We recently told you about the PR war over fracking (or hyraulic fracturing), a process that utilizes large volumes of high-pressured water, sand, and chemicals to fracture shale rock deep underground in order to extract the natural gas locked beneath it. In short, the oil and gas companies doing the fracking claim it’s completely safe, while citizens of towns being “fracked”, grassroots coalitions, social media campaigns, filmmakers and even some A-list celebrities insist it’s a dangerous, poorly-regulated process with the potential to contaminate land, ground water and air.

Well, in news that has dealt a major blow to the arguments of the energy companies and will undoubtedly force the PR professionals handling those companies to scramble for a positive spin, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially and scientifically linked fracking with underground water pollution, concluding that contaminants found in central Wyoming stemmed directly from fracking practices in the area. The study found that the contaminants included at least 10 compounds known to be used in fracking fluid–and that these chemicals had most likely seeped up from gas wells.

Not only do these findings create some obvious PR issues for the energy companies, but they also directly contradict several arguments that they’ve been using to assure the public that the process is safe.

Read more

Fracking, which is a shorthand term for hydraulic fracturing (not a polite replacement for a colorful expletive), is a process that utilizes large volumes of high-pressured water, sand, and chemicals to fracture shale rock deep underground in order to extract the natural gas locked beneath it. While natural gas itself is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, and is often presented as a “green” solution, the safety and environmental impact of the fracking process has inspired increasing controversy and conflict. A PR war now rages between the energy companies that want to expand their fracking activities and the people and organizations who oppose the practice.

Oil and energy companies have invested a substantial amount of resources into natural gas, touting its viability and abundance while also attempting to reassure skeptics (especially those living in areas atop large shale reserves) that they are taking every precaution to ensure that the gas is being harvested responsibly and safely. However, a lack of regulation and disclosure rules regarding the chemicals used in the process haven’t exactly endeared fracking to opponents; it seems like folks would prefer to know exactly what these energy companies will be pumping into their land (and may potentially end up in their immediate environment via air and groundwater). Gee, who would have thought?

Some specific and well-documented concerns include chemical contamination of potable groundwater, surface water pollution from the dumping of salty post-fracking wastewater into rivers, air pollution near fracking sites, and methane leakage. Yikes–we can see why the energy companies may have some trouble spinning this to their advantage.

Negative environmental impacts notwithstanding, fracking can have a positive economic effect on the communities in which it takes place–and that fact is the primary selling point behind the energy companies’ PR efforts.

Read more