EPA changes its mind about effects of fracking on drinking water
Monday, December 26, 2016
The Environmental Protection Agency baulked on its original findings and concluded that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated drinking water in some circumstances, according to The New York Times.
The comprehensive study was first issued in 2015 and stated that there’s “no evidence that fracking systematically contaminates water.” That conclusion was deleted from the final version of the study after scientists decided it couldn’t be quantitatively supported and replaced with a more concerning result.
The report uncovered evidence that fracking has contributed to drinking water contamination in all stages — acquiring water to be used for fracking, mixing the water with chemical additives to make fracking fluids, injecting the chemical fluids underground, collecting the wastewater that flows out of fracking wells after injections, and storing the used wastewater.
Learn more: The New York Times > Reversing Course, E.P.A. Says Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water
One Comment
Leave a Comment
Marcellus & Utica Shale Well Map
Additional Shale Maps
Shale FAQ
How often do royalty payments come?
Depending on the company, royalty payments can arrive monthly or quarterly.
Are my royalty payments transferable?
Yes. If you plan on selling your property, notify the gas company that is leasing your land and your realtor. They will make arrangements to allow the royalty payments to transfer to a different land owner.
What are royalties?
Royalties are payments from the gas company to the landowner as part of a lease agreement. Royalties payments cannot begin until production begins. The payments are dependent upon the market price of the resource.
So, just like “global warming” had to become “climate change” when the evidence didn’t support the globalist agenda, the EPA’s original conclusion, “no evidence that fracking systematically contaminates water”, has to become “fracking has contributed to drinking water contamination in all stages”, in order to satisfy the narrative?
Yep. That sounds about right. If the “consensus” is 180 out of phase with the facts, 100% of the time, why are we still listening to them, at all?