Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Fracking study finds combustible levels of methane in water after EPA gave the all clear

Published time: January 13, 2014 22:21
Edited time: January 15, 2014 10:47
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) building in Washington, DC (AFP Photo /  Mark Wilson)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) building in Washington, DC (AFP Photo / Mark Wilson)

A report has found contaminated drinking water in parts of Texas, infuriating residents who had pressured the EPA to test for methane only to see the agency back off when the company allegedly responsible claimed that its own tests proved otherwise.

Steve Lipsky, a resident of Fort Worth, Texas, complained to the Environmental Protection Agency that his family’s water seemed to be bubbling in a way that made it appear similar to a glass of champagne. The EPA issued an emergency order and immediately began investigating in December of 2010, warning at least two families that their water supply may be contaminated with flammable methane.

The EPA dropped its investigation, rescinding its emergency order, and then refused to explain its reasoning. Documents later obtained by the Associated Press revealed that the EPA did indeed have evidence against Range Resources, which operated a drill near Lipsky’s home, but decided to drop its investigation when company executives threatened to pull Range Resources out of a national study into hydraulic fracking.

Documents further indicate that the EPA ignored analysis that the contamination was the result of drilling and relied on tests conducted by Range Resources, which found no evidence of contamination.

Now, another full year later, an independent study conducted by Duke University has determined that combustible levels of methane do exist in wells near Weatherford, Texas and recommends that the EPA re-open its investigation. The results, published Friday, seem to validate local residents’ assertions, including Steve Lipsky’s claim that his well water will actually ignite when he holds up a flame.

I don’t understand why they would let the company that was accused of doing the wrongdoing conduct the tests,” resident Shelly Purdue told Bloomberg News. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Duke researchers found 54.7 milligrams per liter of methane in a random sample of drinking water in December 2012. Curiously, the Range Resources study conducted just a month earlier found a mere 20 milligrams and 4.2 milligrams in mid-2012.

Energy companies use hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking,” to drill through think layers of rock to access oil and gas reserves previously considered to be out of reach.

Environmentalists have asserted that this practice is harmful, especially because of the risk it presents to the drinking water consumed by the rest of the general population.

One reason the EPA has been so soft on the industry, critics say, could be because the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model. A Range Resources spokesman said the company’s testing was conducted by an independent researcher, as well.

Range used state and federally approved testing methodologies that are internationally recognized and those results have found historically consistent water quality,” Matt Pitzarella told Bloomberg. “Range’s operations did not cause or contribute to the long-standing and well-documented matter of naturally occurring methane.”

Lipsky said he now spends approximately $1,000 each month to bring water to his home. He described the experience as “total hell” and has wondered whether his family will have any choice other than relocate. He has waged his own legal battle against Range Resources and has refused the company’s explanation.

I just can’t believe that an agency that knows the truth about something like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn’t use it,” he told the AP.

Fracking opponents have criticized President Obama, lawmakers and the EPA for their apparent unwillingness to rein in the influential gas and oil companies. Dr. Sheila Bushkin of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany wrote in a blog post that the issue is much more important than the usual political finger-pointing, though.

When you listen to the personal experiences of actual residents of Pennsylvania and other states where fracking has gone forward, you will hear stories of dead cows, pets, sick children, poisoned water, and other serious health and environmental problems,” she wrote. “These stories confirm our need for much greater research and evidence-based scientific facts.”

Comments (15)

 

Thomas Hegarty 30.03.2014 22:02

I'd like to know more about where their supply came from, aquifer, stream or what? How many people does it serve? What research is done for possible interference with underground aquifers?
I understand that in America a lot of fracking has been reckless and co's going into liquidation to avoid clean up costs.
Here in UK, we (allright, I.) could definitely do with cheaper gas, can't keep paying high charges, only heat one room! Don't cook so much either.
Control must be stricter and accountability built in or no contract!

 

Roy Hemion 13.02.2014 04:57

its just another layer on the cake! Enjoy! Because your local friendly police officers now dress like the SWAT team, your phone, twitter, facebook, youtube...helll...ev ery keystroke you make is saved, recorded and screened to look for clues and indicators of what, where, when, why, how, and who you are...... they monitor you, scrutinize you, now offer money for cheek swab, and blood samples on the side of the road through a "secondary party" although its cops taking the samples and paying you 50 for blood, and 20 for a swab test.....for a "study"... ...

 

Dee Bernstein 17.01.2014 08:17

Joseph Bradfield 15.01.2014 14:07

The methane already existed. Range's drilling did not exacerbate the levels of naturally occurring methane.

No wrong doing here, people. Move along, now.

  


Are the thousands of cases of combustible drinking water occurring after fracking occurs in those locales mere coincidence?

Those who profit from this form of drilling all seem to resort to the same tactic when refuting allegations online; condescension.

Eventually water will be what we drill for, as we are going to decimate another natural resource.

View all comments (15)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us