Well, I'm not go into great detail, as much of salient issues are covered in the "debunking" and "debunking the debunking" threads.
As I indicated, I've worked in the O&G business for a long time, as a biological consultant, not a day-today operator. I've known about fraking issues for a long time and have had many conversations with independent hydrologists about fraking. I've also read a good share of the pro and anti-fraking literature. I don't call myself an expert on the subject, but I know enough about it.
The one major falsehood/exaggeration in the film is the idea that fraking will lead to widespread contamination of large aquifers. There is just no evidence to support this and hydrologists say this is just not possible. Is there occasionally localized contamination of water wells? Absolutely, especially when the operator is sloppy and cuts corners, which happens all too often in this industry. THIS should have been a focus of the documentary, but it wasn't because it distracts from its agenda. Did you notice that every "incident" documented in the film deals with the contamination of small localized water wells?
Also, the way the film "explains" the fraking process is extremely one-sided and misleading. When a frak job is done correctly, the fraking solutions go 1000s of feet into the ground, often as much as ten times deeper than the aquifer. So, in theory, fraking solutions should never come into contact with aquifers.
If you read my post carefully, you understand that I have some resevations about the way the Industry does business. I support stricter regulation of fraking. I think fraking should be largely restricted to uninhabited areas, with wide spacing buffers around any inhabited areas.
The US and the World are at a crisis in terms of energy needs. There is a desperate and growing demand for energy. Solar and wind can provide > 10% of our energy needs, even when maxed out at full potential. The remaining energy alternatives all involve threats to the environment and humans, real or perceived. Nuclear would appear to be the magic solution, providing almost limitless, cheap power, with no greenhouse gas issues. But then the 2011 Tsunami in Japan happened, and the World abandons Nuclear. So now, Japan will be getting its power from expensive, dirty coal, the worst of all solutions IMO.
The point I'm making is that there are no easy solutions. Going forward, we are going to have to make energy choices that involve sacrifice and unpleasant circumstances. This will involve more off-shore rigs, fraking, continued reliance on dirty coal, etc. Eventually, we will go the Nuclear route as well.
That's why I think a documentary like this, which advocates the elimination of a highly effective energy production method, is kind of ridiculous. As long as Americans demand affordable energy and use it without regard for conservation, then these "bad" alternatives will by necessary.
reply
share