Get the Most Important EcoNews Right in Your Inbox
Donâ€™t be fooled. Headlines in the New York Times and other news media about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyâ€™s (EPA)Â long-awaited study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water are another tragic case of not looking beyond the timid agencyâ€™s spin. Despite the lack of new substantive data and the limited scope of the study, the EPA did find instances of water contamination and outlined the areas where this could happen in the fracking process.
Rather than seriously undertaking its mission, the U.S. EPAâ€™s headline and conclusions in the study reflect the agencyâ€™s on-goingÂ narrative about the safety of fracking. The agency asserted in the report on the study that there were noÂ â€œwidespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources.â€ They based this outrageous conclusion on the limited industry controlled data and analysis that was included in the poorly designed research project.
The multi-million dollar study did not answer the fundamental questions about the pollution of water from hydraulic fracturing. The oil and gas industry pressured the agency in the design of the study, narrowing its scope and focusing it on theoretical modeling conducted by researchers that often conduct research favorable to the industry.
In a shocking display of the power of oil and gas interests, they successfullyÂ blockedÂ the agency from gathering data from direct monitoring of fracking operations. Rather than demanding that companies like Exxon (the largest fracker in the U.S.) or Chesapeake allow them to monitor water wells near fracking operations, the EPA caved to industry pressure. For the study to be meaningful, the agency needed to conduct baseline water testing at prospective wells that would provide a snapshot of water quality before fracking and that would be retested after a year or more after oil or gas production began.
Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist and a member of the EPAâ€™s 2011 Science Advisory Board, a group of independent scientists who reviewed the plan for the study, remarked on the failure of its design: â€œThis was supposed to be the gold standard. But they went through a long bureaucratic process of trying to develop a study that is not going to produce a meaningful result.â€
Pages: 1 â€¢ 2