Folk Beliefs and Fracking

Field trips associated with water well surveys can be wondrous adventures into the minds of men and women. The folk beliefs discovered along the way are a quintessential addition to our hydrogeological world. Folk beliefs are commonly held explanations of groundwater, which are often unrelated to reality—the underground rivers, the water veins that mysteriously happened to meet right where a particular well was drilled, or the magical connections that can exist between wells and water-bodies many kilometers away. Years ago, I learned from a farmer that if the wind was whipping up waves on Lake Erie, some 40 km away, his well water would become murky. It is fascinating that individuals who can talk knowledgeably about computed tomography (CT)-scans or bone marrow transplants suspend their scientific rigor at the ground surface—shifting seamlessly into the enduring folk beliefs about groundwater. The major inroads that science has made into our daily life through smartphones, the Internet, modern transportation, medicine, and biology have pretty much dead-ended at the entrance to the groundwater world. Getting beyond simple folk beliefs is often difficult because our varied and complex Earth gives them examples that fit what they believe. For example, dispelling notions of underground rivers and lakes is difficult when there are indeed places where rivers disappear into the ground and you can crawl in after them. Explaining the difference between the “norm” from the “exception” and dismissing possibilities of serendipitous hydrogeological connections is difficult, as M. King Hubbert railed against 50 years ago. The petroleum industry now has the capability to install precise, directionally drilled boreholes through tight formations and, where necessary, to enhance the rock permeability by hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Not surprisingly, it wasn't long before folk beliefs developed around the exploitation of shale gas resources. Images of water on fire as it comes from faucets in kitchen sinks or garden hoses have created the belief that development of shale gas with fracking automatically produces flaming groundwater. Yet, this simple association doesn't account for the pervasive naturally occurring methane in confined glacial aquifers here and there (e.g., Alliston Aquifer Complex, Canada), and in shallow bedrock aquifers in many different parts of the world (e.g., Milk River, Alberta); or that local leaking underground storage tanks from the local truck stop can provide flammables as well. What is likely the “norm” is that the fracks will mostly behave as intended and the fracking fluids and natural gas will flow back to the surface through the casing and not through the thick overlying sedimentary pile and into the shallow groundwater. When an “exception” occurs, for example, the unintended leakage of methane gas associated with gas production, the cause will likely be an accident, casing damage, stray gas leakage along the annuli of a casing string and the adjacent rock, or some unforeseen geological problem. Another folk belief is that fracking causes earthquakes as exemplified by a series of quakes in Prague Oklahoma (e.g., M 5.7 in 2011) and Youngstown, Ohio (M 2.1 to M 4.0 in 2012). Although the cause of these quakes is widely considered by scientists to be waste-water disposal, the association with fracking flow-back water as the injectate is enough to cement this folk belief. With fracking, the volume of fluid injected is many times less than with waste-water wells, producing seismic impacts with negative magnitudes, M 0 to M −3. Linkages between large volume waste-water injection and earthquakes will be a surprise to a hydrogeologist—only if they've been asleep for 60 years, as a modern day Rip Van Winkle. Seminal work by Hubbert, Bredehoeft, Hseih, and others beginning in the 1950s provided a solid understanding of the key principles. There are obviously settings and situations where waste-water injection is or will be problematic. There are other places where it is not. Given the plans for sequestering CO2 in the subsurface and the increasing frequency of midcontinent earthquakes, more information on which site will be which is necessary. So, the article by Zhang et al. in this volume is especially timely in this respect. Historically, folk beliefs have not helped societies understand groundwater issues. Now, views are being shaped by news stories and media campaigns that continue with a belief that “an easily understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth” (Thumb's second postulate). The issue article by Jackson et al. in this volume makes the case for broad-based research on stray-gas seepage to expand knowledge on this potential problem. Research is essential in helping groundwater scientists understand the complex truths, and provide better founded counter-arguments that, with some luck, will become useful folk beliefs. Note: Opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Ground Water Association.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.