Start A Petition

Fracking's Dirty Little Secret

Environment  (tags: ecosystems, environment, destruction, fracking, frack is whack, water, healthconditions, politics, world )

- 1681 days ago -
Fracking imposes unnecessary risks on public health and on our diminishing, yet most precious of resources-water.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Sue H (7)
Friday November 15, 2013, 8:54 am

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 1:47 am
How can it be a secret when every other story on Fracking is about water?

Dmitry Nikiforov (222)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 4:06 am
Thanks Cal!

. (0)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 6:29 am
Very true, Cal. Thanks for sharing.

Frances Darcy (133)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 11:19 am

SuSanne P (193)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 11:19 am
Ban Fracking Now
TY Cal...FILTHY little secretSSS!

Malgorzata Zmuda (200)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 11:44 am

Lois Jordan (63)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 2:31 pm
Noted. I've also read that they are fracking and poisoning aquifers. The frackers say that it doesn't matter because there is no technique that will allow drilling 1 mile down to the aquifers to use it for drinking water. Last year, it was reported that Mexico devised a technique to drill 1 mi. down to those aquifers to attain the drinking water, so now this has become an important issue. Unfortunately, I've not read anything else on this subject since the article came out about the Mexican drilling......

S J (130)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 4:25 pm
well, so very SECRET! Thanks for the secret Cal

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 6:49 pm
There mostly isn't a lack of water, just of potable water. A good (and major) example of this is in California, where the seawater is undrinkable (due to salt-content) and water gets piped to the coast from inland, leaving water-shortages everywhere. If they stick a nuclear plant just off the coast (floating or whatever, with the transformer-fields on the coast and extreme high-voltage lines running to them from the plant), and capture the coolant water, there will no longer be a water-shortage in the area. These things are solvable.

There is another detail that is rarely mentioned: In large fracking projects, about 80% of the water from each well gets reused until the last well is done. The total amount used is often just a bit over a fifth of the sum of the water in each well (still a lot, but not as much as is often suggested).

Susanne R (235)
Saturday November 16, 2013, 10:23 pm
Let's get the Halliburton Loophole closed!
Under President Bush and Vice President Cheney, fracking was exempted from significant EPA regulation.
Hydraulic fracturing, an increasingly common aspect of the oil and gas production process, is not subject to the same standards as other industries when it comes to protecting underground sources of drinking water.
Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids including toxic chemicals into oil or gas wells at very high pressure.

Other forms of underground injection are regulated to protect drinking water, but in 2005 Congress created exemptions for hydraulic fracturing to benefit Halliburton and other oil and gas companies.


See it in the ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005. Go to Page 102, Section 322. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.

Paragraph (1) of section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION.—The term ‘underground injection’—
‘‘(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
‘‘(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
‘‘(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.’’


The word "Pollutant." What it means. And what it does NOT mean.

(6) The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This TERM DOES NOT MEAN (A) "sewage from vessels" within the meaning of section 312 of this Act; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources.

See it in the Clean Water Act. SEC. 502 [33 U.S.C. 1362] General Definitions

P.S. Halliburton did not live up to its voluntary commitment to frack without diesel fuel anyhow

Despite agreeing to stop using diesel fuel when fracking in this agreeement with the EPA, between 2005 and 2007, Halliburton used 807,000 gallons of diesel fuel as a fracturing fluid.
Legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act give us a false sense of security when you consider that large corporations are able to make their own definitions or change the original ones. And why aren't the rules enforced? If we had smaller government, there would be nothing stopping powerful corporations from becoming greed-driven dictators. The effects on our health and well-being would be devastating.

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday November 18, 2013, 2:32 pm
Hi Susanne :)
Here is the Safe Drinking Water Act. A quick word-search for "underground injection" should bring you to the relevant section.

Section 1421:b:2 already placed regulations regarding underground injections related to oil- and gas-recovery beyond the scope of the act except where absolutely necessary to protect safe drinking water, placing the onus on the regulator to prove that the safety of drinking water demands each regulation on a case-by-case basis. It effectively reserved the right to regulate extraction for the legislature, taking it out of the hands of any bureaucrats involved with the SDWA. I may not be a huge fan of the loophole, but it is precisely in keeping with the original intent of the SDWA.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Environment

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.