A new report on "fracking" hit the news wires yesterday.
Most headlines for the article looked like this, "New study finds high levels of methane in water from wells near fracking sites." However, on the Rio Grande International Study Center's Facebook page, they linked to the article via a group called "Pro-Publica.com. And the same article had a title that read: "Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking." A pretty big leap considering that the article did not make that leap at all.
Please read the Pro-Publica article, http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking, then read the AP article,http://www.buffalonews.com/business/article418710.ece .
The bottom line is that you need to read the whole article, not just the headlines.
Here is the conclusion reached by the researchers:
In a white paper [10] the group issued along with the journal article, Jackson and the others acknowledged the uncertainty and called for more research. “Contamination is often stated to be impossible due to the distance between the well and the drinking water,” they wrote. “Although this seems reasonable in most (and possibly all) cases, field and modeling studies should be undertaken to confirm this assumption [2]… Understanding any cases where this assumption is incorrect will be important—when, where, and why they occur—to limit problems with hydraulic fracturing operations.”
Another of the final thoughts of the article:
A hydrogeologist closely affiliated with the drilling industry raised questions about the study. "It's possible, assuming their measurements are accurate, that all they have done is document the natural conditions of the aquifer," said John Conrad, president of Conrad Geosciences in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Conrad spoke with ProPublica at the suggestion of Energy In Depth, a drilling industry advocacy group, but said that he did not work for EID.
He said that the thermogenic methane -- which many scientists say comes from the same deep gas layers where drilling occurs -- could be naturally occurring. He also said the researchers didn't test enough wells to support their conclusions, though he could not say how many wells would have been appropriate.
Conrad said the most likely cause for the contamination identified by the Duke researchers -- that the gas was leaking out of faulty well casings -- seemed implausible.
"For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job," he said. "They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don't believe that it is common and we certainly don't believe that it is universal."
The conclusion that I reached reading the article in two formats is that while the study shows there is contamination in the drinking water, there is no direct, scientific evidence that it was caused by fracking, or even drilling. This should make the RGISC happy. Yet, it does not.
Again, an article that answers none of the questions being raised by RGISC. And yet, they link the Pro-Publica article on Facebook via Earthworks,
Earthworks describes their purpose as: EARTHWORKS' Oil & Gas Accountability Project works with tribal, urban and rural communities to protect their homes and the environment from the devastating impacts of oil and gas development.
I wonder what the RGISC is trying to really accomplish. Are they asking for answers to questions about drilling and contamination? Or, are they trying to push an agenda that wants to end natural gas capture?
RGISC, which is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment