Friends of the Earth is fighting off criticism from the shale gas company, Cuadrilla, and the advertising watchdog.
The Advertising Standards Authority today rebutted comments by the organisation that a complaint had been dropped against one of its anti-fracking leaflets.
The ASA’s chief executive said in an opinion blog:
“That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened.”
But Friends of the Earth (FOE) hit back this afternoon saying senior staff were on their way to meet ASA officers to challenge this.
Also today it emerged that Cuadrilla, one of the objectors to the leaflet, had complained about FOE to the Charity Commission. Cuadrilla alleged the organisation had misled the commission and exploited a loophole in charities law.
FOE chief executive, Craig Bennett, tweeted:
“It seems we’re facing orchestrated attack from Cuadrilla”.
ASA statement
Yesterday, the ASA published an informal resolution on a complaint against claims in an FOE fund-raising leaflet. DrillOrDrop report.
The ASA said Friends of the Earth had agreed not to repeat the claims, which linked fracking to health problems, water contamination and falling house prices.
Friends of the Earth responded, accusing Cuadrilla of “doing all they can to shut down opposition to fracking”.
The organisation’s campaigner, Donna Hume, added:
“It hasn’t worked though. What’s happened instead is that the ASA has dropped the case without ruling.”
In today’s blog article, the ASA Chief Executive, Guy Parker, said there was a risk that the facts of the case had become obscured. He said:
“We told Friends of the Earth that based on the evidence we’d seen claims it made in its anti-fracking leaflet, or claims with the same meaning, cannot be repeated and asked for an assurance that they wouldn’t be. Friends of the Earth gave us an assurance to that effect. Unless the evidence changes, that means it mustn’t repeat in ads claims about the effects of fracking on the health of local populations, drinking water or property prices.
“Friends of the Earth has said we “dropped the case”. That’s not an accurate reflection of what’s happened. We thoroughly investigated the complaints we received and closed the case on receipt of the above assurance. Because of that, we decided against publishing a formal ruling, but plainly that’s not the same thing as “dropping the case”. Crucially, the claims under the microscope mustn’t reappear in ads, unless the evidence changes. Dropped cases don’t have that outcome.
“Resolving cases informally, usually following our receipt of an assurance that claims won’t be repeated, is an important tool in our toolkit, allowing us to be proportionate and targeted in how we tackle problems. No-one should be under any illusion that the process of looking into these matters is anything other than rigorous.
“Advertisers of all kinds, be they commercial companies, charities or even government departments, sometimes fight tooth and nail to defend their right to promote their products, services or policies or to raise awareness of their causes or ideas. That’s perfectly legitimate. But when advertising claims aren’t properly supported by evidence and people are likely to be misled, we’ll step in to make sure they don’t reappear. What matters is advertisers are held to account when they need to be.
“Fracking is clearly a highly contentious issue that polarises opinion. Both sides of the debate want to get their views across; want to win hearts and minds. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. As an even-handed regulator, we don’t take sides. Friends of the Earth got it wrong on this occasion, but the businesses behind the fracking that it opposes also have to follow the advertising rules. Indeed, we’ve taken action before against the fracking industry for its own ad claims, when they haven’t stood up to scrutiny.
“Debates between parties with polar opposite views can become highly fractious. But that won’t get in the way of us taking action to stop problem ads from reappearing.”
Friends of the Earth statement
A spokesperson for Friends of the Earth responded to Mr Parker:
“This blog does not accurately reflect the agreement that we reached with the ASA. Our chief executive, and legal advisor, are on their way to speak to them to challenge this.”
Response from fracking opponents
Following the informal resolution, some anti-fracking campaigners said they were disappointed that Friends of the Earth had not defended the leaflet.
One tweeted:
“I’m sickened that Friends of the Earth backed down.”
Others said there was growing evidence against the fracking industry. One tweeted:
“In 2015 FoE went beyond the then available consensus. Much of that claim is now vindicated. EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] fracking report (2016) crucial.”
Cuadrilla complaint to Charity Commission
This afternoon, Cuadrilla confirmed that it had urged the Charity Commission to reopen an investigation into FOE.
The Commission dropped an inquiry when the organisation said claims about fracking had been made by its non-charitable arm, Friends of the Earth Limited.
In a letter sent yesterday, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, wrote:
“On the face of it Friends of the Earth charitable Trust has sought to exploit a loophole in your rules to avoid regulation and sanction, in the first place by misleading you and then by assuring you of a suspension of campaigning by the charity on the politically sensitive topic of fracking.
“It appears that Friends of the Earth regard the Charity Commission as being a toothless watchdog that rarely barks and never bites.”
FOE chief executive, Craig Bennett, accused Cuadrilla of trying to silence opposition to fracking. He told The Times:
“The Charity Commission is well aware that Friends of the Earth is campaigning on fracking and was informed in early August 2016 that the charity would be leading the campaign to oppose fracking, as ending all forms of fossil fuel extraction is critical in reducing climate change.”
Categories: Regulation, Uncategorized
DRILL OR DROP? 
Friends of the Earth have not backed down. In two television interviews yesterday, Rose of FOE said that FOE stood 100% behind what they claimed in the leaflet, and had sent in over 100 references to ASA to back up their claims. As far as I can see their claims are justified on the basis of the experience in US and Australia and in the mounting evidence in peer reviewed reports. I can’t see how it can be denied that a developed fracking industry brings these risks. The ASA have not explained why the references sent to them by FOE have not been thought sufficient to substantiate the claims. Who supervises the ASA???? Who runs the ASA???? What were the processes the ASA used to dismiss FOE claims and references? Without greater transparency how can we take their word as final?
Precisely, no scientific methodology and analysis was used to base their conclusion on that is for sure. Unless of course they release the collected data and publish their statistical analysis, but i hardly think they will dare do that, it was more likely to have been an instruction from on high. Opinion isn’t fact, biased opinion is a fraud, go figure.
I realise I have been drawn into this and I said I wouldn’t do so, but the scientific method, or rather the lack of it, is worth a mention.
Just goes to show, you cant study an ant without, in the end, studying the universe, all things are connected, we don’t live in isolation, we are part of this planet, despoiling it and ransacking the place is, at best, just bad manners, at worst, its suicide.
I understand that FoE will release all the evidence they submitted and again this is only what I have read – so may not be accurate, but it seems much of the evidence was based on US information and the ASA disregarded it on that basis. I am sure more information will be forthcoming in the next few days.
With regard to Cuadrilla, in my professional opinion, they are doing themselves no favours by seeking to raise the issue again with the Charities Commission. The matter has been dealt with.
The legality of these matters seldom end well where there is a vexatious plaintiff. I would have thought they would have learned something from the pursuit of Tina Rothery – where all they achieved was negative publicity and a hefty legal bill.
Obviously no friends of the earth here, its like seeing sharks fighting over a fish at the first smell of blood, but the principle, or the lack of it remains the same, what is really at stake here is the threat to our environment, so watch the resulting feeding frenzy portrayed here and remember that this is the earth which is being torn apart here, not some arbitrary legal definition, or who said what and why. All this time and energy and ego serving is just more blood in the water to these eyed rolled back self righteous legally challenged sharks fighting over the scraps. Watch and weep.
When you lie, it always catches up to you. FoE is finding this out now, and pointing their fingers to blame others (Cuadrilla) and trying to hide behind new lies will not help them.
When Lord Deben goes after them for their lies, you know it has really turned.
The question now is what does FoE do with an unmitigated PR disaster? They can fire top leadership and make a clean break. This is probably the best avenue because at least it will give them the opportunity to disavow what happened earlier. They can also do nothing. This may be their course of action, but it will obviously hurt them because of the reputational damage that will linger. They will increasingly be viewed as fringe extremists, who are backed only by quack science, and they will have a very difficult time raising money.
It will be so interesting to watch!
LOL.
That’s what I thought must have happened. With Ken Wilkinson representing ‘the public’ what else? He simply ignores all evidence or deems it inadmissible… vanishes when challenged and then reappears a few weeks later saying ‘where’s the evidence?’ or ‘there is no evidence’. Sounds authoritative … an old political/legal game.
I represent no one except people that dont like lying. FoE are lying, and they spent 14 months failing to provide evidence to support their cause. Please advise where FoE’s killer evidence is. Nowhere according to the ASA.
Really Ken? Evidence suggests that you are an admin of Backing Fracking along with your sidekick the Reverend Roberts – shall we go through it and you can explain why it’s wrong?
That nasty Refracktion character, back with more personal attacks. That’s all that he has, you see. You ready to debate me yet, Johnny Boy? What’s your energy plan, and can you provide any sound evidence that fracking is a systemic threat to human health? ;o)
Since when was an observation a personal attack peeny? are you saying refraktion’s points are untrue? what’s more he offers to debate the points . Your ‘nasty’ comment is the only personal attack statement above. And I’m afraid you’ll have to ditch the systemic threat phrase as the EPA report can no longer be leaned on to back you up there: http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/12/13/epa-fracking-contamination-drinking-water
Oh, i can still make the point, Phil. Find me one part of the EPA report that implies that fracking is a systemic threat. Gotcha!
Find me a part that says fracking bears no risk to drinking water. You just can’t let it go can you – systemic semantics pah!
Peeny – How is pointing out the discrepancy between what Ken says and the reality a “personal attack”?
As for debating – I’ve now offered several times to debate with you face to face, but for some reason you refuse to do so. Why IS that? Ah yes – you’d have to admit who you really are LOL
Face to face isn’t practical. No reason we can’t go right here, right now. Let’s have it, John. Give me your best shot, or are you afraid?
I’ve told you before Peeny – I don’t debate with anonymous sockpuppets. 🙂 If you provide some real evidence of who you are then I’ll happily debate with you. Over to you old boy , or are you afraid?
[Comment removed by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
You are brave hbpeeny. It looks like you have to take on the anti fracking tagg team on this site single handedly.
World championship fracking blogger match:
Hbpeeny (aka Keyboard Warrior)
vs
Anti-fracking tagg team (aka EcoWarriors)
[Comment removed by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
This was my post about the FOE spokesperson on CH4 News last night. “Nick Riley January 4, 2017 at 7:36 pm Just heard the FOE spokesperson on CH4 News again going on about Germany & the Australian State of Victoria banning fracking. Both of these juristictions are heavily dependent on lignite – the most polluting fuel from the perspective of Green House Gas Emissions. Shameful selectivity from FOE!!. FOE have lost their moral compass IMHO.”
CH4 = Methane 😊
I wrote the private complaint Linda and know exactly what FoE claimed. It was really rubbish science, and I spent Xmas 2015 taking it apart. FoE’s understanding of basic words was poor. ‘Hazardous’ ‘toxic’ etc all have legal definitions, but they all blurred into one for FoE. The problem FoE have is that I strongly recommended that the ASA assessor (who I spoke to many times) to take expert advice. They did that and all of FoE’s claims fell apart. My letter was about 10 pages long, with about 100 links. The numbers arn’t important. Its the science and the relevance of that that is important. I am tempted to put my letter online, along with FoE’s crap science. Then you might see why FoE lost.
I am just an annoying old bloke with a keyboard BTW. No industry connections at all. I just dont like bullshitters, like FoE and all the other ill informed anti groups that have all withdrawn after I questioned their ‘science’ in ASA complaints.
No industry connections at all Ken? Really?
People can be very mischievous about scientific facts, right Ken? My neighbors had their big tree chopped down last year but heck there are no scientific papers around to prove that this happened. So I must be lying. My abiding interest is in documentary – how observations are recorded, and facts represented or misrepresented. Now, unfortunately for me (and my spare time), I’m drawn to these complex arguments around fracking and climate change. Monstrous conflicted ideas tear some people and communities apart just because of the opposed interpretations about the actuality – what is actually happening ‘out there’.
Like you I dislike bullshitters (with a passion in fact), but unlike you I’m seeing the bullshit flying the other way around. I have seen evidence of all of the things FoE talks about on their leaflet. People in the USA have been, and are being exposed to all of those factors listed ‘. So I’ll ask for the third time which of those statements on the FoE’ orange front panel are untrue? The FoE are being accused of being lying propagandists by yourself and others so I want to know if you or anyone else can back that up.
Nick Riley pointed out that the picture shows and area that won’t get fracked for good reasons (if he’s right). That’s a fair cop … it is misleading and should get changed. But what about the main list of statements?
Please put your letter online. I want to analyse how my approach to direct observation stacks up against your idea of crap science.
