Right: In certain parts of America, "fracking" has allegedly caused methane gas contamination of groundwater. The image shows a householder apparently igniting gas flowing from a tap. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
It would appear that neither side in the fracking debate has a monopoly on either truth or exaggeration.
Claims made about extensive contamination of underground water at fracking sites due to the migration of chemical-loaded injected water seem to be exaggerated. The geology is such that aquifers (natural underground water sources) are generally far above the gas-bearing strata and therefore underground water supplies are unlikely to be contaminated.
This, however, does not mean that contamination of water supplies cannot occur at other stages in the fracking process. A widely quoted Popular Mechanics article which explains why deep-level contamination of water supplies is unlikely to occur, goes on to explain that contamination can still happen in other ways. With regard to the United States, the 2011 article states, 'In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of 8000 gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa., have contaminated groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region.'
A recent well-credentialed British report suggests that safety can only be guaranteed (and then not completely) through extremely rigorous regulation and scrupulous production practices.
The report's chair, Professor Robert Mair from Cambridge University, stated, 'Our main conclusions are that the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing for shale can be safely managed provided there is best practice observed and provided it's enforced through strong regulation.'
Just what can happen in an improperly regulated environment was shown in the late 1960s when extraordinarily hazardous methods of extracting coal seam gas were tested in the United States.
On September 10, 1969, the United States Atomic Energy Commission, in cooperation with a couple of natural gas exploration companies, detonated a 43-kiloton nuclear weapon about a mile-and-a-half underground. This proved to be an ultimately futile effort to produce large quantities of natural gas, because the nuclear explosion irradiated all of the natural gas it liberated and made it dangerously unusable. The irradiated gas is still there, beneath a concrete cap.
Despite the now problematic nature of exploring for coal seam gas in this area applications are regularly made. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission requires hearings for any gas well drilling within a half-mile of the site.
Thus the Victorian moratorium while federal regulations are developed seems a wise precaution. It remains to be seen how rigorous these new regulations will be. Overseas experience suggests they need to be highly so. The standards required of companies extracting coal seam gas need to be demanding and closely monitored.