Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-just-sugar-water dept.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39032748

Up to 16% of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells spill liquids every year, according to new research from US scientists. They found that there had been 6,600 releases from these fracked wells over a ten-year period in four states. The biggest problems were reported in oil-rich North Dakota where 67% of the spills were recorded. The largest spill recorded involved 100,000 litres of fluid with most related to storing and moving liquids.

[...] A [previous] study carried out by the US Environment Protection Agency on fracking in eight states between 2006 and 2012 concluded that 457 spills had occurred. But this new study, while limited to just four states with adequate data, suggests the level of spills is much higher. The researchers found 6,648 spills between 2005 and 2014.

"The EPA just looked at spills from the hydraulic fracturing process itself which is just a few days to a few weeks," lead author Dr Lauren Patterson from Duke University told BBC News. "We're looking at spills at unconventional wells from the time of the drilling through production which could be decades."

Patterson, et.al. Unconventional Oil and Gas Spills: Risks, Mitigation Priorities, and State Reporting Requirements Environ. Sci. Technol. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05749

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:44PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @07:44PM (#470856)

    I mentioned both of those points:

    I will agree that the paywall on the subsequent study is dumb, and especially ironic when the summary concludes with

    and I did read that same paragraph, hence:

    Statistically the incidence of contamination is low compared to the total number of frakking wells, but when it comes to the one planet we live on I would prefer to be cautious.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @08:50PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @08:50PM (#470883) Journal

    You miss-read it then because a low incident count, and a lack of systemic impacts are two VERY different things.

    • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:58PM

      by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:58PM (#470917)

      Yes sir semantics officer sir!

      There was a lack of widespread systemic impacts, and a few incidents that were serious. Basically, frakking isn't the end of the world, it doesn't guarantee massive pollution of drinking water. That said, there are long term effects we can't know about without magic earth penetrating x-ray vision. Many areas have developed increased seismic activity, and the profitability of frakking just doesn't seem worth the risks. Better to invest in more sustainable options.

      But that is my 2 cents.

      --
      ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:50PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:50PM (#470937) Journal

        That's fine, let's ban natural gas.

        End Result: Trump coal-job promises come true. CO2 emissions massively increase. Radioactive dust emission massively increase. S0x, N0x, PM5, PM2.5 go way up and acid rain comes back.

        Great job Mr. Environmentalist.

        • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:35PM

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:35PM (#470957)

          What the hell? Frakking can be used for gas and oil.

          I would prefer investment in nuclear (the modern less-dangerous designs, thorium reactor research, etc) along with solar/wind/hydro/tidal. Why are you so bent out of shape over this?

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:53PM

          by butthurt (6141) on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:53PM (#470963) Journal

          Methane doesn't persist in the atmosphere as long as does carbon dioxide, but it absorbs infrared light more strongly, so that it has a greater greenhouse warming potential. In the United States, perhaps more than 2% of natural gas produced is lost to leaks. An industry initiative is striving to reduce that to less than 1%.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/business/energy-environment/future-of-natural-gas-hinges-on-stanching-methane-leaks.html [nytimes.com]