Rest assured, Phil, each of the claims on the pamphlet implies something that has no scientific backing in fact and is misleading. Better luck next time!
Better to leave science matters to those who understand science peeny. What were your credentials again?
Peeny is just trying to deflect you so Ken can ignore your suggestion – However you can read Ken’s rambling complaint on Michael Roberts’ vanity blog here https://michaelroberts4004.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/dont-let-fracking-destroy-all-of-this/ –
Peddling? what is he peddling there I wonder?
An interesting development in the redacted DEFRA report ‘Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts’, if you want to have your say, there is a popular action group that has organised a petition to release the full unredacted document.
Can i say who this organization is Paul Seaman?
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has heavily censored the only public version of the Government’s report ‘Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts’. Although the Government has repeatedly said ‘the public should be given all the facts’, this report was redacted 63 times, including the section on how fracking could affect house prices. DEFRA claim this was best for ‘public interest’.
Within the next couple of weeks MPs will vote on the Infrastructure Bill, which proposes controversial changes to our Trespass Laws that will erode our land rights, and pave the way for fracking. Two Tory MPs have already urged David Cameron to release the report in full. Other MPs have also asked to see the complete report, yet still it remains redacted. It’s crucial that what’s hidden in this report is released before the Infrastructure Bill is finally voted on in Parliament, so that MPs can properly understand impacts that fracking will have on our house prices and our communities.
Still, its great news for Fracking.
Deja vu 9th February 2016
FRSB said:
See more at: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/friends-of-the-earth-criticises-times-after-front-page-attack.html
Well I have just reacivated the complaint I made to FRSB today. They said they would take the lead from the ASA. So its not looking good really is it, with FoE’s car crash performance.
It will probably end up like all your other complaints Ken – a lot of time and money wasted and no result – remember the IET? One day you may even get a ruling from the ASA – keep trying.
Glad you are easily amused Peeny. But would you not class making a host of totally unfounded accusations, trying to ruin a man’s career, all of which got rejected out of hand by the IET, as more of an “ad hominem attack”. Our Kenny is such a nice chap.
Drat – “The Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) has now closed.” http://www.frsb.org.uk/ – never mind Ken – there’s always another time!
FoE fought tooth and nail for over a year against this, spending God knows how much of their members money. They didn’t give up without a fight. Craig and Co panicking now they see their own particular gravy train that hit the buffers. Didn’t FoE leak it deliberately back in August? It’s broadly the same copy from then, surely Ruth leaked it then too.
Nick – If FOE do not stop digging and spinning by 16.55 GMT on 6th of Jan 2017, may be they could be awarded a crackerjack pencil from Cumbria for showing a picture of Grasmere on the their leaflet as being at risk of fracking? They should be wandering lonely as a cloud by now, but they are not. FoE are conflicted – they are running a campaigning business.
Well at least we know you can’t claim to be just an objective academic any more Nick lol
Yeah right Nick – sure FoE leaked it – they faked a moon landing too – and then were stupid enough to apply for a licence to frack London from a warehouse in Acton. They got turned down though.
I will check with the ASA if its OK to release the papers that I submitted. (Not the email correspondence) Then perhaps people can judge for themselves
Ken – I am sure we’d all love to see your rambling complaint and the detailed rebuttal that FoE put forward – at least then people could draw their own conclusions about this ludicrous affair – publish away old boy – we all know confidentiality isn’t your thing.
Yes please Ken. Let’s get this all out in the open. There’s an important debate to be had here.
Of course I forgot – you broke the expected confidentiality for the first time when you published your complaint in full on Michael’s vanity blog in October 2015 didn’t you. No need to check with ASA Ken – you’re too late LOL
Off topic but great news for Planet Earth:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/06/uk-wind-power-coal-green-groups-carbon-taxes
The Guardian article headline is somewhat misleading however as:
“The huge decline in coal power last year saw a series of records, including days with no coal power at all, and solar power generating more than coal across six months. The slack was largely taken up by gas-fired power stations, which was up 45% year on year, Carbon Brief found.”
And the following statement in the same article is not supported by the bar chart graph above it in the same article:
“But 2016 also saw considerable growth in renewable power, and Christmas day saw a record amount of electricity supplied by windfarms and biomass power plants.”
The bar chart clearly shows that the renewables contibution in 2016 was the same as for 2015 with wind lower in 2016 than in 2015?
Perhaps FOE are helping the Guardian edit their articles (in this case it would be “on topic”)?
I think the Russians did it Paul
I find this whole FoE vs ASA thing deeply concerning and perplexing. I was led to believe that the leaflet in question was not intended for re-publication (why would it when the whole debate is constantly moving on) by FoE, so when asked not to republish by ASA, they readily agreed. That was after over a hundred independent, peer reviewed studies had been submitted in defence of the claims. When the ASA continued to ask for more evidence, FoE considered it to be too costly in time and effort and an unneccessary diversion from their main aim of fighting fracking, so didn’t continue. They believed that no ruling had been made by the ASA. Now the crux of the matter is that FoE and ASA seem to have radically different views on the outcome. Why? Was the outcome agreed verbally over a jolly nice cup of tea, or was there a written missive? If the ASA dismissed over a hundred independent, peer reviewed studies given in evidence, where is their own evidence to explain how and why these studies are invalid? I have little doubt FoE will have ‘beefed up’ the emotive language in their leaflet as people from both extreme ends of the fracking (and any other) issue invariably do. They should all learn to be more accurate in their claims – but I don’t hold out much hope. I am also aware that most of the evidence will come from the USA and other countries where the fracking industry is widespread and with differing regulation. The UK only has one previous example of fracking for reference or for hard evidence, with the Cuadrilla debacle in Lancs when their well casing was damaged by the minor earthquake caused by drilling through a fault line, which they kept quiet about then caused a reoccurrence 6 months later (I hope that is an accurate appraisal). So while the industry and govt can claim that fracking won’t cause the same problems here, they cannot deny that thousands of wells must be drilled, with all the millions of gallons of water for fracking each one, the millions of gallons of waste water to be treated and the transportation and air pollution of moving that lot around. That lot cannot fail to have consequences, and we will need sound baseline data and follow on data to show precisely the effects – and that includes the effect on house prices, health, environment, ecosystems, air and water quality and existing rural industries. That is what the planning system is there to achieve. If we have no evidence ourselves to base our planning strategy on, surely we must use proven sound evidence from elsewhere to base our regulations on. We most certainly cannot have sound evidence ignored or overruled without the most stringent oversight.
