7
that the motivation for most of the researchers who performed these studies was a
sincere belief that fracking was causing irreparable damage to the environment. The
authors are largely water, ecosystem, biological, and environmental researchers at
universities, government agencies, or consulting firms, not shills for the O&G
industry. Most of the studies were funded by the National Science Foundation, the
EPA, the USGS, the U.S. Department of Energy, state agencies, and private foundations. Very few received industry funding or cooperation. The studies were designed
to document air pollution, water contamination, ecosystem destruction, and public
health impacts from fracking. The data showed that these things do happen on a
case-by-case basis, but the impacts are neither systemic nor widespread. In fact, the
impacts of fracking were hard to distinguish from the impacts of conventional O&G
wells. The studies were further complicated by the presence of many existing contaminants in the environment that are unrelated to O&G.
The production of O&G by fracking appears to be no better or worse for the
environment than production from conventional wells. The designation of “fracking” as its own category of risk is nothing more than an artificial construct. In reality, it is just another type of completion technique used on O&G wells, and while
there are overall risks to the environment from the production and use of fossil fuels,
treating fracking as a special risk is a perception, not reality.
With few exceptions, the people who have done the environmental studies related
to fracking are good scientists who based their conclusions on the data. This is
exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. Investigations of contentious
issues like fracking, climate change, genetic modifications, vaccine effectiveness,
and others sometimes reach conclusions that don’t please everyone, but the response
is always the same: anyone with data that can prove the prevailing conclusions to be
wrong is enthusiastically invited to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. The goal
of science is to seek the truth. Wrong paths are often taken during the quest, but
mistakes also provide learning opportunities. There are no faith-based components
in science, nor any theological commandments, except perhaps “thou shalt honor
the data.” The most solid, long-standing scientific principle can be overturned in a
New York minute if new data become available. Einstein toppled Newton. Someday,
someone will topple Einstein. And so it goes.
Science denial has become a significant problem in the U.S. and indeed around
the world. Ideas that the moon landing was faked, the Earth is flat, jet aircraft spew
trails of hazardous chemicals in the atmosphere, and vaccines are dangerous may
seem relatively harmless, but they are not. Measles was essentially eliminated as a
disease, but thanks to anti-vaxxers, it is making a comeback. Rock samples returned
from the moon look very different under a microscope from Earth rocks, and this
cannot be faked. There is no evidence showing jet aircraft exhaust consists of anything other than carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Millions of people believe the Earth is flat, despite the fact that no one has ever
provided a single shred of evidence like pictures of the edge, images of a flat disk
from space, alternate explanations for the changes in sun elevation at different latitudes, or why every other large body in the solar system, from the moon to the sun
appears to be a round sphere. This willingness to believe in something without
1.1 Concepts of Risk
that the motivation for most of the researchers who performed these studies was a
sincere belief that fracking was causing irreparable damage to the environment. The
authors are largely water, ecosystem, biological, and environmental researchers at
universities, government agencies, or consulting firms, not shills for the O&G
industry. Most of the studies were funded by the National Science Foundation, the
EPA, the USGS, the U.S. Department of Energy, state agencies, and private foundations. Very few received industry funding or cooperation. The studies were designed
to document air pollution, water contamination, ecosystem destruction, and public
health impacts from fracking. The data showed that these things do happen on a
case-by-case basis, but the impacts are neither systemic nor widespread. In fact, the
impacts of fracking were hard to distinguish from the impacts of conventional O&G
wells. The studies were further complicated by the presence of many existing contaminants in the environment that are unrelated to O&G.
The production of O&G by fracking appears to be no better or worse for the
environment than production from conventional wells. The designation of “fracking” as its own category of risk is nothing more than an artificial construct. In reality, it is just another type of completion technique used on O&G wells, and while
there are overall risks to the environment from the production and use of fossil fuels,
treating fracking as a special risk is a perception, not reality.
With few exceptions, the people who have done the environmental studies related
to fracking are good scientists who based their conclusions on the data. This is
exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. Investigations of contentious
issues like fracking, climate change, genetic modifications, vaccine effectiveness,
and others sometimes reach conclusions that don’t please everyone, but the response
is always the same: anyone with data that can prove the prevailing conclusions to be
wrong is enthusiastically invited to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. The goal
of science is to seek the truth. Wrong paths are often taken during the quest, but
mistakes also provide learning opportunities. There are no faith-based components
in science, nor any theological commandments, except perhaps “thou shalt honor
the data.” The most solid, long-standing scientific principle can be overturned in a
New York minute if new data become available. Einstein toppled Newton. Someday,
someone will topple Einstein. And so it goes.
Science denial has become a significant problem in the U.S. and indeed around
the world. Ideas that the moon landing was faked, the Earth is flat, jet aircraft spew
trails of hazardous chemicals in the atmosphere, and vaccines are dangerous may
seem relatively harmless, but they are not. Measles was essentially eliminated as a
disease, but thanks to anti-vaxxers, it is making a comeback. Rock samples returned
from the moon look very different under a microscope from Earth rocks, and this
cannot be faked. There is no evidence showing jet aircraft exhaust consists of anything other than carbon dioxide and water vapor.
Millions of people believe the Earth is flat, despite the fact that no one has ever
provided a single shred of evidence like pictures of the edge, images of a flat disk
from space, alternate explanations for the changes in sun elevation at different latitudes, or why every other large body in the solar system, from the moon to the sun
appears to be a round sphere. This willingness to believe in something without
1.1 Concepts of Risk