A few points to consider:
- The EPA is studying the matter in depth, moving towards a 2012 interim report
and a 2014 final report. However, the EPA has yet to document ANY confirmed
groundwater contamination from fracking operations.
Sorry, but the bit about EPA not documenting... is just not true.
Here is the link to EPA's; 1987 report, which did exactly that.
(See pages II-20 and II-23 (pp 149-151 of the PDF) in the section entitled:
"Damage to Water Wells from Oil or Gas Well Drilling and Fracturing"
There is discussion of that EPA report in my link above about West Virginia.
Here is that link again: http://www.ewg.org/reports/cracks-in-the-facade
The problems with statements about "EPA not documenting/etc... "are the
"wiggle words" or "omissions", i.e., EPA Drinking Water Act does not cover fracking
or there were violations of State law, not EPA, or not federal laws.
- "I am unaware" "I have not heard" Lack of information is not grounds for any conclusions.
Right, I'm not making a claim that such information does not exist.
If it does, someone needs to cite a reference or article
- Similarly, the complaint that "...why has the industry... maintained secrecy
about the fracking chemicals used under the blanket of "proprietary information"?"
They haven't. You may now look up the list of fluids for any well, at
fracfocus.org.
Here are a couple of items on the first page of your link:
Quote:
November 1, 2011 (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS) Denver —
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has started
the process of adopting rules for the public disclosure of chemicals
used in hydraulic fracturing.
|
Another on that same page:
Quote:
Q.: I know there are wells in my area that have been fractured,
but when I search for them I get no results. Why?
A.:The most likely reasons are that either the wells were fractured before January 1, 2011
or they have not yet been entered into the system.
Only wells fractured after January 1st [2011] will be entered into the system
|
UT, I don't mean to be facetious.
I'm just pointing out that at the federal level, EPA was prohibited oversight of fracking
and lobbying did produce rules against such disclosures.
Public disclosure is/was left to the States to pass their own laws.
I agree, NOW there is a database to look up individual wells, etc.
The "fracfocus" is an industry operated database. (good ? bad ? )
And discussing the quality of that database is, perhaps, something for another day.
- If you do, you'll find that the fluid is 98.5% water and 1% sand,
leaving 0.5% for the "scary" parts such as acids, anti-bacterials and lubricants.
Each well has a probability of contaminating a small area of ground water,
even though such an occurrence has not happened we find it is "inevitable"
in exactly the same way that every local gas station
in the country may contaminate the ground water (and has).
Using % can be a booby trap
How much benzene (a carcinogen) is tolerable in drinking water ?
The EPA MCL is 0.005 mg/L or 0.05%, or 1/10 of the "scary parts"
I have no idea what that means... does anyone ?
I certainly would not drink it. 
I agree with your example of gas stations leaking... they do.
But usually such leaks are into the ground (surface dirt) and
a man with a shovel +truck could deal with the problem.
It's not the same magnitude for fracking, where the deliberate
purpose of creating fractures to allowing materials to flow.
Compare the statement from above:
"
Each well has a probability of contaminating a small area of ground water,..."
With this:
Quote:
State regulators in Illinois and Texas, as well
as Congress’ investigative arm, the Government
Accountability Office, have also documented
contamination problems caused when oil and gas
waste fluids injected underground for disposal
migrated up nearby older wells and broke out
near the surface, where groundwater is found,
a phenomenon sometimes called “saltwater
breakout.”
One case in Texas involved fluid that
traveled half a mile underground from an injec-
tion well and then migrated up through an old,
improperly plugged well.
There were four abandoned natural gas wells
within about 1,700 feet of the gas well and water well
involved in the West Virginia case documented by the EPA in 1987.
|
- But not contaminating the water for a major city.
Each well contains an average of 2 million gallons (again, 99.5% water and sand)
and most of that fluid is recovered for use in the next drilling.
The total flow of a major river is more on the order of 25 billion gallons per day
and each river has the capacity to absorb a certain amount of pollutants
to the point where they are measured in harmless parts per million.
Sorry, others may, but I just don't buy justification based on "Dilution is the solution"
- If it is not removed, it is displacing an even more poisonous gas which
has been proven to contaminate wells. Such as the "methane faucet" of Gasland, which was...
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4275
Again perhaps, the skeptoid website and the "Debunking of Gasland"
are for discussion on another day.