These are good points Mike. The ASA must be held to account also. If they have dismissed evidence, especially if peer reviewed, they must disclose their own arguments or counter evidence in the interests of transparency and public trust.
Mike, I think the point that ASA, Ken, Michael, the Environmental Agency, the Royal Academy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, are all making is that the “peer reviewed” science that FoE says backs their claims is not valid. Though the numbers that they offer sound impressive (you have obviously been impressed that they brought 100 peer reviewed studies to the ASA) the fact is that these studies have individually been debunked, or they are not supportive of the statements made.
You don’t need to trust me on this count. Plenty of independent work has been done looking into these studies. The US EPA just concluded a five year exhaustive look at the fracking industry – including a review of all published studies related to fracking and public health, as well as review of all data, and some of their own independent studies, and the EPA could not find any evidence of systemic harm from fracking. They noted that fracking had the potential to contaminate water, and there were instances where accidents had happened and water was contaminated, but those instances weren’t caused by the act of fracking, nor were they systemic – they were isolated. All industries, of course, have the potential to cause harm, so fracking is no different in this respect.
The proven sound evidence is out there. You will never prove a negative. There won’t be a definitive study that says “evidence found that fracking can do no harm.” So, you have to rely on the data we have from over 50 years of fracking and around 1.5 million wells in the US, and that data overwhelmingly points to the fact that fracking can be undertaken safely if properly practiced.
You’ll have to forgive peeny Mike – for being so out of touch. The EPA abandoned the assertion that hydraulic fracturing hasn’t caused “widespread, systemic” problems with drinking water … it was simply inconsistent with their findings as several of it’s own scientists pointed out: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047127
Insider/whistle blower presents a more detailed description of the real findings… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7XgoekcrBw
They dropped the language, but the facts remain the same. No widespread systemic damage from fracking was uncovered in the EPAs five year study, Phil. The only reason the statement was eliminated was due to political pressure from Green groups who charged the EPA with the need to prove a negative in order to include the sentence.
This from five members of the Scientific Advisory Board. “While the report could have articulated the agency’s
statistical assessment more clearly, there has not been any facts or evidence demonstrating a systemic or
widespread impact to existing drinking water resources or other water resources that may not meet the
current criteria of a drinking water resource. If a systemic or widespread issue had been identified, the
EPA and the state regulatory agencies would have quickly responded to such findings. In the absence of
such documented events, the conclusion is clear that no systemic, widespread impact to drinking water
resources is occurring. To suggest otherwise, undercuts the work and dedication by the employees of
those federal and state agencies who are charged with environmental protection.”
And Phil, why do you keep bringing up this [edited by moderator] Wes Wilson? He’s an activist who had a job with the EPA. He started a number of whistleblower actions, and wasn’t successful. The one he started regarding the 04 study was dismissed. Wilson didn’t work as part of the study, so he had no special knowledge, he was just an anti-fracking activist. Indeed, the use of the term whistleblower, which Wilson is fond of using, is misleading because it connotes some sort of inside knowledge where he had none.
The EPA is a huge agency, employing some 15,000 workers. There are obviously going to be a few extremists in the ranks. Wilson is one of them. That’s all, nothing special about him other than his extremism and willingness to put politics ahead of job responsibilities.
Anyone who speaks out with real life facts and evidence against your kind of misinformation is an activist and an extremist according to you. It’s the basis of the lingua franca that also gets used in third world countries by the fossil fuel industry (like Colombia) to harass and discriminate against any locals who object to what the big coal and (now) fracking operatives are up too. There the language gets extended a to eco-terrorist or just terrorist. People who speak out get branded and eliminated. I could go on but it all gets a bit grim.
[Edited by moderator]
Sure, Phil. But if they said anything important, people would take note. Your guy has been ranting for years and he’s just gathering cobwebs. He has nothing of substance and he certainly wasn’t an insider. Oh well!
Environmental engineer, water resource management expert, and employed by the EPA for over 30 years. If you think the trick of making stuff up just to win an argument or otherwise falsify then please provide sources.
Peeny – why would we “have to rely on the data we have from over 50 years of fracking” when DECC are very clear that all those non-shale fracks should NOT be used in comparisons with modern HVHF – that’s why Cuadrilla are no longer allowed to try to pull the wool over locals’ eyes by pointing at Elswick – didn’t you know?
HVHF was first used in 1968 according to Wikipedia: “Massive hydraulic fracturing (also known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing) is a technique first applied by Pan American Petroleum in Stephens County, Oklahoma, USA in 1968”
So, yeah, we’ve got pretty close to 50 years under our belt with that technology Johnny Boy!
It’s all good, my man.
You’ve never quite been able to explain to us why the volume of frack water should make one frack job so different from the next. Apart from the obvious physical distance of the lateral, and the need for multi-stage, there’s no real difference in my mind.
Short lateral, smaller volume frack jobs would have a smaller impact geographically, but if there was a danger from fracking, they would give a signal, just the same as long lateral projects.
In your mind, what are the special physical properties that are exhibited in higher volume frack jobs that are not exhibited in short lateral jobs?
Thanks!
Horizontal drilling with multi-stage slickwater fracturing and clustered wells – approx 10 years. Do keep up peeny. This is an industry that you are supposed to know something about.
Nope, Phil, wrong again.
High volume slickwater jobs have been happening since the 80’s my good man!
BTW, can you explain the reason why you should be more concerned with a higher volume slickwater frack than a non-slickwater frack that is lower volume? What is it in the physical reaction that makes you more concerned with a low viscosity/low proppant concentration carrier vs. the higher viscosity/higher proppant concentration carrier? I’d be interested to know! Thanks!
Sorry, I thought our subject was shale fracking . If you want to go of on a tangent there may be a more suitable blog elsewhere.
… 1st economic methods for extracting O&G from shale: late 90’s. Large scale commercial operations using all the techniques mentioned: only in the last 8-10 years. Science and regulations still catching up on impacts. EPA hog tied since 2005 … i.e. not allowed to pronounce on legally actionable cases where findings go against the federal exemptions for O&G activities. Under-resourced States and counties left to fend for themselves … viola! Here we all are!
PS … and with EPA about to be vaporised by the incoming US administration.
