The Victorian government has taken the enormous step of banning fracking in the state, to the cheers of environmentalists, farmers and those living in rural areas.
But what is fracking, exactly? “Fracking involves drilling deep underground and pumping water, sand and safe chemicals to fracture the rocks that trap huge gas supplies,” explains noted environmental scientist Andrew Bolt. Oh wait no, that is loudmouth News Corp columnist and climate change denier Andrew Bolt.
Dr Dominic DiGiulio, who is a visiting lecturer at Stanford University and was formerly employed by the Environmental Protection Agency, is an actual environmental scientist. He published a study in peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology proving that fracking has a harmful effect on the environment and humans. “We showed that groundwater contamination occurred as a result of hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
And those “safe chemicals” described by Bolt? Here is Scientific American on one of them: “One such chemical was methanol. The simplest alcohol, it can trigger permanent nerve damage and blindness in humans when consumed in sufficient quantities.” Other chemicals, according to an in-depth Vanity Fair investigation into fracking, include: “enzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, boric acid, monoethanolamine, xylene, diesel-range organics, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, ammonium bisulfite, 2-butoxyethanol, and 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazotin-3-one”. Feel free to look those up and let us — or Dr Bolt — know if you think they belong in your drinking water.
If Professor Bolt is so smart perhaps he can enlighten with his opinion as to why if the chemicals are so ‘safe’ that fracking lobbyists in the uS were successful in their attempts to have congress pass a specific law that FORBIDS the EPA from compelling fracking companies to disclose which chemicals they use ?
Yes, the frackers can use whatever chemicals they like to extract the gas/oil with complete impunity as to the long term consequences. Why would they need such a blanket of secrecy if there was no danger ?
You can also bet that when the inevitable lawsuits for poisoning come rolling in the responsible entities will be secured behind a dense web of overseas corporate structures designed to ensure that a simple Chapter XX will see them pay nothing in reparations.
The yanks have been congratulating themselves on their fracking based energy (oil) revolution and less dependence on middle east oil. but I think in doing so they have taken a short (decade or so) financial gain in one area by creating a massive environmental disaster that has yet to fully be unveiled.
groundwater takes tens of thousands of year to recycle and replenish. What will the fracking states do when oil and gas are largely unrequited (within a few decades) but they have little to no drinkable water ? When food grown on that land produces crops that are inedible because they are rife with toluene and other powerful carcinogens ?
This slow motion tsunami that has not even got started yet is going to make any previous health disaster look like a picnic.
It is scientifically and morally correct to ban this stupid, dangerous, short sighted practice in Victoria, we need to do it nationally.
Shout this from the rooftops
Blot – living proof of how safe they are.
In first world countries we take drinking water for granted. It’s not difficult to foresee the day when potable water is as expensive as decent wine.
Meantime the fracking cowboys plunder gas resources which don’t actually belong to them while also fouling our invaluable water tables.
Look, I know it’s childish, and obviously (for legal reasons) says far more about me than anybody else but, when I saw those letters “Dr Bolt”, for some reason I pictured (inside my own brain) the image of Doctor Nikolas Van Helsing from The CannonBall Run.
Apologies in advance if that comment leads to harassment from Melbourne/Sydney tabloid blog readers.
Oh come on, Scientific American is not an authority on what fracking chemicals are permitted in Australia. While you are asking that of our environmental authorities, you could ask for an estimate of the chances of any of them getting into (whose?) drinking water.
“Sufficent quantities” is certainly an important criterion, because “less than” often means “tolerable”. In the case of methanol according to ANZFSC 4.5.1, Australian white wine may have up to 2 g/L methanol to ethanol proportion. The other uglies probably occur at trace concentrations in our icecream.
The Australian artesian basin is most certainly used as drinking water for humans and livestock, and has some risk of contamination from fracking. City water supplies are NOT likely to be affected by fracking chemicals. It is up to you whether you consider the drinking water of country people, or the food that they produce, to be important….