This is a Cliff Notes" version of my point. Not all details have been included. Plus some of this post is my opinion. I would suggest that you conduct further research for the full details.
Members of the Geology Department of he University of Cincinnati recently concluded a study to determine if hydraulic fracturing might cause contamination of ground water. The conclusion is that it does not.
Unfortunately, it appears that members of the team, and some funding organizations may have entered into the study with a preconceived conclusion (my opinion). That conclusion being that hydraulic fracturing does contaminate ground water.
Much to their chagrin the data proved otherwise and the conclusion is that hydraulic fracturing does NOT contaminate ground water (at least in the area where the study was conducted). As a result, the findings have not been widely published for public consumption (not in a manner I consider a reasonable person would consider to be widely published). I am sure if the result had gone the other way it would have been front page headlines.
This is problematic in that a part of the funding came from two grants, one from the State Ohio and one from the U.S. government. I believe that each grant stipulated that the findings would be "widely" published . This has not occurred, in my opinion, and it appears that this has been done intentionally to hide the results, again my opinion.
In my opinion this is a violation of the public trust. I suggest that you contact your State Representative, State Senator, Congressman, U.S. Senators. Request that they look into the situation and ask for a reply.
Again, in an effort to present my point briefly I acknowledge that this may not be a complete representation of all information. I do not wish to unfairly disparage the reputation of the University, any department or individual(s). But I do have a right to express my opinion. I just want the truth.
Please contact your state and national legislative representatives.
The false assumption of some of these posts is that the water used in hydraulic fracturing remains in the formula; and will eventually find it's way into ground water.
First - the water does not remain in the formation. A portion returns to the surface after the fracturing procedure. The remainder returns over time during production of the well.
Second - if there were pathways to the surface between the shale and groundwater, then the ground water would have been polluted long ago by oil and gas etc.
Further - the recent claims by the environmental leftists have included speculation that hydraulic fracturing causes immediate damage to ground water. The U of C study along with a myriad of others have proven that claim false.
Just note that oil and gas have been found in drinking water for 1000s of years. Biogenic gas is often found in rural areas right out of the faucet (just like in the anti-fracking videos)--even in areas with no oil and gas exploration or production. There are millions of BARRELS of oil that seep naturally each year in to the Gulf of Mexico and this has been going on for 1000s of years!
Jackie Stewart has mis-reported the conclusions of the study. Referring to water contamination by all pollutants nationwide, Stewart writes that “efforts to tackle water pollution should be directed at ageing infrastructure issues and pre-existing water quality issues from naturally occurring methane, rather than from fracking, which is clearly not causing the contamination”. http://energyindepth.org/ohio/new-university-of-cincinnati-study-fi... But that is not what the University of Cincinnati (UC) researchers concluded.
Stewart’s first sentence, “water quality has not been impacted by natural gas drilling or fracking“, leaves out the appropriate qualifiers: by contamination we mean the presence of thermogenic (deep underground) methane; we only measured methane, pH, and conductivity; we did not test for contamination by other pollutants; the region we’re talking about is the Utica Shale of Eastern Ohio; the time period is the past two years.
Stewart didn’t cite any writings of the UC scientists other than their FAQ, so apparently she hasn’t read their studies.
The research results are available in Elizabeth Botner,’s UC master’s thesis, from 2015, titled “Elevated Methane Levels from Biogenic Coalbed Gas in Ohio Drinking Water Wells near Shale Gas Extraction”.
Excerpts of Botner’s thesis:
“Based on the carbon and hydrogen stable isotope data along with the relatively consistent measurements within individuals wells over the study period, we have found no evidence for natural gas contamination from shale oil and gas mining in any of the sampled groundwater wells of our study.
… past studies have found evidence for Marcellus Shale-derived natural gas contamination in Pennsylvanian drinking water wells due to improper well construction and maintenance
… the status of water quality in the region may change at any time. When unconventional gas well casings age, the integrity of the well structure may become compromised, causing leaks to develop. Although no evidence for natural gas contamination from shale gas extraction activities was found in this study, continual monitoring of groundwater quality, CH4 concentration, and CH4 sources is needed to assess the longer-term impacts of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater resources.”
So the UC scientists concluded not that researchers should look elsewhere to monitor pollution, as Stewart suggests, but that we should do more monitoring of water quality near gas wells.
Never ending study.
What I take away is :
Jackie Stewart seems to suggests anti-pollution efforts should be directed toward aging infrastructure (old Wells and casings) and I guess if found as fault should be remediated.
Elizabeth Botner found no evidence that hydraulic fracturing caused pollution of ground water but also suggested continual monitoring.
Both only make common sense to me.
Same principal as looking both ways before crossing a busy hiway.
What's the problem ?
Joseph-Ohio: The antis will object even to fracking with no water. They just don't like you driving a fossil fuel powered car--no matter how the oil is obtained. It is dirty and they don't want it. Despite the fact that oil and cheap energy have given us a standard to living unknown in human history. If the antis would give up gasoline powered cars (or for Tesla drivers-coal, natural gas, and uranium powered vehicles), ride bikes and live in tents or caves, I would take them more seriously.
There was a time when Fusion Reactors were being designed but the predicted date came and went. The problem is that only a magnetic field can hold the reaction due to high temperatures. It's the same reaction taking place on the Sun. Rather than splitting the atom for energy, the sun puts 2 hydrogen atoms together, they fuse releasing energy, which is where the reaction gets its name.
All we need is a method to hold the reaction while removing the energy we need.
The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Waynesboro GA, is building the next generation Nuclear Stations, Unit 3 & 4, designed by Westinghouse in modular sections. Advanced Passive design 1000 Megawatts per Unit. With no power they can be shut down safely. Those two units along with the two 1100 MWatt Units completed in 1986 and 1988 should light up some homes.
You can see the two AP 1000 units under construction on the Southern Company website.