PPS … not understanding your part last query peeny
Incidentally – from Wiki – “Shale gas was first extracted as a resource in Fredonia, New York, in 1821,[18][19] in shallow, low-pressure fractures. Horizontal drilling began in the 1930s, and in 1947 a well was first fracked in the U.S.[2]”
You can qualify activities any way you want to shorten the time horizon of practice. The fact of the matter is that we have been undertaking horizontal, large volume, slickwater fracking since the 80’s. We’ve been horizontal fracking in shale since 1991, so over 25 years.
25+ years is a long time, but of course fracking was undertaken long before that and you have still not explained why it is that you are only concerned with fracking in shale, in high volume, with slickwater. Why does this technique pose more of a threat than a non slickwater frack, with a lateral borehole, in a non shale formation? Please explain.
Nothing there contradicts my points – what’s to explain? The length of laterals (now up to, and over 2km) the frack pressures (now hitting 15000psi) and the chemical cocktails have all evolved over the last 10 years – are you trying to say they’ve not changed since 1991?
Longer boreholes, higher density well and shaft clustering and higher pressures means much high volumes of water and all other frack constituents than before. Simple arithmetic applied to all the risk factors compounds all the possible results – do the math as they say in the States.
[Image removed over possible copyright issues]
And your point is? If fracking shale is dangerous, it’s dangerous without slick water, it’s dangerous with shorter laterals, it’s dangerous with less volumes. You’ve yet to explain why this isn’t the case. BTW, we’ve been commercially fracking shale at high volume with slick water for over 25 years, not the ten years that you cite.
You’ve missed the point entirely – still imagine things haven’t changed by your statement ‘If fracking shale is dangerous, it’s dangerous without slick water’. It is precisely the recent commercial developments than have driven the high volume, slickwater processes beyond the safety margins that have concerned the original development engineers and that have been ringing alarm bells with the general public.
It’s almost trivial to understand why more concentrated well sites, higher volumes of all quantities, longer laterals, more trucking, higher pressures etc etc intensify risks (for accidents, emissions, spillages, venting and so on, fluid migration). I don’t know why you don’t get that – perhaps maths isn’t your strong point but even a child should be able to figure that out.
Oh you and your wikipedia Peeny! Ddon’t you have any more reliable sources? You do realise that your “clever” quote about “Massive hydraulic fracturing (also known as high-volume hydraulic fracturing) ” refers to fracking using just 150 m3 of fluid poppet?
HVHF will (even according to climate change deniers GWPF) use about 19000 m3 a well.
Maybe you should read the articles you quote from more carefully?
As to major differences lets start with the volume of flowback water to be dealt with then we can move on to the truckloads of sand in and out.
I thought you were supposed to know something about this industry old fruit! You are embarrassing yourself again x
Sure, John, we understand that some frack jobs are at smaller scale than others. That’s pretty clear. What is less clear is how the physical properties and reactions would change whether the job uses 1500 m3 or 15000 m3 fluid. Why should those properties be any different?
Or is your only claim that you can’t compare the fracking from early days because it was of a smaller scale? I agree with that point. I just don’t think that it furthers your cause.
After all, we know that the bulk of the water is reused, and we know that the truck trips are a nuisance, but they are nothing as compared to how many truck trips would be required to build the equivalent wind farm, right Johnny?
Peeny, the fact that you don’t agree that scale is a factor doesn’t change the fact that it is.
As to your comment “the bulk of the water is reused” that is about as accurate as most of your effluent old boy.
The bulk of the water injected remains in the formation as you really should know.
Here is how Cuadrilla’s own technical director describes the reality (not the Peeny Fantasy)
“So when we inject the water in there most of it does not come back. There are lots of theories. No one know exactly what is going on or where the water goes or where the final resting place is. The water could go into the fractures created by fracking or it could be absorbed into the shale formation”
At the moment the bulk of the returned water will have to be removed from site and treated, although as this is likely to overwhelm available treatment centres (which would smother the industry at birth), the EA has conveniently relaxed its stance on re-injection to allow disposal back into the same formation or others at its discretion
(I note that that paragon of accuracy Ken Wilkinson claimed re-injection was not permitted at all when he spoke recently in Harrogate so have a word with him eh Peeny? You can do that using your Jim Georges id over on Backing Fracking where he appears to be an admin.)
We still have no indication from any UK frackers about what percentage they think they can cost-effectively recycle though. Can you help us with a reference there that doesn’t come from Wikipedia?
Whatever that percentage may or may not be, they can’t do this with sand though can they? According to NERC a modern fracking well require 2-10,000 tonnes of frac sand ( let’s say 6,000 as an average shall we?). That’s a lot of truck trips for a 40 well pad just for sand isn’t it – just shy of 9,000 2 way trips if we were using 28 tonne tricks.
Did yo know that the author of the Cuadrilla sponsored IoD report seems to have forgotten to factor in that sand to any of his calculations? Yes really!
I’m glad you admit that the truck trips are a nuisance Peeny. Probably more of a nuisance to local residents than to anonymous sock puppets 4000 miles away I’d imagine?
Btw the difference in fluid usage I postulated is between 150m3 and 19,000 m3 (126 times more) not 1500m3 and 15000 m3 (Just ten times more) as you claim above. Nice try though, but see, we do read what you write and we do catch you out when you try something like that 🙂
As to your attempted deflection about wind farms – according to David Mckay your conclusion would be entirely dependent on flowback fluid either being recycled or piped out. I have seen no serious suggestion that it would be piped out, and nobody yet seems to have applied to use re-injection for recycling and or disposal. Still when they do try it and cause Oklahoma style quakes, we’ll be able to say goodbye to them once and for all so it’s not all bad.
Johnny, read more carefully next time!
Scale is important, of course. The good news is that the larger the scale of the well pad, the less land intensive the operation for shale gas operators. Some of the laterals are now extending upward of 3-4 miles. That means more trucks and sand to the well pad, but it also means fewer well pads. I would think you would be delighted!
