Frack mining debate continues!

by David Casaletto

Ozarks Water Watch Executive Director

Last week I attended a 2 day Frack Mining Conference in Ft. Smith, AR. While there is not any actual mining activity in the Upper White River Basin, the consequences are far reaching and the topic is of great interest to everyone in the environmental community. I think most everyone will agree, the actual product we are trying to remove from the ground, natural gas, is a clean burning environmentally friendly fuel. So the question becomes how great is the potential damage to the environment and is the damage greater than the benefits received.

Frack mining illustration showing potential pollution.

I think it is a fair statement that the regulatory and governmental agencies view frack mining as a viable business activity that they fully expect will continue for many years to come. They also feel that this mining can be an environmentally safe activity if the correct precautions are taken and if the industry if properly regulated. The dramatic increase in frack mining in Arkansas caught everyone off guard and the regulators are just now catching up with how best to protect the environment.

Frack mining site.

I have explained the frack mining process in previous newsletters, so I will not repeat that information today, but a quick google of frack mining or fracking will produce results that will keep you reading for months to come if you feel you need a refresher.

What I feel I learned from the conference is that the actual fracking process, the actual act of fracturing the shale and releasing the natural gas is the safest part of the whole process. The two biggest areas for potential problems are the drilling of the well and the disposal of the used fracking fluid after it has done its job and is returned to the surface.

Frack site showing storage ponds.

Well drilling exposes all the layers of rock and various aquifers to potential pollution as the well becomes a conduit that allows contaminates to travel downward and upward. If the well is not properly drilled, cased, and grouted pollution can and does occur. This is true for all well drilling, not just frack wells. Even the act of drilling through an aquifer can cause changes to occur to neighboring wells. One speaker showed slides illustrating improperly cased and grouted wells that allow the pressurized natural gas to leak out into the shallow aquifers. It makes its way to nearby drinking water wells which leads to the pictures and videos we have seen on YouTube of a homeowner lighting a fire from the water (& gas) coming out of his faucet. This contamination and leakage can be addressed and wells can be drilled safely. We have the technology and the equipment, we just have to insure the "fly-by-nights" are not allowed to do their quick and poor job that gives the other reputable contractors a bad name.

The other big potential for huge environmental damage is the disposal of the fracking fluid after it returns to the surface. The used fluid is stored in huge lined ponds until it can be removed. If the ponds are not constructed properly or if the liner is damaged, the fluid can leak out and cause great damage to nearby waterways. Again, we have the technology to construct ponds that will not leak and use thick liners than will not rip or tear, we just have to have standards and rules in place (and BIG fines for noncompliance) that insure these ponds will not leak.

You can see the liner has a large tear.

So now we have this fluid in ponds, what do we do with it now? One common disposal method is to inject the fluid back down into the ground and leave it there. At the conference, there was little doubt that this injection method is what led to the swarm of earthquakes in north central Arkansas. In other parts of the country, the fluid is sent to a municipal treatment plant but treatment plants are built to treat sewage not chemicals so the chemicals just pass through the plant and are discharged into our waterways. Again, there are safe (and probably expensive) methods to treat fracking fluid. We have to insure these methods are followed.

Some ponds look better than others.......

In conclusion, it looks like fracking is here to stay. It is up to EPA and the states to insure it is done in a method that causes no environmental harm. And it is up to each of us to be the eyes and ears for the regulators and report any pollution we see occurring. The electricity my computer is using right now may have been produced by burning natural gas. We all use fuels in our daily activities. We must insure that the power we consume and the fuel we burn is produced in the most environmentally method possible.

Quote of the Week

Water, the Hub of Life.
Water is its mater and matrix, mother and medium.
Water is the most extraordinary substance!
Practically all its properties are anomolous, which enabled life to use it as building material for its machinery.
Life is water dancing to the tune of solids.
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 

  ________________________________________

US intel: water a cause for war in coming decades

By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press - Fri, Mar 23, 2012

Supreme Court sides with property owners over EPA

Associated Press 

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in a property rights case, ruling they can go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day. Wednesday's decision is a victory for Mike and Chantell Sackett, whose property near a scenic lake has sat undisturbed since the EPA ordered a halt in work in 2007. The agency said part of the property was a wetlands that could not disturbed without a permit.  

In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court rejected EPA's argument that allowing property owners quick access to courts to contest orders like the one issued to the Sacketts would compromise the agency's ability to deal with water pollution. "Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to question their validity," Scalia said.

In this case, the couple objected to the determination that their small lot contained wetlands that are regulated by the Clean Water Act, and they complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order without risking fines that can mount quickly. The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they're doing and repair the harm they've caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.

To read more, Click HERE.