A recent article entitled "Fracking chemical found in town's aquifer" by Abraham Lustgarten published on www.msnbc.com (11/10/2011) restarted my research into the fracking debate. Energy verses water is a conflict which might be with our society and the world for quite a long time.
I mentioned this potential conflict in a webinar on water which I presented to the Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association in May 2011. I noted that water professionals need to be aware and educated about these issues in order to come up with creative solutions to our increasing need for clean fresh water supplies.
As a geologist, I realize the need for energy supplies in our global economy. Without energy, even our modern water purification systems would grind to a halt. We could not purify or deliver water to millions of customers in the United States and other developed countries. Agriculture, food processing and most industrial development would not be possible.
However, consider the following. Without fresh clean water, many of the products we make, the food we grow and the modern societies we have built up would also not be possible. Life itself is not possible without water. Imagine living in a home and not having any fresh clean water for daily needs. A simple ongoing example of this energy verses water conflict is noted by Mr. Lustgarten.
Residents of the town of Pavillion, Wyoming have complained for a long time that drilling, and presumably the associated fracking, fouled their water. The Environmental Protection Agency found 17 of 19 local wells tested were contaminated. While the EPA has not reached any conclusions as to the source of the contamination, the Pavillion area, a source of natural gas, has been drilled and fracked extensively over the last two decades.
From a January 2010 EPA sampling result paper, the following was noted:
"Overall, 17 of 19drinking water wells sampled in January 2010 show detections of total petroleum hydrocarbons. Additional compounds detected include naphthalene, phenols and methane. EPA’s analysis of samples taken from monitoring wells in Pavillion indicates high levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene,methylcyclohexane, naphthalene, and phenol. This shallow groundwater is hydrologically connected to the drinking water aquifer. Wyoming DEQ and EnCana have recognized this contamination and have been working to evaluate and address it.
Methane detected in 7drinking water wells was found to be of thermogenic origin, meaning it originated within the natural gas reservoir. One drinking water well showed methane resulting from microbial activity, known as biogenic methane."
Harsh chemicals and compounds such as those noted by Mr. Lustgarten and the EPA, (2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE),phenols, acetone, toluene, naphthalene and diesel among others), are not things any of us want in our fresh water supply. They can make our water unusable and often untreatable.
I am sure the drilling and associated jobs are high paying and bring much needed economic benefits to the local area. My question is how do the economic benefits equate to having a home that is unlivable, because of the EPA warning to residents not to drink or cook with the water and to ventilate their homes when they shower? While the area's water supply is suspect, many of the homes and businesses are probably unsalable, which means those residents may not be able to escape the situation by moving elsewhere.
The natural gas company that has profited from the area's gas drilling and development, EnCana, a Canadian company, owns the gas wells in the area. While the company has denied responsibility for the contamination, they have supplied drinking water to residents. EnCana has recently agreed to sell its wells in the Pavillion area to Texas based Legacy Reserves for $45 million. EnCana has pledged to continue to cooperate with the ongoing EPA investigation and, according to the EPA, try to develop alternate long term water supply solutions.
One argument I hear for less regulation and environmental control is that such regulation and control hampers private development of jobs. It should be noted that in this area the drilling continued even after the first problems with groundwater contamination had been reported, according to Lustgarten. It seems to me, as a water professional, that a private company which was truly interested in the best and highest use of an area's resources, including the wellbeing of its labor force,would not need to be burdened by regulation and environmental controls. Such a company would work with the local community without the heavy hand of an agency like the EPA. However, this article by Mr. Lustgarten and the example presented seems to argue for just the opposite.
This is the reason energy vs.water may become a very long and challenging issue over the next decades. As population increases, the need for energy expands as does the need for fresh clean water. If we can't look beyond just our economic well-being, then increased regulation and environmental control may be the result to try to insure a balance between having the energy we need as well as clean freshwater essential for our survival.
H. Court Young
No comments:
Post a Comment