It is ironic that you complain about truck trips and fracking, yet you have promoted the idea of building wind turbines in our discussions in the past. A 40 well pad could require 12,000 truck movements. According to David Mackay, the wind equivalent would use 5,800 hectares, and require 31,200 truck movements. Of course those wind farm truck movements would impact a much wider area, as would the visual eyesore and negative health impacts. And the legal liability? https://stopthesethings.com/2016/12/17/irish-high-court-finds-wind-turbine-maker-liable-for-noise-nuisance-7-irish-families-to-get-millions-in-punitive-damages/
You misunderstand my comment about frackwater reuse. I said that the bulk of the water is re-used. This is a fact. In the Marcellus around 90 percent of flowback is recycled. http://www.epmag.com/water-reuse-emerging-frontier-fracking-779696 . But 70% of the water remains underground and is lost. How much water is used to manufacture and provide the cement for the 350 wind turbine equivalents? Do you know?
Water use for fracking in the US is less than one percent of total water consumption, yet fracking supplies some 70% of the gas consumed in the country – obviously a high proportion of our overall energy use. Thus water use for fracking here is much less than is used in other industries. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00211
You have never answered my question about whether the physical properties of fracking greater volumes of water are more threatening to the environment in terms of anything other than sheer scale. If you believe that small scale fracking is safer than large scale fracking – is this what you advocate for?
You’re being very deceptive here peeny. Precisely none of the 10s of millions of gallons of frackwater (per well) can be recycled back into the groundwater or drinking water systems. It may be captured and some of it re-used in further fracking processes or pumped into deep underground cavities to be out of reach indefinitely (at risk of causing earthquakes when high pressures are involved) … that’s your idea of recycling?
No, Phil, actually I’m not being deceptive in the least. The facts are the facts, and the facts say that 90% of flowback is recycled. I didn’t make a claim about what they were recycled for.
As I noted above: Water use for fracking in the US is less than one percent of total water consumption, yet fracking supplies some 70% of the gas consumed in the country – obviously a high proportion of our overall energy use. Thus water use for fracking here is much less than is used in other industries. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00211
So, water isn’t a big issue here in the states where we’ve done around 1.5 million frackings.
Flowback is recycled to what? To where? That’s the most incredible statement yet. It’s the most toxic stuff of the whole process – containing heavy metals and radioactive traces. Attempts to bury the stuff are backfiring (you know this peeny yet still you attempt these deceptions): http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/09/07/the-connection-between-earthquakes-and-fracking/#16965527f652
Ah, I see, semantics again. Use the word ‘recycling’ and readers will think that’s nice, that the water is being returned to nature’s hydraulogical cycle. Not a bit of it, it’s being mixed into the frack fluid…. While that saves a small amount of trucking and water table depletion it also means a build up of toxicity in the fluid being handled and returned into the earth around the wells. To quote: “It doesn’t lessen the potential for groundwater contamination, and it can increase the amount of contaminants that you are exposing the groundwater to,” said Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania director for Clean Water Action.
I stand by my statement that precisely zero of the frack fluid (per well) can be recycled back into the groundwater or drinking water systems. Facts are indeed Facts Peeny….
Your response was: ‘No, Phil, actually I’m not being deceptive in the least. The facts are the facts, and the facts say that 90% of flowback is recycled. I didn’t make a claim about what they were recycled for.’
So you used your statement to oppose mine where I had actually stated what the recycling was for.
Deception exposed.
It seems clear to everyone following this discussion that there is clear evidence that fracking does contaminate water, as shown by the final version of the EPA response, which says that fracking can cause water contamination at every stage of the fracking process. Why, therefore, can Cuadrilla and other pro-fracking advocates continue to spread the egregious lie that fracking has never contaminated water supply, when the EPA report is so clear in its findings?
Because Chris, if they don’t they’ll get ridden out of town on a rail. They may be crowing just now because their PR machine manufactured what they think is a win, but they are drinking in the last chance saloon just now. One tremor at PNR or one lorry turning over on a country road and it’s all over for them.
Local people are already grumbling about the impact on traffic of them just cutting a hole in a hedge! The next few months will be very interesting.
Chris, are you able to produce a single piece of evidence where Cuadrilla has stated that fracking has never contaminated the water supply? The statement is correct, technically, because the isolated incidents where water supply was contaminated by gas operations, were not because of fracking, but due to spills, faulty operations, bad casings. I have yet to find an example where the act of fracking caused water contamination.
But I am interested to see if you can produce that claim from Cuadrilla, or whether you are making it up [edited by moderator]
You are incorrect to assert that the EPA is clear that fracking does contaminate water. What the EPA actually concluded is that “scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.” Of course, the EPA also admitted that those circumstances are rare. Again, the isolated cases where drinking water has been compromised have been due to error, and have not been related to the act of fracking rock. This is much like any other industry.
The data behind the report has not changed. The statement that no widespread systemic impacts have been discerned may have been removed from the report, but the facts within the report still support the statement. So does the comment from Tom Burke, Depty Asst Administrator at EPA, who confirmed that only a small number of cases have been found.
The only lies that I have seen on the subject come from FoE and the other anti-frack mafia – you know, the ones who were rebuked by the ASA? ;o)
[Comment removed by moderator]
No water pollution? get a grip (see longer response to Chris and Ken further down)
http://www.ecowatch.com/pennsylvania-fracking-water-contamination-much-higher-than-reported-1882166816.html
You and all your conspiracy theories!
I though personal attacks were to get removed – you are supposed to relate to the content offered… you have no reasonable response then. None of that report is about theory, least of all conspiracy theory.
Sorry Chris, the fracking process itself has never caused a problem. The final EPA report recorded ‘The report is organized around activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle and their potential to impact drinking water resources. The stages include: (1) acquiring water to be used for hydraulic fracturing (Water Acquisition), (2) mixing the water with chemical additives to prepare hydraulic fracturing fluids (Chemical Mixing), (3) injecting the hydraulic fracturing fluids into the production well to create fractures in the targeted production zone (Well Injection), (4) collecting the wastewater that returns through the well after injection (Produced Water Handling), and (5) managing the wastewater via disposal or reuse methods (Wastewater Disposal and Reuse).’
Only 3 is about HF. The rest are easily sorted engineering issues that the RAE and other bodies realises that.
Please name just ONE study that shows the HF process has polluted an aquifer. Just ONE! There isnt one, so the EPA cited ‘lack of data’.
Like all the stuff you put on your dodgy FFR website, its all based on stuff that falls apart when examined. Thats why the ASA correctly said that FoE should drop the claim that fracking can contaminate water supplies. The rest was similar.
