everyone to the punch (Yes, intended) on this one
https://youtu.be/9XIpTqbLR5Y?t=824
THE WEED KILLER INCIDENT!!!! It was in the back of my mind but you posted it – thank you.
My favorite part is the failed self-assessment in the statement “I’m not an idiot” while still claiming it would be fine for the mythical someone else to safely drink.
Um, on a sufficient bet I would drink a glass of glyphosate, but not Roundup. I’ve read the published toxicology* study for ingesting “suicide attempt” level of glyphosate, and it wasn’t particularly toxic in the “call the Poison Hotline” sense. Roundup, on the other hand is glyphosate plus a surfactant used to make the glyphosate stick to the plants. The surfactant would be nauseating and would cause you to throw up, so I wouldn’t be able to drink that.
Roundup‘s issue is that it’s classified as a Group 2A carcinogen (“limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans”). I myself regularly drink ethanol, which is a Group 1 carcinogen (“known to cause cancer”). The risk factor for potential carcinogens is different from the risk of outright poisons. The issue for carcinogens is usually chronic exposure, which is why I, as a patient, am out there being shot by the X-ray machine while the operator is behind a protective barrier.
In that scene from Erin Brockovich where the lawyers were told the water in the pitcher was from the contentious chromium-6 polluted water supply, I wouldn’t have worried too much about drinking it (especially as an adult). The problem is, again, the risks from chronic daily exposure.
________________
*From an anti-glyphosate activist who confused LD50 or acute toxicology research with long-term cancer metrics. She didn’t even recognize that the study didn’t support her objections to glyphosate.
Sorry but I’m not sure that the fine distinctions you draw are the point. We’re subjected to thousands of poisons on an almost or actual daily basis, which means millions of potentially or actually significant interactions—at least. (That includes constant exposures to glyphosate, btw, since it’s the most-used biocide, making that theoretical non-lethal single dose just a much-bigger-than-usual addition to the ongoing chronic doses.)
Without wanting to seem like a conspiracy nut, I do understand that Monsanto, (now whatever), has long been one of the most powerful as well as one of the most despicably evil corporations in the world. They’ve repeatedly been caught lying, & manipulating science, law, & politics, yet ne’er seem to suffer any consequences. It would be foolish to accept without question any of the science concerning their products.
“It would be foolish to accept without question any of the science concerning their products.”
Duh, applies to just about everything.
The converse is a problem, too: Lawyers using fallacious logic to get inexpert juries to make decisions about the physiological impact of various product. For example, the problem with the failed breast implants could have just been adjudicated based on the clear mechanical problem of leaks, but instead they wanted to prove further harm (and more compensation) for the leaked silicone itself, by highlighting physical problems which were no more prevalent among that breast plant population than the population in general.
Motivated BS is motivated BS, whether for profit, religious beliefs or legal settlements.
“…yet ne’er seem to suffer any consequences.”
Well, $10B in payout settlements might have put a kink in their profits.
Anybody in prison? Any corporations receive the death penalty?
I know $10 billion sounds like a lot. But I mean personal consequences. And social-change consequences, like the beginning at least, of repudiation of the capitalist system. Not just from this but from this as just 1 more item in a long, long list that also includes Monsanto’s many other crimes; recent revelations that the beef industry knew in the 80s that they were causing climate catastrophe & like the oil industry, started lying about it soon after; nearly $10 billion in the Ecuador Chevron-Texaco judgement that will almost certainly never be paid. (Meanwhile, Steven Donziger continues to be punished by the corrupt system, for helping to win. That too is unlikely to end anytime soon.)
Monsanto isn’t dead, btw, just absorbed by corporate descendants of the makers of Zyklon B, who have more than $100 billion in assets.