Ken – this insistence that when people talk about “fracking” they mean the act of hydraulic fracturing and not the end to end process is tedious. We all know that the majority of people see “fracking” as the entire cycle and that HF is just one part of that. Given that you can’t have HF without all the rest your point is little more than casuistry designed to deflect from the real issues.
Your rather pathetic attempt to try and ring-fence any discussion of the environmental problems of ‘fracking’ to the actual detonation of explosives in the well to frack the shale rock is a sad attempt to dismiss the clear and widespread environmental problems that fracking – ie the whole process of producing gas by unconventional means, which is what the whole world apart from a few people within the industry defines it as – that has been documented not only by the EPA but many other bodies. To dismiss water contamination at fracking well-sites due to spills or other problems as ‘not relevant’ is a clear distortion of the facts.
And as for the EPA citing ‘lack of data’, this was because the US fracking industry have been so deliberately uncooperative with the EPA, a point they made very strongly in their report, What, we wonder, did they feel it was so important to hide and why were they so uncooperative? Surely if it was safe, they would have welcomed the EPA onto their sites and allowed them to conduct their research with a free hand? In fact, they have done the opposite, hampering them at ever turn and refusing access to multiple sites.
Hello Chris – a correction:
“to the actual detonation of explosives in the well to frack the shale rock”
Explosives are not used to “frack the shale” – explosives may used to perforate the cement and casing and the mud filtrate damaged zone if the well is not open hole completed or perforated liner completed. The shale rock is “fracked” with hydraulic pressure applied by pumps at surface. The use of peforating charges in wells to be “fracked” is usually a lot lower than in conventional oil and gas wells as the perforations are used to focus the hydraulic pressure on the zone which is intended to be fractured.
Chris (and Ken)… as you will note Ken maintains this semantic argument about Fracking itself (strictly – on his terms – just the deep underground process) that cannot and does not impinge on anything else in terms of a transfer of chemicals between levels or strata. This is a theoretical and idealised possibility only and does not match the reality.
Even if one maintains (reasonably) that the risk is statistically low when everything is completed to a high standard, still, that percentage risk is never zero. To evaluate this scientifically, if you compound (say) a factor of a fraction of one percent with all the other risk factors in the standard EA risk assessment for hydraulic fracturing and then multiply that compounded figure by the number of wells (100’s in any area) then failures and/or contamination is not a case of if but when. So it is mischievous and totally misleading to make a statement like ‘the fracking process itself has never caused a problem’ as if it addresses all concerns.
Of course most people will be referring to the whole process, from drilling to gas extraction, when referring to ‘fracking’. I’ve found it rather meaningless to talk only in terms of each segment in isolation. And geology is never fully uniform or predictable (as the industry’s perfect layer cake models suggest), nor are the cement seals that are supposed to block vertical transfer of unwanted frack or flowback fluids along the bore hole itself (outside of the casings) – they’re seldom perfect. In fact seals are one of the most common causes of well integrity failure.
The question of chemical dilution is a moot point too (if you read the link refracktion referred to for Ken’s ASA complaint) as the frack fluid is injected in slugs not fully diluted with the millions of gallons of water before entry.
Another falsehood is that fracking here (in UK) will be different and the chemicals will all be non hazardous. That is baloney – the process simply wouldn’t work if that was the case. The most profitable methods used in the US have to be used here if the industry is to just break even. Observing gold standard regulations will probably ensure that the operation will be loss making and operators will want to play fast and loose with the regs to ensure a profit.
A couple of supporting links: http://www.ecowatch.com/pennsylvania-fracking-water-contamination-much-higher-than-reported-1882166816.html
and: https://keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/
Well, John, if that’s the case, why not give up the “no-fracking” and “go frack yourself” emotive banners and placards and replace them with “just say no to natural gas”? As you point out, that would be much more accurate, correct?
Peeny – I don’t have any placards saying that old thing. And it’s fracking I’m saying no to – put your straw man back in his box again please.
Ok, then it’s settled. No distinction between large and small frack jobs, types of fluid, lengths of laterals, etc. etc.. Now, as I was saying, the UK has fracked over 200 times. It has been done safely without harm to anyone, or any property. Keep Calm and Frack On!
[Comment removed by moderator]
….and of course its the same reasoning that meant that you had to withdraw when I complained to the ASA about the FFR ad. And RAFF, and Frack Free Lancs, and Frack Free Somerset. You were not able to sustain the false claims of ‘industrialisation’ or a couple of other points that I cant be bothered to look up now. That got no publicity, but the bulk of sensible people will realise that they have been conned, now that this complaint has had so much publicity.
If the science that fracking was dangerous/risky/poisonous’ was there, FoE (and you) would have won the case. Its no good getting lawyers in, like you (and I understand FoE) did. The science is clear. Now maybe many will be re-evaluating their support, leaving a bitter hard core of protestors. Most people will realise that we live in a safe+ well regulated country, where industrial poisoning hasnt been permitted for decades.
I’m not sure your high opinion of yourself and your achievements is shared quite as widely as you clearly like to think Ken. Maybe next time you’ll get a ruling like the one made against Cuadrilla for misleading and exaggerating their claims? Keep trying 🙂
[Comment removed by moderator]
[Comment removed by moderator]
“Most people will realise that we live in a safe+ well regulated country, where industrial poisoning hasnt been permitted for decades.”
Sadly Ken, what we have here is just another example of the gap between you blithe reassurances and the reality.
Here is Public health England (you like them) on acute chemical incidents which occurred in England and Wales throughout the period from 1 January to 31 December 2015.
“Information was collated from events recorded on the Public Health England (PHE) online Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE) Incident Reporting and Information System (CIRIS) for England and Wales and supplemented with that from the National Chemical Emergency Centre (NCEC). The data is analysed in order to identify key acute environmental public health issues and inform the planning and development of guidance and interventions. The key findings for 2015 include:
•a total of 808 incidents were managed and recorded for the reporting period, with 793 involving one or more identified chemicals and the agent/compound remained unidentified in the remaining 15 events
•the number of fatalities (36) resulted from 34 separate acute incidents reported in the period; this was lower than that for last year (44). 27 deaths were recorded as intentional exposures to chemicals
•6% (n=52) of the acute incidents resulted in evacuation of the nearby (usually within 100m) population
•2% (n=16) of acute incidents resulted in shelter-in-place advice being given to the nearby (usually within 250m) population
•the chemical mixture most frequently notified was products of combustion (47%, n=378). This was followed by “other inorganic” chemicals (11%, n=89) and “other organic” chemicals (9%, n=75)
•33% (n=265) of acute events occurred at industrial sites, 25% (n=203) in residential settings and 13% (n=103) in commercial locations
•for the reporting period, the highest number of chemical incidents was reported in the South East (16%, n=133), London (14%, n=116) and the South West (13%, n=109). This was observed in 2014 but differs from the trend over the past 8 years
•the most common sources of reports (notifying organisation) for incidents, were the fire and rescue services (43%, n=346) and PHE’s health protection teams(17%, n=141) followed by the ambulance service (8%, n=65)”
FFR didn’t bother fighting your spurious and unsubstantiated ASA complaint because you made it so public that you were the one making the complaint, so it wasn’t worth taking seriously. Why put time and energy into dealing with a complaint from the fracking industry’s most notorious and ill-informed [edited by moderator], whose only reason for going online is to waste anti-fracking campaigners’ time and energy?
The fact that you couldn’t resist trumpeting yourself as the complainant on your blog – even when you had specifically asked the ASA to keep your name secret from FFR – shows that this is really all about you and your strange little one-person campaign to troll every anti-fracking group in the country. Your hubris will always be your downfall.
So, you frack on agricultural land and ” maybe” contaminate the water. (Please check first where the water supply comes from-depth and location, apart from the regulations!)
However, you don’t frack on agricultural land,and the livestock on that land c**p in the water and might cause mass poisoning. So, you exterminate all grazing animals?
Or some eco “warrior” thinks it a great idea to add a few beavers even without any natural predator to control populations , who then also contaminate the water with parasites (see Norway) so that people who have been used to enjoying the outdoors, forgetting to boil the water, become very ill.
If you want to return to the horse and cart, remember our population numbers. You either suffocate under a mountain of horse c**p, or you destroy our climate via their outputs. I think I will back evolution.
Is “maybe” a scientific term? not one i had previously come across, do tell what scientific journal that originates from and i will see that it is withdrawn for “lying”.
About the animals defacating and urinating (you are an animal too Martin), the answer is amazingly simple and obvious, it may surprise you to know that animals, and humans, have been doing that for as long as life has existed on the planet, maybe 2 billion of the 3.8 billion (estimates vary) of the time the earth was more than a molten ball of rock. You may be interested to learn that a process has developed where the deposits and indeed the entire bodies of countless trillions of lifeforms has been incorporated into the ecology of the life zone. And this is naturally occurring bacteria and many tiny creatures which live of this detritus and break it down into nutrients and elements which enrich and feed the soil. Yes, the soil we grow our food in and on is the “crap” or least the broken down derivatives of not just animals, but plants, rocks, natural elements, fungi, mosses, and countless countless bacteria and viruses, yes viruses are part of the system too, fill a cup full of soil and it will contain more viruses than grains of sand on a beach, they are that tiny. So all of these actually feed us and sustain us, it is part of our heritage, our very structure, and we return to it when we die, its a part of us as much as we are a part of it.
So you see there are no mountains of any type of deteriorating plant, animal waste of any kind, and indeed the products from those are the very ones that feed you and all the rest of humanity, there that clear now?
[Edited by moderator]
OK, Lets get down to the nitty gritty (hmmm, that is highly a appropriate synonym isnt it?) of water infiltration and percolation into the ground from rainfall shall we?
How do you think rainwater percolates into the ground and eventually reaches various aquifers? No? OK i will tell you, it does so in all locations that receive rainfall and are permeable, down through the soil, if there is any, and is filtered down into cracks and fissures which flow until they find a larger crack or fissure and so on until they reach the main aquifer. These cracks and fissures can be tiny but vital to percolation, seismic surveys will simply not have the resolution to “see” these, nor will the survey team spend any time at all looking for them. i have personal experience with seismic exploration, not looking for gas or oil, but to discover cracks and fissures in containment bunds where failure has occurred and pollution has reached existing aquifers, often the recent hydraulic pressure of the new bund will have forced the polluted water to the surface. There were several incidents where the seismic tests had to be repeated with greater resolution, quite difficult in the early days of computing. i am still in touch with some of my old colleagues and all though computing has revolutionized the process, the real driver is now cost, and the amazing resolution is often skimmed over purely on cost grounds, so the leaps forward in resolution is wasted by cost constraints. Just a little history for you.
So, we now see that these tiny cracks and fissures all ready contain water which eventually will reach the aquifer(s). These are the very same cracks and fissures which the detonation process distorts and then are partially filled with toxic slip chemicals and sand from the high pressure hydraulic fracking which forces yet more of that into the cracks and fissures to force out any natural gas, water, frack fluids and radioactive elements. These are then partially sucked out through the drill head, but not all, less than 40% in practice, you may have different figures. The slip chemicals, the sand and the contaminated fluids then stay in these tiny cracks, it is impossible to remove them. Remember these cracks and fissures all ready run to the aquifers and continue to do so. this carries unfiltered toxic frack slip chemicals, sand and fluid to the aquifers, that is regardless of the doubtful at best seal of the well casings and cement “sealant” which only exists at the drill location. None of the cracks and fissures are sealed, they all flow just as before carrying percolated water from rainfall at the surface down to the aquifers, except now these cracks and fissures contain around 60% of the toxic slip chemicals, the contaminated sand and fluids and of course gas, and some of this, how much is literally impossible to gauge will reach and contaminate the aquifer which is receiving rainwater from vast areas, not just at the well head.
So you see, you cannot protect the aquifersand you dont even have the will, the mind, the moral and ethical duty, or to bring it down to your level, the money, to do so. The well head is only one tiny location along the kilometers of fracked locations, the rest will be all ready carrying water to the aquifers and will after they are fracked, and there is nothing that is, or can be done to seal these areas off, even if that were possible, which it isnt, these would eventually deteriorate and continue to pollute the aquifers, maybe years, maybe many years, maybe now, but it it will and is happening. The same deterioration will happen with the wellhead, especially if contaminated fracking fluids are re-injected into the well, that will multiply the risks tens, hundreds, thousands of times.
That process will be the pollution legacy we leave to our children, i doubt very much if the oil and gas industry will be held in anything but contempt and hatred in the future, as it is indeed held by many that way now, for leaving countless generations of people in the future to clean up that godawful mess.
Better we stop this now.